‘Winning Team’ Again To Select Shield XV

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32266, 8 April 1970, Page 17

‘Winning Team’ Again To Select Shield XV

The men who selected and coached the Ranfurly Shield-winning Canterbury team in 1969 will again be at the helm this season.

Dr J. D. Stewart (forwards) and Mr M. J. Dixon (backs) were reelected to their posts on the first ballot at a meeting of the Canterbury Rugby Union management committee last evening.

As proof of their popularity, Dr Stewart was nominated by six clubs, and Mr Dixon by five. It will be Mr Dixon’s sixth season as backs’ selector, Dr Stewart's fourth with the forwards. Dr Stewart (University) was opposed by Messrs D. M. Findlay (Linwood) and R. R. Eastgate (New Brighton), while Mr Dixon’s sole rival was Mr P. D. Clark (Marist). “They will have quiet a strenuous programme ahead of them, and we wish them well, as it means a lot to the union, both in monetary matters and other ways,” the chairman (Mr C. H. McPhail) said. Have—-And Hold Mr Dixon and Dr Stewart had had a successful run with the Canterbury team last year

and it was hoped that they would embellish the record in the coming months. “What we have, we hold—perhaps,” Mr. McPhail added. Messrs Findlay (forwards) and Clark (backs), who have had great successes as the selectors of Canterbury B teams, also retained their posts on the first ballot Mr Findlay has been a B selector since 1964, and Mr Clark joined him the following year. , The unsuccessful nominees were Messrs Eastgate, L. P. Foster (Linwood), A. C. Pash (Suburbs) and G. Kinzett (Sydenham). Park Criticised Concern at the reported comments of members of the executive committee of the Canterbury Athletic Centre last week was shown by the chairman of the union’s Rugby Park committee (Mr R. W. Thomas). The athletics officials criticised the park’s surface and decided to seek a meeting with the union—which owns the ground—to discuss improvements. Mr Thomas said he was perturbed at such reported comments as "shocking," “cha-

otic,” and "subservient to the Rugby Union,” arising from the athletic centre meeting. c.“I realise that the athletic centre has a difficult problem with finances, but the union, has spent a lot of money on Rugby Park and has fallen over backwards to help athletics,” he said. The union, he said, had givdn up the park to ■ the centre for the inter-school athletics meeting last Saturday, even before Rugby delegates had rejected April 4 as the starting date for the senior competition. Increase Of Fee Mr Thomas said the centre had paid $BOO in fees for the use of the park in the last four years; yet the annual rates for the ground cost the union about $6OO. In the last four years, the union had spent $7700 on repairs at the park, and had met many other expenses.

“The centre’s fee to the union last year was $250, which, I feel sure, will have to be increased.” The unipn had offered to meet the centre on March 12 to discuss charges and the demolition of the old stand, but the athletic centre delegation was unable to attend, said Mr Thomas. In the event of no letter being received from the centre in the next two days, the union should request an urgent meeting with athletics officials to discuss the park, he said.