Gubby Under Pressure

Yorkshireman and Allen as a result of their different attitudes to bodyline in 1932/33. And Allen probably felt that his authority could be undermined by a professional cricketer who sometimes behaved like an amateur. But no one could defend the omission of Eddie Paynter and this seems to have been down to Allen who would admit, in one of his early letters home after Leyland had fallen ill on the voyage out, that it was he who had rejected the little Lancastrian: ‘We have had a reverse and it would happen to one of the left-handers after I had turned down a third.’ Allen attempted to justify himself by reminding Allen Synge in Sins of Omission: the Story of the Test Selectors 1899-1990 , that Paynter was a brilliant player of spin and medium pace but an uncertain batsman against speed, conveniently forgetting that the selectors had no reason to expect a battery of fast bowlers waiting for them in Australia. The final consensus of opinion was that the 1936/37 touring party, with no established opening partnership, no off spinner and several players of worthy but uninspiring talents, was one of the weakest ever sent to Australia and that Allen was facing an uphill task. But this ignored the fact that there were still seven players going who had helped trounce Australia 4-1 in their own backyard four years before, six of whom had played in the 1934 Ashes series in England only narrowly lost 2-1. Admittedly one of the four absentees was Larwood but, with ‘bodyline’ outlawed, taking the younger Farnes instead might not be such a disadvantage, when it is remembered that, on Australian pitches in the pre-‘bodyline’ tour of 1928/29, Larwood’s 18 Test wickets had cost 40·22 runs each. Of the other three, Jardine had retired from international cricket, which left only Sutcliffe and Paynter, whose absence might well be covered by the promising young Fagg and the in-form Fishlock and Barnett. Looking at the team selection realistically, if Allen could coax and cajole top class performances from his mixed squad of experience and youth, anything might be possible against an Australian team that was itself going through a transitional period after losing several senior players to retirement, and which would probably be playing under the untried leadership of Bradman. A new manager The decision concerning the appointment of a manager for the tour had been made way back at the beginning of June. But, before doing so, MCC’s Cricket and Selection Committee decided to make a rather strange recommendation. The obvious choice for manager was Warner, if he felt fit enough to take it on again. He was now 63 and the stress and strain of another long tour might be too much to ask, but if necessary, a joint manager could have accompanied Warner and provided assistance in much the same way that Palairet had done in 1932/33. But wily old Warner must have sensed danger. He had not been very popular in Australia by the time the ‘bodyline’ tour ended. He had failed to speak out against it while he was there and his efforts to change MCC’s attitude once back in England had been largely behind the scenes. He might not be seen in Australia as the right man to repair the damage done four years earlier and his reception could be lukewarm at best. Warner was between a rock and a hard place. If MCC selected someone else it suggested that it was inappropriate to Preparing for the tour 11