REP. TEAM CRITICS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16819, 23 August 1922, Page 8

REP. TEAM CRITICS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, -As another resident of the province of Canterbury I agree with “ E.IT." Selector® have tried half-backs three-quarter backs, and all sorts of hacks except in places they usually play in. As far as last Saturday’s game is cwicerned 1 differ with “ E.H.” appertaining to H. Mullins, as he was not a star artist at tackling. The whole weakness of Canterbury was the backs’ had tackling. It was only a matter of the opposition having the ball to make even money of a score. Tacklers are what we require, and why the poor selectors left Guiney out i« beyond the comprehension of any ordinary followers of football. They have 'dropped Calder, but they still stick to Died rich, who in my opinion can’t hold a candle to Guiney. Brown was first favourite with selectors to start with, yet now, when starving for centre and wing three-quarters they will not put him in his proper place. As for full back why not try Brosnahaji if you can’t have Orchard ! Brosnahan is versatile, though he is not a good tackier, hut outside of that he takes a ball well, kicks well and seizes opportunities. As lor the picking of backs by “ E.H.” why put Mullins full hack? The rest f thoroughly agyee with. As a last tip. why not Peter Harvey as one selector, or else the hard-to-get-at man Doddy Grey—l am, etc., ENTHUSIAST.