Seven Commissioned Officers

foot of page A democracy in cricket Charity begins at Lord's | Genesis | Problems, problems... The players Lord's to Old Trafford | A classic in Sheffield | First defeat | July and August | September Tour of South Africa | Matches in Australia | Aftermath and legacy Version

---

A democracy in cricket

Herbie Collins

If there should ever be a vote for the most democratic team in cricket history, a strong contender must be the Australian Imperial Force Touring XI which toured Great Britain and South Africa in 1919. As is obvious from the name, the players were members of the Australian armed forces during World War I. They had all served in the European theatre, and I cannot imagine the profound relief they must have felt as they walked onto a cricket field instead of marching into a war zone.

Democratic? The players had various military ranks from gunner to major, so democracy is the last thing you'd expect to find.

If it had been the British Army, there can be little doubt that the major would have been the team captain, and the "other ranks" would have had a separate dressing room, especially if the major had been called Allen.

But these guys were Aussies, and their team captain, elected by the members themselves, was a lance corporal. So, on the field, Major Cyril Docker happily obeyed the orders of Lance Corporal Herbie Collins, and fielded where Herbie told him to field. They were all still in the forces, remember, so this was not a post-demob scenario. Although there were a few occasional players, the team was essentially composed of fifteen players. By rank, there was one major, four captains, one lieutenant, one warrant officer, one staff sergeant, two sergeants, one corporal, one lance corporal, and three gunners. As for the team's quality, it included three future Aussie greats—Collins, Jack Gregory, and Bertie Oldfield. Hammy Love, Nip Pellew, and Johnny Taylor also played for Australia, and most of the others played in the Sheffield Shield, so they were certainly a formidable outfit as far as English county teams were concerned.

But who were these guys, and how did their team come into being so soon after the most terrible war in history? We need to step back into the war itself.

Charity begins at Lord's

On 14 July 1917, at the height of the First World War, MCC hosted a charity match at Lord's between teams representing the British Army and the First Australian Imperial Force (AIF). The beneficiary was St Dunstan's Hostel for Blinded Sailors and Soldiers. It was the first match involving a team representative of the AIF, and included Charlie Macartney, Cyril Docker, and Bill Stirling. The British Army team included Colin Blythe, playing in his last-ever match—tragically, he was killed in France four months later. Also playing were Percy Fender, Patsy Hendren, and Pelham Warner.

The game ended in a draw, but it was a great success, and more charity matches followed. The highlight was a three-match series, played at Lord's and the Oval in 1918, between an England XI and a Dominions XI. Unfortunately, the matches had to be one-day duration only, and all three were drawn. A number of Australian players represented the Dominions—they included Cyril Docker, Allie Lampard, Ed Long, Nip Pellew, and Johnny Taylor who all went on to play for the AIF team in 1919.

Genesis

Lt Gen. John Monash

Following the Armistice on 11 November 1918, the Australian government established a body called the Demobilisation and Repatriation Branch of the AIF. Lieutenant General John Monash was appointed its director. Estimating that some 187,000 people—service personnel and dependants—needed to be repatriated, and realising that this could not be done on any kind of short-term basis, Monash announced two objectives. One was to determine both a policy and a process for repatriation; the other was to "maintain morale while the process was undertaken".

Numerous schemes were initiated to maintain morale. Mostly, they provided education and technical training to help the service people recommence their civilian careers, or start new ones, when they returned home. Monash's people realised the importance of entertainment, including sport. In agreement with the Australian Army Corps HQ in London, they established the AIF Sports Control Board. On 31 January 1919, the board issued AIF Order 1539 to all ranks:

The following proposals for the formation of an AIF Board of Control to encourage sport in all units and supervise organisation and selection of representative teams.
The Board to consist of a president, two representatives from units in France, one from AIF depots in the United Kingdom, one from London, and one representative of the Australian Comforts Fund.

Meanwhile, MCC and the county clubs were planning ahead for the 1919 season. Aware that the wartime charity matches had attracted large crowds, it was suggested that an Australian servicemen's touring team should be formed. The idea was taken to AIF HQ where it was received with enthusiasm, and the apparent support of Field Marshal William Birdwood, C-in-C of the AIF. The Australian Board of Control for International Cricket (the ABC, now Cricket Australia) gave its support too, and appointed Major Gordon Campbell, a former South Australia wicket-keeper, as its representative in England.

Technically, the ABC ran the team while it was active, and ruled on match status—first-class or otherwise. However, as the players were all members of the AIF, it was their Sports Control Board which recruited the players and ran trials to decide who should be in the squad. Many servicemen had played at either first-class or grade level, and there was a huge response to the call for applicants, so many that the AIF ended up forming a second XI which played against league clubs and other minor teams. The players received only their army pay, and nothing from the ABC. All gate money profits were paid to the AIF Sports Control Board.

In practical terms, the team was managed by Howard Lacey, a committee member at Surrey County Cricket Club, which used its connections to organise many of the first-class fixtures. Lacey was a league club cricketer who had captained the Mitcham team. In August 1918, Lacey had organised a charity match between his own invitation XI and an Australian XI.

Pitch it short and fast, boys. They don't like it up 'em! They do not like it.

The first team squad originally had seventeen players, and was billed as the Australian Imperial Force Touring XI. The bulk of the squad, fifteen players (see table below), remained intact for nearly nine months from May 1919. The other two players were Charles Kelleway and Harry Heath, who both departed in early June. They played 33 matches in Great Britain, ten in South Africa on their way home, and then another three in Australia itself before disbanding in February 1920. Of the 46 matches, 39 were first-class, and the team had only four defeats, all of those in England. Their first-class record in Great Britain was 28 played with twelve wins, four defeats and twelve draws. The second XI played 55 matches, and lost only eleven.

Problems, problems...

The AIF Touring XI was initially placed under the captaincy of Charles Kelleway, who was also a captain in the Army. He had played Test cricket before the war. The sixth match of the tour was against Surrey at the Oval from 31 May to 3 June. This was Kelleway's last AIF match, and he departed under something of a cloud. During or immediately after the Oval match, there was a dispute within the team which was ostensibly "about the fixtures list". It resulted in a players' meeting (all ranks), which ended with Lance Corporal Collins being elected team captain in place of Captain Kelleway.

In terms of rank, this was Jones replacing Mainwaring!

Including the Surrey match, the team at that point had won two and drawn four of their matches, so they weren't doing badly, but they also weren't doing particularly well. So Kelleway went back to the Army, and you might think it was all just a captaincy issue. According to Chris Harte, however, Kelleway was "relieved of the captaincy following a decision by the Army authorities because of (his) poor behaviour", this echoing the problems of the Australian team to England in 1912, of which Kelleway was a member.

Collins captained the team for the remainder of the tour. It was still a military unit, and cricket writer Ray Robinson expressed real surprise at the decision to elect a lance corporal as skipper when there was a major and four captains playing. Chris Harte wrote that the team "ignored all considerations of (military) rank", Collins "giving orders to seven commissioned officers without anyone questioning his authority".

That wasn't the only "players' meeting". They had another soon afterwards when they were told that the South African government in Pretoria had sent a telegram to the Sports Control Board, inviting the team to tour South Africa ''en route'' to Australia. The players were unanimous in their refusal. They wanted to go straight home after the 1919 English season ended in September, but the Australian Army was conscious of the need for post-war goodwill among allies, and recommended that the invitation should be accepted. The Ministry of Defence agreed, and ordered the players, as serving officers and other ranks, to comply. Planning began for a tour of South Africa from October to December.

Another problem the AIF team sometimes faced was the two-day match. For some bizarre reason, the 1919 County Championship matches were played over two days instead of the normal three (these days, the duration is four). Two days is simply not long enough for four innings matches played on good pitches. One or two days was okay in the 18th and early 19th centuries when pitch preparation and maintenence were rudimentary, but groundsmanship evolved before the 20th century began. I'll have more to say about pitches in a later edition.

To be fair, the majority of AIF first-class matches in England were over three days. Their first two-day match was against Oxford University at the Parks on 29 and 30 May. Like so many of these shorties, it ended in a draw. The team at Oxford included Harry Heath, who made his first-class debut there, but did not play for the AIF again. He later made two appearances for South Australia in the 1923–24 season.

The players

The Australian Imperial Force Touring XI photographed at Lord's in June 1919.

Back row: Charlie Winning, Hammy Love, Jack Murray, Eric Bull, Jack Gregory, Ed Long, Bertie Oldfield.
Middle row: Cyril Docker, Nip Pellew, Herbie Collins, Carl Willis, Allie Lampard, Bill Trenerry.
Front row: Johnny Taylor, Bill Stirling.

Most players are wearing the official team blazer with the AIF "rising sun" emblem on the pocket.

The table below lists the fifteen players who formed the "nucleus" of the AIF XI, all playing in at least one first-class match. Hammy Love, who later played for Australia, made only a single first-class appearance in 1919, but he remained with the squad as "third wicket-keeper" in reserve to Long and Oldfield. Details state the player's date of birth, his military rank, his Sheffield Shield state team, his batting hand, and his bowling type.

name	born	military rank	state	bat	bowl
batsmen
Eric Bull	28 September 1886	Gunner, 26th Field Battery	New South Wales	RHB	RM
Jack Murray	1 December 1892	Gunner, 103rd Howitzer Battery	South Australia	RHB	RM
Nip Pellew	21 September 1893	Captain, 27th Battalion	South Australia	RHB	RM
Johnny Taylor	10 October 1895	Gunner, 101st Howitzer Battery	New South Wales	RHB	none
Bill Trenerry	29 November 1892	Captain, 17th Battalion	New South Wales	RHB	LB
Carl Willis	23 March 1893	Captain, Dental Corps	Victoria	RHB	none
all rounders
Herbie Collins	21 January 1888	Lance corporal, 10th AASC	New South Wales	RHB	SLA
Jack Gregory	14 August 1895	Lieutenant, 4th Division Artillery	New South Wales	LHB	RF
Allie Lampard	3 July 1885	Sergeant, 10th AASC	Victoria	RHB	LBG
wicket-keepers
Ed Long	28 March 1883	Captain, Provost Marshal	New South Wales	RHB	none
Hammy Love	10 August 1895	Sergeant, 10th AASC	New South Wales	RHB	none
Bertie Oldfield	9 September 1894	Corporal, Field Ambulance	New South Wales	RHB	none
bowlers
Cyril Docker	3 March 1884	Major, General List	New South Wales	RHB	RFM
Bill Stirling	19 March 1891	Warrant officer	South Australia	RHB	LM
Charlie Winning	20 April 1889	Staff Sergeant, Dental Corps	none	RHB	RM

Ten players had previous experience of first-class cricket with pre-war state teams. They were Bull, Collins, Docker, Long, Taylor (all NSW), Murray, Pellew, Stirling (all South Australia), Lampard, and Willis (both Victoria). Gregory, Love, Oldfield, Trenerry, and Winning all made their first-class debuts with the AIF XI.

Lord's to Old Trafford

Jack Gregory

Collins began his captaincy at no less a venue than Lord's, where the Australians convincingly defeated MCC by ten wickets inside two days on 5 and 6 June. Gregory, Lampard, and Stirling shared 18 wickets in the match as MCC were dismissed for 133 and 228, the Australians replying with 297 and 66 for no wicket. Gregory with 56 top-scored and Trenerry scored 55, these two adding 80 for the eighth wicket after the Australians had struggled to 164 for seven. Charlie Winning made his first-class debut in this match.

A two-day match against Sussex, at Hove on 9 and 10 June, was drawn, and then the Australians took the train north for consecutive matches against two of the strongest county sides, Lancashire and Yorkshire. They played Lancashire at Old Trafford 12 to 14 June, and Yorkshire at Bramall Lane 16 to 18 June. Surprisingly, they comprehensively defeated Lancashire by an innings and 157 runs with a day to spare. Collins led the way with 103 as the tourists amassed 418. Lancashire then collapsed twice, and Lampard took a remarkable nine for 42 in the second innings.

A classic in Sheffield

The match in Sheffield was a classic. It produced an exciting finish as the Australians, needing 170 to win, had been reduced to 116 for nine when Gregory was joined by last man Ed Long. Against the odds, they put on 54 for the tenth wicket to win the game, Gregory scoring 41* and Long 13*. Yorkshire, featuring George Hirst, Wilfred Rhodes and the young Herbert Sutcliffe, went on to win the County Championship in 1919 so this was an outstanding performance by Collins' team.

Yorkshire won the toss and batted first. Their opening pair of Rhodes (90) and Percy Holmes (71) shared 150 for the first wicket but finally Gregory dismissed Holmes and then, with six for 91, proceeded to bowl Yorkshire out for 224. The Australians began badly and were 59 for four before the middle order rallied.

They eventually reached 265 on the second day. A key innings was played by one of the bit-part players Eric Bull who scored a career-highest 42 at a crucial time from the end of day one and well into the second morning.

Yorkshire scored 210 in their second innings. They would have had a very low score but for an outstanding effort by Hirst with 88. Yorkshire again struggled against Gregory who dismissed all the first six batsmen and finished with seven for 79 for a match haul of thirteen for 170—a sign of things to come. The Australians began the fourth innings before lunch on the final day, and were soon struggling after Collins was out without scoring. Only Trenerry, with 39, made any contribution among the top order batsmen. The total was 71 for five when Bull came in. He played another valuable innings of 27, and was out at 111 for eight. Gregory was joined by Winning who was out for nought at 116 for nine, and this set up the remarkable climax to the game between Gregory and Long.

First defeat

Having been unbeaten in their first eleven matches, the Australians finally tasted defeat in the twelfth at Lord's when they played the Gentlemen of England, captained by Pelham Warner, from 23 to 25 June. The Gentlemen batted first after winning the toss and ran up a total of 402, batting into the second morning. Surprisingly, the Australians collapsed against the fast-medium pace of Johnny Douglas (four for 34) and Michael Falcon (six for 41), and were bowled out for only 85 in the 35th over. Asked to follow on, the Australians reached 149 for 8 at close of play but were dismissed for 184 in the third morning. Douglas took four for forty this time and the slow left armer Jack White took four for 38. The result was a comprehensive victory for the Gentlemen by an innings and 133 runs. This match was as good an example as any of a Gents team unexpectedly rising to the occasion, and delivering a surprise result.

July and August

Bert Oldfield

The Australians quickly recovered, and defeated Northamptonshire at the end of June. Next, they played four second-class matches, all of them scheduled for two days only. Three were in Scotland and one was against Durham which was then a Minor Counties team. They returned to first-class action on 11 July in a two-day draw against Leicestershire.

The next match was also a two-day affair, and Derbyshire defeated the AIF by 36 runs in Derby. It was a low-scoring game with Derbyshire scoring 181 and 112, while the Australians could only muster 125 and 132 in reply. Derbyshire paceman James Horsley did the damage, taking six for 55 and six for 62.

Gregory took eleven wickets in the match, including his best innings analysis to date of seven for 56, against Worcestershire at New Road. The AIF won by an innings and 203 runs. Worcestershire did not take part in the County Championship in 1919. In the next match, another two-day affair, Warwickshire were beaten by an innings and 38 runs at Edgbaston after Collins scored 110 and took five for 73.

The Australians then played Nottinghamshire over three days at Trent Bridge. They batted first and made 371, Willis scoring 130. Notts replied with 391, batting into the third morning. George Gunn scored 131. Collins scored 118, including his 1,000th run of the season, and declared the second innings at 242 for five. That left time for only 25 overs, and Notts played it out to 62 for one, the game ending in a draw.

Following a short break, the Australians played Surrey at The Oval from 31 July to 2 August. The AIF batted first and scored 436 with Collins top scorer on 95. They had Surrey on 83 for six in the second morning, but the county rallied with a seventh wicket partnership of 146 between captain Cyril Wilkinson (103) and Jack Crawford (144*) to reach 322 and avoid the follow-on. The AIF made 260 for four declared, and Surrey secured the draw with 121 for one, Jack Hobbs scoring 68*.

The Australians returned to Hove for their first match starting in August, and defeated Sussex by an innings and 54 runs. They followed that with a draw against Kent at the St Lawrence Ground in Canterbury. At this point, they took a break, and there were no matches between 10 and 20 August. They returned to action on Thursday, 21 August, playing Essex at Southchurch Park in Southend, winning this one by 309 runs.

Their next match, which began on Wednesday, 27 August, was against Gloucestershire at the Clifton College Close Ground, which had strong associations with W. G. Grace, who had died in autumn of the bleak year of 1915. This was another two-day match that produced another draw, but it was Gloucestershire, not the AIF, who were cheated of time. The AIF struggled against the left arm spin of Charlie Parker, and had to follow on. It was only through a determined defensive effort by Bill Trenerry that they avoided an innings defeat and gained the draw.

Starting Friday, 29 August, the AIF faced their last county opposition, defeating Somerset by 95 runs at the Taunton County Ground. Collins had an outstanding match. He scored 67* in the second innings of a low-scoring game, and had match figures of twelve for 69 bowling his slow left armers. The Somerset second innings lasted only 28 overs as Collins wiped them out with a career-best eight for 31.

September

Poster for the match at Mitcham.

The AIF tour of England concluded in September with three first-class games against festival-type teams and, finally, a one-day exhibition match on what is believed to be the world's oldest cricket ground. There were two matches against a South of England XI—this was "the South" team which contested the traditional North v South matches each season. The AIF last the first one at Hastings by 122 runs, and won the second at Portsmouth by ten wickets.

Their final first-class match in England was against C. I. Thornton's XI at the Scarborough Festival. This was a very close match which Thornton's XI won by two wickets. Bill Hitch had taken six for 24 and five for 102, leaving his team with a final day target of 191 to win. They made it after Jack Hobbs had held their innings together with 93. Wilfred Rhodes scored the winning run. It was only the fourth defeat the AIF conceded in England, having won and drawn twelve each of the other 24 matches.

The last AIF match in England was on Saturday, 13 September. Arranged by Howard Lacey, it was a one-day single-innings "odds" match against a Mitcham XVI on Mitcham Cricket Green, which is possibly the world's oldest extant cricket ground. The match was advertised by the poster, shown right, as Australian Imperial Force Touring XI v Sixteen of Mitcham. There's a couple of mistakes in it—Bertie Oldfield's initials and Bill Trenerry's name were misprinted. The Australian names include reserve players W. Munday and C. Smith who both played in the match for the AIF, while Bill Stirling played as a given man for Mitcham. The potential Mitcham players included Jack Hobbs, Andy Sandham, and Herbert Strudwick but none of them played on the day. Mitcham batted first and scored 200 all out, skipper Lacey making the top score with 39. Trenerry and Collins shared twelve of the fifteen wickets, and the AIF won easily enough by five wickets.

Chris Harte's conclusion of the AIF in England was that they were "generally a very sound side" and the crowds watching them were "far above expectation". Collins did "the double" with 1,615 runs and 106 wickets. The highest runscorer was Willis with 1,652. The most outstanding player, however, was Gregory who would soon become one of the biggest names in world cricket. He took 131 wickets at only 18.19, held 44 catches at slip, and scored 942 runs, just 58 short of a double.

Tour of South Africa

The AIF team arrived in Cape Town on 13 October and Chris Harte recounted that it was on this same day that the Australian state cricket associations "started squabbling over who would host AIF matches in Australia". The South African Cricket Association had given a guarantee against any financial loss but the AIF tour of South Africa was a resounding success. They defeated Western Province by two wickets in Cape Town, followed by a drawn game against Transvaal on the Old Wanderers ground in Johannesburg. Next stop was Durban to play Natal and they won that one convincingly by 310 runs, Gregory taking nine for 32, the best analysis of his entire career, and five for 54. Natal should have had enough after that but the teams met again in Pietermaritzburg, the AIF winning by an innings and 42 runs.

Returning to the Old Wanderers, the AIF beat Transvaal by an innings and 14 runs. They stayed in Johannesburg for the next two matches, which were scheduled for four days each. These were against a South African national team in what may be termed "unofficial Tests". The AIF won them both, the first by eight wickets, and the second by an innings and 129 runs. In the first game, Collins produced the outstanding batting performance of the entire tour with a magnificent knock of 235 in 315 minutes with 23 boundaries. The Australians returned to Cape Town in early December to play Western Province again at Newlands. This match, the last in South Africa, was drawn.

Matches in Australia

Nip Pellew. Test batsman and one of the greatest-ever outfielders.

After a very public row, it was finally decided in Australia that the AIF would play three of the state teams: Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. The team arrived home in December, and reassembled at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in mid-January. They defeated Victoria by six wickets after Collins won the toss against his future Test captain Warwick Armstrong and put Victoria in to bat. The second match, a rain-affected draw, was against Queensland at the Gabba, in Brisbane.

The last match of the tour, the swansong of the AIF team, was played 31 January to 3 February 1920 at the Sydney Cricket Ground against New South Wales and the AIF won by 203 runs. The AIF batted first, and Gregory opened against his home state, for whom he had yet to make his debut. He scored two centuries (122 and 101), and took eight wickets in the match. Bill Trenerry's brother Edwin was playing for NSW. Like Gregory, Collins was also opposing his home state, and he scored 129 in the second innings.

Aftermath and legacy

The New South Wales Cricket Association said in its July 1920 annual report that "(it is to be hoped) many of these players will be seen in our big matches next season". Unfortunately, many of the fifteen players had pre-war careers in other spheres, such as banking or farming or medicine, to which they soon returned.

Bull, Docker, Long and Winning never played first-class cricket again after the AIF team disbanded. Stirling played one final match for South Australia and then retired. Trenerry played only three more first-class games. Lampard spent two more seasons with Victoria and retired in February 1922. Love, Murray and Willis continued to play in the Sheffield Shield for several seasons. Love eventually played for Australia just once in the 1932–33 Bodyline series.

Even so, the AIF did bequeath a legacy to Australian Test cricket as Collins, Gregory, Oldfield, Pellew and Taylor were all members of Warwick Armstrong's team in the next two years, during which they overwhelmed England in two Ashes series.

Version

As with The Monster Bat Controversy, this is a new version of an article first written by me in years past—about twelve years ago, that one—and published elsewhere.

top of page A Man from Eynsford | A Conduit from Hambledon to Marylebone

---

A Man from Eynsford

foot of page Francis Booker "Known" debut | But there was no middle stump | Last known match | Venues where Booker is known to have played

---

Francis Booker

Here's a biography of a man who may be considered a typically good county cricketer in the second half of the 18th century. One of the reasons he is typical is that he was both a cricketer and an innkeeper. His name was Francis Booker and he was born on Wednesday, 8 October 1746 in the Kent village of Eynsford, which is about seven miles north of Sevenoaks, and five south of Dartford. He lived his whole life there and kept The Soho, which was a coaching inn. Arthur Haygarth visited the village in 1860.

The ford and bridge in Eynsford.

Eynsford is one of those "step back in time" places you find throughout the English countryside. It has a ford, crossing the River Darent in the village centre. Don't worry. There's a bridge next to it, so you don't need to get wet. Within the village and its environs are a Roman villa, a Norman castle, a medieval church, and buildings which date from the 16th and 17th centuries. If Booker could return to see Eynsford today, there is much he would immediately recognise.

Booker's known career was from 1773 to 1790. He is mentioned by sources in connection with a total of 53 top-class matches, including single wicket, though he must have played in many, many more whose scorecards are lost (or were never even created). He was a left-handed batsman who was noted as a fine hitter of the ball, and a very good outfielder, usually at mid-wicket. He was an occasional bowler, again left-handed, but we don't know if he was fast, medium or slow. He obviously bowled underarm like everyone else in the 18th century, and I assume he deployed a pitched delivery. Booker is, in fact, one of cricket's earliest known left-handers; another of the time was Hambledon's "general" Richard Nyren. Booker played mostly for Kent teams, and was rated a good single wicket player.

He is the subject of the seventh biography in Haygarth's Scores & Biographies (on page 7 of Volume One). Haygarth says much of his account is sourced to Thomas Booker, a nephew who was resident at Eynsford in 1860. Francis Booker was said to be about 5 ft 8 inches tall, and weighed around 12 stone. Haygarth describes him as "one of the cracks of his day". He provides an anecdote of Booker once jumping over a fence at Sevenoaks Vine, and still catching the ball. He reportedly defeated William Bullen in a single wicket match at Lord's (the original ground) to win £50, a considerable sum in those days, but the score of this match has not been preserved.

There is a brief mention of Booker in John Nyren's classic work The Cricketers of my Time. On page 74 of the revised edition, Nyren says that Booker was a player "of the first rank, though not the first of that rank". Booker was, says Nyren who must certainly have met him, an "excellent and steady batter and a sure field".

"Known" debut

The first match in which Booker is known to have played was Surrey v Kent at Laleham Burway, Chertsey. It was played Monday, 21 to Tuesday, 22 June 1773. Surrey won by 35 runs. No bowling or fielding data has survived, but we do know all the batsmen's scores, though not if they were actually dismissed (i.e., we don't know who the four "not out" batsmen were). Anyway, our man was listed seventh (which doesn't mean he batted seventh) in the Kent batting order, and he scored 2 and 4.

The Young Cricketer is a famous painting by Francis Cotes. Completed in 1768, about the time Francis Booker started in top-class cricket. As you can see, plenty of room between the stumps for Lumpy to score his football hat-trick!

Surrey took first innings and made 175; Kent replied with 133. Surrey batted third, and were all out for 70 which suggests that batting conditions became more difficult as the match went into the second day. Kent in the fourth innings were all out for 77, so Surrey won by 35. The highest score in the game was 44 by Thomas White—the big bat man himself, "one White of Ryegate"—playing for Surrey. Noted players taking part were White, Lumpy Stevens, William Yalden, and Richard Francis for Surrey; Booker, Joseph Miller, Thomas Pattenden, and Tom May for Kent.

Several of the amateur fraternity were involved, most notably Earl Tankerville (leading Surrey), the Duke of Dorset (leading Kent), and Horatio Mann (playing for Kent). As Haygarth himself said, Booker was 26 going on 27 when this match happened, so he must have been playing for some years already. His county career probably began in the 1760s. The problem is, of course, that regular compilation and retention of scorecards did not begin until 1772 so, alas, we know nothing of Booker, and little of his contemporaries, before 1773.

But there was no middle stump

In May 1775, Booker took part in what must be the most famous single wicket match ever played. He was one of a Five of Kent team which included the great bowler Lumpy Stevens as a given man. The other three Kent players were William Brazier, William Bullen, and Joseph Miller. Their opponents were Five of Hambledon, who included Thomas White as a given man. The Hambledon players were Tom Brett, George Leer, Tom Sueter and, significantly, master batsman John Small. Booker played very well in this game and, in doing so, helped to set up the game's dramatic finale.

Kent batted first, and were dismissed for only 37 by Brett and White. Booker scored 8. Hambledon scored 92 in reply for a first innings lead of 55 which, taking everything into account, was substantial. Small made 75 of those 92 runs, and all five Hambledon batsmen were bowled by Lumpy. In their second innings, Kent made 102 to avoid the innings defeat, and gave their bowlers hope by establishing a lead of 47. Bullen made the top score of 56, and Booker scored 35, a significant contribution. Hambledon needed 48 to win, but they were against Lumpy so the result was no certainty. Lumpy bowled White, Brett and Sueter. Booker caught Leer.

We don't know the overall batting order except that Small was last man in, and he still needed to score 14. It was master bowler versus master batsman, and the master batsman won, but only after Lumpy had sent the ball through the two-stump wicket without disturbing it. Not once, not twice, but three times. That's a hat-trick in football, but it was frustration for Lumpy. Small got the runs he needed, and Hambledon won the match by one wicket.

In due course, and it evidently did take quite a while to become universal, the three-stump wicket was introduced in response to Lumpy's justifiable protests. Booker certainly played his part.

Last known match

Booker's final known appearance was in September 1790 when he played for Stephen Amherst's West Kent XI against the East Kent XI selected by Horatio Mann. Because of bad weather, it was played over five days from Tuesday, 7 to Saturday, 11 September.

The match was played on Mann's Bourne Paddock at Bishopsbourne, near Canterbury. Amherst's XI won by 130 runs. They had first innings and scored 119. Booker had the second highest score with 29. Mann's XI were dismissed for 97, and Amherst's team then took the advantage with 148 in their second innings for a lead of 270, which was massive in those days. Mann's XI were clearly not up to the task, and were all out for only 40. Booker in his last known innings made only 3. He held one catch, but he may not have bowled in the match.

We don't know if Booker played again at the highest level. He was nearly 44 by this time, so perhaps not.

Francis Booker died, aged 60, on Thursday, 13 November 1806, the week before Napoleon announced his Continental System.

Venues where Booker is known to have played

There are only a dozen known venues, but Booker was one of very few players who took part in top-class matches at all three of Hambledon's grounds, including the little-known Cheden Holt.

This plaque in Dorset Square commemorates the original Lord's ground, which opened in 1787. Francis Booker played there that year.

The grounds were:

• Artillery Ground, Finsbury
• Bourne Paddock, Bishopsbourne
• Broadhalfpenny Down, Hambledon
• Cheden Holt, Hambledon
• Itchin Stoke Down, Alresford
• Laleham Burway, Chertsey
• Lord's Old Ground, Marylebone
• Moulsey Hurst, West Molesey
• Star Inn, Coxheath
• The Old Park, Canterbury
• The Vine, Sevenoaks
• Windmill Down, Hambledon

He also played at both the Artillery Ground and the original Lord's. I don't suppose there were many who did that.

He was too late for Dartford Brent and Kennington Common but, no matter, his career would still make an excellent travelogue of 18th century cricket.

top of page And one was a tie | Seven Commissioned Officers

---

And one was a tie

foot of page The scores are level The build-up | The match | And on to Lord's

---

The scores are level

North Marine Road

From 1806 to 1962, the Gentlemen met the Players in 274 matches. 135 were played at Lord's, 72 at the Oval, and 38 at North Marine Road. The remainder took place at eight other grounds, mostly coastal. The Gentlemen won 68 matches, but the Players won 127, while 78 were drawn...

...and one was a tie.

A tie is very rare in top-class cricket. It happens when all four innings have been completed, and the scores are level. To be clear, "completed" specifically requires that the team batting fourth is all out, the scores being level when their last wicket falls. If scores are level when time is up, but the fourth innings is incomplete, the result is a draw.

The earliest known tie is a single wicket "threes" match between London and Surrey on Lamb's Conduit Field in September 1736. They scored 23 runs apiece in total. London made 4 and 19; Surrey replied with 18 and 5. Another source has different innings totals, but they still add up to 23. On 22 July 1741, Surrey hosted London in an eleven-a-side match on Richmond Green, and the result was "a Tye, which occasioned the Betts to be drawn on both Sides". A report that is typical of its time, when betting took priority over the actual play. That was the first tie in an eleven-a-side match, and there have been only 69 from then until the most recent in July 2024, an average of one every four years. The most famous was the first "Tied Test" at the Gabba in December 1960, when Richie Benaud's Australia and Frank Worrell's West Indies staged arguably the greatest match of all time.

We're going back to the end of June 1883, to the Oval, and the tied GvP match.

The build-up

Cricket banner

There's an excellent contemporary match report in the 5 July 1883 issue of Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game, edition 35, page 228. There are also some post-match comments on page 220. The match report itself begins with something of a contradiction. The writer tells us that the match was "essentially interesting (because) it produced such a sensational finish"—mustn't get over-excited.

The teams. Workers first, public school second.

The Players had what seems to have been a strong team on paper, but how strong in reality? Unusually, they were somewhat lacking in the pace department. Tom Emmett was nearly 42. I'd say he was past his prime, and Cricket evidently agreed. Emmett's Yorkshire team-mate George Ulyett was the only other pace bowler in the team, and we have to ask how fast he was in 1883 at the age of 31? In the match, Emmett and Ulyett bowled only 43 overs between them, of 278. Emmett took three wickets, Ulyett none. So, it wasn't a fast wicket. The main bowlers for the Players were Edmund Peate (left arm spin), Dick Barlow (left arm medium), Billy Barnes (right arm medium fast), Billy Bates (off break), and Wilf Flowers (off break). Wickets were shared in the first innings, but Flowers was outstanding in the second, taking 6/40.

Allan Steel, c.1895

Mordecai Sherwin, then aged 32, was the wicket-keeper for the Players, and batted at #11 in both innings. The specialist batsmen were Arthur Shrewsbury, Ephraim Lockwood, and Walter Robinson. Barlow, Barnes, Bates, and Ulyett were all-rounders. Emmett, Flowers, Peate, and Sherwin were tail-enders.

My impression is that the Players needed an influx of new blood. Too many of these players had reached their peak.

Turning to the Gentlemen, their most conspicuous absentee was the Leviathan himself. Cricket says WG had "an important professional engagement". He was Dr Grace by this time, so I presume this professional engagement was a medical one instead of his usual cricket one?

We are now in the period that Derek Birley called the "Amateur Ambuscade". The Gents, even without the man himself, were very strong in front of the wicket, having batsmen like Albert Hornby, Alfred Lucas, Allan Steel, Charles Leslie, Charles Wright, and Charles Studd, who were all good enough to play for England. Whereas the Players may have lacked pace, the Gents for once did not. Their front line bowlers were Steel (fast medium) and Hugh Rotherham (roundarm fast). It didn't stop there, because those two were well supported by Joe Frank (fast), Walter Forbes (roundarm fast), and Studd (medium fast). Their wicket-keeper was Manley Kemp, who was with Kent for several seasons.

Finally, the Gents had the ultimate in jolly good chappery—Harris. He was certainly okay as a county batsman, though I'm inclined to think his influence elevated him to the England team (he played in four Tests). Excessive influence, and the excessive use of it, was always the issue with people like Harris, Hawke, and Allen.

The match

Surprisingly, Harris didn't captain the Gents. Instead, it was the pugnacious Hornby who led them out. He was from Blackburn, and was a no-nonsense northerner who played like a professional, as did his Lancashire team-mate Steel, who was from Liverpool. We don't actually know who captained the Players—I'd guess it was one of Emmett, Lockwood, or Shrewsbury—but he won the toss, and decided to bat first. Barlow and Ulyett opened the innings, and got things off to a good start with a partnership of 92. They were both dismissed by Steel, and then there was something of a collapse. As Cricket says, Rotherham in his second spell took 6/41, and "completely altered the aspect of the game". Openers Ulyett and Barlow scored 63 and 47 respectively, and the best of the rest was 20 by Barnes. The Players were all out for 203. At close of play on the Thursday (28 June), the Gents had reached 92/3 in reply.

Billy Bates

On Friday morning, the Gents pressed on. Several of their batsmen made useful scores, and they gained a first innings lead of 32 with a total of 235 all out. The Players batted for the rest of the day, and their final wicket fell for 181 just before close of play, leaving the Gents with all day Saturday to score 150. Billy Bates was outstanding in the Players second innings, scoring 76 before he was bowled by his Yorkshire team-mate Joe Frank. Barlow and Barnes made useful scores, but no one except Bates could cope with Steel, who took 7/43. Cricket says of Bates that his innings was "a very finely got score of 76"! They produced some curious turns of phrase when trying not to be excited.

The Gentlemen were expected to score the 150 they needed without much difficulty, the pitch being in good condition on Friday evening. But, this is England, and you never can tell what the weather might do. On Friday night, there was a thunderstorm, and it created an inevitable "sticky wicket". Play recommenced on Saturday morning, and "the chances were voted to be all in favour of the Players". Wilf Flowers was a noted exponent of sticky conditions, and the Gents struggled against the unpredictable rises and turns of the ball after he had spun it onto a treacherous surface.

There were two key moments in the innings. The first concerned Lucas, who carried his bat for 47. He should have been given out when he had scored 8. According to the Cricket report, he was "caught low down by Lockwood at point". There are no other details, but I presume this was a diving catch, and Lockwood caught the ball just before it could touch the ground, though he might have grasped it as it bounced. The report says neither umpire saw the catch, and Lucas was given the benefit of doubt. It would seem that the Players appealed, so Lockwood must have thought it was a clean catch. Did Lucas see it, and did he know if he was out or not? If the former, then surely a "gentleman" would satisfy honour and walk?

After all, WG would have walked, wouldn't he..... 😂😂😂

It's interesting that Cricket, which didn't always succeed in suppressing its MCC bias, summarised Lucas' innings by saying quite definitely: "He was out as before stated". Whether he was in or out, Lucas deserved praise for his "stolid defence", which saved his team from defeat.

The second incident concerned Bates, who was known to be a poor fielder, and had a reputation for dropping easy catches. Lucas was running out of partners, and all must have expected a Players win when the Gentlemen's ninth wicket fell at 136, still 13 runs behind. Rotherham, the last man, came in amidst "intense excitement". Rotherham lacked defensive skills, and preferred to attack the bowling. The score had moved on to 142/9—seven runs behind—when Rotherham hit a ball from Flowers "straight into the hands of Bates at the long field" (perhaps long on or long off?), and Bates dropped it.

"Amidst general cheering", says the report, the Gents tied the match at 149/9 with Lucas on 47, and Rotherham on 11. Edmund Peate, an outstanding left arm spinner for Yorkshire and England, had so far bowled 64 overs in this match without taking a single wicket. With Rotherham on strike, the Players held "a consultation", and then "deputed Peate to oppose Rotherham". Rotherham was bemused by the first ball, and clean bowled by the second, so the game ended in a tie as both teams had a match score of 384, and all four innings were complete. It was the first and only tie in GvP history.

No, not that George Harrison.

The Cricket report says there was "great enthusiasm" at the end, and several minutes passed before the excitement died down.

And on to Lord's

On page 225 of the 5 July edition, Cricket announced the players selected for the Lord's GvP match, due to commence on 9 July. The Players replaced Tom Emmett and Walter Robinson with Louis Hall and George Harrison.

Eh!? George Harrison?

In addition, Dick Pilling was selected instead of Mordecai Sherwin as wicket-keeper, but an illness put Pilling out of action until August, and Sherwin kept his place.

The Gentlemen were able to welcome back WG, and they also selected Arthur Ridley and Edward Tylecote, the latter as wicket-keeper. These three replaced Joe Frank, Manley Kemp, and Charles Leslie. Tylecote certainly justified his selection. He scored a career-best 107 in the first innings, helping the Gents to pile up a total of 441 before going on to win by 7 wickets.

top of page The Monster Bat Controversy | A Man from Eynsford

---

The Monster Bat Controversy

foot of page As wide as the wicket The match | The Whites | John Nyren's evidence | The "Brett Declaration" | The motive | The new bats Conclusion Version

---

As wide as the wicket

Anyone who has studied the history of cricket up to the advent of roundarm bowling will probably agree that the single greatest controversy the sport had to deal with, until then, concerned the width of the bat. Section 5.7.2 of The Laws of Cricket innocuously states that the bat shall be no more than four and one quarter inches wide at its broadest part. What this statement does not reveal is the tremendous row that erupted when someone tried to use a bat that was fully as wide as the wicket itself.

The incident is shrouded in controversy even now. There are still questions asked about who exactly introduced the monster bat, when it happened, who challenged it, and how. About the only thing we can be certain of is that the maximum width was stipulated in the 1774 version of the Laws, having been absent from the 1744 version.

The match

The Cricketers of My Time

It's generally agreed that the match in question was Chertsey v Hambledon (or Surrey v Hampshire, if you prefer) at Laleham Burway on Monday, 23 and Tuesday, 24 September 1771. Hambledon's team included captain and all-rounder Richard Nyren, opening fast bowler Thomas Brett, and master batsman John Small. Playing for Chertsey was another good all-rounder Thomas "Daddy" White, who hailed from Reigate, Surrey.

H. T. Waghorn in his Cricket Scores, Notes, etc. (1730–1773) states that:

On Monday (i.e., 23 September) began to be played on Laleham Burway, near Chertsey, in Surrey, a great cricket-match depending, the Hambledon and Chertsey Clubs (the latter being allowed to pick four men), which was decided on Tuesday evening in favour of the former. Great sums were depending on this match, which was very strongly contested by both parties, the winners heading their opponents only by a single notch, viz:–

Hambledon (both innings) 218; Chertsey 217.

According to G. B. Buckley in his Fresh Light on 18th Century Cricket, although he defers to Waghorn on the main details, the match was for £50 a side. It "had to be played out at Chertsey", the wickets to be pitched at 10. His source was the St James Chronicle dated Thursday, 19 September 1771.

There are no newspaper reports of the game beyond what Waghorn and Buckley found, and certainly nothing to suggest that a great hullabaloo had taken place. Our main evidence for what occurred is based on a book written two generations later by the son of Hambledon's captain; and by a piece of paper dated Wednesday, 25 September 1771, and signed by Hambledon's three leading players.

The Whites

Not for the last time in the 18th century, there was confusion about players called White. A number of Whites were active in the 1790s, and researchers have a nightmare trying to differentiate them, their difficulties increased by the player called Knowles who used White as a pseudonym (or vice-versa!).

Differentiating between the Whites of the 1760s and 1770s is relatively easy, but some previous writers have made hard work of it. There were two. One was "Daddy" White of Reigate who played in various Surrey and All-England teams, often against Hambledon, until he retired in 1779. He has a biography in Arthur Haygarth's Scores & Biographies (on page 40) and lived to a ripe old age. He is the one who was responsible for the monster bat controversy, though we may question his motive.

His namesake contemporary was "Shock" White, who may or may not have been called Thomas. He was first recorded as playing for Hampton in 1761, so he was probably older than "Daddy" White. Ironically, this appearance for Hampton was against Chertsey at Laleham Burway. He was latterly a resident of Brentford, also north of the river Thames in Middlesex. He was twice mentioned by the Daily Advertiser in 1773 as "Shock" White of Brentford. Furthermore, while "Shock" played at Tothill Fields for Westminster versus London on Wednesday, 18 August 1773, "Daddy" was simultaneously playing for Surrey v Kent at Sevenoaks Vine. "Shock" White had nothing to do with Surrey or Chertsey or outsize bats; yet he has often been blamed for the incident.

This is one aspect of the controversy that we can be sure about. Despite certain books saying that Thomas "Shock" White introduced the huge bat, it was Thomas "Daddy" White who did it, and "Shock" White was a completely different player. It is not clear who originally confused the two Whites, though it may well have been John Nyren, son of the Hambledon captain.

John Nyren's evidence

A modern bat gauge

In his Young Cricketers Tutor (1833), John Nyren refers to the incident by saying:

Several years since (I do not recollect the precise date) a player, named White, of Ryegate (sic), brought a bat to a match, which being the width of the stumps, effectually (sic) defended his wicket from the bowler : and, in consequence, a law was passed limiting the future width of the bat to four and a quarter inches.

In a footnote, Nyren adds:

I have a perfect recollection of this occurrence; also, that subsequently, an iron frame of the statute width, was constructed for, and kept by the Hambledon Club; through which any bat of suspect dimensions was passed, and allowed or rejected accordingly.

One or two writers have taken Nyren at his word on the footnote but, as usual, Nyren is unreliable. He was born at Hambledon in 1764, and so he was a young boy of nearly seven when the infamous match took place. It is questionable if Nyren was actually present as Hambledon to Chertsey in those days was a long journey. When he says he has "perfect recollection", he is surely recalling his father talking about the incident in, no doubt, heated terms. I was seven when I first watched Test cricket, but I admit my actual recollections are memories of comments made by others about certain incidents, rather than a reliable eye-witness account of the incidents themselves, which in any case I have subsequently read about, or seen recordings of.

Nyren certainly could recall the iron frame. It was surely shown to him, and he will have handled it, and watched his father demonstrate its use.

In an earlier passage, Nyren refers to "Shock" White as one of the four leading bowlers to oppose Hampshire in the 1770s, and he is wrong, for this was "Daddy" White again.

In John Nyren's The Cricketers of My Time, the editor Ashley Mote rightly says that Nyren was a plagiarist, and it is true that parts of his work were taken sometimes verbatim from earlier works. It could be said we are all plagiarists unless we are truly original! No matter. Nyren does seem to have adapted someone else's much earlier words when he talks about "a player, named White, of Ryegate".

The "Brett Declaration"

The MCC has in its possession a paper, evidently written by Tom Brett and signed by himself, Richard Nyren and John Small. This document, which is in effect a slip cut from a larger sheet of paper, may be called the "Brett Declaration" for want of a more appropriate name. It amounts to an item in the minutes of a Hambledon Club meeting, though it may have been a separate document that was subsequently discussed at a club meeting. It has been suggested that the paper is a forgery, but that is introducing a conspiracy theory into circumstances where the solution is surely the most obvious of the options.

The "Brett Declaration" states:

In view of the performance of one White of Ryegate on September 23rd
that ffour (sic) and quarter inches shall be the breadth forthwith.

this 25th day of September 1771

Richard Nyren
T Brett
John Small

It has been supposed that a 19th century forger took the words "a player, named White, of Ryegate" from Nyren, and wrote "one White of Ryegate" on the forged declaration. That is wrong. It was the other way around. Nyren, the plagiarist, must have seen the declaration many times, and had the phraseology in his head. It is curious that White's first name is not used in either source. Nyren may well have been confused about White's name. He was clearly confused about many things if you read his book carefully! But he had an easy escape because all he had to do was simply adapt Brett's words. Tom Brett certainly knew that White was called Thomas, but he was still incensed enough about the incident to refuse to call him by his given name. That is only natural. Brett's anger can be seen in his use of the word "performance". He is using that word in its most derogatory sense.

John Frederick Sackville, 3rd Duke of Dorset, 1767.

There have been doubts about whether Tom Brett would have written the declaration. Brett was still a young player and, according to Nyren, Brett's judgment of the game "was held in no great estimation". Maybe so, but can we trust Nyren's judgment instead? I don't think so. The fact is that Tom Brett was then the best bowler in England apart from the great Lumpy Stevens. But it's a fair question. Why was it Tom Brett who wrote this historic document, and not his captain or the club's senior batsman, who both merely signed it; or, indeed, some senior and preferably noble official within the Hambledon Club's hierarchy?

A few points need to be considered here and the most crucial one is the doctrine of Neville Cardus that "the game and its players have always reflected their times". This was the anything goes world of Georgian England, not the stuffy protocol one of Victorian England. Aristocrats in those days were notorious for enjoying themselves while having some other fellow deal with any issues that might arise. The classic case is Lord's. Why is it called Lord's, and not Winchilsea's or Lennox's? Because when the jolly good chaps decided they wanted their own private venue, they didn't want to soil their hands with the necessaries. No, they got one of their bowlers to do the work for them: Thomas Lord, an enterprising fellow, don't y'know!?

When the Hambledon players came back from Chertsey, shouting the odds about White, and took their objections to the Duke of Dorset or whoever, is it not reasonable to assume that Dorset told them to: "Put it in writing, and get one of your fellows to make this damned gauge thing that you're wanting"? The club members yawned, but agreed Brett had a point, and so Dorset added: "Yaas, one shall have it in the Laws when one gets around to having one's scribe write them up. I say, dashed beastly business, don't y'know?"

You may ask why Brett "had the point" and not one of the more senior (i.e., older) players. Although Tom Brett was still only 24, he was unquestionably the club's main, and therefore senior, bowler. This was not Victorian England, and Brett did not need to know his place if he was demonstrably the best bowler around. No doubt he had the ball in his hand when White walked in, and so he was the one who furiously objected to the umpire, and then summoned his captain for support. In short, he raised the issue and the club, both members and players, told him to see it resolved. So he wrote the "Brett Declaration"—and he did write it: compare his signature with the writing of the declaration—when he returned to Hambledon a couple of days later. Richard Nyren's name was added as he was the club captain.

Why did Small sign it too? Because Richard Nyren was Hambledon's #2 bowler, and thus far it looks like bowlers whingeing about a batsman putting one over them. Having Small sign it provides a seal of approval from other batsmen—and Small was no mere "other batsman". More importantly, Small's signature showed that if the game's greatest batsman would happily use a bat that was subject to a prescribed limit, then everyone else should use it too. Small's support was absolutely vital to having the rule imposed.

You will note I said: "Richard Nyren's name was added". Others have pointed out that Nyren's "signature" on the declaration is unlike his signatures on two official documents, when he witnessed the marriages of George Leer and Tom Sueter. That is so, but an added problem is that the two official signatures differ from each other as well!

Neville Cardus

For what it's worth, I think the "Brett Declaration" is semi-genuine. I think Tom Brett raised the issue, and he wrote it down for presentation at a committee meeting. I think Richard Nyren's name was inserted as he was the club captain, but perhaps by someone in the committee, and not by Nyren himself. They may have similarly added Small's name. Having said that, I would imagine that Nyren and Small had already expressed agreement with the issue, and the proposed resolution.

The how really doesn't matter. The facts are that the incident occurred, the issue was raised, and the Laws of 1774 provided the permanent solution.

The motive

But why did White do it? There are three possible reasons, and again we must remember Neville Cardus' doctrine when we think about what could and did happen in Georgian times.

First, he did it as a prank because he knew the Laws written in 1744 said nothing about the width of the bat; just as they also said nothing about the bowler's arm action, incidentally. Perhaps there were a few volatile characters on the Hambledon team, and White thought he would "wind them up". If that was his intention, he seems to have succeeded because it looks as if some of the Hambledon people went ballistic!

Second, and given the times I seriously doubt this, he was deliberately cheating. Not legally cheating as the Laws were silent on the issue, but morally cheating in terms of acting against the spirit of the game. The action in itself seems too outrageous to have been done with any serious intent unless there was a third motive.

Third, and this is the one that seems to have escaped all previous writers on the subject. Thomas White realised that there was a loophole in the Laws, and it may well have been a sore point for many years that players were using different-sized bats. It may have become an issue that no one would assert themselves to address: remember the notorious torpor of Georgian aristocrats. So White forced the issue. He knew that people who are angry will resolve to take action. White selected his target with care as he knew the Hambledon Club was the one with the clout to enforce a change in the Laws.

The new bats

Early bats. The middle one, dated 1774, is straight and unspliced.

In 1771, the straight bat was still new. Until the 1760s, batsmen still used a club shaped like a modern hockey stick because that shape was most suitable for playing a delivery trundled (i.e., rolled) or skimmed along the ground. It is believed, as described earlier, that pitching the ball began in the 1760s and it is quite possible that the proponent, and certainly the great exponent, of this radical development was none other than Edward "Lumpy" Stevens, the master bowler of the age. He is known to have studied the flight of the cricket ball, and to have worked out the variations of pace, line, length, and spin that a bowler could employ depending on the ground and atmospheric conditions. The hockey stick was ineffective against Lumpy's new and startling repertoire so a new type of bat was introduced. Possibly, the straight bat was invented by John Small, who certainly manufactured them in years to come. Even if he did not invent them, he was the first to truly master their use.

But whereas a hockey stick shape has practical limitations that would constrain the creation of one of monster proportions, a straight bat does not have such constraints, and it's entirely feasible that a straight piece of wood might as easily be twelve inches wide as four and a quarter inches wide. In 1744, when the existing Laws were written, the bat was always a hockey stick.

The issue could not arise until the bat changed shape, never mind width.

The fact is that an official limit on the bat's width would have come sooner or later. A second fact is that "Daddy" White did force the issue, and the new limit was already in place, via the Hambledon Club's iron frame, before the Laws were rewritten in 1774.

Conclusion

It seems that every cricket history book ever written contains some reference to this controversy. Only a few seem to realise the difference between Thomas "Daddy" White and "Shock" White. Few go into any real detail about the whys and wherefores of the big bat incident, and I don't think anyone has considered the connection with the advent of the straight bat only a few years previously. Neither has anyone else considered that White was forcing an issue, rather than cheating or joking.

Version

I should perhaps add that this article, as originally written, was published by The Cricket Society about twenty years ago. This is an amended version. I've done a bit of copyediting, removed some unimportant and insignificant mentions, and reformatted the whole to accommodate the needs of online output.

top of page Death Comes to Cricket | And one was a tie

---

Death Comes to Cricket

foot of page An extremely dangerous sport Hitting the ball twice | Staffe and batt | Jasper Vinall | Greater advantage The Thirty Years War | North America | Paradox

---

An extremely dangerous sport

St Giles' Church, Horsted Keynes. First built in medieval times, it stood when Jasper Vinall fatefully played cricket nearby.

There is no doubt that cricket is an extremely dangerous sport, because getting hit by the rock hard ball is no laughing matter. In the early days, it wasn't just the ball you had to be wary of, but also the bat. This was because the batter was apparently allowed to hit the ball more than once. Now, you may know that hitting the ball twice is one of the more obscure forms of dismissal in the modern game. Others are handling the ball, obstructing the field, retired out, and timed out.

Hitting the ball twice

"Hit the ball twice", as it is written in scorecards, is very rare. It is also called a double-hit. You can actually use the bat to stop the ball going onto your stumps after you have played it, but that is a safe manoeuvre. The rule was first introduced for safety reasons to protect the fielders. We don't actually know when the rule was first introduced, and the same applies to obstructing the field. All we can say with certainty is that both are included in the earliest known version of the Laws of Cricket, which is dated 1744.

That was 120 years after a fielder died following a head injury he received during a match because the batter was trying to prevent him taking a catch.

Staffe and batt

Let's go back a few steps first to 1613 when a court case recorded that someone was assaulted with a "cricket staffe" at Wanborough, near Guildford. We must assume that was a deliberate assault rather than an accidental blow in the course of a game, but it is the first known instance of injury being caused by a "staffe" (or bat).

Then, in 1622, several parishioners of Boxgrove, near Chichester in west Sussex, were prosecuted for playing cricket in a churchyard on Sunday, 5 May. We have their names: Edward Hartley, Anthony Ward, Raphe West, Richard Martin senior, Richard Martin junior, Richard Slaughter, Thomas West and William Martin. There were three reasons for the prosecution: one was that it contravened a local bye-law; another reflected concern about church windows which may or may not have been broken; the third was the now legendary charge:

A little childe had like to have her braines beaten out with a cricket batt!!

As I said above, a bat is just as dangerous as a ball if you are hit by one.

Jasper Vinall

	date	match title	venue
details	Saturday, 28 August 1624	Horsted Keynes v West Hoathly	Horsted Keynes
result	Unknown
notes	The earliest definite mention of cricket in Sussex is dated 1611 but this is possibly the earliest known organised match in the county. Knowledge of it stems from the death thirteen days later of Jasper Vinall, on whom an inquest was held.
sources	Tim McCann, pp. xxxiii–xxxiv.

It is assumed, perhaps erroneously, that the match in Horsted Keynes on Saturday, 28 August 1624 was between two village teams. There is a doubt because Jasper Vinall was fielding and the batter, Edward Tye, also came from West Hoathly. Given the distance of only four miles, it might not have been an organised match. Even so, we do know that cricket was being played in both of these Sussex villages, and at others besides. In the match, Jasper was struck on the head when Tye, having played the ball once, was trying to hit it again. Jasper died at home on Friday, 10 September as a result of the injury, and an inquest was held.

The coroner recorded that Jasper was a 34-year-old husbandman, meaning he was a free tenant farmer or a small landowner. Edward Tye, whose age is not recorded, was also a husbandman. The record says they were playing with several others "at a customary game called crickett (sic) at Horsted Green". Tye had hit the ball high into the air, and then, "for his greater advantage in the game", intended to hit it again as it was dropping to the ground. Jasper, who was somewhere behind Tye, ran forward to try and take a catch. Tye didn't see him and, as he struck at the ball with his bat, accidentally hit Jasper on the forehead. The bat was worth one old halfpenny, according to the coroner! Jasper was badly bruised, although his injury was obviously much more serious than that, but the potential effects of concussion were largely unknown at the time. He went home to West Hoathly where he "languished until 10 September and then died". The coroner's verdict was that "Vinall was killed not by any felony, but solely through his own rashness and negligence, and by misadventure".

Greater advantage

The phrase, "for his greater advantage in the game", is interesting because the record suggests Tye was not trying to avoid being caught. Rather, he wanted to hit the ball again to further his advantage, presumably so he could score more runs. Basically, then, it was a free-for-all scenario, and you can imagine a batter running around all over the place trying to hit the ball several times, if need be, "for his greater advantage". Thankfully, the rules were changed. Unfortunately, though, lessons were not learned quickly enough. In 1647, the tragedy was repeated when a player called Henry Brand died after being struck on the head during a match at Selsey in West Sussex.

Sometime in the century following Henry Brand's death, common sense prevailed, and hitting the ball twice was outlawed, becoming one of cricket's "rare" forms of dismissal. When the first known Laws of Cricket were coded in 1744, it was illegal to hit the ball twice, but it isn't known when the measure was imposed. The 1744 Laws say that "if the ball is hit up, (a batter) must neither strike at it, nor touch it with his hands". The batter was, however, allowed to stop the ball hitting his wicket after he had "nipped it up just before him". He could "pop down his bat before the ball comes to the wicket, to save it". Obstructing the field was also outlawed: "If he runs out of his ground to hinder a catch, it's out".

By the way, the Boxgrove case in 1622 is our earliest reference to the cricket bat. The use of a "batt" in cricket was peculiar to Kent and Sussex where coastal smugglers were known as "batmen", because of the cudgels they carried. The earliest reference to a "flat-faced" bat (i.e., with a flat surface at the bottom of the stick in ice hockey style) also occurs in 1622 in the files of the Sussex Records Society (see David Terry, note 23). The term "bat" remained comparatively rare until about 1720. The terms in more general use were "staffe", "stave" or "stick". These tended to have regional usage: for example, "stave" was used in the Gloucester area and "batt" in the south-east; while "staffe" and especially "stick" were more widely used. "Bat" is derived from the French battledore, shaped like a table tennis bat, which was used by washerwomen to beat their washing!

The Thirty Years War

Defenestration of Prague, 1618. Habsburg imperial councillors are flung out of a high window in Prague Castle.

These events in cricket were serious enough but at least England was enjoying a period of peace (for once!). On the continent, however, things were much more serious because the Thirty Years War had begun in 1618 with the "Defenestration of Prague".

During a protest against Habsburg Catholic rule, Bohemian (Czech) Protestants hurled imperial councillors out of a high window in Prague Castle (they survived). The incident was the flashpoint which began the Bohemian Revolt, first in a series of conflicts which would become known as the Thirty Years War. That, despite its name, consisted essentially of five separate wars, and a number of other issues which complicated matters, so that ultimate settlement was difficult to achieve.

The main wars were: Bohemian Revolt (1618–1620); Danish War (1625–1629); Swedish War (1630–1648); Franco-Habsburg Wars (1635–1648); and a major civil war in Germany (1619–1648). Germany suffered enormous loss of life to the extent that, as late as the 20th Century, a historian would say Germany's population had never recovered from the ravages of the Thirty Years War. Fortunately, England managed to stay out of it apart from providing some economic aid to its allies. Many English soldiers enlisted in foreign armies as mercenaries.

North America

Colonisation of North America was on the increase as people in the British Isles sought greater freedom. The Pilgrim Fathers arrived in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and famously celebrated the first-ever Thanksgiving Day in October 1621. It is said they played stoolball but, as we saw in an earlier edition, that game and baseball are "not cricket"! Cricket did, however, soon find its way across the Atlantic.

While the colonists wanted freedom for themselves, they were not so obliging when it came to others. In 1619, the first negro slaves arrived in Virginia. A Dutch frigate landed twenty kidnapped African people at Jamestown where they were "sold" like livestock to the English colonists. In the same year, the first known meeting of an American parliament took place at Jamestown. No doubt they had a great deal to say about freedom and rights.

Paradox

Back to the cricket. The quarter-century or so between John Derrick and Jasper Vinall is the beginning of the sport's history. Anything before John Derrick is prehistory and, it must be said, speculation. By the time Jasper was killed, there were already several references to provide evidence of the growing (and, perhaps, well-established) popularity of the game in the counties of Kent, Surrey and Sussex. It is true that references continue to be few, and sometimes far between, until the 1720s at least, but the history is there. The sad paradox is that John Derrick was significant in establishing that history by doing his job, and Jasper Vinall by losing his life.

top of page A milestone on the way | The Monster Bat Controversy

---