When Will The Poor Bowler Be Recognised?

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31530, 18 November 1967, Page 11

When Will The Poor Bowler Be Recognised?

TT probably was some sweaty, sticky fast bowler walking off the field after bowling about 30 overs for a meagre reward and standing aside while a batsman who had scored a century received the applause from the spectators who cynically remarked that “the last bowler to be knighted was Sir Francis Drake”. It is an odd fact that

while nine cricketers have received knighthoods for their service to the game, the list rather pointedly excludes bowlers. Sir Francis Lacey, Sir Frederick Toon and Sir Pelham Warner received their honours for their administrative as well as their playing records. Sir Donald Bradman, Sir Jack Hobbs, Sir Leonard

Hutton, Sir Learie Constantine and Sir Frank Worrell were among the batting blue-boods as players and duly received their accolades, and a journalist. Sir Neville Cardus, received his knighthood for the apposite combination of writing on cricket and music. Admittedly, batsmen are the darlings of the crowd.

Thousands of spectators used to flock to watch the grim-faced Bradman remorselessly reeling off another century; Hammond majestically thundering the ball through the covers, Woolley batting lyrically and almost cajoling the bowling for runs; Hobbs moving serenely to another of his 197 centuries.

It is an accepted fact that persons go to watch batsmen scoring runs rather than the converse—bowlers taking wickets —and it is probably quite reasonable that if there is to be a cricketing aristocracy then batsmen should have their place in it. But then it must be just as reasonable for bowlers, who, in their own particular sphere are just as much artisans as batsmen, to receive their due.

It might be fanciful to suggest, apart from support from Yorkshire and Lancashire, that one day there may be a Sir Frederick Trueman, or a Sir Brian Statham, but surely at some time a bowler will receive recognition as a peer with batsmen.