Mr Dixon Replaces Mr Nolan As Rugby Back Selector

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31656, 17 April 1968, Page 13

Mr Dixon Replaces Mr Nolan As Rugby Back Selector

“What does a selector have to do to stay in power?” asked the president of the Canterbury Rugby Union, Mr C. H. McPhail, when a meeting of the union’s management committee last evening dropped the Canterbury back selector, Mr G. T. Nolan, in favour of Mr M. J. Dixon.

In 1966, the management committee voted in favour of Mr Nolan against Mr Dixon, who had then served two terms as the back selector. Mr McPhail, moving that a letter be sent to Mr Nolan thanking him for his past services, said he felt strongly on many things and was prepared to give his views. “This is not a matter of club bias, but may I ask what does a selector have to do to stay in power?” Mr McPhail’s question remained unanswered by the committee members, who were substantially the same as those who voted for Mr Nolan ahead of Mr Dixon in 1966. On the first ballot, Dr J. D. Stewart was elected as forward coach but the scrutineers, Messrs A. K. Johnson and J. O. Hattersley, announced that another vote was needed for the back selector, between Messrs Nolan and Dixon. When Mr Dixon was announced as the back selector on the second vote, Mr B. J. Drake moved that Dr Stewart and Mr Dixon be asked to confer with Mr Nolan when choosing the Canterbury team to play West Coast on Anzac Day and when nominating the Canterbury players for the All Black trials. Mr R. W. Thomas moved

an amendment, seconded by Mr M. R. Barnett, that Dr Stewart and Mr Nolan choose the Canterbury team and nominate the All Black trial players. Mr W. Cowles said that the amendment was just as inconsistent as any of the voting. Mr Thomas: We are allowed to be inconsistent. Mr Cowles: That is your prerogative. Mr Drake said that he wished to explain the reasons for his motion.

“In other years we have retained the previous year's selectors for the West Coast match. But with the importance of nominations for the trials, I think it is advisable that Mr Nolan be allowed to give the bene'’* of his experience. “It is to appoint selectors al neeting and then depri tern of the right to ma..e nominations, but we should not lose the benefit of Mr Nolan’s experience over the last two years."

“I agree with Mr Drake,’ said Mr D. B. Doak. “But Mr Nolan is in an invidious position being a selector in name only.”

Mr M. R. Barnett: I seconded Mr Thomas’s amendment because I feel that players will be chosen or nominated on last year's form. Mr Thomas, speaking to his amendment, said that if the union and the committee wanted consistency then it should have been consistent two years ago. Mr Thomas’s amendment was lost on voices.