SELECTION OF TENNIS TEAM

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 142, 12 March 1938, Page 15

SELECTION OF TENNIS TEAM

Omission Of New Zealand Doubles Champions ' ■ _____ WELLINGTON COMMITTEE’S DISCUSSION For almost two hours of a three-hour meeting last night, the management committee of the Wellington Lawn Tennis Association discussed the action or the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association in not selecting the New Zealand doubles champions, R. McL. Jerkins and E. A. Roussell, for one of the exhibition matches at Wellington last Saturday week in which the Australian, Adrian Quist, took part. Mr. J. L. Mac Duff, chairman of the committee, saying that he refused to be placed on trial, made a statement and then left the meeting. Mr. A. M. Pinkerton f de'puty-cbairman, occupied the chair for the remainder of the meeting. The discussion was opened by Mr. JiaDuff saying that he desired to reter to the position in which he had been placed as the result of a resolution passed at the committee meeting of the previous Friday night. His suggestion to go into committee was strongly opposed by Mr. L. Wise. The motion to go into committee not being carried, Mr. Mac Duff rend his statement. He said: “After the committee meeting last Friday and the apparent attitude of some members in regard to my actions, either as a member of the Wellington Lawn Tennis Association or the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association management committees, it appeared to me that my own position in regard to these bodies and in respect ot the Quist exhibition match needed clarifying. "First, I may say that in view ot the fact that I am a member of the management committee of both bodies, my position may at times, as in the present case, be one of difficulty and I suggest that this management committee should as far as possible realise that position and not endeavour to make it more diificult. “Secondly, it became obvious that this management committee had got into the habit of expecting me to make available information coming to my knowledge as a member of the New Zealand committee. That I have gone out of my way to give advice as to what the New Zealand committee’s views are, or would be, in the past has laid me open to this present position and the fault is of course mine, but here again I suggest that, seeing this committee has received the benefit, some consideration should be given to myself. “Coming now to the arrangements for the Quist exhibition, I have taken the opportunity since the last meeting of ascertaining the position from the New Zealand point .of view. The teams were tentatively agreed to by the New Zealand body at its meeting on the Thursday night—the suggestion in regard to the team being made by myself—whether as a member of the New Zealand committee or Wellington committee I am not concerned. The question of r whether the New Zealand or Wellington committee should select the tedm never arose but from my recollection of the position the New Zealand committee agreed to the team suggested and I agreed to it on behalf' of Wellington. “At your meeting of last Friday this committee passed a motion which is tantamount to a denial of my agreement to the personnel of the exhibition. Reference to Minutes. Here Mr. Mac Duff reminded the committee of certain things embodied in the minutes of a meeting of tlie committee on Wednesday authorising him to act, “Apparently” he proceeded, “one of the arrangements does not now find favour With this committee, and it is, in fact, not.prepared to support a decision or agreement made by me on its behalf and -with its authority, and is, in fact, disowning it.” He pointed out that no member of the committee at that meeting ' urged the selection of Rousseff and Ferkins.. He concluded : “I merely desire to put two brief points which arise out of this statement:— «*(1) I had authority to make all the arrangements for this match. My arrangements this committee has now disowned. “(2) This committee, -by its silence, has led me, and through me the New Zealand association, into a position with which it now disagrees and demands an explanation. “I consider that I am personally entitled to an explanation on the attitude taken by this committee in regard to my actions.’ “Not Going to Argue.” “That is my statement,” Mr. Mac Duff added. “It-is my considered opinion. I am not going to argue about it and I am not going to be placed in a position of being on trial. I suggest that it be discussed without my presence. I suggest you appoint Mr. Pinkerton as chairman. “If there is any question you are prepared to ask before I leave I am prepared to answer it,” Mr. Mac Duff continued. Mr. R. McL. Ferkins wanted to know whether it was merely his (Mr. MacDuff’s) personal opinion that the speaker and Roussel! were not acceptable to the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association.

Mr. Mac Duff: It could be nothing else. Jlr. Pinkerton then took the chair and Mr. Mac Duff left the jneeting.

Ou the chairman’s statement that the platter was now open for discussion, Mr. Wise said: “No member of this management committee on the Wednesday argued the claims of the New Zealand doubles champions. The reason why they were not argued was because the present New Zealand doubles champions were said not to be a satisfactory selection to the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association. On that statement there could be no points in pressing their claims.” Mr. Wise also said that though arrangements were left with the secretary and chairman they referred merely. to matters of detail. “We were definitely told that the actual selection of the doubles pair was Tn the hands of the New Zealand management committee and that this committee had nothing to do with it. The matter is one that should be taken up/witb the N.Z.L.T.A., with a view to laying down a policy for the future.”

Formulation of Policy Sought. Mr. Wise thereupon moved the following motion : “That this management committee draws the attention of the management committee of the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association to the dissatisfaction which is prevalent among tenins players and the public at the failure of Messrs. R. MeL. Ferkins and E. A. Roussell, holders of the New’ Zealand doubles title for two successive years, to be selected in either of the recent series of exhibition matches arranged by the association against Budge and Make at Auckland, and against Quist and Stedman at Wellington, and urges that in view of the importance of the matter, the management committee of the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association give immediate consideration to the matter with a view to the formulation of a policy of selection for the future that will give satisfaction both to tennis players and to the public.” The motion was seconded by Mr. G. Nevitt. Mr. Pinkerto'n: There is no question the players are interested. He gdded that there was no doubt that the Wednesday meeting authorised the chairman and secretary to make arrangements for the exhibition matches. The extent of their authority was now in dispute. “The New Zealand management committee will turn round and say: ‘lt is yoip own selection,’ ” he said. Mr. Donnell again drew attention, '.< the minutes, and this led to Mr. Wist questioning their correctness. “Definitely. there wan no recommendation fron: the committee,” he said. Mr. Pinkerton said a principle was

volved, ‘but in Hew of the Wednesday meeting’s minutes they had to go very carefully lest they made themselves a laughing -stock. “If winning the New Zealand title is not sufficient to get a game, then there is nothing to live for in tennis. We are the most to blame.’ With our eyes open we told the chairman to go ahead, and it is our own fault we did not specially say how far he could go. I understood the New Zealand association was going to make the selection.” Mr. Wise: We were definitely told that. Mr. Donnell: We made the suggestion. Sir. Wise: No. Sir: Pinkerton argued that the committee ought to have been alive to matters so far as they concerned Roussell and Ferkins after they were excluded from playing Budge and Mako in Auckland. When the chairman said they were not acceptable on the Wednesday night they should have asked why. . Mr. Wise’s motion was put and carried. It was also suggested that the. resolution of the previous Friday’s meeting should be rescinded. Further Motion. 'The following motion by Mr. A. H. Richards, “That in order to avoid any conflict of interests as between the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association, and the Wellington Lawn Tennis Association, by reason of the chairman of the management committee being also a member »ot the management committee of the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association, all comunications, whether verbal or in writing, between the two associations be conveyed through the secretaries of the respective associations,” was seconded by Mr. Wise and carried. Mr. Wise urged that committee members should be furnished with copies of the minutes before the next meeting was held. Mr. Ferkins then moved a motion to the effect that the chairman.of the Wellington management committee should not be allowed also to be a member of the New Zealand management committee. Mr. Nevitt. seconded the motion and added that the time had arrived for a very drastic overhaul of the New Zealand association. Mr. Donnell pointed out that Mr. MacDuff had been elected chairman of the Wellington committee after his election to the New Zealand committee. Mr. Ferkins, in view of the absence of some of the members, withdrew his motion and said he would give 'notice of i"it later. **