HILL ON KELLEWAY’S OMISSION.

Southland Times, Issue 19837, 7 April 1926, Page 9

HILL ON KELLEWAY’S OMISSION.

To the Editor. Sir, —At last by way of London we. get Clem. Hill’s explanation of Kelleway’s rejection. It is rather lame. First, he says it “was due solely to the fact that he is a weak slip field.” Why was the choice for first slip to Gregory limited to Hendry and Kelleway? Why was the same test not applied to others, for instance Ryder, another tall medium bowler ? And why was Kelleway unfit for the team because he is not as good as Hendry at first slip? As if aware that rejection should not rest “solely” on this ground, Hill goes on to say: “Because of this, together with the fact that Ryder was another bowler of Kelleway’s class, the latter was omitted.” Unfortunately for the comparison in the recent season’s cricket Kelleway outclassed Ryder threefold in bowling as well as in batting. The former’s weakest department is fielding, but good fielding was not in every case made indispensable for membership in the team. According to Hill, both Kelleway and V. Richardson practically had to give place to men abler “to support and relieve Gregory,” who will soon need a substitute himself in fast bowling.—l am, etc. “SENEX.”