Test Player of the Golden Age

[SJS]

I just remembered I have the Wisden Book of Test Cricket, which lists the debutants at the head of each test summary.

Oh. Thats convenient

 

[aussie]

Here you are, this is all of the memory, so I may have a couple of things wrong, especially the quotes of MacLaren and Cardus

Victor Trumper​

Victor Trumper was born in 1877, he was born out of wedlock which was quite a scandal at the time. Two of his three biographers did not mention the fact our of respect for the man.

Like Bradman later; he dominated at school and junior cricket so much so that many schools and teams refused to play against the young Victor.

He was a chance to make the 1899 tour, but was not considered consistent enough and was left out of the touring team, but was added to the touring party at the last minute after a fine performance against the Australian team (they often played games in Aust. before they left to raise money for the trip).

Originally he was to be paid only a half share, with the rest of the team on full share terms. At the time the players financed the entire tour of England and would split the profits at the end, sometimes this would be a small fortune. The arrangements did not change fully until 1912, when the Australian Cricket Board took charge.

The captain of the 1899 tour Joe Darling was so impressed with the batting of the young Trumper that he would ask whether Trumper was on board the Cab that would take the players from their hotel to the ground, if the answer was yes, he would say ‘drive on’, no matter which other players were running late.

Trumper made four tours of England, his most memorable was that of 1902 when he scored a record eleven centuries during the tour, his highest score was only 126, this was because after he scored a ton, he would throw his wicket away unless his side was desperate for more runs.

In the Fourth Test of the 1902 season he played a great innings when he scored a century before lunch on the first day of the Test, a feat which has only be achieved by three other players in the history of Test cricket.

The pitch was very wet, as in those day the pitch was not covered, and the fast bowlers could not bowl as their run-ups were also left to the elements. It was vital for the Australian team to score their runs quickly before the sun came out and turned the pitch into a sticky wicket.

The English captain Archie MacLaren was aware of this and set a containing field, but Trumper was unstoppable and smashed the English attack to all parts of he ground. Years later when Archie Mac was asked about this game, he would say:

‘What could I do he kept hitting them into the outer, I couldn’t very well have a fielder there, could I?’.

Australia went on to win this match by just three runs, which gave them the Ashes, despite England winning the last match by one wicket.

The greatest cricket writer Neville Cardus was a young boy in 1902 and Trumper was his favourite player he would say in his prayers at night ‘please God let Trumper score a century tomorrow, in an Australian all out score of 130’.

It was said that Trumper had three shots for every ball and could not/would not play the same shot on consecutive occasions, he was at his best on ‘sticky’ wickets, and would seemingly play in just the same effortless manner, while his team-mates struggled to lay bat on ball.

His greatest contemporary rival for best batsman in the Australian team Clem Hill said ‘as a batsman, I am not fit to lick vic’s boots’.

A poor businessman Trumper was so trusting and kind hearted he often made very poor investment choices. For awhile he owned a sports store and would do things like taking a bat out of the store, score a century in a Test match, and then sell it for half price because it was used. When kids would come into the shop to buy a composite ball (real cricket balls were very expensive) he would sell them a real ball for the same price as the composite ball, plus throw in a bat and stumps.

Trumper liked to feel the bat, and would only wear a glove on his bottom hand, and even this glove he would cut out the palm so he could feel the bat handle.

In 1912 Trumper pulled out of the Australian tour of England along with five other leading players. He was upset that the players were not allowed to select their own manager as promised by the Board of Control.

In 1915 Trumper died of Brights disease (a very painful death), he was 37 and for one day the news of the war was pushed off the front page of Australian newspapers.

Solid summary AM compared to that exhausting read on cricinfo. All i need no i guess is more solid batting clips of him outside of the one's i have on DVD's, Cricket the Great Batsmen & Story of the Ashes...

 

[archie mac]

Solid summary AM compared to that exhausting read on cricinfo. All i need no i guess is more solid batting clips of him outside of the one's i have on DVD's, Cricket the Great Batsmen & Story of the Ashes...

They have asked me to turn it into an article for the front page, so I have made it a little longer and polished it up a bit. In the long version I talk about the lack of clips of Trumper batting, so I imagine if you have the ones of him playing one around to leg and a cut at practice then you already have the lot

 

[Richard]

Solid summary AM compared to that exhausting read on cricinfo. All i need no i guess is more solid batting clips of him outside of the one's i have on DVD's, Cricket the Great Batsmen & Story of the Ashes...

As I say, you'll be lucky. If such footage existed, it's likely it'd have been found by now.

 

[SJS]

As I say, you'll be lucky. If such footage existed, it's likely it'd have been found by now.

In the absence of video footage (which is in anyway of doubtful pedigree considering the quality of photography of the times and the short duration of most such, one would do very well if one invested on the Beldam book of photographs

 

[chasingthedon]

There is a big difference between a player or two missing out and the entire team not going.

Isn't there a system in which you are given points according to the quality of the opposition. Thus a century against Australia would be given much more weightage than one against, say, Zimbabwe or Bangladesh? This is akin to that.

I know it is tough to provide perfect weightage - and thats exactly why stats cant do justice to comparisons. Yes it is an interesting thing tio discuss in a bar

So I looked into all the Test series up to the end of the thirties (I'll go further to see the effect of all new teams, but just showing the impact of South Africa here).

I think the main issue is the number of better players who are selected more than the number of debutants (depending on who the debutants are, of course), so I looked at the average number of top 11 players (based on ISPs) from the previous series who were selected for the following Ashes series, then compared that to games involving South Africa.

Basically, an average of six of the top 11 Ashes players were selected for the following Ashes series through this period, so I allowed half of that as a minimum threshold. As suspected, the 1905-06 and 1909-10 England-South Africa series' featured weak England teams - the 1905-06 team didn't feature a single top 11 player from the 1905 Ashes, whereas the 1909-10 featured three top 11 players from the 1909 Ashes series. Based on this, I think the South Africa victories can be reasonably reduced in terms of series points awarded.

My investigation also showed some other interesting weak teams fielded in Ashes series, notably in 1901-02 and 1907-08. The 1901-02 team featured only three top 11 England players from the previous Ashes series, so it isn't surprising they went on to lose 4-1. Wisden commented that the team could not "at its best, be regarded as at all representative of English cricket". The MCC had abandonded the idea of fielding a team and so captain Archie Mac took it upon himself to recruit players, but "found it impossible to secure the men he wanted." Mason and Foster could not travel due to business commitements, and Rhodes and Hirst were strongly advised to decline by the Yorkshire committee. Wisden goes on, "This side on the face of it did not seem nearly good enough, more especially in bowling...". A lot was riding on the shoulders of debutant Barnes, who was then injured during the tour.

In 1907-08, only Rhodes travelled of the previous Ashes top 11; many amateurs could not go for the afore-mentioned business reasons, and Hayward, Tyldesley, Hirst and Lilley refused terms; astonishingly, Fry was not selected. This side was also to go down 4-1.

The Aussies proved far more likely to field strong line-ups, even against South Africa, during this period.

Based on most top 11 players and fewest debutants, the strongest series line-ups for the period were the 1926 Ashes series, were only two players debuted (and they were Larwood and Woodfull!), followed closely by the 1902 Ashes series (Palairet was the only debutant on either side).

This might prove an interesting off-shoot article in itself

 

[SJS]

So I looked into all the Test series up to the end of the thirties (I'll go further to see the effect of all new teams, but just showing the impact of South Africa here).

I think the main issue is the number of better players who are selected more than the number of debutants (depending on who the debutants are, of course), so I looked at the average number of top 11 players (based on ISPs) from the previous series who were selected for the following Ashes series, then compared that to games involving South Africa.

Basically, an average of six of the top 11 Ashes players were selected for the following Ashes series through this period, so I allowed half of that as a minimum threshold. As suspected, the 1905-06 and 1909-10 England-South Africa series' featured weak England teams - the 1905-06 team didn't feature a single top 11 player from the 1905 Ashes, whereas the 1909-10 featured three top 11 players from the 1909 Ashes series. Based on this, I think the South Africa victories can be reasonably reduced in terms of series points awarded.

My investigation also showed some other interesting weak teams fielded in Ashes series, notably in 1901-02 and 1907-08. The 1901-02 team featured only three top 11 England players from the previous Ashes series, so it isn't surprising they went on to lose 4-1. Wisden commented that the team could not "at its best, be regarded as at all representative of English cricket". The MCC had abandonded the idea of fielding a team and so captain Archie Mac took it upon himself to recruit players, but "found it impossible to secure the men he wanted." Mason and Foster could not travel due to business commitements, and Rhodes and Hirst were strongly advised to decline by the Yorkshire committee. Wisden goes on, "This side on the face of it did not seem nearly good enough, more especially in bowling...". A lot was riding on the shoulders of debutant Barnes, who was then injured during the tour.

In 1907-08, only Rhodes travelled of the previous Ashes top 11; many amateurs could not go for the afore-mentioned business reasons, and Hayward, Tyldesley, Hirst and Lilley refused terms; astonishingly, Fry was not selected. This side was also to go down 4-1.

The Aussies proved far more likely to field strong line-ups, even against South Africa, during this period.

Based on most top 11 players and fewest debutants, the strongest series line-ups for the period were the 1926 Ashes series, were only two players debuted (and they were Larwood and Woodfull!), followed closely by the 1902 Ashes series (Palairet was the only debutant on either side).

This might prove an interesting off-shoot article in itself

Thats good work. Its just the kind of stuff I was wanting.

The early Test cricket wan't given much importance. The first class matches in the early years and the big games amongst them like the Gentlemen versus Players etc were given far greater importance by players and public alike.

Overseas tour were invariably private affairs and one doesn't see the concept of an "official" cricket tour till much later. Mostly it was a player or a financier (or both in collusion) who decided to to undertake these more as a financial venture than anything else.

Two teams playing two different series at the same times for the same country is not something we can imagine in these times where even a venture like the ICL is almost "banned" by the establishment but it happened. Unfortunately the official status has been granted to both tours.