CRICKET STORM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 185, 7 August 1935, Page 17

CRICKET STORM.

INDIAN TRIP BAN.

CONTROL BOARD'S ACTION.

JTJBIOTJS CRITICISM AROUSED.

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

SYDNEY, August 2.

As everybody interested in cricket on this side of the world must be aware, attempts have been made for several months past to arrange a tour for a team of Australian cricketers in India. The invitation came from the Maharajah of Patiala, one of the wealthiest and most powerful of the Indian princes, •who authorised Frank Tarrant, the exVictorian and ex-Middlesex player, long domiciled in India, to undertake the negotiations.

Tarrant early in January wrote to the Board, of Control asking permission to select a team. The board at first declined, pointing out that it had recently refused to allow a team to tour New Zealand, and emphasising its responsibilities toward Australian cricket and the inter-State matches in particular. Tarrant returned to the charge, and practically offered to accept any conditions that the board might impose. He assured the board that he would not attempt to take any members of the last Australian Test team still playing in first-class cricket, or any men needed for the Sheffield Shield matches or the South Africa tour next season. But he pointed to the generous term offered by the Maharajah, the value of such foreign experience to our cricketers, and the necessity for rewarding men who have done good service to the game, but have not yet had the opportunity of touring; and he hinted at the economic and even political possibilities that might develop out of intimate amicable relations with India in the field of sport.

Seven Men "Not Approved." In these circumstances Tarrant proceeded to invite men who, as he understood, did not fall within the limits of the prohibition laid down by the board, and on June 17 he submitted to the board a list of 19 names. There followed a considerable delay as no meeting of the board was called and the secretary had, therefore, to discover the views of members by letter and telegrain. At last on July 24 the board officially informed Tarrant that seven of his selections—Woodfull and Ponsford, Rigg and Nitschke, Kippax, Chilvers and Oxenham—are '"not approved" and therefore may not be included in the team.

It would bo difficult, without copious quotation from a great variety of sources, to give any idea of the breadth and depth and intensity of the indignation aroused throughout the Australian cricket world by tlsi/ imperious pronouncement. The "Bulletin" ridiculed this assumption of omnipotent autocracy by "the Little Tin God of Cricket," insisting that the tour—for which all expenses are being paid by the Maharajah—is no concern of the board's and urging the players to do as they please about it. "Truth" denounces the board for this "most impudent gesture" which has "disgusted all followers of the grand old game." The "Labour Daily," which, to its credit, is always ready to take Up the defence of athletes on democratic lines., deplores the weight of "the dead hand of reaction in sport" and nrges the young men to "push the pundits ont of the way and assume leadership for themselves."

Woodfull's Wrath. An equally strong tone has been taken "by many of our best-known cricketers — M. A. Noble, Clem Hill, H. L. Hendry, Hornibrook, and even Arthur Mailey— and particularly by Wood full. It is well known that WbodfuU is not only an easy -going and kindly but also a most cautious man, and his outburst of wrath when the board's decree was published came as a surprise. It must be remembered that Woodfull last season announced his retirement from first-class cricket, and that therefore he was supposed to be eligible for the India trip. But he has said all along that he would not go even if invited, and hie indignation has been aroused not by the board's lack of consideration to him, but by its injustice to others. The refusal to allow Oxenham to go on this tour he describes as "a shame and a sin," and in general the interview which he gave to the Melbourne papers last week indicates that he agrees entirely with T. W. Garrett —the sole surviving member of the first Australian Eleven—who declared that if he were in the position of the "banned" men, he would make the trip -whether the board liked it or not.

Oxenham's Strong Claim. To those not familiar with the details of the situation a few remarks on the individual players concerned may be useful. The worst case is that of Ron Oxenham of Queensland. He has been for some seasons past—in the opinion of many of our best cricketing authorities—the second best all-rounder in Australia, coming next to Stan McCabe; but for reasons that I have not been able to fathom he has never got into a touring team. He is 40 years old and two years ago—though bowling and batting as well as ever —he wished to retire; but to help his State team he consented to go on. No man in Australia has done more to help on the game in his own State than Oxenham, and now at the end of his career, after many disappointments, he is to be denied this poor recompense for all his efforts and sacrifices. Kippax, Ponsford and Woodfull are all giving up regular first-class cricket, and it is understood that Nitschke is in the same position. Rigg (Victoria) and Chilvers (New South Wales) are still in the game, and the board's excuse in their cases —as with the rest—is that their absence would weaken the State teams and would lower the standard of play in the Sheffield Shield matches. But the point to be observed is that in every case the State association had agreed to Tarrant's selection, and though the State concerned is quite ready to dispense with the services of the players for the season the board has interposed its veto.

Board Exceeding Its Powers. Now we finally arrive at the gist of the controversy. For it is quite cert? in that the Board of Control has no right to interfere in the arrangements for the Sheffield Shield matches. It has no authority. •to manage the Sheffield Shield matches, which aiv purely the business of the State associations. The "Sydney Morning Herald" urges the board to reconsider the whole situation carefully—more especially in r=gard to "the question of courtesy to the Maharajah and the promotion of cricket in India by sending the best team available.

I This view—that the board has no fight of control over the Sheffield Shield matches —cuts the ground from under the only plausible excuse yet advanced in its favour. The Victorian members of the board claim that they have supported the board's view all along and

they have published a statement intended to prove that Tarrant accepted the board's conditions and is now repudiating them. At the same time, Mr. W. H. Jeanes, secretary of the Board of Control, has published the correspondence between the board and Tarrant, with the same object in view. But the Victorians and Mr. Jeanes apparently do not realise that when Tarrant promised not to select men who would be required for the Sheffield Shield matches he took, the precaution of getting the consent of the various State associations for the men he chose. He probably did not think then, nor would he admit now, that if the associations agreed the board had any right to refuse; and that is theview of the case held by the great majority of cricketers and supporters of the game throughout Australia. Influence of Small States.

However, there is still another side to this complex question. Though the board's discussions and divisions are kept strictly secret, it is known that the members representing Queensland, New South Wales and (at least in part) South Australia favoured the inclusion of nearly all the banned men. It follows that the board's embargo must have been carried by the Victorians, with some help from South Australia, and with Tasmania and West Australia deciding the issue. Naturally the New South Wales and Queensland associations are furious at the idea that Tasmania and West Australia, which can do little for Australian cricket, and do not even take part in the Sheffield Shield competition, should be able to dictate to the larger States the terms on which the Sheffield Shield matches should be conducted.

But this resentment against the undue ascendancy acquired by "the Little Sisters" in the family conclave is a matter of old standing, and before the trouble over Tarrant'e team came to a head the New South Wales members had drafted a scheme for the reorganisation of the board, allowing Tasmania and West Australia to retain their seats, but depriving their delegates of voting power on all matters of direct inter-State concern. Needless to say, this threat has been fiercely resented, especially in Tasmania, and the knowledge of these developments is not likely to facilitate an amicable settlement of this present dispute.

Reconsideration Likely. However, the matter of Tarrant's team and the board's ban is not to go by default. Mr. O.xlade, who is a New South Wales delegate and chairman of the board, induced the New South Wales Association at its annual meeting last week to refrain from passing a vote of censure on the board, on the plea that he and others would at once make an attempt to induce the board to modify its ruling. The case for Oxenham is bo strong that it is generally felt that theboard in his case must "climb down," and it seems probable that Chilvers and Kippax, and possibly Nitsohke, may also secure the desired permission. But the board's action has produced a most unpleasant sensation, and the- consequences to that august body may yet prove disastrous in the extreme.

OXENHAM MAY GO. NAMES FOR RECONSIDERATION. MELBOURNE, August 6. Frank Tarrant has completed the selection of his cricket team for the tour of India, and will submit it to the Board of Control at the end of . this week.

In addition to the 12 names already approved by the board, those of R. K. Oxenham, Wendel Bill, and F. Mair are to be submitted. It is understood that the board is prepared to allow Oxenham to be included in the team.