Indian touring team to England, 1932

Captain Natwarsinhji and deputy Ghanshyamsinhji are seated 3rd and 4th from left.

                  Tale of two unheralded patriots of Indian cricket

In 1932 the Indian cricket team set sail for Britain to play their first-ever official Test match. The chosen captain of the touring team was the Maharaja of Porbandar, Natwarsinhji. His deputy was the Maharaja of Limbdi, Ghanashyamsinhji.

 Both were very mediocre cricketers. But at the time, in the 1930s, it was felt that leaders can only come from the princely classes. Hence the two members of the royalty were given the top two posts in the Indian cricket team to play their debut Test.

Thankfully both Natwarsinhji and Ghanashyamsinhji were educated, liberal souls, in the most appropriate sense of those words. They were sensible enough to understand that if they were in the playing XI, the national team would become weak. Both declined to play in the inaugural Test at Lord’s. That Test match being the sole Test of the series, they never got to play for India again.

Skipper Natwarsinhji and his deputy Ghanashyamsinhji decided that the best choice to lead would be the ‘commoner’ CK Nayudu. Accordingly India’s first-ever Test captain was Cottariya Konkaiya Nayudu, a magnificent all-rounder and a born leader of men. CK’s elevation to the top was not because of the selection committee, but because of the magnanimous gesture of two princely gentlemen.

The chief reasons for highlighting this extraordinary event are quite a few. To begin with, this particular issue has not yet seen the light of day. Indian authors and historians could not decipher the magnitude of the gesture of two men who sacrificed immortality for the just cause of the nation. Both Natwarsinhji and Ghanashyamsinhji deserve our salute.

Secondly, in the annals of international Test cricket such a unique sacrifice has never been seen. No captain-elect has ever relinquished his debut captaincy in this magnificent manner.

Thirdly, this is a very significant issue in the light of modern thinking. At a time when ‘commoners’ in BCCI are fighting among themselves for every bit of crumb on the table, we in India have had ‘royal’ people who knew how to sacrifice self for the cause of the deserving individuals as well as for the nation.

Natwarsinhji and Ghanashyamsinhji are names that even the top Indian cricketers and administrators are unaware of. In fact they do not want to know about them. As one former India captain has recently observed, “…why bother about what happened earlier; all that is in the past!”

Today where is the time for chivalry and magnanimity in the quagmire of corruption?  Now the whole emphasis is on money and power; power and money. Nothing else matters.

Genuine cricket connoisseurs would do well to remember these two unheralded and forgotten gentlemen of Indian cricket.

A correction.

In my last article I mentioned that the former Test opener Apurva Sengupta of Services rose to become a lieutenant colonel in the Indian army. Col Samir Bose has rectified the factual error of mine by mentioning that Sengupta went on to become a lieutenant general and won several gallantry awards. Thanks to Col Bose, I stand corrected.

 

Following is an excellent article from Col. Bose which I wish to share with all cricket addicts.

TWO ALL -ROUNDERS

                Our latest coach Ravi Shastri and the great Wilfred Rhodes, had many similarities as all-rounders.  Both were right hand batsmen and bowled left arm orthodox spin.   Shastri appears  to be the better batsman and Rhodes the better bowler.  Here are their Test career stats.

Batting

Player	Tests	Inns	No	Runs	HS	Ave	100’s	50’s
Ravi Shastri	80	121	14	3830	206	35.79	11	12
Wilfred Rhodes	58	98	21	2325	179	30.19	2	11

Bowling

Player	Tests	Balls	Runs	Wkts	Ave	5 Wkts/Inns	10 Wkts/Test
Ravi Shastri	80	15751	6185	151	40.96	2	0
Wilfred Rhodes	58	8225	3425	127	26.96	6	1

                The batting feats of Wilfred Rhodes does not compare favourably but during his career he held both the 1^st wicket partnership record of 323 with Jack Hobbs and 10^th wicket partnership of 130 with R E Foster.  The first wkt partnership was bettered by Hutton and Washbrook, who raised it to 359 and Roy and Mankad to 413.  It is now held by Neil McKenzie and Graeme Smith at 415.  In the 10^th wicket partnership of 130 Rhodes contributed 40 not out, but enabled Foster to score 287, which remains the highest score by a debutant.

                It is said that he was last in the batting order in his debut Test, but the score card shows him to have come in at No.10 with J T Hearne at No.11.  He scored  6 in the first inns and did not bat in the second.  Another cricketer making his debut for Australia in the same match made 0 and 11. He was the immortal Victor Trumper.  Ravi Shastri  also made his debut at No.10 and scored 3*.  In the second innings he scored 19.

                There was a period when Rhodes regularly opened with Jack Hobbs.  As a result his bowling suffered.  In the 1911-12 series against Australia he bowled a total of only 18 overs.  After the First World War, he was back again tormenting the batsmen with his guile.  On his debut on Jun 1-3 1899, Rhodes took 4 for 58 and 3 for 60.  In England’s second innings,  only a brilliant 93 not out by Ranji, out of 155 for 7 wkts, helped draw the match.   Ravi Shastri’s debut was no less dramatic.  His figures were 3 for 54 and 3 for 9.  Because of his height (6’3”), Shastri was obliged to bowl a flatter trajectory, but the awkward bounce of the ball made the batsman play defensively.

                I give here the description of a slow left arm orthodox bowler, “ he prevailed by length, variations of flight, but chiefly by unceasing accuracy always demanding close attention from the batsman, every ball a decoy, some balls guileless, some artfully masked and one of them, the master ball.  He was economical in action, a few short strides, then a beautifully balanced sideways swing of the body, the arm loose and making a lovely arch.  He could go on for hours”.  Anybody  reading this would assume the bowler to be Bishan Singh Bedi.  And he would be wrong.  This is the description of Wilfred Rhodes by Neville Cardus, both masters in their chosen fields.

                When cricket was resumed in 1919 after World War I, there were plenty of good batsman around, but a dearth of strike bowlers, so Wilfred Rhodes reverted to his earlier role and batsmen once again had to deal with the tormentor.  Rhodes had made himself into a batsman by practice and hard work.

                Shastri, on the other hand maintained his bowling skills and gradually improved as a batsman till he became a regular opening batsman.   He never looked back and ended up with 11 centuries and 12 fifties.  Shastri himself admitted that he was not particularly talented but had come up only through hard work.  For over a decade, Ravi Shastri  rendered yeoman service to Indian Cricket.  As an obdurate batsman, he put a price on his wicket.  In his last test he opened the innings as he was wont to do, while Wilfred Rhodes came in at No.10 in his last Test.  He remained not out in both innings, scoring 8* and 11*.  Shastri in his last test scored 10( 107 minutes and 76 balls) and 5 ( 96 minutes and 68 balls).  That personifies his will to fight.  His record of 3830 runs and 151 wkts in Test cricket speak for themselves.  Rhodes in his last test, at the age of 52, bowled 20.5-12-17-1 and 24-13-22-1.  This test is famous for another reason.  Andy Sandham, opening the innings, scored 325 in the 4^th Test 3-12 April 1930, the first triple century in Tests.

                We tend to forget that Ravi Shastri is the holder of two batting records in first class cricket.  His normal batting being underlined by obduracy, one tends to forget that he equalled the feat of six sixes in one over, first achieved by Gary Sobers. Shastri hit Tilak Raj for six sixes in an over in a Ranji Trophy match, Mumbai vs Baroda in 1984.  He also went on to score the fastest ever double century in first class cricket (200* in 123 balls) in that innings.

                We salute these two cricketers, two all- rounders, imbibed with great fighting spirit, whose feats will always be remembered wherever cricket is played. 

Resignations in Indian Cricket

While on the issue of coach-captain relationship and the resignation that followed, let me highlight two very important resignation events in Indian cricket that have been buried for decades.

In 1958-59 West Indies under Franz Alexander, the last of the white West Indies captains, toured India. He had with him the fearsome fast bowling duo of Wesley Hall and Roy Gilchrist. Not used to such ferocious pace, most Indian batters were in no mood to occupy the crease and put up resistance. They succumbed, time and again, without any fight.

Such was the panic in the Indian camp that India had no less than 4 captains in the 5 Tests! Polly Umrigar led in the 1^st Test at Bombay; Ghulam Ahmed took over in the following two at Kanpur and Calcutta (both were lost) and Umrigar was brought back as captain for the 4^th Test at Madras.

Just before the start of the Test match, captain-elect Polly Umrigar wanted the Bombay all-rounder Monohar Hardikar to play. Hardikar had played in the first two Tests without inspiring confidence. In view of the batting collapses, the selectors – Amarnath, Jai, Ramaswamy and Dutta Ray –  decided to bolster India’s batting strength with a man who played fast bowling with courage. Amarnath, the chief selector, was not a man to be browbeaten by the captain he helped to select.

The national selection committee opted for opener Apurva Kumar Sengupta. They had very good reasons for selecting the 20 year-old Apu Sengupta because the fearless Services opener had just scored 32 and 100 not out against the same West Indies attack on his first-class debut. He batted with impeccable resolve and authority against the fury of Hall, Gilchrist, Jaswik Taylor and Garfield Sobers.  The young military-cadet AK Sengupta went on to become a very courageous lieutenant colonel with the Indian Army. Unfortunately Indian cricket had no time for the talented army man without any references.

On a point of principle, the chosen captain Polly Umrigar resigned from the captaincy on the morning of the Madras Test match as he felt that he was not being given the XI he wanted. His place as captain was taken by Vinoo Mankad, who also was sidelined for the next Test by Hemu Adhikari. India actually had four different captains in five Tests. It was the worst of times…, as Dickensians would understand,… in Indian cricket.

 Later in life, when he himself had become a national selector, my hero Polly Umrigar was matured and gracious enough to admit that instead of resigning he should have accepted the selectors’ role.

 This was the second significant instance of resignation that happened in Indian cricket.

                                                           *********************

Earlier in 1951-52, India under Vijay Hazare defeated England at Madras for their first-ever Test match victory in 25 outings. The hero of the match was Vinoo Mankad, at the time among the premier all-rounders of the world. Mankad took 8 for 55 and 4 for 53 in the innings victory. Pankaj Roy and Polly Umrigar scored magnificent centuries. Later India was scheduled to tour England in May.

In April 1952 Mankad went over to England to keep his appointment as a professional cricketer in the Lancashire Leagues. The Indian selectors – CK Nayudu, HN Contractor and M Dutta Ray – informed Mankad that he had to come back to India to attend a trial match for the ensuing England tour in May! Mankad replied that he was involved with a cricket club in UK as a pro and would be penalized if he were to go back to India without fulfilling his contractual obligation. Later, he even agreed to attend the trial in India if he was assured of selection in the Indian team to England. CK was adamant that Mankad would have to attend the trial and no one would be assured of selection in the team. Both certainly had valid points.

But Mankad could not afford to come back and so was omitted from the team. India went to England in 1952 under Vijay Hazare with the best all-rounder in the world dropped from the team! India lost the first Test at Headingley, being 4 wickets down for zero run at one stage!

The manager of the team was Pankaj Gupta, a manager who was used to winning gold medals at the Olympics in the company Dhyan Chand, Rup Singh and the other top stars of Indian hockey of the 1920s and 1930s. Gupta was hailed by no less a persona than Don Bradman who affectionately called him Peter instead of Pankaj. Gupta had little time for personal ego clashes and petty squabbles. The educated, liberal soul thought of India as a nation and not a land of provinces and communities.

Without wasting any time to discuss with BCCI or with the selectors, manager Pankaj Gupta invited Vinoo Mankad to come from Lancashire and join the India team for the 2^nd Test at Lord’s. The India captain Vijay Hazare was sensible enough not to object. Mankad’s contributions in the Test were 72 and 184, highest scores in either innings. As if this was not enough, he took 5 wickets. The Test came to be known as “Mankad’s Test”. No one in the history of cricket has been able to replicate such an astounding feat for a losing team.

Chief selector CK Nayudu, in a fit of pique, resigned from the selection committee for manager Pankaj Gupta’s action. However after another season, CK Nayudu returned to the selection committee realizing that the decision taken by Gupta was in national interest.

The CK Nayudu incident happened to be the first significant resignation in Indian cricket. The tussle was between the manager and the selection committee chairman. The Umrigar issue was between the captain and the selection committee chairman Lala Amarnath. And now with the Kumble-Kohli feud the relationship between coach and captain has come to the forefront. In between Greg Chappel put in his papers after a golden handshake as the BCCI was not happy with his handling of senior cricketers.

Personally I stick my neck out and say that every man whether captain, coach, manager or selector has a distinct role to play and should try to stay within his orbit. But every man warming these responsible seats must be matured enough to think of national interest ahead of petty considerations. If the captain starts dictating terms in others roles, then why have coaches, managers and selectors at all?