Trevor P: Great Batsmen of All Time (1928)

I`ve been following the discussions regarding the best batsmen and bowlers of all-time with some interest, and thought you might be interested in the perspective of an observer in 1928. My source is two articles originally printed in the Strand Magazine of 1928, and reprinted in "Cricket`s Golden Lining" edited by David Rayvern Allen, published by Willow Books in 1987. The author of both was Colonel Philip Trevor (C.B.E.). I know little about Colonel Trevor but he clearly had watched a lot of cricket over the preceding 50 years or so. I`d like to reproduce both articles for you ("Great Batsmen of All Time" and "Great Bowlers of All Time" , but I`m sure that would be against copyright laws, and anyway, I don`t have the time! So, here`s some edited highlights. Great bowlers will be posted separately, as this is a little long.

GREAT BATSMEN OF ALL TIME

"The greatest batsman is he who makes the greatest number of runs in the shortest possible time"- Trevor puts much weight on a positive approach. To precis Trevor, "context is everything".

He ranks W.G. first and the rest well behind, on the basis of the wickets that Grace performed upon. Grace played on unprepared wickets, where a hundred was a rarity, and made that feat commonplace. He states that "man for man the moderns [bowlers] are intrinsically better bowlers than the older men. But in the matter of bowling the state of the wicket is everything, absolutely everything". Of Grace he says "He is first-easy first and must remain first for all time." He justifies this by the fact that no subsequent great bat had to play on such poor wickets "And because that is so, he can never have an equal".

"I put second on the list the wizard `Ranji`". "Until he invented and perfected his wonderful leg glide stroke, more than one third of the area of the cricket circle was uncultivated waste". Trevor quotes Ranji`s splendid advice on batting- "First see where the ball is going to pitch; then go to it; then hit it". From Trevor again "He had all the strokes of the admittently great batsman, and these he would use after he had made the opposing captain man the defences in the leg segment of the circle".

"My number 3 is Victor Trumper". "Not even a beautifully made woman skating superbly could rival the grace of Trumper batting". "Neither W.G. or Ranji made the bowler look quite as foolish as Victor Trumper did." Trevor ranks him so high due to his artistryhe states Trumper could have made many more runs if he had been more conservative in his stroke play. As an example..

"Once, in a match at Lord`s, Schofield Haigh, then the best bowler of the day on a rain damaged wicket, bowled Victor three balls in succession, each of which was a perfect length, and all three pitched practically on the same spot. they were the opening balls of the match. Trumper put the first into the gallery of the hotel [I suspect pulled or hooked]. The second he lay back and cut for four behind point. He danced into the third and lifted it into Q stand with a fine on drive".

Trevor`s number 4 is unconventional, Gilbert Jessop. He restates his definition of greatness, and suggests Jessop makes the list on the basis of "high endeavour". "If I said that Jessop tried to punish severely 7/10ths of the balls bowled to him I should be considerably under the mark" "The ball bowled had to be smashed; it is all summed up in that. Relying on the unique value of the setting of a supreme standard in batting, I place Jessop 4th on my list, and ...I stand aghast at my own moderation".

"And what about Jack Hobbs? He is not my number 5, because if you do not class him first of all I do not know where you are to class him".

So implicitly, Trevor ranks Hobbs up with the others, and emphasizes his skill on wet wickets. He gives honourable mentions to Maclaren, Fry, Foster, Tyldesley, Hayward, Faulkner and Macartney. "I do not see a ghost of a sign of the coming of the real young `un thereon, except Hammond, the young Gloucestershire batsman". Bradman had made his debut in 1927, but Trevor would not have seen him until 1930, one supposes.

An interesting list, and not an average mentioned in the article. I find Trevor`s arguments based on wickets convincing, and would suggest that batsmen of our current era, who rarely, if ever play on even a rain damaged wicket, have to suffer in comparison with those of even 30 years ago.