Cricket panel poser set

Press, 22 April 1977, Page 28

Cricket panel poser set

By

R. T. Brittenden

The nomination of seven men for the national selection panel has given the New Zealand Cricket Coun|cil’s Board of Control an ! unenviable and unexpected I task for its meeting in Wellington next week.

If the flood of nominees reflected only enthusiasm for the game and its responsibilities, it would be welcome. But there is good reason to believe that what is an incredibly large field is the result of dissatisfaction, on two fronts.

' Last season’s panel — i Frank Cameron (convenor) lan Colquhoun and John ! Reid — has been criticised for its choice of players for the India - Pakistan tour . last year, and its selection for the second test against 'Australia in March. The i composition of the touring j team leant towards pace I bowling, with only two 'regular spinners in the side I—■ David O’Sullivan and [Peter Petherick.

I The team performed badly, [and it was obvious that a 'Stronger spin section was required. But it should be remembered that half a dozen of the top players were absent from that side. And as far as spinners were concerned, the selectors might well ask their critics who should have gone in place of one of the pace bowlers. The theory of having more spinners made sense. But the sad fact is that there was no slow bowler with the full credentials for the task. If a balance can not be achieved logically, the best bowlers have to be chosen. There was evidence, too, when the Indians played at the Basin Reserve, of their vulnerability against pace; and the previous tour of India and Pakistan had proclaimed quite clearly that although the pitches there generally favour spinners, pace bowling of quality would be effective. No doubt the selectors were encouraged by the 1969 outstanding results of Dayle Hadlee, Bruce Taylor, and Bob Cunis.

It may also be remembered that the present selection panel caused an upset when it chose four pace bowlers for the Basin Reserve test against India. That meant the first omission of Hedley Howarth — when he was available — for seven years, and the inclusion of Richard Hadlee, whose form had given him no real right to be there. The result was a bright page in New Zealand’s cricket story —a New Zealand victory, with Hadlee setting a New Zealand test record with his 11 wickets. The selectors read the pitch at the Basin accurately. And they really should not be blamed for including

[both Pethenck and Howarth lin die Auckland test this year. I All the evidence and ad(vice pointed to the Eden Park pitch taking spin on ■the fourth and fifth days of the match.

I It is history now that the match ended very early on the fourth morning: Howarth ' and Petherick, between i them, bowled only nine lovers on a pitch which wai [strictly for seamers. So the I selectors failed in their judg[ment on that occasion. S« | did most people on tha [ground that first day. The second area of dis. content appears to be with Reid, and mainly because cl some quoted remarks which appeared in an article ia “The Listener” in February. Much of the article was about the New Zealand cap tain, Glenn Turner, and hit attitude to the game. Tumet is a frank and forthright young man, essentially practical, but it is clear that this first full-time professions! leader has not enchanted cricket administration at th« top level. Reid was critical of Turner. "I often wondered why England never had professionals as captains. Now I can understand.” he said.

Reid’s was perhaps an oldfashioned attitude, but il was expressed, too, in a frank and forthright manner, He obviously feels that playing for New Zealand is au honour, and the paramount consideration. Reid played his cricket with distinction and without equivocation; il seems however that his remarks have not pleased some provincial administrators.

It appears now that the nomination of so many men for the selection panel is almost a confrontation between Reid, and those sharing his sentiments and the more hardheaded Turner and his supporters.

It is a difficult situation for the board. Reid was a magnificent player, a resolute one, and he is still very much in touch with cricket and its players. It would be a pity if his services were lost, after only two years as a national selector. But the board has to live with the fact that Turner is the country’s top player and its captain: if there is a strong difference of opinion between them, it should ba capable of resolution without the drastic action of dropping one or the other from his present post. The seven men nominated have, in aggregate, more than 100 years of first-class cricket behind them. They are not old men, the ages ranging from Colquhoun’s 52 to the 37 of Dick Motz. The full nomination list is: Cameron, Colquhoun, Reid, lan Leggat, Noel McGregor, Motz and Barry Sinclair.