Jack Ryder’s Omission

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 898, 15 February 1930, Page 9

Jack Ryder’s Omission

CRITIC ALLEGES INTRIGUE Comment on Australian XI THE big sensation of the selection of the Australian team to visit England this season in an attempt to wrest the ashes from the mother country, was the passing over of J. Ryder, the Victorian, who led Australia so ably last year. Below is reprinted the opinions of three famous cricket critics on the subject of Ryder’s omission.

Jack Worrall, writing in the “Australasian” (Melbourne) says: “The curse of Australian cricket has always been interstate jealousy, but not so far as the players are concerned, and never has it been more strongly emphasised than in the rejection of the Australian captain from the Australian team for England. It is almost a safe assumption to state that few Australian teams in this country of late years have been an honest selection —invariably it has been a case of compromise. It is an open secret that intrigue —doing the best for one’s State as against those of Australia—has always been a dominant factor when teams are being chosen. The board primarily exists for the betterment of the game. If the furtherance of Australian cricket w r as one of its chief objects, would men without any English experience have been appointed to such a position? That Ryder was omitted as the result of bargaining is evident. On January 25 he was one of the eight certainties, but after he had made a magnificent not out century against New South Wales he was excluded. What is the inference? Evidently it was a case of “You give me my man and I will give you your choice.” MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE “It is many years since there has been such a miscarriage of justice, Australia’s interests having been made a matter of bargaining, so that the selectors will earn the goodwill of their States. Though the inexperience of the selectors was known to all, I was under the impression that those delegated to such an important position would act in the best interests of Australia. But I admit I was mistaken.

If the desire were to keep Australian cricket on the top rung of the ladder, old players with experience, character, intelligence, and judgment would have been chosen as selectors. PLAYER AND MAN “Cricket in one respect resembles politics in that the public has a short memory. Last season in the Test matches Ryder was the greatest batsman and personality in Australia. Time and again he proved his fighting qualities. scoring at a pinch with a grit and daring that elicited universal admiration. It is no exaggeration to say that he literally carried Australia on his back. Yet, like many other great players who have done yeoman service for the game, he Has been ’/dropped” because of interstate jealousy. M. A. NOBLE’S OPINION Writing in the Sydney “Sun.” 1,1. A. Noble, the famous old Australian international, says:— “Few, if any, anticipated the dropping of Jack Ryder. I must confess to a feeling of regret and sympathy for him. One does not forget his last season’s excellence in the Test matches, the number of runs he made, the way he made them, and bis pluck and resource in times of dire necessity. These thoughts make up pause and wonder if the measure of judgment we thought we possessed was an actual reality. However, Jack Ryder was dropped. THOSE LEFT OUT “He is not the first candidate whose exclusion was thought to be unjust, nor will he be the last; but, in the absence of a hitter in the team, I fear that his undoubted powers in that regard will be sadly missed. If a mis-

take has been made—which only the coming tour can prove—his exclusion on this occasion is not so great an error of judgment as that committed by the selectors in 1926 when Alan Kippax and Vic. Richardson were left behind. Ryder, maybe, is at the top oE his batting form today, but would readily admit that his cricketing days are mostly behind him; whereas, Kippax and Richardson were young, keen, enthusiastic. and right at the top of their form, with all their youthful energy and batting enterprise in front of them, needing but the experience of an English tour to complete their cricket education. This was denied them. Undoubtedly Australia suffered considerably thereby.” SELECTORS DEFENDED “Not Out,” the Sydney “Referee” critic, defends the - Australian selectors. He says: “The daily Press of Sydney and Melbourne has extracted its sensations out of the selection of the Eleven, more so than had been the case for many years. On this occasion, the hub-bub lias been far less general than it sometimes it, having surged around the one m & n —Jack Ryder, and his omission. “The selection committee has come in for some venomous criticism, but Lr. C. E!. Lolling and Mr. R. L. Jones, the two men most concerned, are a type that, possessing convictions, stick to them grimly, unless some very cogent reasons are advanced to shift them. “In the selection of the team these men have shown very fine moral courage. They have done what they conceived to be their duty to Australian cricket, and to themselves as men of conviction and honour. They have no axe to grind. They have simply determined to do what they conceive to be justice to the game and to the young cricketers of Australia, and, in doing so, to lay the foundation of success further afield than 1930. “Jack Ryder Is one of the finest chaps playing the game. He has shown his courage time after time on the cricket field. And he is a fine charactered man, but he has, unfortunately, deteriorated as a fieldsman to such an extent that he is not able to live up to the standard set by Australia, or by his own example to inspire his team to do sc—that is, in Test cricket. He is still a great fighting batsman. “Greater cricketers than he, who have achieved greater honours for Australia, have withdrawn from International cricket while still holding the office of captain, and while still, so far as the public could see. great players—M. A. Noble is one instance, George Giffen. Hugh Trumble, Jack Blackliam, and Alick Bannerman are others who retired in the thirties. - ’