CRICKET INTERVIEW

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 152, 13 June 1932, Page 3

CRICKET INTERVIEW

NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA. REPLY TO ALLEGATIONS. Additional information regarding the manner in which the Now Zealand Cricket Council’s representative was received by the Australian Board of Control in making a request for an extension of the M.C.C. team’s tour to include a visit to New Zealand throws a different light on the matter from that revealed in a recent cablegram from London. It was known on the New Zealand delegate’s return that the mission to Australia had not been attended with satisfactory results, but in the cablegram from London the allegation was made that the New Zealand delegate was “most rudely received, the board giving him only a few minutes to state his case. ’ ’ When questioned regarding this report some members of the Board of Control made little comment and indicated that they were not prepared to give an explanation of what actually happened. The Queensland representatives on the board were, however, more communicative and made some pointed remarks as to what took place on the occasion in question.

“Perfectly idiotic,’’ remarked Mr J. S. Hutcheon when the London message was referred to him in Brisbane for comment. Mr. Hutcheon stated that on practically every point the information was untrue. The New Zealand representative had interviewed the Australian Board at the December meeting, and, in his opinion, had been most courteously received. He had put before the board New Zealand’s case, and had left to permit the board to discuss his remarks. Subsequently the New Zealand representative was informed of the decision of the board, which was not to alter its programme for the Australian tour.

“Such a statement is ridiculous,’’ ■said Mr. B. J. Hartigan when the text of the London cablegram was brought to his notice, “and I will go further and say that the treatment given by the Australian Board to the New Zealand representative was far more courteous than his attitude warranted.’’ Mr Hartigan added that naturally the Australian Board of Control did not want its programme interfered with. The New Zealand representative was received by the board, which listened courteously to his statements, and after consideration informed him that it was not desirous of altering the programme.

The decision to permit New Zealand to participate in the itinerary came from the Marylebone Cricket Club alone. The Australian board had nothing whatever to do with that decision.

“I think the New Zealand representative was lucky to be received as courteously as he was after his outburst after the decision,’’ Mr. Hartigan concluded. “There was not the slightest rudeness on the part of th" board. I only wish I could say the same for the New Zealander.’’