NEW ZEALAND CRICKET.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17752, 11 April 1921, Page 6

NEW ZEALAND CRICKET.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT? AUSTRALIAN'S COMMENTS. New Zealand cricket is discussed in the Wellington press by Mr. Percival R. Waddy, a member of the Australian team which has just toured the Dominion. Under the heading, " What is Wrong with New Zealand Cricket?" he says :— "The triumphal tour through New Zealand of a team of cricketers from Australia, culminating in the disastrous defeat of this Dominion's representative eleven, provides ample food for thought. The absolute inferiority of the New Zealand cricketer as compared with the Australian wielder of the willow is more accentuated by the fact that the 'victorious visitors were merely a third-class team of Australians, inasmuch as Australia's representative team is now on the water en route to England, and the best team from either of the States of New South Wales or Victoria would in all probability prove superior in a test of strength to the Australian team which has just toured New Zealand. " It is futile to contend that New Zealand does not take cricket seriously; those who play—or attempt to play—and those who follow cricket take it seriously enough, and the teams which met their defeat at the hands of the Australians did not do so from choice. They tried to win and—failed ignominiously. There was and is something essential to the qualifications of a cricketer —possessed by the Australian —which the New Zealander lacks. Is it physique, stamina, pluck, moral courage in a crisis? Some deficiency there must be, and, unless the New Zealander is prepared to complacently admit tbafo he is inferior in some respects to the Australian, it behoves all lovers of cricket in this country to investigate and ascertain wherein that deficiency exists. "When Australia beat England's best England's cricket enthusiasts immediately set to work to ascertain the why and the wherefore with a view to a removal of the ignominy now staining their escutcheon. New Zealand's cricket enthusiasts should do the same, or hide their heads in shame at being inexplicably inferior to their Australian brothers in the field of sport. "It is not for me to act the part of a self-constituted critic and reconstructor of New Zealand's methods, hut, as an old cricketer, practically born and bred in the cricket field, I may be permitted to make a few pertinent comments apropos of the cricketing situation in this Dominion- > The Division of Grades. 9

"In the first place, -the division into | junior and senior grade cricket is purely arbitrary, the senior clubs even being re- j stricted to a number which is arbitrarily fixed, no provision being made for an extension where merit would prompt such action. Why not 16 senior clubs, if that number act up to the standard? Again, many men play junior cricket long after £heir cricketing ability justifies their promotion to senior rank, while as many remain in senior ranks who ought to revert to junior rank or retire. Such manifest anomalies kill cricket, but the cricket powers here are conservative to the backbone, and brook no interference with a custom which has subsisted from a time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. "There is material here, I admit, but it is in its crude state; it wants pulverising, cutting, grinding, and polishing before it can claim co-ordinate rank with the finished .product of either England or Australia. There exists no conceivable reason why it should not go through the process and emerge with eclat. One cannot learn anything worth knowing without steady perseverance, and the noble game of cricket is no exception to the" rule. _ Value of Coaching. " One or two competent coaches would work wonders in a very short space of time, and, if the sporting instinct in New Zealand is deep-seated, no time would be lost in taking the necessary steps ,to remove New Zealand cricket "from the ruck and place it on a par with the game across the Tasman. Eleven of the best individual players in the world, placed together in the cricket field without a proper general, well acquainted with the technique and the finer points of the game, would be little better than a mob. Generalship at a critical stage has won more games than the brQliant play of individuals. Therein New Zealand signally fails. Why? Because the New Zeal aimer's mind does not rise to the necessity of studying the game scientifically, "and thereafter practising it from reveille to lights out. ■*' In conclusion, let me add a comment anent the umpires and umpiring conditions. The establishment of the Umpires' Association was a step in the right direction—m theory; in practice it was a failure. Practically two gentlemen held the reins in their hands throughout, the rank and file having no voice in the selection or allocation of umpires whatever. The actual selection was to all intents and purposes throughout the season invariably left in the hands of the president of the association. Competent umpires were frequently found engaged in junior matches, while less capable men were allocated to matches of greater importance. This resalted in considerable dissatisfaction with some of the extraordinary decisions, notably those relative to 1.b.w., -which practically spoilt more than one of the senior grade matches last season."