Lives in Cricket No 18 - FR Foster

turn the much vaunted Australian batting again failed to do itself justice. They succumbed to 176 all out, Barnes, with three wickets getting best figures. Foster, perhaps tired – after all he had been his side’s busiest player – and maybe missing his ‘rabbit’, Bardsley, had to be satisfied with a single wicket but was unlucky when he hit Gregory’s stumps low and hard, but the bails stayed put. He regularly hit the batsmen on pads and thighs however and was the brunt of catcalls from the crowd. Cries such as ‘bowl at the wickets’ were surely indicative of an ignorant crowd’s frustrations. A damp and dismal third day saw England bat poorly against the spin of Hordern and the slow cobs of Armstrong. They still gained a lead of 362 but, with unlimited time at their disposal, Australia was thought to have some hope. There was a blank sixth day but on day seven Australia seemed in with a chance before three late wickets for Foster saw them finish 71 short. England had deservedly won The Ashes and owed a lot to Barnes, with a record beating 34 wickets but Foster, who had his twenty-third birthday between the Third and Fourth Tests and whose 32 wickets equalled the previous record, remain the best for a debut series for England. Often he seemed more threatening than his illustrious partner and he had marginally the better average – 21.62 against 22.88. Even when not taking wickets his leg-theory and variations sowed confusion and Bardsley especially had great difficulty against him. Then there was his batting: he scored 226 runs at 32.28, with an average scoring rate of 53 runs per 100 balls. Only Woolley, 63, and Hobbs, 56, exceeded him and neither did any bowling to speak of. His was perhaps the most exciting young talent in world cricket, a view supported strongly by his performances in all first-class matches. His 62 wickets, average 20.19 actually placed him top of the Australian first-class averages for the season, and he also took most wickets. Add to this his 641 runs, average 35.61, making him seventh top-scorer in the first-class season. The contemporary praise for him was unfairly muted. Not just contemporary praise; Barker and Rosenwater’s England v Australia , published 1969, makes few references to one who on figures was the leading bowler and best allrounder for either side. Foster’s qualities were not completely unrecognised. In Cricket magazine former Australian captain Harry Trott wrote praising his ‘grit [and] delightful crispness’ with the bat and reckoned him second only to Barnes as a bowler, though questioning whether his physique would stand up to prolonged hard work. Then there was the ‘verse’ in a later issue by a Kent railwayman called Cunningham. Though too awful for reproducing here the Foster reference is of interest: Then Douglas he acted just like a brother With excellent help from a good Foster-mother. Mr Cunningham was pronounced another ‘Albert Craig’, so bad was he, but even this was overpraise; the new ‘McGonagall’ maybe? Under the Southern Cross 63