Sports

Sports

A question of HONOUR
By Ranjit Gunasekera
I have to confess that until recently I had never bothered to study the facts of the famous nine run match and regarded it as an intriguing controversy that seemed to remain obscure due to the lack of adequate evidence. It seemed that Royalists have forever been trying in vain to refute the charge that they ran away from certain defeat! However, in the course of checking up some figures in the 2004 grand publication of the History of the Royal-S. Thomas’ Cricket Matches, I happened to come across the two accounts of the match from a Royal and Thomian perspective written by S S Perera and Canon R S de Saram respectively. Both articles are reproductions, S S Perera’s article having first appeared in the 1968 Royal souvenir and Canon de Saram’s in the 1958 Thomian souvenir. While they are both most valuable and interesting, it struck me that neither pays particular attention to the most crucial bit of hard evidence we have, which is the scorecard itself!

The scorecard
When I began to digest the scorecard and tried to imagine the drama on that distant day, the first point that struck me about the Thomian innings was that there was only one ‘not out’ batsman. And as my eye continued down the Thomian scorecard, I noticed that the Thomian innings was stated as 170 for 6 wickets and not 170 for 6 wickets declared. As the significance of these observations sank in, I sensed I might be breaking new ground. So the match had stopped with the fall of the 6th Thomian wicket with S. Thomas’ still batting. Thereafter, it is clear that the Thomian innings was not resumed, which is why there was only one ‘not out’ batsman.

These key points aroused my curiosity and encouraged me to probe further. It has taken me back in time on a fascinating journey of discovery, which I believe has laid bare the circumstances of this famous match, in a new light.
Royal was in no imminent danger of defeat.

Canon de Saram’s article gives some interesting calculations of the times of events, which seem to be valid and corroborated by others. By Canon de Saram’s calculations the final shower of rain would have ceased by about 4 pm on the second day. Now, consider the state of the game at that point in time. The game had been dogged by heavy rain from the first day and S. Thomas’ were leading by 161 runs, although still in their first innings. But there was only two hours of playing time left, as play had to stop at 6 pm in those days. Furthermore, fielding conditions were possibly more atrocious than batting conditions, judging by the horrendous eyewitness descriptions of the ground conditions and weather during the game. So by 4 pm on the second day, the game had been reduced to a rather farcical level with St Thomas’ still batting on with an overwhelming lead. Royal clearly had absolutely no chance of winning but was, equally, in no imminent danger of losing, although they were certainly not out of the woods.

The intention to bat on is implied in the S. Thomas’ College Magazine of March/April 1885 which concludes its account of the match as follows - “We sympathise with the last four batsmen in their losing a good opportunity of winning renown.”

Further confirmation is contained in a quotation from Dr Gerald de Saram, a member of the 1885 Thomian team, given in S S Perera’s article, which states that “…… A very heavy shower of rain came down at this stage and the Royalists refused to go down and field after the rain ceased.”

So while it is certainly believable that at some point during the discussions that followed the Royalists expressed a refusal to play, which was in essence a refusal to field, it was not for the reasons generally adduced. This was a revelation to me! I had always been under the impression that the innuendo surrounding this historic controversy was that the Royalists had been on the brink of certain defeat. But this was clearly not the case.

Why didn’t S. Thomas’ declare?
It was therefore baffling why S. Thomas’ had not declared. In fact, an overnight declaration at 138 for 4 wickets would have seemed the obvious move to make, given the fact that although this was a two-day game, the scheduled start of play was 2.30 pm, and the weather was threatening. Furthermore, the games in those days were quite low scoring affairs, partly due to the poor wickets that were prepared, and Royal’s confidence must have been at low ebb after their first innings debacle.

It seemed to me, at that stage of my findings, that the Thomians were guilty of being unpardonably negative. For there can be no doubt whatsoever that they had not declared and were intending to bat on. However, the solution to this mystery lies in the history of the laws of cricket!

The evolution of the laws of cricket has indeed been quaint in some respects, and as the historian Rowland Bowen observes in his incisive book on the history of cricket, “CRICKET: A History of its Growth and Development throughout the World”, it has often taken cricket’s legislators a long time to arrive at obvious and sensible answers. Declaring an innings closed, is a good example. At the time of the 1885 match, there were no provisions in the laws of the game for a side to declare. It was only in 1889 that declarations were accommodated in the laws of the game in England, but with restrictions. The restrictions were gradually lessened and abolished entirely only in 1957.

Interestingly, the then United States Cricket Association allowed declarations at any time during a match from 1889 – sixty eight years before it became part of the MCC laws! It would seem certain that the laws of the game in England applied in Ceylon too in 1885, as she was then a British colony.
So the Thomians were not totally guilty of being negative - they simply could not have declared even if they wanted to. But were they partly culpable? Let us see.

It seems that it would have been possible for them to have deliberately lost wickets and effectively declared, but such conduct may well have been frowned upon in those high-principled times and regarded as a violation of the spirit of the game. So throwing away one’s wicket was probably not on. But getting out in the process of forcing the pace might have been in order. On the second day, the Thomians raised their total from the overnight 138 for 4 to 170 for 6 in about 45 minutes and the sixth wicket fell with the last ball in that period. No sign there of a “hit out or get out” approach, although it was a reasonable rate of scoring. So it leaves one with the feeling that the Thomians were not pursuing an outright victory with any clear design.

As for the Royalists, it is possible that as the Thomian lead mounted, they may have been shrewd enough to bowl in a benign manner, with a view to prolonging the Thomian innings! Or were they just too gentlemanly to try that? The Thomian total of 170 for 6 was, at the time, already the highest score in the series by some distance, despite batting on a rain-affected wicket. The previous highest scores in the series had been 110 all out by Royal (twice) and 97 all out by S. Thomas’. The average completed innings from 1880 to 1884 was just 58 runs. And in the five years after 1885, the average completed innings was just 64 runs. Highly suspicious I would say, but inconclusive! If there was anything dark the Royalists had to hide, this might have been it. So as a result of the then prevailing laws of cricket, and the leisurely manner in which the game was played in those days, the 1885 Royal-Thomian was meandering along fairly aimlessly by 4 pm on the second day.

The disagreement
It is now easier to attempt to understand what might have transpired off the field at 4 pm. The basic facts from the official records that we should accept is that the umpires considered the grounds fit for play, at least initially, and that Royal expressed a refusal to field, at some stage during the discussions. Along with these basic facts, it is also of crucial relevance that S. Thomas’ had to bat on and complete their innings, in terms of the then prevailing laws of cricket.

There were three parties involved in the disagreement – the umpires, the Royal team and the Thomian team. Of the three, the conduct of the umpires is of the greatest importance, because they were in charge of the game. Considering who the umpires were, as we shall see, it is inconceivable that they could have lost control of the match.

The condition of the grounds, and the policy of the umpires in this regard, also need to be considered, for the ground conditions were far from ideal and probably had the greatest influence on the conduct of the Royal team and in particular their “refusal to play”.

No ordinary umpires
It is useful to first consider the umpires, for they were no ordinary umpires. Ashley Walker is reported in “The History of the Royal College”, which was published in 1932, to have been in favour of resuming play. Most significantly, in addition to being one of the umpires, Ashley Walker was also the Assistant Principal of Royal, as well as the coach. So he would have had to wear three hats. He was also a Cambridge blue and a Yorkshire county cricketer. The other umpire was F Stephens, the S. Thomas’ College cricket master, who was also a Cambridge man, though not a blue. Both of them played for All-Ceylon. So if the umpires had continued to regard the ground fit for play and wanted to resume play, it is hard to imagine that the Royal team would not have been forced to do so, like it or not. In fact, it is not so well known that the Royal Captain did not want to play even on the first day before the toss, but was forced to do so. This comes from an article the last surviving member of the 1885 Royal team, Gate-Mudaliar Vincent de Silva, wrote in the 1957 Royal souvenir. What he said is as follows –

“Our Captain, C T Van Geyzel, after his inspection of the grounds, was convinced that play was impossible. When the Umpires, Mr Walker and Mr Stephens, consulted him on this point he said he would not consent to playing that day. The Umpires held their own conference and summoned Van Geyzel again, but he remained adamant that the match could not be played. Unfortunately Mr Walker was also Assistant Principal of Royal and he now ordered Van Geyzel to take the field. Royal lost the toss and were sent in to bat.”

This is confirmed by another member of the 1885 Royal team writing under the nom de plume of “Nestor” in the 1932 Royal-Thomian souvenir, who states that –

“The weather became very unsatisfactory. The Captain spoke to Mr Walker about it but he was compelled to bow to the inevitable and to prepare his men to make the best of an uphill game.”

It is therefore clear that if the umpires had stood their ground, and Royal had continued to refuse to play on the second day after the rain, the Royal Captain, C. T. Van Geyzel, would have been putting his head on the block. Either he would have been guilty of gross rebellion, or gross cowardice. You may take your pick, but in either case it would have been impossible for Van Geyzel to survive. Going against the umpires wishes, and these were white men in the colonial era who were masters as well, may well have resulted in expulsion not just from the team but from the school. Van Geyzel not only remained in the team but went on to captain again in 1886 and 1887 as well. This suggests that if the game was not resumed, as was the case, it could only have been so with the concurrence of the umpires.

The ground conditions
We shall begin our assessment of the ground conditions by considering the Thomian viewpoint first, as contained in the second of two newspaper notices that were placed by the Honorary Secretary of the S. Thomas’ College Cricket Club, Frank Grenier, three days and four days after the match respectively. Canon de Saram, in his article, quotes the first notice, which was in the ‘Observer’ of 16 March 1885. It reads as follows -

“S. Thomas’ College Cricket Club – The Honorary Secretary of the Club wishes us to state that no matches will in future be arranged with the Royal College Cricket Club in consequence of the latter Club refusing to continue the match played last week”. However, the second notice, which was in the Times of Ceylon of 17 March 1885, is more revealing and is given in S S Perera’s “Four Score & Ten”, and also in the 1968 Royal souvenir, but is not referred to in Canon de Saram’s article. It reads as follows -

“Sir, I notice that in your issue of 15th instant you have omitted part of the accounts by our cricket correspondent of our match with Royal College, thus leaving it to be supposed that rain stopped the game, which was not the case. I hope therefore that you will allow me to state, briefly the real facts of the case as I think the public ought to know that the game was interrupted by rain about quarter past 3, at about quarter to 4 the rain nearly stopped and the water had run off the ground, at about 4 ‘o’ clock the weather had entirely cleared up and was better than on the previous evening when the game was continued. However, the captain of the Royal College Eleven refused to continue the match either then or on any other day, as we proposed, which clearly shows that it was not the weather that he feared. I have authority from the Warden to state that on account of this action on the part of the Royal College Eleven, this annual match will not be played by us, on any future occasions.

There are several points of interest here. Firstly, the style of the notices confirms that a schoolboy wrote them. Frank Grenier did not play in the game nor had he played in any previous Royal-Thomian, but he made the team in 1886. Be that as it may, it is difficult to understand how a communication of so sensitive a nature could have been delegated to a schoolboy. Because any serious communication of this nature should probably have taken the form of a letter to the Principal of Royal College from the Warden of S. Thomas’ College. The matches, as we know, continued every year.

Grenier’s assessment of the ground conditions in his second notice sounds incomplete, as the grounds may still have been in a dreadful state even if the water had run off, as he states. As we all know, even a modern-day cricket ground is likely to be badly affected by a heavy storm for half an hour or more. In this case, it had been very wet even before the match, as indicated by Van Geyzel’s reluctance to play even before the toss, and Royal’s innings had also been interrupted by rain for half an hour on the first day. It is therefore quite possible that although the skies may have cleared completely, the ground conditions were in fact worse than on the first day.

(Wait for episode II next week)

Top