DAVIS CUP TEAM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 32, 7 February 1934, Page 14

DAVIS CUP TEAM.

HOPMAN OMITTED. OUTCRY IN AUSTRALIA. SELECTORS MISTAKEN ? (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, February 1. The selection committee of the Australian Lawn Tennis Association has announced that the Davis Cup team for the coming season will consist of four members—Crawford, McGrath, Quist and Turnbull. This means that Hopman is not to go, and the selection has already received much vigorous criticism from two distinct points of view.

In the first place, it is pointed out by Crawford (in his "Telegraph" notes) that to send four players throws a great strain upon them all, and leaves no margin for efficiency, in case of sickness or accident. "America," says Crawford, "invariably sends a team of five, and in the past has profited by it." As to the argument of additional expense, he writes: "The cost of sending another player would be about £600, but the team could easily regain that overseas." Crawford also goes as near as possible to telling the selectors that they ought to have chosen Hopman. Of the South Australian, he says: "Turnbull is undoubtedly a fine doubles player, and ho is still improving. His singles results have not been satisfactory." But of Hopman he says' "Hopman had very strong claims for inclusion, for besides having a better singles record than Turnbull, he is a great doubles player at his best." Of course, the selectors have been influenced by the fact that Quiet and Turnbull beat Crawford and Hopman in the recent championship matches. But with his usual generosity. Crawford insists that this was "no fault of Harry's," and that he himself was the weakness in the combination. Crawford thus makes out a strong case for sending a team of five, including Hopman, and he has already received influential support from leading nlavers nnd critics here. Henry March, Horace Pice, W. B. Dive. Dr. Plomley. Dr. MeE'hone —all iirmortant officials of the association —and fivst-elass judges of the game—insist that Hopman should go, even if only four .players are s^nt.

There is, of course, some testimony on the other side, but Ww*9 who support Tnrnbnll —and after all there may not be much to choose betveen the two men — entirely fail to meet Crawford's arguments in favour of sending five players. If there were five in the team Crawford and >fcGrnth could concentrate on the singles only, and this surelv would be. a great advantage. Tt is difficult to understand the taken by the selection committee-. Turnbull would no doubt be useful, as he was last trip, in the capacity of assistant, manager, but this is not indispensable. As to the additional expense, that is n small matter, compared with the possibility of ioonarrl'sing our chance of spcur'nff the Davis Con. The general impression h»re is that the Factors hove grievomlv underrated TTinman's value, and most r>oo"lo hone th"fc a team of five, including Hopman, will