Eddie Gilbert missed his opportunity in the bodyline series due to injury iirc. He did play the tourists for Qld, took 2/93 and bowled himself out of the last 2 tests without the interference of the White Australia policy. The comparison with Tait is spot on. Gilbert was fast but would fade. In the era of timeless tests his selection would have been discounted for that good reason alone. He was only any good in Brisbane and his numbers never justified a test on any other Australian ground. From that you'd have to worry how effective he'd have been OS.
He may have deserved a game in Brisbane but Australia generally won their preceding match and, ironically, it would have been unfair if anyone was dropped to make way for Gilbert. The only real chance Gilbert had to make the test team was v SA in 31/32 and for the 4th test when Tim Wall was absent. But he **** the bed against South Australia in Adelaide and missed the next shield match in Sydney. In that game, Gilbert's team mate, Thurlow took a michelle and debuted in the 4th test after 3 or 4 seasons of solid bowling. He wouldn't have been Gilbert's only challenger either. Laurie Nash took 12 wickets against the tourists in two games for Tasmania. If you want to find someone who likely missed games because of discrimination in that era it would have been Nash not Gilbert. A better bowler and cricketer than Wall, Nash should have been our first choice pace man in the 30s. Eventually Nash was rewarded with his first cap in the 5th test after Thurlow went wicketless at Adelaide. He bowled well.
Though the speculation of discrimination is strong, I can't see where Gilbert either had the opportunity to play tests or take them when he did. While subjected to it generally, his non selection had nothing to do with discrimination at the selection table at least. I mean he did get selected for Qld.
From what I've read I don't think Gilbert was a chucker, despite the speculation of some of the batsmen he startled. I don't know how the chucking rule was phrased back then but when no balled the umpire complained about a jerkiness in the wrist. I can't find where anyone questioned the straightness of his arm let alone having such an observation upheld by an umpire. If that is the standard of the complaint then I think the umpire erred and punished Gilbert for having a supple wrist. I don't think I'm alone in reading about many fast bowlers who had an advantage in being able to give the ball extra impetus by flicking the wrist.
While his calling was unfair imo, so is the speculation Gilbert was deliberately no balled out of the game because he was black. There is no evidence for that. The umpire who no balled him, Barlow, was a notorious **** who no balled a few bowlers back then. like Halcombe who may have lost a test call up because of it. I've seen film of Halcombe and he does seem a little sus though. He also called Cotton of SA who was called twice in his career. Gilbert was only called that one time: hardly evidence of a witch hunt. He received support from Australia's premier umpire, Hele, who thought his action fair (Colman's book). He bowled for for 4 seasons after being called until his form finally caused him to be dropped by Qld. Importantly his action was passed by Barlow on a subsequent occasion.
Just like Tait, Gilbert was fast but not especially good. Though I think he was a much better bowler than Tait his career would have gravitated to the shorter formats if they were available at the time.