Sixth District Added To Plunket Shield Tourney

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28019, 13 July 1956, Page 5

Sixth District Added To Plunket Shield Tourney

CRICKET

A sixth Plunket Shield district, comprising the minor associations of Northland. Waikato. King Country, Thames Valley, Bay of Plenty, and Poverty Bay. has been admitted to the Plunket Shield cricket competition. This was decided at a special general meeting of delegates to the New Z'-aland Cricket Council last evening.

The proposal, which has been discussed by the council many times over the last few years and several times defeated on a vote, was last evening carried by a margin of four-fi'ths of a vote, after a four-hour discussion at the council s biennial conference earlier in the day.

A three-fifths majority was required to carry the motion, moved by the Waikato delegate (Mr K. L. Sanford), the five major associations having four votes each, and the minor associations one vote each. The voting was 26 to 16, with the major associations of Canterbury and Otago voting against it. . The motion was seconded by the Poverty Bay delegate, Mr A. J. Bart-

A Canterbury amendment that the matter be deferred for investigation by a sub-committee, moved by Mr C. F. Collins and seconded by Mr T. A. Tucker, was lost. The amendment was similar to that moved at the council’s biennial conference. *

After the vote had been taken last evening by a show of hands. Mr W. A. Hadlee (Buller) asked that the vote be rechecked, and the president (Mr L. B. Schnauer) reaffirmed that the motion had been carried. Mr Hadlee had previously spoken against the motion. Delegates’ Discussion Earlier in the day the biennial conference of delegates, with one vote each for resident and visiting delegates, passed a remit that the conference approved the admission of the sixth district. A Canterbury amendment was lost The amendment was:—"That the application be deferred until the reconstitution of the New Zealand Cricket Council, when a sub-committee representing all major associations and North and South Island minor associations be set up to consider the position of first-class cricket in New Zealand, with particular reference to the number of Plunket Shield teams and boundaries applying to them; such a report to be referred to a special meeting of the New Zealand Cricket Council by June. 1957.” Moving the remit, Mr K. L. Sandford (Waikato) said it had been suggested that Northern Districts might be admitted for a period of probation. "We do not want that. We think the time has come when you can let us in with everv prospect of success.” Northern Districts had been operating administratively and playing for more than three seasons. Two important arguments had been made against inclusion. The first was that it would not improve the standard of New Zealand cricket and it might lower It. said Mr Sandford. After the test win the Dominion was on a crest. “We feel that some progressive move would provide the push to capture the public interest.” The second argument was that of finance. he said. “We be’ieve that with your matches against Northern Districts you would do as well as with your present games, and when you play in Hamilton you will do better than average. There is tremendous enthusiasm for sport in the North Island and especially in Hamilton.” “Great Fount of Cricket” Outlining the advantages of the admission of Northern Districts, Mr Sandford said that 20 per cent, of the population of New Zealand was in the area and there was a great fount of cricket to be tapped and it should not be lost. Second, with the six teams, no-one would miss Christ-

mas and New Year holiday dates, for be no b y es Third, it was ossrble for Auckland with its popula8^? ’Complete coverage to the £ Districts area. Auckland did a °<?,J ol \. bu t u was difficult for players to get noticed.

. six teams in the competition there wifi be more interest in the firstclass programme available. We would have three weeks with 15 days’ cricket in 1v.4- pe , ri ? d : it is pretty solid, but international teams on tour have to do that.” said Mr Sandford. i Seconding tr.e remit, Mr A. J. Bartlett (Poverty Bay) said the reasons why Poverty Bay had not supported the remit previously were that the association was struggling for money, and that the scheme had not been properly explained to it. bin<-e then finances had improved and all questions on the proposal had been satisfactorily answered. Auckland Support

The Auckland association, which was vitally interested, would support Waikato, said Mr A. J. Postles (Auckland). Northern Districts had proved that it would be strong enough not to lower the standard of New Zealand cricket if it was admitted. Financially he did not think associations would be any worse off. Speaking against the remit, Mr E. Hayes (Otago) said he could agree very largely with the facts, but the interprerations were not necessarily right. New Zealand had got to the crossroads of its cricket and faced some serious problems. He suggested a representative committee cou!d investigate the position throughout New .Zealand.

Discussing finance, he said his association thought that an attempt should be made to put all branches of cricket on a good footing. The trend was for a fall m Plunket shield gates. The standard of play question was not one of whether Northern Districts put in a team on a par with the others: it had wider implications. Demands on players were at times very great and might be becoming too great. “We might be on the halfway mark to semi-professionalism with a good number of players.” “We are not convinced that the organisation proposed is the best over New Zealand as a whole. We do not feel that a group that broke away from Wellington because it felt it was not being treated well, and a group which, because of population growth, fe£ls it should combine for a team, is necessarily the best division. We do not think the standard of cricket has improved over the last few years or that a sixth team would improve it,” said Mr Hayes. Method Opposed Canterbury was not opposing the suggestion entirely, but the method in which it was hoped to bring about the admission, said Mr C. F. Collins (Canterbury). "We want to decide when and how this sixth district will come in as it must eventually, and who it will comprise The rest of New Zealand was left on the outside as to genuine information on wiich a decision had to be trade. You can accept so many teams and the scale We have admitted a fifth, and at this stage we should go a little more slowly.” Mr Colliris then introduced the amendment. He said that the matter should onlv be decided after investigation by an expert committee. The South Island minor associations might have equal rights on playing strength as any of the North Island minors. If Northern Districts was admitted now there would not be any chance for another team for some time.

Seconding the amendment, Mr T. A. Tucker (Canterbury) said that a select committee could be given time to settle the problem together with boundaries. Canterbury maintained that the present boundaries were not logical at the moment and would be more illogical if a sixth district was admitted along the lines proposed. Mr J. A. Ongley (Central Districts) said there might be some lowering of the standard but it would only be temporary. The difficulties of travel and expense would be there, but they should not outweigh the benefit that would accrue if Northern Districts came in. If not there would be a large portion of

the population—about 300,000—with nothing to affiliate with. A whole province could no longer be affiliated until the cricket played in its city. Only Canterbury and Otago had said there should be delay and deliberation. In the past Wellington had opposed incusion, but it did not propose to continue opposition, said Mr W. J. Speakman (Wellington). “It is no use saying we cannot afford it all the time. We must let these people in.” Speaking against the amendment, Professor H. J. Hopkins (Bay of Plenty) said the banding together of a number of minor associations because they wanted to be banded together was better than forming any logical boundaries. He did not like the delaying aspect. Matters for Sub-committee Mr J. C. Saunders (North Otago) said he had instructions to oppose the motion unless it could De amended to consist of South Island minor associations. The amendment by Canterbury emphasised clarification of difficultits in New Zealand cricket in post-war days, and an unbiased report by leading administrators would do that. • The following matters could be considered by the sub-committee:— (1) The playing strength of cricketers throughout New Zealand. (2) The advisability of alterations to present boundaries—whether to cater tor four, five, six. or seven first-class districts (3) Financial difficulties. (4) The question, of six teams playing five matches over the holiday period. With travelling and Sundays the period would be 23 days. There was the difficulty of players getting leave and some would not be able to play throughout. That meant replacements would be necessary and teams might have to draw on up to 20 players (5) The whole organisation of first-class cricket and minor association cricket. Would the investigating committee be able to find more information? asked Mr B. J. Drake (Waikato). He submitted that the committee could do nothing that had not already been done “It seems that the Canterbury amendment is just a hindrance.” Various other speakers took part in the discussion with North Island delegates generally for the admission and South Island delegates against.

The Canterbury amendment was lost and the motion was carried.