Double Headers

53 Warwickshire in 1919 for 55 minutes’ batting before the close of play. They uncharacteristically caught the mood set by the later Warwickshire batsmen, for their runs came “with a rapidity that aroused [their] supporters to high enthusiasm”, with the usually sedate Oliver in particular showing an enterprise that “had a smack of novelty”. By the close at 7.30 Derbyshire had reached 75-1 with Oliver on 48*. With 434 runs and 11 wickets off something like 115-120 overs, the Bank Holiday crowd had surely had a thoroughly entertaining, if sometimes wet, day, at the end of which the honours between the two sides were even. The same could also be said at the end of the first day’s play at Edgbaston, where 478 runs were scored on the first day between Warwickshire and Worcestershire. From the limited reports of the day’s play we learn that the match was watched by “a large holiday crowd” (Evening Despatch) , and that weather conditions were clearly better than those at Derby, as apart from a shower that prolonged the lunch interval, a full day’s cricket was played. Worcestershire won the toss and batted, and “with the exception of R.A.Cave-Rogers, the early batsmen were all seen to advantage”. Warwickshire suffered an early blow with the loss from the attack of first- change bowler Albert Howell after he had bowled only three overs. Howell had begun well: his first ball “had Rogers hopelessly beaten” (Evening Despatch) , and thereafter “he bowled in promising style for a few overs”, picking up Cave-Rogers’ wicket with a caught-and-bowled in the process. But he was less fortunate with another return hit, for he split his left hand [not his bowling hand] in stopping a hard drive from either Shakespeare or Hunt, and could play no further part in the game. What happened next gives rise to some controversy, not at the match itself but for later statisticians. The Birmingham Post reports that Howell “was forced to retire, and by the courtesy of the Worcester captain his place was filled by G.Tyler, son of the old Moseley captain”. The question that engages the statistician’s mind is whether this man - in full, George Edward Tyler - was a full substitute for Howell, entitled to bat and bowl (though in point of fact he did neither), because if he was, he is surely entitled to an entry in the list of first-class cricketers, even though he played in no other first-class match. Or was he ‘just’ a sub, entitled to field but nothing more? The report in the Post , with its reference to the involvement of the Worcestershire captain in the decision to bring Tyler into the match, together with that paper’s later coverage (of which more below) clearly points to the former. But no other contemporary or recent source expressly states that Tyler was a full substitute, and he is not listed as a first-class cricketer in the ACS Who’s Who of Cricketers . More recently, the scorecard in the ACS’s 1919 scorebook omits Tyler from the listed Warwickshire side, but includes a footnote to the effect that he “replaced” Howell, without batting or bowling: a nice bit of fence-sitting, perhaps! 50 Back to the cricket. Following Howell’s departure, the Post tells us that Shakespeare hit in spirited fashion for Worcestershire, after a slow start, and that Burrows’ hitting of in the opening stages of his innings “was 50 But see footnote 56 below.