Sir,—May I point out that the athletes who were in such "hopeless condition" against the Australian Universities' team at Hataitai Park may have performed somewhat better than your sports writer would have us believe.

First, during that same meeting, individuals amongst the Vic. representatives managed to jump a distance that would have gained a third place at the national championships, defeat the present Wellington centre 120yds. hurdles champion, throw the javelin far enough to have been placed at the centre championships and run well enough to equal or better interfaculty records over 100, 200 and 440 yards. Among the lesser lights at the meeting were three other competitors who, along with some of those mentioned already, had performed sufficiently well over the summer months to merit inclusion in a list of the season's best performances by Wellington athletes. The athletic critic who compiled the list gave third ranking to the three in the discus, 220 yards hurdles, and one and three mile events and remarked that "University were the outstanding club, gaining 12 out of the 50 placings in the lists and figuring in more than half the events."

A week later virtually the same competitors travelled to Christchurch where, in spite of their apparently hopeless condition, they gained four firsts, four seconds, and two thirds. On the Easter Monday five of them were among the seventeen selected to represent N.Z.U. against the Australians, and a further two were included in the North Island medley relay team.

Secondly, I would like to comment on his remarks concerning the performances of two of the Vic. representatives in particular. In mentioning the 880 yards I trust the very high standard of the opposition was borne in mind. A. A. C. Blue, the Australian, had been placed fourth in the Australian championships a short time previously, while R. Anderson, the Wellington centre runner, is present junior N.Z. titleholder in this event. Against such national class opposition the efforts of the average club runner will obviously fade in comparison. One can only applaud the very determined efforts made by F. Walkley to foot it with such opponents.

I was rather relieved to find that at least one runner, R. Irwin, was "a possible exception" to the general sad state of University athletics, although even here your writer was obviously reluctant to make concessions. To ease the latter's mind may I make brief mention of Irwin's record during the '57-'58 season. A first in the centre quartermile (he bettered the Wellington record), sixth place at the nationals (the first time all six finalists had broken 50secs. to qualify), second in the N.Z.U. event and a member of the N.Z.U. 4 x 440 relay team which broke the New Zealand record.

May I suggest that while clubs appreciate any publicity, favourable or adverse, received in these columns at least let it be accurate. If your sports writer cannot attend the meeting he wishes to comment on let him ascertain the facts before he writes, and if he does attend and knows little about athletics I am sure club officials would only be too glad to provide him with the material he needs.

Finally, may I follow your writer's lead and close with a quote, the words of a modern psychologist: "Every . . . man is a genius at something as well as an idiot at something. It remains to discover what. . . ." Your sports writer, at anyrate, appears to have solved part of the problem.

Reply:

First I must express gratitude for your criticism of the review, short though it was, of the visit of the Australian athletes. Often a sports writer feels that at Victoria the interest is not in the achievements of our members as members of the university but as individuals. However, I must point out that your criticism is for the most part quite invalid.

Firstly, we should keep in mind that it is a review of one day's activity and so only the results of that day will concern us. That is to say, that even though there may have been in the team some very competent performers it is only their performances on the actual day that we are to appraise. Also, it would be appropriate if I mentioned here that I was present on that day.

Secondly my criticism of F. Walkey. I think that I, personally, am in a better position to judge his performance than most, having run against him and seen a lot of his competitive running since 1951. It was by this standard that I felt that I could judge him as harshly as I did.

As far as R. Irwin is concerned I rather suspect that you were in such a frame of mind at reading the review that you had come, quite naturally I grant you, to think that I could not say anything good about members of that team. This was, however, not the case but as I was interested in the team as a whole I did not single out persons for praise as this had been done quite adequately by the daily papers. It was rather to give students an overall picture of performance by the Victoria team.

One would suppose, in the light of Mr. Joyce's letter that Victoria had a very high standard of athletics but this seems to be contradicted by the fact that at 1956, 1957, 1958 Easter tournaments Victoria has always been in last place. It is for that reason as well as those that I have set out that I think that Mr. Joyce has little basis in fact for his outburst.

Sports Editor.