The 1899 Australians in England

ACS Book of the Week

Each week we spotlight a fascinating title from the vast collection catalogued in the Cricket Bibliography project, drawing on insightful (but not necessarily positive!) reviews from the archives of our journal. Today we bring you Robert Brooke on Peter Sharpham’s The 1899 Australians in England, published by JW McKenzie in 1997.

As with other tours, no comprehensive account was ever published of the 1899 Australian visit to England. This was a significant omission, as the Australians fielded a formidable team, the summer was superb almost from start to finish, and, of course, the visitors regained the Ashes. The teams were arguably too strong for the fine weather and three-day Tests. Despite minimal climatic interference—a little rain at Headingley and a few minutes of bad light at The Oval—the result was that four of the five Tests were drawn. The Australians triumphed at Lord’s, largely thanks to some marvellous first-day fast bowling by Ernest Jones and outstanding centuries from the gifted and youthful Clem Hill and Victor Trumper.

Sharpham has clearly researched his subject thoroughly, providing a highly engaging match-by-match summary of the tour. He captures the atmosphere so expertly that it is difficult to believe the writing was undertaken nearly a century after the events described. There is little room for criticism, though one wonders why he feels compelled to parade his knowledge of Bordeaux, which seems entirely irrelevant. There are occasional misspelled names, but the most notable flaw concerns the scorecards, all of which are reproduced in full. Second-innings batting orders and close-of-play scores have become standard and expected features of reproduced scorecards. For the most part, this information is readily available for the 1899 tour, yet Sharpham or his assistants have overlooked these details rather badly.

Nonetheless, this is an excellent and evocative account, one that is likely to please its readers. Even from an English perspective, certain observations provoke thought. On page 25, for instance, Sharpham, after highlighting England’s pace bowling problems—largely caused by injuries—suggests that “the selectors were (doubtless) sorely tempted to reinstate Tom Richardson.” Ultimately, they did not, and since the great Richardson was patently past his best, the selectors were correct to overlook him. However, applying a similar scenario to the 1990s, one cannot help but feel that England’s modern, timid, and unimaginative selectors would have chosen Richardson, or someone similar—Fraser, for instance? The 1899 committee, by contrast, did not fall prey to the modern delusion that spin bowlers must be old to be effective. Thus, they selected 21-year-old Wilfred Rhodes, already the best slow left-armer in the world. Today, he would likely have been forced to wait until all enterprise and originality had been drained from him.