Badminton’s Division II downgraded

Press, 30 May 1981, Page 16

Badminton’s Division II downgraded

A reappraisal of the New Zealand Badminton Federation’s representative tournament system is urgently needed, judging by the number of defections from the 1981 Division II championship. In previous years, the Division II contest was regarded as the most important, if not the strongest of the provincial grades. It bridged the gap between the top players and the juniors coming through. However, the 15 original entrants for the Division II championship this winter have now been reduced to 11. There are no problems in the northern regions, but sadly it seems there are just three provincial associations south of Taranaki which are prepared to enter teams this year. The provisional draw for

the event, which was made in January, allowed for four zones to play off. Zones A and B remain unaltered. Zone A comprises Auckland I, Northland, North Shore and Counties; Zone B is made up of Bay of Plenty, Auckland 11, Waikato ■ and Taranaki. The zone winners will play off for a place in the final. Four teams had abeen. pencilled in for Zone C, Hutt Valley, Manawatu, Wairarapa and Wellington North, and three were put into Zone D, Wellington, Canterbury and Southland. Otago did not bother to enter a team, yet was still prepared to put forward a team for the Division I Wisden Cup event. The winners of Zones C and D would play off for the other national final spot. Then Southland started the

ball rolling by withdrawing from Zone D, leaving just Wellington and Canterbury. At about the same time, Wellington North also pulled out.

It was then agreed to combine the two zones; which would have resulted in a five-team contest. However, Wairarapa came to the' party, and its withdrawal was followed shortly after by Manawatu. Now Canterbury is faced with a trip to Wellington this week-end to meet only Hutt Valley and Wellington. Two wins will place Canterbury in the national final. Therefore, Canterbury will play, at the most, three matches in Division II this season, a thoroughly depressing prospect for a team of highly promising young players. They have been deprived

of both a home tie — had Zone D remained intact, it would have been contested in Christchurch, beginning today — and valuable representative match play.

The reluctance of Southland and Otago to compete at Division II level is perhaps understandable, although it is regrettable. Otago’s affiliated membership is falling, while Southland’s has remained fairly stable for several seasons. But both have taken a hammering from Canterbury in recent years in competition for the Pearce Cup, which decides the top South Island Division II association.

Undoubtedly, they feel it not prudent to suffer further morale-damaging defeats, but strong competition is needed if their standards are to significantly improve. Last year, the Federation spent $17,580 on, overseas

coaches travelling the country. In addition New Zealand coaches cost it $11,909; a grand total of $29,489. The Ministry of Sport and Recreation and Lion Breweries chipped in with $17,000 while $10,739 came from the tours and development fund. What a difference from 1977, when just $6936 was allocated to coaching; a year later it was $8985. In 1979, when overseas coaches were first introduced on a major scale, they cost $21,640. Since 1977, the N.Z.B.F. has spent $68,883 on coaching. What it must consider is whether it is money well spent in areas like Otago, Southland, Manawatu and Wairarapa. Certainly, the return for 1981 has been somewhat meagre. The chairman of the Federation, Mr Ewart White, agreed that something had to be done to revive interest in the Division II championship.

He believed it was possible a return to the more costly system of teams travelling away to matches, one at a time rather than all over one week-end, might be re-intro-duced.

• “It appears some associations feel the extra cost is worth it, We brought in a zonal system to help cut, down costs. If they’re going to pull out of it, we’ve got to back back and look at it.” He added that no consideration had been given to penalising associations which have withdrawn, although he admitted it had been suggested. This is the first year a. zonal system has been used, •, and it is a good one. A return . to a system which will cost. ; substantially more is likely to meet with much less in-, terest than the present scheme.

DAVID LEGGAT