THE CRICKET MATCH OF THE YEAR.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 7 October 1922, Page 9

THE CRICKET MATCH OF THE YEAR.

I■ .■ .• .;. , .. -.-. __; ■.., .;.-.;' -: ■■;■;■ ; "Throw-in, 5' in a Home paper, thus discusses the Gentlemen v. Players teams. He says, inter alia:— , i On the whole the selections are good.1 The sides are, at least, fairly representative of present-day English cricket —a commentary that certainly could not witlT justice have been made about some of the teams chosen yin recent years. " • . ■ The outstanding feature of the work of the selectors is the fact that to some extent they have acknowledged the claims of youth. This has meant that a number of famous cricketers whose achievements in Gentlemen and Players matches stand high on the scroll of fame have been passed over not because they would necessarily lag superfluous on the field, despite the burden of years even to-day, but because if youth is to have its. chance +hey must be; content to rest on their laurels. . | ■■■'■ ILLTJSTRATKftfS. " ■j I need only single out two names to : illustrate my point. The first is that of Rhodes, one of the greatest cricketers in the history of the game. Rhodes has gained every honour that it is possible *for the professional cricketer to achieve. For years he was the best' slow leftrhanded bowler in the country; he has, indeed, captured more wickets in first-class than any other,, bowler; he has scored over a thousand, runs in a season with unfailing regularity year after year for as j long as most of us care to remember; • he- has gone' in firsiw for England, and he has captained the/.-Players'; at Lord's. Even to-day he is at the head of i;he ; bowling averages, and only on Satur- ; day he batted with all the skill and I vigour of youth against Essex at Harrogate. : Notwithstanding all this, Rhodes is passed over, and Hobbs reigns as cap- ', tain of the Players in; his place. .But : are not the selectors right? I think so, for if representative matches are to , be^of any value at all tfiey must be theVecruitinpr grounds for the England players of the future. I Much that has been said about i Rhodes could be repeated of J. W. H. |T. Douglas, who for years at Lord's , has been the mainstay 'of , the ama- ,' teurs' attack. He has captained the . Gentlemen, and has led England in the 1 field. His also has been an enviable record; but who shall say that, the auj thorities are not justified in giving (new blood its opportunity. j Personally I should have been pleased if the process had been carried a little further, especially in respect of the Players' eleven. By every canon of merit both Mead and Hardirige have earned their places in the side this year, and both are veterans, and it is highly improbable that either will ever play for England against Australia again. Would the Players' team have been so devastatingly weakened if, say, Holmes.1 of Yorkshire, I Tate of Sussex, Sandham or Shepherd, of Surrey, or Oldroyd, of Yorkshire, had been preferred in their places? Surely not. i On paper the Players' team is so overwhelmingly superior in batting that, it !is difficult ito see "how the i Gentlemen are to break the long * , sequence of defeat; One can only hone that the balance will be.to some extent redressed by the' unwonted strength and variety of the amateurs' bowling. G. M. .Louden (fast medium). A. E. R. Gilligan (fast). J. C. White {slow left-hand5), P. G H. Fend er (medium), and G. T. S. Stevens (medium and a spinner) are an array . o<\ bowlers who, whatever the condition! of the wicket, ought to give the Professional batsmen something to j think about.