THE OPEN LETTER

Southland Times, Issue 19257, 22 June 1921, Page 5

THE OPEN LETTER

COACHING AND SELECTORS REPLY BY MR STEAD To Sporting Editor. Sir, —In your sporting columns of June 18th appears a letter to the president S.R. F.U. over the signature “Anti-Club,” enumerating chiefly, cogent and plausible reasoM why they should kick the selectors out of office and, as chairman of the much-di>-cussed trio, I think, Sir, I am justified in asking space to combat much of what has been alleged. In entering into this correspondence I feel that I commit no breach of etiquette after the contemptible action of some member of S.R.F.U. coaching committee, for much in “Anti-Club’s” letter is merely the digest of discussions between selectors and committee (and which was supposed to be confidential) at a round table talk during the week. “A-C.” at the outset takes for granted that my confreres, Messrs Purdue and Jenkins, were antagonistic to the appointmentof a coach, but he does not imagine that I also was against it, although S.R.F.U. affirm the fact that it was on my recommendation that it took effect. Now, my opinion waa • hat the money would be better distributed pro rata among the clubs, but that, if they were bent on it, E. Booth was the best maa I knew of. As chairman I have never had any communication from S.R.F.U. as to his schedule of duties or itinerary, nor even that there was such a body as a Coaching Committee to adjust his work—and ouris too, evidently. I admit that I am disappointed with his results, as far as I have seen, and I fully appreciate his difficulties when he has not the whole-hearted support of the clubs, although “A.-C.” is wrong in supposing that we have placed obstacles in his path. Though we are old comrades he has never offered a suggestion nor have I volunteered an opinion. I have simply been watching for results, but it came as a bomb-ehell when we were firmly told by the Coaching Committee that we were to be advised by him in our selection of a team and that such team was to be practically placed in his hands. That, Sir, is our position when “A.-C.” burets into the limelight and wants us beheaded. (1) To obtain outride knowledge of the finer points of the game so as to bring Southland up-to-date, or, in other words, to secure a stranger to these parts to impart to our players things that are common knowledge in more successful centres. Does “A.C.” suggest that winning the Shield was a fluke? (2) To make available the services of a trainer able to give time to the preparation of players and acquainted with the latest methods of fitting men to the requirements of the game under the rules in force in 1921. Is there really any more physical fitness required .than last year. You will note that both these queries are “A.-C.’s” excuse for the appointment. Then “A.C.” proceede in the following twothirds of a column to abuse the selectors for the non success of the coach, you cannot take anything else out of it. (4) Was not the list of 47 players put before the Rugby Union as the Selectors’ list another flagrant example of defiance of instructions? (5) Was not the list limited to thirty names and does not this selection of forty-seven players suggest that the Selectors are trying to “put one” on to the Union and its coach?

(6) Was not this disobedience peculiar after the assurance given at Monday’s meeting by the Selectors that they would work in with the coach?

(7) Did they consult the coach as promised*. (8) Is it not a fact that the list waa presented on a soiled piece of paper, with some names in ink and some in pensil, unsigned, and with many players designated by their nicknames, and was not that an insult to the Management Committee?

Questions 4 to 8 all relate to a bit of dirty paper with 47 names, some in ink and etc. Let me tell “A.-C.” that the S.R.F.U. have not so far extended to us the courtesy of typing our letters and we will need no typewriter to make distinct the names of the men we hope to pick to hold the Shield. After all that will be more interesting to the players and public than this business. Questions 1,2, 3, 10 and 11 all seek for our final obliteration at the hands of the S.R.F.U., but did it never strike the coterie who are hand in glove with “A.-C.” that we are elected by the delegates, that is, the players, not by the S.R.F.U., so that his letter is addressed to the wrong party. And in conclusion, rir, may I ask if it is a fact that last week efforts were made by the representative of one club to influence the selection of a referee for a match in which great interest is being taken.

Surely it should appeal to any sport that an official of the Pirates F.C. should not have been appointed for their match with the Star. An official of the Referees’ Association, when approached by one who has a close Interest in “A.-C.’s” letter on thia matter, assured the enquirer that the gentleman named had “clean hands” in the matter and yet in goes the base insinuation. Now, Sir, in i perhaps laudable desire to use your columns for the advancement and interest of football you have introduced a propaganda against the selectors which is almost worthy of the Germans in its journalistic cunning. Although I know the identity of “Anti-Club” and have a shrewd suspicion of the men “behind the gun,” I cannot just define to what extent your sporting writer is “in the band,” or whether it is natural wit that, for instance, discovers the humour than can be extracted from a dirty piece of paper with the peculiar names “Wampy” and “Tiddler” inscribed (not typed) thereon. Abo that there is a new Selector-General for 1921 waiting to be dissected whenever there is space to let. The little paragraph thrusts anent J. Dalgleish “in his proper place, etc.” Haslett playing too deep . aftermaths of last year’s paper controversy are duly recogn*Now, Sir, don’t you think we could do with less limelight—we three “ghosts of a dismal past.” We get quite enough standing in the line of vision down at the Park. Don’t encourage i V correspondent who “wants us kicked c Jt.” We like the job—it’s a good kill-tim and it makes us popular. Send alon- & particularly vociferous “wag” to interview us personally and that will always be one letter less and incidently more real news. Unless the players see eye-to-eye with “A.-C.” we clay feet are out to do our duty to the province juM a« keenly to when we wore the boots, to pick and help train men who, like ourselves, will be real triers. We do not* consider we have deserved the newspaper criticism hurled at us nor have we earned the title of insubordinates to a body who realb never appointed us.—l am, etc., J. W. STEAD, Chairman Selectors. JuneCO. P S.—Messrs Purdue and Jenkins are •! (he same mind as myself in this matter. (*We have inserted the word “not” which does not appear in Mr Stead’s manuscript, because we think the context shows that its omission was an oversight.—Ed S.T.) _____