Cricket schemes shelved

Press, 3 August 1983, Page 22

Cricket schemes shelved

Proposals designed to lift the standard of Canterbury cricket, made by two of the game’s best-known figures, Charles Collins and Don McKendry, have been shelved by the management committee of the Canterbury Cricket Association. The schemes, submitted quite independently, were both based on the belief that the quality of club cricket in Christchurch had declined, and both authors suggested that the best country players should be in the same competition as leading city cricketers. However, there has been a lukewarm reaction from the minor associations, and Alby Duckmanton, chairman of the management committee, says that in the meantime the proposals will be:put aside. Mr McKendry — until last season a Canterbury selector — suggested a pro-motion-relegation system, with two divisions, each of six', teams. That would require four more teams. He proposed that they should come from North Canterbury, Suburban and the Marist club, with an under--23;: colts team under the

guidance of Richard Hadlee or another player of equal mana. This side would have no more than two players from any one club. He further suggested that South Canterbury and Mid-Canter-bury should combine their competitions, to achieve a general strengthening. The eight Canterbury association clubs already with senior sides could be paired to provide four teams, Mr Collins said, and the four other associations would each field a team equivalent to its representative team.

Among the advantages which he felt would arise from such an arrangement, Mr Collins listed an improvement in selection methods, with all players of potential continually before the selectors; greater incentives and opportunities for players outside Christchurch; a morale boost for all the constituent associations’ players, administrators and supporters; a more worth-while attraction for sponsorship, essential in meeting the travelling costs implicit with a home and away programme of matches.

He also made recommendations on coaching, pitch preparation, and selection duties. “Our younger Canterbury cricketers still more than hold their own at national under-age tournaments, but the one-day format could be considered detrimental rather than beneficial at this stage of their careers and their aspirations to become first-class cricketers. They, too, need tougher competition,” said Mr Collins. He recommended that there should be an elite grade, in which all the best players of the five Canterbury constituent associations would be engaged in an eight-team competition. The two schemes had been put to a meeting of club captains and secretaries, Mr Duckmanton said. The reception had been lukewarm. Letters outlining the schemes had been sent to the minor and sub-associ-ations. The replies had been in very guarded terms, Mr Duckmanton said, and had lacked enthusiasm.

“I was disappointed in this attitude,” Mr Duckmanton said. “Perhaps they did not want to pursue the

matter further because I think they feel it would upset their domestic cricket. It seemed to me to be a very short-sighted attitude, having in mind the development of their own players and Canterbury cricket.”

“We are not worried about cricket at the schoolboy level,” Mr Duckmanton said. “Team entries have increased substantially in the last two or three seasons, so the future looks good. However, in all sports the drop-out rate of those from 18 to 21 years of age is quite alarming.”

Mr Duckmanton said his association had advised the Marist club that it could see no prospect of Marist being admitted to the senior competition in the near future, partly because of the bye an addition would cause.

“I am concerned that we have already lost the West Old Boys and Technical Old Boys clubs. Marist is the last one left,” Mr Duckmanton said. “There is no way that Marist can attract players if it does not have senior status. I must say I voted against Marist’s rejection.”