"NOT UNDERSTOOD?"

NZ Truth, Issue 878, 23 September 1922, Page 7

"NOT UNDERSTOOD?"

— : — —♦— A COBCROFT, CRITICISM CRITICISED. Advocacy of Reforms. H. C. Watson writes m reply to comment by L. T. Cobcroft m >*<jt week's issue: —

It was with much surprise that I read m your cricket column of September 16th a criticism by your cricket expert (Mr. L. T- Cobcroft) of a report furnished by me to the Wellington Cricket Association. I was surprised not only at the tone of Mr. ' Cobcro'ft's article but also at the fact that m every line ..of the criti-^ cism I was misrepresented. The statement by Mr. Cobcroft that he cannot understand some of the reforms I advocate probably explains the whole of the ' mistakes made by Mr. Cobcroft m his misconstruction of the sense of my report. Had I anticipated that Mr. Cobcroft would honour me with his attention I would certainly have been more explicit m my phraseology. The report was written on cricket for cricketers and I believe that the association's committee had no difficulty m understanding perfectly my meaning. Had Mr. Cobcroft taken the trouble to inquire into anything about which he was m doubt he would have found no difficulty m his way. Now, Sir, after mentioning that he does not understand some of the reforms I advocate, Mr. Cobcroft proceeds to eulogise the selector. By so doing, I take it, he implies that I have, m my report, criticised m some way the action ' or the opinions of the selector. I have shown my report to Mr. McKenzie personally, and he assured me that there was nothing . therein to which he could take exceptio v n. I may state here, emphatically, that I had no intention and no idea of criticising the selector m any possible way. After his remarks anent Mr- McKenzie, remarks with which I along with every other cricketer m Wellington entirely agree, Mr. Cobcroft proceeds to do the very thing of which he is accusing me, i.c„ to* criticise the selector. According to Mr. Cobcroft,. "he (Mr, McKenzie),, however, made an error of judgment m selecting .such a large number as twentytwo'players to" practise," etc. I myself, .merely pointed out that one net was not enough to accommodate so many players. Again, it is stated by your writer: "Mr- Watson states he was handicapped by not being able to give the team the proper and necessary fielding practice they required." Yet, m the very next sentence, he complains of only having one net. Surely he did not want extra nets to give the players their proper\turn m the field? This, surely, must be some attempt at humour on Mr. Cobcroft's part, or is it that again' I have not made my meaning plain enough? To my reference to players missing their turn with the bat, Mr. Cobcroft remarks: "Can you wonder when so many were chosen?" Another criticism of the selector! Mr. Cobcroft then goes on to say: '"Another point I take exception to is; the advocating of the purchase of a machine for slip-catching practice. This should not be tolerated for a moment by the association. I am quite conversant with the fact that these machines 'are used to a minor extent m England, but it did not seem to help England m the Test matches a great deal. In the, writer's opinion slip machines encourage a cricketer to be sluggish and., lazy." In regard to that I merely wish to state that iri the .first place 7 1 did 7 not adocate the purchase of a machine. I merely suggested it might be done. In the second place, if this, machine is only used to a minor extent .m England, then '• it •is easily seen,-' that it ■ could not .help England very much iri the Test matches. I would like to suggest here .that Mr. Cobcroft has been m the Wairarapa. for ten year or- so and perhaps he is not as up-to-date with his ideas, as he might be. In -any 'case; I will undertake to construct a catching machine (which, by. the ., way, is not a machine at all, but only called such for want of a better name), and I will guarantee' that if Mr. Cobcroft, as a cricketer, will agree to try ii; out he will be kept from being either either sluggish or lazy. Mr. .Cobcroft is not sure of his .facts when he states: "Mr. Watson says that bad fielding m the slips was responsible for Wellington being beaten m one or two interprovincial games last year." The- report reads: "This department (fielding), was the principal weakness, to my mind, m the Otago and Canterbury matches-" Now, .Sir; please note that ther y e is no mention of slip-catching m this portion of my report, and I would also draw Mr. Cobcroft's attention to the fact that Wellington won both thematches m question. • After further advice to the association and to the selector — which, to my mind, is rather premature, and, m any case, contains nothing new m the way of ideas— Mr. Cobcroft says': 'Last, but not least, the practice captain complains about the state of the wicket set apart for the representative practice on the Basin Reserve." Now, Sir, this sentence is the one to which I take most exception. Mr. Brewer, the custodian at the Basin Reserve, has no more ardent admirerthan myself. I have more than a mere acquaintance of cricket grounds and pitches 'and know, what difficulties a groundsman has to contend With:.. The paragraph m my report referring to wickets merely, suggests : "That earlier arrangements should be made for the practice wickets, thereby enabling the custodian to prepare better pitches than if the request is left to a few days before tho wickets' are required." I have shown my report to Mr- Brewer also, and he is perfectly satisfied that there is no intention on my part to criticise. In conclusion, I would just like to say that I would have welcomed any criticism from Mr. Cobcroft. Had that > criticism been constructive. It is an easy matter to pull things to pieces, «md I suggest that • Mr. ; Cobcroft's