Frank Woolley

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 175, 9 July 1932, Page 8 (Supplement)

Frank Woolley

His Place Among Batsmen

CLAIMED TO BE GREATER THAN BRADMAN

In the discussions on the probable composition of the English team for Australia, comparisons are being made in Englang between great players of the past and the present day, and naturally Don Bradman comes into the comparisons, in most cases unfavourably to him.

For instance, A. M. Crawley, the Kent amateur player, who lias been making some outspoken comments in a London newspaper, vigorously advocates the use of Frank Woolley as an opening batsman, and says: “I make no apology for eulogies of Woolley, because 1 think be is the greatest living batsman, Bradman not excluded.’’ Then the famous Ranjitsinhji declares that Bradman is not so good as either Victor Trumper or Charlie Macartney. Anyhow, it is all a matter of opinion as to whether Bradman is the superior, or even the equal, of some of the great batsmen of the past or the present There is no question that he is the greatest, run-getter of any time, but that does not necessarily prove that he is the greatest batsman. The strokemaking capacity of a batsman, the manner in which he gets his runs, and the style of his play all have something to do with it.

My view is that Bradman is the greatest batsman of the day, but I would not yet go so far as to say he is the greatest of all time. W. G. Grace I saw only once, as a small boy, and Ranjitsinhji only a couple of times when he was in Australia, and I api not in a position to judge them from personal knowledge, but it is hard to believe that there could have been a better pair, especially Grace, when the conditions under which he played are considered. No Need For Apologies. But of Trumper and Hobbs 1 have seen a lot, and for all-round batsmanship and versatility in favourable and unfavourable conditions 1 would not place Bradman ahead of either of them. When Bradman has proved that he is their equal or superior on treacherous wickets it will be time enough to proclaim him the greatest batsman of all time.

As for Woolley, there is no need to make apologies for him, for he will be one of the immortals of the cricket field. From what one has seen of him in Australia there can be no disagreement with his rabid admirers in England that he is probably the most attractive batsman in the world to

watch —indeed no mere attractive lefthander has ever lived. Stroke-making with him is such an effortless thing that one wonders often how he gets the power into his hits, despite his six feet and some inches. His batting has been described as the poetry of cricket —his bat a wand that conjures runs out of the bowling. A Prolific Scorer. And there have been lew more prolific scorers in the history of the game. Beginning his first-class career in 1906,

he has now made round about 45,000 runs at an average well up in the forties. In 10 out of the last 11 seasons he has made more than 2000 runs —in one he made 3352 —and his average in that time has never been less than 44. Also, in his prime, he was a great slow left-hand bowler, and at one stage was considered the best all-rounder in Eng-

land. The trouble with him now, at 45 .years of age, is that he is stow in the field —which is only to be expected. Against this record Bradman, with only live or six seasons’ cricket, has made almost 10,000 runs at an average somewhere up near the century. Bradman, the youth, must be given the credit of being the greatest batsman of the day, but if one were forced to decide whether he would rather see him or Woolley, the veteran, making a big score —well, the temptation would be to go and watch Woolley. This is not to say that Bradman is not an attractive batsman —he is remarkably attractive, but it is a different kind of attractiveness from that in the Kent man’s batting. It is the difference between the forceful, aggressive batsman, and the man who, while getting his runs almost equally as fast, imparts into his pl'ay those delicate shades that proclaim his greatness.—E. H. M. Baillie in the “Sporting Globe.”

Because of lack of funds, South Africa has decided to send only nine competitors to the Olympic Games at Los Angeles.