neville cardus
International Debutant
Nothing, not even diarrhoea, wretches my guts like historical ignorance. On Cricinfo today, I find Scyld Berry impugning the integrity of Neville Cardus:
As we all know, cricket's Homer was prone to the odd slash of synthetic fancywork, but to suggest that he gave William Attewell anything more than his due is nonsense. Next to Alfred Shaw and Ted Peate, the Notts man was probably the most miserly trundler of the Nineteenth Century. His "handful of games" for his county, played over the course of almost two decades, amounted to 283, in which he took 1,303 wickets at an average of 15.52, with a best of nine for 23. And, believe it or not, he did play for England -- on all of ten occasions, in fact, taking 28 wickets at 22.35. Plainly Berry had him confused for his cousin, who was a modest bowler and did play only a handful of matches for Nottinghamshire, but who, to the best of my knowledge, never came within a mile of Shrewsbury's coaching post.
That a scribe of Berry's standing should make this bloomer is disgraceful, but so riddled with inaccuracy is his work of late that one cannot help but wonder how deserved of that standing he is. In a recent piece for The Torygraph, he writes,
"Except," in the words of a poster on another forum of which I am a member, "that Sri Lanka's tour of England is nothing to do with the Future Tours Programme, which is where the problem starts in the first place. If it were part of the FTP it would have been organised far in advance and Sri Lanka's players would not have a valid excuse to duck out."
I'll keep me to Haigh, Atherton and Roebuck henceforth.
Cardus was the assistant professional coach at Shrewsbury school before the First World War. The number one coach was Walter [sic] Attewell, a very modest bowler who played a handful of games for Nottinghamshire. But Cardus turns him into William Attewell who had a very long and distinguished career, for England too, to give his book a greater presence.
As we all know, cricket's Homer was prone to the odd slash of synthetic fancywork, but to suggest that he gave William Attewell anything more than his due is nonsense. Next to Alfred Shaw and Ted Peate, the Notts man was probably the most miserly trundler of the Nineteenth Century. His "handful of games" for his county, played over the course of almost two decades, amounted to 283, in which he took 1,303 wickets at an average of 15.52, with a best of nine for 23. And, believe it or not, he did play for England -- on all of ten occasions, in fact, taking 28 wickets at 22.35. Plainly Berry had him confused for his cousin, who was a modest bowler and did play only a handful of matches for Nottinghamshire, but who, to the best of my knowledge, never came within a mile of Shrewsbury's coaching post.
That a scribe of Berry's standing should make this bloomer is disgraceful, but so riddled with inaccuracy is his work of late that one cannot help but wonder how deserved of that standing he is. In a recent piece for The Torygraph, he writes,
Morgan pointed out that only last month the ICC reaffirmed the primacy of Test cricket with the unanimous agreement of all Full Members. Everyone signed up to the order of priorities, starting with ICC events like the World Cup. In second place come events under the Future Tours Programme: that is, international cricket between Full Members, like the two Tests – at Lord's and Chester-le-Street – which England have contracted to play against Sri Lanka, followed by three one-day internationals, the last on May 30.
"Except," in the words of a poster on another forum of which I am a member, "that Sri Lanka's tour of England is nothing to do with the Future Tours Programme, which is where the problem starts in the first place. If it were part of the FTP it would have been organised far in advance and Sri Lanka's players would not have a valid excuse to duck out."
I'll keep me to Haigh, Atherton and Roebuck henceforth.
Last edited:
