The Hampdenshire Wonder | Page 9

chances on that eventful day.
Wallis and I were together in the reporters' box. There were only four of us; two specials--Wallis and myself--a news-agency reporter, and a local man.
"Stott takes first over," remarked Wallis, sharpening his pencil and arranging his watch and score-sheet--he was very meticulous in his methods. "They've put him to bowl against the wind. He's medium right, isn't he?"
"Haven't the least idea," I said. "He volunteered no information; Hampdenshire have been keeping him dark."
Wallis sneered. "Think they've got a find, eh?" he said. "We'll wait and see what he can do against first-class batting."
We did not have to wait long.
As usual, Thorpe and Harrison were first wicket for Surrey, and Thorpe took the first ball.
It bowled him. It made his wicket look as untidy as any wicket I have ever seen. The off-stump was out of the ground, and the other two were markedly divergent.
"Damn it, I wasn't ready for him," we heard Thorpe say in the professionals' room. Thorpe always had some excuse, but on this occasion it was justified.
C. V. Punshon was the next comer, and he got his first ball through the slips for four, but Wallis looked at me with a raised eyebrow.
"Punshon didn't know a lot about that," he said, and then he added: "I say, what a queer delivery that chap has. He stands and shoots 'em out. It's uncanny. He's a kind of human catapult." He made a note of the phrase on his pad.
Punshon succeeded in hitting the next ball also, but it simply ran up his bat into the hands of short slip.
"Well, that's a sitter, if you like," said Wallis. "What's the matter with 'em?"
I was beginning to grow enthusiastic.
"Look here, Wallis," I said, "this chap's going to break records."
Wallis was still doubtful.
He was convinced before the innings was over.
There must be many who remember the startling poster that heralded the early editions of the evening papers:
SURREY
ALL OUT
FOR 13 RUNS
For once sub-editors did not hesitate to give the score on the contents bill. That was a proclamation which would sell. Inside, the headlines were rich and varied. I have an old paper by me, yellow now, and brittle, that may serve as a type for the rest. The headlines are as follows:
SURREY AND HAMPDENSHIRE
EXTRAORDINARY BOWLING PERFORMANCE
DOUBLE HAT-TRICK
SURREY ALL OUT IN 35 MINUTES FOR 13 RUNS
STOTT TAKES 10 WICKETS FOR 5
The "double hat-trick" was six consecutive wickets, the last six, all clean bowled.
"Good God!" Wallis said when the last wicket fell, and he looked at me with something like fear in his eyes. "This man will have to be barred; it means the end of cricket."
I need not detail the remainder of the match. Hampdenshire hit up ninety-three--P. H. Evans was top scorer with twenty-seven--and then got Surrey out a second time for forty-nine.
I believe Stott did not bowl his best in the second innings. He was quite clever enough to see that he must not overdo it. As Wallis had said, if he were too effective he might have to be barred. As it was, he took seven wickets for twenty-three.
VI
That was Stott's finest performance. On eight subsequent occasions he took all ten wickets in a single innings, once he took nineteen wickets in one match (Hampdenshire v. Somerset at Taunton), twice he took five wickets with consecutive balls, and any number of times he did the "hat-trick," but he never afterwards achieved so amazing a performance as that of the celebrated Surrey match.
I am still of opinion that Stott deliberately bowled carelessly in the second innings of that match, but, after watching him on many fields, and after a careful analysis of his methods--and character--I am quite certain that his comparative failures in later matches were not due to any purpose on Stott's part.
Take, for instance, the match which Hampdenshire lost to Kent in Stott's second season--their first loss as a first-class county; their record up to that time was thirteen wins and six drawn games. It is incredible to me that Stott should have deliberately allowed Kent to make the necessary one hundred and eighty-seven runs required in the fourth innings. He took five wickets for sixty-three; if he could have done better, I am sure he would have made the effort. He would not have sacrificed his county. I have spoken of the esprit de corps which held the Hampdenshire Eleven together, and they were notably proud of their unbeaten record.
No; we must find another reason for Stott's comparative failures. I believe that I am the only person who knows that reason, and I say that Stott was the victim of an obsession. His "swerve" theory dominated him, he was always experimenting with it, and when, as in the Kent match I have cited, the game was played-in a flat calm, his failure to