Lives in Cricket No 9 - JH King

of players . . . absolutely impervious to and undisturbed by any criticism, he is never more cool and level-headed than when conditions tend towards excitability’. The list of his long defensive innings is great, but he did on occasion forgo his legendary imperturbability, as for instance in his innings of 167 against Derbyshire in 1903, when the Leicester Daily Mercury reports that he ‘practically stood still between 90 and 100. This fact seemed to suddenly dawn upon him, and with a do or die sort of an effort he smote out with might and main, and with a thud the ball fell inside the small stand’. Perhaps this was unfair criticism, or he later grew out of such madcap impetuosity; but, as was observed nigh on two decades later, he was the sort of batsman ‘who in the worst conditions always believed that a little resolute hitting is worth while’. How good was King defensively? It is, of course, much harder to learn of his defensive than of his offensive technique, for newspaper reporters reflect their readers’ preference for accounts of derring-do, and Beldam and Fry did not choose him as an example for ‘back play’ or the defensive ‘push stroke’. This much is clear: that his many innings with back to the wall prove considerable ability and self-discipline especially against fast bowling; and that he was a fair judge of which away-swinging balls to leave, competent in playing forward to scotch spin and increasingly proficient and eager to play back watchfully with a straight bat. Although it is impossible to ascertain how frequently King was caught in the slips, the fact that only 14.4% of his caught dismissals were by wicket-keepers 13 (Gunn’s figure is 18.6%) may suggest that many of his catches were in the outfield off aggressive strokes, rather than results of a defective defensive technique. Perhaps his frequent dismissals bowled (35.8% of his total dismissals against Gunn’s much lower 28.4%) but his fairly low percentage for lbw (7.3%) may also indicate rather an attacking spirit than poor defence. 14 As was natural with a sprinter, he was a fast runner between the wickets – all-run fives are mentioned in reports – but his native caution inhibited the stealing of many runs. Comments such as, Technique and Style 37 13 That is by the known wicket-keeper: there may have been other occasions. The same proviso applies to Gunn’s figures. 14 Dismissal lbw was, of course, much rarer before the change in the law in 1937 that allowed balls pitched outside the off stump to gain the verdict. Significantly, I think, King’s figure of 7.3%, though only 0.8% lower than Gunn’s 8.1%, is as much as 1.8% lower than the percentage of the times that King himself dismissed a batsman thus (9.1%).