Lives in Cricket No 25 - Tom Richardson

55 test match, instead of £10 as hitherto. Whilst not denying that the five named pros are well worth the extra money the demand appears to have been ill-timed and the words used in making the request were such as to certainly not ensure respectful consideration of the proposal. But the ventilation of the comparatively poor pay received by the professionals for their services in such an important game as England v Australia when every nerve has to be strained to the utmost, will undoubtedly do some good. Much has been written as to the greatest cricketer that ever lived – Dr W.G.Grace – receiving £10 for expenses for the match and the attacks on the G.O.M. of cricket have been numerous, a morning contemporary being especially bitter, but I maintain that the sum is none too great for a journey to and from Gloucestershire, hotel and other expenses of a three day stay in town. The real grievance lies in the fact that the pros do not receive remuneration equal to what their services demand and especially considering what each member of the Australian team will carry away, and that this may be remedied in future is the wish of every sportsman. The action of Abel, Hayward and Richardson in placing themselves in the hands of the Surrey executive is to be commended, and the courteous letter Lohmann has since written to them shows he appreciates their kindness to him. Gunn, too, is only anxious to see this vexed question more fairly dealt with. Turning to the great match itself, it is a matter of satisfaction that the Old Country has won the rubber. 124 The superb bowling of Hearne and Peel will long be remembered – and none more so than by the Australians themselves – while the batting of Abel and the stand on the first day by Jackson and Grace did much to place England in the premier position. When W.G. shunted Richardson for Peel in the second innings there were many cavillings, but the wisdom of the veteran cricketer was exemplified by the astonishing result. 125 Despite Lohmann’s subsequent enforced apology and withdrawal of the word ‘demand’, it does not seem out of place and was a normal, negotiating word for the infant trade unions of the late nineteenth century. In context, it seems no more provocative than its use in the second line of the third paragraph of the above extract though admittedly it may have seemed offensive to the Surrey committee who had little to do with trade unions and still subscribed to the concept of deference – which was fine for those being deferred to, perhaps less so, though apparently acceptable, for those doing the deferring. Notwithstanding his match-winning performance at Lord’s and his monumental single-handed effort at Old Trafford, Richardson was scarcely used in the Oval Test match, bowling five overs in the first innings and just one in the second. Admittedly the pitch was damp after rain on the first day and perhaps more suited to the bowling of Peel and Hearne, and 124 Not the ‘Ashes’ which seems to have had little significance at the time. 125 Surrey Independent 16 August 1896 1896...Annus Mirabilis...England