Lives in Cricket No 2 - Johnny Briggs

brought matters to a head. They claimed, irrespective of the legitimacy of Crossland’s bowling action, and it must be remembered he had played for them in non-first-class matches, that he was not eligible on grounds of residential qualification. The two counties even exchanged acrimonious greetings cards on the subject one winter with Lancashire sending a Christmas card to Trent Bridge, which included the line that Lancashire batsman ‘shall not be allowed to use bats, but only broom handles’ when playing against Nottinghamshire. Soon a New Year’s card was on its way from Nottingham to Manchester, which suggested that Lancashire would only field in their county eleven, players ‘that shall neither have been born in, nor reside in, Lancashire’. There were even more rancorous exchanges on the matter, fully reported in Wisden , after Lancashire had beaten Kent at Manchester on 28-30 May. The Kent captain, Lord Harris, wrote a long letter to the Lancashire committee, outlining his objections to the bowling actions of Nash and Crossland, and reminding Lancashire that they had declined to follow the lead of other counties in agreeing not to employ bowlers with suspect actions. Lancashire made a vigorous defence of their two bowlers, sending copies of the correspondence to Lord’s and pointing out that MCC had chosen Crossland to play in the annual North versus South match, thereby implying Lord’s was satisfied with his action. Crossland had, in fact, devastated the South batting in this match, taking seven wickets in each innings although he couldn’t prevent a southern victory. The upshot of Lancashire’s reply to Lord Harris’s criticism was that the Kent secretary wrote to his Lancashire counterpart stating that Kent had cancelled the return match which was to have been played at Tonbridge in the following August. In the event, Lancashire did not select Nash for a first-class game after the fixture against Kent, citing the dry, hard pitches. He ended up playing for Darlington. In the case of Crossland, Nottinghamshire complained to MCC under Rule IV of the regulations concerning qualifications, claiming that he had failed to maintain proper residence in Lancashire. In its first adverse decision under these regulations, MCC upheld Nottinghamshire’s complaint and disqualified the player in the last week of June. He played his final game for the county against Sussex at Hove on 22-24 June, bowing out in rather sad fashion, bagging a pair and bowling only nine four-ball overs for no wickets. He made his last Coming of age as a cricketer 31