TOUR FIASCO.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20232, 16 February 1934, Page 11

TOUR FIASCO.

Australia’s Poor Treatment of New Zealand. RECIPROCITY ABSENT. (By W.'G.G.) It will be regretted by all sportsmen in the Dominion that the tour -of the Australian cricket team, which was to have commenced shortly, has been cancelled. Considering all things, the New Zealand Cricket Council probably adopted the best course out of what was fast becoming a very sericus problem. The cancellation of the. tour brings forward very prominently the question of reciprocity between Australia and the Dominion regarding sport, and in this connection it cannot be said that Australia comes out in too favourable a light. New Zealand's national game is Rugby football, while cricket predominates in Australia, and each place is in the top flight with their respective games. One has only to remember what happened at the termination of the Great War. Australia formed the A.I.R. cricket team, while New Zealand had its Army Rugby football team. Incidentally, some splendid exponents of both games were developed from the soldiers who had finished their fighting for the Empire. But when we turn to those who govern the two sports we find a marked difference of opinion regarding duty to the neighbouring country. New Zealand Rugby football has always helped that sport in Australia by regular!}' sending its best teams over in the hope of fostering the sport and at the same time financially assisting those across the Tasman Sea. The Board of Control of Australian cricket has not reciprocated as it should have done, and few of the best Australian cricket teams come to the Dominion. Surely this is not as it should be. If New Zealand’s best football teams tour Australia, there should be the “ quid pro quo ” from Australia in cricket. I recall a conversation with a high grade cricket authority when discussing this matter manv years ago in Sydney. Said he: “ Send your footballers here as often as 3*ou like. We want them-—but not your cricketers.” I replied: “ Send us your cricketers in return. We want them—but do not be so ready to send your footballers.’' Importance of 41 Gate.” Times have changed since that longago conversation, but, while New Zealand continues to send its best footballers' the Dominion has not been met in the same spirit by those who control cricket in Australia. The great god “ Gate ” plays all too important a part in both games. .The public has been so educated nowadays that it wants the best in all branches of sport, and little interest is taken in games contested by inferierr players. Therefore Australia wants New Zealand’s footballers and not its cricketers, while New Zealand wants Australian cricketers in preference to its footballers. This should be realised by those controlling both games. I can see no reason at all why the Australian cricketers who are shortly to tour England cannot tour the Dominion prior to departure; in fact, it should be a part of the tour if the Board of Control were thoroughly alive to its dxities and responsibilities. Next year the New Zealand Rugby Union has to send its team to England. There is little doubt but that Australia will want to see that team, and the governing body here has never refused to send its team. It is to be hoped that the fiasco of the Australian cricket tour of the Dominion this season will be the means of drawing more attention to the necessity of more reciprocity in sport. i ! j | i