A QUESTION OF HONOUR
A closer look at the
historic Nine Run Match 12 and 13 March 1885, CCC grounds, Galle
Face Royal 9, St Thomas' 170 for 6
Introduction
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-St 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
•mention to the most crucial bit of hard evidence we have, which is
the scorecard itself!
The scorecard
When 1 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
6'" Thomian wicket with St 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 St Thomas' was leading by 161 runs, although still in her
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 she was certainly not out of the woods.
The intention to bat on
is implied in the St Thomas' College Magazine of March/ April 1885
which concludes its account of the match as follows -
"We sympathise with -the
last four men 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 historical controversy was that the
Royalists had been on the brink of certain defeat. But this was
clearly not the case.
Why didn't St Thomas'
declare?
It was therefore baffling
why St 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 2.30pm, 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 a low ebb after her 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 picket, "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 St 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 St Thomas' had to bat on
and complete her 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 St Thomas' College cricket master, who
was also a Cambridge man, though not a blue. Both of them played for
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-
v'
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 Sfioke 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 St 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 -
"St 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. Howe\ i 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/row 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 St 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 j interrupted by rain for half an hour on the first day.
It is therefore quite possible
e
that although the skies may have
cleared completely, the ground conditions were in fact worse than on
the first day.
From a Royal perspective,
the member of the 1885 Royal team writing under the nom de plume of
"Nestor" in the Royal-Thomian souvenir of 1932 includes a quotation
from SP Joseph, who played for Royal in 1890/91, who describes the
rain interruption on the second day as follows-
“I distinctly remember
that at about 3 pm or so, rain accompanied by thunder and lightning
came down in torrents so that the pitch was at least six inches
under water. It rained for about an hour, a real N. E. shower and
when it ceased the pitch resembled a pond. The old C. C. C. ground
on Galle Face was not the large flat piece of ground that Mr George
Vanderspar made of it. Then the pitch was on flat ground about sixty
yards square. From the pavilion side, the ground sloped down to it;
on the Church side, it sloped away from it, so it is not difficult
to imagine what the pitch looked like after a heavy downpour. After
the rain ceased the ground was absolutely unplayable. I remember
this, as I took shelter from the rain in the pavilion."
Even if we allow for some
exaggeration due to the passage of time, there can be no doubt that
it was a "very heavy shower", as Dr Gerald de Saram of the 1885
Thomian team described it, as quoted earlier. So the condition of
the Galle Face grounds on the afternoon of 13 March 1885 must have
been far from perfect, although the umpires initially considered the
ground fit for play.
From the several
descriptions of the ground conditions on both the first and second
day, it would seem that unless it was actually raining, the umpires
would have wanted to resume play, and that the ground conditions
didn't in fact really matter. If this was the umpires' policy, there
is nothing the Royal team could have done about it, as was the case
on the first day. But if the grounds had in fact been in a dreadful
condition, as seems likely to have been the case, it would have left
considerable room for the umpires to justify changing their minds
about resuming play.
The proposal for a third day's play
But Grenier's great contribution is in the substance of his second
notice, which reveals that the Thomians proposed a third day'splay.
This, of course, is not very surprising, since the laws of the game
did not allow St Thomas' to declare. But Royal would rightly have
refused this, for the match was clearly a two-day game. The tone of
Grenier's notice also suggests that the Thomian expectation was that
the weather should not have a deciding influence on the outcome of
the match and that the match had to be somehow played out, "then or
on any other day". Hence, it is possible that the refusal to play a
third day was inextricably confused or merged with a reluctance to
play on the second day due to the state of the grounds. In fact, St
Thomas' may well have been keen on continuing the game on the second
day, on the basis that a third day's play will follow. If we go by
the St Thomas College Magazine, the last four Thomian batsmen would
have been keen on "winning renown", which gives the impression that
winning before time ran out on the second day was not an objective
at all. This suggests that a third day's play had been taken for
granted by the Thomians in the event that the match could not be
played out within two days. This could not have been an official
agreement, but whether St Thomas' were under the impression that it
was a gentlemen's agreement, is a moot point. No Royal-Thomian had
been drawn before and hence the prospect of a draw may have been
difficult to contemplate.
It is also interesting
that Grenier's newspaper notices are focused on Royal "refusing to
continue the match" and not about Royal "giving up the game", and
thus losing the match. He makes no claim to a Thomian victory and
instead proclaims that the two schools shall never play again. It is
this retaliatory measure that he seems most keen to communicate to
the public, which therefore looks like a tacit admittance that the
umpires abandoned the match and the match was not won by St Thomas'.
The "refusal to play"
It is now appropriate to
consider what the "History of the Royal College" of 1932 has to say
about the nine run match. This book was compiled by teams of Royal
schoolboys under the guidance of some masters and the Principal in
1931 and published in January 1932. The last two paragraphs dealing
with the controversy reads as follows -
"The rain interfered, but
the Umpires, one of whom was Mr Ashley Walker, decided that the
ground was fit for play when the play ceased. But though Mr Walker
and the Principal were for continuing the match, the team, urged by
a few unsporting boys, refused to play.
The disagreement which
resulted between the two teams was settled by Royal apologizing, and
the Thomians were sporting enough to 'bury the hatchet' in which
condition we hope it will always be, for Royal and St Thomas' have
built up the present spirit of friendly rivalry, in spite of this."
The words "play ceased"
looks like an error and should read, "rain ceased".
This passage is curiously
vague, and simplifies in a charming way what was certainly a more
complex story. It does not give the result of the match probably
because it was in dispute. But it is confusing how an apology could
have settled the disagreement unless it means that the "refusal to
play" was effectively retracted by the apology. But the question
then arises as to why the umpires did not resume play if the
Royalists were no longer "refusing to play". Or was the apology a
separate matter that played no part in resolving the disagreement?
To try to answer these
questions we need to first understand why Royal "refused to play
"which was in essence a refusal to field. In view of who the umpires
were, if we rule out the possibility that the "refusal to play" was
tantamount to "giving up the game" in terms of the law, then the
refusal to play must simply have been a vehement protest against
having to field in appalling ground conditions. C E Corea, who was
in the Royal team, in an article in the 1932 Royal-Thomian souvenir
had this to say about fielding conditions on the first day - "On the
first day we batted in a deluge of rain and submitted to the leather
hunting which followed over mud and sludge, weighed down in sodden
clothes, up to the very minute fixed for drawing stumps, without
protest or grumble". So it would seem that the Royalists had reached
the end of their tether after the rain on the second day and were in
no mood for another mud bath. Faced with this protest, it would seem
that the umpires reconsidered the ground conditions, which in fact
were quite bad, and agreed to abandon the match. The fact that St
Thomas' had to bat on and complete her innings and a third day's
play was not on may also have influenced their decision. Royal's
apology would then have come after the umpires had decided to
abandon the match, being Royal's way of acknowledging the natural
disappointment of the Thomians at being unable to press home the
advantage they clearly had.
One could of course
question why the umpires did not force Royal to field, as they did
on the first day. The only possible reasons must be that the match
situation and ground conditions were different. In fact, it is quite
likely that it was the Thomian umpire Stephens who pushed for the
abandonment following Royal's protest or "refusal", in keeping with
the sporting spirit of those times which would have obliged him to
give the benefit of the doubt to the opposition, 'particularly when
the opposition was in a poor position. But the Thomian supporters
would not have seen it that way!
Game not played out
We now come to the
account of the match in the St Thomas' College Magazine of
March-April 1885, which was probably published about two months
after Grenier's newspaper notices. It is significant that it makes
no reference at all to "refusing to continue the game". From this it
would appear that Grenier's newspaper notices were a knee-jerk
reaction in the immediate aftermath of the match, which was
disregarded shortly thereafter when the circumstances of the
disagreement were better understood by all. That there was some
confusion about what had happened is clear, because even the Royal
Principal, who the "History of the Royal College" reports to have
been in favour of continuing the match, is reported elsewhere to
have sent for the Royal team on the Monday afternoon after the match
to conduct an inquiry. That Monday was 16 March 1885, the day
Grenier's first newspaper notice appeared, and it looks likely that,
it was this that prompted the Principal's inquiry.
Apart from making no
reference anywhere to "refusing to continue the match" or "giving up
the match", the account of the match in the St Thomas' College
Magazine of March-April 1885 starts by saying -
"This annual match was
begun on Thursday, March iy, and, though not played out, was decided
in our favour."
This begs the question,
who decided and on what grounds? One has to question why the
Magazine fights shy of stating that the match was won by St Thomas'
on the basis that Royal gave up the game. This is what it should
have stated if the Thomians were then claiming what they claim
today.
The account concludes as
follows -
"At this juncture, rain
interrupted the game and the match was not concluded under
circumstances about which we shall say nothing. We sympathise with
the last four men in their losing a good opportunity of winning
renown."
As regards the
penultimate sentence, Canon de Saram quite rightly states in his
article that "The reticence of the St Thomas' College Magazine at
this point is tantalizing." But if the match had been abandoned as
we have envisaged in the previous section, it would understandably
have left the Thomians feeling shortchanged, having reached such a
commanding position in the game. They would J also have been
particularly aggrieved that their own cricket master, Mr Stephens,
had been partly responsible for their fate, by agreeing with Ashley
Walker to call off the game. This would then explain the reticence
of the St Thomas' College magazine.
Finally, the account ends
on a quaint note, by sympathizing with the last four men who did not
get a chance of "winning renown". As noted earlier, this gives the
impression that winning before time ran out on the second day was
not an objective at all, and that from a Thomian perspective the
match should have been played out on a third day.
While the Magazine tones down Grenier's statements, the lingering
animosity towards Royal can be gauged when one looks at the frosty
account of the following year's Royal-Thomian in the St Thomas'
College magazine of March 1886. Instead of the usual chirpy
description of play, it merely states that "This match was played on
Galle Face on the 13'1'
and 14"' March and resulted in a victory for the Royal College by 9
wickets." Even the dates are wrong! Happily, the Magazine returned
to its usual style of reporting in 1887.
Thomian claims to a win
Thomian claims to a win,
as we have seen, go back to the St Thomas College Magazine of
March-April 1885, although the basis for the claim is obscure. There
is also the "History of St Thomas' College" by C H Christian David,
which was published in 1894, which lists the 1885 match as a win for
St Thomas'. However, under a column headed "How" it states, "not
played out". This is, as in the case of the account in the St
Thomas' College Magazine, unhelpful, since "not played out" is not a
basis for victory. A match that has been "not played out", in the
absence of any other information, has to be a draw. So the failure
to assert that Royal gave up the game, which is a basis for victory
in terms of the laws of cricket, had prevailed at least up to 1894.
This means that the victory claims based on "refusing to play" or
"giving up the game" came later.
A further point of
interest is in the report on the 1886 Royal-Thomian the following
year in the Times of Ceylon. The report states that -
"...In the year 1880 and
1881 the Royal College was victorious, but in four subsequent years,
viz, 1882-5, St Thomas' College defeated their opponents. In the
last named year the match was not completed owing to bad weather,
but as it is now one of the rules of the Colombo Club, on whose
ground the game was played, that a match fixed for two afternoons,
if not played out shall be decided by the first innings, St Thomas'
was credited with a very easy win."
This sounds emphatic and
conclusive, but if the two schools were playing by the ground rules,
the game would already have been decided, and there would not have
been a disagreement about continuing the match. However, the St
Thomas' College Magazine of March 1887 concludes its account on the
1887 match, which is today recognized by both schools as a draw, as
follows -
"When time was called the
score stood at 47 with 3 wickets to fall, thus leaving us victors on
the first innings by 25 runs."
The "History of the St
Thomas' College" of 1894 also treats both the 1885 and 1887 matches
as wins for St Thomas', although for different reasons. But in later
years, the 1887 match was made a draw, but the 1885 match remained a
victory in Thomian records.
Reverting to the Times of
Ceylon report on the 1886 match, it is notable that it confirms that
the 1885 match was not completed owing to bad weather, which is
further evidence that in the years shortly after 1885, there were no
claims to a Thomian win on the basis of Royal 'refusing to play' or
'giving up the game'.
"A History of St Thomas'
College" was also produced in 1937 by the famous W T Keble, who
taught at St Thomas' for many years and started the Preparatory
Schools at Colombo and Bandarawella. As regards the Nine Run Match,
Keble merely reproduces the full account given in the "History of
the Royal College", part of which has been quoted above. Keble
follows up by only stating that "This is the Royalist version of the
affair, and what could be more generous?" He then refers the reader
to the article in the 1932 Royal-Thomian souvenir by the Royalist
"Nestor", referred to earlier. This is interesting because "Nestor"
plainly states that the match was drawn. Was Keble concurring?
Keble's comment on the saga sounds light-hearted and somewhat
tongue-in-cheek, but he does not present any Thomian views on the
match.
1932 is an important year in this saga as it was the year in which
the "History of the Royal College" was published, which, as quoted
above, uses the phrase "refused to play". This book, as mentioned
earlier, was compiled by teams of Royal schoolboys under the
guidance of some masters and the Principal. "Refused to play" are
crucial words as they resonate with the laws of the game, but it
looks likely that they were used innocently and not in the context
of the laws of the game. Frank Grenier's notices given above use the
words "refused to continue the match". While both phrases amount to
almost the same thing, they are subtly different. "Refused to play"
has an immediate ring to it, whereas "refused to continue the
match," sounds more wide-ranging. So it looks likely that the
innocent use of the words "refused to play", by the opposition no
less, in 1932, prompted Thomian supporters to argue a win for St
Thomas' by quoting the laws of the game. But even then, my guess is
that it started many years after 1932. This is because that eminent
chronicler of sport, S P Foenander, makes no reference at all to the
1885 game in his lengthy narrative account ofRoyal-Thomian cricket
from its inception, in his famous "Three Score and Ten" published in
1949. The scorecards of the games that follow his narrative duly
record the result of the 1885 game as a draw. S P Foenander, an old
Wesleyite, was a master at Royal for almost twenty-five years. But
he had strong Thomian connections too. Writing in the Royal souvenir
of 1961 he had this to say about the nine run match -"Although some
veterans claim that match as a victory for St Thomas, I can state
that my uncle, the late Dr F V Foenander, who played for St Thomas',
told me that the match ended in a draw as the wicket was unfit for
play on the second day". F V Foenander was the sixth Thomian wicket
to fall. at which stage the match ended.
The laws of the game quoted by Canon de Saram
Present day Thomian
claims to a win have been based on the simple assertion that Royal
"gave up the match" and/or "refused to play". While the practical
difficulties of arriving at such a simple outcome have been explored
above, it is interesting to examine how such an outcome could have
been arrived at within the laws of the game.
The article by Canon de
Saram argues a Thomian win by referring to laws 2 and 45 of the laws
of the game at the time. To quote him verbatim -
"Law 2 of the Laws of
Cricket is as follows -
'The side which scores
the greatest number of runs wins the match. No match is won unless
played out or given up.' Law 45 is as follows:- 'When they (i.ethe
umpires)shall call 'play' the side refusing to play shall lose the
match'"
While the extracts of the
laws at the time quoted by Canon de Saram are correct, they are two
separate laws dealing with rather different situations. Law 2 could
have applied to the 1885 match and it has nothing to do with umpires
calling 'play'. But it is too simplistic to think that it was
invoked in 1885 as demonstrated by the analysis of the situation
that prevailed on the day. Royal would not have been allowed by
Ashley Walker to simply "give up the game" and concede defeat.
That's the reality.
As for law 45, what has
been quoted by Canon de Saram is only part of law 45. The full law
45 is as follows -
"They shall allow two
minutes for each striker to come in, and ten minutes between each
innings. When they shall call "Play", the side refusing to play
shall lose the match."
It would appear that this
law would also apply to an innings resumed after an interruption due
to rain. Now, what needs to be appreciated here is that umpires
cannot call "Play" from the comfort of the dressing room. As anyone
who has played a serious game of cricket knows, (and Canon de Saram
did play for St Thomas' in 1915/17!) the umpires call 'play' only
once the bails have been properly placed on the stumps, the batsmen
are ready, the fielding side is ready, and everything else to do
with the playing conditions are in order.
So if this law had to be
strictly implemented in 1885, the umpires should have first come out
and fixed the bails. Then, if the fielding side refused to come out
before the batsmen as is customary, but not required by the laws,
two Thomian batsmen should have come out to bat indicating their
willingness to play. But there is no doubt whatsoever that this did
not happen, since there is only one 'not out' batsman in the Thomian
scorecard. Or if the umpires did come out as suggested but neither
side followed, then both sides would have been "refusing to play",
which does not help.
But in practical terms,
given the personalities at the time, the colonial backdrop, and the
gentlemanly environment of those days, this scenario is a
non-starter. It simply wouldn't have been acted out. The umpires
would instead have used the provisions of Law 2 directly, if one
side wanted to give up the game.
Canon de Saram goes on to
conclude as follows -
"This match was given up
by the Royal College. The umpires decided that the ground was fit
for play (Vide 'The History of the Royal College') and called "Play
"and the Royal College refused to play. Accordingly, the match was
won by S. Thomas'."
This conclusion is
sweeping and, with due deference to the worthy Canon, rather
simplistic. How Canon de Saram got the impression that the umpires
called 'play' is a mystery. It can only be a matter of conjecture,
as it is unfounded.
The Press reports on the
match
The press reports in both
the 'Observer' and the 'Times of Ceylon' confirm that on the second
day rain stopped the game. But they do not state that the match was
drawn nor do they state that Royal 'refused to play' or 'gave up the
game'. The 'Observer' is a bit more precise and states that "rain
again stopped the game for about half an hour". Canon de Saram makes
much of this statement and points out that it does not say "rain
stopped play for the rest of the day". His inference is that after
the rain Royal "refused to play". Like Grenier, he assumes that
after the rain stopped there was nothing further that could have
prevented play resuming, and makes no reference at all to the
probable ground conditions.
As noted previously
above, a year later when reporting on the next year's Royal-Thomian,
the Times of Ceylon states that the 1885 match "was not completed
owing to bad weather".
1885 Royalists who have
spoken
The member of the 1885
Royal side writing under the name of "Nestor" (my calculated guess
is that he was E de Kretser and 'E' stood for Ernest) states in his
article on the 1885 match in the 1932 Royal-Thomian souvenir, that
the match ended in a draw. However, he also states that, "in later
years, it caused the Captain intense pain to hear so much unfounded
talk circulated about the match". This is probably an allusion to
the "refused to continue the match" story as well as to the
apocryphal stories about the Royalist going off to Kandy on the
second day of the match, which even the Thomians do not claim to be
true today.
The 1932 souvenir also
has an article by C E Corea, another member of the 1885 team, in
which he deals with the controversy very specifically as follows -
"I prefer to meet the
attack with the full face of the straight hat and repel the charge
that we got in a funk and refused to continue the match as
absolutely and wholly untrue. On [he first day we batted in a deluge
of rain and submitted to the leather hunting which/allowed over mud
and sludge, weighed down in sodden clothes, up to the very minute
fixed for drawing stumps, without protest or grumble. The rain
continued through the succeeding night. It must be kept in view that
the Galle Face pitch was at that time on low ground, which became a
marsh after a shower. It has since been raised a foot or more. The
Royal eleven turned up on the ground punctually to time the next
morning, with grim determination. But the ground had become a swamp
and absolutely "unplayable" and there was no alternative but to
abandon the match."
"If there was a scintilla
of truth in the ungenerous and cruel suggestion that the Royal
College committed the "unpardonable sin" the Royal- Thomian Match
would have ended that year. Most certainly every boy who was guilty
of such gross violation of the honourable traditions of the game
would have been, and deserved to be, hounded out of any cricket
team. And the stem discipline of Mr Cull would not have tolerated
their presence even in the College much less in the College eleven."
It is indeed impossible,
at first sight, to reconcile Corea's categorical statement with what
the "History of the Royal College" of 1932 says! Corea was a fourth
year coloursman and he surely must have been aware of any "refusal
to continue the match". Corea's memory is clearly faulty on a few
minor points. Firstly, Royal did not bat in a deluge of rain -
Royal's innings was in fact interrupted by rain. Secondly, the match
was resumed on the second day in the afternoon at 2.30 and not in
the morning. And thirdly, there certainly was some play on the
second day for about forty minutes. But it is hard to imagine that
he could have forgotten the main controversy, if the 'refusal to
continue the match' was indeed the main controversy. The only
explanation, apart from labeling Corea a blatant liar, which sounds
most unfair, is that the 'refusal to continue the match' was only a
storm in a teacup, or a distortion, that was blown out of proportion
by Grenier in his newspaper notices. Corea's account certainly
sounds the more convincing one while the account in the "History of
the Royal College" sounds juvenile in comparison. It is possible
that the boys who wrote the "History of the Royal College" felt
compelled to take cognizance of Grenier's notices, and I would
hazard a guess that they did not have access to the St Thomas'
College Magazine of March-April 1885.
Curiously, the last
surviving member of the 1885 Royal team also has a memory lapse with
regard to the second day's play! Gate-Mudaliyar Vincent de Silva
writes as follows in the 1957 Royal souvenir-
"On the second day of the
match, the weather was worse than ever and when we turned up at the
grounds (contrary to popular rumour which says that out Team ran
away to Kandy) the match had to be abandoned due to heavy rain."
Summing up
In summing up this
historic match, there are two distinct matters of compelling
interest that need to be addressed. The first, and the less murky,
is the outcome of the match. On this point, the weight of evidence
is heavily in favour of the Royalists, who claim that the match was
drawn. Besides the official reports, including the St Thomas'
College Magazine of March-April 1885, failing to state that Royal
gave up the match, the unique role of Ashley Walker, who was umpire,
coach and Assistant Principal, and the fact that the Royal Captain,
CT Van Geyzel, went on to captain again in 1886 and 1887, arc major
points in Royal's favour which are well nigh impossible to argue
against.
But what is of equal
interest, and more intriguing, is to attempt to understand the
underlying reasons for the confusion about the result and the
acrimony that resulted between the two camps. For if the umpires had
merely changed their minds following Royal's protest about the
ground conditions and agreed that the grounds were indeed unfit for
play, or if Royal had simply given up the game, there would have
been none of this. My personal conviction is that there was a major
misunderstanding about continuing the game on a third day in the
event that the match could not be played out in two days, as there
was no precedent to go by since no Royal-Thomian had been drawn
before. This can be deduced from the strange concluding sentence in
the account of the match in the St Thomas' College Magazine, which
refers to the last four Thomian batsmen "losing a good opportunity
of winning renown". And when the expectation that a third day's play
should follow evaporated during the argument, the Thomians may then
have suspected that their monumental total of 170 for 6 on a wet
wicket may not after all have been a genuine reflection of their
batting prowess, but instead, the result of a deliberate scheme by
the Royalists to paint them into a corner. They must also have been
convinced that the umpires had erred in abandoning the game. So
emotions would have been running high and I believe it is this,
rather than reason that drove the early claims to a Thomian victory.
The quaint laws of the
game at the time undoubtedly had the greatest influence on the
outcome of the 1885 match, and indeed the run of play. For it
rendered outright victory possible only after at least three innings
had been fully played out. It was a different ball game indeed. But
question marks may well remain over whether the Royalists had played
in the right spirit. Did they deliberately prolong the Thomian
innings knowing fully well that the innings had to be completed?
Should they have agreed to field even in appalling conditions or
agreed to play a third day? Was the "refused to play" fracas simply
a ruse to waste time? These are fair questions indeed but at the end
of the day a fundamental principle all should accept is that the
umpires' word is law. On this basis, it is beyond reasonable doubt
that the match was abandoned by the umpires, rightly or wrongly, due
to poor ground conditions, and was hence a draw.
Ranjit Gunasekara
February 2006
Acknowledgements
I would first like to
thank my old friend and team-mate, Eardley Lieversz, for the
tremendous encouragement he gave me to persist with this article.
His constructive criticisms and helpful suggestions, as the article
developed, have been invaluable.
I regard it a privilege
to have been granted access to the S. Thomas' College Archives, and
for this lam most grateful to my old foe on the Colombo Oval many
decades ago, Dr David Ponniah, the Warden of S. Thomas' College. My
only regret is that my burrowing within those hallowed portals did
not yield more Thomian perspectives on this historic game, than it
did.
This article unavoidably
builds on the work of other writers and while thanking, them all, I
would like to acknowledge in particular the pioneering research work
of that renowned historian, S S Perera.
Courtesy The Sunday
Times
