Trevor Bailey May Play For England In Test This Year

Press, Volume C, Issue 29509, 10 May 1961, Page 13

Trevor Bailey May Play For England In Test This Year

IThU article it the second of a senes by NORMAN YARDLEY, the former English Test Cricket Captain.l

QN the day the Australians started their tour at Worcester, the three most significant events in Bsaland’s young cricket season occurred at Edgbaston, Cambridge and Lord’s. At Edgbaston, it was Trevor Bailey’s not out century; at Cambridge, it was Peter May’s finding touch with a useful 68; and at Lord’s it was the important but almost unnoticed gesture of M.C.C. in playing Harold Rhodes and David White—the two bright young men who were no-balled for throwing last year. I put the Bailey 100 at the top of my list because I interpret it as a typical gesture from the remarkable Essex all-rounder. It was almost as though he were putting his cards on the table and telling the selectors: “I’m •till around—and available." I would like to go cm record as saying that if Bailey produces the all-round form he showed last year—and he has already started it—he must come back into the England

team. lam well aware that Bailey was discarded by the England selectors last year in their search for new and maybe brighter material. But then they could afford the luxury of experiment. This year they can't. England simply has to field her best eleven. If Bailey produces his 1960 form, he must be a part of that team. Without a doubt, his 1639 runs and 117 wickets last year proved he was still England's best all-rounder. If I were England’s captain, I would not be put off by Bailey's reputation as a slowcoach stone-waller. I would want him in my side, as much for his intelligent bowling and fine close fielding as for his batting. I would regard Bailey as intelligent enough, and good enough, to push the score along as well as the next man, if I gave him directions to do so. That, of course, could’ be a key factor in this year’s cricket. Captains, in county sides as well as in the England side, have to give more instructions to their players. And the whole approach, stemming from them, has to

be more positive and dynamic. Peter May’s 68 had special importance. It was the first positive step back to big cricket by the man I expect to see in the dual role of England's captain and her key batsman. I have never had much doubt that Peter May had the quality to play himself back into the highest class even after more than a full season's lay-off through illness. But it was still pleasing to see - the runs come from his bat. The more runs May can get early in the season, the sooner he will be able to recover the self-con-fidence so vital for the task ahead of him. Although nobody seems to have noticed it, I feel that M.C.C.'s gesture in selecting Harold Rhodes and David White for their first match of the season at Lord’s was admirable. It was at least an indication that they are not to be regarded for ever as the forgotten men of cricket. But is this gesture enough? I can’t help feeling that more is needed. I would like to see something more positive done to clear all the bowlers who were black-listed—if they have changed their actions and are now considered fair bowlers. I don’t think it is enough just to say that if the umpires pass

them now, they are all right. After all, only one umpire called Rhodes and White in the big purge of last year. But they both missed selection for the New Zealand tour as a result of it. As for Tony Lock, he has been out of England consideration for more than a year. Yet, with a completely changed action, he fought back to take over 100 wickets for Surrey last season and still looked the best slow lefthander in the country. It is a terrible thing when

any player gets on a blacklist of this sort. I feel it is time the effort was made to take these men off, publicly, if they can establish a sound case. If necessary, M.C.C. should ask umpires who officiate in the next 10 matches involving these men to complete the confidential “truce” , reports which are being compiled after every Australian match. If it establishes that these bowlers are basically fair, a verdict to that effect should be announced. Then all three should be declared eligible, without prejudice, for England selection again. Finally, a word of warning about that tough start of the Australians at Worcester. Do not jhdge them too quickly on it. If ever the folly of getting a team to a country too late were exposed, it was here. It was the height of absurd organisation by' the Australian Board of Control to get the side here with only a week of practice before the first match. Running straight into cold weather and a wet, slow, turnirtg wicket at Worcester, they were bound to be in trouble. Most of them had never seen anything like it before and it did not need a bowling genius to get them out.