TO DEFEND HAWKE CUP

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6869, 26 March 1929, Page 8

TO DEFEND HAWKE CUP

Manawatu Team Selected The following will represent Manawatu in the Hawke Cup challenge match versus Nelson commencing . on Easter Saturday:—Onglev (captain), McVicar, Gallichan, Norris, l’egden, Baumber, Wild, Paccy, Tarrant, Fletcher, Diederich. Reserve, Cutler. Messrs Mansford and Greer have been appointed umpires. A practice for the Hawke cup team will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings. The following teams have also been selected to do duty for Manawatu over Easter: — Manawatu seniors v. Wellington Mercantile league at Terrace End, on Easter Saturday and Monday, commencing each day at 10.50 o’clock: — W. Cameron, L. Spring, G. Lusk, O’Keefo, S. W. Miller, Young, Smith, Duffield, G. Cameron, Ross, Day. Reserves: Henderson, D. Spring, G. Cameron, Louden, Griggs. Any player unavailable please notify Mr Ongtey immediately. Manawatu juniors v. Wanganui at Sportsground, on Easter Monday, commoneing at 10.30 o’clock: —McKay, McLaren (P. and T.), Wakelin (R.S.A.), Spring (O.B.), Burgess, Griggs (H.S.), Smalcs, Hill (P.W.D.), Carlisle, capt., Wright and Arnott (Rongotea). Reserve: Jewett (R.S.A.). Any player unavailable please notify by ringing ’phone 5682 as soon as possible. The Napier Challenge. At a meeting of the Manawatu council last eveniug, the chairman (Mr W. G. Miller) drew attention to rule 5 governing the Hawke cup matches, which stated that the holding assess* tion need not accept any challenge after February 28 and no second challenge had been received from Hawke’s Bay at all. The first intimation camo through the New Zealand council.

Mr. Ongley stated that ever sinco Manawatu had held tho cup, it had met every challenge honourably. However, he felt that no association would have accepted a second game from Hawke’s Bay without a protest. He thought tho council should be written to, asking for a copy of the Hawke's Bay letter containing the request ‘for a second game, so as to see what the reason was for asking for it. Personally, he did not think it was the weather that had lost tho match for Hawke’s Bay. Rather was it that the Hawke’s Bay cloven found itself in an impossible cricket position. The Manawatu association had gone out of its way to meet its engagements and although Hawke’s Bay had said it would be better were there no trophy to be competed for, it seemed very clear that Hawke’s Bay was very anxious to get hold of tho cup. The question of -whether any association should have the right to a second challenge before other associations could get in their first, should be cleared up once and for all. Manawatu had made no fewer than seven fixtures for March and all had lapsed except tho one against Nelson. On each occasion the players had to stand by.

It was decided to write the New Zealand council asking for a copy of the Hawke’s Bay application and to ask whether it had ever been before the council; and further, to point out that as a matter of courtesy, the Hawke’s Bay association might have sent a copy of the challenge to the Manawatu association. Exception is also to be taken to remarks approbrious of Manawatu contained in the letter of the chairman of the Hawke’s Bay council, to the New Zealand Council. Consideration was given to a suggestion that the Hawke’s Bay council should be definitely assured that in the telephonic communication between the secretaries of each council, Mr. Galliehan had not stated that Manawatu was prepared to play W-aiapu but not Hawke’s Bay. “As a matter of fact, Waiapu was not mentioned at all,’’ stated Mr. Gallichan. “I assured Mr MacLeod that the only reason was that we could not get a team together “with only 4S hours’ notice.’’ It, was finally decided not to write Hawke’s Bay but to mention the matter in the letter to the New Zealand council.