The Summer Field

137 game was changing visibly – coloured clothing, matches under lights. What Cowdrey lived to see was that older figures – the George Duckworths and indeed Colin Cowdreys passing on unwritten, intangible truths to each generation – were no longer guides. * Men always had new ideas; whether they led to change depended on the reception by others. Those in authority might fear that change not from them might undermine their power; players not as inventive might be jealous. Or a new idea might not catch on, as at Manchester in June 1877 when the Derbyshire wicketkeeper Alfort Smith ‘initiated a new style’ according to the Derby Mercury : ‘Instead of cutting a ball he changed hands’ and made three through the slips. It sounds like a reverse sweep, or the 21 st century ‘switch hit’. Either Smith did not impress (‘he was stumped shortly afterwards’) or batsmen had no use yet for such an abnormal stroke. As Frank Sugg wrote in July 1928: ‘Cricket is a game which is played to a certain set standard and rules.’ Sugg disapproved of a batsman throwing a dead ball back to the bowler. Even if the batsman meant well, it went against Law 29 (that you could be out ‘handled the ball’). The batsman was doing the work of the other team (and though Sugg did not speculate, was the batsman looking for mercy, as when batsmen threw the ball to a West Indian close fielder in the 1980s?). It cheapened the game, as when a bowler gave a batsman an easy ball to open his scoring or reach a century, which according to Sugg was not the late 19 th century way (‘we played the game as it should be played, always striving to do our best’). The dignity of batting and bowling, as Sugg’s example showed, took practical and spiritual forms. It included fielders. Batting and Bowling