Profile: J. B. Statham

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31772, 31 August 1968, Page 11

Profile: J. B. Statham

By

J. M. KILBURN

r pHE Lancashire and Yorkshire match of August, 1968, was played on a sunny week-end at Old Trafford and attracted more than 45,000 spectators over the three days. Fine weather, Sunday play and some dramatic cricket on the first evening no doubt contributed largely to the remarkable attendance, but sentiment gave a special character to the occasion. It was the last firstclass match for Brian Statham. When he came out to bat, when he came out to field, when he took the ball, when he finished his various spells, Statham was given memorable ovations. He would have had them and he would have earned them as tribute to services rendered whatever his final performance, but as it happened Statham returned honour for honour. His fast bowling took six wickets for 34 runs in Yorkshire’s first innings. Success against Yorkshire, particularly, was naturally a delight for Statham, but he would have accepted a more modest bowling return with equally undemonstrative demeanour. All through his cricket he never leaped in triumph or crumpled in disappointment. Statham bowled for Lancashire for nearly 20 years and for England through a decade, which is a notable spread of endeavour for a fast bowler. He never spared his energy but he never wasted it His runup contained a smooth acceleration into the delivery stride and his followthrough was a simple relaxation. His pace came from the natural swing of his arm and an unbroken rhythm of action, though, of course, he instilled a great deal more effort than was apparent to casual observation; Statham's strength was disguised in. a lean frame and an uncommon suppleness. He threw from the outfield as beautifully and as accurately as he bowled and he could pull off his sweater by reaching over his shoulder with one hand. Propaganda had no part in his performances. He took the ball as though assuming he had been called on only to fill in a routine period of play until the pattern of the match could be established. He was not meticulous in the measurement of his run or fussily precise in the set-

ting of his field. The batsman immediately opposed was given no hint of the wrath to • come by threat expressed or implied. His bowling attitude indicated neither fear of the enemy nor personal antagonism. Statham’s cricket was his business, but he always, played it as a game. His bowling was undramatic except in results. He was formidable but not fearsome. He inspires respect and anxiety in batsmen, but not terror. His pace carried obvious elements of physical danger, but he rarely bowled bumpers. His attacking strength lay in his persistence, in accuracy of length and direction and in slight variations of swing The graph of his career was as smooth a curve as his bowling action. He was riot in and out of favour according to the form and fancies of the hour. Sometimes he bowled successfully, sometimes without profit, but he never bowled badly. His demeanour on the field gave no clue to the state of the game or his personal achievement of the moment. If the inswinger slipped through to shatter the stumps, follow-through would probably end with a stoop to pluck a blade of grass. If the ball missed its target by a hairsbreadth, leaving the defeated batsman in confusion of disbelief, follow-through would end with a hand held up to await the return from the wicket - keeper. Statham wasted no energy in gesticulation. The fates were either with him or against him, and there was no point in protest; there would be another over, or another bowler to be brought on. Among cricketers Brian Statham was known as “Greyhound,” slim and speedy, and he was universally admired for his great ability. He was beloved of captains because he could always be relied on to be at or near his best in any conditions of play and at any time of day. Among friends he answered amenably to “George” for no better reason than that he himself tended to call everyone “George,” as a laboursaving device. “George” made many friends and lost none of them. His career escaped controversy because it was pursued without arrogance or flamboyance. Given to more spectacular self-indul-gence, he might have been a greater public figure, but he could not have been a greater bowler or a more acceptable adornment to cricket.