Gubby Under Pressure

failures and are really beginning to think things out for themselves. We shall certainly be a scratch lot when we go into the field for the First Test but, if we can have our first (and that is true) bit of luck at the start we might still do well. The wicket worries me rather. The one prepared for this match looks fast, but no one has looked more than medium-paced on it and the ball has turned from the start. Verity bowled magnificently yesterday but Robbie has got one of his fits of the funks and simply won’t put himself on. If he won’t bowl as I told him last night, how are we to find out how he is bowling, or whether the wicket will take spin? Farnes is bowling fairly well, but yards slower than he did in the second innings of the Gents and Players, and Voce looks very moderate at present.’ Allen’s little ‘chat’ with Robins certainly did the trick. When Queensland started their second innings needing 500 runs to win, Robins played his part in almost securing victory by bowling 17 overs, compared to only three in the first innings. Allen continued his letter with some more thoughts on the composition of the side for the Test. ‘If we decide on two fast bowlers, it looks like myself and Farnes, but I really don’t know and I don’t suppose any side has ever been in such an uncertain state so close to the First Test match as this one. All the people whom everyone thought were going to do so well, such as Fishlock, Hardstaff and Voce have been such terrible failures so far. I must say they deserve to do much better as I have never known such a charming abstemious lot. I still believe Fagg will succeed, though he did make an awful shot on Friday.’ At least Allen’s faith in Fagg would be justified when he completed the letter two days later. ‘Barnett and Fagg batted splendidly yesterday, but Hardstaff was again dreadful and Fishlock pretty shaky.’ But before that, Allen had something to say about the Australian team selection and, more importantly, the actions he had taken to ensure that the choice of umpires met with his approval. ‘I am delighted at the selection of Sievers as I think he is a very moderate cricketer. The selection of umpires also pleases but what a dreadful struggle I had. I am afraid I was very rude INDEED to one of the members of the Board of Control in Sydney on the subject. The position was this: I had told the representatives in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane that I did not want Barlow and sure enough he was submitted, with Borwick, for my approval. That was more than I could bear and I told him very straight that I had certainly come out with the intention of being amiable to everyone, but not to be made a fool of at the same time. I also told him that if that was the best they could do, I did not wish to be consulted on the subject in future as it appeared to me to be a case of in-sulting not con-sulting. When I heard of the change I wired my thanks to the Chairman of the Board and the man I had been so rude to, as I hope peace is restored again.’ Allen never explains his reasons for rejecting A.N.Barlow as an umpire for the Tests. Nor did he reveal the name of the umpire against whom he had lodged an official complaint after the match against New South Wales. The connection between the two omissions would seem obvious. The truth is more complex. Barlow did not officiate in the New South Wales match, as that responsibility The cricket 41