COMMENT FROM MELBOURNE

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 140, 14 June 1924, Page 8

COMMENT FROM MELBOURNE

Writing .from Melbourne to "The Post," a correspondent (A. J. Fabian, late of Wellington) expresses surprise at Hawkes Bay and Canterbury being so largely represented in the New Zealand team. "Surely,". he states, "this is quite unfair to other provinces, particularly those who have been strongholds for Rugby for many years, viz., Auckland, Wellington, and O.tago. If it bad not been for the Wellington and Otago support, Rugby football in New Zealand would be practically ousted es a national game. 1 have before me the team as selected, and, of course, the absence of some of the best-known footballers' names' has caused great surprise not only to me but to hundreds of other JS'ew Zealanders away from their native land. Could not the selectors have chosen their men more evenly, not' only as regard the weight and pace, but, if more importance, could they have not made" a more representative selection? Jo what right do the selectors hold that Canterbury, should .have six- men chosen and Hawkes Bay six, whilst Otago are so magnificently treated with none, and Auckland • and .Wellington have only three each? Whilst I am fully aware of the difficulties of selecting a NewZealand team and have no wish in- any •way to discredit the playing. abilities of those chosen, I do maintain the selection, as it stands, is not representative of New Zealand, and does not do justice to those centres where Rugby is so heavily supported by the public. Take Wellington, for instance: Three players selected! And yet I do not think I am incorrect when I say Wellington is the stronghold of Rugby in New Zealand, and has been for a number of years, Dunedin being a close runnerup." The correspondent expresses the opinion that had the. selection been made on the following basis the general public would have been made satisfied, and the, team would have been a more representative one:—Auckland four players, Wellington four, Canterbury three, Otago four, Hawkes Bay three, Taranaki three, Southland two, NelsonMarlborough one, Wairarapa one, Bay of Plenty one, Manawatu one, Wanganui one, West Coast one. total, 29. While deserving credit for their efforts, the selectors, in the correspondent's opinion, did not give sufficient time to their final selection. In conclusion, the correspondent offers his congratulations to the players chosen, fand adds: 'I sincerely hope that they uphold the traditions of New Zealand and their most illustrious predecessors of 1905. Good luck-. Kia Ora." " . ■

The correspondent is evidently not aware of the fact that ,certain wellknown, players, notably in Otago, were not available. There is something to be said'in favour of the basis of selection put forward, but the duty of the selectors was to choose the best twenty-nine players available. Some of their selections rightly created surprise.—"Dropkick."