Omission Of A. P. Freeman From Tests In England

Taranaki Daily News, 17 September 1934, Page 11

Omission Of A. P. Freeman From Tests In England

PLACE IN CRICKET HISTORY OF FINE SLOW BOWLER FOR KENT

XTOTICING the great success which A. ■ P. Freeman, right-hand slow bowler for Kent, has enjoyed for many years, :and continues to enjoy, in county cricket in England, a friend asked me, a few days ago, why Freeman has not been selected to . play . foi\ England against Australia in England. The question has some general, interest, and replying to it is at least a diversion from discussion of the All Black team and other Rugby subjects. A blunt answer is that Freeman is not a bowler good enough to oppose an Australian team in a Test match, but it is not a complete answer, and it does not explain why Freeman, now something past his best, has never played against Australia in a Test in his own country.

but he did not achieve prominence as a bowler until after the Great War; the season of 1920 was the first in which he took over 100 wickets. When an English Test team went to Australia at the end of that season there were available for it more successful bowlers of types more likely to take wickets on Australian pitches. In 1921, when an Australian team went to England, Freer man had a very good season, although he had yet to take 200 wickets in a season, as he has done often enough since. That was a year in which he might possibly have been tried for England, but what England needed most then was a good fast bowler; it was equipped well enough with slow bowlers, lefthanded and right-handed. Just before the fifth Test ip that year the Australians played Kent, and, making 676 runs in an innings, smote 138 runs off 29 overs, from Freeman, without allowing nim a wicket. The exclusion of him from the Tests was justified, so far as that .year was concerned.

Little Freeman stands, in performance, head and shoulders above other bowlers of his type in English county cricket of his day, - Comparatively few English professional batsmen are quickfooted against slow bowling, and the stolidity of the average batsman in county cricket helps to swell the number of wickets that Freeman takes every season. Australian batsmen, usually more enterprising, are much more successful against bowlers of this kind. However, even when allowance is made for these factors, the reason why Freeman was not ■ tried for England qgainst Australia in England, at times when the selectors have chosen right-hgnd slow bowlers of. decidedly less ability, is not obvious. Probably the reason 'is compounded of Freeman’s having been born at the wrong time, and his having toured Australia and New Zealand with the M.C.C. team of 1922-23, which was captained by A. C. MacLaren, but which was not a Test tegm.

The team which came out to the Antipodes in the 1922-23 season here, under the leadership of MacLaren, was meant chiefly for New Zealand; it played a few matches in Australia on its way out and a few more on its way back. In one match against New South Wales Freeman took seven wickets for 133 runs, three of them being in the second innings, but the 23 wickets he took in other matches in Australia cost 856 runs, and the Englishmen had not met the full strength of Australia. Freeman was not dangerous on a plumb Australian wicket. However, the next series of Tests was played in Australia, and the. English selectors included Freeman in their team. He played in two of the five Tests, and in them took only eight wickets, at a cost of 57.37 runs each. The Australians, having seen hiip

. * * Freeman is now 45 years old. He was 25 when he first played for Kent,

when he was with MacLaren’s team, played him with full confidence. * * ’ u , ~ It was quite clear that Freeman, skilful though he was, could not trouble quick-footed Australian batsmen on Australian wickets. Unfortunately for him, the English selectors in 1926, when he was progressing toward the capture c’f 180 wickets in the season, seemed to be obsessed, in their' consideration of him, by his failures on , Australian wickets, and to have no confidence in the possibility of his doing much better, even against quick-footed Australian batsmen, on English wickets. In that tour the Australians plaved Kent when all five Tests were over. This time Freeman took eight for 165 against them for his county—six for 133 and two for 32, the Australians losing four wickets in their second innings.

The omission of the little man of Kent from the 1926 Tests did not affect the fate of the Ashes, as it happened, for England won the one match which could be finished. But Freeman’s chance to plav for England against Australia on English soil had gone. By 1930. when the Australians were in England again the idea that he could not bowl sue cessfully enough against them in a Test match had become a fixed idea. So he was left out of tfie Tests again, although he was in process of taking 275 wickets, costing 16.84 runs each, in that Season as a whole. Again the Australians played Kent after the Tests, and then Freeman took five of their wickets for 78 runs, and one for 68. Still, his two successes against Australian teams, for his county, do not prove much. The right-hand spin bowliqg that England needs against Australia in a Test match must be something faster than Freeman’s, unless the wicket is crumbling. So Freeman’s place in cricket history is that of one of the greatest bowlers in county matches and one of the dim lights in Test matches. Probably C. V. Grimmett’s place would have been much the same if he had happened to be an English player. A. Ij. C.