2003 MacRobertson Shield Results

1 - 15 November 2003

Palm Beach, Florida


The following results are from Jeff Soo.

Australia v. New Zealand: Australia wins 15-6

Australia names first
 Fleming and Clarke beat Garrison and Bulloch 12, 12
 Bassett and Hockey beat Prince and Wislang 26tp (B), 2
 Forster and Meatheringham beat Bryant and Parkinson 17tp (F), 26tp (F)
 Bassett beat Prince 8tp, 26tp
 Fleming beat Garrison -10, 17tp, 8
 M. Clarke beat Wislang -3, 4tp, 6
 Hockey lost to Bryant -14, -17tp
 Forster beat Parkinson 17, -17, 26
 Meatheringham lost to Bulloch -21, -26
 Fleming and M. Clarke lost to Prince and Wislang -25tp (W), -17
 Bassett and Hockey beat Bryant and Parkinson 16tp (H), -13, 17tp (B)
 Forster and Meatheringham beat Garrison and Bulloch 26tp (F), -2, 25
 Bassett beat Garrison 17tp, 26tp
 Fleming beat Prince 17tp, 14tp
 Clarke beat Bryant 5, 26
 Hockey beat Wislang 17tp, -17, 26
 Forster lost to Bulloch -25, -14
 Meatheringham lost to Parkinson -26tp, -23tp
 Fleming and M. Clarke beat Bryant and Parkinson 17, 13
 Bassett and Hockey beat Garrison and Bulloch 4tp (H), -26tp (G), 5tp (H)
 Forster and Meatheringham lost to Prince and Wislang -26tp (P), -18

Great Britain v. United States: Great Britain wins 15-6

Great Britain names first
 Maugham and Avery beat Stark and Taves 23, 3
 Burrow and Mulliner lost to Fournier and Drake -26tp (F), -7
 Clarke and Fulford beat Louw and Rosenberry 26tp (F), 2
 Maugham and Avery beat Fournier and Drake 2, -11otp (M), 23
 Burrow and Mulliner beat Louw and Rosenberry 25tp (M), 12tpo (M)
 C. Clarke and Fulford lost to Stark and Taves 13tpo (C), -26tp (S), -11tpo (T)
 Fulford beat Stark 9tpo, 26tp
 C. Clarke beat Fournier 15tp, 14
 Burrow beat Louw 17, 19
 Maugham beat Taves 19tp, 26tp
 Mulliner beat Rosenberry -25tp, 5, 17tp
 Avery beat Drake 26tp, 26tp
 Maugham and Avery beat Louw and Rosenberry 26tp (A), 19tp (A)
 Burrow and Mulliner lost to Stark and Taves -13, -4
 C. Clarke and Fulford beat Fournier and Drake 7, 24tp (C)
 Fulford beat Fournier 26tp, -19tp, 16sxp
 C. Clarke lost to Stark -25tp, 14, -17
 Burrow lost to Taves -1, 26tp, -26tp
 Maugham lost to Louw -17, -26
 Mulliner beat Drake 26tp, -26tp, 13tpo
 Avery beat Rosenberry 7tp, 21

Australia v. Great Britain: Great Britain wins 15-6

Australia names first
 Fleming and M. Clarke beat C. Clarke and Fulford 13otp (Fu), 17tp (Fl)
 Bassett and Hockey lost to Burrow and Mulliner -11, 15, -25tp (B)
 Forster and Meatheringham lost to Maugham and Avery -26tp (A), -25tp (A)
 Bassett lost to C. Clarke -26, -13tpo
 Fleming lost to Fulford -26tp, -9sxp
 M. Clarke lost to Maugham -12otp, -16tp
 Hockey beat Burrow -3, 17tp, 1otp
 Forster beat Avery 26, -17tp, 26
 Meatheringham lost to Mulliner -4, -25
 Fleming and M. Clarke beat Burrow and Mulliner 26tp (F), 16tp (F)
 Bassett and Hockey lost to Maugham and Avery -25, 26tp (B), -24tp (M)
 Forster and Meatheringham lost to C. Clarke and Fulford -24tp (C), -5tp (C)
 Bassett lost to Fulford -17, -13tpo
 Fleming lost to C. Clarke 26tp, -26tp, -15tp
 M. Clarke beat Burrow 25, 17
 Hockey lost to Maugham -12tpo, 24, -15stp
 Forster beat Mulliner 26tp, 16tp
 Meatheringham lost to Avery -25tp, -26tp
 Fleming and M. Clarke lost to Maugham and Avery -10, 26tp (F), -15
 Bassett and Hockey lost to C. Clarke and Fulford -24tp (C), -24tp (C)
 Forster and Meatheringham lost to Burrow and Mulliner -10tpo (M), -11


New Zealand v. United States: United States wins 12-9


New Zealand names first
 Prince and Wislang lost to Stark and Taves -3tp (T), 14otp (T), -13otp (P)
 Garrison and Bulloch lost to Louw and Rosenberry -26tp (R), -26tp (L)
 Bryant and Parkinson lost to Fournier and Drake 26tp (P), -1, -4
 Garrison and Bulloch beat Fournier and Drake 17, 2
 Bryant and Parkinson beat Stark and Taves 17, 26tp (B)
 Prince and Wislang lost to Louw and Rosenberry -17tp (L), 8tpo (P), -4
 Garrison lost to Taves -26tp, -5
 Prince lost to Stark -23tp, -26tp
 Bryant lost to Louw -26tp, -24tp
 Bulloch lost to Fournier -26tp, -7tp
 Wislang beat Rosenberry 17, -3, 23tp
 Parkinson beat Drake 25, 17
 Prince and Wislang lost to Fournier and Drake -26tp (F), -17tp (F)
 Garrison and Bulloch lost to Stark and Taves -15tp (S), -3
 Bryant and Parkinson beat Louw and Rosenberry 5, 20
 Garrison lost to Stark -25tp, 3, -26tp
 Prince beat Taves 26tp, -5, 11
 Bryant lost to Fournier -13tpo, -26tp
 Bulloch beat Louw 20, -16, 2
 Wislang beat Drake 10, 9tp
 Parkinson beat Rosenberry 17tp, -1tpo, 9tp


Australia v. United States: Australia wins 11-10


Australia names first
 Fleming and M. Clarke beat Louw and Rosenberry -10, 18tp (F), 25tp (F)
 Bassett and Hockey beat Fournier and Drake -26tp (F), 11, 14
 Forster and Meatheringham beat Stark and Taves 17, -1, 26stp (F)
 Bassett beat Fournier 26tp, 24tp
 Fleming beat Taves 26tp, 26tp
 M. Clarke lost to Louw -17, -13
 Hockey lost to Stark -25tp, 25tp, -2
 Forster beat Rosenberry 17tp, -17, 15
 Meatheringham lost to Drake -26tp, -12tp
 Fleming and M. Clarke beat Fournier and Drake 6tp (F), 26tp (F)
 Bassett and Hockey lost to Stark and Taves -25, 26tp (B), -25
 Forster and Meatheringham lost to Louw and Rosenberry 24, -14, -3
 Bassett beat Taves 26tp, -25tp, 10tp
 Fleming lost to Fournier -13, -26tp
 M. Clarke lost to Stark -26tp, -26stp
 Hockey beat Louw 25tp, 15tp
 Forster lost to Drake 16tp, -5, -25
 Meatheringham lost to Rosenberry -14, -7tp
 Fleming and M. Clarke beat Stark and Taves -26tp (S), 26, 17
 Bassett and Hockey beat Louw and Rosenberry 17tp (B), 25
 Forster and Meatheringham lost to Drake and Fournier 23tp (SF), -17, -26tp (JF)

Great Britain v. New Zealand: Great Britain wins 11-10

Great Britain names first
 Maugham and Avery lost to Garrison and Bulloch -25tp (G), -10otp (M)
 C. Clarke and Fulford lost to Prince and Wislang 23tp (C), -1, -26tp (P)
 Burrow and Mulliner beat Bryant and Parkinson 7otp (GB), 21tp (MB)
 Maugham and Avery beat Prince and Wislang 14tp (M), 4tpo (A)
 C. Clarke and Fulford beat Bryant and Parkinson 25tp (F), 12
 Burrow and Mulliner lost to Garrison and Bulloch -13, 1, -14
 Fulford beat Prince 24sxp, 26tp
 C. Clarke lost to Garrison -26tp, -17tp
 Burrow lost to Bulloch -26, -6
 Maugham beat Bryant 26tp, 12tp
 Mulliner beat Parkinson 17, 10tpo
 Avery beat Wislang 3tp, 5
 Avery and Maugham beat Bryant and Parkinson -26tp (B), 12tpo (M), 14
 C. Clarke and Fulford lost to Bulloch and Garrison -15, -15
 Burrow and Mulliner lost to Prince and Wislang -25, -17tp (W)
 Fulford lost to Garrison -20tp, -7
 C. Clarke lost to Prince -4otp, -17
 Burrow lost to Bryant -19tp, -2
 Maugham beat Bulloch -6tp, 26tp, 5tp
 Mulliner beat Wislang 26tp, 25tp
 Avery beat Parkinson 17tp, 10

MACROB COUNTRIES AND W.C.F. DISPUTE FUTURE OF WORLD TEAMS


Aligning the separate agendas of the MacRobertson Shield countries and the World Croquet Federation is likely to be a difficult task, as the MacRobertson representatives' proposals draw a pointed retort from WCF president Fred Rogerson.


Representatives of the four MacRobertson Shield Countries met at Chelteham during the 1996 MacRobertson Shield Test Series which ended there on July 4th, to discuss proposals prepared by the croquet associations of England and Australia aimed at making the MacRobertson the officially recognized world team championship.

While the WCF's explicit goal has been to promote croquet worldwide by having the broadest possible representation, the consensus of the MacRoberton teams' representatives favors limiting the final competition in a "world team championship" to a maximum of four countries with 6 players each (as the most recent Macrobertson Shield was configured), but with a shorter duration than the 1996 three-weeks-long marathon.

GIVING THE WEAKER COUNTRIES A CHANCE TO COMPETE

To give emerging croquet countries a chance to qualify, some of the MacRobertson representatives suggested that a qualifying competition might be held alongside each MacRobertson Shield competition. Unresolved was the question of whether the weakest team - currently the United States - could be challenged before the next MacRobertson in New Zealand in the year 2000, or whether a "qualifying competition" held concurrently with the Test Series could produce a challenger to "face off" with the weakest team in the year 2000 to determine the fourth place for the following MacRobertson series.

The group, in the report of their meeting, expressed their willingness to devise a format that would allow all countries to genuinely compete for a place in the final Test Series, but "without compromising the standard of the event."

The issue of "composite teams" comprised of more than one member organization of the WCF also consumed discussion time. There are several separate member organizations of the WCF representing segments of the British Isles (the most important being England, Scotland, and Wales), which are considered all one unit for the purposes of MacRobertson Shield team selection. If the MacRobertson is to be declared the official world team championship of the WCF, all the constituent members would, presumably, be eligible to field a team. Unless some new and special rules are made to prevent it, conceivably Wales - for example- could displace the United States as the fourth MacRobertson team. This is an eventuality almost everyone would prefer to avoid.

THE PRICE TAG IS TOO HIGH, SAY MACROB REPS

The thorniest issue, however, is one of finances. The World Croquet Federation is asking for a licence fee of 20,000 pounds in exchange for granting the MacRobertson Shield official and exclusive rights to the "World Team Championship", while the MacRobertson representatives are suggesting that this recognition should be given freely - because, they say, the MacRobertson is already the world team championship in fact, though not in name.

The financial aspect of the discussions has particularly drawn the ire of WCF president Fred Rogerson, who commented at length in his column in the July issue of WORLD CROQUET, the newsletter of the WCF.

"It appears from the report of their meeting," Rogerson says, 'that the MacRobertson Shield countries want to: take the 'World Team Championship' title from the WCF; dictate when and where the Championships can be played, the size of teams, and the format of the matches; dictate whether or not two or more WCF members can enter as one team; hold the rights to the title; pay the WCF not a single penny; not allow the minor countries to enter; and effectively prohibit a truly worldwide competition.

ROGERSON HOLDS HIS GROUND ON FINANCES

"This does nothing to improve world croquet from its present position," Rogerson continues, "whilst taking away the WCF's most valuable asset - a "World Title" - which we insist should not be sold for less than $20,000 in the case of a Singles event."

In the Commonwealth countries, recognition by the acknowledged world organizing body - in this instance, the World Croquet Federation - is not simply an honorary gesture; such recognition carries with it a much increased level of funding from governments who support their teams as a matter of national policy and native pride. (The United States is the only team which would not benefit from the WCF recognition, as US federal and state governments provide no subsidies for national teams under any circumstances.)

STATE FUNDING IS MAIN NEGOTIATING CHIP FOR WCF

Rogerson sums up what he sees as a bad deal for the WCF and world croquet in these words: "The only beneficiaries seem to be the MacRobertson Shield teams, who stand to get more state funding because of the world title, whilst proposing to put nothing back into the development of the game worldwide.

"The MacRobertson Shield countries hold a very powerful position within the WCF. Together they can out-vote the rest of the world. It is therefore of fundamental importance that they take a responsible attitude to their role within the WCF, and keep in focus our primary goal of developing croquet on a worldwide basis."

WHILE "RATTLING THE CAGES," ROGERSON IS OPTIMISTIC

Although his criticisms of the initial proposals of the MacRobertson representatives are sharp, Rogerson says that he welcomes the debate, confessing that his "knee-jerk" reaction is not representative of WCF management but may serve to "rattle the cages a little."

Rogerson's comments have clearly drawn the lines of a debate which may continue for a long time. It is an old debate in a new form, expressing a natural conflict of interest between the champions who are strongly focused on competing at top level and the organizers who see their primary goal as broadening the sport's appeal. But both sides can surely agree that the official "World Team Croquet Championship" should be organized as a primary image-builder for the developing world sport.

Because the MacRobertson Shield already is the "de facto" world team championship, official recognition by the WCF will only enhance its stature as a vehicle for publicity and financial sponsorship, while calling forth a bonanza of much-needed goverrment support for the event and for croquet. Both sides have much to gain by coming to an amicable agreement.

Rogerson himself is optimistic that such an agreement can be reached. His WORLD CROQUET column concludes, "I hope that all our member organizations round the world will consider carefully the issues involved and let the [WCF] Management Committee have their deliberations as soon as possible."

Representing the member countries in the talks at Chelteham were two national presidents, Ian Reid of Australia and Edwina Thompson of New Zealand; from England, Bill Lamb, CA Chairman of Council, Colin Irwin, Chris Clarke, and Steven Comish; John Prince and Tony Stephens from New Zealand; from Australia, Peter Tavender and Tony Hall, president of the New South Wales association; Rhys Thomas, U.S. MacRobertson team manager; and Chris Hudson, Secretary General of the WCF.

- Bob Alman


last updated 5 July 2004 PTB
return to MacRobertson Shield
return to Arizona Croquet Club Webpage