Famous Cricketers No 68 - Fred Tate

Frederick William Tate Posterity, or at least that part of posterity given to writing about cricket, has not been kind to Fred Tate. Almost sixty years after his death he is commonly remembered for two things. As the father of Maurice Tate and as the man who ‘lost’ the Old Trafford Test match in 1902 and with it the Ashes. There can be no objection to the first. Fred was a considerable cricketer in his own right but son Maurice was one of the greatest fast-medium bowlers of all time and if there is any reflected glory to be had Fred, more than most, is entitled to his share. The second is grossly unfair. That even today there are still references to “Tate’s Match” is a particularly silly example of the old established British sporting practice of scapegoating. If it must be somebody’s match then surely Trumper (a memorable century before lunch), Trumble (10-128) or Lockwood (11-76) have more valid claims. Or, in a more negative sense, Maclaren or Lord Hawke. But cricket is after all a team game. Very occasionally one man can be said to have won a match - Laker at Old Trafford in 1956 for example - but even he needed fielders and someone to bowl at the other end. Matches are lost for a multitude of reasons, most frequently because the other side plays better cricket. As Australia undoubtedly did over those three days. Disaster in Manchester The basic facts are well known although many of the details are blurred. On a wicket slow and soggy at first but becoming more difficult as it dried out, Victor Trumper hit his epic hundred and Australia were 173-1 at the break. The Surrey fast bowler Bill Lockwood, unused previously due to the slippery state of the turf, then bowled in devastating form and Australia were all out for 299 (Lockwood 6-48). England were 70-5 at the close. Next day Stanley Jackson and Len Braund, not out overnight, took the score to 185 when Braund was bowled for 65. England finished at 262, Jackson last out for 128, arguably the best of his five hundreds for England. When Australia batted again they lost three wickets, all to Lockwood, for 10 runs. At 16-3 Darling, intent on quick runs, hit (or probably mishit) Braund to deep square leg where Tate dropped the catch. It has been suggested that Tate had never previously faced a high catch in the outfield. Given that he was playing his 266th first-class match this seems at best fanciful but certainly at this stage of his career he spent most of his time at slip. Decisively as it turned out, Darling and Gregory added a further 48. With Lockwood again menacing, Australia were 85-8 at close of play. On the final morning Australia were quickly disposed of for 86 (Lockwood 5-28). Inexplicably in the light of his success on wet wickets throughout the season Tate was the last of the four bowlers used. His figures were 5-3-7-2. That England, needing 124, could only manage 120 was due to some superb bowling by Hugh Trumble (6-53) and Jack Saunders (4-52), backed by tenacious fielding and English batting that seems to have been an amalgam of uncertainty and recklessness. Tate came in at the fall of the ninth wicket with the score at 116 when Hill took an historic diving catch on the square leg boundary to dismiss Lilley. At which point it rained and play was suspended for 40-50 minutes (accounts vary). When play resumed, Rhodes blocked out the remainder of Trumble’s over - the batsmen had crossed before Hill took his catch - leaving Tate to face Saunders. The first ball was edged for four. The second, according to some accounts a shooter, bowled him and Australia had won by three runs. If any blame attaches to Tate it can only be on a minor scale. All accounts agree that he was in a highly nervous state, understandably so, but if the cream of England’s batting in the so-called Golden Age is faced with scoring a modest 124, number eleven should not even have to put his pads on. If there must be a scapegoat there are plenty of other candidates. Maclaren’s handling of his bowling was more 3