No Decision On Four-Day Games

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31150, 29 August 1966, Page 16

No Decision On Four-Day Games

The New Zealand Cricket Council's Board of Control grappled with the issue of four-day matches on Saturday before deciding to refer the matter back to the major associations.

The board also decided to seek associations’ views on 21hour cricket for the coming season, and on Sunday play. A return to four-day matches for the Plunket Shield series was advocated by Mr G. C. Burgess (Auckland). He proposed that the change should be made in 1967-68 and, as a stepping stone to this target, the hours of play should be increased to 21 a match in the coming season.

Mr Burgess tabled a report on Plunket Shield cricket prepared by a sub-committee of the Auckland Cricket Association, consisting of Messrs K. R. Deas, C. C. Burke and A. J. Postles.

The report expressed the belief that the present match of 19 hours over three days was becoming stereotyped and did not adjust New Zealand players to the four-day game of two completed innings, which they were expected to play in a test series. Three-day matches were not attracting greater patronage, claimed the report. Two days of slow cricket and a half-day of hectic cricket was not interesting to the public, it said. Mr B. J. Paterson said fourday cricket would bring the spinner back into the game. Mr W. A. Hadlee said he longed for the day when a batsman made 200, but this did not seem to be possible in three-day matches. But Mr K. L. Sandford said he could not see the game becoming more attractive if the players knew that matches would be spread over

“four long, plodding innings.

An amendment that the board favoured the principle of four-day Plunket Shield cricket was moved by Mr J. A. Ongley. In the event of four-day cricket being reintroduced, the board should countenance Sunday play, he said. This amendment, however, was lost, as was a further amendment by Mr L. J. Castle that the hours of play for the coming season should be altered to 21 a match.

Then Mr Ongley moved that the issue should be referred back to the major associations, and this was' carried. Mr C. F. Collins said Mr Castle’s amendment had “burnt the head,” but he thought the Auckland proposal deserved a better fate.