neville cardus
International Debutant
Allan Steel was always quick to defend Charlie Studd against the many claims of nervousness made about his performance in the 1882 Test Match.
Twenty years later, for example, in The Badminton Magazine, he went quite out of his way. "Now, as to one point," wrote his interviewer, "Mr. Steel wishes something to be said. It has become a tradition that Mr. C. T. Studd was so nervous that Peate had to hit out and so was dismissed. Peate made some remark to that effect, and Mr. Hornby not only put Mr. Studd in tenth, when his average was 29, but was also of that opinion. This is what Mr. Steel desires should be contradicted. He avers that he played more cricket with Mr. C. T. Studd than any one else, knew him as intimately, was his guest for the match, was with him when he put on his pads to go in, and that the old Etonian was in no sense 'paralysed with fright.' As a matter of fact he never received a ball. Moreover, had the charge been true, he would have been considered too nerveless ever to play again in a great match, whereas he appeared in both fixtures of the Gentlemen against the Australians in 1884 and in numbers of other important engagements until he gave up cricket to become a missionary. Such strong and unsuggested defence ought for ever to relieve the name of this great amateur from the only trace of failure in a fine career."
By 1934, however, with Studd having passed the Earthly post, Steel seemed rather less certain. "May I add a few words on behalf of C. T. Studd?" he asked The Times. "It is generally believed that he went in last but one because he was so nervous that [...] 'his condition was pitiable.' But is this quite correct? In an eleven of which 10 are fine batsmen, one of the 10 must perforce go in last but one; indeed, in England's first innings Hornby himself went in there; so, in itself, there can be no question of any doubt or slur being implied. However, I am quite ready to admit that Studd -- and not Studd alone -- was utterly unable in that crisis to do England or himself justice; but I think that most of us have long forgiven a man who was not only a great cricketer, but something far more than that. For when all is said and done, let us remember, in condonation, that the gloom at the Oval in that last quarter of an hour was appalling, that four as bats as he, and cooler heads, had quite failed, and that conditions were getting worse and worse with every minute."
If anyone has any further information to impart on this legendary match and its participants (especially Studd, Steel and Peate), I should be greatly appreciative.
Twenty years later, for example, in The Badminton Magazine, he went quite out of his way. "Now, as to one point," wrote his interviewer, "Mr. Steel wishes something to be said. It has become a tradition that Mr. C. T. Studd was so nervous that Peate had to hit out and so was dismissed. Peate made some remark to that effect, and Mr. Hornby not only put Mr. Studd in tenth, when his average was 29, but was also of that opinion. This is what Mr. Steel desires should be contradicted. He avers that he played more cricket with Mr. C. T. Studd than any one else, knew him as intimately, was his guest for the match, was with him when he put on his pads to go in, and that the old Etonian was in no sense 'paralysed with fright.' As a matter of fact he never received a ball. Moreover, had the charge been true, he would have been considered too nerveless ever to play again in a great match, whereas he appeared in both fixtures of the Gentlemen against the Australians in 1884 and in numbers of other important engagements until he gave up cricket to become a missionary. Such strong and unsuggested defence ought for ever to relieve the name of this great amateur from the only trace of failure in a fine career."
By 1934, however, with Studd having passed the Earthly post, Steel seemed rather less certain. "May I add a few words on behalf of C. T. Studd?" he asked The Times. "It is generally believed that he went in last but one because he was so nervous that [...] 'his condition was pitiable.' But is this quite correct? In an eleven of which 10 are fine batsmen, one of the 10 must perforce go in last but one; indeed, in England's first innings Hornby himself went in there; so, in itself, there can be no question of any doubt or slur being implied. However, I am quite ready to admit that Studd -- and not Studd alone -- was utterly unable in that crisis to do England or himself justice; but I think that most of us have long forgiven a man who was not only a great cricketer, but something far more than that. For when all is said and done, let us remember, in condonation, that the gloom at the Oval in that last quarter of an hour was appalling, that four as bats as he, and cooler heads, had quite failed, and that conditions were getting worse and worse with every minute."
If anyone has any further information to impart on this legendary match and its participants (especially Studd, Steel and Peate), I should be greatly appreciative.
, maybe someone should write a book
Oh dear, not come accross that dear chestnut of mine before?