No sinister Christchurch cabal

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33067, 7 November 1972, Page 40

No sinister Christchurch cabal

(By j

R. T. BRITTENDEN)

A vote of members of the New Zealand Cricket Council’s board of control determined that Mr J. C. Saunders of Christchurch should be manager of the New Zealand team in England next year.

An article in the “Sunday Times” suggests that because Mr R. A. Vance of Wellington was unsuccessful in the ballot, attempts could be made to remove Christchurch as the seat of New Zealand cricket government, “or at least to whittle down some of its power.” The article, by Lindsay Knight, is provocative in the extreme, and might have been designed to make sure that Canterbury - Wellington relations, which he says have always been strained, are not improved.

The board of control consists of representatives from the six Plunket Shield districts, one from North Island minor associations, one from South Island minors, and four Christchurch - based members of the board’s executive. From Mr Knight’s extravagances, one might conclude that Mr Vance was excluded from the managership by a sinister Christchurch cabal. No-one, least of all the writer, would challenge Mr Vance’s qualifications for a managerial post, or the fact that on the basis of service to cricket as a player and an administrator, he deserves recognition and reward.

Mr Vance has been unlucky. But the facts are that he was beaten in a ballot for the managerial post for the West Indies tour, by Mr M. E. Chapple, and again this year by Mr Saunders, whose record in cricket is also quite outstanding.

Mr Knight seems to disregard the fact that the board—a national body — has twice voted against Mr Vance, and that the Christchurch executive could not possibly be responsible for this. It would be interesting to know how the delegates from outside Christchurch voted. The figures are not available. But at least some of them must have taken the view that Mr Saunder’s claim, notwithstanding the disability which Mr Knight would attribute to him through place of residence, was better than that of Mr Vance. No casting vote It is understood, however, that no casting vote was required, and the margin of Mr Vance’s defeat might well have been much larger than Mr Knight would probably believe possible. No doubt Mr Knight wished simply to defend Mr Vance,

But his attack on Christchurch as the administrative headquarters fe m effect a slur on Mr Saunders, because of the strong inference that the selection of manager was made wrongly. Mr Knight, in his determined effort to stir up interprovincial trouble, even recalled the famous “watered wicket’; and that match was played all but 50 years ago. He refers also to the board’s decision to play the first test with England in 1971 at Lancaster Park: there he is on good ground, for in the opinion of this writer and many other cricketers, it was an error of judgment. But he ties up this decision, with a previous one, in 1967, to move a test from Wellington to New Plymouth because of the unsatisfactory nature of the pitch. He did not mention that the switch was made with the agreement of the deputy-chairman of the

Wellington association, the senior official available. Mr Knight says Mr Saunders will be the fourth man with a Christchurch background to manage New Zealand sides on five major tours in the 1960 s and 19705. To find this figure, he has to include Mr Chapple, who was appointed when Central Districts representative on the board, and who played for Central Districts before he represented Canterbury. Successive teams And for all his. delving into history over pitches, he failed to mention that four successive teams to England were Wellington-managed. It may be that Christchurch is not the best place for the New Zealand Cricket Council to have its headquarters. But would any other centre, save Wellington, i escape this sort of censure? Cricket has sufficient pro- ; blems, without real or ' imagined antipathies being : nurtured, to add to them.