|
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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 |
No comments:
Post a Comment