THREE OR FIVE SELECTORS Rugby Union Likely To Drop Two Men

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30607, 25 November 1964, Page 19

THREE OR FIVE SELECTORS Rugby Union Likely To Drop Two Men

[By Our Rugby Correspondent]

The meeting of the council of the New Zealand Rugby Union at Wellington on December 4 has an important task—to decide the number of selectors who will choose the All Black teams to play South Africa next year.

But the meeting may only be a controversial stepping-stone to the meeting of the council next February when the actual members of the selection panel are chosen.

It is expected that the December meeting will reverse the decision to have five selectors and revert to a three-man panel.

If this happens at least two of this year’s panel must be dropped. It is this which will cause most heartburning, and could lead to some intensive lobbying before the February meeting. Five-Men Supporters The Auckland members of the council, Messrs T. H. Pearce and R. L. Burk, and representatives of minor unions are expected to be the main supporters for the continuation of the five-man panel. This is only natural. Mr Pearce was the main force in gaining a five-man panel and also Auckland has the most to lose. Two of the present selectors. Messrs F. R. Allen and R. G. Bush, are from Auckland. The smaller unions will support five selectors because they are regarded as some sort of panacea for all their troubles. Illogical Reasoning Their somewhat illogical reasoning is that five selectors give a greater coverage of unions and therefore more of the games played by smaller unions are seen by the selectors and more of their players become All Blacks. Unfortunately, this is far from the case. The main argument in favour of three men is that it lessens the chance of bartering players and compromise selections. It is a telling and very important point, and one that should carry the most weight with council members. If, as expected, the threeman panel is accepted, the council will then have to face the embarrassing task of deciding which two of this year’s five selectors will be dropped. S.I. May Lose One Auckland can hardly hope to retain both Mr Allen and Mr Bush. And the South Island might be expecting too much to have both Mr N. J. McPhail and Mr L. V. George on a three-man panel. However, it is expected that Mr McPhail will retain his position as convenor because it is vital that someone with experience and length of service is available. It is going to be unfair on the two who are dropped. Even though New Zealand did not perform as well as was hoped against Australia, the series was still won. But the reduction may be just as well. There was some conflict of opinion between the selectors this season. Players Ignored Reputations hard earned on the British Isles tour were in many cases ignored, presumably by the new members of the panel. Also, after the first test, such a deadlock occurred that the chairman of the New Zealand Rugby Union (Mr T. C. Morrison) had to be called in before the second test team was completed. There are further side issues which must intrude into any decisions on numbers of selectors and who they may be. It is quite possible that the council will decide to appoint the next panel for two years to embrace the tours of New Zealand by South Africa in 1965 and the British Isles in 1966.

If this does happen there will be no room for a casual approach to the matter. Once the selectors are decided they will be there for two vital years and also will have a major influence on the selection of the All Black team that will tour South Africa in 1967. Irresponsible Attitude It is understood that it was not entirely Mr Pearce’s persuasive oratory that caused

the council to change to five selectors but rather that some members, becoming tired of Mr Pearce’s continual attempts on this matter, decided to give him his head but hoped that the move would be so Unsuccessful that after that there would be no further .talk of five selectors. In many ways they have been proved right. But it is an irresponsible attitude which should not be repeated.