Lives in Cricket No 23 - Brief Candles

23 l he is one of only three players (the others are George Hearne and Percy Twentyman-Jones) who are common to both the last two bullet-points, and thus one of only three Test cricketers who batted but did not score or participate in a run, and who in addition did not bowl, or keep wicket, or take a catch, in their entire Test careers. These facts help to explain and perhaps to justify why McMaster is so little remembered today, except by lovers of cricket’s esoterica. The fact that only two other players can lay claim to comparable ‘performances’ under all of the bulleted topics indicates that his may fairly be regarded as one of the least influential Test careers of all. But the most unlikely, and the least qualified? There have been several Test cricketers whose selection at that level may be regarded as ‘unlikely’. This unlikeliness may derive from: l the player’s inexperience prior to selection, for example, Douglas Carr or D.C.H.Townsend; or l the moderate nature of their first-class records, for example certain amateurs selected as tour captains, such as R.T.Stanyforth, Harold Gilligan, or the 1936 Indian captain the Maharajkumar of Vizianagram; or l their good fortune in being in the right place at a time of ‘crisis’ in the main squad, for example Ken Palmer, Tony Pigott, Neil Williams or Brandon Bess; or l the dubious Test status of the matches they played in, such as the nineteenth-century Tests in South Africa; or l the fact that the regular Test team was unavailable and so some second-stringers had to be drafted in, for example, for Australia in the first Melbourne Test of 1884/85, or for several countries during the Packer rift of the late 1970s. Some players will fall into more than one of these categories, but for my money none has a better qualification under more categories than does Emile McMaster. He had no first-class experience before going on tour, he was only drafted into the ‘Test’ side for want of anyone better when it became clear that the tour captain was not going to be able to get to the ground on time, and his ‘Test’ was definitely one of dubious status. Add to that the fact that his form in the matches just before his ‘Test’ appearance had been conspicuously poor, and I find unavoidable the conclusion that Emile McMaster was the most fortunate, very probably the most undeserving, and – yes – the most unlikely Test cricketer of all. But let not that diminish his glory. Emile McMaster is an established member of the pantheon of Test cricketers, a place to which many millions of players and followers of the game would aspire. He deserves our respect, not our only-half-joking scorn, for reaching that height. The Unlikeliest Test Cricketer