Cardus on Cyril Washbrook
Cricketislife!
Washbrook has for years been a representative cricketer for the
players at Lord's and for England; he has also attained to power as
captain of Lancashire county. He has scored a century for England
against Australia; and to this day when a cricketer has scored a
century in England v Australia Test matches, he is at liberty to chant
a Nunc dimittis. Yet somehow Washbrook has not exactly found his way.
When he scored 152 in his second match for Lancashire against Surrey
in 19300 he was only 18 years old and his cricket was already strong,
decisive and in many ways masterful. During this same period another
young Lancastrian batsman vied in promise with Washbrook; his name was
Oldfield and he was more of a stylist than Washbrook. The war that
broke out in 1939 stole years from both these players just at the time
when talent matures to more than talent. Oldfield missed his footing
on the upper slopes of greatness and likewise, washbrook, though he
actually has reached the summit of reasonable achievement, has not
remained there. Yet in point of presence and individuality of
strokeplay we must count him amongst the truly distinguished batsman
of his time; moreover he goes without argument amongst the most
brilliant and beautiful of all cover-points, a worthy follower for
Lanchashire on the wing of Vernon Royle and R. H. Spooner.
To measure a batsman who is an artist as well as a consistent runmaker
the scoreboard is inadequate. There are cricketers who are able to
arrest our attention while they are not at the moment in the scorer's
books at all. It is a matter of personality; and this is something
which defied definition even in times when personality was omnipresent
on English cricket fields. Today most of our players are so much alike
in style and personal aspect that catalogues could scarcely classify
them. Personality does not depend on consistently successful
performance, though without some distinction of performance it could
not well make itself felt. Many great performers, virtuosi in skill,
record breakers of renown, have lacked personality.
It was once maintained that Hobbs himself seldom had a crowd's
attention by any personal hypnotism. But if indeed Hobbs was
frequently anonymous, it was in the way that Homer is alleged to have
been not a man but an epoch. An innings by woolley was at once
'signed' as soon as he came in, not only because of the easy supple
beauty of his strokes, defensive if called for, but by the dominating,
yet at the same time unobtrusive poise of him, and the inscrutable
face.
Washbrook, from the day of his first match for Lancashire has drawn my
eyes to him, whether at the wicket or in the field. I like the way he
wears his cap; no cricket cap can seem as confident of peak as
Washbrook's Lancashire cap with the lovely red rose on it or England
cap. His shoulders are a cricketer's, also his easy unconcerned
movements as he walks on the field, changing from cover to cover, with
a jaunty motion, chin up. It is said that he is aloof, unsmiling. A
certain prima donna was reprimanded by her concert agent: 'You must
smile at the audience' And why?' she asked, 'Zey are not fonny.'
I like the pouter pigeon thrust forward of Washbrook' chest; and
whenever he scratches the batting crease with his right foot, champing
it, I know that the bowlers are likely to be put to the sword. And
there, by a phrase, is one of his qualities brought vividly to mind.
Of how many batsmen in the game at the moment may we say that they
can, in a situation of gravity and challenge, put an attack 'to the
sword'. I have seen Washbrook cut an advancing attack to ribbons.
Better still, and as much to his credit, I have seen him lose his
wicket because of daring and contempt. At Nottingham, in the first
Test match of the 1948 rubber, he was caught at long leg from superb
hook of Lindwall. At old trafford, in the same rubber, he was missed
on the boundary from another great hook, MacLarnesque, by Hassett. Not
at all daunted, Washbrook immediately repeated the stroke, off Miller
or Lindwall, and again Hassett dropped the catch. (Hassett then
borrowed a bowler hat from a man in the crowd and held it out in front
of him.) The dreary folk who set the standards and canons of
contemporary cricket, those who never saw J.T. Tyldesley, severely
chastised Washbrook for 'carelessness' . I can see yet, with my mind'
eye, the hook by which Washbrook got out that day at Trentbridge in
1948.
He is essentially a stroke player. In fact, it is not from
'carelessness' with his hooking and pulling that he has not had a long
reign in Test cricket; his failures were the consequence of strangely
and unnaturally immobile footwork which got him out leg before wicket.
Some kind of malaise seems to come over him; a sudden moodiness,
inexplicable in a cricketer born confident and sure of himself. At
Lord's , in 1950, he reached a century by close of play, then next day
made not another run against Valentine and Ramadhin in about half an
hour, then succumbed asthough changed into a batsman withe neither
eyesight nor vision. Washbrook is not to be described or defined at
all in terms of averages and aggregates or of the steady service of
the artisan worthy of his hire. Only the man who is a technician
before he is an artist is prepared to always to submit to the demands
of the machine. He was born perhaps too late; in contemporary Test
matches a batsman is not encouraged to make strokes that might cost
him his wicket early in his game. I doubt if J.T. Tyldesley could
retain his place in the England XI of today' consistent cheese-paring
economy. But Washbrook can, of course, exercise self denial enough.
His century at Melbourne, against Australia in 1946, saved England
from defeat. I have never understood why he was removed from his
position as the player fit to open England's innings with Hutton until
a better man was found. or a swifter fieldsman at cover found, or a
cricketer who can lend as much of panache as Washbrook at a time when
the England team is generally to be recognized at the wicket for
industry real and careworn.
So many times has Washbrook done less justice to himself on great
occasions that on the face of it a severe sentence in Mr Altham's and
Mr Swanton' History of Cricket may be justified:
'Hammond, Hutton and Compton were still' (i n 1946) 'on any standard
great players. Washbrook, if lacking their genius, was much more than
competent.' The line that divides talent from genius is thin and
precarious. Washbrook at his best can bat with a touch, a mastery, a
freedom of style far beyond the scope of competence. A strict
technical analysis of his batsmanship might arrive at the view that he
is greater as a stroke-player than as a player of organised defence.
We must judge any man by his best work; nobody in contemporary cricket
can excel an inspired Washbrook innings for combined power, brilliance
and the grand manner.
----------
Extracted from 'Cardus in the covers'
--
=========================================================
+++++
Cyril Washbrook
This month also sees the death of Cyril Washbrook, cricketer for
Lancashire and England. Like so many cricketers of his generation his
career was disrupted by the Second World War. However either side of
the war years he was a force to be reckoned with on the cricket field.
Cyril Washbrook was born in Barrow, Lancashire on Dec 6, 1914. (One of
these birthdates is wrong, see card).
At age 18 he came too the notice of Lancashire when he was playing a
match against Surrey. He became Lancashire's youngest century maker
scoring 152 against Surrey. Tommy Higson, the Chairman, called to see
him afterwards and congratulate him. However the praise was not
allowed to go to the young Cyril's head because the next comments
concerned his attire. His cap should be worn straighter and the fact
he had a coloured belt on was also noted.
Details from Card In 1933, when eighteen, Cyril Washbrook scored 152
against Surrey, and two years later he averaged 45.36 for an aggregate
of 1724, including his highest innings - 228 at Oxford. Bad patches
have hindered his progress but, after opening the 1937 season poorly,
Washbrook showed such consistent form that he had appeared for England
in the last Test Match against New Zealand. Altogether he made 1546
runs average 42.94. Strong and venturesome, he usually scores fast by
well-executed strokes all round the wicket; drives and cuts give high
character to his cricket. Very quick in the field, he excels either
near the wicket or in the deep. Born January 6th, 1915.
Players, Cricketers 1938.
The advice was partially taken with the removal of the belt but the
hat resolutely retained its angle. In such conditions it might not be
a surprise to anyone that Washbrook took a while to make an impact on
the Lancashire team. The simple fact was there were a great many very
good players in the side at that time and Harry Makepeace, the coach
of the day, might not have entirely agreed with the, comparitively,
relaxed thinking of Washbrook. Lancashire were to win the Championship
in 1934 but Washbrook did not play a major role in this achievement.
But things changed in 1935 when for the first time he topped 1000 runs
in a season. A feat he was going to repeat some 19 additional times.
In 1937 he got his first test cap and surely there were more to follow
but the war was to disrupt all that.
The war was to rob Cyril of six prime summers but unlike many he did
return as was able to play once more. Cyril was soon in the Test side
once more when he partnered Len Hutton in 1946. This was also the year
he achieved 1000 runs in July. In 1947 he was to add 2662 runs to his
overall total which included 11 centuries at an average of 68. Such
was the strength of English cricket these feats were over-shadowed by
Compton & Edrich. Hutton and Washbrook opened the England attack in 31
test matches and 8 times they posted three figure partnerships and on
two occassions in successive innings. The finest scoring achievement
of the partnership was in Johannesburg in 1948-9 when they scored 359
runs in 310 minutes, which stands as an English record
As an opening partnership they perhaps are second only to Hobbs and
Suttcliffe which is a partnership never likely to be equalled let
alone beaten. In 1948 in his testimonial match against Australia (the
team Captain being a one, Sir Don Bradman) some 50,000 people came to
watch and earned him around 14,000 pounds - a record which stood for
many years. By 1956 Washbrook retired and became a selector. He had
not actually played a test match for 5 years but England were in need
of some steady batting against Australia at Headingley and arrived at
the crease with England struggling on 17 for three but shared a
187-run partnership with Peter May before finally falling to Richie
Benaud for 98. Washbrook made a grand total of 2569 test runs,
averaging 42 in his 37 tests. In his cricket career career spanning
from 1933 to 1964, he scored 34,101 runs
English cricket will miss Cyril Washbrook
From http://www.franklyncards.com/one/dapr99.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A picture of him can be seen at
http://www.lccc.co.uk/club/historyf.html
CiL
+++
At the age of 42 he was recalled to the England team five years after
his previous Test; he and Peter May scored 187 in the third Test after
the first three wickets fell for 17 runs to beat the 1956 Australians,
with Washbrook getting 98 -- real Boys' Own stuff come true.
+++
+++
Money might have been tight, but Lancashire's Cyril Washbrook received
£14,000 from crowds totalling nearly 50,000 who attended his benefit
match against Don Bradman's Australians in 1948. This was nearly
£11,000 more than the previous highest benefit and would remain a
record figure for 28 years.
++++
Robert Henderson
<cricke...@rediffmail.com> writes
>+++
>Money might have been tight, but Lancashire's Cyril Washbrook received
>£14,000 from crowds totalling nearly 50,000 who attended his benefit
>match against Don Bradman's Australians in 1948. This was nearly
>£11,000
Wrong. George Hirst's around 1904 was £3,500 and was worth in real
terms at least as much as Washbrook's and probably considerably more in
terms of what it would buy - the average male wage in 1904 was around
30s a week, in 1948 about £7 a week.
Using the normal multipliers for inflation, Washbrook's benefit was
worth around £280,000 (x20) in today's money and Hirst's £175,000 (x
50), RH
>more than the previous highest benefit and would remain a
>record figure for 28 years.
>++++
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
DiiVolunt
> Washbrook has for years been a representative cricketer for the
5 takas for pointing for Washbrook of the year 2003...
regards
PRanshu B Saxena