100 years ago, #2

A few years ago, I noted the death of champion Kent left-arm spinner Colin Blythe in World War I.

Over my long obsession with old county cricket, one figure who attracted my attention very early on because of his bowling records was Schofield Haigh of Yorkshire, who died 100 years ago as of tomorrow. Haigh attracted my attention in part through being born fifty years before my father to the day, as well as from his feat in heading the national bowling averages four times in five years between 1905 and 1909, and five times in eight years between 1902 and 1909. Despite his exceptional averages, Haigh was notable for bowling very few overs vis-à-vis other professional bowlers of his era, never passing 1,000 (6,000 balls) in a season when other top bowlers sometimes passed 1,500 overs.

Haigh’s low output was due to partly his slight build, which would make him quite unsuitable for bowling on today’s covered pitches. Related to this, Haigh generally was nothing more than accurate on good pitches, and was never so much as considered for a tour of Australia. However, on sticky pitches, Haigh could despite his small fingers and the larger ball then in use spin the ball more viciously than anyone. With his accurate length and medium pace, Haigh was virtually impossible to hit off – the only tactic to score runs when the ball turned far faster than it does on any covered pitch – and it is striking how not even the most superbly skilled batsmen like Hobbs, Hayward, McLaren, Johnny Tyldesley, or C.B. Fry ever mastered Haigh in form on a drying pitch.

Having devoured 1980s and 1990s Wisdens, which again and again lamented that English batting techniques were consistently deteriorating, I have often imagined what would happen to modern batsmen if they had had to face Haigh on a sticky wicket after rain. My most frequent discussion relates to a notorious “sticky” at Leicester in 1911 after a thunderstorm on a 35-degree day (one of the hottest on record in England). Marginally thankfully, Haigh received no opportunity to bowl and was bowled out by Jack King for a duck as that bowler took seven for none in twenty balls to give Leicestershire their only win for the season. Often I imagine Haigh would have got any modern side all out in ten balls – unplayable in the strictest sense of the term, as my father said back in the 1990s.

I have often imagined that, assuming what 1980s and 1990s Wisdens said to be perfectly true, that:

• Leicestershire against Haigh on that Leicester pitch would have not managed a target of 30 runs to win
• the lowest target actually set to a defeated side in first-class cricket is 33
  
• even recognised modern batsmen would look like Frank McHugh – who has by far the worst batting average of any regular first-class cricketer – if they were required to face Haigh on pitches affected by rain.
  
• if modern batsmen had had to bat against Haigh on that above-mentioned Leicester sticky, 99 balls out of 100 would have got them out
  
• even on less vicious sticky wickets almost every ball from Haigh in form would have dismissed the best modern batsmen

Proving those points above correct is of course impossible.

In recent years my mother and brother have come up with alternative explanations for why those 1980s and 1990s Wisdens said what they did about English batsmanship, and argued that improvements in training mean that modern players are much better than older ones. Moreover, the tendency of Wisden to criticise contemporary players did not start in the 1980s, but had developed by the 1964 issue which I have been reading as I write this.