When India was bowled out in Adelaide for 36 last week, the lowest completed innings totals in Test match history flashed up on the screen.
New Zealand’s 26 all out is at the top of the list and South Africa’s set of low scores all took place when those countries were weak and in the early days of their Test match history – but Australia’s lowest ever total was by a very strong team.
In 1902, also in the first Test match of a series, the touring Australians were embarrassed when they were routed for just 36 in the first-ever Test played in Birmingham.
After England had made 376, captain Archie McLaren declared 9 wickets down as rain intervened. The Australian innings lasted just 85 minutes on a quagmire and Victor Trumper scored half of the runs.
The two Yorkshire spinners, Wilfred Rhodes and George Hirst bowled all but one of the overs. Hirst (3-15) proved very difficult to get away so the visitors hit out at Rhodes (7-17) very unsuccessfully.
Following on, Australia was 2 for 46 when more rain washed out the match.
The tour became even worse as Yorkshire’s Hirst and Stanley Jackson bowled the Australians out for just 23. Several players caught a severe and lingering influenza; rain saw crowds stay away and some newcomers became so depressed that rumours of them packing up and heading home were aired.
Even 38-year-old, Dr. Roland Pope, had to be called into the team to play the next match against Cambridge University.
(Steven Paston – EMPICS/Getty Images)
Pope had played one Test in 1886 and now 16 years later he was again a follower of the team and never an official member of it.
Hugh Trumble, the first great Australian off-spinner, had missed the first Test with a dislocated thumb and was still unavailable for the next Test at Lord’s.
Influenza kept Bill Howell out, while MA Noble and captain, Joe Darling, played with the flu and Jack Saunders had severe tonsillitis and an inflamed eye.
Only 105 minutes of play was possible for the second Test as the Australians must have been pleased to have had a chance to recover.
Who would have given the Australian tourists any chance at this stage of the so-called summer? Yet they fought back with a victory in the third Test as Noble took 11 wickets before two of the finest Test matches ever played followed.
An incredibly dramatic three-run win by Australia at Old Trafford saw the Ashes won by Australia for whom Trumper became the first to make a century before lunch on the first day.
In the final Test, England’s Gilbert Jessop scored a 75-minute century and with 15 runs still needed, who were the two home batsmen left to secure a nerve-wracking victory? None other than the destroyers in Australia’s all-out 36: Rhodes and Hirst.
So Roarers, can the Indians come back from their 36 all out to level in the current series as these Australians did so remarkably 118 years ago?
Micko
Roar Rookie
Australian sport is inundated with sports betting companies sponsoring! :sick:
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
@Roseville To your last point, the Australian team was very strong because one man dominated the batting. An effect, magnified under the prevailing (wet) conditions. Without him, the record of the 1902 Australians would have been mediocre.
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
Congratulations Pat, on a fascinating and timely piece. Low scores weren’t so uncommon in those days. If you struck a wet season, these very small team totals were quite the norm. Either side of 1902, the next ‘wettest’ summers were 1896 and 1909. In the first of these, Australia were dismissed by the MCC for just 18. Later in the tour, England bowled them out for 44 and when the ninth wicket fell, the Australian total stood at 16! In the first Test of 1909, the Aussies were sent packing for 74. So, in the context of modern Test cricket, I would say India’s 36 was TRULY extraordinary.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
The bookmakers had no or minimal influence in those days.. Hey I'm not saying Indias 36 past week was influenced in any way by external sources.. . And surely it was Australia's great bowling.....but hey an aside... New key sponsor of South African Cricket a sports betting company... If that doesn't send chills down the spine of cricket lovers, nothing will.
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
Thanks Pat, the Golden Age of Cricket was such an interesting era. Like the 21st century in some ways, but unlike it in many others. 3-day Tests in England, but 20-25 overs per hour- on this match's first day, England received 129 overs to score 9-351. Express bowlers abounded but couldn't be used if an uncovered pitch prevented them from running in to bowl following rain- in this match, neither Lockwood nor Jessop delivered a single ball. Tours were long, and squads were small- a six-week voyage before and after; 10 of the 39 matches took place after the fifth and final Test; and only 14 players, as any extras would have watered down each player's profit share. The Australian team was very strong- it won four consecutive Ashes series, and pre-1948 only the 1921 team had as successful a record as the 1902 one.
Tigerbill44
Roar Guru
great article. always enjoy reading about the early days of test cricket.
Paul
Roar Guru
A really nice piece Pat. I don't think we can really appreciate just how difficult it was for the Australians in that series. We tend to gloss over the fact that many had the flu or other ailments such as tonsilitis, often forgetting the lack of available medicines to help manage these conditions. Throw in a seriously hectic schedule, with games backing straight onto Test ( and 39 games in 18 weeks), the travel they had to do, on very ordinary transport and it's a wonder they managed to win any Tests at all.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
And hardly anyone back here knew about it at the time. Information back then was premium level stuff. I remember getting fish n chips in Adelheide and hoping to get it wrapped in the "Advertiser" rather than the "News" so l could read the recent events with the great journalism that paper had....back then. I remember telling teachers, in grade 3 Norwood Demonstration Primary School, to vote for Dunstan in 1967. ------ Then Rupert sold the "News", bought the "Advertiser" and turned it into the "News"
Pat Rodgers
Roar Pro
Just to clarify, the Test when Australia was bowled out for 36 was a draw as was the next one. They won the next two to win the series and lost the Fifth Test. This turned out to be one of the great Ashes series and the 1902 Australians were hailed as the best to tour England- all after that 36 all out!
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
The answer to your question Pat looks like being yes at the moment. 1902 was one of a few cases where teams have made comebacks after low scores, as has been pointed out. Australia recovering from 47 in South Africa to win the next Test and tie the series in 2011, England’s recovery from 67 all out last year being recent examples.