BASKETBALL REPS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 10894, 20 August 1932, Page 2

BASKETBALL REPS.

To the Editor. Sir, —I have read the selectors’ letter in Thursday’s paper, and your Basketball Rep.’s comment thereon with much interest, and because I agree with your special writer’s views, I won’t go further than say that all basketball enthusiasts -in Temuka and district will •be amazed if A iss Prattley is omitted from any furtiier junior representative fixtures this year. There are other aspects of the letter that I would like to discuss. Both signatories to Saturday s letter are “in accord with the quo: a from Temuka included in the South Canterbury team.” So that’s their idea—choosing reps, by quota? Well, that’s not mine, nor anyone else's who understands sport properly. Representatives are not chosen by quota, but by merit and ability. It matters not where the best players are—whether they belong to Temuka. Timaru, or Waimate—so long as the very best performers are chosen irrespective of their association. That’s what really matters. In this respect, I concur with others that on the showing of the Temuka senior representative team against Timaru, there were players in the local team not chosen for Invercargill who outshone those who were selected, and who should have been awarded South Canterbury representative honours. Further, if the selectors were consistent, they should have chosen the junior representatives by quota; in which case, maybe, Milford would have predominated in the representation. The selectors say “the fact that the junior representatives were defeated by a club team goes for nothing,” and quote in support of their contention that outstanding teams of All Black footballers have been beaten by provincial teams before leaving New Zealand. The argument is weaker than twice-skimmed milk, because it is well known that the All Blacks never extend themselves in such matches (for fear that injury might lose them a trip), and that the games were arranged more to give the tourers a preliminary run together. In Saturday’s match the representative team had played together and were, except in the case of Miss Kelberg. by no means strangers to each other’s play. Therefore, the selectors’ argument goes for nothing. One appreciates the fact that the letter was written in defence of, or rather in explanation of, the position from the selectors’ viewpoint, but there must he many of your readers who, like myself, are disappointed in the childish tone of the last sentence. Anyway, I cannot recall any occasion on which the Association has publicly expressed any opinion on the matter. The criticism that has been made has come from people interested in- the game, and as selectors, they should be prepared to face it.—l am, etc., “NOT A REP.”