The History of Cricket at SVS by Sutton Valence School

The History of Cricket at

Sutton Valence School

David Pickard

FOREWORD All the opinions expressed in this book are mine alone. My background is of League cricket, deep suspicion of the M.C.C. and the (rarely) veiled threats attributed to my hero F.S. Trueman in his many ‘conversations’ with the crevatted Oxbridge types. As I have interpreted the evidence of the progress of cricket at the school since 1840 I have tried to avoid bias, indeed, I am really proud of the achievements that this school has achieved in all aspects of the beloved ‘summer game’. I strongly believe that those who have played for the school on its behalf have done so honourably and with much ability. If I have been unable to overcome inbred prejudices against the ‘system’ then that is my problem and you, the reader must not be offended for no offence is meant. I owe a great debt of gratitude to Joe Davies, who gave permission for me to write the book, without knowing enough of my personal history to be confident that I could create a true reflection of the events of the last 170 years. I hope he will feel his gamble has paid a dividend. David Bunker is the great panjandrum of SVS cricket and I am enormously grateful to him for his support and advice and for the times he has been able to help me with the interpretation of events. Simon Dyke passed on to me the fabulous statistics he has compiled for the O.S. Desmond High has loaned me the O.S. written record. To these gentlemen I offer many thanks. But the book could not have reached anywhere near completion without the contribution of Bob Chance. Thank-you, Bob, so very much. His knowledge of cricket is encyclopaedic. His recollection of sport at SVS for just about the last fifty years is immense, but even more importantly he is good at English grammar! Despite his pride in correct representation of the written word he has allowed me some latitude. He has advised me on ways to reduce the effects of my gross attempts to suppress the meaning of what I have written in verbiage but his over-riding rule has been to allow me to know that the content is mine – don’t blame him for minced-up grammar. Cricket is a game where so much of what is important can be easily taken for granted. I doubt that I could have found so much good material to write about if the playing surface had been badly cared for. Who remembers what went on during the game when all they can remember is how bad the lunch had been or how meagre the tea? Recollection of any game of cricket can be highly dependent on the written record of how play progressed and no game can be properly appreciated if the officials that have overseen proceedings have been prima donnas. I’d very much like to dedicate this book to the many groundsmen and those involved in the catering, to those who have perfected the esoteric art of scoring and to the unsung heroes of the umpiring profession who have graced the Upper with the high quality of their contribution. Boys (and girls, now) will always (I hope) want to play this fantastic game, but they will do so very much better when they enjoy the support of a ‘backroom staff’ that is just as good as it is possible to be – and it certainly WAS that good for just about each and every one of the years from 1840 when our ‘recorded’ History of Cricket at Sutton Valence School begins. An appendix to this book containing details of all those who played for the School 1st XI and the results of all the matches played can be found on the School website – just go to the following link http://www.svs.org.uk/?cid=437&g=3

David Pickard May, 2009.

CRICKET AT SUTTON VALENCE SCHOOL

Chapter 1 Foundations

Cricket has been played in some form or another for very many years, possibly as early as the sixteenth century, but it was not until the middle of the 1700s that the game began to be chronicled at length in newspapers, magazines and books. As it was not before the year 1881 that a magazine recording annual achievements and events was published at Sutton Valence School, it would seem appropriate that the story of “The History of Cricket at Sutton Valence” should commence in the early part of the nineteenth century as a means of describing for the reader something of the “cricketing environment” occupied by the School during those years before collected records provide the opportunity for the history to be more comprehensively documented.

*********** It is inconceivable that the cricketing politics in the first half of the eighteen hundreds went unnoticed by the pupils at Sutton Valence Grammar School. Momentous changes were taking place and the initial thrust for those came from their very own village! These changes, and the characters of the men who shone in the light of them must have influenced the boys to take up the game, or play more of it - and to play it better than before. At this time, Kent was the very epicentre of all the best that was happening in cricket. The game was spreading out, away from the influence of the men from Hambledon. Many of the best players now hailed from our county. There was a very strong tradition of matches between local villages (Leeds, West Malling, Bearsted, Maidstone are all mentioned in a variety of publications of the day) as well as those played for substantial amounts of money by the gentry and their hand-picked sides. While “County Cricket” had not become fully established there were matches played between men of Kent and those of other regions. Cricket was certainly played at the school, but not in an organised way – numbers were far too small. It also seems that during the period up to 1840 a number of headmasters had not paid as much attention as they might have done to the education of their charges and from time to time the school closed while a “new start” was made. The appointment, in 1838, of the Rev. C. Goodchild sees the beginning of both increased numbers and the recognition of the value of games. The evidence of his contribution is recorded below. After a short crisis period when the new headmaster, Milligan, presided over dwindling numbers (according to legend, he either worked extremely hard to keep and educate well those boys that did remain or he was a lazy and feckless headmaster, hard and cruel, whose behaviour contributed to the decline), the appointment of the Rev. JD Kingdon as headmaster in 1864 represents the real birth of the school with a proper varied curriculum including organised games. It took him a short while to build the numbers of pupils to a level such that matches became viable. While there is no significant record of matches played before 1881, there is an account in the local newspaper of boys from the school playing at East Sutton Park in 1840, earlier in the century. Sir Edmund Filmer was a distinguished past pupil and he was very generous to the school and to the pupils who followed him through its doors.

From “The Maidstone Journal” of 1st September, 1840 A very interesting match of cricket was played at East Sutton on Tuesday last. Sir Edmund Filmer, with that kindness for which he is so well known and esteemed, invited the pupils of the Free Grammar School at Sutton Valence, to a day’s sport to be interspersed with an entertainment of a different character equally agreeable to those engaged in the contest, and altogether compatible with the truly manly game which was to form a grand feature of the holiday. The aspirants for fame in cricket appeared in Sir Edmund’s walk field at eleven o’clock, when the kind-hearted baronet, with W.G. Goodchild and E.T.H. Howe, esqrs., and eight young gentlemen, were pitted against the Rev. the Headmaster of the school and E. Bridge, Esq., and nine of the young gentlemen. This party was the centre of attraction during the day; but the rest of the boys were enjoying themselves in their own way, and as much to their own satisfaction (just like today). Two innings on each of the sides mentioned terminated at about half past three o’clock, after great exertion and somewhat of skill had been displayed by the youngsters. The side that fought under the hon. Baronet was victorious by a large number of runs. The whole party immediately after proceeded to dine in a tent fixed up for the occasion in the field of action. Provisions were in abundance, and the appetites were sharp. The host presided and was full of good humour, and the boys all looked merry and happy. The repast being finished, the senior boy of the school, A. Cooper, returned thanks to Sir Edmund in a neat and appropriate speech, for the generous and kind feeling shown to himself and school-fellows, and in conclusion gave the Baronet’s health. The two adverse parties again resumed their efforts, and were only separated after a single innings on each side by the sombre shades of evening gathering thick around them. Lady Filmer was present during almost all of the fore part of the day, and took much interest in the games that were going on; her ladyship was affability itself, and appeared anxious to promote the happiness of all, and that good entertainment should be provided for the party. Everything went off exceedingly well, and we do not remember to have seen in our lives a more gratifying scene. We subjoin an account of the game, contested by the sides we have mentioned. Sir Edmund Filmer’s Team total 190 1st innings Sir E. Filmer*, c. Bridge 19 A. Cooper, b. E. Howe 0 G. Cooper, b. E. Howe 5 Howe*, c. Edwards 11 W. Goodchild*, b. E. Howe 9 T. Porter, b. E. Howe 3 Betts, b. Rev. Goodchild 2 Selby, c. Bridge 1 Pearson, c. E. Howe 0 Tex, Not out 0 E. Ferrier, c. Morison 0 Bye 1 * Gentleman 43

2nd innings c. E. Howe c. Rev. Goodchild b. E. Howe b. E. Howe b.Rev Goodchild b. E. Howe c. Bridge Not out c. Morison c. E. Howe s. F. Ferrier Byes

16 35 9 1 0 23 0 4 0 0 4 5

3rd innings Not out b. E. Howe c. Morison b. Rev. Goodchild b. Rev. Goodchild b. Rev. Goodchild c. Bridge b. Rev. Goodchild c. E. Howe b. Rev. Goodchild b. Rev. Goodchild Byes

23 5 6 7 8 0 1 5 0 1 1 3

Rev. Goodchild’s Team Rev. C. Goodchild * b. A. Cooper Mr. Bridge* b. A. Cooper E. Howe, b. A. Cooper Edwards, c. W Goodchild H. Howe, c. Sir E. Filmer F. Ferrier, c. Betts Poley, b. Sir E. Filmer Knight, b. Sir E. Filmer Morison, c. A. Cooper Whistler, Not out T. Porter, c. Sir E. Filmer Byes * Gentleman

3 4 4 0 3 4 3 0 1 1 0 2

c. G. Cooper b. Howe b. Howe b. Howe b. Howe b. Howe b. Howe b. Howe b. Sir E. Filmer Not out c. G. Cooper Byes

total 139

30 1 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 2 0 2

c. E. Ferrier b. A. Cooper b. A. Cooper b. Sir E. Filmer b. Howe b. Howe b. A. Cooper b. Howe b. A. Cooper b. Howe Not out

39 7 0 1 5 0 10 0 1 0 0 3

Byes

The astute reader, observing the statistics above, will swiftly ascertain that the mathematics ability of the youth of the day, or of the journalists, was not so good as it is nowadays – or perhaps it was just another case where the accuracy was lost in the communication! While the pupils were invited to play with other cricketers, their continuing attendance at matches was going to be based on showing aptitude. The article shows there was some skill shown by the “young gentlemen” but there may be some condescension in the gushing newspaper account. However, the scoreboard shows that the boys did have ability. Of course they had access to “professionals” living in the area, men who made themselves available to play for those with the funds to bet large amounts of money on the outcome of their matches with similar folk; men who could be relied upon to pass on their skills to the boys in the idle hours between such matches. The politics of cricket, referred to earlier, revolved around two local gentlemen and their dispute with the authorities at Lord’s. John Willes, remembered in the churchyard at Sutton Valence, and Alfred Mynn, who lived in Bearsted and is buried at Thurnham, were two of the principal players in these momentous times. Initially, it was John Willes who first caused uproar by bowling round-arm rather than in the traditional underarm fashion. Many and contradictory are the stories that surround this gentleman. Sufficeth to say he appeared on Penenden Heath in July 1807 representing the “23 of Kent” against the “13 of All England”. His method of delivery caused great alarm. He had learned round-arm, apparently, because his sister Christina, with whom he was wont to practise, hampered by her crinoline, of necessity had to bowl to him with her arm much higher and wrist further away from the body than was the norm. Impressed by the greater pace she was able to put on the ball, he adopted the method himself. With much practice he was able to add accuracy to the pace. He also bowled from around the wicket and the combination of pace, accuracy and direction made him a very difficult bowler to face. Since pads and the like were rare in those days, his effect was also to occasion, or at least threaten, serious damage to the batsmen who dared to face him. “The Sporting Magazine” reported at the time

The straight arm bowling, introduced by John Willes Esq., was generally practised in the game, (at Penenden Heath) and fully proved to be an obstacle against getting runs in comparison to what might have been got by the straight-forward bowling Charles Box, author of “The Theory and Practice of Cricket” published in 1868, tells of the reception Willes suffered at the time There are persons yet living who remember Mr. Willes playing in a match on Penenden Heath amidst much uproar and confusion from players and spectators…Mr. Willes was not a man to be daunted by what he considered silly ejaculations, clumsy cajoleries or empty threats of personal violence, so on he went until the “ring” was broken in (crowd invaded the pitch), the stumps uprooted, and the game brought to a deadlock. The men of Hambledon and the gentlemen of the Marylebone Club were very reluctant to change the law to make it less ambiguous and thus allow such bowling. (It threatened their ability to be “the best”) On the other hand, there were many influential men who were quite prepared to tolerate such demonic stuff so long as they were on the side of the fastest and most accurate. However, opinions among the influential gradually swung away from allowing such bowling as “legal”. Thus it was, when Willes turned up for a match at Lords, Kent versus the M.C.C in 1822, despite having bowled round-arm for a some time with only “spasmodic molestation”, he was no-balled. It is said that he threw the ball on the ground in disgust, climbed on his horse and rode away from any more active cricket. But not from influencing others! According to Patrick Morrah, in his book “Alfred Mynn and the cricketers of his time” Eyre & Spottiswoode 1963, John Willes had settled at Sutton Valence at Bellringham, just below the crossroads in the village, and it was from this location he began to cast his influence on others, especially with regard to the Sutton Valence cricketers, helping them with advice and entertainment. He used also to watch the village boys playing on the local greens and would sometimes give them hints and practical coaching. Was the match of 1840 shown above contested by some of the bowlers at least adopting the round-arm tactic? Note that there are very few byes. Inaccurate bowling in the round-arm style would lead also to a great number of byes unless that specialist fielder, the longstop, was absolutely first class. Wides were acknowledged in those days and would have been recorded on the score sheet; their presence would have been another indicator of round-arm bowling. Thus it appears the pace was relatively benign and it is suggested that it was not a venue where the demonic bowling took place. It was the professionals and the progressives, those seeking to develop and promote the game, who were the advocates of round- arm. The gentry were those preferring to organise their house-parties and generate fun and games with the more genteel underarm style but this is a gross generalisation of the situation… Alfred Mynn became first a disciple of Willes and round-arm bowling then the most feared practitioner. He was over six feet tall, over eighteen stones and, by all accounts, extraordinarily strong. He bowled round-arm from a six-pace run-up and became acknowledged the best and most intimidating bowler in all England. He was a strong hitter of a ball and had a good eye. He played in Leeds and Bearsted and for Kent and England. He was a great favourite being described as “kind and manly”. Despite being an amateur, neglecting his hop farm and hop merchant’s business for the noble game, he was often paid a fee for playing. No wonder the youth of Sutton Valence and Kent worshipped him so much!

Leicester was, in 1863, the second venue for the first season of “North” versus “South” matches. The “North” had won the first game at Lord’s and this was the return fixture with a £500 purse available to the victors. Whilst practising, before the match took place, Mynn was injured. He was struck very fiercely on his shin. After medical treatment but contrary to the doctor’s advice, he decided to play. However, he was so uncomfortable he could only manage a few overs of his bowling. When he had to bat, even the walk to the crease was painful. Once he was at the crease he was hit many times on his injured shin. In the first innings he managed 25 not out, but in the second, using the services of a runner, he made 125 scintillating runs. After the game his injuries were so severe he was advised to go to London to see a doctor. Unfortunately, the coach that came to take him was too small for him to fit inside and in order to make the journey he was strapped to the roof. In this manner he was carried along over the terribly rutted, unmade roads of those days and when he reached London he was hard-pressed to persuade the doctor that did attend him not to amputate his leg! Like W. G. Grace after Mynn’s time, crowds would be massively increased as knowledge spread that Mynn was playing. He was such a hero he must have had an influence in stimulating and developing the game amongst those “young gentlemen” referred to earlier. Many umpires remained reluctant to call his bowling style as no balls since the changes to the laws, occasioned by the earlier dispute in what was legal and what was not, made its interpretation even more difficult than before. Others aspiring to his acclaim copied his action. As late as 1860 Lord William Pitt Lennox was heard to remark If the present system of bowling is continued, we should strongly advise that suits of armour from the Tower of London be forwarded to all members at Lord’s and other cricketing clubs. Lord’s did not have complete control of the game and its laws throughout the country; thus “local rules” were prevalent. Eventually, to bring order from the chaos, the laws were modified in 1868 to allow over-arm bowling and, as we move into the era where we have good records of the cricket that was played at the School, the game would be pretty easily recognisable to those who watch it today. John Willes’ memorial stone can be found in the churchyard at Sutton Valence and that of Alfred Mynn is located in Thurnham Churchyard. The former was certainly no fan of the M.C.C. and I believe the latter seemed to be much more interested in cricket than in the politics of it – thus both are added to my list of heroes. I am no historian, yet I feel these men must have had an influence on the cricket at the school. The first decade or so of the 19th century was a time of great instability and uncertainty. Most people felt that it was only a matter of a very short time before Napolean would be invading – even Trafalgar in 1805 had not prevented the prospect; the invasion was delayed by it. Ultimately his lack of confidence in the French navy would encourage him, instead to invade Russia and with a depleted and demoralised army lose to Wellington at Waterloo. The time is ripe for a celebration of the lifting of the gloom and our heroes and other fine men of Kent like Fuller Pilch and Felix produced exciting moments to cement the increasing good feelings.

***********

The intention of this History of Cricket at the School is to begin, formally, in the season of 1881 since this is the first one that contains detailed records, the School magazine beginning production in that year. However, there are some snippets of information about the state of cricket in the few years immediately before that time that will bear some revelation. Unfortunately, there were very few other schools in the area against whom Sutton Valence could play matches and most games were played against the villages or other representative sides and often contained a master or two in their ranks. The boys paid for the privilege of playing cricket. Subscription to the “club” was half a guinea, or 10s and 6p - 52p of today’s money. In the 1877 season the school won four and drew one of its five matches. Six games were played the following year, with five won and one lost. The streak of good results continued into 1879 and 1880. In both these seasons 6 matches were played. In 1879, there were three wins, two losses and a draw while in 1880 the ratio was four wins one loss and one draw. The stars of those days are not easy to identify without complete records, but the following notes may be of interest. Percy Lavers,whose adventures in later life included being a well-regarded Master of the Clothworkers’ Company, took 45 wickets for only 98 runs in 1878. But of the 26 players who represented the sides in 1877-1880, only 4 managed a batting average in any one season of greater than 10, and no-one managed to reach the dizzy heights of an average of 20: W Sandilands managed to average 13 in 1878, while his younger brother, HH Sandilands, who also captained the sides in 1879 and 1880, averaged 15 in 1878. C Chambers, who was noted for his bowling rather than his batting averages 12 in 1877 and 15 in 1879. RB Leggatt joined this illustrious group in 1880, he having an average of 15 in that year. Before 1884 the School played their home fixtures in what is now known as the ‘Quad’ and this area extended over the then unbuilt ‘Centre Block and Prefects’ Lawn. Magnificent though the view may have been as players took to the field it must have been a difficult pitch on which to play as the evening approached with the sun low down on the horizon. Notwithstanding the disadvantage of the elements the area was not carefully managed as cricket pitches are today and it is clear why bating scores were relatively low. Despite having sides where batsmen found it difficult to score runs 16 out of 23 matches played in this time were won. The bowling averages were formidable, as Percy Lavers’ figures for 1878 testify. However, no numerical records exist of good bowling feats except this one account of Lavers’ performance. Perhaps the very poor playing surfaces made it certain that bowlers would take a lot of wickets and thus only the most superior performances were recorded. However, what can be found are very short pen pictures of abilities that by their content reveal a different understanding than today’s of what constituted cricketing qualities. In each of the years 1877-1879 the position of long-stop is given specific mention. P Nettleton, the baby of the side in 1877 is thus described “capital long-stop, bats well for his size.” E Boydell, another who played in 1877, is described as “good bat and field with a peculiar style and F Coppin was one “who was rather fond of hitting to leg but seldom allows a loose ball to go by”– he came eighth in the batting averages that year. In the following year JM Barry with an average of 3, ninth in the averages, was described as “plays a long innings, but fails to score on most occasions; helps to wear out a bowler”. A study of the school Magazine, in its first year of publication for the autumn of 1881, contains a letter praising the current side but harking back to seasons earlier and it clearly illustrates the abilities of the pupils and pride they took in playing well

Dear Sir, It is most gratifying to read of the successes of our school eleven, which are brought about in a great measure no doubt, as you suggest, by the aid of a professional. I wonder how many ever knew of the result of the match v “The Town” (Sutton Valence village) a few years since, when we had no magazine. Reference to the old score books will show that our opponents were all out for 4 runs, and that, I fancy, on a dry wicket. I hope I may be excused for drawing attention, in the presence of the splendid victories that are now so frequent, to the efforts of the eleven of 1878. (The author remains anonymous) A later article in the school magazine of 1898 lists the sporting achievements of the pupils in a variety of sports but it only refers to events that had taken place since the birth of the school magazine in 1881. In the following magazine, one who remembers the times before 1881 sends a gentle reminder that notable achievement did exist before “recorded history”. I have appended some notes to them by way of explanation. The author of the letter is HA Crallan who played from 1881 – 1885 and must have been close to those who had played in the years before 1881 and in some awe of them; he had a brother who would have witnessed the feats at first hand. It is assured that the players of the period immediately before this history begins must have been formidable sides, albeit playing on very rough and ready wickets. Your list of records published in your last number is most interesting, but could not further researches be made, in order that the deeds of the “giants of old” might be unearthed? Surely Cobb’s 9 wickets for one run v Tonbridge1 2nd – perhaps, in 1877 ought to be recorded. Wood took the other for 11 runs, and the side made 13 in all. The sun helped Cobb considerably however. I shall be glad to see some answers to my questions Why is there no record of the famous match against the Village, when our opponents were all disposed of for three runs2 – two of them being “extras”? I think my brother was in the team that year, and perhaps he might recollect. I was one of the small fry at that time, but witnessed the procession of villagers to and fro from the wickets. …. As far as the cricket records are concerned, I fancy that Percy Lavers had a better bowling average than any quoted in your list. The date ought to be about 1875-1877 3 – I am not certain – but I fancy his wickets only cost about two runs apiece. Yours faithfully,

H. ARDEN CRALLAN

Author’s notes 1 The Cobbs performed splendidly for the school during this period but it is difficult to place the one mentioned by HA Crallan in his letter. We know that there were at least two brothers in the school at this time. However, one, MR, does not begin his School career until well after 1877, and there is no record of the other, RW, playing with Wood in the time mentioned. The record of matches begins in 1881 and there is no account of such a good bowling performance. If Crallan’s anecdote, probably passed to him by his brother, is accurate perhaps he is referring to an even older brother of the Cobb

dynasty and an elder relative of AP Wood (who played for the eleven in 1880). Unfortunately in subsequent magazines there was no answer to Crallan’s demand for more research. 2

Crallan’s recollection of the match against the Village, when they were dismissed for 3 runs, is not entirely correct because the Village was dismissed for 4 without any extras being made! The scoresheet of that match is in the possession of the School. C Chambers and PF Lavers each took 5 wickets but the scorebooks at the time gave no room for recording the bowling analysis. Incidentally, the School scored 77 in their innings and, unusually for the time, no second innings was played. 3

Crallan was right about the bowling feats of Percy Lavers. His idea that the wickets “cost two runs apiece” was correct, but the year was 1878. The bowling record that Percy Lavers is supposed to have bettered was that of MR Cobb, who, according to the school records, took 82 wickets at an average of 3.64 in 1883. (Strangely, the school record does not show MR Cobb’s bowling analysis of 1894, 106 wickets at 3.18, as a significant achievement)

*********** The cricket played at this time did have significant differences from today. Overs were of four-ball length until 1900 when they became five-ball for a short while. Time ruled the match. If the side batting second reached the score of the side first to the wicket, it was allowed to continue its innings until all men had made a visit to the crease. If both sides were all out before the allotted time a second innings was allowed. If time did not permit the completion of a second innings for both sides the game was, nevertheless, abandoned with the result being declared on the basis of the first innings’ performances. The quality of the wickets was diabolical. Few were the batsmen who made high scores and plenty were the bowlers who took many wickets. Perhaps this lack of good playing surfaces has led to the feeling – pervading to the present day - that batsmen who do well deserve more praise than bowlers who take a lot of wickets cheaply. By the beginning of our official history, however, the cricket played at Sutton Valence School was easily recognisable as an earlier version of the cricket played today. Like all accounts of endeavours throughout a long passage of time it would be a fascinating if fantastical experience to speculate how today’s sides would perform on yesterday’s stage against the men who reigned supreme at that time. I have no doubt in my mind that if those ancients played in the modern era they would find it exceptionally difficult to hold their own. Acknowledgements. Alfred Mynn and the Cricketers of his time, Patrick Morrah, Eyre & Spottiswoode 1963 The Maidstone Journal, published 1st September 1840 The Sporting Magazine, published 1807 The Theory and Practice of Cricket, Charles Box, publisher unknown 1868 Double Century, The story of MCC and Cricket, Tony Lewis, Guild Publishing London 1987 The History of Kent County Cricket Club, Dudley Moore, Guild Publishing London , 1988 A Short History of Sutton Valence School, FTW Blatchley-Hennah, pub Kent Messenger,1952 Sutton Valence School Magazine 1881. John Lillywhite’s Cricketers’ Companion for the years of 1877, 78, 79, 80.

CRICKET AT SUTTON VALENCE SCHOOL

Chapter 2 1881 – 1918

The 1880s were years of great success on the cricket field for the “Eleven” from Sutton Valence with twice as many matches won than lost. At the same time it was a period of change and development. At the start of the decade cricket was played on the area of ground where the main school buildings stand today, but by 1884 it had moved to its permanent new home on “Upper”. Initially, there was only one “Eleven” but a second eleven was soon added and by 1890 junior representative matches were also being played. Especially notable is the contribution to the game made by families, a feature that has lasted right up to the present day: five Nethersoles represented the school at one time or another (there were another three who attended before 1880 and at least one of them was a fine cricketer); there were also three Lushingtons and two Colletts: both Colletts were captains of the XI and one of the Nethersoles and one of the Lushingtons also bore that honour. Transporting a side of cricketers as well as its “hangers-on” was decidedly awkward and neither the building of the railway from Maidstone to Ashford nor the expansion of the railway system to the south of the village via Headcorn added greatly to the necessity of reaching distant rural destinations either swiftly or at a convenient time for a day’s play to be allowed. A comment from the 1889 season, the first fixture against Dover College, illustrates the trials and tribulations of an “away” fixture, “What a comfort it is to be able to find an excuse for bad batting! …..by remembering that a long and dusty journey on the unaccommodating S.E.R. was followed by an interminable and wearisome tramp (cricket bags and all) through all Dover’s length, before we found ourselves at the College.” (Incidentally, this game was lost heavily but not to be daunted and regardless of the inconvenience, the Eleven could not let Dover “get away” with it and the next four matches against that school were won comfortably.) Consequently most matches were played locally, and many were against invited “scratch” sides made up of O.S., friends of the Headmaster, local enthusiasts and also amateurs from further afield who may have wanted to sound out some of the boys about coming to play for them. In 1880, Sutton Valence already had a regular fixture against Cranbrook School and during the next few years King’s Canterbury was added to the list, matches usually being played both home and away; there were also fixtures against the Grammar School in Maidstone. In 1889, for no apparent reason, those against Cranbrook disappear, albeit temporarily. Interestingly, in the context of this history, two ‘ever-present ‘fixtures in the early years were the ones against Sutton Valence village (or a combined side that represented the Three Suttons) and the “Past Suttonians” XI; the latter side cannot properly be named The Old Suttonians until the late 1880s when an Old Suttonian Association was formed. The birth of the O.S. came about in the year immediately after a group of players who had left the school arranged a cricket week and used it to tour Hertfordshire where they played five matches. Did the cricketers provide the spur to the others?

The school roll was not large. Indeed, in the middle of the eighteen hundreds the numbers were so small that the school nearly closed. The appointment of JD Kingdon as headmaster stopped the rot and his leadership style encouraged the boys to be healthy and athletic. GL Bennett, who took over from Kingdon was even more sportingly inclined, especially towards cricket, and the strong reputation that was established between 1880 and 1908 was undoubtedly his legacy, and that of HW Hunting, his stalwart second in command. It was common for between 80 and 100 boys to attend up to the turn of the century, at least, but they covered quite a large age range, it being unusual for more than 35 boys to be aged over 14. From time to time the numbers dipped below sixty and age did not govern selection. There are instances of good cricketers playing for the “Eleven” (as we shall call the 1 st XI) for five seasons as is the case of HA Crallan, CR Nethersole and GR Hunt. Two other renowned cricketers of this time, DW Carr and MR Cobb, each played for four years. TRK Jones may have played for six years, but then he was a most remarkable all round athlete, by preference a rugby player, who had trials for both England and Wales! Sport was the major feature of every afternoon for all age groups. This made it easier to gather together the required group without lessons being interrupted. This playtime also freed masters to help develop the boys’ abilities and it was not uncommon for them to be selected in those matches that had been arranged against local clubs. The evidence from the scorecards of this time does not indicate that they were star players, however. Mr HW Hunting and GL Bennett, Headmaster, were pretty sound and reliable bats, the former opening the batting and the latter appearing in the middle order. Others helped out from time to time, though their names often appear as players for the village side both in matches against the school (when no master played for the “Eleven”) and in matches for the village against other teams. Hunting’s contribution did not decline with advancing years; if anything, it increased. More will be heard of him later. The school employed professionals to help with the boys’ development to great effect according to reports. It was fortunate in this regard. Local Kent men were hard to find – and this is difficult to comprehend given the great amount of high quality cricket played in the county. Perhaps it is just because there was so much cricket being played that these fellows were being occupied elsewhere. On the other hand, there ought to have been a good supply of players nearing the end of their playing careers who might have been available as coaches. In 1881 and 1882, Collins of Canterbury was appointed, but in neither season did he stay for the whole term. Whether by coincidence or design we shall never know, the arrival of the new headmaster, GL Bennett, in 1883 saw the hiring of Pacey, a professional from Nottinghamshire, and he was succeeded by a string of compatriots from the same place. While none of them stayed for more than a year, their contribution was invaluable. One of them, Walter Wright, even took the time to hammer home his instruction – scoring 135 for the Mote against the “Eleven” and also taking wickets in that match. The quality of the wickets was not good. This, no doubt, accounts for the very many matches played where both sides completed, or very nearly completed, two innings each. The purpose of moving the playing field to “Upper” in 1884 was an attempt to forge a better surface on which to play, and it is interesting to see that the second half of the decade did record many more matches with larger scores and fewer matches where two innings were played by both sides. While the quality of the pitch might be a reason for this, it is undoubtedly the case that the quality of the young gentlemen playing the game was steadily improving. Only towards the end of the decade does there occur, in the score-sheets the magic phrase “innings closed” without all available batsmen having visited the crease. Presumably this is a declaration, for it provided the opposing team with a more realistic target. This is the only case, however, in over 100 matches played up to this momentous occasion, and the score-sheets suggest that there were many opportunities for declarations. In 1881-1884, MR Cobb managed to collect 306 wickets at an average of just over 4 runs. He actually took all ten wickets in an innings against Town Malling in 1881, and he recorded several

hauls of 7 or 8 wickets in other innings. He was no mean batsman either, being top of the averages in 1881. On leaving the school he promptly made his way to the USA where he made a great name for himself as a cricketer. A contemporary of his, HA Crallan, was the first to score a recorded 100 for the school. He did this in 1884 in the first match against King’s Canterbury. Sutton Valence scored 303, of which Crallan made 125. The match report concludes “With but one hour left for play, a drawn game was certain, but we managed to get nine of their best wickets for 55.” This game illustrates the point made earlier about not declaring! Strangely, Cobb, despite bowling continuously from one end, took no wickets in this match; in the previous one, against Mr. HS Johnstone’s XI, he took 8 for 22 and 6 for 2 in the second innings. In the following match, against The Royal West Kent Regiment XI, he took 7 for 17 and 7 for 28 in the second innings! A second interesting feature of that King’s game was that in the hour that Sutton Valence had in the field, they managed to bowl 41 four ball overs. This equates to 27 overs today. Not only is this remarkable by present-day standards of speed of play but also the first half of this decade sees a constant moan from the commentators that the cricket played by the boys was “turgid” and needed to be much brighter and swifter! In 1890, GR Hunt scored his first hundred for the school and he repeated the feat in each of the following two seasons. He would go on and play for Somerset. In 1892, A Perks also scored a hundred, this being the first year where more than one boy achieved such a feat; it was also the first season where every member of the Eleven had played in it the year before. It was common, as today, to lose fifty percent of the players each year. Great was the pre-season conjecture that the 1892 season would be a magnificent one, and indeed it was: 10 matches won, King’s Canterbury thrashed, Dover College beaten by an innings and 47 runs and just one draw against the “past Eleven”; this would have been won with a bit more time, the “past” being only 8 runs ahead on second innings with but one wicket to fall. DW Carr played between 1887 and 1890. He achieved much greater things once he had left the school – he was a late developer, both Kent and England benefiting from his bowling. It was clear from the outset that he had much potential and his talent was very apparent. However, these qualities did not produce the excellent performances they might have done. He was so very nearly a “star” of his day. Below is an abbreviated account of his career at the school to show how then, as now, that anyone prepared to apply himself to improvement, assisted by enthusiastic coaching, can develop into a useful member of any gathering of young men using cricket as their excuse to socialise amongst themselves and with others. He was to prove just this while playing for the Band of Brothers and the Free Foresters and other reputable club sides in Kent. His perseverance led him to experiment in the early part of the 1900s with the newly invented “googly”, whereupon his star rose like a rocket into the sky, if only to be extinguished just as quickly - with England, that is. He played for Kent for five years from 1909-1914, and would have played longer but for the war. DW Carr - In each season he scored more runs than the previous one, scoring 275 runs from 8 innings (once not out) at an average 39.29 with a highest score of 94 in his last year. He developed into a useful bowler, in his final season taking 35 wickets at 8.09 apiece. Altogether in the four years he played he took 79 wickets at 12.14. The commentators of the time said of him as his career progressed: (i) “will make an excellent player, but slow in the field”; (ii) “good medium bowler, good bat, but poor fielder”; (iii) “stylish bat, which with more defence might be really first class”; (iv) “very reliable bowler, able to move the ball both ways… very good bat, if unlucky… good catcher close to the wicket”. ***********

The 1890s did not prove to be quite such a successful decade as the previous except, perhaps, for 1894 where the side had strength in depth and a strong middle order often redeemed the situation following poor starts to an innings. However, despite the fact that there is a great amount of selfcriticism and a bewailing of a lack of quality of performance in amongst the match reports of that time, in reality results were by no means poor: there were 51 wins and only 26 defeats together with 15 drawn games, though it does appear that there was a significant decline in performance during the latter half of the decade. Against both Dover College and Kingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Canterbury not only did the School begin to win more convincingly but also more frequently while, in addition, the village became rather more difficult to defeat. The matches of 1893 may have been affected by the protracted drought: indeed, the very first game of the season against TH Oylerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s XI had to be played on matting because of the rough state of the pitch. The school lost this game but, thankfully, TH Oyler was a great friend of the school and he continued to bring down teams for many years, adjusting the standard accordingly in order to provide the School with appropriate and challenging opposition. This drought event must have caused some consternation in the sports-mad school for, almost immediately, the governors arranged for the construction of a rainwater tank, with pump, to enable the cricket ground to be properly watered. They also provided a water barrow with spray distributor for the purpose. While this strategy was most commendable and must have cost a pretty penny, it is, on the other hand, sad to read a letter to the school magazine in which the writer complains that the scoreboard was in terrible disrepair. Perhaps this neglect suggests a certain lack of pride and confidence within the body of the players and their mentors at this time. The decade is also characterised by a dearth of fixtures against other schools: the Cranbrook one seems to have been discontinued with the only game arranged taking place in 1897 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; this school, our oldest competitor, has entered and left our fixture list quite often in the last 150 years. It seems they choose to play or not in inverse relation to our strength. Sutton Valence, by contrast has always sought to improve the quality of its fixture list as it has got stronger. After the game in 1891, the fixture against Maidstone Grammar School also disappears: where there were home and away games against Dover College each season the fixture was reduced to just one. Most of the games were against club sides who were becoming stronger and against invitation sides brought down by Old Boys, ex-captains and the like as well as by friends of the school. The masters continued to play a very active part, the contribution of H.W.Hunting being increasingly influential in a side where the abundance of natural talent that had been evident earlier was clearly on the wane. He scored his first recorded hundred in the game against Shorncliffe Camp in 1895. There was each year a clutch of players whose contribution with the bat would have merited a modern Wisden entry (more than 100 runs or more than 10 wickets) and notable, if only because of its isolation, is R. Hurlbatt's 106* made in 1898 against the local Conservative Association, but overall, it was rare for any player to have a batting average better than the low twenties. His 106*, notwithstanding, Hurlbatt - what a great name for a cricketer - could manage only an average of 24.06. A year later, R.J. Shaw recorded the best figures of this period with 527 runs at 31 per innings. The bowling tended to be better than the batting but, with one or two notable exceptions, averages suffered because of the steadily improving wickets on which the matches were played; it will be noted later on that this may only have been a temporary improvement! There were some impressive individual performances: in both 1892 and 1893, I.S. Thornton took more than 60 wickets at a rate of better than one for every four overs bowled while G.E. Mitchell achieved a similar strike-rate in 1895 and 1896 but with only half the haul taken by Thornton. ***********

In the ten years ending in 1906, it was only in 1899 that the school recorded more wins than losses in any one season – and only twice more, before the onset of war, was the balance of wins against losses a positive one. Another regular school fixture against St Edmund’s Canterbury was arranged in 1904 but for various reasons the 1909 season saw the last of all inter school fixtures for some time to come. Unfortunately, HW Hunting, the second master and great protagonist of cricket, was taken ill during part of this time and the school missed his formidable influence and dedicated participation especially on the games field. Accordingly, the final part of this history, that between the turn of the century and the First World War, does not provide happy reading. An account of the cricket that was played will appear at the end of this section, but first it is necessary to discover why, in terms of results, if not of enjoyment, the cricket had lost some of its sparkle. Clues as to the cause of the relative decline in standards can be found in a letter addressed to the editors of the school magazine in 1902… Dear Sirs, May I propose that nets be placed at the disposal of the smaller boys of the School. None of the boys, except the chosen few, ever have an opportunity of learning the game, and hence the cricket (?), as played on the Middle and Lower grounds, is purely nominal. Under these circumstances I fail to see how it is we wonder every year why the younger boys “don’t seem to come on”. The question mark in the letter is that of the dissatisfied young man himself! It can only be assumed that he did not think that what the school managed to play was cricket. On various other occasions concern is expressed about the disreputable state of the sightscreen. It also seems the case that the school did not think it necessary to provide equipment relying on those playing to purchase their own. This proved to be very troublesome because it meant “borrowing”, “lending” and “losing” kit – there was inevitably some friction between the boys. E Hickmott, a stalwart of the Mote CC and of Kent in the previous century, was the school professional and I doubt that the lack of coaching at the junior level was his fault. It seems his principal role was to aid the “Eleven” in any way he could. There was no real organisation of junior cricket: (a) there were not very many juniors and (b) they did not play any matches. By all accounts coaching input at that level was provided by the voluntary contribution of members of the school team as and when they felt they had the opportunity. Apart from the specialised coaching that Hickmott could provide, the boys were very much left to their own devices concerning organisation of practice sessions, tactics and the like. Much depended on the personality and leadership skills of the respective captains. This state of affairs led to disillusionment and the loss to the game of some potential stars. GT Hardy was a pupil between 1910 and 1917 and when asked for a recollection of his days at the school he writes of his early years at the school “One grouse I have against the S.V., a big one, - they did not teach you how to play cricket. If you came to it naturally, well and good and you enjoyed yourself. But if all you knew was that you should try to hit the ball out of the ground and tried to do it with your instinctive swipe there was nobody who took the trouble to tell you to keep a straight bat and your eye on the ball until the blade connected. Very simple to some but unknown to the ignoramus, and so one’s enjoyment of, to me, the best game of all, came in later years when a kindly friend would answer questions. I was interested to find others have felt the same.”

This self-same criticism will be repeated 50 years later and there is no real evidence to suggest that in the meantime things improved from the coaching point of view. It seems it was the culture to work with the preferred players and let the others enjoy themselves as best they could. However, in such turbulent times there is good reason to believe that there were major distractions that also might have contributed to a lessening of quality in performances. Exterior events cast a shadow on the cricket field: the Boer War occupies the first three years and accounts of the deaths of those OS who had recently left makes very sad reading, just as the long list of recently-left volunteers for the same war lift the patriotic spirit. Did some boys leave earlier than originally intended? Later on the Great War had an even greater impact on boys’ cricket. Internally, the boys may have been concerned at the “official” academic standards they were achieving; it was not uncommon that Speech Day had the effect that boys were unable to complete the Higher Level Certificate! Not nearly so great a proportion of the leavers were going to Oxbridge or any other academic institution as far as can be determined. Perhaps the low numbers attending the school had an effect or the competitive edge was lost because of such small groups. It is clear that much of “the stuffing” had been knocked out of the school in the early part of the century. GL Bennett had been a wonderful inspiration for many years building, no doubt, on the work of his predecessor, JD Kingdon, but as he approached his sixties the school began to crumble around him. In 1901 a massive hole appeared beneath the school and the institution had, eventually, in 1902, to be evacuated for a while so that the foundations could be stabilised. Extremely disruptive repairs continued over the next six or seven years though these were set back by a fire in the Almshouses. The Clothworkers, who had remained steadfast in the face of problems in the early part of the century, were now beginning to wonder whether it was worth continuing with William Lambe’s Free Grammar School. Rumours spread. It might close; it might become a girls’ school! All this ill fortune, as well as the rumours, must have contributed to the unattractiveness of Sutton Valence as a school for prospective pupils’ parents. What is the picture painted here? Low morale, poor facilities, a crumbling structure, a falling school roll, a school struggling and failing to come to terms with the demands of the new century… in the light of this the cricket played was probably not nearly so bad as believed at the time. Eventually, in 1910, the school was transferred from the auspices of the Clothworkers’ Company to the United Westminster Schools. Coincidental to the “takeover” was the “retirement” of GL Bennett as Headmaster. The school must surely have felt the loss of such an influential figure in the promotion of sport. A new Headmaster, WW Holdgate, was appointed and some badly needed new pupils added to the school roll. GL Bennett had been greatly loved by the cricketing fraternity at the School and the politics associated with his going did not give WW Holdgate much chance to win the OS to his cause – at least initially. The editor of the school magazine of 1910, reflecting on the first couple of terms of the regime of the new United Westminster School, makes this illustrative point about the previous years: The star of Sutton Valence is surely in the ascendant. The school has, at last, been aroused from its lethargy, and, with a sure and steady hand at the helm, must eventually emerge triumphant and fulfil all the promises of previous years. (and, later in the same editorial) No doubt much remains to be considered and done, and, until the new schools are completed and fit for occupation, it is impossible to estimate the value of the new arrangements. There is very good reason however, to believe that with some greater facilities of approach by road or rail, and an earnest endeavour on the part of Old

Suttonians and parents of boys to introduce the new school to their friends, it will increase in numbers and importance year by year. The influence of the new Governing body became strongly felt, not only in the new buildings and the facilities they provided and the welcome transfer of some pupils from Emanuel School in London, but also in the rejuvenation of purpose and the reinvigoration of masters encouraged by the new headmaster. It took a little while because, according to TM James who succeeded Holdgate, “Parents waited to see what was going to happen before sending their sons.” The school had not only changed hands in terms of Headmaster, but coincidental with his departure, came the loss of the Chaplain, greatly admired and respected who was appointed to be Head of Wells Cathedral School. When Holdgate inherited the school it had 57 pupils, but by the time the new building was completed in 1916 he had managed to raise that total to just over 100. Nothing explicit can be found in the record of 1909 to explain why inter school fixtures should have been suspended from 1910. There were only two long-established regular schools fixtures remaining, Dover and King’s Canterbury, and it must be noticed that against the former Sutton Valence had won only two of the previous ten fixtures and against the latter only one. When fixtures were resumed against King’s, it was their 2nd XI who provided the opposition! Against St Edmunds, who had been on our list for five years only, the school had won two and lost two. While lack of competitive ability may be a reason, lack of numbers also had to be taken into account. Matches were played, and won, by schoolboys alone against all manner of sides. On the other hand, visiting scratch XIs and local club sides may have been less averse to playing sides containing a large proportion of colts than other schools might have been. Of course, school fixtures had been discontinued before. Sevenoaks were played once in 1883; Maidstone Grammar School was a regular opponent between 1884 and 1890; Cranbrook had been an opponent, though matches against it ceased in 1888. 1909 was strange in that all the fixtures against all schools ceased all at once in the same year. The magazine comments on this loss of fixtures as “temporarily, we hope, and through no fault of ours”. If it was not a lack of numbers what might the reason have been? The wickets and grounds on which home fixtures were played did not continue to improve as had been hoped. In the first year of the war, the lamented death of the horse (to pull the heavy roller and to contribute to the mowing of the outfield) may have had something to do with it, but how can we account for the ten to fifteen years before that sad event? School magazines show we were not proficient at retaining groundsmen. They appear to come and go regularly and frequently. Groundsmen had also to play a role as “bowler” in the nets. Perhaps the school set too much store on their ability as cricketers – to try to improve the batting of the boys rather than to pay attention to their skills as a curator. In those days such men were not employed all year round, but on a seasonal basis. Unfortunately, the summer, the season for which they were hired, was not the season in which to attempt to improve the playing surface. Work needs to be done during the winter months. It was left to HW Hunting, venerable second master and long time supporter of cricket at the School, to put things right. He first of all described the situation in the school magazine and asked the readers to subscribe towards a solution. He did not feel he could ask the new Governors to do so since they had sunk so much money into the building of the new School and invested it with equipment and the like. …But immediate action was necessary, and therefore I have started it on my own financial responsibility. I have had Hardy (professional) work on it for a month. He has top-dressed the pitch with soil, repaired the worn patches on the match wickets and we propose to cover the surface with some good manure. He has also prepared some good practice wickets in another part of the field. I estimate the cost of this work at £25. Of this I expect the games Fund may well contribute £10 and I am going to try to raise the remaining £15 by means of a Shilling

Fund – the sum required represents only 300 shillings, and I feel certain I shall have no difficulty in getting it. Further I think it highly desirable that water should be laid onto the ground, and this is possible now that the main runs along the Maidstone Road past the field. I have, therefore, obtained from the Mid Kent Water Company estimates for carrying out the work. The cost will be roughly £15. This was more than I had anticipated and I think we should defer this work for a time unless my appeal should produce such a sum as would warrant us in proceeding with it… The appeal worked! In the next magazine, three months later, Hunting writes ….The total amount received to date is £40.15s…….the sum raised is so far in excess of my expectations that I have been able do to more than I originally proposed. I have spent £14. 7s on labour in re-turfing and preparing new practice wickets; £12 on artificial manure etc.; besides this I have, at a cost of £17.10s, had the water not only laid on to the pavilion, but also carried into the middle of the field and a hydrant put down from which, by means of a hose, the supply will be able to reach the match ground and the practice wickets. The field has been further improved by the planting of some trees and shrubs between the entrance and the pavilion, and by the painting and restoration of the pavilion itself… Money continues to be contributed and he is able to report further: I am happy to say that the general result has been such an improvement in the condition of the ground as has attracted the notice of all those who have seen it….. The erection of the hydrant has been of enormous benefit. I do not know what we would have done without it during the recent spell of dry weather… Despite the improvement I am not disposed to be contented, but I hope that by my efforts to have it still better next year, a task that will be comparatively light now that we have got such a splendid start. I do not know if my suggestion is feasible, but what I should like to do is to retain the services of Hardy as groundsman all the year round… For all that the School’s performances had gone through a bad patch and for good reason, it is clear that there was no lack of determination and ingenuity to regain the good times. 1913 saw RL Kay in his final year score two hundreds in successive matches. In the season as a whole he scored four more fifties, so he was pretty consistent. Unfortunately, he was not well supported by other batsmen, their performance being described as “beneath contempt, except in the case of Hewitt (JK) who played several useful innings, and did not have the best of luck”. The School needed to find some way of accumulating strength in depth. Achieving that goal, however, had to be delayed because of World War I. *********** The war years saw relatively little school cricket: 24 matches in the five seasons 1914-1918. However, there were others played where masters were involved and, overall, the total is quite a respectable one. There remained no inter-school matches, except that King’s Canterbury had readmitted us to their fixture list, if only to play their 2 nd XI. (both matches were well won, by the way) In the first half of the War the boys entertained sides from local regiments stationed nearby or those billeted here for a short while on their way to the front. Several OS made a point of bringing a side down to augment the official OS match or, as is the case from 1915, to replace that fixture. So many of the recent OS had volunteered and gone off to war that raising a side of younger men became impossible. Matches at this time must have been played in a macabre atmosphere; so very many of those who had recently left before 1914 and, towards the end of the war, even those who

had left in the early part of it, were announced as killed in action or as severely wounded. In such a small community as Sutton Valence, news of such horror arrived very soon after relatives of the deceased were told; there was no need to wait for the official announcements in the termly school magazine. There were so many, so frequently… *********** But what of the actual cricket played during these last 15 years? Undoubtedly the star of 1901 was R Smither who scored 383 runs and took 47 wickets. However, he was not considered by those who were supposed to know these things to be the best player; JR Gannon had more talent (he had topped the averages the year before with 403 runs at 36.54) but he was prevented from playing for the whole season because of injury. The school did not miss Gannon’s bowling: rather it was his absent prowess as batsman and, more importantly, as wicketkeeper that was to prove so crucial. In 1903, JS Daniell scored 165* against “The Suttons” but unfortunately, there are very few other outstanding feats or remarkable incidents in matches worth reporting. In 1905, for example, no one scored as many as 200 runs in the season, and only one bowler, AR Tanner, took more than twenty wickets. In 1907, illness and injury caused the loss of not one but two very influential players, Tanner mentioned above and EW Pritchard. In 1906 Tanner had been the leading wicket taker with 51 at just 9.7 apiece and his contribution with the bat had been more than useful with 279 runs. His loss was particularly severe. He was such a good player that his ability was recognised by others a few years later when he played regularly for Middlesex and was capped for his efforts! Pritchard, too, was an all-rounder and in 1906 he had scored 411 runs including one century and had taken 26 wickets at 11.88. The school missed not only their potential performances but also their experience – a vital ingredient when playing against sides composed mostly of men. In a school with small numbers and no real strength in depth, such losses are likely to be very influential on the results’ table at the end of the season. WB Stiles made a good hundred against the OS in 1908 but this score represents half of all the runs he scored in 14 innings. His batting clearly had potential but he was not a reliable opener. WR Gosling averaged 30.3 in 1909, scoring more than 550 runs from 19 innings. He managed 650 runs in the following season with a hundred against Headcorn and 81 against Yalding. RL Kay was captain for three years between 1911 and 1913. He had always been a talented allrounder, but it was in 1913 that he really impressed with 652 runs at an average of 72.44! This included a massive 147* against a pretty good set of club players and old boys brought over by WR John; in addition he scored 70 against the OS and 69* against Wye College. Kay will figure prominently in the later account of OS cricket while his contribution to school cricket as a master was also pretty significant. The table below is an account of the performances of the better players during this time. Qualifications for entry are 200 runs in the season for the batsmen and 15 wickets for the bowlers. At the end of the table there is an averages section. BATTING STATISTICS innings no out high score total 1881 1881 1882 1882 1882

COBB MR WORLLEDGE EC COBB MR LUSHINGTON R WOOD HS

10 10

68* 76

261 250

average

overs

26.10 25.00

218 141

BOWLING STATISTICS maidens runs wickets average 291 207 229 179 104

62 24 52 28 15

4.69 8.63 4.40 6.39 6.93

STRIKE RATE overs/wicket 3.52 5.88

1883 1883 1883 1883 1884 1884 1884 1885 1885 1885 1886 1886 1886 1886 1886 1887 1887 1887 1888 1888 1888 1889 1889 1890 1890 1890 1890 1891 1891 1891 1891 1891 1892 1892 1892 1892 1892 1893 1893 1894 1894 1894 1894 1895 1895 1895 1896 1896 1896 1897 1897 1897 1897 1897 1898 1898 1898 1899 1899 1899 1899 1899 1899 1900

COBB MR NETHERSOLE AR NETHERSOLE FR NETTLETON C COBB MR CRALLAN HA NETHERSOLE AR CHAMBERS AE CLARKSON JP CRALLAN HA CHAMBERS AE COLLETT T HODGSON F HORNE L PLAYFORD A CHAMBERS AE LUSHINGTON F WILSON FM CARR DW NETHERSOLE CR NETHERSOLE HR CARR DW NETHERSOLE HR CARR DW HUNT GR NETHERSOLE HR PERKS A HUNT GR LUSHINGTON EG PERKS A ROWLANDS J THORNHILL WE HUNT GR LUSHINGTON EG PERKS A ROWLANDS J THORNHILL WE MITCHELL GE THORNTON IS CHRISTOPHER JS PAINE F PERFECT SN THORNTON IS DAVISON CG PAINE F SMITH HG DAVISON CG PAINE F SMITH HG ALEXANDER FDT APTHORPE FG BEATTY RV BROWN HR DARTON FJH ALEXANDER FDT HURLBATT R PEARSON HC BAKER FG GANNON JC RALPH SL SHAW JB SMITHER R THORNHILL JA GANNON JC

278

21.38

15 16

2 3

60 125

301 306

23.15 23.54

21 17

1 4

49 57*

299 266

14.95 20.46

17 18 19 16

6 3 1 2

87 69 97 52

509 204 306 230

46.27 13.60 17.00 16.43

12 12

3 1

74* 45

263 265

29.22 24.09

8 9 10 8

13 12 11

1 1 2 1

2 2 3

84 110 28 57

100* 58 117*

200 304 224 210

430 221 282

28.57 38.00 28.00 30.00

218

15.57

15 14 16 15 15

1 2 1 3 0

66 65 84 41 48

237 244 421 203 245

16.93 20.33 28.07 16.92 16.33

16 18 17

1 0 0

224 311 228

14.93 17.28 13.41

12 14

0 0

64 89

262 241

21.83 17.21

232

17.85

106*

369

24.60

18 19 19 19

4 2 1 2

53* 36 78 91

236 238 418 527

16.86 14.00 23.22 31.00

78*

403

86 13 26 25 102 17 43 75

309 79 136 178 421 236 368 471

82 19 21 15 106 18 65 84

3.77 4.16 6.48 11.87 3.97 13.11 5.66 5.61

3.76 3.42 4.48 8.73 3.18 4.83 3.35 3.01

227 292

63 53

453 556

64 58

7.08 9.59

3.55 5.03

237 199

51 42

436 419

46 44

9.48 9.52

5.15 4.52

202 184 157.3 198 188 129 45 130

50 33 26 40 46 38 12 53

276 341 309 297 334 224 127 242

15 27 37 22 37 31 15 29

18.40 12.63 8.35 13.50 9.03 7.23 8.47 8.34

13.47 6.81 4.25 9.00 5.08 4.16 3.00 4.48

139

349

11.26

4.48

178 73

58 32

419 398

39 43

10.74 9.26

4.56 1.70

116 106 117 138 161

28 28 23 50 71

238 243 333 461 276

38 31 31 65 36

6.26 7.84 10.74 7.09 7.67

3.05 3.42 3.77 2.12 4.47

243 130 199 136

94 23 47 24

50 31

64 33 38 28 31 19 38 52 22

5.73 11.85 12.71 13.04 12.29 16.05 10.03 11.10 14.23

3.80 3.94 5.24 4.86

237 138

367 391 483 365 381 305 381 577 313

270

14.21

4.26

233

566

13.16

5.42

140

446

17.84

5.60

254 80

69 23

560 249

56 21

10.00 11.86

4.54 3.81

39.09 22.10 35.25

308 65 94 131 337 87 218 253

36.64

4.56 6.27

1900 1900 1900 1900 1901 1901 1901 1902 1902 1902 1902 1903 1903 1903 1903 1903 1903 1903 1904 1904 1904 1904 1904 1904 1905 1905 1905 1906 1906 1906 1906 1906 1906 1907 1907 1907 1907 1907 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1909 1909 1909 1909 1910 1910 1910 1910 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1912 1912 1912 1912 1912 1913 1913 1913

PITT TG SHAW JB SMITHER R THORNHILL JA PITT HK SHAW JB SMITHER R KAY JC SMITH HS SWINFORD JF THORNHILL CH CHAMPION HS DANIELL JS PITT TG SANDERSON L SAUER P TABRUM PW URMSON DGS DRUCE JM KAY SE LOWRY VC SANDERSON L TABRUM PW URMSON DGS KAY SE TANNER AR URMSON DGS KAY SE LIPTROTT EC PRITCHARD EW TANNER AR URMSON DGS WAITE CE BLENKINSOP HW CLINCH WJ FISCHEL CH THOMAS FD URMSON DGS CLINCH WJ GOSLING WR STILES WB THOMAS FD TUKE BM CLINCH WJ FISCHEL CH GOSLING WR TUKE BM GOSLING WR KAY RL SEDGWICK LS WILSON RP CLIFFORD HJ HEWITT NS KAY RL MUMMERY HNS WILSON RP BARLOW JR CHAMBERS WJ CHAMPION GG KAY RL SHELDON GA BARLOW JR HEWITT JK KAY RL

17 19

1 0

54 66

201 421

12.56 22.16

72*

233

14.56

17 16

2 2

72* 95

417 383

27.80 27.36

42*

249

19.15

110*

401

26.73

16 15 14

2 1 0

165* 74 39

383 298 210

27.36 21.29 15.00

292

20.86

354

19.67

49*

220

0 2 2 1

65 56 115 95

245 305 411 279

16.33 21.79 34.25 23.25

268

20.62

0 0 1

94 106 61

374 254 272

580

30.53

20 21 20

2 3 2

132 66* 60*

656 318 264

36.44 17.67 14.67

12 12

0 2

67 87*

236 296

19.67 29.60

0 0 4

13 13

1 4

42 53 47*

205 301 224

12.06 17.71 17.23

209 652

17.42 72.44

691 473 646

51 43 40

13.55 11.00 16.15

4.86 3.51 3.60

212 55

27 6

306 173

47 15

6.51 11.53

4.51 3.67

198

756

16.80

4.40

128

400

14.81

4.74

127

430

23.89

7.06

194

570

12.95

4.41

116

126

7.00

6.44

139 73 168

28 13 27

434 238 537

23 15 24

18.87 15.87 22.38

6.04 4.87 7.00

102 62 116 61

13 15 33 13

421 183 471 191

25 18 38 16

16.84 10.17 12.39 11.94

4.08 3.44 3.05 3.81

84 168 87 91 58 142 126

6 32 8 16 10 21 18

309 496 325 352 188 442 459

26 51 30 15 17 40 33

11.88 9.73 10.83 23.47 11.06 11.05 13.91

3.23 3.29 2.90 6.07 3.41 3.55 3.82

50 130

209 459

22 32

9.50 14.34

2.27 4.06

28.77 18.14 20.92

17 17 17

39 16 12

12.94

15 16 14 13

13 14 14

248 151 144

135 177 98

35 6

463 583 454

38 37 22

12.18 15.76 20.64

3.55 4.78 4.45

111

391

13.03

3.70

175 114 97 92

25 27 9 8

533 492 382 511

35 46 15 26

15.23 10.70 25.47 19.65

5.00 2.48 6.47 3.54

80 92 70

8 12 3

387 260 288

15 34 17

25.80 7.65 16.94

5.33 2.71 4.12

235

9.40

2.72

149

515

16.61

4.81

447

19.43

4.13

1914 1914 1914 1914 1914 1915 1915 1915 1915 1916

BARLOW JR BRIGGS SP FULLJAMES REG HEWITT JK MEAR AA BARLOW JR BRIGGS SP FULLJAMES REG MEAR AA DARNEY R

58*

262

18.71

37*

260

16.25

140*

439

54.88

15.22

1.61

71.04

304.63

23.45

178 145 78

34 24 5

599 573 376

38 33 27

15.76 17.36 13.93

4.68 4.39 2.89

210

11.05

3.32

51 44 65 71 139.52

8 4 6 11 28.24

269 210 345 205 364.27

20 18 28 27 33.64

13.45 11.67 12.32 7.59 12.02

2.55 2.44 2.32 2.63 4.21

There are no statistics for 1917 – only two matches were played, nor any for 1918 when 6 matches took place when no-one managed to achieve the minimum standard for entry. There are more good quality bowling performances than batting ones, as may be expected on the relatively poor wickets of those days. Sutton Valence was quite lucky in that each year it usually had one or two players who could perform well enough to allow the side to avoid humiliation and whose influence could inspire others to improve their own game. It was unlucky in that when it might have had a side with rather more experience and ability, injury and illness prevented the full potential from blossoming. It is not so easy for us, living in a more technically advanced age, to appreciate just how debilitating outbreaks of measles, mumps and the dreaded influenza could be to individuals and communities. While the effects of these illnesses were greatest in the late winter and spring, the recovery time was often quite lengthy, demanding a good deal of rest. Even a slight reduction in numbers poses a particular problem for a small squad with a lack of strength in depth. It is suggested in some post-match reports that the expectations of performing well that rested on the shoulders of one or two of the better players served to inhibit their ambitions when, with more confidence of better support, they may have been rather more relaxed and scored more runs or taken more wickets. Despite the problems, the first 37 years of the history of cricket at the school finishes on a note of optimism for the future. The recent results may not have been particularly exciting but the school was growing in numbers, the war was over and normality was re-establishing itself. Confidence was growing under the new leadership of WW Holdgate. Anyone looking back through the record books at that time would understand that in more than half of the years the cricket at Sutton Valence School had been of a very high standard and that a strong sense of cricketing tradition had been laid down for future players to emulate. 241 matches had been played at schoolboy level, with 107 won, 94 lost and 40 drawn. There was much to be proud of. The “missionary” work of MR Cobb in the USA had been magnificent and the success of DW Carr just before the war must also have been inspirational to a small school with a very strong sense of “family” and belonging. Acknowledgements. Sutton Valence School magazines, 1881 – 1919 A Short History of Sutton Valence School, FTW Blatchley-Hennah M.A., Kent messenger, 1952 England Test Cricketers, Bill Frindall, Collins Willow, 1989 AR Henderson, Archivist, King’s School, Canterbury The History of Kent CCC, Dudley Moore, Guild Publishing, 1988

CRICKET AT SUTTON VALENCE SCHOOL

Chapter 3 Between the Wars

Between 1919 and 1930 the School won over one third of the games played and lost nearly half. This period, like those that had gone before, was one in which there gradually took place changes in the way cricket was played and managed at the school. Initially, while the numbers were increasing, but still small, it was common, as before the war, to see one or two masters playing for the school in those matches against clubs and the like where a bit of solidity and experience was needed. This practice soon ceased as the numbers grew to a level where the strength in depth improved. Masters also indulged themselves playing for their own clubs on a more frequent basis and were not so readily available. The practice of batting for two innings was gradually abandoned, as was the pleasure of batting on once the score of the side batting first had been achieved. In reality this happened because the need to do so disappeared. Sides were batting longer, scoring more runs and becoming more difficult to dismiss. Only the major matches were all-day fixtures and there was consequently less time in which to complete the match. More schools were added to the fixture list while the influence of the masters allowed some interesting new fixtures to be added such as those against University college sides. The Old Suttonian influence remained very strong and this is the likely explanation for these fixtures appearing. The Old Suttonian “Cricket Week” became fully established as a part of the sporting calendar and occasional OS tours were organised. It continued to be difficult to obtain and retain good groundsmen: in 1920 the school did not employ a groundsman at all and, in addition, the services of a professional were lost. As a result, practice in the nets was impossible and the wickets unreliable. Fortunately, this situation did improve fairly quickly with the appointment of Bill Hodges in 1922. As for the school curriculum, afternoons began to take on a different format: as there was a need to occupy a greater number of boys, matches were arranged to accommodate the competitive desires of these youngsters, but while only a few school matches could be arranged at junior or 2nd XI level in the early days after the war, there was a much greater incidence of internal fixtures within the school. More masters became involved. This was vital. The concentration of effort into the “Eleven” up to this time had led to a situation where many boys were without any knowledge of the rudimentary basics of the game, and a great deal of coaching needed to be done. (The School had not really learned the lessons of that dissatisfied young man who wrote about the inadequacies of junior cricket before the war). It would take a few years before this new approach to junior cricket would bear fruit further up the school but very soon a start was made. The Corps had a game between platoon I and platoon II; form matches took place involving the younger pupils; a house match between Westminster and St. Margaret’s was established in 1916 and became a regular feature of the summer thereafter while in 1920, the fifth form, as ever “knowing” they were the best year in the school by far, arranged a match between its representatives and the rest of the school. They lost the game and it was not played again, at least officially. Junior fixtures were played on “Lower” while “Upper” was reserved for senior elevens. It was about this time that “The Upper” was recognised in this way. Earlier accounts of cricket say that home fixtures were played on “The School Ground” but now that there were two areas regularly in use there arose a need to differentiate between them. The wicket on “Upper” (or The Upper, or The Old Upper – it had several names) was not a bad one but it was not entirely reliable; the outfield was also very rough. The need for proper care was clearly becoming paramount. William (Bill) Hodges thankfully staying for some time, until 1953, ensured that the condition of the whole playing area improved significantly. As he had been working at the

Mote and had served time on the Kent Club and Ground Staff, he was also able to help with the coaching. *********** House Match Results, 1917 - 1946

1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946

winners W M M M M M M W M W M W M M M M M W M D M M M M W W M W W M

M 118 and 115 W 30 and 107, M 152 W 46, and 33 M177 and 13 for 7 W 38 and 149 M241 W 52 and 95 M 47 and 100 W 177 M 71 and 164 W 177 and 56 M141 and 90 W 123 and 145 for 7 M 149 and 429 for 7 dec W 100 and 56 for 7 dec M 74 and 63 W 67 and 76 for 6 M 78 and 130 W 94 and 39 M 180 and 184 W 181 and 63 M 96 and 114 W 101 and 64 M 208 W 113 and 67 M 106 and 196 for 8 dec W 163 and 96 M 34 and 74 W 324 for 9 dec M 180 for 9 dec and 105 for 1 W 151 and 131 M 134, W 67 and 83 for 5 (rain stopped play) M 90 and 199 for 9 W 99 and 188 M 334 and 8 for 0 wkt W 143 and 198 M 232 and 251 for 4 dec W 207 and 80 M 141 and 321 for 6 dec W 161 and 115 M 70 and 93 W 96 and 237 for 8 M 65 and 93 W 164 and 189 for 4 dec M 156 and 87 for 7 W 130 and 112 M 80 and 66 W 185 M 147 and 108 W 203 for 8 dec and 53 for 7 M 79 and 93 W 85 and 41

The day-boys did not have a house as such until after WWII but they were included in this “tribal” fixture which produced some memorable days of cricket. Day-boys were allocated either to Westminster or St. Margaret’s on a geographical basis. A north-to-south trending line was drawn on a map through the clock-tower, cutting Main Block in half. Those day-boys whose home address was to the east of the line played for St. Margaret’s and those to the west played for Westminster. The game was usually played over two or three days towards the end of term and the stars of each year were pitted against each other. At this great distance in time from the events nothing can capture exactly the excitement and the drama of any of the games that were played. A brief look at some of the match statistics can allow

speculation, however. Some in St. Margaret’s must have thought in 1922 that the game was theirs for the taking after Westminster, following-on, scored only 149 in their second innings for this left St Margaret’s only 11 to win. However, defeat was so nearly snatched from the jaws of victory! Westminster must be commended on their brave but unsuccessful attempt: five of the St. Margaret’s team were clean bowled and no extras were conceded. Another game of note took place in 1925. After Westminster had scored 177, St Margaret’s promptly threw their first three wickets away for next to nothing – all run out and they never recovered from the shock, making only 71. A hundred run deficit on first innings must have been daunting but GS Stead then came good taking 6-19 to restrict Westminster’s second innings to only 56, then that same young man scored a steadying 52 to steer his side towards the 163 required for victory. The game of 1927 was a quite remarkable one. Unfortunately, there is no written account of how the match progressed to its conclusion. You can make your own speculation! Of note, is that in St Margaret’s 1st innings no one except EW Thurgood scored more than 12 runs – but he made 111. In their second innings the Westminster total was passed easily but the batsmen chose to remain at the crease and a massive number of runs were added ‘ just to make sure that the boys of Westminster realised which was the better house’. The following season saw a win for Westminster with much lower scores in what must have been however, an exciting match: Westminster were behind on 1st innings but RG Newbury came up trumps, taking 8-14 and restricting St Margaret’s second innings to 63. Westminster needed only 70 to win. Wickets fell cheaply at the start but the batting was steadied by GW Hook and HC Hoseason and Westminster scraped home. The game of 1934 was “Branson’s match”: and he scored 102 of Westminster’s total and he contributed to the skittling of St. Margaret’s wickets in their first innings, taking 5 – 11 including the hat-trick. He proceeded to take another 6 wickets in the second innings to complete the rout. The accounts of House matches in the school magazine show very clearly that they were taken very seriously indeed. There are venerable OS still alive who can testify to the intensity of the games and the extremely competitive spirit in which they were played. Such accounts are contrasted with match reports of 1st XI fixtures that suggest a weaker resolve. Throughout the twenties and thirties it is often suggested that the “Eleven” lacked self-confidence and it seems this was true when they matched themselves against another side that was relatively unknown. When they played against those they did know, they could fight like the devil to avoid defeat and took pleasure in rubbing opponents’ noses in the dirt to emphasise the difference in strength (comments on some of the matches above confirm this). If only they could have translated their self-belief in the domestic sphere to School fixtures… *********** This chapter began with a discussion of changes; the introduction of the House Match was one. Another feature in this period in 1st XI matches was the ratio of wins to losses. The School found it difficult to emulate the performance of the sides of the previous century. An increase in numbers had not produced a way of extricating the standard from the trough into which it had slid during the first twenty years of the 1900s. Perhaps the lack of staff in the side led, in 1919, to the panic that set in against The Maidstone Church Institute when, chasing a total of 81 the school managed to accumulate only 8 runs and 2 extras before they were all back in the hutch. If this was the case, then too bad, for from the whole of 1923 and very rarely between 1919 and that year, masters disappear from the playing scene altogether. However, the school had suffered a great upheaval in the previous 15 years or so, what with the collapse of its buildings, the change of its leadership, the War etc. From the end of the First World War, the school was essentially beginning from scratch – at all levels. Poor batting was the main problem in the ten years or so after the war. (Is it more difficult to coach reliable batting than steady bowling?) It was generally considered at that time that the “Upper” was

a wicket where any side batting ought to make 150 runs, but such a score was a great rarity among Sutton Valence sides during that time. Lack of confidence seems to be the most common explanation for this. It did not help one young man’s confidence much when, heeding the advice of the year before to keep the bat straight and close to his pad, he was castigated the year after for not being aggressive enough. Generally, as has been said before, the “retrospective” on the season was always a pretty harsh affair: sometimes the author felt a pang of conscience about the invective but when this was so the apology was usually half-hearted. There was no shortage of sticks after the war - but a dearth of carrots. An understanding of Psychology is an important feature of cricket. Hard words in an annual retrospective on the season may stir the chastised to work even harder in a following year, but might also discourage effort. Where school fixtures were necessarily augmented by matches against young men other factors may have come into play to influence the results; competition against contemporaries where there is a chance of winning is attractive and is a motive for young men to knuckle down and learn how to achieve their goals; competition against experienced elders can be either very stimulating or it can be less challenging. It is easy for young people to feel offended when they perceive that their elders are being condescending in their attitude towards them; likewise it is easy for them to feel that as victory is so much less likely then effort becomes more half-hearted. While a concerted attempt was made to regularise those inter-school fixtures that were already on the list the school also sought to add new school opponents, these efforts were thwarted by the reappearance, year after year, of some sort of contagion. In 1924 and 1929, chicken-pox robbed the School of all inter-school fixtures; 1923 saw it plagued with the after-effects of mumps and in 1928, “illnesses elsewhere” took away a fixture or two from the list. In 1930 and 1931, the School lost, respectively, fixtures with King’s Rochester and Dover College “because of illness”. There are more references to this right up to the outbreak of WWII. Nevertheless, the cricket fixtures that had disappeared in 1910 were restored, against St Edmund’s in 1923, against King’s Canterbury in 1930 and against Dover College in 1932. The King’s School, Rochester appears in 1923 and St Lawrence College, Ramsgate in 1935. This same year no fewer than one under 14 match (L), two Colts matches (both L) and three 2nd XI games (2 L, 1 W) were played – but twelve matches were lost in May first to the weather and to an outbreak of mumps, and only five of these had been 1st XI games. There would have been another seven junior fixtures; this was slightly down on the previous year when the 2nd XI had nine matches and the Colts and U14s had five apiece. It is good to see the greater attention that was given to developing the game amongst the younger age-groups and the attempt to build strength in depth by spending time on a 2nd XI. This trend continued all the way to the beginning of WWII. Clearly the junior sides could not play against men; rather they should have fixtures against other school teams of a similar age. Perhaps it was the development of ‘junior’ fixture lists that spurred the 1st XI to increase its fixtures against other schools: King’s Rochester, Cranbrook and Maidstone GS are all colts opponents in 1935. As Sutton Valence took boys as young as 11, games against other senior schools were naturally more difficult; hence it was common to find the youngest players contesting matches against local preparatory schools, something that has continued to the present day. Yardley Court, Tonbridge, was one of the first opponents in this regard. The years from 1930 to 1945 see the win-loss ratio continue to decline. The losses remain at just under half of the matches but the victories are now reduced to much less than one-third - there are many more draws - very nearly one quarter of matches. This reduction in wins cannot be put down to the lack of masters in the eleven since all the statistics here refer only to matches where the boys played without the assistance of their teachers. The game was simply being played a lot better by

the opposition the School faced. Even when the School had to contend with very low numbers in the first decade of the century or was affected by WWI, it had managed to keep the percentage of matches won at nearly forty. (In 1939, for the first time since 1881, the total number of wins becomes less than the total number of losses at 216 w – 220 l. This state of affairs would remain until 2004 when wins once more rose into the ascendancy 505 w – 500 l.) The table below is an attempt to see at a glance just how well the boys performed. It is presented in the same style as the table in the previous chapter. All those with a batting total in excess of 200 runs in a season and all those with a bowling haul of 15 or more wickets are included. In 1932 there was not a player who scored more than 200 runs and only two bowlers made the 15 wicket mark; no other statistics are available for that year. In 1940, in the confusion caused by the conflict of war, the account of matches does not go into sufficient detail for relevant statistics to be accurately recorded. It is certain that very few of those who have picked up this little history will be a contemporary of these players; the statistics are there to allow the reader to make a comparison between the standard of cricket before the start of WWII and that of any later generation. The statistics can also be used to compare the performances of this generation of players with those of young men who represented the school before WWI. In this case the figures show that the batting had not improved (in terms of the average number of runs scored by the better batsmen) nor had the bowling become more penetrative – in this period the average better bowler takes 27 wickets in a season at 14 runs per wicket compared to 33 wickets at 12 runs per wicket before the War.

Cricket statistics 1919 – 1945 (no bowling detail for 1932, and no statistics at all for 1940) BATTING STATISTICS innings no out high score total 1919 1919 1919 1920 1920 1920 1920 1921 1921 1921 1922 1922 1922 1922 1922 1923 1923 1923 1923 1924 1924 1924 1924 1925 1925 1925 1925 1925

HODSOLL WJ KENNARD HG PALMER PF DAVIES RH EAMES HA FULLJAMES OR KENNARD HG CLIFT AC KENNARD HG PICKERING JS CRAVEN EA FRANCIS GB KENNARD HG PICKERING JS SIMMONS GP CRAVEN EA PICKERING JS SIMMONS GP WHITE JA JOHN PRH SHERIDAN JA SPURRIER HGC WHITE JA BROWNE AMC FOREMAN FE STEAD GS STEAD RS TAYLOR HJW

162*

387

14 13

2 1

57 56*

253 244

259

15 14

0 0

88 91

209 262

11 11

0 1

47 85*

215 302

67*

257

75*

303

average overs 107 82 35 26 56 29.77 166 68 184 45 21.08 20.33 185 142 18.50 56 13.93 18.71 164 115 98 95 19.55 30.20 82 21.42 97 74 25.25 95

BOWLING STATISTICS STRIKE maidens runs wickets average RATE 14 317 35 9.06 3.06 14 296 28 10.57 2.93 4 95 16 5.94 2.19 5 75 16 4.69 1.63 4 284 17 16.71 3.29 9 11 37 7

493 212 586 181

48 21 51 12

10.27 10.10 11.49 15.08

3.46 3.24 3.61 3.75

30 26 10

545 483 188

41 29 21

13.29 16.66 8.95

4.51 4.90 2.67

39 20 20 24

461 382 334 230

29 18 20 29

15.90 21.22 16.70 7.93

5.66 6.39 4.90 3.28

282

11.75

3.42

17 4

350 371

29 32

12.07 11.59

3.34 2.31

327

15.57

4.52

1926 1926 1926 1926 1927 1927 1927 1927 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1929 1929 1929 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1931 1931 1932 1932 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1935 1935 1935 1935 1936 1936 1936 1936 1937 1937 1937 1937 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1939 1939 1939 1939 1940 1941 1941

BROWNE AMC FOREMAN FE MCCANLIS AWH STEAD GS COTTON JC FOREMAN FE STEAD GS STEVENS RY BUTCHER MH HOOK GW MARVIN DP MARVIN RP NEWBURY RG CARPENTER DK HOOK GW NEWBURY RG CARSLAW DPL HOOK GW MURDOCK WL NEWBURY RG NOPS GA WATTS DE REYNOLDS M WATTS IH TAYLOR GH WATTS IH AIRD WM BAGOT-GRAY DLP BRANSON DW GRAFTON JD PEEL-YATES WG SHACKLOCK HR ADAMS AL BAGOT-GRAY DLP BRANSON DW MATTHEWS AC QUAYLE JWP SMITH EJW WEDGWOOD CM ADAMS AL BRANSON DW EASTMAN JLT MARTIN RJ BADGER PE BRANSON DW FURNISS R POLLARD PSC DERRICK FPB POLLARD PSC REDFERN ME WHEELER HLN BRILL PJ DAVIS JM DERRICK FPB GRAY JH MONCKTON G WHEELER HLN BRILL PJ DARLING G GRAY JH TIPPLES P APPS TE BENTLEY RD

242

16.13

281

18.73

265

22.08

210

21.00

109*

290

41.43

267

24.27

333

25.62

12 12 12 13

2 2 4 1

67 61* 56 114*

227 201 228 349

22.70 20.10 28.50 29.08

15 17

1 2

94 67

225 225

269

19.21

14 14 13

0 1 0

75 64 71

376 279 312

26.86 21.46 24.00

13 14 12 12 9

4 1 0 2 1

75 67 77 81* 63*

479 245 253 347 206

53.22 18.85 21.08 34.70 25.75

12 11

0 0

75 124

211 473

17.58 43.00

247

24.70

11 11 11 12 14 14

0 1 2 2 0 0

112 68 68* 111* 101 59

259 245 243 417 505 303

23.55 24.50 27.00 41.70 36.07 21.64

14 15

1 0

68 63

209 374

16.08 24.93

353

25.21

207

352

16.76

5.00

118

517

14.36

3.28

112 157 60

11 20 7

390 595 288

20 39 16

19.50 15.26 18.00

5.60 4.03 3.75

82 62 101 120

4 13 26 14

372 196 275 351

24 10 15 30

15.50 19.60 18.33 11.70

3.42 6.20 6.73 4.00

143 168

21 37

555 453

35 40

15.86 11.33

4.09 4.20

138 95 212

16 15 53

640 358 585

30 23 48

21.33 15.57 12.19

4.60 4.13 4.42

144 144

26 16

415 564

28 24 33 28

14.82 23.50

5.14 6.00

162 121 79 55

29 33 11 5

487 419 234 220

41 15 17 19

11.88 27.93 13.76 11.58

3.95 8.07 4.65 2.89

190 99 128

37 14 24

616 426 446

51 23 23

12.08 18.52 19.39

3.73 4.30 5.57

147

438

10.19

3.42

127

376

15.67

5.29

84 52 134

10 4 18

331 230 513

18 17 28

18.39 13.53 18.32

4.67 3.06 4.79

152

489

16.86

5.24

106

409

21.53

5.58

106

392

15.68

4.24

190 242

38 55

601 723

35 53

17.17 13.64

5.43 4.57

122

399

16.63

5.08

97 117

19 22

331 395

25 27

13.24 14.63

3.88 4.33

16.07 15.00

105

14.79

1941 1941 1941 1942 1942 1942 1943 1943 1943 1943 1943 1944 1944 1944 1944 1945 1945 1945

HIGGINS JF SLOAN CH WRAGGE JM BENTLEY RD BONGARD JFR STEVENS K HEARN HR JAMES AM RUSSELL D SLOAN CH WARD GH FORD MGA PYM MH RUSSELL D SLOAN CH DAVIES JM HEARN HR WOODROFFE JB

204

15.69

129 93

39 15

340 330

23 23

14.78 14.35

5.61 4.04

12 12 12

0 0 2

94 49 86

252 258 303

21.00 21.50 30.30

167

470

10.00

3.55

13 13

0 0

44 43

254 230

19.54 17.69

219

12.17

3.61

13 13

2 0

57* 56

242 209

22.00 16.08

154 63 118 169

34 5 21 47

405 224 409 414

38 22 28 48

10.66 10.18 14.61 8.63

4.05 2.86 4.21 3.52

207

17.25

57*

269

24.45

191

416

8.49

3.90

217

24.11

103 42 85

20 7 21

306 142 255

27 17 16

11.33 8.35 15.94

3.81 2.47 5.31

12.9

1.0

69.6

276.6

23.8

115.0

20.7

379.5

27.8

14.3

4.2

By making averages of the averages it is possible to identify those whose contribution stood out above these notable performances. If a bowler took more than 15 wickets, the average number of wickets he would have achieved is 27.84; if he took more than 27 wickets in a season he could call himself better than average. If a player scored more than 200 runs in a season and his average was better than 23.84, or if he scored 276 runs or more in total he could say he was probably better than average of the players above. Presumably if you played for the school at a later time and your performance was better than the averages shown you may think of yourself as being better than the players of this time, but it must not be forgotten that this was a relatively poor time for batsmen in general. Such comparisons are not entirely useful because factors such as the quality of the wicket, weather and nature of the opposition will all play their part. However, as a very general comparison, the reader can make his own judgements about relative quality. From a close examination of the above, DW Branson, from 1933 – 36, looks to have recorded the best performance. He excelled not only with the bat but he also took 153 wickets (and he missed three or four matches because of the ‘flu!). Clearly, HG Kennard was a good bowler taking 168 wickets in his four seasons from 1919-22, and there are two other notable bowlers in the 1920s, GS Stead who took 107 wickets in 1925-27 and RG Newbury who took 118 in 1928-30. There appears to be no other outstanding batsman though there are a handful who score centuries; of those that did well, the best is EJW Smith scoring 479 in 1934 averaging 53.22 and FPB Derrick in 1938 who scored 505 runs at an average of 36.07. He was a good all-rounder, going on to obtain an oxbridge ‘blue’ at fives. The bowling seems to have been better than the batting being more evenly spread throughout the period. There are instances of impressive batting performances but it is not until 1934 that these increase to match the bowling ones. While this suggests an improvement was taking place the School was not winning more matches. Were opponents improving faster than the School? It is interesting to peruse at the statistics of RH Davies in 1920. His bowling strike-rate was really top class, and one wonders why he was not bowled more; he is described in 1920 as “A fair bat, a good field, and now and then a dangerous bowler”. Perhaps if he’d been bowled more often he might have been described in more glowing terms. Note also the performance of PF Palmer in 1919: His strike-rate is also impressive; a thumbnail sketch describes him “As a batsman, improved greatly through the season. A fine field and a useful change bowler.” Perhaps the skipper ought to have changed the bowling more frequently!?

In general there is a similarity between the strike-rates of the better bowlers and that of the “great” MR Cobb of 1881 – 1884 except in so far as his overs consisted of four balls; by now the norm was for six ball overs to be bowled. The nearest comparison is HG Kennard but he took only half as many wickets and was nearly three times more expensive. So far, the various accounts of the cricket played between 1919 and 1945 have tended towards the gloomy side. In general terms this represents how things were. On the other hand a different picture may emerge when details are closely analysed and extracts from the account of the 1939 season are inserted for the reader’s consideration. How narrow can be the gap between defeat and victory… Cricket 1939, Played 15, Won 3, Lost 10, Drawn 2. “It is interesting to think that a mere five runs and three wickets would have changed the rather poor looking set of results to Won 7, Lost 6, Drawn 2, and so have given us a reasonably successful season, as opposed to this rather poor one, from the results point of view. A number of things have combined to make the season a most pleasant one. The closeness of four of the games, all of which we lost, gave us a taste of excitement up to the end of each game. A loss by two runs to St Lawrence after good late partnerships on both sides in a low scoring game. The partnership for the tenth wicket by Darling and Brill in this game put on 65 runs, and it was the irony of fate that Brill, who had batted throughout most of the innings should be out. Against Tonbridge 2nd XI we had a onewicket loss in a game in which both sides only just reached 100. At Hythe, in a rainy game, a good attempt by the School to score 150 or so runs quickly on a not so easy wicket just failed when Darling was caught at cover with just three balls to go and three runs needed to win. Watching the side in most of their games, one was struck by the high standard of its fielding. At times it was extremely good and some excellent catches were held, Barlow being outstanding in this respect, holding a number at full length sliding on the ground anywhere between mid-off and cover… Behind the wicket Gray was not as good as we had hoped he would be, although he was as good as any, and better than most, of the wicketkeepers opposing us. In bowling Darling was easily the most dangerous and had a really good season, getting 53 wickets which is 2 more than any other bowler since the war… The rest of the bowling was not very good… The batting was very patchy indeed, with the exception of Gray, who rarely scored less than 25 or rarely more than 40… Most of the others made runs at times but we could never really rely on them.” This represents a more accurate picture than the gloomy one expressed earlier; nevertheless at this time Sutton Valence was a side without strength in depth and without consistency. The players seem to be examples of Jack Hobbs’ observation just a few years earlier: writing in the newspaper in 1936 he said that in his experience good luck always followed a good side and implied that the opposite was also true. *********** In early 1940 there was a rumour, quickly dispelled, that the School would be evacuated. Nevertheless, during the Battle of Britain numbers did drop to 135 although they would be restored to the 200 level by the war’s end. Those in the sixth-form who did not play cricket were offered the

alternative of working on the land, helping the farmers. There is no confirmation of the effect this had on the numbers playing cricket. Ironically, despite the reduced fixture list and smaller pool of pupils from which to choose (if only slightly) in the war years, the “Eleven” had its best run for many a long time with more players lower down the order making more runs. 1942 was another good year, with 7 matches won and 5 lost. 1943 and 1944, taken together, showed that more matches were won than lost. The war years saw a repetition of 1914-18. The School hosted sides from the Forces: the RAF provided a team as did the RA (containing two county players and a wicketkeeper who played for the Army) and fixtures were resumed against the local garrison in Maidstone. The local Police appeared on the scene. Sevenoaks School revisited Sutton Valence after a gap of very many years; unfortunately (for them) they made a low total and the School passed it without much difficulty and as in the “old days” they continued to bat on for the rest of the day. Some of the gaps in the fixture list were made up with Cranbrook being taken on both home and away during all the war years as were East Sutton. Unfortunately (for Sutton Valence) all the Cranbrook games except one were lost; matches against the village, apart from two, were won. The School cricket had a “good” war. The results were more than satisfactory and the cricket pitches, Upper and Lower, avoided contact with the dreaded flying bombs. It is to be wondered whether the sides contesting the matches on Upper at this time ever had to fling themselves fulllength onto the grass as bombs went over, as so memorably happened at Lord’s on 29 July 1944. Bombs did fall, one between Lower and Upper; another narrowly missed the School itself and many windows were shattered. 1945 was the worst of the war years as far as results go. Dogfights and the threat of flying bombs eventually took their toll. It was a contradictory time. Roll on the Peace and a return to normality… The Headmaster, in 1945 raised the matter of cricket with the Governors. He pointed out that Bill Hodges, groundsman since 1923, was paid £3 per week in the summer as well as benefiting from a 10s per week retainer for the rest of the year. The contract had not altered for some considerable time during which the wage of an agricultural labourer had increased threefold, and so the Governors were asked that the sums be raised to £5 and £1 respectively. The estimable Hodges continued as groundsman for several years thereafter, presumably he was happy with this massively enhanced supplement to his earnings as a local publican at ‘The Plantation’ in Bearsted. That was not all! The head also requested that a sum of money be set aside so that the motor mower, which had recently replaced the horse-drawn mower – the horse having earned its retirement – might be operated by a boy from the non-cricketing sixth on a regular basis since Hodges’ duties were heavy in term time and mowing might be neglected otherwise. There is no account of how long deliberation on this matter took place but the wishes of the head were granted.

Acknowledgements School Magazines, 1919-1945 A History of Cricket, Benny Green Guild Publications, 1988 Barclays World of Cricket, Swanton, Plumptre and Woodcock, Guild Publications, 1986

CRICKET AT SUTTON VALENCE SCHOOL

The Lunch Interval

The half-way point between 1881 and 2007 has been passed and this may be a suitable time to pause for some reflection. While it may appear that cricket, in our history, starts in a blaze of glory and by the end of WWII it has failed to fulfil to its earlier promise, we have to appreciate that the School was a very different institution at the end of this period compared to the beginning - as were its pupils. The environment in which the sport was played was vastly different and opportunities for dalliance in other activities were rapidly expanding. In the 1880s, the School was a “free” Grammar School endowed by William Lambe and managed by the Clothworkers’ Company. Its intake allowed for twenty-four local boys to be the “Lambe’s Foundation Scholars” and for twelve sons of members of the Company who were to be the “Clothworkers’” Scholars. The School would also allow “such other Day Boys and Boarders as the Headmaster shall admit into the School on terms to be fixed by him.” The Headmasters, Kingdon and Bennett, used their discretion to augment the Scholars to full effect and in 1879 there were 55 boarders in the School with a total roll of 101. These numbers were maintained though there was fluctuaton between 80 and 100 or so until the end of the century. According to Blatchley-Hennah They were robust characters, these schoolboys. Their humour was coarse, but then they came from family backgrounds of Tory rusticity. They played games manfully and from all accounts successfully, and under Kingdon’s scholarly jurisdiction, they achieved academic distinction as well. The earliest extant groups show to the modern eye a race of giants. With their moustaches, stiff collars and cut-away jackets they seem, compared with us today, supermen and not schoolboys. Kingdon realised the importance of games but never made a fetish of them. He had a fine sense of classical scholarship. This was the zenith of the era of ‘muscular christianity’. This was the time when ‘Tom Brown’s Schooldays’ was being lived out in real life but perhaps not consciously so. The changes that took place in 1910 in which the relaxed management of the School by the Clothworkers was replaced with a more pro-active style from the United Westminster Schools Foundation was an attempt to put the School firmly in the ranks of the great public schools. It had a strong effect on the character of the school. The ambition to increase the numbers to 200 was quickly achieved and the introduction of a “House” system gave the boys a sense of belonging to a family unit providing them with protection and support while undertaking their education. I have heard OS of this period maintain that they thought their loyalty to the House was even greater to that to the School itself. They affirm that boys attempted in the following order (i) to impress the others in their House, (ii) to contribute to the effort that gave their House greater status than the others and (iii) to impress the masters as to their academic prowess. All of this had to be achieved with “style”. This might be interpreted as an attempt to replicate ‘Tom Brown’s Schooldays’ by bringing the model firmly into the boys’ sights and asking them to reproduce it in reality. Some people of an anthropological bent observe the behaviour of young men in such communities and compare their activities to the sorts of social behaviour found in herds of animals. A clear “pecking

order” is established and there is a constant competition between the youngsters to achieve a higher status within their peer group. Status has to be visible in order to warn the unknowing of potential disrespect, as, for example, the badges worn by various ranks in the services. Those who were the best at sport were the easiest to reward: caps were awarded and colours given, as well as permission to wear some ‘exclusive’ apparel; results and individual performances were announced in assemblies and on notice-boards. There was much respect but less status for the non-sporting type. This is not to assume that boys were either clever or sporting. The two are not mutually exclusive: the school is very proud of a large number of its alumni who have been both cerebral and sporting. I did not know the youth of the 1920s to 1940s and it is very unfair of me to wonder, publicly, if more than a good few of these young chaps concentrated more on parading their new-found status than in justifying it with subsequent performances. Examination of school magazines at the time does suggest (to me) that all was not well. In the first half of the 20 th century, the summer term, more so than the other terms, provided alternatives to the main sport of cricket but it seems the school authorities chose to restrict boys’ opportunities to participate in them. By its very structure cricket is not a game that can be easily endured by the non-effective or the non-enthusiast; with a game of rugby one can at least run about like mad and keep warm, find the odd smaller person to bully and retire to the companionship of the house after a relatively short time on the games field! Cricket was more resented than the other major sports and immediately after the second War this led to an exchange of correspondence in the school magazines which I believe reflected on the situation not only of that time but also of the time before and during the war. An article entitled CRICKET (i) The School assembles in Hall on the first day of term. In steps Cricket. This gentleman gives us the information that, in order to enjoy our half-holidays to the full, we must play cricket from 2.15 till 5.30 at the very least. This will leave a clear halfhour in which to enjoy ourselves! All those who have joined the School recently are summoned to the inner sanctum of the Captain. This is where they are questioned as to their ability at the game. Those who show any promise are put on game III where their promise is effectively smothered. In the hope of making the proverbial silk purse out of a sow’s ear, the rest are put into the Colts1. The result of this scheme is promulgated in the form of Colts’ results, which usually consist of an imposing display of initials which are more often connected with Universities – “L.L.D.”2 Most people would think that a player needed a couple of weeks’ practice before the season opened. Not so Sutton Valence. Here we start two days after the beginning of term when nobody has any kit or clothes. The School is justly proud of its record in life-saving and is very keen on swimming. Cricket, however, scorns this occupation. If you are in a match you may not swim before it, but may do so for as long as you like afterwards – when the sun has set and the water is stone cold. If you are playing in a game with which you are probably fed up, you may not stop and take exercise in the bath until you have got all the batsmen out. However, if you do get them out, Cricket will bid you start all over again until it considers you have wasted enough time. There is one simple way out of all this. It is very simple, too. You just join the noncricketing Sixth in order to work for exams during the afternoons. Permission for this is readily granted – on one small condition. You must spend your time umpiring games (it doesn’t take long – only 2.15 to 5.30) Nevertheless you can and, if you are like the author, do, profess an ignorance of the rules and escape all obligations.

Author’s notes 1 The exact system of organisation is clouded in mystery. It does appear that junior or colts games’ days were spent in match-play umpired by older boys (who had little or no interest) and ignored (largely) by active members of the senior cricketing squad and I can find no reference to any significant input from members of the Masters’ Common Room. 2 I have to confess ignorance of this reference, which is reproduced exactly as it appears in the magazine article. It looks like a joke of some sort. Can anyone offer a punch-line? A second article appears one term later. Like the first it contains ‘in-jokes’ and these are less appreciated by those, like me, not in the know, and not fully understanding of the ‘mind-set’ of the teenagers of that time. Nevertheless I offer it to you as an example of the assault on the fortress that was the sport of cricket at the time. (ii) The summer is apparently given over to cricket, and so good, hearty, beloved sports like cross-country running and square-bashing are put in the shade. For the uninitiated who don’t know what cricket is: cricket is a team game played by a team. There are several grades of cricket in this establishment. The better cricketers join the non-cricketing Sixth and play tennis during the summer months. The self-professed cricketers go to make up the first and second elevens. The swimming fraternity of the school are skilfully manipulated by the Leading Exponent of the Art of Cricket for Suttonians (LEACS) into league teams, which, so one of my gossiping friends informs me, functions during the half hour in which crawl class assembles. The Colts are either fagging tennis balls for their fag masters, or butt-marking for the shooting tyros. However, the under 14s seem to have acquired the Bradman hundred habit quite nicely, but there is still time to develop.1 Being in the confidences of the self-confessed cricketers, your literary sage will deal only with those worthies who turn out for the First or Second. However, before the First or indeed any other eleven can do battle against other schools, clubs and institutes for old-age pensioners, a fixture-list must be compiled. Now, the LEACS has had a rather lucky time of it so far; on one excursion to play cricket , they were amazed to be welcomed warmly as a girls’ hockey team. Neither did the usual telephone calls from school, telling the Firsts that they had several opponents there to play in a variety of games, come through.2 However, these self-professed cricketers will find they are among the eleven best in the academy that year and find themselves presented with their caps. Now these caps are never worn except in first-class matches like the I.Z. and Oxford ties and those of equal rating. Yet, if one’s cricket talk is not worthy of the I.Z or one’s beer quaffing is not up to the occasion, then village cricket is the order. The cloth shooting cap being the most popular, the “cricket cap” is hung on the wall next to a stick of Southend rock and a picture of Miss Jane Russell.3 Author’s interpretive notes 1 This seems to reinforce the idea that cricket as an activity is badly organised and that it also bullies those in other sports. 2 Even the better cricketers do not pay enough attention to organising their matches properly 3 Some cricketers are snobs. Those who are not are ‘normal’ people. One term later the cricketers’ defender, much put out by these jibes, responds:

During the last year several contributions have appeared in this publication written by someone who attempts to satirise the sports played here. I therefore feel it my duty, as an ardent though hardly successful 1 supporter of games, to show readers what, if anything, a boy does if he does not join in the routine games of the School. The only boy who is exempt from games is either a cripple or a good-for-nothing (he who retires to the sanatorium after breakfast every morning in order to obtain a slip of paper qualifying him for the off-games list; the price of this passport-to-a-lazy-afternoon is either quinine or some evil-smelling bath salts labelled “gargle”) or a member of what is called the “non-cricketing Sixth”. As its name implies, the latter comprises members of the sixth form who do not want to play cricket. The original idea was to give a boy working for his exams more time for his studies, but this has long fallen into disuse. A member of this worthy body does one of three things: he either plays tennis, pretends to swim, or does nothing. He who plays tennis is seen in combat round the notice board with any poor little Lambe who looks as though he might reserve a court; regularly at two o’clock each afternoon he begins that traditional game of bouncing a ball over a net – quite often into the swimming bath; the boy who does this must be congratulated, as he does seem to realise that a certain amount of exercise – though by his speed at the game it appears as little as possible – must be taken during the day. Sometimes during the morning a member of the “non-cricketing Sixth” is seen in fruitless argument with the Captain of Cricket; the subject of this somewhat amusing acerbity is always the same, namely, the umpiring of junior games of cricket. Our hero thinks it most unsatisfactory, and against what few principles he has, to umpire an exhibition of the very game that he has so cleverly avoided; however, since there is no one else to do the job his objections are in vain. His game of tennis over, he retires in a state of overpowering fatigue to his show to join the “nothing” class or - and it must be remembered that this applies solely to the one energetic member - he makes his way to the swimming-bath to join the “bath squad” section of this organisation. Earlier in the term, when the bath was empty, he would venture over the side to ply the fire-hose on any unfortunate being who happened to come within range, but now he makes for that part of that enclosure farthest from the water; he chooses the sunniest corner and lies there for hours on end attempting to brown himself; it must here be noted that only those with special school haircuts are allowed to indulge in this form of afternoon sport. One member of our worthy body is frequently recognised in a cloud of petrol fumes and grass bravely attempting to control a machine which prides itself on mowing the field but which actually ploughs up the pitch.2 Then there is the loiterer; he is either to be seen in his show, his feet on the table, his chair tilted precariously against the wall and in an attitude of painful slumber – it is only on the hottest of afternoons that he pokes his nose outside the door and sleeps in the sunshine. On sleepless days he either slinks into Maidstone in a fawn raincoat on the pretext of collecting a book from the County Library or he spends his time in the school one seeking in the fiction section a book that he has not already read. Author’s notes 1 The writer suggests he is not one of the eleven, or in the squad from which the 1 st XI was chosen. Perhaps forming a ‘response to juvenile satire’ was beneath the dignity of the cricketers. Unfortunately, indifference can be interpreted as snobbery rather than dignity. 2 You will remember that an opportunity was given to one member of the school to earn a few shillings by volunteering to help Hodges maintain the playing area. At least one such young man was a lot more enthusiastic than he was skilled. The grass was cut very unevenly. I have heard that ploughing rather than cutting was a better description. The option was removed after a relatively short time.

This public infighting led to a situation that did no favours for the cricket at the School. Instead it highlighted the idea that the system was failing because it was no longer possible to ignore the alternatives to cricket and because the pupils were becoming vocal in their disaffection with the organisation of their sporting time. Cricket is accused of pomposity and self-aggrandisement. The authorities at the time respond by making changes, and in so doing acknowledge there is something in the criticisms levelled. Athletics, a sport almost entirely confined to the Lent term, expanded into the summer; boys were encouraged to train rather than simply run, jump or throw. The School sent representatives to regional events and fixtures against other Schools appeared in the summer calendar. Tennis, derided in the articles above, became more organised and matches were also arranged against other Schools. Swimming, too, became a fully-fledged sport and by the 1960s several matches were undertaken. Such changes to the afternoon timetables demanded input from the Masters, who, in their turn, required greater effort and loyalty from those who had chosen any of these alternative games. Cricket began to lose its traditional volume of potential participants. The saying “hoist on one’s own petard” comes to mind. However, the choice to pupils was not universal and resentment in the younger age groups remained. It was deemed necessary they obtain a solid grounding in the art of cricket before they were allowed to exercise in other sports. Which brings us back to ‘status’. With so much more opportunity to shine in a variety of sports the numbers of the ‘sporting heroes’ increased. Perhaps, also, the currency value of status was decreased and perhaps also the need to parade that status. The pomp of cricket had been reined in and the sport could, once again, begin to concentrate on producing good players and good sides. If the above is an one attempt to describe how social changes may have eroded the importance of cricket we can find, below, another reason which is even more important in today’s world but which was growing in strength then. A much loved master in charge of Biology at Sutton Valence has often cheered me with his stories of the disdain of academic considerations that pervaded at the time. He recalls to play in the M.C.C. match was (for some) chosen rather than attendance in the examination hall. In the pre-war years clever boys could pay less attention to their studies but nevertheless gain places at Universities – there was a great deal more emphasis on personal qualities, recommendation by schoolmasters, and ability to pay. However, the period after WWII saw a great determination to “regularise” examination systems and the second half of each summer term became a time when the importance of attaining academic qualifications became paramount. Free tertiary education for all capable of benefiting from it had become the aim of the welfare state. This was another threat to improving the standard of the time-consuming sport of cricket at the school. It has already been recognised that an initial reaction to the increasing demands of academia was for the authorities to allow a boy to excuse himself from full sporting activity on the grounds that he was seeking to maximise his academic potential. Now, the pressure from Examination Boards began to grow even more – and it will be seen in the next chapters how superbly well cricket masters and their charges responded to these challenges.

CRICKET AT SUTTON VALENCE SCHOOL

Chapter 4 1946 to the advent of Girls.

RL Kay, schoolmaster and OS, had used the war years to good effect. He had stepped into the breach caused by the departure of some of the younger members of staff to fight and took over the mantle of guru to the “Eleven”. At the same time and ever since the early 1920s he had, together with Bill Hodges, been making good progress in improving the playing surface of Upper. This period of the School’s cricketing history begins with a promising pool of boys from which to choose the teams, excellent facilities to aid development of skill and the return of experienced Masters as well as the appointment of others who also had the ability and drive to help strengthen the School’s reputation in cricket. The game, however, did not prosper for some time. The May of 1946 was extremely cold and June seemed to be characterised by heavy rain on practice days. The 1st XI suffered as a result but worse affected were fixtures at 2 nd XI and Junior level. The weather, combined with another outbreak of mumps, reduced the four teams to only eight matches between them. With no indoor facilities as yet to help in the dark winter months, the lack of match practice and the subsequent lack of experience meant that standards improved very slowly. In the six matches played by the 1 st XI to the 18 th June, only once did they amass more than 100 in an innings and that, a mere 105, was against Whitgift. This fixture had originated the year before and was discontinued in the following season. After a hectic but low-scoring House match, the last two games saw the 1st XI scores deteriorating even further: the OS match was over quite quickly, the School scoring only 49 in response to the OS 231 for 6 dec; the loss against King’s Rochester, by five wickets, was to begin a sequence that did not end until the victory of 1952. In the days after the war, and, indeed, right up to the eighties, a junior match was played against Tonbridge, usually at U14 level. In 1946, MC Cowdrey was of that age, but accustomed to playing for the Tonbridge 1st XI. For some unknown reason he was included in the junior eleven to play Sutton Valence. Perhaps they had heard of the high quality of young players therein and were not prepared to lose. If this was the case they were to be disappointed. MC Cowdrey caught A Knight bowled R Williamson – 2! While no doubt very pleased with his wicket-taking that day Williamson would not really understand the extent of his achievement for a few years when that victim was making the headlines for Kent and England. Williamson recalls that this day was just about the only time that EA Craven gave him praise - what massively high standards were expected those days. The incident reminds the researcher into the history of cricket at the school just how severe was the criticism penned in the school magazine of the quality of performances between the wars. The need to experience as much time playing the game out in the middle was paramount; thus the custom of the time that it was poor manners to deny opponents a good day out if the game finished early because of the collapse of one side or the other was a helpful one in this regard. 1947 sees a fair number of games that were allowed to go on well past the moment that a victory had been secured. Unfortunately, in the first half of the season, the extensions to play were for the benefit of our opponents: East Sutton reached the total set for them with only five wickets down but continued to score another 120 runs before the game was finished; King’s Rochester also benefited from our good manners, adding another 70 runs to the 117 they needed for victory before they were finally all out; St. Lawrence, too, had the opportunity for an extended innings. The commencement of a second innings was discontinued in subsequent years except for special matches where such an

event had been arranged beforehand. The tide of fortune changed in June when the School was able to force three good victories. In March of 1949 two concrete practice wickets were laid on Lower. They became a very useful addition to the facilities until well into the 1980s. If they did have a beneficial effect, it was an immediate one for there is a clear improvement in the ratio of wins to losses over the next ten years. During this time the fixture list was expanded to include the Band of Brothers, an indication that the better fortune Sutton Valence was achieving overall represented real progress; yet, during the 40s and the early 50s, the school rarely reached more than 150 runs on a regular basis. There is no doubt that the wickets were good enough but the batting remained a weakness. CLR Hart scored the first century for several years in 1951 with CF Smith giving great support but, while these two managed very nearly 1000 runs between them in the season, the rest could only manage a combined total of just over 500. The picture was not all gloomy: better things to come were clearly visible in the performances of the junior teams. Since 1947 the U15XI and under 14 XI had enjoyed sustained success against their schoolboy opponents. These youngsters, blooded into the senior sides early on in their cricketing careers, had the effect of adding to strength in depth. It cannot be much fun playing for a School side that is not particularly successful and, where there had been a lack of victories in the years before, the temptation to avoid criticism by not playing at all must have been quite strong. The alternatives had superficial appeal: by being a member of the “Bath Squad” one might, for the small cost of umpiring some junior cricket games on non-match days, find time to acquire a tan posing beside the pool! If one could book a court, a second alternative was to play Tennis with either the lady members of staff, or one’s fellow pupils. Both these occupations were considered so tiring that by mid-afternoon it became necessary to retire to one’s show for tea and toast prepared by one’s fag and chat with fellow-sufferers of the noncricketing fraternity. Fortunately for the cricket, results would improve and its popularity recover; it would be some time before other alternatives such as Athletics sucked some of the potentially better cricketers into their ranks. 1952 saw Sutton Valence receiving its first recorded visit from a foreign team. Dutchmen from The Hague arrived and won by one wicket. (They returned in 1955 and we returned the compliment). It was a busy season for the 2nd XI and other sides. The 2nds played 10 matches winning 3 and losing 4, while the colts won six of their seven matches, losing the other by only five runs. The under 14s also won more than they lost, 4 against 2 with one draw. The Village Memorial Playing Fields opposite Upper were opened in the spring of that year and the junior teams benefited from having some of their matches on this ground rather than on Lower which was too small for the purpose. With the numbers of pupils continuing to expand, it was decided that a change be made to the house match fixture and Lambe’s and Founders joined the fray. Between 1953-5 they combined forces against the two senior Houses but by 1956 each was sufficiently strong in number to form its own individual side with the result that the traditional House match was replaced by a knock-out competition based on a single innings per side. The ferocity of the competition was in no way reduced but while the superiority of St Margaret’s was to continue for a few more years, the upstarts of Founder’s and Lambe’s would soon have their way! In 1962, the arrival of Cornwallis on the scene added another dimension to the house match format. Results of House matches 1947-1963. champions 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952

W M W W W M

M 99 and 79 M 71 and 71 for 2 M131 and 83 M 139 and 89 M 72 and 122 M183 and 100 for 7

W122 and 83 W89 and 52 W 158 and 57 for 6 W129 and 139 W 154 and 42 for 7 W 178 and 101

1953 M 1954

1955 M 1956

M 1957 F 1958 F 1959 F 1960 M 1961 W 1962

L 1963

M 186 for 9 dec and 37 for 2 W175 fo 6 dec and 47 M 115 for 7 dec and 71 for 8 L&F 83 for 9 dec and 102 L&F 68 and 52 for 6 W 67 and 50 M 183 for 6 dec and 136 for 8 dec L&F 160 and 136 for 4 L&F 174 and 95 W 113 and 110 M 175 fro 9 dec and 134 for 8 W 173 for 8 dec and 135 L&F 192 for 3 dec W 57 and 75 M 168 for 3 dec and 176 for 4 dec L&F 142 and 112 F 115 W 180 M 231 L 114 M 101 FO9 9 W 100 F 94 L 95 FOR 6 F 223 W 203 M 130 for 2 L 124 F 161 M 109 M 77for 3 L 76 F 208 W 180 F157 M 49 M 150 W 42 F 82 L 69 M 58 F 59 for 1 W 68 L 69 for 2 M 85 F 34 M 287 F 128 M 206 L 207 for 7 W 305 F 70 W 188 L 163 F 141 C 116 W 52 L 53 for 6 M 50 F 35 M 48 L 49 for 1 M 116 F 117 for 8 L138 F 69 W 278 C 255 W 85 L 86 for 0

M M LF D LF M LF M W M M L F M F M F F M F F L M M L W W F L M L F L W L

Bill Hodges, groundsman, left in 1953 to be replaced by HD Williams. It is unfortunate that there does not appear to be any acknowledgement of Bill’s contribution to the quality of the pitches in a school magazine. There is no doubt that his hard work complemented the inspiration of RL Kay and led to a significant improvement throughout the previous twenty years. 1955 and 1956 proved to be the very best years of this period when 17 matches were won, only 4 lost and 3 drawn. PN Goddard led the way in 1955 with 35 wickets and a batting average of 35 that included an unbeaten century against East Sutton. While his wicket haul was slightly less the following year, he managed to increase his batting average to over 50, scoring more than 500 runs. This was the year that the School beat the Band of Brothers for the first time in eight matches. 1960 saw a fine individual performance in the House Match Final. Coming in at number four after two wickets had fallen cheaply, BDH Preston decided that attack was the best form of defence. He was successful in his aims but his partners found it difficult to do the same and wickets fell steadily with only two of his colleagues reaching double figures – measly scores of 24 and 16. However, his perseverance had given him the opportunity to raise his score to 196* out of the St Margaret’s total of 287. Lambe’s, reeling from the onslaught, were summarily dispatched for 128. Strangely, Preston had not done nearly so well in the School fixtures, his 11 innings for the 1 st XI amassing a total of only 148, for an average of 14.8.

During the sixties, the increasing status and developing fixture lists for other summer activities together with the ever-increasing demands of a longer and longer examination period began to put a strain on cricket generally. The average number of fixtures each season throughout the fifties had been 13.3, but even the cricketers thought that this could not easily be sustained in a short term with the increased pressures outlined above. In 1965, the response was to go on tour after the end of term. The destination was Leicestershire. Four matches were arranged and the games included staff in the side for the first time in many years â&#x20AC;&#x201C; but not for all the fixtures. During the term the school side had been very successful, winning six and losing only three but the tour turned out to be disappointing. It did not help that the first fixture was called off because of rain thereby preventing the boys from playing themselves in before the match against Oakham School where, despite a good start, wickets fell regularly and frequently. Oakham knocked off the 100 runs to win without losing a wicket. The game against Leicester Ivanhoe CC proved to be closer and more exciting but, nevertheless, finished in a loss by five wickets. Ambitiously, the school had chosen Leicester Young Amateurs as their next opponents and this side contained a couple who had played for the county side just the day before. This game also ended in defeat. However, the exercise had proved to be very enjoyable and set the tone for the next few years. In 1966, a tour was organised to the west-country after the term had ended. Five fixtures were arranged and there was more success than the previous year; two matches were won, one drawn and two lost. Once again, the tour had followed on from a successful season during term-time. Morale was high and the enthusiasm to play cricket was strong â&#x20AC;&#x201C; so strong that in this and the previous season the school had been willing to host touring sides itself and these matches bolstered the fixture list. When a tour could not be arranged for 1967, a cricket week was arranged instead. This venture was the brain-child of Edward Craven, so long a stalwart of everything sporting at Sutton Valence. No fewer than seven matches were played in late July after the end of term. This followed the format of the tours with masters playing in some matches, those against club sides; the team was restricted to boys for fixtures against other schools or junior representative sides. There was a further development; the week saw an opportunity given to younger boys to represent the school in a less tense atmosphere than a traditional school match. This experiment was so successful that it was continued for a number of years. While the addition of matches arranged in the first week of the summer holidays helped to give cricketers not only a more complete ration of the game but also a wider knowledge of its intricacies, the fact is that in every year between 1964 and 1970 at least 13 matches were played in term time sometimes as many as 16! The school also acted as host to four touring sides as well. Not only did the side ignore the conflicting pressures they had to face, they revelled in them. In 1965, no fewer than eight matches were played on school half-days, something that must inevitably have caused problems to the academic demands on the boys. Matches continued to take place on half-days right up to the end of the eighties, but not without increasing rancour from those wrongly, I believe, concerned that there might be a negative correlation between performance in examinations and activities on the games field. The enthusiasm to play lots of cricket was encouraged by strong support from Edward Craven and Bob Chance and other members of staff with a love of the game. Success on the pitch must also have played a part and the sixties and seventies do show a resurgence of wins. In the period 196575, wins and losses are almost equal at nearly 30% each while draws occur just over 40 % of the time. As well as achieving good results, the flow of runs increased on ever improving pitches scored by increasingly technically able young men. Indeed, in the first half of the 70s the average score for matches played at home was well in excess of 150 for the average loss of only seven wickets.

Where before the first World War a score of more than a hundred and fifty was rare it was now commonplace to see scores greater than 200 and matches where more than 400 runs were scored in a day’s play. The school owes a debt of gratitude to the curators of the turf in this regard; good groundsmen, not least among them Charlie Smith in the sixties, were able to enjoy greater length of tenure as a result the boys could hone their skills and play their shots with more confidence. It is not easy to find outstanding performances in this period since the school sides had better balance and improved strength in depth such that the run-getting and wicket-taking was shared by rather more than had been the case in the past. In 1965, AW Dixon made over 500 runs, scoring consistently and providing the strong base on which others tried to build. In the following season he scored even more runs at an average over 50, doing particularly well to overcome the “burden” of captaincy, a predilection to failure if ever there was one. Indeed it was said of his batting in 1966 “it blossomed out on those occasions when the side most needed him to succeed” In 1970, CV Hyde took over 50 wickets, the first time one bowler had taken so many since 1939. Over the years the commentators on the game at the school noted the quality of leadership of the captains. Not all captains were supermen but many were very good indeed. AP Scott, in 1971, was one such. In a fairly “average” season where there were no startling matches to report he was described as …Andrew Scott, who so often stood out as a young man amongst boys both when batting and fielding. The game shone with renewed lustre whenever he was at the centre of the action and one not only remembers with pleasure his superb 104 against a strongish MCC bowling side that included the Buckinghamshire off-spinner and captain, CJ Parry, but also his match-winning 50s against King’s Rochester and St Lawrence, his boundary catch against Dover, his 18 in one over against Trinity, Croydon and his many shrewd bowling changes and tactical field placings. Only once, in the opening match against the village, would it be fair to say that he failed as a batsman for he reached double figures in every other innings and seemed certain, as he did on five occasions, to dominate the bowling and ultimately reduce the attack to impotence. Unfortunately, others in the side found it difficult to follow the path he had prepared. If an eleven is to be really successful it needs at least a couple or three reliable batsmen and one penetrative bowler as well as excellent fielders. 1972 and 73 were golden years because the school found just such a coming-together of talent. Latham, Taylor and Rutherford as batsmen scored heavily and consistently and High and Beacon bowled excellently in 1972. Latham and Rutherford were the batters of 1973, again well supported by High and James who, between them, took more than half of all the wickets claimed. Almost everyone who looks at MR Benson’s batting career at Sutton Valence appears to arrive at a different total. It seems he scored 2802 runs in four seasons (1974-77) at an average of just over 54. He scored more runs in any one season than anyone else before, or since - to the end of this history at least - and has two entries in the top ten of “Most Runs in a Season”. He went on to play for Kent, had a game for England (he deserved more) and has since become a member of the elite panel of umpires. While he was an exceptional schoolboy player there were others of his generation whose performances were more than notable: DCG Foster was an exact contemporary with commendable all-round figures in each of the same seasons. There is a rumour that his greatest delight was to achieve a First Class fifty before Benson did, scoring his while at University before Benson had fully established himself in the Kent side.

Undoubtedly, the Cricket Week (initiated in 1967) was the major innovation of this period of the history of cricket at Sutton Valence. At the outset, the intention was to create a festival spirit with boys as well as a few cricket lovers among the staff. They were encouraged to contribute in a variety of ways in order to ensure there was a relaxed and happy atmosphere within a cricket community free from the stresses of examinations and the necessary restrictions imposed by the school curriculum. Thus between 1967 and 1975, in addition to fixture specifically arranged for the school eleven such as those against Trinity School, Croydon, Maidstone GS and the Kent Schools’ U19 XI there were games against The Sporting Life, EA Craven’s XI, R Langridge’s XI (Kent Wanderers) and a side made of pupils. Old Boys and staff from Cranbrook School: The Junior Bluemantles and The Scorpions (from Lancing) were also regular guests at this time. Gradually changes to the week were implemented: the influence of masters as players diminished and the week was transformed, in 1978, into a more formalised Festival. Originally, along with Cranbrook and, subsequently, King’s Rochester supporting Sutton Valence as hosts, a round-robin tournament was organised. St Peter’s, York, William Hume’s, Manchester and Trinity School, Croydon used Sutton Valence as a base, playing matches against each other either on the Upper or on the Paddock at Rochester. Inevitably needle matches resulted from this familiar rivalry. As ever, there was much enthusiasm among players to take part in the week and it again provided an opportunity for younger players to be “blooded” before their introduction into the 1 st XI proper in the following season. Unfortunately, the behaviour of one guest school in particular fell below an acceptable standard and this rather dampened the enthusiasm of Sutton Valence to be hosts in the future. None of the other schools who wanted to remain part of the festival was prepared to host in our stead and it terminated in the early 1980s. Since 1984 very little cricket has been played after the end of the summer term though a compensating number of games have been crammed into the final week – in a sense another cricket week. Out-of-term cricket has not disappeared, however: tours have been undertaken in recent years and there is a possibility that an out of term festival will be revived. Diverting more boys away from cricket by offering a greater variety of sport did not diminish enthusiasm for the House matches. It is disappointing that the reporting on the events is somewhat variable in detail and quality. year 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971

winners Cornwallis St Margaret’s Founder’s St Margaret’s Founder’s Founder’s Lambe’s Founder’s

year 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

winners Cornwallis Lambe’s Cornwallis St Margaret’s St Margaret’s Cornwallis Lambe’s Cornwallis Cornwallis

*********** The tables below have come about from an attempt to analyse the way the game and players’ performances have changed with time. The table of performance contains the same information as the table for the period between the wars and uses the same criteria (200 runs in a season or 15 wickets in a season). The bar-chart is an attempt to show how the results of matches have altered. An examination of the chart shows that the team is winning more matches than before and losing fewer but there are many more draws.

Ratio of wins, losses and draws 100.0 80.0 wins

60.0

losses 40.0

draws

20.0 0.0 1881-1918 1919-1945 1946-1983

Between 1919-1945 there were on average four players per year with an entry for batting or bowling or both. In the later period between 1946 - 1983 the number has risen to five. Not only are there more, they perform better, at batting anyway! It is interesting to note that in this period each batsman scores more runs in a season â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 50 runs more while playing only one more game. The average number of runs per innings is also greater. It rises from 23.8 to 27.4. On the other hand, the number of wickets that the bowlers are taking goes down; at the same time the average runs per wicket and the strike rate (overs per wicket) goes up. We are seeing the benefits of increased care of the playing surface and the effects of good coaching and improved batting techniques among the players.

BATTING STATISTICS innings no out high score total 1946 1946 1947 1947 1947 1949 1949 1949 1949 1949 1949 1949 1950 1950 1950 1950 1950 1951 1951 1951 1951 1951 1952 1952 1952 1952 1953 1953

DAVIS JM SNAZELLE NG HEARN PD MONTGOMERIE WS TIPPLES AF GOODWIN KC KNIGHT AJ PARNELL MC ROPER JA SANDERS JB TIPPLES AF WHITTAKER MA HART CL KNIGHT AJ ROPER JA SMITH CF WILCOCKSON IN BAXTER PG HART CLR HOUGH BD SMITH CF WILCOCKSON IN AISHER TJ ANDERSON PR FERMOR DB HOUGH BD BUNKER EDG CRAVEN REB

average

241

20.08

12 11

1 0

89 61

236 230

21.45 20.91

14 12

1 1

68 86*

304 332

23.38 30.18

60*

252

18.00

433

BOWLING STATISTICS maidens runs wickets average 23 22

278 344

21 26

13.24 13.23

147 174

27 40

436 531

25 29

17.44 18.31

5.88 6.00

64 145 72

15 37 11

200 411 252

16 26 22

12.50 15.81 11.45

4.00 5.58 3.27

86 141

13 26

283 425

21 31

13.48 13.71

4.10 4.55

143 194

14 28

470 634

31 43

15.16 14.74

4.61 4.51

114 150

21 27

326 396

21 25

15.52 15.84

5.43 6.00

84 124 165 154 61 115 216 148 93

20 17 46 58 10 11 72 29 10

233 347 368 390 247 448 438 438 298

15 24 40 23 17 22 49 22 16

15.53 14.46 9.20 16.96 14.53 20.36 8.94 19.91 18.63

5.60 5.17 4.13 6.70 3.59 5.23 4.41 6.73 5.81

36.08

100*

546

45.50

433

33.31

60*

211

17.58

99 123

STRIKE RATE overs/wicket 4.71 4.73

overs

1953 1953 1953 1954 1954 1954 1954 1954 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1956 1956 1956 1956 1956 1956 1957 1957 1957 1957 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1960 1962 1962 1962 1962 1963 1963 1963 1963 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 1967 1967 1967 1967 1967 1967 1967 1968 1968

GODDARD PN KEEBLE BG THYNE JH CRAVEN REB GODDARD PN KEEBLE BG NASH AC THYNE JH CRAVEN REB GERTY CD GODDARD PN KEEBLE BG NASH AC CLIFFORD RDM ELLIS WE FENTON DF GODDARD PN HARRISON N NASH AC ELMITT MA FENTON DF JORDAN PD PALMER RH DAVIES DL ELMITT MA GOALEN RC OLSEN AJ TRIBE TB ARCHER TJ DAY MJ KELLEHER DIF ROBINSON AF WATKINS NP CANT RV EVANS HL MEMMOTT R WATKINS NP CANT RV DIXON AW EVANS HL GOULDEN TR KING ME CARSLAW ASH DIXON AW FRANCIS GJ GROVES TJ PAKEMAN DJ THOMPSON J DIXON AW FRANCIS GJ HARRISON GBL HUDSON PRF MILES R RICHARDS NT WHITLOCK NC BOORMAN PG CANT RV HARRISON GBL HUDSON PRF JOHNSON JM MILES RH RICHARDS NT ADDISON WT BOORMAN PG

12 11 12 10 13 10

1 2 0 2 0 3

68* 52* 44 59 69 63*

262 231 258 202 318 254

23.82 25.67 21.50 25.25 24.46 36.29

13 13 10 11 13

2 2 4 3 2

88* 95 83* 101* 50

246 440 276 258 322

22.36 40.00 46.00 32.25 29.27

13 11

1 0

80 65

218 213

18.17 19.36

505

50.50

12 12

0 0

65 63

217 227

18.92

77*

280

28.00

12 12

0 2

85 51

267 269

22.25 26.90

97*

252

42.00

8 10

12 12

1 0

94 114

44.57 20.00

273 217

24.82 18.08

381

34.64

224

20.36

15 16

314 575

20.93 35.94

15 16 15

15 15 15

65 64

312 200

126*

240 230 597

16.00 14.38 54.27

2 0 0

38 78 66

219 257 287

16.85 17.13 19.13

12 13

2 2

42 47*

201 203

20.10 18.45

261

18.64

14 14

1 1

44 39

258 202

19.85 15.54

265

24.09

127

395

17.17

5.52

122 149

17 44

452 384

17 30

26.59 12.80

7.18 4.97

119

336

22.40

7.93

180

541

24.59

8.18

135

349

9.97

3.86

117

258

12.90

5.85

75 148 157 168

10 49 52 53

223 338 335 467

16 25 38 42

13.94 13.52 8.82 11.12

4.69 5.92 4.13 4.00

155 112 105

35 26 24

472 395 340

29 18 19

16.28 21.94 17.89

5.34 6.22 5.53

144 69 167

24 14 59

423 228 399

30 15 35

14.10 15.20 11.40

4.80 4.60 4.77

134 142 60 89

35 33 8 16

377 463 248 371

22 24 15 16

17.14 19.29 16.53 23.19

6.09 5.92 4.00 5.56

118 154

25 44

337 375

15 34

22.47 11.03

7.87 4.53

122

362

15.08

5.08

148

7.79

2.84

259

10.79

4.00

130 170

517 548

23 28

22.48 19.57

5.65 6.07

373

21.94

4.76

209

561

15.16

5.65

178

479

18.42

6.85

131 159 127

33 32 16

414 455 440

18 32 18

23.00 14.22 24.44

7.28 4.97 7.06

187 88

484 375

30 19

16.13 19.74

6.23 4.63

1968 1968 1968 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1970 1970 1970 1970 1971 1971 1971 1971 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979

HYDE CV JOHNSON JM MERCER PN ADDISON WT BOORMAN PG HYDE CV JOHNSON JM SCOTT AP ADDISON WT HIGGINS PJ HYDE CV SCOTT AP BANKS MJ BEACON CJ LATHAM PR SCOTT AP BANKS MJ BEACON CJ DUNN RS HIGH DCF JAMES EAH LATHAM PR RUTHERFORD AR TAYLOR RB BANKS MJ BEACON CJ HIGH DCF JAMES EAH LATHAM PR TAYLOR RB WESTACOTT WJ BENSON MR CLEAVE DN DUNN RS EDGLEY MPH RICHARDSON BA SUTHERLAND IM TAYLOR RB WESTACOTT WJ BARDSLEY NJ BENSON MR FEATHERSTON RJ FOSTER DCG POLYCARPOU P SUTHERLAND IM BEDFORD PR BENSON MR FEATHERSTON RJ FOSTER DCG SAGAR GJ SHAW NR SKINNER JE SUTHERLAND IM BENSON MR FEATHERSTON RJ FOSTER DCG SAGAR GJ SKINNER JE SUTHERLAND IM BEDFORD RJ CRANMER SP FOSTER AJ RICKETTS CMT SKINNER JE

159 13 12

1 0

58 40

221 220

18.42 18.33

257

21.42

13 12

0 0

49 124

203 320

15.62 26.67

15 14 15

1 3 0

56 64 116

247 343 376

17.64 31.18 25.07

11 11 16

2 1 1

78 104 82

230 400 274

25.56 40.00 18.27

203

18.45

16 16 13 14

16 16 14 16 14 16 11

1 0 0 2

2 1 2 2 3 2 1

85 46 62 50*

115 67 56 69* 79* 44 81

497 356 303 258

622 378 219 320 302 211 208

33.13 22.25 23.31 21.50

12.08

4.42

141 131 164

18 21 58

492 388 345

35 25 32

14.06 15.52 10.78

4.03 5.24 5.13

153

540

25.71

7.29

180

465

9.12

3.53

88 204

19 58

250 505

15 34

16.67 14.85

5.87 6.00

219

531

16.09

6.64

190 86

55 20

481 267

40 16

12.03 16.69

4.75 5.38

113

302

14.38

5.38

133 234 171

41 55 59

356 657 426

21 33 29

16.95 19.91 14.69

6.33 7.09 5.90

144 161 159

34 55 47

454 374 426

17 24 19

26.71 15.58 22.42

8.47 6.71 8.37

205 180

68 47

537 555

37 37

14.51 15.00

5.54 4.86

157

394

18.76

7.48

213 184

54 42

693 665

24 29

28.88 22.93

8.88 6.34

92 128 153

25 29 49

283 375 426

18 21 29

15.72 17.86 14.69

5.11 6.10 5.28

121 148

26 35

320 369

18 25

17.78 14.76

6.72 5.92

154 124 128

57 34 37

285 273 308

22 18 16

12.95 15.17 19.25

7.00 6.89 8.00

137

397

18.05

6.23

229

480

14.12

6.74

44.43 25.20 18.25 22.86 27.45 15.07 20.80

14 15 15 17

2 0 0 5

156* 89 87 104*

447 326 315 714

37.25 21.73 21.00 59.50

17 16

1 2

98* 55

328 332

20.50 23.71

13 18

1 4

76* 173*

225 746

18.75 53.29

18 16

2 0

162 54

673 289

42.06 18.06

17 12 16 14 13

5 4 2 1 4

114* 52* 93 41 55*

1022 215 490 236 228

85.17 26.88 35.00 18.15 25.33

16 16 14 16

1 6 1 1

58 63 46 79

266 313 381 434

17.73 31.30 29.31 28.93

435

1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1981 1981 1981 1981 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1983 1983 1983 1983

BEDFORD RJ BRICE PGG DISMORR JPM GOSS JDL HICHENS JB RUSSELL-VICK MT SHAW AR MEE RJ ORPIN RR RUSSELL-VICK MT SHAW AR COATE RD MEE RJ NORRIS SJ RUSSELL-VICK MT SHAW AR SUNNUCKS TR THOMAS RJH USENDORFF DIW COATE RD SAINT BH SUNNUCKS JP THOMAS RJH

Averages – rounded to the nearest no.

298

173

516

19.11

6.41

83 150

20 41

294 396

15 18

19.60 22.00

5.53 8.33

152 128 137

36 25 34

315 412 340

26 15 25

12.12 27.47 13.60

5.85 8.53 5.48

151 210 149 142

39 69 45 47

432 478 384 307

23 40 23 23

18.78 11.95 16.70 13.35

6.57 5.25 6.48 6.17

125 200

43 66

251 381

36 38

6.97 10.03

3.47 5.26

177 149 123 117

55 36 28 15

390 363 336 392

36 20 20 20

10.83 18.15 16.80 19.60

4.92 7.45 6.15 5.85

141

396

15.84

5.7

17.53

17 17 17

3 1 4

53* 86 51

331 448 292

23.64 28.00 22.46

16 18 18

2 2 3

35 91 51

269 614 351

19.21 38.38 23.40

12 18 17 11 17 15 14

3 8 5 6 3 2 0

56 114* 113* 39* 50 77 77

215 739 560 208 315 283 286

23.89 73.90 46.67 41.60 22.50 21.77 20.43

202

14.43

326

27.4

The conclusion that was drawn from the table of 1919-1946 was that to be considered a “good” batsman a player had to score at least 276 runs or score more than 200 at an average of 23.8. In the period after the war to the advent of girls he had to do better than this to keep up with rising standards. He needed to score 326 runs or to score more than 200 runs at an average greater than 27.4. It was a bit easier for the bowlers. Better batting suggests that wickets will be more difficult to capture. Between the wars the “good” bowler was obtaining nearly 28 wickets in a season at 14.3 runs/wicket and a strike rate of one wicket every 4.2 overs; to be “good” in the latter period a player had merely to achieve 25 wickets at 15.84 per over with a strike rate of 5.7. Some individuals, as ever, achieve much better results: MR Benson’s batting in 1977 is a case in point. He was the first school batsman to score more than 1000 runs in a season and he also scored very heavily in the preceding years of what was a most remarkable cricketing career at school. BD Hough’s bowling in 1952 produced 49 wickets but CV Hyde took 51 wickets in 1970, and 151 in the four years that he played for the school. A contemporary was asked how Hyde achieved this super total of wickets. “He bowled fast – and straight” was the succinct reply. MT Russell-Vick’s all-round season of 1982 was superb: 739 runs at an average greater than 70 and 36 wickets with a measly run-total per wicket of 6.97. In his early years with the eleven there had been speculation that his eventual total of runs would outstrip Benson’s, but bearing the brunt of both bowling and batting clearly took its toll.

*********** Junior cricket continued to thrive during this period. BM provided a home for a few of the school matches and for the house leagues that occupied the lesser lights though the pitches were not easy to maintain, being somewhat remote from necessary equipment; nor was it easy to play on BM – its environment always suggesting it is winter rather than summer. Nevertheless, in the early eighties, an attempt was made to increase its use: a better prepared square was established and an all-weather strip was laid to augment the natural surface. A busy games day would see it being used together with a playing area provided for the most junior age-groups behind the goal-line on Stony. The aim

was to reduce the congestion on the Upper where the nets would be full of squads at practice and where there might be two matches being played in addition. When the 1 st XI were at home, the U14s would play on a strip near the nursing home but if the 2nd XI were hosting visitors, the U15s would play on the “road pitch” found adjacent to the main square (later, this pitch was removed to a location between the nets and the main square). This arrangement was a tremendous advertisement for enthusiastic and industrious activity of which Public Schools are proud but it was not a state of affairs that satisfied those more concerned with safety particularly on the Upper. Inevitably, whenever two games were in progress at the same time the playing areas overlapped. In truth it was not a good idea to attempt coaching in the nets when the U15s were hard at it on their allocated pitch. Squashing the U14 and U15 pitches close to the perimeter of Upper made their boundaries perilously short - a wonderful idiosyncrasy that gave our players (used to the idea) a bit of an edge over visitors (unused to it) - but it was dangerous for spectators, particularly so once the derelict building, originally the sanatorium, then a private dwelling before it caught fire after its curmudgeonly owner had moved on, had become the elegant Nursing Home that it now is. The proprietors learned their lesson quickly. The opportunity of putting the residents out on the lawns with a cup of tea and a bun to watch youngsters enjoy themselves on a fine summery day was soon discarded when the balls started to fly their way. Despite a high net, occasional (but thankfully only minor) damage was caused to those unaware of the dangers. Sometimes the danger came from outside influences. There was a day in the late seventies when a match at U14 level was interrupted whilst a hot-air balloon hovered over cover point for five minutes during which time its pilot negotiated with Bob Chance permission to land. It is quite certain that this would have been refused, but a lack of fuel and a hard bump terminated the proceedings. Miraculously a large Jeep and trailer had the whole thing wrapped up and taken away before a light-hearted incident had become more of a farce. The sixties and seventies were exciting years for cricket at the school and a positive reputation was established such that it was visited from time to time by representative sides. An occasional opponent in the seventies was a Kent junior side, usually U14, that played against a Sutton Valence team made up of both U14 and U15 players. Graham Dilley came one year and created havoc on the Nursing Home pitch. Not all the Kent fast bowlers were as fortunate as he. In one year the ambition to become the greatest fast bowler since Fred Trueman (did Kent ever have a spectacular fast bowler of its own?) was the wish of one young man. Unfortunately for him, he met TR Sunnucks in belligerent mood. Now, that roadside pitch was unreliable at the best of times and it was a very daunting prospect to face quick bowling before the era of helmets. Sunnucks was not only well up to the task in hand but he was also astute enough to use the speed of the ball off the bat and the short boundary to his advantage. Time after time, Viv Richards-like, he would take a step to leg and cut or drive or just smash the ball through the off side for boundaries. During the teainterval, the ability of Sunnucks to adapt his game plan was highlighted to the dour manager of the Kent boys by RDC’s understudy for the day. This gentleman, in the manner of those well qualified to pick a county side roundly rebuffed the SVS Schoolmaster. Sunnucks was“ Inelegant, had no technique, was always stepping away to leg”! It is my belief that Sutton Valence School has been under-represented in the lists of Kent County players. Some were good enough to play for the County but chose not to put their names forward because they saw a different career path for themselves. However, I am sure there were some who were good enough and who were victims of the County selection process. This state of affairs seems to be changing and the turning point was about the mid nineteen nineties. Acknowledgements School magazines 1945-1984 OS Archives

CRICKET AT SUTTON VALENCE SCHOOL

Chapter 5 Recent History

It is the case that from 1982 the School began to change at a faster rate than ever before. Boy numbers were under pressure and, in addition, the need for good examination results to be obtained became much more significant. Outside the classroom the number of activities available to pupils was beginning to increase considerably; from the cricketing point of view, however, the major concern lay with the lengthening examination timetable. From 1979 to 1983 the fixture list was made up of at least 14 matches in each of the summer terms and despite the conflicts this has been maintained right up to the present day. Between the year 1982 and the present there are only nine years when fewer than fourteen matches were played, inclement weather being the sole cause for the reduction. Originally, a high proportion of these games were all-day affairs beginning at 11.30 with a number taking place mid-week. Needless to say, the XI was often depleted through clashes with examinations and it is probable that some players found concentration difficult with examinations due to be sat on the following day. Those cricketers who played throughout the sixties might justifiably claim that this was also something they had to face. Around the same time a further 'distraction' emerged with the steady influx of girls into the school and it is conceivable that there was some connection between the location of girls' games near Lower (on the tennis/netball courts and the swimming pool) and the sudden increase in the number of boys finding cricket a sport they preferred not to play. These lads wanted to base their summer sport on those same courts, that same swimming pool or on the athletic track conveniently sited on BM! The traditional practice of obliging all boys under 15 to play cricket was being challenged and a wider choice was possible to all those above that age; this inevitably led to the expansion of other sports but it was not at the expense of numbers involved in some way with cricket. While from time immemorial there had always been pupils who palpably disliked cricket and whose transfer to other sports would have allowed for greater concentration by the cricket coaching staff on those who really did wish to play the game, the administrators resisted the temptation. Even in a busy term there were plenty of opportunities for boys to play a variety of sports. Cooperation between staff (but not without some strong disputes in the Common Room) generated enough compromise to allow everyone to develop all their talents. Today, as we come to the end of the first decade of the 2000s the system is pretty much as it was then. Boys are encouraged to play cricket and those who have represented the school on a regular basis are ‘expected’ to continue to play the game in the sixth form where a freer choice is given. There is plenty of opportunity in PE lessons and ‘Activities’ to experience other sports and plenty of non-clashing fixtures between sports so that noone can claim they are prevented from doing what they really want to do. *************** History books ought to look backwards at past events, but this one, written by a geographer, begs to take a slightly different route at this point. The pressures on cricket outlined above have been met and overcome to a large extent. Today, the school looks forward confidently to a state of affairs where it can put out three teams for each age group, and possibly more! This is made possible by the purchase of an extension to Upper, allowing for two or more extra squares to be laid. Where, up to now the history of cricket at the school has concentrated very largely on the exploits of the 1st XI perhaps any subsequent accounts will need to be a lot more inclusive. The emphasis has really changed. The school has a bigger roll but the extra numbers are girls. A much greater proportion of boys in any one age group are representing the school at any one time. There is still the same

demand for excellence among the better players but certainly there is a greater tolerance of and perseverance with those with lesser abilities and these young men are able to gain much self-esteem from their experiences as players for a school team, at whatever level. There is massive enthusiasm among the present coaching staff and they eagerly express the wish that the school could become a ‘Centre of Excellence” within the county. The Sports Hall is already used by county squads and there is increasing demand to use our outdoor facilities as well…A study of the lists of the sporting achievements of school leavers throughout the 1970-1980 period is most illustrative of the way that the pressures mentioned above might have had a detrimental affect on cricket as a whole. There was a significant number of former pupils who claimed to have had acquaintance with the U14 or U15 XIs but whose main summer game in their final years of the school as sixth-formers was tennis, athletics or swimming. However, those were losses of those who were on the fringes of selection to the representative sides and by being freed to do other sports they contributed to the development of a wider range of sports excellence within the school. The compulsion for juniors to play cricket may have bred some discontent; earlier chapters of this history have recorded the disgruntled views of some who had to bear with the organisational inefficiencies that pervaded junior games throughout the thirties and forties and even into the fifties. While the middle years of the twentieth century saw those pupils not involved in cricket whiling away their time in other sporting pursuits that accumulated little or no status, this was hardly the case in the last part of the century. Allowing tennis, swimming and athletics groups to develop competitive and expanding fixture lists against others had met with success such that their appeal to youngsters was greater than before. The recent construction of the new swimming pool and the athletics track will, no doubt ensure that this trend is continued. The trick was to accommodate the extra opportunity without jeopardising the prospects of a good cricket tradition. I am not sure we managed to achieve this in the last years of the 20th century, but it looks as though a more professional bunch of Sports-qualified staff appointed in the 21 st century may be succeeding. *************** Despite the pressures and despite the increasing alternatives cricket continued to flourish in the same way as before and a period in the late eighties and early nineties the success rate of the 1st XI was as good as it has ever been, if not better. The first few years of the twenty-first century see a real blossoming of favourable results so that in 2004, for the first time since 1939, the total number of wins (for all matches played since 1881) was in excess of the total number of losses. In the period 1881 - 1984 total losses were 35 more than total wins, indicating that the twenty-year period 1984 to 2004 must have been a particularly successful one for the balance to be redressed. The continued pressure of examinations and the expansion of the “whole curriculum” brought about other changes. More inter-school matches became “limited over” games that began later in the day and impacted less on the academic timetable; this new format allowed the competitive nature of the lads to be maintained, even enhanced. In 2008, the present administrators are very happy with this state of affairs reasoning that a victory, or even a loss, can be more influential in the development of young cricketers than a stale draw from a declaration game. Some whole-day declaration games remained and have continued to be an important feature of the fixture list even after the introduction, since the turn of the century, of the Twenty/20 version of the game. Today there is tremendous variety on the Upper. Indeed, one side of the sightscreens is painted black to allow the batsmen to see the white ball against the bright coloured clothing of the fielders when the shortened version of the game is played. It all causes one to wonder when the messages from Lord’s will encourage the resumption of two players contesting for massive stakes! Mynn and his contemporaries played one on one games – why shouldn’t we do so? 1984 witnessed the blossoming of Paul Sunnucks, the middle of three brothers who each contributed significantly to the quality of cricket at the school. Similar to Mark Russell-Vick earlier

he contributed a massive number of runs, 539 at an average of 45 and a considerable number of wickets, 31. In the following year his second as captain of the 1st XI he did even better: 689 runs at an average of 68 and another haul of 31 wickets. The commentators at the time believed he adopted the right attitude as captain; he was not afraid to lose a game if he thought he could win it. For example he made a generous declaration against Cranbrook setting a target of 189, the game ending with the opposition on 188-7 but they had to recover from 22-4 to achieve this total. Similarly, in the Caterham game of 1985, having scored a magnificent 150* himself, he set the opponents 236 to win and was confident enough to buy the wickets. Caterham were a very strong side at the time with boys who had played for Surrey at junior levels together with Alistair Brown who would go on to be a very distinguished player for the County at the senior level. Caterham attacked fiercely, Brown scoring a hundred himself, but they were all out for 229! 1987 was notable for the arrival of Clarence Lakey and Nigel Roberts who came for a year. These two young men were protégés of Bob Woolmer - sadly lost to cricket in 2007 - who had been coaching in South Africa. They were both Cape- coloureds and Bob felt that they had a lot of potential which was not going to be realised in South Africa; race was still an issue there at that time. Sutton Valence was just one of many schools that responded to an article that appeared in the media and was fortunate enough to obtain their services for the year. Their schools in South Africa sent a programme of study for them and they were also introduced to other subjects where they blossomed to such an extent that one venerable Biology master wished they could have stayed and completed an examination course! The School was able to give them a full term of cricket and they were also released regularly to play for local club sides; they further benefited from some coaching in the Kent nets. Their season was highlighted by the MCC match when Bob Woolmer himself pitched up to play and to have a look at his lads’ performances. The boys did not disappoint. In that year Nigel topped the batting averages scoring 629 runs, just a few more than Justin Crouch whose contribution with both bat and ball was so crucial to this teams’ success. Nigel scored a faultless 102* to help beat The Duke of York’s by 9 wickets. Rob Harrison opened with him but he was out having scored 59. The two of them had come within a dozen runs or so to defeating the opposition without the help of anyone else. Clarence, whose major contribution was to demolish the OS batting, taking 8-13 took more wickets than any other bowler with 43 victims at an average only slightly greater than that of Yakesh Patel. 1990 was the third of three consecutive seasons where the performance had been well above average (in total 24 won, 3 lost and 22 drawn). Each of these seasons had their high points but common to all was the quality, in abundance, of James Barr. He led the side in the last two of those seasons with great aplomb and by example with both bat and ball. No one can win matches on their own, however, and it would be wrong not to mention others who also made significant contributions: the Patel brothers, one a prodigious leg spinner and the other a more than average all rounder were very influential; Jamie Cowell, used the confidence he had obtained playing for Kent U15XI to good effect and Jason Page illustrated just what a talented all-rounder he was by transforming himself during the three year period from very effective change-bowler and lower middle-order batsman to superb wicketkeeper and most reliable opening batsman. In 1990 whenever the school batted first over 200 runs were scored and once, when chasing a target they scored 231 – 5 to defeat the MCC – for the second time in those three years. Unfortunately the toss was not won often and the preferred option of batting first could not be realised except on those occasions where the opposition put the Sutton Valence team in to bat. On these occasions the bowling was sufficiently penetrative and accurate to make it rare for the eleven to need to score more than 150 runs for victory. Compared to the great years of the mid seventies, the team possessed not only batsmen capable of setting or chasing big scores but also penetrative bowlers. This combination certainly ensured there were fewer draws.

It is just over 100 years since the recording of the history of cricket at the school began in earnest and the changes are wide-ranging. The most obvious one is the improved quality of the playing surface and the accompanying facilities. The construction of all weather nets on the Upper took place in the early eighties and winter visits to indoor nets in Maidstone were a helpful addition. Covers for the pitch came in1995 while as dawn broke in the new century there was the building of the sports hall and the expansion of winter practice facilities. The school benefited from a succession of groundsmen who were all keen to work with the master-in-charge of the day to make the square one of the best in the county. The school owes a debt of gratitude to the efforts of Charlie Smith, Ron Ledger, Roger Quinton, Malcolm Porter Mick Dodd, Graham Smith and Ian Avery. HW Hunting and RL Kay, who set the ball rolling in the very early days, must surely be very satisfied with those who have carried on their good work. In the days before the 1914-18 war it might be expected that good bowlers would take masses of wickets against relatively untutored or non-technically proficient schoolboys and village cricketers, especially when the quality of the wickets was not adequate. In the same way, the poor surface contributed to the difficulty many batsmen had in scoring runs consistently. Between the wars, despite improvements to the playing surface there is only one instance of a school batsman scoring more than 500 runs in a season though a good number of others came close. This may have had something to do with the size of the fixture list since many of the players had substantial averages, but it probably remains a reflection of a different attitude to the game than is apparent today - one that was more gentlemanly and more self-effacing. Since the last war there has been a great increase in the number of runs scored and this can be put down not only to the quality and reliability of the playing surface but also to a greater concentration in the coaching. On the other hand some things did not change: despite fluctuating fortunes, the game was a successful one; there was a kudos to being a member of a successful 1st XI and there was keen competition for a place in the side; while it was no longer the only summer game it remained the one with the highest status. Upper still remains one of the most delightful grounds on which to play cricket. Another non-changing feature is the seemingly inevitable presence in the elevens of members of the same family. There were, in the second half of the twentieth century, two Fosters, three Sunnucks, three Barrs, and some time before that their father, two Patels, two Fentons and their father, two Shaws and two Bedfords as well as several Waters. In both earlier and later times more lists of other families could just as easily have been drawn up. To score a 132* contribution to a winning total over the MCC is a rare feat, but to follow it the next year with a score of 82 and so very nearly winning the game as a result really shows a batsman with class. Willie Waters was the player in 1992 and ‘93. 1999 saw the first of the School’s fixtures against Lashings. David Folb, OS, had collaborated with others to establish this, now famous, “wandering eleven” and he and they have done much to raise money for charity and entertain the general public in a way that had not been possible before they started out on their venture. The strong Caribbean influence ensures a happy go lucky atmosphere, and guarantees incidents galore during any afternoon, not least for the lucky boys selected to play against them. – Brian Lara caught Brandreth, bowled Joseph! This fixture developed in nature. As the Lashings Eleven became more and more professional the fixture has developed as a “Corporate Day” the better to advertise the wonderful facilities and the not inconsiderable skill of the boys. In the late eighties the school expanded the awarding of scholarships to include sport and the arts. It would take a little while for the full impact to be felt but there can be little doubt that first, the school managed to obtain some pupils who might otherwise not have entered and second, that their contribution to the sport in the school was profound. All sport would be boosted by their efforts. After a period of cricketing decline in the mid-nineties, the winning ways returned thanks largely to the efforts of a group of boys most of whom were sports scholars of one sort or another and all but one of them would become captains of the side: Matthew Wooderson, a very talented all-rounder

and great nephew of the world-class athlete, Sydney, was one; Matthew Day was a very reliable and elegant opening bat who could bowl as well; James Watson, sadly only at the School for two years, was remarkably fast, bowling “off the wrong foot” as well as being a most belligerent hitter of a cricket ball; perhaps even faster was the Antiguan, Robert Joseph, no mean batsman either; George Horton was a very cultured batsman as was Robert Ferley, another talented all-rounder. There was one season, 1999, when four of them played together in the same eleven. In the following season so good were Ferley and Joseph that certain schools refused to play unless these two were removed from the line-up! It was often convenient for the school to do just that since they were required regularly for duties with the County. Both went on to play for Kent after they had left the school and both have represented their country at U19 level. Ferley has since transferred to Nottinghamshire. Matthew Day was another very strong contender for county honours until an horrific accident interrupted, and probably ruined, the fulfilment of his aspirations. There is an article on Kent Cricket in the “Times” of June 1 2008 that highlights Joseph’s career with Kent. Robert Key, the Kent captain is the source of this information Key witnessed at close quarters one of the season’s most engrossing passages of play last week when Joseph, who was born in Antigua but is eager to represent his adopted country, gave Justin Langer a torrid working over on a sluggish pitch at Tunbridge Wells. “You could see Langer having to up his game to cope with the challenge,” Key said. “A few words were exchanged but it was a great duel between a young fast bowler and a hugely experienced batsman.” Asked for his list of the fastest bowlers in county cricket, Langer, in his second season as Somerset captain, replied: “Flintoff by miles. Anderson and Mahmood not far off. Robbie Joseph is also pretty quick.” That’s not a bad commendation for 26-year-old Joseph, who has at the time of writing this chapter taken 69 wickets at 33.6 apiece in first-class cricket. Some might say that to single out these young men is to fail to do justice to other proficient players of the time who might otherwise have been given some mention of their prowess. There is some truth in this argument: boys who might have shone more frequently were reduced to occasional cameo roles when one or more of the more acknowledged stars failed with either bat or ball. One such sufferer was Richard Bradstock. His quality stands out and is acclaimed by the OS for whom he has performed splendidly since leaving the school. It would be wrong to say, however, that other members of the team were there merely to make up the numbers; there are plenty of instances where matches were saved or won by the ability of the lesser lights to come up trumps when necessary. As a further apology to such young men it may be worthy of note that there are more than twenty seasons since 1960 when there were more than 6 significant contributors to performance with either more than 200 runs or 15 wickets. “Strength in Depth”. Not only did these boys play together, they also played against each other! What a great day it must have been on the Upper in 2000 when Ferley (98) and Joseph (75) contributed to the school total of 268 for 9 with Day (57) and Wooderson (75) holding the OS together in their reply of 237 for 5! Below is a second attempt to compare cricketing statistics. The same parameters are in use as before. The first table shows that wins per season continue to rise as losses fall. Indeed here is for the first time since 1919 more wins on average than losses. It is draws, however, that are now more in evidence. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years when more of the matches are of a limited-over nature where the drawn result is not an option – a sad reflection of the present state of the game in the opinion of a “traditionalist”.

SEASONAL RATIO WINS/LOSSES/DRAWS 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

WINS LOSSES DRAWS 18811918

19191945

19461983

19842000

period

The average number of games played per season remains at 13 but the total runs that talented players make has risen markedly to 401, an increase from 326. The batting average that such players achieve has also risen from just over 27 to nearly 40. Bowlers, on the other hand, Bowlers, on the other hand, still havestill have to toil for their wickets: a good bowler obtains 24 wickets in a season but he concedes 18 runs per wicket and his strike rate of overs per wicket has also risen slightly compared to 1946-1983. It is certainly true that this period of the history contains some outstandingly talented cricketers. However, it is probably unfair on previous generations to suggest that this array of lads is superior in ability. Admittedly, they have had a great deal more success than previous generations but there are too many variables that have to be taken into account before scientific comparisons can be made.

1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1986 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989

ASHTON RJ MATTHEWS RS PAINE DT SUNNUCKS JP WALTON SN LISTER GN PAINE D POUND AM SUNNUCKS JP SUNNUCKS SR WALTON SN BARR AD CROUCH J HARRISON R HEINE PD LAKEY C PATEL YS ROBERTS N BARR AD BARR JF COWELL JM GIRLING R PATEL DS PATEL YS BARR JF COWELL JM PAGE JEG PATEL DS PATEL YS SANDBROOK-PRICE J

238

15.87

14 12 12 13

2 0 1 1

103* 61 52 73

539 256 201 243

44.92 21.33 18.27 20.25

150*

689

68.90

86*

257

28.56

13 15 16 15

2 0 0 1

66* 100 59 90

236 584 256 293

21.45 38.93 16.00 20.93

14 16 16 16 8

3 3 2 1 3

47* 102* 62 55 49*

203 629 412 449 204

18.45 48.38 29.43 29.93 40.80

15 16 15 10

4 7 3 4

53 120* 68* 58*

208 629 340 215

18.91 69.89 28.33 35.83

118

308

10.27

3.93

152 186

34 39

516 611

16 31

32.25 19.71

9.50 6.00

94 96 162 106

16 19 36 15

315 327 426 414

17 15 31 20

18.53 21.80 13.74 20.70

5.53 6.40 5.23 5.30

136

372

14.88

5.44

204

505

11.74

4.74

78 168

20 37

191 471

15 39

12.73 12.08

5.20 4.31

181 190 157 225

43 44 33 62

502 483 376 621

27 34 26 39

18.59 14.21 14.46 15.92

6.70 5.59 6.04 5.77

214 81 142

51 24 33

579 183 443

35 19 16

16.54 9.63 27.69

6.11 4.26 8.88

1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1992 1992 1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005

BARR JF COWELL J PAGE J PATEL Y

17 15 18

5 1 5

142 74 79

805 445 584

67.08 31.79 44.92

215 180 143 101

80 39 43 19

599 568 378 265

38 30 21 17

15.76 18.93 18.00 15.59

5.66 6.00 6.81 5.94

BARR AR HUDD AP PAINTER B WATERS WG BARR AR FOX M PAINTER B WATERS WG

12 13

4 2

107 85*

618 387

77.25 35.18

133 108

26 29

493 351

20 19

24.65 18.47

6.65 5.68

8 13

3 2

132* 79

471 304

94.2 27.64

95 136 146 171

25 25 28 26

257 419 464 614

15 15 28 27

17.13 27.93 16.57 22.74

6.33 9.07 5.21 6.33

12 15

0 1

52 93

327 568

27.25 40.57

DAY M HORTON G VINCENT J WATTS TJ WOODERSON M DAY M HARRISON ID HORTON G VINCENT J WATTS TJ WOODERSON M DAY M HORTON G JOSEPH RH WATSON J WOODERSON M BRADSTOCK DAY M FERLEY RS JOSEPH RH WATSON J FERLEY RS JOSEPH RH STILEMAN P WATSON J CHAPMAN N CLARKSON O STILEMAN P CHAPMAN N COLE B PETERS O RICHARDSON A JACKSON A KNOTT S PALMER G PETERS O RICHARDSON A SPENCER B SPENCER E COLES M JACKSON A PETERS O SPENCER B SPENCER E TAPLIN M WITHERS-GREEN T

13 13

1 1

100* 90

342 286

28.50 23.83

12 13 16

3 5 3

90* 111* 102*

244 473 622

27.11 59.13 47.85

128

474

22.57

6.10

304

21.71

123

443

24.61

6.83

12 15 13 12

2 1 2 1

65 81 102 81

225 420 502 247

22.50 30.00 45.64 22.45

143 140 132

21 14 11

575 476 518

24 16 27

23.96 29.75 19.19

5.96 8.75 4.89

100*

436

48.44

162 139 110

33 20 7

471 435 488

41 17 16

11.49 25.59 30.50

3.95 8.18 6.88

14 15 14 9 9 6 8 10 9 10

2 5 6 5 1 2 1 0 0 0

56 102 132 76* 94 151* 53 92 93 60

422 555 571 219 434 506 256 272 320 337

35.17 55.50 71.38 54.75 54.25 126.50 36.57 27.20 35.56 33.70

161 139 126 90 50 96

32 32 20 22 6 17

480 430 482 244 163 464

34 43 27 20 15 23

14.12 10.00 17.85 12.20 10.87 20.17

4.74 3.23 4.67 4.50 3.33 4.17

11 15 10 15

1 4 1 1

88* 110* 101* 118

317 820 245 378

31.70 74.55 27.22 27.00

92 120

21 27

291 373

17 18

17.12 20.72

5.41 6.67

84 104

9 14

294 395

21 17

14.00 23.24

4.00 6.12

147

843

76.64

11 12

211

8.79

2.75

4 1

56 72

236 299

33.71 27.18 92 79

14 15

283 288

17 20

16.65 14.40

5.41 3.95

100

480

21.82

4.55

114

520

26.00

5.70

131.5

27.4

418.2

24.0

18.4

5.7

275

5 16

1 4

98* 132*

271 653

18 13 14 13.0

3 4 0 2.2

101* 81* 100 81.4

662 326 363 401.1

25.00

39.9

None of these players managed to capture as many as 50 wickets in a season though Robert Joseph did come close with 41 in 1998 and 43 the following year; he might well have had more in 2000 and 2001 had he not been selected for representative teams in the County. Ferley, too, was required for duty in the county and but for that he might have scored more runs and taken more wickets, but his average of 126 in 2000 remains a school record. He has recently returned to the senior Kent squad after a spell with Nottinghamshire whither he went having begun his county career with Kent. JF Barr’s all-round seasons of 1988,’89 and ’90 are particularly noteworthy and are reminiscent of the better years of MT Russell-Vick ten years earlier, and his total number of runs scored for the school is close to the record of MR Benson.. In 1999 came the first of the fixtures against Lashings. Old Suttonian David Folb had collaborated with others to establish these, now famous, “wandering elevens” of both present and former testmatch players from around the world. He and they have done much to raise money for charity and to entertain the general public in a way that had not been possible before they started out on their venture. The strong Caribbean influence ensures a happy-go-lucky atmosphere and guarantees incidents galore during any afternoon, not least for the lucky boys selected to play in the School fixture – Brian Lara caught Brandreth, bowled Joseph! 2003 was a particularly good year. Three batsmen recorded hundreds and Chapman had three in total, together with another five scores between 50 and 100. Orlando Peters is particularly impressive in the period 2002-2006, in the four seasons he scored 1330 runs. The bowling of Sam Knott, in 2004, shows a remarkably good strike rate – one wicket every 2.75 overs. This is the best since Robin Hearn’s efforts of 1945 (17 wickets at 1 wicket every 2.47 overs) and also comparable with the efforts of the famous “occasional” bowler, Davies, who, in 1920 took 16 wickets at 1 per 1.63 overs and the successful “change” bowler, Palmer, who in 1919 took 16 wickets, but at a strike rate of 1 per 2.19 overs. Sam was at least a regular bowler and his wickets were obtained at a time when the quality of the wickets favoured batting rather than bowling. Some of the successes of the first five years of the new millennium have come out of the School’s developing Scholarship system. Robbie Joseph was the first of the Richie Richardson Scholars. In this scheme exciting young West Indians are identified and invited to come to the school. As each one completes his education another takes over. To date the school has benefited not only from Robert Joseph and Orlando Peters and Ari Richardson but also from young Hayden Walsh who is making such a strong impression in 2007 and 2008 and who promises so much for 2009. This latter young man had first come to the attention of the school when he performed (aged 9) very well indeed against a Sutton Valence U15 side that toured in the West Indies in 2003. He was a bigger boy but just as impressive in a later tour in 2006. Orlando Peters is playing now for Antigua in the West Indies and was involved in the Allan Stanford effort to bring Twenty20 and pots of cash to the Islands. Unfortunately, this latter initiative seems to have foundered…and the recent downfall in the millionaire’s affairs may well put the stop to this venture. Robert Joseph is, of course linked with Kent and is making his way into higher things, having recently been on tour with the England ‘development’ squad - the ‘A’ team - to new Zealand but it is unfortunate (for cricket) that Ari Richardson is on a Basketball scholarship in the U.S.A and looking to develop another career. Since the early 1980s the School has increased its Sports Scholars and the lads among them have made a significant contribution to cricket. Ashley Jackson is considered by the present coaching staff to have been the most talented and they see no reason why he ought not to be good enough to play not only for Kent but also for England – except that he was selected to represent England in the 2008 Olympics for Hockey! (They have a sneaking suspicion, however, that his first love remains cricket and may well drop the phrase ‘Twenty/20’ into his ears once his other distraction is complete – unfortunately this includes playing hockey professionally in Holland!) Robert Ferley did play for his country as a schoolboy, and it is good to se him back in the ranks of Kent. One of the

benefits of the award of scholarships has been to increase strength in depth especially among the younger age groups. Some of these scholars are emulating the contribution of the young men of more than a hundred years ago by representing the School side for four or more years. The turn of the millennium saw the reintroduction of tours. In 1997 the School was invited to the Sir Garfield Sobers tournament in Barbados, at which they did well. Subsequently an U15 tour went to Barbados in 1999 and another to Antigua in 2003. At the time of writing this history another tour has just returned home – the most ambitious yet, with two cricket sides and golfers, from South Africa in October, 2008. Tradition is also returning in the resumption of the holiday Festival. At the end of 2007 the School went to Malvern and joined in with other schools, including a team from Ireland. In 2008 they go to Ireland to play, and subsequently Sutton Valence will be hosts. And there are now girl cricketing stars! Interest in girls’ cricket began to strengthen at the turn of the last century and flourishes now, particularly in the early age groups but also at more senior levels. When girls first came to the school, in 1983, they wasted no time at all in becoming involved in competitive sport. The take up of cricket in the last few years has seen a similar high level of commitment. The Hannahs, Simmons and Knott, together with Susanna Townsend were the backbone of the first successful group but in 2009 the under 15 side which succeeded them managed to go a little further too in that they have won the Kent Indoor tournament. This group is now moving forward in the National, Lord’s Taverners, competition. They will be concerned that the formidable Brighton College team are in their group but will no doubt give 100% and aim to emulate the boys who did so well in the National, Barclays Bank, competition 25 years ago or so ago. There is not yet the local infrastructure to support girls’ cricket that is available to the boys. While there is enthusiastic and expert coaching available in the school fixtures at senior level are hampered by examinations and by the competition of other sports that have traditionally been more important; it is not easy to find opponents, and this is especially difficult when the timing of matches is an important factor, and of course it is the playing, and winning of matches that helps to boost the enthusiasm. Fortunately, there are more club sides being developed at the moment and this may help to swell a fixture list that includes Epsom College and Tonbridge Girls G.S. as well as Maidstone Girls G.S. Junior girls in the first and second years have their fixture list, too, and from this sound base it is hoped much will develop. *************** That’s it! I think this is a pretty accurate picture of what happened and I hope my interpretation of those events has proved to be a fair one. I must say that it is my interpretation alone and any criticisms you may have of my views, or corrections to the factual accuracy of the text must be addressed to me. I am greatly indebted to lots of people – mentioned at the beginning, and I hope they do not feel that their contribution has been spoiled by the way I have constructed things. If you are still reading this book, or if you want to continue to the bitter end, you might find The Tea Interval diverting, I hope so, The final chapter is all about the Old Suttonians whose history is so linked with the School no history of the latter would be complete without reference to the former. Acknowledgements School Magazines 1985-2003

CRICKET AT SUTTON VALENCE SCHOOL The Tea Interval

After two sessions of hard fought, exciting and intellectually stimulating play the tea interval is a time to have a little light relief in order to recharge the batteries for the final, and often most important, part of the day’s play. It is sometimes the case that the earlier sessions have been wearisome because the cricket has lacked the inspiration and entertainment-level that had been anticipated. In this case the tea interval comes as an opportunity for welcome relief from the increasing ennui generated. If any of those who have started this little book are still reading it, I’ll leave it up to you to decide the particular value of this interval. Let us begin by looking at the two (full) England Internationals who developed their talents at Sutton Valence. MARK BENSON T This picture is taken of Mark when in his prime as a player with Kent. He can count himself unlucky (we certainly do!) to have been selected for only one test match – the third test against India at Edgbaston in 1986. His test debut was a lot more impressive than many who have gone on to play many times for their country, and his subsequent performances for Kent were assuredly of a quality that ought to have been rewarded with other opportunities. After a really fine career as a county player Mark has become an Umpire, and on the elite panel to boot. Mark has lent his name to an inter-school tournament held at Sutton Valence each year involving junior teams, and he has also visited us once or twice as a coach. While it would have been great to have seen more of him in the Brewers’ Cup competition it is inevitable that such a successful county player would have other commitments.

DOUGLAS CARR This picture shows Douglas in his Band of Brothers blazer and Kent cap. His career at the school had been a very good one but not so good that one might predict a future playing for the county or for England. He developed his particular talent that brought him fame at a relatively late stage in his life. He might have been seen on the more important cricketing stages a little earlier but his Oxford career (at which university he was rated very highly indeed) was blighted by injury and he remained an obscure club cricketer until 1909 when his experimenting

with leg-breaks and googlies was to catapult him to sensational, if brief, fame. Kent became aware of his shock value and gave him an opportunity that he took wholeheartedly and successfully. He then was selected for ‘the Gentlemen’ where he also impressed. On this evidence he was selected for the fourth test against the Australians – but did not play (at Old Trafford) because of a slow and soft pitch. It was I the last test, at the Oval, where he was given his chance. He dismissed three batsmen for 19 runs in his first seven overs. His success went to the skipper’s head and he was grossly over-bowled, though his match figures of 7 wickets in 69 overs was very commendable. Neither he, nor (I believe) the skipper was asked to play again. In Douglas’ case he made himself unavailable for the winter tour to South Africa because of his commitments as a schoolmaster. Indeed, his subsequent careeer with Kent - he played for them until 1914 – was also reduced because of his steadfast loyalty to his charges in the schools where he taught. Nevertheless, he took 334 wickets for Kent in only 58 matches. *********** I’d like, now, to encourage you to have a look at some team photographs from the archives. THE SCHOOL ELEVEN, 1886

Social history is represented by the difference in clothes, and demeanour, between the scorer on the right and the groundsman and umpire on the left. Apart from this, and the peculiarities of the clothes cricketers wore in those days this photo might easily be a more modern one. One is reminded of a previous writer of a history of Sutton Valence when he writes “They were robust characters, these schoolboys. Their humour was coarse, but then they came from family backgrounds of Tory rusticity. They played games manfully and from all accounts successfully, and under Kingdon’s scholarly jurisdiction, they achieved academic distinction as well”. Despite the studied nonchalance of the senior player at the back, the overall look of thoughtfulness on most of the other players suggests a unity of purpose and spirit determined to win the matches played. The sobriety might best be seen in the player at the back on the right, with the bat. He is F de W

Lushington, who went up to Cambridge, became a cleric and eventually Headmaster of Dover College. He gave up this post after the announcement of hostilities in WWI and went as a chaplain to administer to the troops on the front line. By then he was in his late forties and he suffered much hardship doing a tremendous job. The school, at this time, was still a ‘Grammar’ school housing mostly the sons of local farmers and tradesmen as well as the scholars of the Clothworkers Company. It was relatively small in size – about 80 boys. The numbers were made up of those with ability however young. Young Playford, sitting in the second row below and to the right of the captain, is such a case in point. Not on this photo, but one who played during the season is one of the Nethersole brothers, CR, who would figure in the photographed eleven for the next four years.

THE SCHOOL ELEVEN, 1912

This is, arguably, the saddest of the pictures. A couple of these fine lads will be killed in the War to follow, others wounded, but all of them served with distinction and a couple of them would be awarded medals for valour. HNS Mummery, seated on the left of the captain as you look is one such unfortunate. He fought in a number of different battles, in Gallipoli and France. He was wounded three times severely enough to be brought home for treatment. Each time he returned to join his comrades until after one nasty episode he was captured. Life in a POW camp was unpleasant and he died just before the War’s end, of pneumonia. This picture is taken on Prefects’ Lawn; the school has by now largely moved up from the village and its organisation has transferred from the Clothworkers’ Company to that of the United Westminster Foundation, the aim of which august body was to change the school from a ‘Grammar’ to a first-rate Public School. Blazers have now begun to appear as part of the uniform, and there is also a hint of cravat around the throat of Mummery. While this relates as much to fashion as to

anything else we are beginning to see the increasing role of dress to emphasise status. This is taken to its ultimate stage in the following picture, the eleven of 1938. I suppose it was pictures like this one that so inflamed the less socially advantaged Fred Trueman, unable to see beyond the superficial over-bright plumage. He believed such fellows were over-emphasising their talent, not content to let their deeds do the job, but using symbols instead. These young men were good cricketers and I doubt they gave a fig about using a different gate to the ground than professionals or the use of surname only to dub those that were paid to play the game while they could indulge themselves with initials as well. I also believe some of these lads were quite capable of snobbery to a great degree, but the inverted form of snobbery that Trueman (now, nowâ&#x20AC;Ś F.S. Trueman) used to conjure up his venomous treatment of opposing batsmen was just as silly. Of particular note in the 1938 photograph is the chap sitting centrally in the front row. He is John Gray who you will discover writes a very informative piece in the next chapter about the OS before WWII and whose exploits, not only for the school team but also the OS, for whom he played for 50 years, are a vital part of the history of cricket at this school.

THE SCHOOL ELEVEN, 1938

THE SCHOOL vs LASHINGS, 2008

And this is how the game is played today! CLARENCE LAKEY (on the left) and NIGEL ROBERTS – our two ‘ringers’ Before we had Sports Scholarships it was a very fortunate year indeed when we could look to augment the strength of a school side by ‘importing’ those who would otherwise have not been able to attend the school. These two lads came across as part of an initiative, led by Bob Woolmer, to give greater opportunity to boys from less advantaged backgrounds in South Africa where the ravage of Apartheid had yet to run its course. The school was a grateful beneficiary of their stay at Sutton Valence and I am sure that the boys also benefited enormously both academically and sportingly from the experience. It is also the case that their social lives were very busy indeed! Alas, the experiment was not an entire success; Clarence, after a very promising start back in South Africa failed to find the sponsorship that was on offer to others whose skin was white and had to take a job, the hours of which curtailed the time he had in which to play cricket. Nigel, too, failed to get over the social hurdles that a troubled country put in his path and his talent never graced the stages that it deserved.

The final collection of photographs shows the effects of the fire on the Upper in 1989. Some malicious twerp put flammable material through the door at the far end of the pavilion from the road and ignited in some way. The fairly strong wind during the night helped to fan the developing conflagration and the fire gradually ate its way towards the groundsman’s office. Luckily, its presence was spotted and a rapidly responding fire brigade managed to quell the flames before the whole place was engulfed. The damage was heartbreaking. The building suffered, but it was the loss of the contents that was so hurtful – all the photographs of school cricket, rugby and hockey teams going back for many a year and the collection of Wisdens gathered, thanks to the kind generosity of the Band of Brothers with whom we had such a good relationship at that time. The pavilion was rebuilt quite quickly and the opportunity taken to improve the accommodation for visitors, albeit at the expense of the home side. New items of memorabilia were installed to replace the ones that were lost and - 20 years later – a movement is afoot to replace as many of the team photographs that can be managed. With the purchase of the adjacent ground on the Warmlake side it now seems possible that further improvements can be made to the accommodation. *********** The Upper is a wonderful place to play cricket and the pavilion a fine base to operate from – indeed at one time the ground and its buildings were thought to be very suitable as a backdrop to scenes in a play that the BBC were going to make, unfortunately though, the project was abandoned. To me, and I am sure to a good many others, the pavilion felt less like a place solely in which to get changed and so much more a place that held the spirit and history of Sutton Valence cricket within its walls. After all it has been the home of cricket at the School for over 100 years. Its faithful reconstruction after the fire only seemed to enhance these atmospheric surroundings. Take a break now from your reading – make up a round of sandwiches, add in a cake and a large cup of strong tea, then suitably refreshed and fortified prepare yourself for the final session – that which contains the exploits of the Old Suttonians.

CRICKET AT SUTTON VALENCE SCHOOL

CHAPTER 6 The Old Suttonians Cricket Club

The records of the OS cricket XI are voluminous, very detailed, full of facts and anecdotes; they would provide ample material for an excellent book in its own right, supplying such a wealth of information that anyone interested enough and with sufficient application might easily do the job - but not this author. The principal aim of this chapter is to give an account of the cricket played by the OS and to examine how some of the schoolboy cricketers fared in their “second” career. The first recorded reference to the OS is found in the records of the 1880 season when they played the school. They are referred to as “Past” in their match versus “Present”. It is likely that in years previous to this there had been similar matches but it is unlikely that there was any formal association of past pupils at that time. When the OS cricket club was formed it had an uneasy birth and a troubled infancy before blossoming into a mature and respected association. Now in its second century, like a loving and wellrespected grandfather, it nurtures the young men leaving the school who want to enjoy a continuing cricket career as well as remaining true to the notion proposed by HR Macray in the last paragraph of his letter to the editor of the School magazine which was to provide the inspiration for the formation of the OS cricket club. St George’s School Ascot, Berks. Dec 15th 1889 Dear Sir, I am trying to arrange an Old Suttonians’ Cricket Week for next summer and hope that by writing to the School Magazine my scheme will become known far and wide. My present idea (subject to any alterations which others may think desirable) is to have a week’s cricket (three two-day matches if possible) early in August – say, from July 31st to Aug. 5th – in Hertfordshire, where I have been promised some fixtures if I can get together a team. Will those of your readers, who think they can play at that time, kindly write to me as soon as possible, making any suggestions as to place or time which they consider more suitable than those I have mentioned? I think it is high time to start a club of this kind, considering the numbers of cricketers the school has of late years produced: and it would, I hope, be a further bond of union between many Old Boys who otherwise would perhaps never, or very seldom, see each other. I am, yours faithfully, Walter R Macray. From this beginning, the OS adventure was begun. His idea was successful and the 1890 tour, in a slightly different form than planned, went ahead. An account of the week can be found in the School magazine published immediately after the event and some of the details are included below: …Five one-day matches took place. The OS won two, lost two and one match was tied. However, the number of OS playing each day averaged about six, the remainder of the sides

being made up of cricketers who became OS for the week only. If all those who had promised to play had turned up it would have been a more genuine OS XI than it actually was, but four or five failed to appear, one of whom sent a telegram which was received in the middle of the match regretting his inability to come, whilst from the rest the Secretary has not yet received any communication whatever. Of the eight Suttonians who did play in the week two were masters. Despite a lack of numbers, the undoubted social success of the week together with the entertainment provided on the field of play gave Macray some hope. He concludes his account with the hope that a cricket committee be incorporated into the newly-formed Old Suttonians Association and that this body arrange a cricket festival year by year. Unfortunately, it was not to prove easy to establish. No one took up the gauntlet. In 1891 a plea was made to the readers of the School Magazine that the idea of a cricket week ought not to be abandoned and in 1892 a second tour was arranged. JP Clarkson was the one to take up the suggestion and he arranged a tour. Lee and Plaistow were the first two hosts and afterwards matches were played against Reigate and Epsom. Three matches were lost but once again those who went on the tour had a most enjoyable time so much so that an invitation to participate in a third tour in 1893 appeared in the School magazine. Good relations must have been forged in the visit to Surrey since the advertised matches were repeat fixtures against Epsom and Reigate together with matches against Ewell, Carshalton and Dorking. Unfortunately, there is no record of any such matches being played. Since there was usually much enthusiasm to record all that happened in events at the School or to those men attached to it in some way, the presumption must be that the week was abandoned through lack of numbers. On the other hand, an entry in the OS record book that covers the time between 1890 and 1933 suggests “1893 – a week took place but no record exists.” Either JP Clarkson’s account failed to reach the school or the weather played such havoc with the fixtures that a decent report was impossible to write, or perhaps… Despite the setback, if such it was, the goal was not abandoned: a tour took place in 1894, in Suffolk and Norfolk, with three wins and one drawn game recorded. While the following year appears to have been a blank one the OS returned to East Anglia in 1896 where the results were reversed with three lost and one victory. Clearly, assembling an OS side to perform at full strength for a week-long festival was proving to be almost impossible and nothing more is recorded until 1912. During the intervening years the School’s roll had shrunk in size and the flow of potential young recruits was surely diminishing. The more mature OS, building their careers, may also have had other priorities. In response to an appeal for players for OS matches during this barren period one putative OS skipper writes, “The answers received were not encouraging. They showed that about half a dozen members would guarantee to play anywhere at any time; a dozen others could only play at certain times and in certain districts; the rest not at all. It seems possible therefore there is no hope for a tour unless we can find at least twenty members prepared to play under any conditions.” He further observes that spectator attendance at the annual OS match against the school was seriously on the wane. It seems that the slough into which the School XIs had fallen during the first decade of the twentieth century was affecting the OS in the same way. Perseverance pays, however – as does a bit of lateral thinking. That same gentleman FJ Harvey Darton, who had earlier analysed the reason why the tours were difficult to arrange, found the solution in 1912 with a proposal to organise a home cricket week using the school as a base and with games being played in July just as the school year was coming to an end. Accommodation ought not to be difficult, he opined, because OS could stay at the school, in the village or with friends who lived locally and the headmaster had agreed to allow the OS the use of the school ground for two of the matches against the school and the Village. Other games were played locally. The opponents were Milgate Park, the private

ground of Walter Fremlin, now occupied by the Tudor Marriott Hotel; The County Asylum at Barming; Yalding and a Royal Navy eleven at Folkestone. The County Asylum had a formidable side at that time and the fixture proved to be quite exceptional. The OS batted first and scored 321, the only side to amass such a total against them in the whole season. Not in any way dispirited by facing such a formidable score, the Asylum went on to record 378 for 8! While the ground was not big, a six was scored only if the trees around the boundary’s edge were cleared. This had to have been a great day out for both players and spectators alike. The week was a resounding success, and from that moment on the forward progress of OS cricket was secured. A euphoric Darton concludes his report on the week, “In future years, when the new buildings are crammed with boys, and the Old Suttonians, in their week, are trampling on stronger opponents than we met this year, we who played in 1912, “we few, we happy few, we band of brothers”, shall take pride in having begun a pleasure which is also valuable as a service to the school.” With Darton’s cricket weeks of 1913 and 1914 proving to be equally successful the event was now firmly established in the Calendar. As if to cement this, after the School match of 1913, the OS were treated to a feast and a concert arranged by the headmaster, Holdgate. The OS initially had treated this fine gentleman with some suspicion as they were not entirely happy about the “retirement” of Bennett and the change to the School ethos that occurred at the same time. The feast was interpreted as a desire for détente. Suitably bribed, the OS relaxed their prejudicial views and relations have been more or less cordial ever since. However, if its birth had been difficult and protracted, its maturation was severely delayed because of World War I and the immediate aftermath of that horrible conflict. The effect of the war was felt right from the beginning. Writing an account of the 1914 week in the school magazine, Darton is not only very moved by the death of one of his stalwart players so soon after the week had finished but also tried to find something positive from it… (after the game against JE Raphael’s XI, a side that was virtually an Old Merchant Taylors’ XI)… “This was the last match in which Liptrott played. He told me that if he had known what the week was like, he would have managed somehow to play throughout – as he promised to do five years hence, when he was at home next. We never saw him again.” EC Liptrott died heroically in November 1914 just four months after the Cricket Week and just before Darton penned his account for the school magazine… (after the game against WH Whiting’s XI)…”Of the Old Suttonians who played in that match, every one is now on some sort of Naval, Military or State service. It is not very likely that we shall be able to arrange any cricket for 1915; and there may be, too, little hope that the same team will ever play together again. But I think we shall all remember the Cricket Week of 1914 with special affection. We have never been more at our ease together on and off the field, and we have got to know one another in a way which is as valuable to the School as to ourselves. The War has shown us on a tremendous scale, what tradition means; and we played cricket in the spirit of the School tradition.” Incidentally, of the XI who played against WH Whiting’s XI, referred to in the last excerpt, three players were to lose their lives in, or because of, the War: WJ Chambers in July 1916, in unknown circumstances; JC Kay was wounded in August 1916 when going “over the top” in a night attack but carrying on he was hit a second time and killed on the spot; and BM Tuke M.C. who died in January 1924. He had been badly gassed in the War and was living in South Africa where it was thought the climate might be better suited to help him. He was not content to be idle, however, and he died at the comparatively early age of

33. HJ Clifford had also played in the week and he, too, lost his life in the War, in September, 1917 when leading an attack against the enemy’s trench. In total, twenty-seven members of Sutton Valence School 1 st XIs died during the war and very many others were wounded and had horrific tales to tell. The eldest of these first played for the eleven in 1882; he was Lieutenant-Colonel AR Nethersole who was drowned after the ship in which he was travelling was torpedoed; the two youngest members were JHM Apps who first played in 1914 but who was killed by a sniper while trying to capture a German officer whom he had flushed out of a dug-out in the trench he had just captured, and AJ Crichton who had also played for the XI in 1914. He was a Lieutenant in the 1st Queen’s Regiment and was “blown to bits” by a shell while attacking trenches just north of Mametz Wood only a few days after he had been awarded the MC for gallantry in another action. Not killed in the war but severely affected by it was the Rev F de W Lushington who played for the XI in 1885. After University he had become a cleric then a teacher and at the outbreak of war was Headmaster of Dover College. He resigned in order to become a chaplain with the Allied forces in France, was extremely hardworking, often administering to the men under shell-fire and eventually was invalided home suffering from exhaustion and from the effects of a weak heart. He later became a master at Eton, retiring from that post relatively early in life to a living in the Home Counties. Between 1882 and 1914, some 220 boys had represented the school at cricket. The dead represent just over 10% of that number; others, wounded and mentally scarred, would have increased the proportion. After the War, when the OS were trying to re-establish themselves, the loss of a significant number of potential players who would just about have been at the right age to be influential in the rebuilding was a great blow. The following are some statistics from Simon Dyke:

! &' ( ) & ) * + * , - ( . .( /* 0 . 1. * 2/ 3' 4 5 / 6 ' & 77 8 , - ( .( . ' / / * 3 '( & 3 -' ( 9. ' : &' . ;

$ ! !

# !

" !

& 0 )

"! " " "

=# !!

# = # # $ $ #

!< !< &' ' / / 9. ' ;

< *

& 0 ) 0 . 3' / &' . 596 ;>; 4 3 * 3 '7 ?( , *> : &0 . 0 . >8> > 4 2> * 4 1

! "

= = = =

= = !

% #

" !

%$ !< != #

!" "<

$ # $

Although the OS managed to play the School after the War, the OS Cricket Week was not re-established until 1926. That it flourished thereafter is largely due to the contribution made by the stalwarts of the sides in the early years. Their regular appearances and their constant ability to get others to play alongside them, together with their personal contribution with bat and ball, ensured a prosperous and exciting kickstart. If an examination is made of the performances between 1926 and the outbreak of the Second World War it becomes quite clear who were the major players of that era. For batting, the outstanding contributors were EA Craven and RL Kay each having joined the ranks of the Sutton Valence schoolmasters. In a shorter batting “season” than the school was lucky to enjoy, an arbitrary total score of 150 is taken to indicate a useful contribution. EA Craven achieves this target no fewer than 8 times in the 13 years; altogether he scored over 3900 runs in his long and distinguished OS career interrupted only by WWII. With the 175*, made against Town Malling in 1934, he held the record for the highest score until 1970. ‘Tubby’ must have loved playing against this famous old side since he had scored 152* against them two years earlier! He scored either a fifty (22 of them) or a hundred (10 in all) in very nearly one quarter of all his innings). RL Kay is not far behind with 6 entries in the ranks of the better batting performances. The only two others to achieve more than three entries are TRK Jones and GS Stead. The record for bowling shows a dependence on four bowlers who between them took very nearly one third of all the wickets taken in the period. TRK Jones and GS Stead who also feature as batsmen and who must thus be considered as the all-rounders of the period are not only two of the four but they are the two who take the greatest number of wickets. TRK Jones took 134 between 1933 and 1938 and GS Stead

captured 130 between 1927 and 1938. The other two star bowlers were REG Fulljames and RJ Newbury who took 72 wickets between 1927 and 1938 and 71 wickets between 1929 and 1938 respectively. Probably the most effective of the earlier bowlers however, was RG Newbury. He began his OS career in 1929 and took his 71 wickets at an average of only 6.6 with an all-time best performance of 7-46 against Town Malling in 1932. Throughout the 1920s it was common for the OS cricket matches against the school to be contested by both 1st and 2nd XIs. Indeed, so enthusiastic was everyone in 1927 that a 3rd XI fixture also took place! The players were not only keen but also of sound ability. According to Simon Dyke’s league table and his on rating system, the 1927 side was the best of OS cricket week elevens, playing 7 matches, winning six and losing one – rating 85.7. 1928 was the sixth best year with a rating of 71.4. During these early years close relationships with other teams were forged such that fixtures were played in a great sporting spirit for several years. The OS were delighted with the game in 1914 against JE Raphael’s XI which was recognised as being all but in name an Old Merchant Taylor’s XI. The OMT also found the Suttonians to be friendly opponents and the fixture was established properly in 1933 lasting until 1987. 44 matches were played against them in that time. Ashford were also long-lasting opponents: fixtures started in 1934 and they were entertained by or hosted the OS 60 times between then and 2000. Two other regular fixtures between 1926 and 1938 were the sides of massive cricketing tradition, the Mote (13 matches) and Town Malling (8 matches) Whilst most of the sources for this history of cricket at the school comes from records made either by the school or the OS, it is interesting to read what the opponents thought. The OS played the Queen’s Own Regiment in 1934 and their magazine has a very brief account of that game. The match against the Old Suttonians was a new fixture, played on the Sutton Valence School ground, where we were very hospitably entertained. At lunch time the Old Suttonians’ score did not look too good, but on resuming TRK Jones set about our bowling and gave a masterly display of hitting in his innings of 105. The Regiment started badly, losing Saville and Fyler in the first few overs, but Brooke and Keenlyside settled down to master the bowling. After Keenlyside had been dismissed for 35 the rot set in, the pace of Peel-Tater (sic), and the guile of Stead being responsible for our downfall. The Old Suttonians won by 41 runs. GS Stead who took 5 for 67 in that match was a very experienced and wily bowler capable of getting runs, and batting in just about every position in the order for the OS at sometime or another. WG PeelYates (see Peel-Tater above), 4 for 30, was much younger at that time, fresh out of school the year before and enthusiastically quick. No doubt reminiscences of “jankers” had led to the misprint of his name in the Regimental account! TRK Jones was another wily old bird. He had captained the school eleven in 1912, his last year, and was principally a bowler having taken 54 wickets for the OS in the two seasons of 1933 and 1934. His score of 105 was more than twice his previous highest for the OS and probably earned him “man of the match” status. In 1938 the London Evening Standard had a snippet of sporting trivia in its edition of August 20th. THE DUNCES CAP OF CRICKET. If any member of the Old Suttonians, the Old Boys of Sutton Valence School, who are enjoying their cricket week, misses a catch he has to put on a cap that is kept for the purpose. He has to retain this cap until someone else proves “butter-fingered”.

If any batsman makes a duck a painted white duck on a black board is put on the scoreboard instead of the usual 0. The Old Suttonians, who play their home matches on the school ground, keep a record of all their matches, with photographs of players. This book was begun in 1912. According to HR Hearn, the cap was emblazoned with the letter “L” (for “learner”) but this does not directly accord with the account written by John Gray below; he suggests it had a different motif. It is thought that the penalty of wearing the cap was abandoned in about 1950 when either it was left in the possession of someone who stopped playing or it was “lost” by one player who may have been the recipient rather more often than his pride would allow. (If anyone has any more information on the matter the school archivist would like to know.) The duck-painted board was still in existence in 1995 but had been ‘relegated’ to internal match use. The score hut and the scoreboard had been demolished in the first half of the 1980s and the individual ‘slates’ had become redundant for school fixtures. This history of OS cricket at Sutton Valence is greatly indebted to John Gray who has written an informal account the game prior to the outbreak of the Second World War. While playing matches was the principal aim, the message passed on by his account is that the social scene was just as vital a part of the week since in those days the week was much more a residential affair than is presently the case. Pre-War OS Cricket For several years before the war, one or two boys still at school were invited to join the OS cricket party, numbering anything up to 20 or more, most of whom were accommodated in the sanatorium – now Sutton House – by kind permission of the headmaster. We had full use of the kitchen facilities and enjoyed exceptionally good breakfasts and occasionally evening meals so ably prepared by the former secretary of the Association, Walter Blaxland, and others. The “week” was organised by Robert Kay (The Master) who was still making plenty of delightful runs. What a good cricketer he was. Robert got a lot of fun from preparing “applepie” beds for most of the party on their first night in the sani – a very annoying experience returning late at night from the Queen’s Head (or quite often The Swan in those days) hoping to crawl into bed and pass out at full stretch. Robert invented a “birthday” every cricket week and generously entertained all the OS cricketers to a midweek dinner party at the Star Hotel in Maidstone where one recalls Tubby Craven enjoying his one and only cigarette of the year with his coffee – a Turkish “Abdulla”. Other nights out usually included a visit to Bill Hodges’ pub, the Old Plantation, in Bearsted and a meal nearby at the Blue Door roadhouse – subsequently destroyed by fire – and one must not forget the activities of the more fit members of the party, who on “home” match days invariably managed to get in 16 holes of golf at Leeds Castle, followed by a couple of pints at The Park Gate before reporting to the Upper by 11.15 a.m. The cricket itself was as enjoyable in those pre-war years as it is now – close matches relying on sensible declarations and giving as many players a game as possible with 12 a side very often, but only eleven fielding thus giving one or two of the more elderly gentlemen a rest for an hour or so. Unfortunately only one of the pre-war fixtures survives – v. Ashford CC where the match against the OS was always included in their cricket week. We were regularly entertained by

the late Jackie (HJ) Lee and his wife on our return journey and of course no one had to worry about breathalysers in those days. Away fixtures against The Mote where HJ (Jack) Hubble and CJ Bunting invariably opened with a century partnership against us, St Lawrence Canterbury and Hythe for whom Freddie Castle usually managed a ton in just over an hour or so – with home matches against The Romany CC, the OMTs, The Queen’s Own regiment, Bickley Park and John Armitage’s XI completing the line up. It is sad that The OMTs no longer travel our way – some great characters over the years. No one who was there will ever forget Rosie (HR Rose) taking his leave of us all on the Upper one evening in his brand new Rolls-Royce. He put the thing into reverse gear by mistake and went straight back through the hedge by the pavilion into the Orchard! No account of pre-war cricket would be complete without mention of Tubby Craven who was then regularly making hundreds for us (and dropping catches) and of course continued to keep in touch with OS cricketers during the war and started it up all again in the summer of 1946. Petrol and food rationing were a problem but with the help of many local OS farmers and butchers, not forgetting Lumpy (RY) Stevens who always managed a few extra petrol ration coupons for us, everyone fed well and got there and back comfortably by car. Apart from “The Master” and Tubby Craven we often had the services of one or two other members of staff, including Len Harvey who played regularly for Chart Sutton and of course “Jas”, the Headmaster (TM James) who was a more than useful leg-break bowler, e.g. 5 for 63 against FE Foreman’s XI in 1933 and 5 for 22 in eight overs against Bickley Park in 1934. It is sad that so many fine pre-war OS cricketers are no longer with us, many of whom never returned from active service including Percy (PSC) Pollard, Gerald Redfern and Sandy (RA) Barlow. The OS cricket week was regularly written up by “Longstop” for the Christmas edition of the school magazine and an extract from a report of the game against the Adastrians in 1932, which the OS lost by 3 runs is worth recording… “There is an element of doubt about the score in this game for our scorer, surrounded by a large number of empty glasses, cast up the OS total several times with varying results. Having taken the average it was decided that we probably lost” It was in 1936 that a “fielding cap” was first introduced to OS cricketers – “of handsome though unusual design (azure, white duck’s egg rampant)” This distinctive headgear was duly presented to and worn by any member of the side who dropped a catch. The last to wear it in each match signified his gratification at this honour by buying the rest of the team liquid refreshment. Regrettably, it often changed hands many times during the matches. John Gray. The Second World War, like the First, had been the cause of many OS losing their lives, 77 dying in this particular conflict. While all of them are mourned, particularly those mentioned above by John Gray, a very sad loss was that of GS Stead who had been so influential first as a schoolboy and then as an OS in the 1930s. One OS cricketer, LE Carden by name, was more fortunate for in 1941 after playing against the School he happily survived being shot down the very next day in a bombing raid over Germany. ***********

The OS managed to re-establish the week straight after the War. There was no delay as had happened after WWI for the effect on cricketers was mercifully much less. The First war was responsible for the loss of 47 OS of whom 27 had been prominent cricketers in the years before; while the Second World War claimed 77 lives, only 17 had previously been members of the school 1 st XI.

"< "< &' ' & 77 8 & . 3' / &' . 596 ;>; 4 '7 >9 4 >/> : . 4 . / -> > 4 > > . 4 * 0 . @ -> > ; ' 4 > >9 1 . 4 ' (

!$ ! " = < = &*

!= !%

" <

% $ %

The Week continued as before though from 1932 onwards games took place in the second week of August rather than at the end of July. One of the stars of the post-war period to 1960 was JH Gray. He was very proficient with both bat and ball â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not bad for one who had been the wicketkeeper in his last year as a schoolboy. Between 1946 and 1960 he scored more than two thousand runs and took more than one hundred wickets. He would score another thousand runs before he finally retired. HR Hearn also played a great many times helping Gray to keep the scoreboard ticking over. They were both supported by two stalwart all-rounders, KC Goodwin and PN Goddard, who entered the OS picture in the 1950s; these took over sixty wickets each in the second half of the decade and scored many runs as well. A valuable contribution might have been expected from Goddard since he had taken over 110 wickets and scored more than 1250 runs in his school career. Goodwin, however, had not troubled the statisticians significantly while at school but he had played between 1947 and 1949 when the school teams in general were on the weak side. Some pre-war players returned to grace the stage that is Upper with their efforts but as the fifties come to a close their contribution began to diminish. An exception was DW Branson who continued to give superb service right up to 1960 and beyond, but he must have rued the effect of the War â&#x20AC;&#x201C; he would have been in his heyday just at that time. Nevertheless, he continued to make significant scores, often at vital times; REG Fulljames and his brother OR also made appearances on the Upper, mainly to play against the School XI. After 1955 their contribution, too, began to wane. Edward Craven, having been a prime mover in re-establishing the week after the war, stepped down from active participation in 1954 and must have been proud to see that the name continued with his son, REB, making a very useful contribution from 1956.

=< =< &' ' & 77 8 & / &' . 596 '7 ?( , *> * 0 . @ ' ( 9 & , :( > 33 4 / &(3 596 &(3 5 6

% < #

! " ! ! ! =

! !

< ! ! $

" "

%! !# = " < % &*

"! !<

$ <

# $

A highlight of the 1960 season was KC Goodwin’s achievement of 10-34 against Sidcup. Unfortunately, he cannot claim a record for taking all the opposition wickets since this match was one of those twelve-aside affairs; the ‘spoilsport’ at the other end was AF (Anton) Robinson who took the other wicket for 28 runs. It had been a low-scoring and exciting match; the OS, batting first, managed to accumulate only 124, extras being the third highest contributor. Sidcup looked to have the match in safe keeping despite Goodwin’s early wickets until he came back to polish off the tail. All but one of his victims were removed by straight bowling, six clean bowled and three given out lbw. The difference between the Cricket Week being a great success or an outright failure depended on several factors: bad weather interfered a great deal with matches in the sixties; losing matches did not help the morale, but it was the indignity of there being an insufficient number of players available that was the hardest to bear. EA Craven was pretty much disheartened in his account of the week in 1963 when he had to report, “Back again at our lodgings in the Sanatorium and with what seemed a sufficiency of players and our usual opponents all seemed set for a good week. That this was not the case was due in the main to defections for various reasons and an all-time low was reached in the village match on the Saturday when we raised eight players and the village also eight. It is hoped that cricketing members of the OSA will support the week more in future – even by coming to play for one or two days only. We received considerable help from local members of this year’s School teams and also from John Evers* who was on holiday. Without them the week would have collapsed.” *The third son of Headmaster, CR (Ronnie) Evers, and the only one of those three who did not go into teaching – he was a doctor)

$< #<

&' (

) & ) * / &' . 596 '7 * 0 . @ :( / &(3 596 &(3 5 6 / &' . 5 6

< < < < < < < <

" #

! !

! ! # = = ! " " "

! ! !

$ "<

# <

< <

$< &' (

! #

! ! " "

< %

< ! <

# " =

# &*

! !

= # !%

) & ) * / &' . 596 '7 * 0 . @ :( / &(3 596 / &' . 5 6 & 3

!$ !< !

< < <

! " ! ! # !

= < = % #

< %

< <

(The results do not include “Brewer’s Cup” matches played since 1973) After the great success of the Fifties when more than 40% of the matches were won, the return to normality in the Sixties and Seventies when matches that were won accounted for less than 30% may have been a contributory factor towards the difficulty in raising sides. Everybody really enjoys playing cricket, but the pleasure is so much more profound when playing is associated with winning. It is also the case that the euphoria at the end of the War which had so raised the enthusiasm of all to be involved in sport quickly evaporated, and that at the same time British society was discovering a whole new raft of activities to occupy the summer months. If 1960-1970 had been disappointing the decade to follow looked, initially at least, that it might turn out to be a much more entertaining and successful period. In 1970 the local paper carried a short news item. It was a brief account of just one of the matches in a very good season for the OS. The newspaper report is copied below;

184 n.o. – on losing side! Playing for Old Suttonians against the Dragons on Sunday (Aug. 16 th 1970), PG Boorman hit a magnificent 184* - and finished on the losing side! The Dragons made 283-6 declared (P Bawden 124*, A Martin 101) and dismissed their opponents for 253. Boorman’s innings is the highest on record for the Old Suttonians, beating the 152*(sic) made by EA Craven against Town Malling 38 years ago. (Edward Craven followed up his 152* two years later with a score of 174* also against Town Malling. It is typical of the modesty of the man that he did not seek to correct the slight mistake in the OS recollection – and the photograph of him with the young Boorman taken at the time shows his obvious pride in the lad’s achievement rather than envy). This game against the Dragons was notable for the fact that it was the first time that three centuries had been scored in one OS game. The two totals did not, however, beat the greatest total of runs scored in a single day’s play in the OS week: that had occurred in that memorable match against the Lunatic Asylum at Barming in 1912 when 699 runs in all were scored. Incidentally, even if the game had stopped when the Hospital passed the OS score there would still have been 643 runs made in the day – no mean feat! If publicity like this might serve to stir the blood in potential players there was more. In 1971 the OS played two matches against the school, one of them bearing the title “Headmaster’s XI” and this was dubbed the “Centenary” Match –to commemorate somewhat dubiously one hundred years of the game being played on the Upper. The OS/Headmaster selected an eleven of past captains that managed to get the better of a draw against the pupils. In addition, other past captains were invited as spectators and to a feast afterwards held in the Headmaster’s house. The OS team that day was, AW Dixon (1966), CLR Hart (1951), PG Boorman (1969), PN Goddard (1956), JH Gray (1939), CF Smith (1951), DW Branson (1936), A Barr (1964), HR Hearn (1945), ACB Lister (1958) and D Fenton (1957). The spectators included TRK Jones (1917) HG Kennard (1922) EA Craven (1924) WH Blaxland (1925) and PR Anderson (1953). In the official match that year, with only two of the ex-captains playing, the school came out on top when, after a good start by the OS in chasing 172, a collapse in the middle order saw them managing to reach only 135. EDG Bunker, not a first choice as opening batsman, was one of the few to get among the runs. The commentator at the time obviously thought that Bunker should offer his services to the development staff at Lord’s since he said of the innings “Bunker revealed a number of scoring strokes which have yet to be seen in the MCC coaching manual”. He was already a major figure on the OS cricket scene and he was to remain a very valued member of the playing and later the organising fraternity right into the 21st century - arguably the most contributive of all the stalwarts. Amongst the leavers of the sixties and seventies there was a group of players who formed the backbone of the sides right up to the turn of the century and this contribution was as strong as the early influences of EA Craven, RL Kay, PN Goddard and others. At the head of the list must be Andrew Dixon who has played 136 times for the OS, skippering the side on numerous occasions. He also brought down a formidable MCC side to the school for many years throughout the seventies and eighties and well into the nineties. A scorer of five hundreds and twenty-two fifties he was a player, like EA Craven, who managed one of these batting milestones in just about 25% of the innings he played. His batting average of 47.8 from all matches is particularly formidable. Andrew Scott, who left a few years later than Dixon can boast of an even better average - 51.4. He has represented the OS 180 times and scored more hundreds than anyone else with 16 to date and these, together with 25 fifties, make him a member of the Craven, Dixon (about 25%) club. Other notable batsmen from this period were Paul Latham, Andrew Barr (Snr), the patriarch of a remarkable family whose contribution altogether has been particularly impressive, Peter Boorman, the scorer of 184* mentioned above who managed another 89 appearances and another 1850 odd runs, and Tony Rutherford. The brothers Foster, D and A, came on the scene in the mid-seventies and

their joint contribution was considerable, notably in the Brewers’ Cup matches which represent about one third of all their matches played. The outstanding bowler of this period, and of all time, was Neil Richards who has amassed 546 wickets in all matches played (244). Possibly he ought to be described as an all-rounder since he also holds the record for the player who recorded the greatest number of “not outs” (64), and ought to bat higher up in the order more regularly! DCF High accumulated 307 wickets, 70 of these being taken in hard-fought Brewers’ Cup matches; he bowled only half as many overs as Richards who captured a mere 82 wickets in that competition! (It has taken the professional game far too long to realise the value of the intelligent slow bowler in the limited-overs’ game!) Neville Harrison who left in 1957 was one of the faster bowlers and he made a consistent impact during the following years, taking 233 wickets with a best performance of 8-38 in 1984 against Sidcup. *********** 1973 was the inaugural year of “The Brewers’ Cup”, a competition devised for smaller Public Schools along the lines of the “Cricketer Cup”, with the proviso that qualifying schools had to have fewer than 400 boys aged over 13. Sutton Valence was one of sixteen schools that entered a side. This additional incentive to play OS cricket followed hard on the heels of the raising of enthusiasm that had been brought about by a good start to the decade’s results and the “Centenary” match in 1971. The success that was enjoyed must have improved morale and the performance in the Cup competition was impressive and deserves recounting. The first and second rounds were regional. In the Sutton Valence region other participating schools were St Edmund’s Canterbury, Hurstpierpoint and Seaford. The first match was away against St Edmund’s and their weak bowling side – on paper – nearly proved to be the one to remove Sutton Valence from the competition first time round. The OS were delighted to have bowled out their opponents for only 146 and made a sound start at knocking off the runs. At 61-2 things were going well but shortly after at 72-7 the situation looked decidedly bleak. It was at this point the oldest playing members, Colin Hart with 34 runs and Bill Branson (recruited at 8.00 a.m. on the day of the match) with 11, took the score up to 100. Coming in at number ten, Tony Rutherford took control, the “Man of the Match” award and lots of free beer afterwards! Defeat might still have resulted, however, when the last man, Tim Addison, went to the crease since 20 runs were still needed. He kept his head and his wicket supporting his senior partner to a notable first victory. Hurstpierpoint had beaten Seaford in their match and the second round was played on the Upper against what was reckoned to be a formidable side. The OS won the toss and Andrew Dixon went out to bat with Richard Memmott in determined mood. Memmott departed when the score had reached 103 but this allowed Andrew Scott to take up the cudgels and at lunch the OS were 141-1. With a solid base, runs came even more quickly and when Andrew Dixon was out for 130, the score had risen to 200. Andrew Scott continued the onslaught with the help of first, Colin Hart, then David Fenton and the 55 overs saw the OS in a very strong position at 273-3. Old Hurstjohnians took up the challenge and the first few overs saw a great flurry of runs. Shortly after tea the likely threat of their opening batsmen repeating the exploits of Dixon and Memmott was removed. The OS could not relax, however, as each succeeding batsman made a useful and pacy contribution. Fortunately, no one was allowed to develop an innings and despite the accumulation of runs wickets fell with satisfactory regularity. When the opponents completed their innings at 212-9 it was generally felt that the score did not reflect their really good effort; Sutton Valence were truly grateful to the Cricketing Gods for the result. The Old Suttonians’ opponents in the next round were Bishop’s Stortford who had been victorious in a region including Culford, Chigwell and Aldenham. The game was played at Bishop’s Stortford. The OS were fortunate to have lost the toss for the pitch was rather slow at the start and only later on in the day

did the ball come on to the bat. Goddard and Addison were the best bowlers of the day, taking seven wickets between them, while Neville Harrison bowled his eleven overs without a wicket but for a meagre 13 runs. The bowlers were excellently backed up by splendid catching and ground fielding. The opposition were restricted to 124 and removed in the 48th over of the 55 allotted. Following his excellent contribution in the earlier round, Andrew Dixon was again not to be denied and with the support of Paul Latham and Peter Boorman the runs were knocked off in 39 overs for only one wicket. The Final was played at the Watney Mann ground, Mortlake, on Sunday September 2nd and the opponents were Denstone College who had reached the final by beating Bromsgrove and then Trent College who in their turn had beaten Ellesmere in the “Midlands” region. Denstone had defeated Prior Park in their semifinal, this side having been the victors of the “West” region that also included Dean Close, St John’s Leatherhead and The Oratory. Denstone won the toss and elected to bat. Overnight rain had freshened up the pitch and there was some debate about the wisdom of their having the first go. It did not look to have been such a good decision when the Denstone were 16-3 and, despite a bit of a recovery, the OS had restricted the score to 92-6 at lunchtime. However, the post lunch period saw a near doubling of the total in a seventh wicket stand of 85. The Suttonians may have suffered the consequences of a particularly fine lunch while the wicket may well have eased a little during the interval; it was also the case that the OS had used all the overs allocated to their fast bowlers in the morning period in striving to break right through the Denstone batting. Whatever the reason, Denstone recovered to be dismissed in the 54th over for 190. The OS batting on this occasion proved to be disappointing. Two wickets fell early but when Andrew Dixon was joined by Andrew Scott hopes were raised for a while. Though Dixon soon lost his wicket, while Scott remained at the crease it looked as though he might just win the game on his own. Unfortunately, when his superb innings was cut short on 60 by a most brilliant catch at cover-point, the rest of the batting could not maintain the quality and the OS subsided into defeat, being all out for 136. F.G. Mann, the former England captain and director of the hosts’ firm, awarded the first Brewers’ Company Cup to a thoroughly deserving Denstone side. The OS cricket correspondent writing about the 1973 final concludes, “ from the Sutton point of view we thank all those concerned in giving us a wonderful day out. Not least our opponents and we’d like to have another go at them some time in the future.” The Cricketing Gods indulged the hope – but the desire for a different result was not to be fulfilled! In 1974 the OS beat Hurstpierpoint in the 1 st round and St Edmund’s Canterbury in the regional final. In the semi-final, the opponents were St John’s Leatherhead who had overturned their disappointment of the year before. The OS prevailed in a thoroughly entertaining and competitive match. The Final was at the Bass-Charrington ground at Dagenham and the opponents – Denstone! The game was remarkably similar to the one the year before. Denstone batted first, lost early wickets but recovered, eventually reaching 191-9. There was a similar pattern in the OS reply but despite one or two cameo innings the team subsided into gentle defeat. The account of the first-round match against Hurstpierpoint gave a reminder to this author just how dependent he is on the whim of contemporary opinion, or his ability to interpret nuances of humour written down rather than spoken. In that game, after some flawed opening overs in which he was punished severely, Philip Goddard, in his second spell, took four quick wickets the last three of which, all bowled, were the match-winners. One account has these wicket all falling to perfect yorkers, but in the opinion of Edward Craven, a perfectionist and always hard to please, the balls were either slightly over-

pitched full-length balls or slightly under-pitched full-tosses! He is equally disparaging of one of Andrew Scott’s rare (according to Edward “surprising”) appearances as a bowler. He had done his bit with 3-33, two of the wickets being those of batsmen who had become well-set and who were looking dangerously like pushing the score along. Tubby writes, “The surprising bit being that no one, least of all the bowler, knew when or whence he was going to release the ball. At least that’s what it looked like from the safety of the score box.” Perhaps this was just Edward’s very droll way of acknowledging an astute piece of captaincy that had introduced something unusual into the proceedings with the idea of making something happen, or is it just my interpretation of events having made only brief acquaintance with the people involved? (I am assured by those who know that Scott’s bowling action was extraordinarily unorthodox) The match-managers in the playing fields of Heaven decided that the OS and Denstone had shared enough glory for the time being and in 1975 Denstone were defeated by Dean Close in their semi-final whilst the OS were beaten by St. John’s Leatherhead in the southern regional final. Dean Close became the third winners of the trophy. The Suttonians’ time was yet to come but not until 1990 though they did reach the final in 1985 when they played and lost again to Denstone – and would you believe it, Denstone made a shaky start but managed to reach 192; the OS in reply looked well- set but no-one could convert a start into a match-winning innings and eventually the innings closed at 180. (Three finals, all lost and with such similarities). The OS reached the final for the fourth time in 1987. The opponents? Why, Denstone, of course! This time the OS batted first and achieved their highest score against the opponents 183. Unfortunately, this time round Denstone did not falter at the start: they began well, got better and finally knocked off the runs with lots of wickets and overs in hand. *********** The decades of the 70s and 80s saw mixed fortunes for the OS, the latter decade being the more successful one. It was good for the rivalry with opponents that there was not one team that consistently defeated the OS or any team consistently beaten by them. A significant proportion of the matches were decided late in the day and the results might have been very different, so narrow was the gap between the sides. It was not simply the players who made the matches such close-run affairs as the last game of 1976 shows below: The OS were playing The Dragons who had declared their innings at 248-9. The OS were 242 – 8, Andrew Dixon was on 104 and Desmond High, (according to Edward Craven’s version of events) justifying High’s high opinion of High’s batting had scored 8! We’d got two wickets left and the last ball was about to come. We couldn’t lose and we might tie or win if we could conjure 7 runs off the last ball, and we very nearly did. Well, we got two byes, so Andrew and Desmond kept on running, just like Felix the cat, and we got another by courtesy of the Dragons overthrowing, and yet another. They were well embarked for run no. 5 but Charlie Smith (umpire), who’d been rotating like a top and must have been giddy took part in proceedings. He bent over, not difficult for him, rather like Old Father Time at Lord’s when it is near cider time, and started to take the stumps out. He now had his back to the whole performance and could not see that Andrew and Desmond were continuing in their marathon. He firmly said “Game’s over”. So that was that. But I’m convinced someone on the Dragon’s side would have gone mad – it was that sort of situation – and given us the extra overthrows we needed, perhaps even a four to make it a “niner”. I and my fellow scorer compromised by putting 4 down in the bye column, even though run no.5 was well under way, unseen by Charlie, who was blatantly intent on getting back to his cider at the earliest opportunity.

P.S. I heard, yesterday, that Charlie had said to Ron Ledger (groundsman) that he didn’t think anyone had noticed all of this!!! 1976 saw a high point in the illustrious contribution of Neil Richards to OS cricket. In the game against Cranbrook Lynxes he bowled 27 overs of which 4 were maidens and took 9 wickets for 68 runs. He was presented with the match ball, suitably mounted. His effort was close to that of K Goodwin who, as mentioned earlier, had taken 10-34 against Sidcup (in a game of 12 a side) and GS Stead who had also taken 9 wickets in an innings in 1929. The period from 1977 to 1984 saw a slow but steady deterioration in the quality of the playing surface: there was too much moss in the wicket, especially at the road end of the square. Fortunately, the school authorities were well aware of the problems and by the end of the eighties the wicket was once again up to its usual standard, even improving, thanks to a succession of first-rate groundsmen. David Bunker is of the opinion in 2005 that only someone who wishes to get out need do so; many would believe the wicket has become too much in the favour of the batsman! 1988 was a season of real ups and downs. The cricket in the week reflected all that was good about the OS but the season had started sadly with the news of the death of Edward Craven and finished unfortunately in a defeat in the final of the Brewer’s Cup. Hurstpierpoint were the winners on this occasion. Kent’s Mark Benson (80), well supported by James Skinner (76) and David Foster with a very rapid 44 were the spine of a very commendable 245 for 6 for the OS and a win looked on the cards until Sussex’s Mark Speight with 148 not out steered his side home. During this period there was a steady stream of new players from the ranks of the school-leavers though the core of the sides was usually made up of the older heads. However, one important feature of any cricket side was in decline. The OS found it difficult to replace their ageing fast bowlers with new talent. Some younger OS who had begun their careers as fast(er) bowlers became more adept at slower, less legwearying stuff. This provided a valuable lesson to the OS. Their paucity of fast bowlers and reliance on the wiles of spinners taught them the value of slow, accurate bowling in limited-overs’ matches and in those matches where opponents needed to push the score along to win in the time left available. A game in 1982 against the Scorpions illustrates this. The wicket that day was poor and clearly suited fast bowlers. John Gray, playing in his 49th season, had helped the OS accumulate a reasonable total but he and the others were bruised and battered in the process. The one OS fast bowler was unfortunately incapacitated owing to batting injuries and initially the OS felt very frustrated that they could not exploit the pitch as the opposing fast bowlers had done. As it turned out, the spinners kept the run rate down and when the Scorpions made a late dash for the runs wickets fell. A game that should have been lost was so very nearly won. The OS spinners were not just ordinary spinners: Des High – niggardly; David Foster – crafty; James Barr – with infinite variety; Tim Addison – encouraging false confidence; Tony Sunnucks – stand breaker and Mark Russell-Vick – such a good length. (valedictory descriptions are courtesy of contemporary accounts) But most of all there was Neil Richards – the topic of a discussion between eminent men as to who was the slowest opening bowler of the time. While D Patel of Essex was seen by some as a likely candidate other opinion held that it was “one-eyed” Richards who held the crown. Simon Barnes, writing in The Times after the Brewer’s Cup Final of 1990, sums it all up when he writes: One of the things that always baffles me about small-time cricket is, why does it always try to look like grown-up cricket? The umbrella slip cordon looks great on television but on Tewin Green the edges don’t fly, and if they did no-one would be quick enough to catch them. This column, then, sends special greetings to Old Suttonians for their victory in the Brewers Company Cup, a knock-out competition for former pupils of minor public schools. The

standard seems alarmingly high, with minor county and county second XI players among their numbers. The more credit, then, to Suttonians who won the competition with an attack comprising six spinners. Their policy was to open with a leggie and a left-armer, and follow up with two more left-armers and a pair of offies. The line-up bowled out the opposition in every round and dispatched old Tauntonians in the final with all the style and guile you could wish for. The Brewers Cup of 1990 was a win to be savoured after the disappointments of previous years and I make no apologies for including a great deal of detail. Round one was played at home against Leighton Park and although the OS won by nine wickets the game might have been entirely different. The visitors started very confidently putting on 119 for the first wicket in very quick time, taking advantage of loose bowling, many wides and bad catching. At that moment they would have been looking forward to a score close to 300, thus setting a very daunting challenge. Three quick wickets then fell, one of which was down to a magnificent catch by Andrew Scott who, in the process, removed a player who had flown all the way from Milan to represent his alma mater. This took some of the heat out of the Leighton Park batting and eventually they had to settle for a very respectable 235 for 8. The OS took up the challenge and the early loss of James Barr was forgotten as the two Andrews, Scott and Foster, put on 221 in an unbroken partnership to seal the victory with two overs to spare. Round two was another home fixture, this time against St John’s Leatherhead. Overnight rain forced an afternoon start and a match reduced to 40 overs per side. Tony Sunnucks was the hero of the batting in this game with 103 runs, powerfully struck to compensate for the slow outfield. He found two solid partners in Andrew Scott (43) and Mark Russell-Vick (38) and the OS closed their innings on 224 for 6. Dispensing with pace bowlers altogether, the OS soon had the holders of the trophy in trouble and apart from a few flurries they hardly threatened. Sunnucks, brimful with enthusiasm after his performance with the bat, took 4 wickets in the Hurstjohnnians reply of 151 and rightly earned himself ‘Man of the Match’ status. The semi-final was against Bloxham at home and was, as in the previous game, reduced to 50 overs because of overnight rain. Bloxham batted first. They benefited from unusually poor catching but the OS all-spin attack again proved its worth and Bloxham were restricted to 191. Smith, the ex-Worcestershire player, made a hundred despite giving four clear catching opportunities, but once he was dismissed (bowled Russell-Vick) and the potentially dangerous N Baig was removed by a Skinner catch the OS felt they had a chance to win. With rain an ever-present threat, the first milepost was to reach 20 overs with a higher run rate but their 31-2 total was well short of the target. When another wicket fell in the over immediately after tea things were looking decidedly bleak. The situation was rescued by Mark RussellVick and Paul Sunnucks whose youthful exuberance and hard-hitting reduced the asking-rate significantly. When they both lost their wickets, on 35 and 68 respectively, there still remained much to be done. Fortunately, David Foster with several lusty blows, together with a calm Edwin James, were equal to the task. In the end the OS won with 5 wickets to spare and 3.4 overs in hand. The final was played at the Courage’s ground in Hayes, Kent and the opponents were the formidable Taunton School. The account of the match made by Michael Hetherington, who had inspired the competition in 1972 and who had been an ever-present, is to be found below. SUTTON VALENCE SUCCEEDS AT LAST. This year’s finalists were of very different pedigree. Sutton Valence had been in five previous finals and had been defeated every time; theirs was a team with only one real youngster in it and with two players whose appearances dated right back to the very first Final in 1973.

Taunton, on the other hand, had only ever been in one Final, which they won, and they were a really youthful side, with only one player over thirty. Both sides were lacking the stars they hoped to field – M Benson’s broken finger keeping him out of the Sutton Valence team and R Bartlett and N Pringle missing from the Taunton line-up because of the County 2 nd XI Final. It seems obvious in the end which side suffered more from their absence, though who is to tell what influence they would actually have had? On yet another warm, sunny day Taunton won the toss and elected to bat. Sutton Valence again followed their highly successful policy of employing slow bowlers throughout and N Richards immediately dropped into his usual immaculate line and teasing length. D Foster began with three full tosses, but Taunton failed to score from any of them – which rather set the pattern for what was to follow. The first wicket went down at 19 when Amor attempted to break free by hitting high over extra cover only for Scott to run around from long-off to take a brilliant catch. Van der Walt looked to be in good form until he was unluckily caught off the back of the bat, sweeping at High – who was almost back to his old-time best with his nagging economical off-spin. Russell-Vick, at the other end, was also finding the pitch helpful to off-spin and he claimed an important wicket when the dangerous-looking Bennett was well held by Skinner at deep midwicket. Another wicket fell on the stroke of lunch when Tony Sunnucks bowled Walker, the one man who looked as if he might salvage the situation. This left Taunton in the parlous position of 121-6 – and what’s more, Sutton Valence had already bowled 43 overs in the two hours! The captain, Grant, made an attempt after lunch to rally his troops but without any lasting success and the innings eventually closed at 165 in the 54 th over. In truth Taunton badly lacked someone to play a big, long innings and never quite managed to dominate Sutton Valence’s array of six slow bowlers, all of whom bowled very accurately and economically – backed up by some really excellent fielding and throwing, notably by Scott (two catches and two run-outs), Skinner and Russell-Vick. What would the wicket do? Would it be helpful to the quicker Taunton bowlers? Was the top going? The pundits had their views just as they always do right up to Test level, and as usual many of them got it wrong – just as they do even in the Tests! Scott and Skinner started very sensibly and steadily – there was no need to do anything else with the required run-rate of only three per over – and it soon became apparent that the wicket was not falling to pieces and the fast bowlers would not turn it into a minefield. Thus it came as a bit of a surprise, and a real bonus to Taunton, when Skinner hooked a long-hop down deep square leg’s throat. But this only served to bring in James Barr, much the youngest of the Sutton Valence team and only just out of School. He seemed to have a great deal of time to play and he was soon in his stride, flicking and punching the ball away with almost casual ease at times – though not without some alarms, when he only just cleared mid-on with a fierce drive and when he might have been caught off a fiendishly difficult skier at square leg. Meanwhile Scott was playing his usual cautious, watchful innings at the other end, offering the bowlers very little chance, and giving his partner just the support that was needed. (perhaps his “practice” session against Angus Fraser in the Middlesex League the day before was just what was required?!) A teatime score of 94-1 off 30 overs meant that the game was all but over. The 2nd wicket pair went on to complete a fine century stand and it was only broken when a direct hit on the stumps ran Barr out by inches. A slight hiccup ensued when Scott dragged a wide one onto his stumps only 2 runs later, but Russell-Vick and P Sunnucks ensured that there were no further alarms and Sutton Valence duly ran out winners by 7 wickets with 6 overs to spare. On the day Taunton did not manage to do themselves justice in any department of their game – perhaps the minibus breakdown in the early morning within 200 yards of the starting-point was a portent? – but they are a young side and they will surely be back. Sutton Valence, on

the other hand, played right up to their potential in all aspects, not least the fielding and it seemed very appropriate that they should break their duck in their Centenary year. (The secretary hopes he will not be felt to be too unworthily partisan in recording his own delight at their success but when he sent out the initial letter in 1972, mooting the idea of the competition, it was Edward Craven who sent his acceptance by return of post – dear old “Tubby” Craven, for so long the sage and mentor of Sutton Valence cricket, who sadly did not live to see the day of triumph) The Brewer’s Cup continued to focus attention. The OS were beaten narrowly by Taunton in the following year’s semi-final but won it for the second time in 1992 against Aldenham. This victory might be described as ‘fortunate’ because of the weather and decisions by officials. Let Des High take up the story. On a day when heavy overnight and morning rain reduced the usual 55 overs to 40 per side in conditions better suited to water-polo than cricket, and doctoring the ball was confined to wringing it out, the OS passed Aldenham’s total of 180 with 3 balls to spare and only Neil Richards to bat. As it happened 40 overs per side was probably 5 too many as the final halfhour was played after official lighting-up time and it was almost impossible to see from the boundary to the middle. Paul Latham and David Curtis had the enormous advantage over the fielders and the spectators of being just able to see the ball and kept their heads when pressure could not have been greater. They were helped by the umpires’ insistence that the Aldenham opening bowler had to serve up slow lobs! Indeed! - Aldenham hardly deserved to lose and the bizarre conditions at the finish must have compounded their disappointment. It was remarkable that the match, played at the Guinness ground in Park Royal but sponsored for the day by Young’s Brewery, got under way at all. It is highly likely that it was only because it was the Final of the competition that the match was begun. Aldenham won the toss and, unusually in a light-affected game, chose to bat. They began slowly but accelerated well after twenty overs when the ball became very slippery for both fielders and bowlers. Their total of 180 was more than respectable in the circumstances. Their bowlers were very much fired-up to their task and the OS could achieve only 35-2 after 17 overs. In the gathering darkness, the game could have been called off at any time and the OS would have lost on an inferior run-rate, but the next few overs saw the beginnings of the recovery with Mark Russell-Vick and James Wheeler achieving belligerent control. At 123 for 2, with 11 overs left, the OS had the game well in hand but within 4 overs the score had advanced only to 139 and the total of wickets fallen increased to 5. The poor light was beginning to fade further and while David Foster succeeded with some well-placed shots the other batsmen had trouble seeing the ball; in no time at all the OS found themselves on 161 for 8, Foster dismissed and only 3 overs to go. Batting was now becoming a dangerous occupation but so was fielding especially for anyone close to the bat. It was generous of Aldenham to continue in such conditions, but then I do not think they were offered any alternative. Des High continues the narrative: The umpires’ intervention proved timely, disarming Aldenham’s main strike-bowler and tipping the advantage our way. We had been offered the light but as we were marginally behind on the run-rate coming off would have meant conceding the game. In fact David Foster was on the verge of suggesting a shared trophy, given the concern about injury, but fortunately the batsmen rendered it unnecessary. The result was tough on Aldenham, who probably thought the cup was theirs with 3 overs left. That said, in view of the OS record of 6 previous final appearances but only 1 win, another defeat would have been hard to swallow.

In 1993 the OS lost in the second round to Aldenham but went on to win the competition for the third time in 1994, beating St Edmundâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, Aldenham and Ellesmere on the way. The final was against Taunton School and played at the Mitchell & Butler Recreation Ground in Birmingham. The OS won fairly comfortably but the next time the final was achieved, in 2000, the opponents were Taunton again and this time it was they who controlled events.

< %< %

&' (

) & ) * / &' . 596 '7 * 0 . @ :( / &(3 596 / &' . 5 6 & 3 1 4 &' 9 ( -(

% % $ < <

" " !

= # " " ! = "

!$ "

! < ! < < < %

! $

< < %

< < <

" $ ! =

" =

= " !

" -(

< " #

# &*

< &' '7 * 0 . @ :( / &(3 596 & 3 1 4 &' 9 ( : -' & 4 ' * 4

! !" !% &*

= <

$ ! !

!= !< !#

# < # = $

< < <

OS cricket continues to thrive well past its one hundredth birthday and into the twenty-first century. As is the way of things new blood is introduced as the older stalwarts gradually fade from the playing arena. The week itself has changed. It is now played over two consecutive weekends, the better to attract a good number of players. The policy of nominating match managers each responsible for a particular game is proving to be better than the old system which relied more on the enthusiasm of individuals to take the initiative to make themselves available.

James Sandbrook-Price has played 97 times since 1989, and scored more than 2000 runs into the bargain. His is just the sort of commitment on which the OS has relied. Richard Bradstock and Matthew Day are two others who look likely to emulate the great contributions of the past. August 15th, 1984 was an occasion when three OS made a hundred on the same day. J Skinner and D Foster shared a 250 run partnership that gave the OS a score big enough for them to bowl out Ashford (Neil Richards 7-106) while at the same time Mark Benson was scoring 111 for Kent against Warwickshire in the Natwest Trophy at Edgbaston. A small school like Sutton Valence can be rightly proud that it has such a good number of really able cricketers. This can sometimes be to its disadvantage, since those same fellows are snapped up by good club sides and their availability to help out the OS is limited; more credit to them then when they do give up their time. The OS want to win their matches and cricket is played just as fiercely as it can be. At the same time it is a great social event, and if the pool of players is a large one because of alternative commitments for some matches then so much the better. WH Macrayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s call to arms in 1989 set the tone and this has been the spirit for over 100 years.

Acknowledgements OS Cricket Archive School magazines 1891-present