Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Canterbury Reps.

Dear Sir, —I am partly in agreement with “ Leg Trap's" letter in Saturday's issue in regard to the Canterbury wicket-keeper in the team to play Otago this month. Where I don’t agree is that I consider Jackman a far superior keeper to either Allen or Burns on this year's form, and he (Jackman) should have been in our side against Wellington and Auckland. 1 have seen the three in action quite a lot this year, and, in mv opinion, Jackman stands out alone, ftis worth being firstclass. Why he should get a place in the South Island team, and do well, and then be unable to gain Canterbury honours is a mystery to me. Perhaps the selector can answer the question. It is evident that the Canterbury selector did not want Jackman for the South team, as he is apparently not good enough for Canterbury, but it would appear that his co-selectors know a good man when they see one.—l am, etc., STUMPED.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS19350211.2.157

Bibliographic details

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20536, 11 February 1935, Page 13

Word Count
165

Canterbury Reps. Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20536, 11 February 1935, Page 13

Canterbury Reps. Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20536, 11 February 1935, Page 13