Lives in Cricket No 45 - Brief Candles 2

34 Never a run Lowry, But the county’s scorebook for this innings is unfortunately riddled with errors - even the number of overs credited to each bowler do not tally to the stated total of 69 overs in the innings - and we cannot be certain exactly who bowled the fatal last delivery of the innings. But whoever it was, from the scorebook it is inescapable that Wilson faced precisely two deliveries in the second innings - the last two deliveries of each of two successive overs bowled by Merritt. Which makes it awkward when we read in the Echo that ‘everyone felt sorry for Wilson, who received only one ball in two innings, and twice sacrificed his wicket to the call of his partner’. Other local newspapers are silent on the extent of his batting in the game, but one of the nationals, the Daily Mail - in a report that is not just a straight repeat of that in the Echo - also tells us that he received only one ball in the game. Two ducks and only one ball faced would be a rather better story than two-and-two, but it’s hard to believe that both newspapers had somehow missed half of Harry Wilson’s first-class batting career. Maybe there is yet another error in the Northants’ scorebook; for example, if Thomas had actually been bowled off the last ball of Merritt’s penultimate over, then Wilson would not have had to face a delivery in that over, and the one at the end of Merritt’s next over would indeed have been the only one he ever faced. Or maybe the umpires miscounted, and called ‘over’ after Thomas’s dismissal from the fifth ball of the over, and the scorers added an extra dot into the book just to make up the numbers. I don’t think the truth of the matter can ever be established beyond doubt. It is clear that the Northamptonshire scorebook cannot be relied on, and sadly the New Zealanders scorebook for the tour - kept by the meticulous ‘Fergie’ (the Australian W.H.Ferguson) - has disappeared. 23 But in some slightly mischievous way it would be nice to think that the newspapers were right, and the one surviving scorebook wrong. No malice is intended if we conclude that Harry Wilson did indeed face just one ball in his entire first-class career, and yet was run out for a duck twice. Whether he faced one delivery or two, there are no prima facie grounds for concluding that he was a poor runner between the wickets generally. Both his dismissals against the New Zealanders are described in the newspapers as being made during attempts at ‘sharp’ or ‘smart’ singles, being taken for the good of the team; and we recall that at school he was remembered as ‘a distinguished athlete’. His daughter has told me that her late brother (Harry’s son) was ‘a really good hurdler’ whilst at school, which suggests that an ability to run quickly was in his genes. 24 So please, run out in both his first-class innings he may have been, but let’s not think of Harry Wilson as some lumbering number 11 who couldn’t 23 Australian researcher Charles Davis has made a diligent search for this scorebook in New Zealand without success, and has told me that “there is little to no hope” of ever finding it. 24 Mrs Castley has also passed on the information that Harry’s great- grandchildren are all excelling at either cricket or rugby, which suggests that the sporting gene is still passing down through the generations.