Monday, May 14, 2012

Cricketing Rifts 3 - Bradman and Hammond


The author did a 22 part series about the various Rifts in the history of cricket on Cricketcountry. Some of the articles were composite dealing with multiple issues  


Dwarfing the giant

One stood on the cricket fields head and shoulder above his peers, a giant among mortals. Another strode across 20 years of cricketing action like a Colossus afflicted with gigantism, reducing such giants to the stature of midgets.

One dominated bowlers across lands and wickets, crossing pioneering milestones that might have been viewed with endless awe; had it not been for the other who rearranged the landscape rendering all such milestones meaningless.

One was the greatest batsman of England in the ‘30s and ‘40s; for a short while in the late ‘20s, perhaps the best in the world. The other was the path-breaking Australian who led the field across time by the comfortable gap of one good batsman between him and pretenders.

For various reasons, both these masters were sullen loners in life. And their rivalry was perhaps one sided, but it simmered and seethed till in the end one could smell the acrid fumes off the wicket.

A Tale of Two Loners

Don Bradman’s aloofness could be attributed to his small town origins and limitless ambitions. He was a man of such fame that fans would stand outside the ground while he batted just for the pleasure of watching the scoreboard tick over. This pressure of adulation went on to adversely affect his health, while his ruthlessness on the field and detachment off it were hard to swallow for many of his mates.

The story of his greatest rival, Wally Hammond, is however more clandestine.

Throughout his career, Hammond was a majestic batsman with a cover drive sculpted in the mould of platonic perfection, and yet, came across as a sad forlorn figure in the fringes of the action. His Gloucestershire team-mates, Charlie Barnett and Charles Dacre, almost came to hate him, and in most circles, he was regarded as moody, aloof and almost arrogant. Hammond once tried to injure Dacre by bowling fast at him as he kept wickets. He also developed friction with the likes of Denis Compton, whose cavalier approach did not amuse him, and Sir Learie Constantine, who believed that the great batsman had insulted him during England’s first tour of West Indies.

During this cricket tour of West Indies in 1925-26, Hammond had been struck by a mystery illness – which according to him was blood poisoning caused by a mosquito bite in his the groin region. However, his biographer David Foot throws some more murky light on the illness.

According to Foot, an unnamed cricketer once remarked that Hammond was ruled by two passions in his life – cricket and his genitals. His physical relationships with many women led to marital problems, including a divorce. This often plagued him during the tours and earned disapproval of team mates like Barnett.

Ben Travers, a humorist and playwright who had travelled with the English team during the Ashes tour of 1928-29, recounts Hammond borrowing his high quality binoculars during every lunch break and sitting quietly in the stands, focusing the field glasses on the Ladies’ enclosure, in which sat some of the most beautiful women in the world.

"Wally, well, yes - he liked a shag," the great Lancashire cricketer Eddie Paynter once commented when asked to sum up his England teammate.

These and other evidences led Foot to conclude that the mystery disease contracted in West Indies was more likely to have been transmitted sexually rather than by a mosquito. And his corollary was that the treatment, which in the days before antibiotics probably involved mercury, adversely affected Hammond's subsequent character and personality, leading to moody and depressive behaviour.

Whatever be the reasons, the rivalry between the greatest batsmen of the 30s and 40s was taken to an obsessive level by Hammond. Playing second fiddle to the greatest batsman of all times was not really to his liking.

Newly-minted record shattered

Hammond started his cricketing campaigns against Australia in 1928-29, totalling a mammoth 925 runs at an average of 113.12.

Widely hailed to be the one to take over from Jack Hobbs as the greatest batsman of his era, he soon found his feats trampled under the juggernaut of Don Bradman. During the 1930 tour of England, Bradman scored 974 runs at 139.14, including that mammoth knock of 334.

During this same summer of 1930, Hammond struggled against the leg- spin of Clarrie Grimmett, and scored 306 at 34.00. The media jumped at it, comparing his lack of success with Bradman’s monumental feats and it did not go down very well with the English maestro. It was probably during this series that he suddenly realised that his career would be one long stretch under the shadow of the accomplishments of the greatest batsman. That he suddenly took outscoring Bradman as his primary goal is evidenced by the tour match between Australia and Gloucestershire. Hammond scored 17 and 89, to Bradman’s 42 and 14, and the match ended in a tie. Other players vouched that they had never seen Hammond more excited than during this match.

From then on, in quiet moments at Bristol, his Gloucestershire team-mates could often hear him exclaim “f**** Bradman!”

Bodyline and broken records

In the second Test of the Bodyline series, the rivalry, mainly from Hammond’s end, was visible to all. The match had become the focus of the cricketing world. Bradman had come back to the side after a one Test gap due to contractual problems and was expected to be the knight who would take Australia to victory over the evil English pacemen.

Hammond, an able medium-pacer who ended with 83 Test wickets in his career, filled the role of a spinner in this Test because of the absence of Hedley Verity. Bradman, out first ball in the first innings, scored a patient century in the second, and when Hammond bowled at him, the air was tense enough for the vibes to make spectators uncomfortable.

In the third Test, Hammond was bowled by a full toss from Bradman when on 85, and his disgust was there for all to see as he walked back to the pavilion.

Soon afterwards, England toured New Zealand, and Hammond, in the two Tests, scored 227 and 336 not out. When he passed Bradman’s then world record score of 334, he had looked skyward, letting out an uncharacteristic scream: “Yes.”

However, much to his chagrin, the cricketing fraternity continued to consider Bradman’s record more prestigious, mainly because of the superior bowling that he had to counter, and when Len Hutton was advancing on his way to 364 in 1938, the score to beat in his mind was 334. 

During a 700-mile car journey across Australia, Hammond’s only words to co-passenger Hutton had been, "Look out for a garage. We need some petrol.” One wonders if this was due to his natural reticence or Hutton’s preference for Bradman’s 334.

Rival captains

The 1936-37 Ashes series created further bad blood to Hammond’s view of things. Up 2-0 after the first two Tests, the Englishmen lost 2-3. Hammond performed creditably, scoring 231 in the second Test and a brilliant 32 on a sticky in the third. However, when he was out early on the fifth morning of the fourth Test, enabling Australia to square the series, remarks flew about that had it been the Don, such a dismissal would not have been on the cards.

In 1938, Hammond was made captain of England and he squared off against Bradman in a five Test English summer. 

It is conjectured that he turned amateur from professional for the sole purpose of leading England against Bradman’s Australians – which was quite a decision for a financially driven man like Hammond.

After losing the fourth Test, England squared the series in the final Test, where they famously batted on and on to amass 903 for seven declared. Hammond reportedly waited for medical confirmation that the great Australian would not be able to bat due to an injured ankle before closing the innings. Bradman never forgot the three days that the Australians were kept on the field.

Keith Miller recalls in Cricket Crossfire that even during the matches against the counties in 1948, Bradman insisted on piling runs. And when some of the team members asked, “Haven’t we got enough now?” Bradman would give a crooked little smile, and say in his thin, piping voice, “I remember when England made 900 against us and kept us in the field for three days.”

The result of the 1938 summer, one Test each, ensured that the duel would be shelved on immediate even terms while mankind went through the second innings of self-massacre.

Post-War skirmishes

The worst phase of the relationship, however, came when both the legends had entered cricketing old age.

When cricket was resumed after World War II, Hammond took the MCC side to Australia to resume sporting ties in what was largely termed The Goodwill Tour.

However, the goodwill seemed to be conspicuously absent in some important quarters.

Bradman, who had never been able to forget the Bodyline series, surprised many, including Hammond, with his ruthless determination to win.

When he went into the first Test, the Don had just come out of prolonged illness, and was battling heavy remnants of rust that had crept into his batting. A failure in the Test would perhaps have ensured a premature end to his career.
During Australia’s first innings, Bill Voce induced an edge off Bradman when he was on 28, and it was held in the slips by Jack Ikin. To the surprise of many, Bradman refused to walk, claiming the ball had gone to the fielder on bounce. The umpires were unsure and allowed him to resume his innings.

Hammond was not amused in the least and remarked after the over, “That’s a fine f**** way to start a Test series.”
Bradman went on to score 187 and Australia won the match, and proceeded to win the series 3-0. Hammond failed with the bat and found Bradman’s attitude so infuriating that he did not exchange another word with the great man except during the toss.

Runs and resentment

Hammond retired from Test cricket soon after the end of the tour, getting married to a Durban-based beauty queen - Sybil Ness-Harvey, his second wife - within 24 hours of his return to England. His collection of 7429 runs at 58.45 with 22 centuries would have stood way above the rest of his contemporaries in any other era, but unfortunately his stay at the wicket corresponded with the phenomenon of Bradman. 

The Don played on for another one and a half years, ending with 6996 runs in 33 Tests less than Hammond, at the famous average of 99.94.
Hammond’s record for the highest collection of Test runs, however, survived the batsman who passed away in 1965, and stood till 1970 before Colin Cowdrey went past it.

Officially, the two greats appreciated the merits of each other.

Bradman, on his part, often effusively praised Hammond’s batting. He hailed Hammond’s 240 at Lord’s in 1938 as one of the greatest innings he had ever witnessed. He was also quite generous in his analysis of Hammond’s medium pace, saying that “he was too busy scoring runs to worry about bowling."

Hammond too, in his several autobiographies, always acknowledged the genius of Bradman’s batting.

Yet, the rivalry was there for all to see – the looks that pierced each other like daggers, the meanness that crept into their cricket whenever the greatest of the era faced off against each other.


As Keith Miller put it, “In my opinion the two great players were jealous of one another. There were times in the (1946-47) series when I felt it was not so much a battle between England and Australia as a battle between Bradman and Hammond.”

Cricketing Rifts 2 - Vizzy, Amarnath and Nayudu

The author did a 22 part series about the various Rifts in the history of cricket on Cricketcountry. Some of the articles were composite dealing with multiple issues  . Here the order may be different


Royal Blues

In the 1930s, an Indian team without royalty at the helm was akin to a rudderless ship. Selecting a captain was almost likeswayamvara of the old, where Princes and Kings assembled in all their regal splendour and one of them was garlanded with the prestigious responsibility.

Of course, to be fair, if imperial benefactors like the Maharajahs of Patiala and Vizianagram had not lavished gold from their immense coffers to support the meagre finances of Indian cricket, the country’s limp into the international arena might have been impossible. But the pitch almost always got queered when the philanthropists could not be restrained behind the scenes, beyond the picket fences and galloped into the field of play.

But, were not Indian princes the very ones who paraded their cricketing talent to the British and Australians to make the world sit up and take notice? Weren’t Ranjitsinhji and Duleepsinhji the royal torchbearers whose reign extended beyond their states and into majestic exploits in the green ovals so that they ruled over the hearts of cricket lovers?

Not really. Ranji was not of royal birth. He was not the heir to any throne. It was his skills on the cricket field he utilised in mixing the intoxicating cocktail of cricket and diplomacy to manoeuvre through complicated legal paperwork somewhat dubiously and earn the title of a Prince. Duleep was his nephew.

However, this story is about the real kings in whose veins ran royal blood, and often arrogance to go with it – but little cricket.
The Vizzy-Patiala showdown

When India toured England in 1932, the Maharajah of Vizianagram (Vizzy), and the Maharajah of Patiala were pitted in an epic duel of financial strength, one sponsoring the tour, the other the trials ... both with the ultimate goal of becoming the captain of India!

When Patiala was preferred in 1932, and Vizianagram was given the post of the deputy vice-captain, it broke the latter’s ambitious heart. Vizzy then played a master card and withdrew from the tour, ostensibly in the interest of cricket, citing illness which had resulted in loss of form.
Almost immediately, Patiala also passed up the opportunity because of ‘urgent state matters’ to take care of.
A Maharajah, however, had to be found, and the board zeroed in on Porbandar, who was appointed skipper of the first touring Indian team.
However, this newly-appointed captain had limited cricket skills and enough self-realisation to stand down from the helm after some disastrous personal showing. Hence, deservingly, it was the commoner CK Nayudu who led India in their first Test match and also back home in three more when the Englishmen visited the country for the first time.
Promise of an undeserving Test cap if CK Nayudu was insulted!

By 1936, Vizzy had played all his cards right for several years. Recruited foreign cricketers, treated as royal guests, fed on mulligatawny soups, taken on big game hunting and lubricated by chhota pegs of whiskey that sloshed about inside them, had vouched for him as the right man to lead India. Some of the big names thus won over will shock many, the immortal English opening pair of Jack Hobbs and Herbert Sutcliffe being two of the most famous.

The truth, however, was that His Royal Highness had little cricketing talent or acumen. Furthermore, he was whimsical, addicted to power and his decisions smacked of favouritism.

While initially some of the county sides fell for his gifts of expensive watches and bowled him one or two long hops, English professionals could not be expected to carry on the sham for too long. Soon, the Kumar was languishing at the bottom of the batting averages. The British press, those who could do away with politically correct diplomacy, were open in their criticism of the tactics – which included no fixed batting order and quixotic field placements.

Senior pro CK Nayudu was understandably not very happy with what was going on. And that did not rub off well on royalty. A legendary and popular player who had been the captain of India did not make the Maharajah comfortable, and he had not quite forgiven a man from the streets who had dared to lead the Indian cricket team.

Baqa Jilani was a medium-pacer of mediocre ability, who had the good fortune of being asked to be the general to manoeuvre operations in this battle for regal honour. Vizzy lured the young man with the promise of an undeserved Test cap if he insulted Nayudu at the breakfast table. 

The instructions were carried out and the upstart, with the backing of the captain, heaped abuse on the then greatest cricketer of India. A precursor of the modern day of Internet forums which need only the cloak of firewall protected invisibility for non-entities to abuse all time greats? 

Jilani won his only Test cap at The Oval because of following the captain’s instructions to perfection, scoring  four and 12 and taking no wickets for 55 in 15 overs. India lost the match by nine wickets.

The Amarnath affair

However, Vizzy preserved his worst treatment for the best performer of the tour – young Lala Amarnath. 

Soon after the start of the tour the captain called the 24-year old Amarnath aside and warned him to stay away from Nayudu. A surprised Amarnath, who hit the first Test century for India in 1933, complied with his captain’s wishes, and Vizzy was pleased. When the all-rounder scored a century against Northamptonshire, the captain was effusive in praise and started giving him regular rides to the grounds in his car.

However, the happy times did not last too long. Soon, Vizzy refused Amarnath the bowler some changes to the field in a match against Leicestershire, and banished him to the outfield.

When the captain got wind of Amarnath discussing his tactics with other team members, Vizzy called him aside again and informed him that he had the supreme authority to do whatever he wanted. Amarnath, with the Punjabi bluntness, retorted that it did not include the right to insult colleagues.

This made Vizzy inform the manager, Major Brittain-Jones. The Major ordered Amarnath to apologise while luring him with a lucrative contract to play in the Lancashire league, and the pioneering Indian cricketer did go ahead and say that he was sorry.

However, Vizzy was not really mollified by the apology. At Lord’s against Middlesex, Amarnath was again banished to the deep and under-bowled, even as he took six for 29. The all-rounder responded by scoring a century in each innings against Essex.

At this point of the tour, Amarnath picked up a back injury and soon was in severe pain. He was made to bowl after some minor treatment and posted in the outfield yet again, which did little for his recovery. When he discussed the matter with Amir Elahi and Baqa Jilani, he received a severe warning from the manager.

Soon after this, Major Brittain-Jones accused Amarnath of being a womaniser, a charge vehemently denied by the cricketer.  

The climax was reached during the match against Minor Counties. Amarnath was told that he would be batting at No 4 and had padded up, but Amar Singh was sent in at the fall of the second wicket. He sat waiting with his pads on and was allowed to go in only when the fifth wicket went down, 10 minutes from the close of play. He played out time, and when he came back to the pavilion, could not control himself any more. He threw down his pads and muttered loud and choice expletives in Punjabi.

Soon after the match, Brittain-Jones produced a written statement signed by several players testifying that Amarnath had misbehaved with the captain and informed him that he would be sent back to India. Arrangements were made to put him on board Kaiser I Hind the very next day.

Players like Cota Ramaswami, Wazir Ali, CK Nayudu and Dattaram Hindlekar went to the captain and pleaded with him, but even though Vizzy promised to consider if Amarnath tendered a written apology, the next day he informed everyone that the manager would not change his mind.

Amarnath made his lonely trip back to India and the drama dragged on for more than a month. Amidst much public outcry against the decision of the team management, the Maharajah of Bhopal did try to intervene and send him back to England, but things did not work out. There were statements and counter-statements, with muck dripping all around from mudslinging in all directions.

Amidst disciplinary committee inquiries and reports, fall outs between the board and the best performer of the Indian side, contradictory statements by the captain, India lost the series easily, Vizzy faring disastrously with the bat and as a leader. One particular observer remarked, perhaps with poetic license of delicious exaggeration, that the Kumar’s total number of runs during the tour was nowhere close to the number of Rolls Royce in his garage!

In January 1937, the Beaumont Committee report described Vizzy’s captaincy as disastrous, noting that "he did not understand field placings or bowling changes and never maintained any regular batting order." On team selection, the report stated "the good players remained idle for weeks together."

While Amarnath did get back into the Indian team and later captained the side, Vizzy did not play for India again.
Even a Merchant indulged in unscrupulous transactions

Vizzy’s ire against Nayudu was not fully quenched with Jilani’s antics at the breakfast table. When Lord Tennyson’s Englishmen came to India to play three unofficial ‘Tests’ in the winter of 1937, the still strong influence of the Maharajah on team selection ensured that Nayudu was left out because of ‘form issues’.

Because of the withdrawal of the Hindus from the Quadrangular tournament, Nayudu had not yet played that season. No one could possibly have judged his form, and the reason stated was evidently eyewash. He was still paying the price for challenging the superiority of royal blood in a sport considered earmarked for the elite.

The team under Vijay Merchant fared terribly and the selectors, led by Colonel Mistry, recalled Nayudu for the second ‘Test’ inBombay. The news was welcomed by thousands of fans who flocked to the metropolis to watch the game.

What followed can be easily termed as one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of Indian cricket.

On the morning of the game, the paying public came to know from the papers that Nayudu had been overlooked for a certain Mohammed Sayeed, whose cricketing abilities still remain a mystery. More absurd was the fact that even Nayudu was not informed by captain Merchant and had to read about his omission in the papers after coming all the way to Bombay to play the match.

Rumour had it that Amar Singh, Nayudu’s team mate of the past, had reservations against the great man. According to the all-rounder, Nayudu played too hard and wanted to win at all costs, and it “interfered with his enjoyment of the game”.

According to the newspapers of the era, however, during the England tour of 1932, some of the Indian players had thrown all barriers of discipline to the winds, keeping late hours and getting drunk during match days. When CK Nayudu had threatened to keep them out of the Test, and had appealed to them in the name of India, the players had been infuriated. The revolt of 1937 was an after-effect of this early history.

Amar Singh had failed miserably with the bat and the ball in the first ‘Test’, but his objections received full support from Vizzy, who pulled appropriate strings to make the selectors arrive at the decision like puppets that they indeed were. There was not much love lost between Nayudu and Vinoo Mankad either, with the former’s superstar status being difficult for promising players to adjust to. With Vizzy’s backing, nine out of the 14 players in the squad informed the selection committee that they were not willing to play if Nayudu was in the side. Surprisingly, captain Vijay Merchant, who also one of the three selectors, allowed this farce to go unchecked and Nayudu remained out of the side.

When Merchant was dismissed cheaply, Sentinel remarked, “The cures of the 35,000 who had gathered to watch the match seems to have worked.” Seldom had such cheers greeted the captain’s dismissal.

Merchant was a big enough person to admit his mistake in public and apologise to Nayudu, but the colonel, 41 by then, never again turned out for the country even though he continued to play first-class cricket for twenty more years.

Cricketing Rifts 1- Part 2 - Bradman O'Reilly problems


The author did a 22 part series about the various Rifts in the history of cricket on Cricketcountry. Some of the articles were composite dealing with multiple issues  ... Here, each rift is posted as an individual post.

The O’Reilly-Bradman problems


In 1995, after O’Reilly and Fingleton had both passed away, Bradman wrote: “With these fellows out of the way, the loyalty of my 1948 side was a big joy and made a big contribution to the outstanding success of that tour".

It is strange that Bradman should prefer not having on his team the bowler whom he often referred to as the best he had ever seen. However, the Irish Catholic background and easy beer dipped social ways of the champion leg spinner did not quite agree with the abstemious Protestant grounding of the great batsman. It is hard to believe, but Bradman’s vindictiveness prematurely ended the career of the “Tiger”.

In fact, O'Reilly summed up his feelings when he complained to a board member, "You have to play under a Protestant to know what it's like".

O’Reilly followed Fingleton’s footsteps to become a journalist, and kept following them further while criticising the great man relentlessly. Funnily, the two anti-Bradman friends were in the Press Box together when the master was bowled off the second ball by Eric Hollies in his final Test innings, and they have been reported to have become hysterical with laughter.

Nevertheless, O'Reilly claimed that he was silent about his deepest feelings about Bradman. "You don't piss on statues,” as he put it.

However, Bradman’s genius with the bat shone through even through the most unpalatable bitterness. O’Reilly did go on to say that compared with Bradman, batsmen like Greg Chappell and Allan Border were mere "child's play".


Cricketing Rifts Series - 1 Bradman and Fingleton


The author did a 22 part series about the various Rifts in the history of cricket on Cricketcountry. Some of the articles were composite dealing with multiple issues  ... Here, each rift is posted as an individual post.

Sectarian rifts in Australian cricket

When cricket addicts talk about rifts and chasms in teams due to diverse backgrounds, they tend to think of the vast length and breadth of India from where players come into the national team with various languages, cultural backgrounds, religions and food habits. They may also think of Pakistan – a country blessed with the unique ability to manufacture differences, factions and bitterness out of virtually nothing. Or of the West Indies, which after all, is not a single country – with each island carrying its own identity, lobby and baggage. In the present day, even Zimbabwe with its political problems and South Africawith remnants of a quota system may enter the discussion.

However, if one thinks of the mighty Australians, the prevailing picture is of the ideal team, the very definition of camaraderie, where one stands up for the mate. And hence, it may come as a huge surprise to learn that this great sporting nation once had the team slashed into two distinct halves, their one for all and all for one musket turned on each other. And if we add that the driving cause of this divide was religion, it may sound unbelievable. But that was how it was.

In the 1930s, when Australian cricket was riding the crest of the Don Bradman tidal wave, the issue of sectarianism had created a chasm within the great side. On one side were the Masons – including Bradman himself, Bill Ponsford, Bert Oldfield and others. On the other hand were the Catholics, including Jack Fingleton, Bill O’Reilly, Stan McCabe, Leo O’Brien and Chuck Fleetwood-Smith.

According to Greg Gowden, the biographer of Fingleton, it is not coincidental of the most bitter feuds among the Australians of this generation existed between Bradman and members of the Catholic group.

In fact, a small but blistering anecdote underlines the truth of this proclamation.

During a match at the Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG), Bradman came to know that Fingleton, who opened the batting, had had his bat sprinkled with holy water by a Catholic bishop. Such superstitions too, as one can see from history, are not restricted to the subcontinent.

Fingleton was soon dismissed. As Bradman, at No 3, passed Fingleton on his way to the middle, he said to him: "We'll see what a dry bat will do out there." The master, of course, scored his usual century.

Compounding the religious divide, was the other major issue that most of his teammates felt that Bradman thrived on the popularity and that made the game more of a one man show, was aloof towards the other team members and often became greater than the game itself.

One of the most interesting comments about Bradman was made by O'Brien just before his death in 1997: "He had an inferiority complex, except when he had a bat in his hand."

It happens that another of Bradman's teammates, a 1948 Invincible, privately expressed the same view – “It was the small-man syndrome that drove him to excel.”




Bradman Fingleton rift

Bradman and Fingleton added a world record 346 for the sixth wicket in the Ashes Test match at Melbourne in 1937, but that did not really indicate that they were the gelled well off the wicket.

Fingleton’s rift with Bradman is one of the most long-lasting conflicts in the history of the game, and it kept them far from speaking terms right up to the former’s death in 1981.

Fingleton, a decent opening batsman, bore Bradman quite a few grudges, including the belief that it was The Don who kept him out of the Test side during the 1934 tour of England. Biographer Gowden discovered an extraordinary letter that Fingleton wrote to Bill Woodfull, the Australian captain and selector, complaining about his omission, noting that certain Australian players "probably don't want me as a teammate".

The biggest issue between the two was the infamous Adelaide leak during the Bodyline series.

Australian captain, Bill Woodfull, had been struck over the heart by an express Harold Larwood delivery during the Adelaide Test of the notorious series. Later in the afternoon, while Ponsford and Vic Richardson were at the crease, English team managers Plum Warner and Richard Palairet paid Woodfull a visit in the Australian dressing room to express their concern over his injury.

Still under considerable pain, and aghast at the English attitude of making a mockery of his very idealistic views of sporting spirit, Woodfull was not too eager to entertain the officials. From the massage table, he said the words that have become immortal with time, and was paraphrased to some extent 75 years later during another infamous Test at Sydney by  Anil Kumble.

“There are two teams out there. One is trying to play cricket. The other is making no attempt to do so.”

For an Englishman hailing from the early days of the century, this allegation of not playing cricket was crushing, and there are reports that Warner was in tears when he returned to his hotel.

The damage, however, became irreversible, when this incident – including the quote – was leaked to the press, kick-starting the Bodyline controversy, soon becoming the biggest crisis cricket has ever faced.

Fingleton, who had a day job reporting for a Sydney newspaper, was the prime suspect. Warner went as far as to say that the story had been leaked because one of the Australian players in the dressing room was a journalist.

Fingleton, thus, got the blame but believed that Bradman was the culprit and should have owned up. According to Gowden, this "fatally poisoned" their relationship.

In 1947, in his acclaimed Cricket Crisis, Fingleton alleged that it had actually been Bradman who had leaked the news to Claude Corbett of The Sun. By then, Fingleton had retired from cricket, but Bradman was in his last couple of seasons, gearing for a glorious swansong. 

Of course, Bradman rubbished the claim and blamed Fingleton for the leak, and the two hardly ever spoke again. Fingleton did author another book based on Bradman’s final tour of Australia with the Invincibles, Brightly Fades the Don. While second to none in his admiration of Bradman’s batsmanship in the book, it did not patch things up between the two because in many parts, Fingleton was severely critical of the personality of the greatest batsman who ever lived.  


The birth of ball-by-ball cricket commentary on BBC - 85 years ago

On May 14, 1927, a Reverend was called away from his church pulpit and asked to broadcast cricket live on BBC.  Arunabha Sengupta recounts the birth of ball-by-ball cricket commentary in England.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Remembering the massive quake that shook world cricket 35 years ago

“In a player revolution unprecedented in sport, the world's top 34 Test cricketers have secretly signed contracts to become freelance mercenaries.” Thus ran the earth-shaking story by the late Ian Wooldridge in the Daily Mail of  May 9, 1977. Thirty five years after Wooldridge’s scoop, Arunabha Sengupta looks back at the fateful day that announced a crack in the foundations of the cricket world.