CRICKET.

Waikato Times, Volume 100, Issue 16711, 29 January 1926, Page 9

CRICKET.

THE AUSTRALIAN ELEVEN. PRESS OPINIONS. The announcement of the names of Ihc first twelve chosen for the Australian Eleven to visit England" has giver. rise to many discussions and much criticism, (says the Australian). The men appointed as selectors, Messrs G Hill, a former Australian Captain, 11. L. Collins, the present leader, and J. Ryder, now captain of are experts; each has had experience of English conditions, but it must be confessed that it would have been better if the Board of Control had substituted for Mr Ryder someone who was, to say the least of it, a man whose inclusion in the team was not open tc question. Mr Warwick Armstrong would have been the most suitable Victorian representative on the selection committee.

The selectors have chosen twelve of the fifteen who are ultimately to form the team. . Against eight of the names included there can be no objection, but cricketers are asking themselves two questions. Is it necessary or advisable to have two slow bowlers in A. A. Mailey and C. V. Grimmett? Is it wise that the selectors should thus early have picked the two allrounders, J. Ryder and H. L. Hendry? As to the first question, the answer is that Mailey did so well in England in 1921—he took' 146 wickets at aa average cost of 19.78 —that he cannot be overlooked, and C. V. Grimmett, having been by far the most successful bowler in Australia last year, is entitled to his chance in England. As to the other question, the justiflcatioa for Hendry's inclusion is that he is a great slip fieldsman, and as such is necessary to the success of Gregory; that he is' a moderate batsman and a useful bowler. In many respects Ryder has the same claims, though as a fieldsman he is by no means firstclass. . He is an aggressive batsman, but did not succeed in being chosen for one Test match in England in 1921.

A NOTABLE OMISSION. The most notable omission at this stage is that of C. E. Kelleway, the New South Wales batsman and bowler He was chosen for the 1921 tour, but could not make the journey, and he played in all five Test matches last summer, with a batting average of 28 for ten innings, and in four of the five games opened the bowling with Gregory. With the exception of Hendry and Grimmett, who each played in one match only, Kelleway had the best bowling average, taking 14 wickets at an average cost of 30.92 runs a wicket —nearly seven runs a wicket better ihan Gregory, and nearly 11 runs better than Mailey. This season his performances have been outstanding. In the trial match in Sydney he made 99 not out and 34; in Adelaide he scored 50, and in Melbourne 145. In each case his batting showed more dash and more resource than in previous years. As a bowler in the match Australia v. The Rest-he took one wicket for 16 runs, only being called on to bowl six overs, and none for 41. In Adelaide his figures were none for 16 off eight overs, and three for 57, and in Melbourne one for 7 5 and 3 for 12. ' His figures therefore compare more than favourably with any of his rivals, yet he is not in the twelve. As it was announced early in the season that the Australian team was to be selected off this season's form Kelleway's omission is all the more remarkable. He should have been one of the first men picked. There is no player in Australia, with the possible 'exception of 11. L. Collins, who is a better fighter. He was a member of the Australian Imperial Forces, and except that he lacked the dash which marked the fighting of our soldiers, lie has developed to a marked degree the other attributes which made the Australian soldier famous — steadiness, determination, coolness, and imperturbability. On the basis that all things being equal preference should be given to soldiers. Kelleway has undoubted claims, for none of the four bowlers to whom we have referred were overseas in the Great War, and of the 12 chosen only five wore khaki, though, with the exception of Ponsford, all were of military age. It is urged against Kelleway that he is not a batsman who can adapt himself to circumstances' and force the scoring if necessary, and further, that his bowling is not sufficiently outstanding to give him the call over others. We have, however, no hesitation in expressing the opinion that were he in the team he would, as he was in Australia last summer, be one of the opening bowlers, and his steadiness with both bat and ball would be of inestimable value to the side. We cannot imagine either Hendry or Ryder being chosen to open the bowling if Kelleway were available. The winning of matches is important* but the saving of them is equally so, and ir. this respect Kelleway has no superior in Australia. With all due respect to the selectors, and while acknowledging their experience, we cannot help feeling that unconscious bias or prejudice has warped their judgment. In one respect Kelleway is not persona grata. He has taken an independent stand in his dealings with the noncricketers who comprise the governing bodies, and thus is not popular in high places. Not Easy To Fit In. The difficulty is that, with Ryder and Hendry already selected, it may not be easy to fit Kelleway in, but. there are three places to be filled. One t>t these must be reserved for the scond wicket-keeper, who seems sure to be H. S. Love. Another is for a batsman, and the third for a bowler who should be able to bat, unless a bowler of outstanding merit can be ob • taincd. For this position there was a feeling that P. M. Hornibrook, the Queensland left-hander, might be the man; but he failed signally in his trial in Sydney. The claims of A. J. Richardson, of South Australia, are strongly pressed, but, on bowling figures, he cannot compare with Kelleway. It is said that in the opinion of the selectors, Richardson would l>e more likely to be better to English conditions, but that has to be proved Whereas Kelleway has proved his ability in England not only with the batbut also with the ball.

For the last place two South Australians, V. Y. Richardson and J. W. hymill, one Victorian, W. M. Woodfull, and one Sydney man, A. Kippax, are the candidates. Woodfull has already shown his ability to bat on a bowler's wicket. Few who saw it will forget his 60 under adverse conditions against the Englishmen last year. Of the other three Richardson seems to have fallen off, but, like Rymill, he is a brilliant fieldsman. Both, however, are men who play at the pitch of the ball—a bad fault under ?]nglish conditions. Kippax has a wonderful batling record, and is also a good fieldsman. On the whole, we think the man for Australia for the last place i« W. M. Woodfull, who, like Kelleway, is a rare fighter and an ideal man for a tour. The disability which prevented his wearing khaki has been remedied, and ho i 6 now physically fit.

A LATER VIEW.

"J.W.," the well ■ know cricket authority of the same paper Jn a later issue says:—

It has been stated that the remaining three to complete the Australian combination have been chosen, and the trio mentioned are those who have already been named in these columns as having the best chances of all tho aspirants. J. Ryder, the Victorian selector, interviewed those who art! supposed to have been chosen, stating emphatically that the men wanted will not be picked until after the Sydney match, commencing on January 23. The publication of the names has bee.i most unfortunate. If it is true, why not publish them, and put all concerned out of their misery. And if the information is correct, how did the leakage occur? The manager of the Australian Eleven should be the first to have the information, and if JRyder knows nothing about it, where does he come in? It is just as web to suspend judgment, for surely there has been no deliberate slighting. It may be taken for granted that Woodfull has picked himself. It was my opinion that he would force himself in by merit, and the argument appears a sound one on the face of things. Love is apparently in the same boat, though one cannot but sympathise with Ellis. And, judging from all accounts, Queensland possesses a strong candidate in O'Connor. I do not know personally too much of his keeping abilities, though, trusting to memory, he kept well in Melbourne. He must possess merit above the ordinary in being the State's keeper. And irrespective of his dexterity with the gloves he is almost worth his place for his batting alone. Another case of suffering through distance. A Richardson has not been improving his chances lately, though one wishes him well. And if, for instance, Kelleway comes right out of his shell with the ball especially in the next two matches against South Australia and Victoria respectively, is he not to be consider ed? Surely the three have not been definitely selected. All decent players are supposed to be in the running, with fair play meted out to one and all. No player of character should be the subject of a vendetta, and it may be that the Sydney public will express themselves on the subject in no uncertain manner.

They are having great fun at the board's expense in England over the question of whether the wives of the players should accompany their husbands on the trip. Was it not a prominent item in the cables a few short months ago that the Marylebone club also put a veto on wives accompanying their husbands to Australia, and was not there some trouble over Hobbs in that respect? When all is said and done, it is a matter for those concerned. The experiment was onc< % tried of wives accompanying their husbands on an English tour, and it was admittedly not a success. And it has also been whispered that women marred somewhat the smooth working of the machine when Douglas's team was in Australia.

Personally I think the best way out of the difficulty would be not to prevent the wives from going to England, only that they should seek quarters elsewhere than where the members of the team are quartered. I suppose the idea is to make the members of the team concentrate on the cricket part of the programme. It is the one that the public of this country is interested in, and when all is said and done that is the object of the tour. The English opinions are amusing; but we can afford to smile. Ages and Occupations. Several inquiries have been made regarding the ages and occupations of the 12 players chosen for the Australian team to visit England:— H. L. Collins, 37, clerk; W. Bardsley, 41, civil servant; C. G. Macartney, 39, sports depot proprietor; W. A. Oldfleld, 28, Sports depot proprietor; J. M. Taylor, 30, dentist; J. M. Gregory, 30, indenlor; T. J. E. Andrews, 35, monumental mason; J. Ryder, 36, commercial traveller; 11. L. Hendry, 30, clerk; W. H-. Ponsford, 25, bank clerk; G. V. Grimmett, 34, signwriter.