
Like many cherished colleagues I was brought up with a cricket ball in my cradle, ready for my inevitable success as a player. My Dad was a mean swing bowler and played for Armstrong Siddeley every fine summer Saturday, while Mum was an official scorer, dotting and crossing in all the right boxes. My sister and I soon learned how to do it and waved back to the umpire whenever required.
At more rarified altitudes than ours, the game was socially divided between amateurs and professionals: gentlemen and players – until 1962 when Fiery Fred Trueman (a player of course) referred to it as a ‘ludicrous business…thankfully abolished’. But the distinction had reflected the long history of cricket as a social catalyst. Or was it?
The Beeb had an article only yesterday on that very idea. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16821779. Romantic and salutary apparently. But I wonder. I’m not convinced that peasants performing for the entertainment of their betters (!) represented anything but an expression of the feudal order. Fraternity, Equality and Liberty it wasn’t! Didn’t the gentlemen and players have separate dressing rooms? Or am I mis-remembering?




You must be logged in to post a comment.