The 'Phillies' in England in 1908

By -

The Gentlemen of Philadelphia cricketers (the Phillies) toured England in July and August 1908. It was the first and last tour to England by an American team. But we live in hope there will be another. After all, if Afghanistan can make test status, why not the USA?


The tour was patchy but had some high points and revealed that the USA had one of the world's most exciting cricketers - their captain Bart King.

Tourists to England customarily start with a gentle match against Worcestershire under the tall spire of Worcester cathedral, one of the most beautiful cricket grounds in the world. Worcestershire were a decent side that included Simpson-Hayward the famous underarm bowler. Behind on first innings, the Phillies stormed to victory by 95 runs, dismissing Worcestershire for 129 in their second innings, Bart King the author of their demise with 8-88 in the match.

The Phillies lost their second match badly by an innings against a Hampshire team including Phil Mead. King, opening the batting as well as the bowling, scored 52 and 25 and took 5-110 in Hampshire's 463.

Next was Middlesex at Lord's, where the Phillies lost by 7 wickets. Middlesex had Patsy Hendren and Albert Trott, two of the greatest English players of the day. Hendren was dismissed for a pair by King. King failed with the bat twice but took 6-30 in the match. Trott took 9 wickets and the Phillies obviously suffered in a low-scoring game in which they were bowled out for 55 and 58.

The Phillies lost to Northants by 5 wickets. King took 6-102 in a match that saw the Phillies take a narrow first innings lead. Against Surrey at The Oval the Phillies again got a narrow first innings lead only to lose by 122 runs despite King taking 6-47 and 3-63.

Ireland's batsmen had no answer to King's devastating swing bowling in the next game at Dublin. King was unplayable, taking 7-40 and 7-23 on a pitch on which the Phillies, winning by an innings and 7 runs, managed a respectable 171.

While Ireland may not have been a strong team, the same cannot have been true of the MCC in the next game at Lord's, given that MCC were captained by JWHT ('Johnny Won't Hit Today') Douglas. King's contribution was critical. A useful 31 batting in first innings, 3-43 including Douglas' wicket in first innings, followed by a match-winning 4-91, including the MCC's three highest scorers as the Phillies held off their run chase by 25 runs. It must have been a really exciting match. Douglas had little chance to hit even if he were inclined to - he was dismissed for 4 and 0! Almost unbelievably, the Phillies had beaten the MCC at the game HQ! How they must have celebrated.

In the next game at Derby the Phillies mauled Derbyshire by 9 wickets, dismissing them for 78 in the first innings (King 7-28) and 185 in the second (King 5-88). The Phillies required just 17 to win the match. Nottinghamshire, though, were a different proposition, playing George Gunn, J Hardstaff snr, and Iremonger. Still Notts, suffered a first innings deficit of 1 having been dismissed for 139, King taking his 4th 7-wicket haul, bowling right through for 7-78 in 19.5 overs. Despite a 5th 7-wicket haul by King  in the second innings (7-58) the Phillies collapsed to 74 all out in their second knock, and a 125-run defeat.

Against Kent, including Frank Woolley, in the final game, things went well for the Phillies at first as they scored 188 (Woolley 7-78) then dismissed Kent for just 102, King taking 5-34. The Phillies collapsed for 37 all out onwhat was  presumably a very sticky wicket in their second knock, Fairservice, whom they had encountered in the MCC game, taking 6-12. Even King with his tour-worst return of 1-40 was unable to stop Kent winning by 4 wickets. Woolley, mainly known as an attractive batsman, had scored 5 and 12.

Overall in terms of first class recognized games, the Phillies won 4 and lost 6. They won most of their games overall. They performed as a lower than average but still respectable county side. Unfortunately most countries fielded inferior teams against them, probably underestimating their strength. Remember they were representing Philadelphia not the USA. Great players such as Hendren (who had good cause to acknowledge King's quality as a fat bowler) paid tribute to King as one of the very best quick bowlers ever seen in England, including Barnes, Lohmann, Hirst and Spofforth. As the democratic balance shifted to baseball, the chances of the US becoming a good test team slipped away, but imagine what might have been. They were, to hazard a guess, probably almost, if a national team could have been produced, at the level of South Africa or India or New Zealand at that time. In other words not great but having potential to challenge England and Australia. With King as a potential match-winner, they might have been very dangerous in low-scoring games. The Phillies clearly had not enough batting strength, but perhaps other US teams had what was needed, I don't know.

Still the US did play the first ever international match v Canada in 1844, long before England and Australia began their epochal Ashes series. The future is something else, but this side of the pond we are still hoping - see 'Nederland' by Joseph O'Neill.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Breach of Promise and a Matter of Sovereign Immunity: Mighell v The Sultan of Johor

By -
[This unpublished jeu d'esprit concerns the famous case of Mighell v Sultan of Johore ,  Law Reports  [1894] 1 Q B 149] In the 1880s Sultan Sir Abu Bakar ibni Daing Ibrahim , the Ruler of Johor, a State on the Malay Peninsula (he reigned from 1862 to 1895), was the very model of a modern Asiatic prince. Not only was he tall, distinguished and handsome, but he was the progressive Ruler of a prosperous State that had good relations with the British Empire and enjoyed its protection. He was known as a good Muslim (he had recently had himself re-styled ‘Sultan’ of Johor instead of ‘Maharaja’), well educated with fluent English, a moderniser, and a man of cosmopolitan tastes. He was well travelled, as much at home chatting with Chinese contractors as he was accompanying the future King George V by car to the Singapore races. Queen Victoria herself became his life-long friend. He was destined to make many improvements to the law and administration of his state, bequeathing t
Read more

Sydney Barnes: The Demon Bowler

By -
In the current situation where there is little cricket and many people are restricted in their movement, a fad of selecting all-time XIs and the like has taken hold. In such selection there is no doubt that everyone who is not actually perverse would list Bradman first. After all he was the greatest batsman ever. But what of bowlers? Opinions of course vary. But in truth the name of Sydney Barnes should go down as automatically as Bradman’s, because he was the greatest bowler ever. However, whereas Bradman’s career, interrupted by World War II, ended in 1948, Barnes’ first class career and the whole of his test career occurred mainly before World War I, and most of his career was not actually in first-class cricket. The case for Barnes needs a bit of explaining, but it is nonetheless a powerful one. It is, in the first place, difficult to judge players who lived so distantly from our own times that almost every criterion of greatness is hard to apply. Statistics? Well, bowlers genera
Read more

The Extraordinary Career of Wilfred Rhodes

By -
A bit over 100 years ago it was said in Yorkshire that we don’t know who the world’s best all-rounder is, but it is certain that he bowls left-handed, bats right-handed, and comes from Kirkheaton. The joke was that this description, astonishingly, applied to two players – Wilfrid Rhodes and George Hirst. Rhodes, famously, batted at every position for England, from 11 to 1 (more or less in that order); and nobody would dispute that he was the best slow left arm bowler in the world between about 1899 and 1907. Hirst also had excellent claims, although he was more famous in Yorkshire than wider afield. In all other ways Hirst and Rhodes were dissimilar. Hirst was a kind of erstwhile Wasim Akram, a master of left-arm-over swing bowling (in fact he invented it), and an aggressive late middle order batsman. Rhodes was a canny left-arm spinner and an obdurate middle order or opening batsman. There is no modern equivalent to Rhodes, for reasons which will become apparent, but in effect he wa
Read more