A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIX, Issue 13127, 15 May 1903, Page 4

A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY.

Mr P. F. Waknee, the captain of the English team of cricketers that were touring the colony a few months" ago, has written a long letter to the London "Sportsman," giving, ho chums, the " only correct version " of the " incident" that occurred during the match between the Englishmen and the Canterbury representative eleven. The version does not exactly accord wiith our ''dwa recollection of what took place, and it fi> not presented to the British public in a particularly conciliatory spirit; but -we have no wish to revive: the controversy concerning the unfortunate affair. A good deal was said and written at. the time, which would, perhaps, have been better unsaid and unwritten; but Canterbury cricketers do not nurse their grievances, and the "incident," whatever it"! merits, has long since been forgotten. Our only purpose in referring to Mr Warner's letter at all is to correct a curious misstatement it contains in regard to our own attitude towards the matter. "Next morning," one paragraph runs t "the local papers were full of the most distorted versions of what had happened, the 'Lyttelton Times' starting a' leading article of considerable length by saying that they had been at some, pains to ascertain the true facts of the case, their 'some pains' consisting, in asking the two batsmen and Mr Spencer for their versions. They then proceed to say that we 'had openly disputed the umpire's decision,' and that 'Sims and the succeeding batsmen were subjected to a running fire of disconcerting remarks.' It was also stated I had characterised the decision as the worst ever given on a cricket field." Our readers will probably remember that we did not use a. single word that bore the slightest resemblance to> the remarks attributed to us. Looking back upon our comments, after a lapse of more than three months, we certainly cannot reproach ourselves with having indulged in any distortion. "It is a pity," we said, " that the pleasant spirit in which the match was commenced was not maintained to its conclusion, and we cannot help thinking that, much of the irritation provoked by Pearce's appeal to the umpires when he appeared to be bowled was the result of a misunderstanding. Warner, we feel sure, is too much of a cricketer and too much of a gentleman to openly criticise a decision simply because it ds given against him, and we should be sorry to think that either Bosanquet or Whatman is less of a cricketer or less of a gentleman than his captain.

. . . But probably the visitors were under■■ the impression that the methods of their wicket-keeper - had been impugned, and thought- it' necessary to defend 'him from .the suggestion of unfairness. In any case, we hope that they will not be allowed to leave Christchurch without the entire restoration of the good feeling with wuich they were welcomed to our city." Surely there is nothing here to account for Mr Warner's indignation. We can only suppose that the English captain lias repeated, in a rather different form, the pretty compliment which a member -of the 'Legislative Council paid us a few years ago, when lie held, us responsible for all the "Socialistic-fads" of the Government and the "wicked madness" of its followers. One of our contemporaries did write in a rather wild fashion-about the "incident," and though its hysteria subsided next day in quite an extraordinary way, Mr Warner may have carried an irritated feeling away with him, and may have thought that we were the keepers of the manners of the community as well as the authors of its politics.