PLUNKET SHIELD MATCHES

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27415, 30 July 1954, Page 5

PLUNKET SHIELD MATCHES

CRICKET

Three-Day Games To Be Played

SLIGHT EXTENSION IN HOURS Three-day Plunket Shield matches, with longer playing hours each day, are to be played in the coming summer, and they are to be played on pitches which will not be protected against the weather, except for bowlers’ runups, after matches begin. These decisions were made at the half-yearly meeting of the New Zealand Cricket Council last evening after recommendations from the biennial conference of delegates had been considered. They will go forward as recommendations to the annual meeting in three months. The Wellington association, which brought down a remit proposing threeday games, with the hours of play 10.30 a.m. to 6 p.m., felt costs could be reduced by such a system, said Mr W. G. Speakman. It was also felt the game could be made more attractive. Mr J. A. Ongley (Manawatu) moved as an amendment that the changes apply to the 1954-55 season only, as a trial, and a further amendment, that an extra half-hour be added at the end of the last day to get a result, should either captain ask for the extra time was moved by Mr W. A. Hadlee (Buller) and incorporated in the motion

which the meeting finally passed. Opposition to three-day games was expressed by Mr A. J. Postles (Auckland). There might be brighter cricket if the captains played it that way, but one did not always get what one legislated to get. He did not think the level of play would be raised. If one day was washed out by rain the two left were insufficient to get a decision. Mr Speakman asked that the 10.30 a.m. start apply to Christmas Day, but this was opposed by Mr Hadlee. Mr R. H. Launder (Taranaki) said it seemed illogical to add half an hour at the end of a game to get a finish and cut off two hours and a half at the

start of the most important matches. Perhaps half an hour could be added at the end of Christmas Day. According to the rules,, .the hours could be varied by the captains on agreement, provided they did not exceed the total set, said the chairman (Mr E. R. Caygill). The meeting agreed to recommend to the half-yearly meeting of the council that play start at 1.30 p.m. on Christmas Day. Covering of Pitches Wellington, through Mr Speakman, proposed that pitches be covered only up to the start of play, and then only to protect the bowlers’ run-up. That was the M.C.C. rule. It was, he said, not favouring the bowler against the batsman. The batsmen also were given a firm foothold. If all covers were removed, as proposed by Manawatu, it was felt pitches would be badly damaged. Mr Ongley moved an amendment

that from the start of matches no covering be permitted in the 1954-55 season. Under the Wellington remit, he said, a fast bowler could deliver on to a rain-damaged pitch. By having no covers, bowlers were similarly handicapped. Auckland was in favour of covered wickets throughout matches, particularly three-day games, said Mr A. J. Postles. Rain on Port Albert soil at Auckland could hold up a game for a very long time. Auckland opposed the remit from a financial point of view. “We thought that we could consider uncovered wickets if we had four-day games, but we feel the financial loss in three-day games would outweigh the value of experience of rain-dam-aged pitches,” said Mr E. Hayes (Dunedin). Mr Ongley’s remit was carried by 15 votes to 12. When the question of covering the pitch was brought before the evening meeting, Messrs J. L. Kerr (Rangitikei) and W. A. Hadlee (Buller) both advocated the use of the ‘M.C.C. rule which allows only the bowlers’ run-up to be covered, as in the Wellington remit. This was carried on the voices.

STATUS OF FIFTH TEAM

CENTRAL DISTRICTS’ AFFILIATION

The affiliation of Central Districts as a major association was recommended by the biennial conference of delegates to the New Zealand Cricket Council yesterday after it had discussed a remit from the Manawatu Association suggesting the change be made. It will go forward as a recommendation to the annual meeting later this year. In putting the remit, Mr J. A. Ongley said Central Districts had existed on goodwill. It had no voice on the council and its minor associations had supported it, but Central Districts could no longer go on relying on the minor associations, because of interests coming into conflict. There was, he said, an exaggerated fear that Central Districts’ 13 votes might be used en bloc to sway a decision, but if that question was to be raised, why had it not been raised when the nine minor associations were affiliated to Wellington? It could not be said that Central Districts could not be a major association because it was too powerful, yet an association had to be a major or a minor, and Central Districts was playing major association cricket. Mr Ongley said he had noted from newspaper reports that some major associations intended to oppose the remit, but he could not find any reasons for their decision. Messrs R. C. Saunders (Canterbury) and E. Hayes (Otago) opposed the remit, on ; the grounds that some reconstruction of districts and an investigation of the whole structure of New Zealand cricket was

likely, and that it would not be wise to make the change at present. Mr W. G. Speakman (Wellington) also opposed the remit, saying, however, that something might be done to give Central Districts the usual four votes as a major association on matters affecting major associations, and its minors a vote each on minor association matters.

Mr R..H. Launder (Taranaki) said he had heard no reasons to support the opposition to the remit. It would seem, to anyone listening to the discussion, that it was a case of “We’re in the club; something might happen to the club, so we won’t have any more members in the meantime.” Central Districts was thoroughly entitled to affiliation, he said. Mr B. Hundleby (Marlborough) said Wellington and Auckland had paid Central Districts a poor compliment by not having discussed the remit properly at their meetings. Management Committee’s View For the management committee, Mr D. A. Colville said the committee had felt the minor associations in the area could provide cricket in the Plunket Shield area, and there was no wish to knock down anything that had been built up. The main point was that Central Districts had 11 men in the field playing first-class cricket. With talk of a sixth district, it could not be said the position was stable, and other groups might in the near future have claims as strong as those of Central Districts when it came in. There might have to be a recasting of boundaries. He thought the next move was with the minor associations. Some could group together as a major association and have a few minors affiliated. He thought it safe to go on as at present for a year or two. The amalgamation of one or two minor associations would deprive them of their Hawke Cup cricket, which was important in the North Island, said Mr Launder. Mr Colville: Central Districts can’t have it both ways, any more than any other major association can. Replying, Mr Ongley said it did not matter if two or nine teams joined. It was merely a major association, with a lot of minors attached, as the other majors had, and it was merely a body administering cricket in a geographical area, as the others were. The remit was carried on the voices. At the evening meeting Mr T. A. Tucker (Canterbury) said the decision of his association to oppose the remit had been made because it was felt there might be a sixth team, and that things were in a state of flux. Mr Hayes said he was prepared to withdraw Otago’s opposition to allow the matter to come up again at the annual meeting in three months’ time. Mr Postles said some people seemed to think he was opposed to the remit. He was in favour of it and had voted that way. The motion was carried by 27 votes to nine. The meeting ended on a bright note,

with Mr M. Barnett (Waikato) saying that in view of the turncoats among the major associations, he was seeking permission to put again his remit asking for a Northern Districts Plunket Shield team.