The Hampdenshire Wonder | Page 9

of the same colour. 'Ginger' is, indeed, a
perfectly apt description. He has a square chin and a thin-lipped,
determined mouth. His eyes area clear, but rather light, blue, his
forehead is good, broad, and high, and he has a well-proportioned head.
One might have put him down as an engineer, essentially intelligent,
purposeful, and reserved."
The description is journalistic, but I do not know that I could improve
upon the detail of it. I can see those queer, freckled, hairy arms of his as
I write--the combination of colours in them produced an effect that was
almost orange. It struck one as unusual...
Surrey had the choice of innings, and decided to bat, despite the fact
that the wicket was drying after rain, under the influence of a steady
southwest wind and occasional bursts of sunshine. Would any captain
in Stott's second year have dared to take first innings under such
conditions? The question is farcical now, but not a single member of
the Hampdenshire Eleven had the least conception that the Surrey
captain was deliberately throwing away his 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