On June 15, 1929 Gubby Allen picked up 10 wickets for 40 runs against Lancashire. Abhishek Mukherjeelooks back the last time when a bowler took10 wickets in an innings at Lord’s.
Nigel Haig, the Middlesex captain, was terribly worried that morning. His fast bowler George Oswald Browning‘Gubby’ Allen had not arrived at the ground. True, they were playing at Lord’s, but Lancashire was the strongest team in the Championship, having won the previous three titles. Lancashire had also won four out of their last five Championship matches, and was the team to watch for.
Allen, however, had warned Haig that he might be late for the match. Allen did a morning job at Debenham’s departmental store in London’s West End, but by the time he reached the ground, the Lancashire captain Peter Eckersley had won the toss and elected to bat, much to Allen’s horror.
The first spell
Haig brought on Allen as soon as the ‘curfew’ on the speedster was over. Bowling with the breeze behind his back, Allen soon went past the defence of Charlie Hallows: Lancashire were 23 for one as Ernest Tyldesley walked out to join Frank Watson. Allen bowled a nagging line and length, but the Lancashire batsmen were up to the task, and when the bowler was taken off, he had figures of 8-3-18-1.
Lancashire had reached to 90 for the loss of the Hallows’ wicket at lunch, with both batsmen looking solid and ready for more.
The second spell
Haig unleashed Allen immediately after lunch. Fully rested, Allen was bowling at his fastest with the wind behind him; he ended Watson’s resistance as he clean bowled him for 47, and hit Jack Iddon’s off-stump in the same over. Lancashire had suddenly lost two wickets with the score on 102, and the balance of the match was restored.
Buoyed by the double-blow, Allen bowled with hostile pace, but Ernest Tyldesley and Len Hopwood saw him out. Haig eventually gave him a rest after a spell of 6-2-9-2: his figures now read 14-5-27-3 — good, but nothing spectacular.
The third spell
Ernest Tyldesley reached a composed hundred just before tea, but Allen came back for his third spell and managed to find the batsman’s leg-stump. Ernest Tyldesley had scored 102, and Lancashire went to tea at 215 for four.
After play got underway, Allen clean bowled Thomas Halliday in the first over to obtain his five-for. Bill Farrimond, the Lancashire wicketkeeper, managed to keep Allen out for a while in a partnership with Hopwood, but it turned out to be only a temporary respite.
Allen soon bowled Farrimond, and then ended Hopwood’s resistance by having him caught-behind by Fred Price with the fifth ball of his 25th over. Hopwood had scored 48 and Lancashire were 239 for seven. Dick Tyldesley was bowled first ball, giving Allen his best Championship figures (his previous best was seven for 30).
Ted McDonald and Eckersley managed to sneak a single each in the next over. Allen was on a hat-trick when started his 26th over. Allen’s ball hit McDonald on the thigh. Furious, the Australian fast bowler stepped out in the next ball, but Allen — who saw him coming — bowled a slow, wide delivery. Price, on gathering the ball, rushed up to the stumps and removed the bails. The Guardian later mentioned that McDonald ‘was trapped by the simplest of ruses’.
Allen had now gone past his First-Class best of eight for 77. The 20,000-strong Lord’s crowd waited with bated breath as Allen ran in to bowl to the number eleven batsman Gordon Hodgson. Would they witness the first 10-for at the ground since Arthur Fielder’s ten for 90 in 1906?
It happened. Allen dislodged the timber, and had managed to pull off the feat. Allen finished with figures of 25.3-10-40-10, and his third spell had yielded 11.3-5-13-7, of which the last four wickets had come of five balls. Lancashire had been bowled out for 241 – from 215 for three, and then from 239 for six.
Nobody has taken a 10-for at Lord’s since Allen’s feat. He marginally missed out on Samuel Butler’s 10 for 38 in 1871 — the best figures at Lord’s till date (William Lillywhite, Edmund Hinkly and John Wisden had also taken 10 wickets in 1837, 1848, and 1850 respectively — the first three instances in First-Class history — but the number of runs they had conceded had not been documented).
In the process, Allen also broke Edward Walker’s record of ten for 104 in 1859 and set a new record for the best bowling analysis against Lancashire – a record that stands till today. To make things worse for Lancashire, ‘Tich’ Freeman of Kent took ten for 131 against them a-month-and-a-half later at Maidstone.
Allen’s figures were also the best for Middlesex — yet another record that holds today; Albert Trott’s 10 for 42 at Taunton in 1900 was eclipsed. Just for the record, Frank Tarrant (nine for 57) held the previous best for Middlesex at Lord’s, and till date Allen remains the only bowler to take 10 wickets for Middlesex at Lord’s.
The Guardian wrote: “When one has paid a fitting tribute to [Gubby] Allen, it has to be confessed much of the batting was poor.” Times was more generous, calling Allen’s performance “a truly exhilarating exhibition of fast bowling… real fast bowling at its best.”
The rest of the match
McDonald and Dick Tyldesley got back at Middlesex, and reduced them to 34 for three at stumps, and then to 71 for six the next morning. Harry Lee, however, batted with bravado, carving out a crucial partnership of 92 with Haig (40). Lee eventually scored 124 out of the team total of 228; McDonald finished with four for 108 while Dick Tyldesley took five for 40.
Lancashire, now in control of the match, reached 132 for three at stumps on Day Two. Hopwood scored 106 not out the next day, Dick Tyldesley hit out to score 53, and Eckersley declared the innings closed at 310 for nine in the third afternoon, asking Middlesex to score 324.
The match seemed to be meandering towards a stalemate when Middlesex added 63 for the first wicket, but Watson, coming on as the fifth bowler, suddenly reduced the hosts to 73 for four, and then to 139 for five. Lee, however, took control and reached his second hundred of the match. He finished with 105 not out (scoring 229 in the match out of the 398 scored by his team) as Middlesex managed to reach 170 for five at close.
Nigel Haig, the Middlesex captain, was terribly worried that morning. His fast bowler George Oswald Browning‘Gubby’ Allen had not arrived at the ground. True, they were playing at Lord’s, but Lancashire was the strongest team in the Championship, having won the previous three titles. Lancashire had also won four out of their last five Championship matches, and was the team to watch for.
Allen, however, had warned Haig that he might be late for the match. Allen did a morning job at Debenham’s departmental store in London’s West End, but by the time he reached the ground, the Lancashire captain Peter Eckersley had won the toss and elected to bat, much to Allen’s horror.
The first spell
Haig brought on Allen as soon as the ‘curfew’ on the speedster was over. Bowling with the breeze behind his back, Allen soon went past the defence of Charlie Hallows: Lancashire were 23 for one as Ernest Tyldesley walked out to join Frank Watson. Allen bowled a nagging line and length, but the Lancashire batsmen were up to the task, and when the bowler was taken off, he had figures of 8-3-18-1.
Lancashire had reached to 90 for the loss of the Hallows’ wicket at lunch, with both batsmen looking solid and ready for more.
The second spell
Haig unleashed Allen immediately after lunch. Fully rested, Allen was bowling at his fastest with the wind behind him; he ended Watson’s resistance as he clean bowled him for 47, and hit Jack Iddon’s off-stump in the same over. Lancashire had suddenly lost two wickets with the score on 102, and the balance of the match was restored.
Buoyed by the double-blow, Allen bowled with hostile pace, but Ernest Tyldesley and Len Hopwood saw him out. Haig eventually gave him a rest after a spell of 6-2-9-2: his figures now read 14-5-27-3 — good, but nothing spectacular.
The third spell
Ernest Tyldesley reached a composed hundred just before tea, but Allen came back for his third spell and managed to find the batsman’s leg-stump. Ernest Tyldesley had scored 102, and Lancashire went to tea at 215 for four.
After play got underway, Allen clean bowled Thomas Halliday in the first over to obtain his five-for. Bill Farrimond, the Lancashire wicketkeeper, managed to keep Allen out for a while in a partnership with Hopwood, but it turned out to be only a temporary respite.
Allen soon bowled Farrimond, and then ended Hopwood’s resistance by having him caught-behind by Fred Price with the fifth ball of his 25th over. Hopwood had scored 48 and Lancashire were 239 for seven. Dick Tyldesley was bowled first ball, giving Allen his best Championship figures (his previous best was seven for 30).
Ted McDonald and Eckersley managed to sneak a single each in the next over. Allen was on a hat-trick when started his 26th over. Allen’s ball hit McDonald on the thigh. Furious, the Australian fast bowler stepped out in the next ball, but Allen — who saw him coming — bowled a slow, wide delivery. Price, on gathering the ball, rushed up to the stumps and removed the bails. The Guardian later mentioned that McDonald ‘was trapped by the simplest of ruses’.
Allen had now gone past his First-Class best of eight for 77. The 20,000-strong Lord’s crowd waited with bated breath as Allen ran in to bowl to the number eleven batsman Gordon Hodgson. Would they witness the first 10-for at the ground since Arthur Fielder’s ten for 90 in 1906?
It happened. Allen dislodged the timber, and had managed to pull off the feat. Allen finished with figures of 25.3-10-40-10, and his third spell had yielded 11.3-5-13-7, of which the last four wickets had come of five balls. Lancashire had been bowled out for 241 – from 215 for three, and then from 239 for six.
Nobody has taken a 10-for at Lord’s since Allen’s feat. He marginally missed out on Samuel Butler’s 10 for 38 in 1871 — the best figures at Lord’s till date (William Lillywhite, Edmund Hinkly and John Wisden had also taken 10 wickets in 1837, 1848, and 1850 respectively — the first three instances in First-Class history — but the number of runs they had conceded had not been documented).
In the process, Allen also broke Edward Walker’s record of ten for 104 in 1859 and set a new record for the best bowling analysis against Lancashire – a record that stands till today. To make things worse for Lancashire, ‘Tich’ Freeman of Kent took ten for 131 against them a-month-and-a-half later at Maidstone.
Allen’s figures were also the best for Middlesex — yet another record that holds today; Albert Trott’s 10 for 42 at Taunton in 1900 was eclipsed. Just for the record, Frank Tarrant (nine for 57) held the previous best for Middlesex at Lord’s, and till date Allen remains the only bowler to take 10 wickets for Middlesex at Lord’s.
The Guardian wrote: “When one has paid a fitting tribute to [Gubby] Allen, it has to be confessed much of the batting was poor.” Times was more generous, calling Allen’s performance “a truly exhilarating exhibition of fast bowling… real fast bowling at its best.”
The rest of the match
McDonald and Dick Tyldesley got back at Middlesex, and reduced them to 34 for three at stumps, and then to 71 for six the next morning. Harry Lee, however, batted with bravado, carving out a crucial partnership of 92 with Haig (40). Lee eventually scored 124 out of the team total of 228; McDonald finished with four for 108 while Dick Tyldesley took five for 40.
Lancashire, now in control of the match, reached 132 for three at stumps on Day Two. Hopwood scored 106 not out the next day, Dick Tyldesley hit out to score 53, and Eckersley declared the innings closed at 310 for nine in the third afternoon, asking Middlesex to score 324.
The match seemed to be meandering towards a stalemate when Middlesex added 63 for the first wicket, but Watson, coming on as the fifth bowler, suddenly reduced the hosts to 73 for four, and then to 139 for five. Lee, however, took control and reached his second hundred of the match. He finished with 105 not out (scoring 229 in the match out of the 398 scored by his team) as Middlesex managed to reach 170 for five at close.
No comments:
Post a Comment