Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

SMAD. An Organ of Student Opinion. 1936. Volume 7. Number 2.

Correspondence

page 3

Correspondence

The Tennis Club

Sir,—

Whilst not wishing to mar the early issues of "Smad" with adverse criticism of any College committee, I feel that a few suggestions of practical improvements applicable to the University tennis club would not be amiss.

Firstly, there is the glaring fault of the non-regulation of periods of play by any member of the committee. A club rule states that no singles, except matches, shall be played whilst other players wait on the level of the courts. I have repeatedly seen, on week nights, the "top-notchers" play set after set whilst others wait. Also, more attention could be paid to Saturday afternoon tennis. At crowded timesa "book" will be run; the "top-notchers" again playing with each other repeatedly all afternoon and leaving the "rabbits" -mostly freshers not personally known to the high executives-to play amongst themselves, giving them no opportunity to mix with better players and improve their game. Here again an improvement suggests itself-could not tuition be arranged for the weaker ones who wish to improve their strokes?

In conclusion I would like to say a word about the interclub matches played each Saturday, for which the University club enters several teams. Whilst not doubting the prowess of those players who perpetually bask in the light of the selective committee's choice, could not the choice of teams be strictly a matter of ladder position? Those on the ladder being unavailable or having no desire to play not being considered. This system is very successful in the other Wellington clubs, which have a higher percentage of success than our own club in which priority is given to players not on the ladder over those who desire to play "interclub." The vulgar might say that a place in a Varsity team depends upon one's good looks rather than on one's ability to play.

Yours, etc.,

G.K.

President Misrepresented

Dear "Smad,"—

I noticed in the last issue of your paper an article reporting the supper given by the Management of Weir House to those residents who, for various reasons were leaving. This report, I regret to say, misrepresents the speech I made on that occasion, as it reads as if I categorically stated that Weir House would be a failure in 1936 owing to the departure of the older members, of whom I was one. Such an attitude would be an extremely conceited one and I am hoping that you will publish this letter in order to make clear the sentiments actually expressed. What I really did say was that with the annual eviction of the older residents in the past the House actually had diminished in usefulness to the College and if the present policy is continued then, owing to the lack of experience amongst those remaining in residence, Weir could not be expected to play its full part in College life. I implied that 1936 would be a leaner year, but did not by any means suggest that this House would prove a failure this year.

As a matter of fact the speech was made before the bulk of the new residents arrived, and after a cursory survey of the new material I have no hesitation in saying that if the new members pull together and can find leaders-either in the House or outside-to replace those whom the short-sighted policy of the Management Committee has required to leave, 1936 will not by any means be a lean year, but may well be an even more successful period than the palmy days of 1933 and 1934.

M. Mason. Retiring President.

(The Editor, "Smad.")

Resurgam.

Sir,—

Hear the cry of the pewking babes!

While deploring the loss of our patriarchs, and patri-familiarasses, we nevertheless feel it incumbent on us to deprecate their remarks as regards the infantile conditions at Weir House.

We have it on good authority that, "the freshers in the House are an excellent body of young men who will be a shining light and a guide to older residents."

Owing to the departure of our hoary vigintiduodenarians, we regret that there are no more comic papers left in the House. Such favourites as the "Soupanam," a paper for sex-starved adolescents embodying the humorous adventures of a medical man in search of love, and the "Roburian"—to name only two-are nowmissing-no doubt owing to the departure of those responsible for their subject matter and publication.

Woe! Woe! Our men are gone! They have dispensed with the long flowing robes of babyhood, and gone into knickerbockers and rompers. This is evidenced by the remarks in the boyish outburst, entitled "Ave Atque Vale." It quite reminds us of "Eric," or "Little by Little."

Be good little boys! Now you have gone from the sheltering precinctsof Weir House into the hard cold world. Remember not to expectorate onpavements, and always, give up your seat to a lady. You are growing to be big boys now, and you ought to know better.

And, if there are any points as regards morals, manners, or matters of personal hygiene about which you are ignorant, please apply for information to the Babes James of Weir House. Though, of course, we should regard you with scorn-for you are not as other men-but nati incertis patribus.

Yours, etc.,

P. Te P.