Defending the Ashes

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 501, 2 November 1928, Page 6

Defending the Ashes

(Written Specially for THE SUN By “PATSY 9 * HENDREN , Middlesex and England.)

NO. 6—CAN ENGLAND RETAIN THE ASHES?

I have played cricket for a long while, I was in Association football for many years, and I have learned from bitter experience that while folks forgot the weighty things I had said at various times, they never forgot to remind me when t was wrong in the matter of a forecast. Once I vowed that I would never again be so rash as to say whether a team would win or lose; I would, if

asked, be vaguely indefinite. Now I am faced with the same old question. Throughout the summer in England everybody, from small boys who wanted my autograph to the barber who cut my hair, seems to think that I should be able to answer the question as to whether England will retain the ashes? It is an awkward question to answer. If I were to say “No, 1 don’t think we shall win the test match rubber,” what would be thought? I dare not think of the consequences. Some might realise that Patsy Hendren was at least honest and said what he believed, but I should be accused of going into the fray half-beaten, and so I should be. A man who starts a cricket match thinking his side is sure to lose, cannot possibly do his best. He has got his tail down before the start. If. however, I go to the other extreme and say we are sure to win, it is almost certain that someone will turn up and accuse me of being too “cock-sure” because I am in the team. It seems, thecefore, that I am bound to get into trouble whatever I decide. Great Chance Nothing is certain in sport, and it would be foolish for me to pretend that England is sure to retain the ashes. If luck breaks even we have a great chance. Further, I cannot think of a team that could be chosen from England that would be more likely to win. Do not think I am creating for myself a little halo to put around my head. I did not expect to be chosen, and I am not considering the batting so much, when being confident about our chance; the bowling comes first and foremost.

Those who read my articles will know what I consider to be the essentials of a team for Australia, and if you will study them and then the team, you will soon have my opinion about the men.

Bowling has been the problem and, with the exception of Tate, every man is an experiment. How will these “risks" fare? Larwood has the chance of his life. He is fast in England, and did sufficient damage to the Australians, when last they were here to command their respect. But he will find that the wickets in Australia will lend themselves to his bowling. He will make tremendous pace from the pitch. There can be no doubt that the main

Personnel and Prospects of the Test Teams

strength of our attack is in the hands of this young Notts bowler and Maurice Tate. A SENSIBLE SELECTION The inclusion of J. C. White is a very sensible selection. His spin on a bad wicket will be very dangerous, while his bowling even on a dead pitch, will be of great value. He can flight the ball so well and keep such an accurate length that free scoring is hardly ever possible off his bowling. I do not doubt for one moment that Jack White will act as a wonderful “rest” for the regular men and no one, I am sure, could have been chosen to do it better. “Tiqh” Freeman was in such wonderful form during the English season that we must look to success from him. He Is getting more than finger-spin on to the ball and that is to the good. If he can continue to gain some help for his fingers by the use of his wrists he will be very dangerous in Australia. I also like the inclusion of Sam Staples. This Notts bowler is of the type who can bowl all day and keep batsmen quiet while doing so. By having men like White and Staples in a side our star bowlers are likely to be more effective. Tate and Larwood cannot bowl for long spells and they must be at their best when they do bowl It appears, therefore, that our best bowlers wall have better help than they have on many previous tours. You will wonder probably why I have left out Hammond’s name in this discussion of bowlers. I have left him to the last for a reasoq. Hammond is likely to be more dangerous than most people imagine. He can bowl very fast and he makes the ball leave the wicket much quicker than it travels through the air. On the Australian “concrete” he will do this to an even greater extent than at home. In all probability, Hammond, instead of being a useful change bowler, will become one of our stars in attack. NO BATTING TAIL

In batting we shall not have so much of a tail as was in evidence the last time we were in Australia. Every man, so far as one can think before a match starts, should be able to score a good number of runs. One famous player has said that we should score 1,000 runs in an innings, but although doubting this to a certain extent, we certainly should get some good totals. Slip fielding has ever been a problem with touring teams, but 1 am confident that on this score we shall not be lacking this time. Chapman, Hammond and Mead are a good combination, and Sam Staples is more than reliable. Matches have been lost in past tours in the slips, and fast bowlers have been disheartened by seeing their chances going begging. That won’t happen this time.

The only thing that remains is to see what happens. But let there be no saying that the men of the England team are either frightened of fast bowling or the magnitude of their task in endeavouring to retain the Ashes. They are all out to* do it, and at least one of the team, and I think all the others, is confident that if wholehearted trying can do the trick, then Australia will have to wait a little longer for its revenge.