To the Editor of the Crimson:

As a minor sports coach for the last seven years I feel that the Student Council has not made a good recommendation as far as my sports--tennis and squash--are involved. I wish to have it understood that I refer only to those two sports. Reasons:

(1) The council does not know the facts and apparently has made little effort to seek them out. Example: They say, "At present it costs the H.A.A. close to $10,000 to support intercollegiate tennis and squash squads. . . ." This is, although I am sure not deliberately, a definite misstatement of fact. The facts are: (a) The $10,000 includes all coaches' salaries as well as intercollegiate expenses. (b) Over half the members of the squads play House squash and tennis. Please charge $5000 to the Houses. (c) To retain the coaches and eliminate intercollegiate events would save not more than $1400 per year. This includes four teams: Varsity and Freshman tennis and squash. There are between 35 and 40 men on these teams. Are not the benefits they receive worth the sum involved?

(2) The policy of the coaches has been to spread the coaching as thin as effectiveness will permit. A change in the system would not increase our effectiveness. The report states "Players who never had . . . any instruction will, with one or two afternoons in these expert hands, learn more than they ever believed to exist in these sports."

This is indeed a happy thought. Let it be said that such a statement, however nobly conceived, is merely a reflection of ignorance; no one can get very far in "one or two afternoons." He must work for months, years, to perfect the difficult techniques involved in tennis and squash. The report might as well have said that one or tow lessons with a good piano teacher will make musicians of us all.

Anyone with any ability and the willingness to work is retained on the squads and encouraged. Two members of this year's Varsity squash team never played before coming to Harvard. Men with some ability who were unwilling to work were cut, on the theory that it is wasteful for the coaches to sow their seed on barren soil. We work with those who are willing to work with us.

(3) Squash and tennis have had a logical growth that should be fostered, not overthrown. There was first a five man team, one coach; then two coaches, larger squads, nine and ten man teams; then compulsory Freshman exercise instruction with a third instructor hired just for their benefit. The policy was constantly based on the principle "athletics for all." As many men as possible were and are and shall be retained and coached. A large percentage of House players now receive coaching. If more is needed, then another man may be necessary.

(4)According to the Council's logic, there is no reason, other than financial, for retaining major sports teams if minor are scrapped. And why retain the major sports that are not self-supporting? The fact that tennis and squash are classed as minor is scarcely a condemnation--or is it? Interest in them is just as high as in any major sport.

(5) I should recommend that the Council take every sport individually, study it, consult captains, players, coaches, Bingham, Samborski, and House secretaries until they know what they are talking about, and then, resisting the impulse to generalize, confine themselves to specific recommendations for each sport. I believe more progress and less furor would follow. John M. Barnaby,   Coach Tennis and Squash.