CORRESPONDENCE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18187, 21 June 1927, Page 9

CORRESPONDENCE.

SOCCER REPS. To the Editor. Sir, —T quite agree with your correspondent regarding the lack of training and coaching of the Canterbury Soccer team. It was indeed a deplorable exhibition. I contend that a team can be picked in New Zealand to beat this Canadian team, providing they get the proper coaching. The Australian team that visited New Zealand two or three years ago was considered by some experts to be unbeatable. Canterbury was the only provincial team that lowered their colours, and this was mainly due to the fact that a first-class trainer and coach was engaged several weeks before the match. Could not the C.F.A. have procured the services of the same person for this game? Anyhow, I sincerely hope that the N.Z.F.A. will try and secure his services for the coming representative match in Christchurch — that is, if he is still available.—l am, etc., YORK. PRICES TOO HIGH FOR PROVINCIAL MATCH. To the Editor. Sir,—As a spectator at last Saturday’s match I would like to add my whole-hearted approval to all that “Onkus Orkus” says in his letter which appears in to-night’s “Star.” Before the match we were led to believe, per medium of the newspapers, that the Canadians, if not on the eve of another defeat, were at least going to have a most strenuous time getting their match-winning record into order again. The less said of the debacle—for such it was—the better. Quite a few were disgusted and many spectators left at half-time or soon after, myself included. I am sure everybody would have risked cold feet if Canterbury had been making any sort of a showing against an admittedly great team. The responsibility for that lies at the feet of not only the selector, but the committee as well. First off, a team was selected and shoved straight on to the field without any preliminary canter. The committee waste a Saturday playing a futile Yorkshire v. Lancashire match, instead of getting the Canterbury eleven together and pla}dng them against, say, Timaru or Ashburton, or what’s wrong with Canterbury v. the Rest? Saturday's team, poor as it was, would undoubtedly have put up a better fight if they had had a game together before the matchl Surely if the authorities wanted to popularise the game in Christchurch they went about it the wrong way on Saturday by raising the prices of admission. Anyone wouldn’t mind paying extra to see the test match, but for a provincial match it was a bit over the odds. No doubt the expenses of the tour loomed large through the spectacles of the committee, but if they want the support of the public, which 1 presume they do, they will have to put on the best possible attractions at reasonable prices. Hoping that the test match on July 2 will regain some of the esteem of the public which was lost as a result of Saturday’s inglorious display,—l am, etc., DISGUSTED. STANDARD OF PLAY MUST BE RAISED. To the Editor. Sir,—Well, the Canadians have come, seen and conquered. We know now that they are far superior in skill to the best that Canterbury could put in the field. Non-partisans of the Soccer code who attended the match at English Park on Saturday last must have gone away thoroughly disgusted with the football exhibited by the Canterbury team, and, I feel sure, will take a lot of persuasion to attend- another match at the same price after witnessing such a feeble display. Before the match some of the local Soccer enthusiasts tried to make us believe that Canterbury would give the Canadians a good fight; in fact, they were confident it would be a great go. How little they knew about the game. In fact, they expected the score against them less even than that made against Buffer or West Coast, which has been the lowest up to that date. llow these were confuted by the result on Saturday's match at English Park you probably all know. It took the Canadians on Saturday about three minutes to score their first goal, and finally defeated our Canterbury representatives by six goals to nil, and it was clear enough that it might well have been half a dozen more. Now, for the sake of the good old game in Canterbury, let us hope that something will be done to raise the standard of our play before the F.A. trophy matches are played in Canterbury, that is, if we wish to get anything like decent gates; for our standard of play must be reckoned by our achievements, and if that is so, the standard of play in Canterbury at the present time must be very low indeed, if Saturday’s display was any criterion. —I am, et£., ONE OF THE CROWD. LEAGUE-UNION PROPOSAL. To the Editor. Sir,—lf the Canterbury Rugby League are offended at the Citizens’ Unemployment Committee regarding their Rugby League-Rugby Union match proposal as a joke, they are the most humourless collection of persons I have noticed for a week or two. If they know anything about the history of their own game the League people should know that it is a professional sport, whether or not players in New Zealand are paid for playing. To ask amateur Union players to play in a match against players of the League game is to ask them to commit suicide as amateurs. The proposition is ridiculous and impracticable, and the League people should know it. My own opinion is that they do know it, and make their annual proposition merely to lead ignorant people to the belief that the Rugby Union is afraid that the League might win such a game as is suggested. At least, several illinformed League supporters have told me that that is why the Union won’t touch the proposition.—l am ,etc., RUGBY.