STRONG IN BATTING

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 43, 1 February 1934, Page 5

STRONG IN BATTING

TEST TEAM COMMENT English Writers’ Opinions GOOD BOWLERS LACKING (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Received 1, 11.0 a.m.) LONDON, Jan. 31. English critieig generally regard the Australian Test team as strong in batting, but weak in bowling P. F. Warner says that ihe team looks weak in bowling. "It will certainly get loads of runs," he said. would certainly have included Chilvers. He is a splendid bowler. I think O’Reilly is a bit stale, but if he bowll as well here as he does in Australia, he will get a lot of wickets. Fleetwood Smith has tremendous possibilities. ” Carr says: "The team is as strong in batting as it is weak in bowling. It fairly shouts for another left-hander, preferably Hill.” The "Star" say that the team is a splendid blending of youth and experience, and that it will not be surprising if Barnett displaces Oldfield in the Test side. A. P. F. Chapman comments: "The inclusion of youngsters should ensure top-notch fielding. ’ ’ He expressed regret at the absence of the tried lefthand bowler Alan Fairfax, and also regrets the absence of Ironmonger. Otherwise he regards the team as well balanced. , Bruce Harris comments: "Australis still has a tail." Fender, in the "Evening News," says: "The selectors lived up to their reputation in discarding sentiment and relying solely on efficiency. The English players must never forget that Bradman is capable of winning any match. ’ ’ The "Standard" published a bold panel on the sports page: "Jardine n the best skipper in the world. He must be our captain. If Larwood is fit he must play in the Tests. No l Marylebone diplomatic shelving of these men would be tolerated. Any such action of which there has been talk from time to time, would not make for peace but for further trouble. Let the game be left to the cricketer*. They won’t squeal."

ENORMOUS INTEREST TAKEN Larwood’s Comments (Received 1, 1.50 p.m.) LONDON, Jan. SI. There is enormous interest in the Australian test cricket team, which is discussed everywhere. Newspapers are plastered with photographs, biographies and appreciations. The general opinion is that O’Reilly is Australia’s greatest hope and a gamble if, as expected, he does better in England than in Australia. He may help Bradman to win the tests. If he fails the attack will possibly collapse with a thud. Larwood, interviewed, said it was about the best side Australia could have chosen. O’Reilly was outstanding in the Australian attack, but he was surprised at the omission of Richardson. Referring to his own chances, he said it was impossible to say how his foot would stand cricket. He had been advised not to try until he ean get on turf. “I shall stick to the surgeon’s advice,” he added. TEAM FOR NEW ZEALAND Why Was Davey Picked? (Received 1, 11.5 a.m.) SYDNEY, Feb. 1. The morning papers are not pleased with the team for New Zealand. The "Telegraph" says: "More surprising than the inclusion of Chipperfield in the team for England was the omission of Jack Scaife from the 13 to tour New Zealand. Davey is practically an unknown quantity, having played in only one Sheffield Shield match. The exclusion of Oxenham is noteworthy. ’ ’ The "Labour Daily" says: "Davey’s selection is a mystery. Possibly he was chosen to appease South Australia for its poor representation in the major XI. Tobin appears to hare been badly treated. Badcock, ajed 19, holds a nun'ber of Tasmanian records, being the only Tasmanian to score a double-century in a first-class match. He has an average of 122 in club games this season. His scores against Victoria this season were: 25, 107, 274 aud 71 not out.” Morning paper critics generally applaud the team for England while expressing regret that Richardson and Fingteton are omitted [See page 2 for earlier message.)