AUSTRALIA’S “ASHES” TEAM

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 66, 19 March 1938, Page 4

AUSTRALIA’S “ASHES” TEAM

WHAT ENGLAND THINKS OF IT

COMMENTS OF NOTED FIGURES IN THE GAME OF CRICKET

THE OMISSION OF OLDFIELD AND GRIMMETT CAUSES SURPRISE

With the selection of the Australian team for England, cricket has captured the main news pages of the London and Provincial dailies, wrote the Sydney Referee's London correspondent on January 28. In public estimation, it has taken precedence over the Chinese war and the Van Zeeland Report, it has only been equalled in interest by the sensational Society law case between Captain Cunningham Reid and his wife, the sister of Lady Louis Mountbatten.

Almost obituary tributes are paid lo Grimmett and Oldfield, whose omission has caused surprise and regret in England. Both as cricketers and as men these two have earned a warm spot in the heart ot every sporting Englishman. In his enthusiasm for them he has forgotten that they have become veterans of the game. Their omission, too, has caused many critics to take hope for England. How can this supreme bowler and this master wicketkeeper

I Times says that “he (Barnes) ought to ■ have some dogged cricket in his veins, i for he had his tonsils taken out by Dr. ; R. H. Bettington.” Can England scrape up a team which will beat these young Austra-

be replaced? they ask. They would never agreed that Ward is, or is likely to become, the peer of the little man with the strange low-armed action. Even the Times pays its tribute editorially to the passing of Oldfield and Grimmett. "Mr. Oldfield,” it says, with that extreme correctness that characterises Times editorials, “has had no superior as a wicket-keeper since the war. That great slow-bowler, of whom it was said that England’s Test prospects in 1934 were, ‘grim, grimmer, Grimmett,’ has also made way for youth." The Manchester Guardian also editorially laments their absence. ‘There is something disquieting for English enthusiasts.” it says “about the ruthless way in which the Australian selectors have chosen their team. W. A. Oldfield, the most efficient wicketkeeper of the day .and a peculiarly

obstinate batsman in a crisis, is missing and so is C. V. Grimmett. The Test matches will not he the same without Grimmett lurking at cover point, or stealthily creeping to the! wicket and luring footbound wretchc; to their fate.” AU the critics agree that in battlin' the team is extremely powerful an', has a very small tail. The bowling, however, has given hopes that England may be able to place better bowlers in the field. O’Reilly is £ tii: looked upon as the best medium-pace bowler in the world, but many have their doubts about the staying power °f E. L. McCormick. They look upon him as a good fast bowler who will require careful nursing. FleetwoodSmith is not rated very highly, the usual impression being that his bowling is variable with spots of brilliance White and Ward are still unknown quantities on English wickets, and the tendency is to treat them lightly. Some writers are of the opinion that a good deal of the bowling work will : fall upon McQtbe, who is ranked bv ■ the Times wMti Hammond as the best : all-rounder in the world. Bradman, as usual, is beyond critic-i Ism. He is reckoned in a class by himself and tributes are paid to Bad-1 cock, Hassett and Sidney Baines. The

lians, is the question worrying cricket pundits? R. W. V. Robins has no doubts that they can be beaten. “I rate our chances as very good,” he says, “all that is necessary is to pick the usual England team. My honest opinion is that we shall beat them.” Hammond is not so optimistic. The Australians are a well-balanced side to him, though he is surprised not to find Gregory in the list. Sir Pelham Warner takes a very balanced view. He has never known an Australian

team who were not good. They are not invincible, he says, England has a chance. “Sentiment must not be allowed to affect judgment,” writes R. C. Robert-son-Glasgow, in the London Daily Telegraph, “the old order must change, but many in England will regret the loss of Oldfield, one of the greatest wicket-keepers the game has known, and Grimmett, master of so many notable batsmen with his gyratory wiles.” ’ “I cannot help feeling that the omission of Grimmett is the one big mistake on the part of the selectors,” writes Charles Bray, in the London Daily Herald. “Making every allowance for all the batting and bowling trength that lies in these 16 names,” he continues, “English cricket has no ause to feel that we cannot recover the Ashes. There are, indeed, many apparent weaknesses in the Australian team. There is only one fast bowler. and that one subjest to strains and back trouble.” C. B. Fry simply will not entertain the idea that this Australian loam is invincible.