Brains Trust

[archie mac]

OK this is a thread to ask questions that are of no interest to anyone but me (and maybe someone else)

The first question

In 1893 the MCC sent a letter to the ACC (Aust. Cricket Council) telling them that they were considering changing the law so that a side that was 80 behind on first innings would not automatically follow-on but the opposition would have the option of enforcing it or not.

I think to change the laws att there had to be a two-thirds majority.

What happened? I assume they did not get the two-thirds majority, or did they change the law but only for a short time?

 

[fredfertang]

In the 1893 Varsity match Oxford were 80 odd behind with their last pair at the wicket – the follow on was then compulsory if 80 behind - Oxford wanted to throw the last wicket away and have to follow on so that Cambridge would have to bat last – Cambridge got wind of the dastardly plan and Stanley Jackson bowled a couple of boundary wides to foil the plan

Clearly unsatisfactory hence the letter

In the 1893/94 Australian season they experimented whereby the follow on was optional between 80-200 but still compulsory if the lead was 200+

MCC didn’t want to ratify that change for the 1894 season so they just changed the figure from 80 to 120 and left it as compulsory

Further incidents took place like the 1893 Varsity match and the Test in 1894/95 when Stoddarts team won after having to follow on

In 1898/99 the Australian season had the optional experiment again but still MCC wouldn’t have it - but then after the 4th Test in 1899 they finally bowed to the inevitable and decided to change the law in 1900 by increasing the 120 figure to 150 and at last making the follow on optional

 

[archie mac]

In the 1893 Varsity match Oxford were 80 odd behind with their last pair at the wicket – the follow on was then compulsory if 80 behind - Oxford wanted to throw the last wicket away and have to follow on so that Cambridge would have to bat last – Cambridge got wind of the dastardly plan and Stanley Jackson bowled a couple of boundary wides to foil the plan

Clearly unsatisfactory hence the letter

In the 1893/94 Australian season they experimented whereby the follow on was optional between 80-200 but still compulsory if the lead was 200+

MCC didn’t want to ratify that change for the 1894 season so they just changed the figure from 80 to 120 and left it as compulsory

Further incidents took place like the 1893 Varsity match and the Test in 1894/95 when Stoddarts team won after having to follow on

In 1898/99 the Australian season had the optional experiment again but still MCC wouldn’t have it - but then after the 4th Test in 1899 they finally bowed to the inevitable and decided to change the law in 1900 by increasing the 120 figure to 150 and at last making the follow on optional

Thanks mate, that is very interesting, I don't think the option was given until 1908

 

[fredfertang]

Thanks mate, that is very interesting, I don't think the option was given until 1908

This is the first time the option was used

 

[SJS]

Brodribb's "Next Man In" gives some very interesting incidents where teams tried to take advantage of the compulsory follow on. It was typical of MCC and its bureaucratic approach to everything that this matter lingered on for so many years before 'common sense' prevailed.

One of the more interesting ones was when in this match, A Hall's XI were 118 for 9 (102 behind the Australian XI) and the match was headed for a draw since less than half a day's play was left.

Inspite of the fact that they could only win the match (if Hall's XI followed on and just collapsed) the Australian XI were not keen on fielding a second time in the last match of the entire season. But the other side also did not want to field. So the Australian's started bowling and fielding carelessly and finally Peate, the number XI decided to deliberately knock his wicket down with his bat after the ball had passed the wicket. A great argument followed (over whether a batsman can be hit wicket if he hits the stumps with his bat after the ball has gone past) which lasted 40 minutes. Finally they were forced to follow on and the match ended in a draw at 60 for 4 in 46 overs. Maybe those 45 minutes deprived the Australians of possible victory

Interestingly, the teams did not decide to just end the game with "mutual consent" as is common practice in our highly "professional" times.

 

[SJS]

A surprising thing is that the compulsory follow on limit was made 80 runs in 1854 before which it was 100 runs.. I have not been able to find out why they reduced it from 100 to 80 in the first place.

 

[archie mac]

Thanks for that, very interesting stuff

Question 2

Archie Mac was the first Englishman to score a ton in each innings of a FC match in Aust. Was he the first player to achieve it, or had it been done by an Australian first?

 

[The Sean]

Thanks for that, very interesting stuff

Question 2

Archie Mac was the first Englishman to score a ton in each innings of a FC match in Aust. Was he the first player to achieve it, or had it been done by an Australian first?

To my knowledge the first Australian to make a century in each innings of a FC match in Australia was James Mackay in 1905/06 - this came after Archie Mac's effort. I'm not aware of an Australian scoring twin FC hundreds in Australia before Mackay did it - he was certainly the first to do so in what we know as the Sheffield Shield.

Mackay must be considered among the unluckier players not to gain selection for Australia in the first decade of the 20th Century. He averaged 50+ over 20 matches before moving to South Africa, where he sadly suffered an accident which affected his eyesight - he moved back to Australia and attempted a comeback into the NSW state side, but this was unsuccessful and he dropped from view.

 

[archie mac]

To my knowledge the first Australian to make a century in each innings of a FC match in Australia was James Mackay in 1905/06 - this came after Archie Mac's effort. I'm not aware of an Australian scoring twin FC hundreds in Australia before Mackay did it - he was certainly the first to do so in what we know as the Sheffield Shield.

Mackay must be considered among the unluckier players not to gain selection for Australia in the first decade of the 20th Century. He averaged 50+ over 20 matches before moving to South Africa, where he sadly suffered an accident which affected his eyesight - he moved back to Australia and attempted a comeback into the NSW state side, but this was unsuccessful and he dropped from view.

Yes I am unaware of anyone else, but I am not sure, agree re-Mackay not sure why he never played in a Test match, only that they did not play them every season, so timing my be the reason

 

[The Sean]

Yes I am unaware of anyone else, but I am not sure, agree re-Mackay not sure why he never played in a Test match, only that they did not play them every season, so timing my be the reason

I know he was considered unfortunate to miss out on the 1905 touring side, and he clearly had something to prove in that 1905/06 season when he cracked the twin hundreds! But it was the following season that he then moved to South Africa and after that is all sadly went downhill.

 

[fredfertang]

Question 2

Archie Mac was the first Englishman to score a ton in each innings of a FC match in Aust. Was he the first player to achieve it, or had it been done by an Australian first?

There is this example from 1895

 

[archie mac]

There is this example from 1895

Thanks mate, saves me making a mistake in my book

Do you know if Eady was the first?

 

[fredfertang]

Seems to be

 

[archie mac]

Seems to be

Cheers

 

[fredfertang]

In fact definitely - he was the fifth person to do it after William Lambert, George Brann, Drewy Stoddart and WG but they all did it in England of course

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

ITT: Old people.

Interesting though, keep it up.

 

[archie mac]

ITT: Old people.

Interesting though, keep it up.

Because I am old; what does ITT=?

 

[archie mac]

Just to add, I am more than happy for anyone to ask a question on here

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

ITT = In this thread.

 

[archie mac]

Some research this morning confirms that Aust. introduced the optional follow on in 1893, but for some reason they must have changed back again

Just not sure when