A caricature of Lyon published in the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News (2 May 1931) in which he is praised because he “always plays for victory and not for decimals.”
During the 1931 season, some remarkable cricket was played. In complete contrast to the dourness prevalent in previous seasons, captains suddenly made adventurous, controversial and entertaining decisions, inspired both by the substantial increase in points that year for winning a County Championship match and a growing fervour for “brighter cricket”. Initially, the cricket establishment basked in the enterprise. But that all changed when games were manipulated to achieve a result, inspired by the calculations of Gloucestershire’s Bev Lyon, abetted by Yorkshire’s Frank Greenwood in the Yorkshire v Gloucestershire match. Opinion was greatly divided but by the end of the season, the authorities had seen enough to put a stop to what became known as “freak” declarations.
Points for winning a game in the County Championship that season had increased from eight to fifteen to counter a trend towards cautious cricket. Several teams had been batting negatively in order to secure five points for a first innings lead in a drawn game, given that there was little incentive to take risks merely for three extra points. The cricketing establishment condemned this mentality; the resultant points increase for a win, while first-innings points remained unaltered, offered a considerable incentive to play more positively. The measures met with approval. Before the season, the editor of Wisden, Charles Stewart Caine, wrote: “The score for a win outright is so large as to compel practically every team to go all out to gain a victory.” Lord Hawke said at Yorkshire’s Annual General Meeting in January: “The large number of points for a win outright look a tempting bait”.
Negative tactics had also led to increased pleas for “brighter cricket” to provide more entertainment for spectators. A vocal supporter of this idea was Gloucestershire’s captain Bev Lyon. His county had suffered from the existing system: in both 1929 and 1930, Gloucestershire won more matches than the County Champions, but lost out through having won fewer first innings points – in the latter season, Gloucestershire actually won five more games than the champions Lancashire. Lyon had high hopes for the 1931 season but wanted to encourage risky, entertaining cricket.
Lyon won Gloucestershire’s first game of 1931, against Surrey, after an imaginative declaration on the last day; after rain had washed out most of the second day, he declared his first innings closed while his team trailed Surrey by 83. Percy Fender, Surrey’s captain and never a man to shy away from a challenge, or as Wisden phrased it, “not to be outdone in enterprise”, declared when Surrey had scored 60 for six. Gloucestershire required 144 to win in 108 minutes on a rain-damaged pitch, a task they completed for the loss of seven wickets and with three minutes to spare. Unfortunately, few were there to see it as the threat of rain kept spectators away.
Everyone approved: Wisden described “a truly memorable day’s cricket”. The Times (6 May 1931) gushed: “Two sporting declarations made the cricket unexpectedly good to watch at the Oval yesterday. This and the equally sporting readiness of the batsmen to take chances on a tricky wicket restored to life and reality a game that had seemed to be spoiled by the loss of nearly a whole day’s play on Monday.” The Cricketer (9 May 1931), under a heading of “A Great Example”, praised the “daring tactics” of the “original and able” captains who “deserve the grateful thanks of all lovers of cricket for giving the season such a glorious start” and later praised the enterprising cricket seen so far in the season (16 May 1931). The Times tempered its praise by noting that Fender’s declaration was “even more sporting” than that of Lyon, and was in fact wildly risky given the weakness of the Surrey bowling.
Bev Lyon in 1924
Image: Cricket’s Unholy Trinity (1985) by David Foot
Lyon had set a precedent for daring declarations, which others were quick to follow. When Surrey played Hampshire, captained by Stephen Fry (the son of CB Fry), at the Oval a fortnight after the Gloucestershire match, Wisden recorded: “Among a number of strange actions taken by county captains during the summer of 1931, there was nothing quite so extraordinary as that of Stephen Fry in this match”. On the final day, with little prospect of an outright result, Hampshire had scored 127 for no wicket, 118 runs behind Surrey’s first innings. Instead of batting for the whole day to take points for a first innings lead, Fry declared. This odd strategy had no clear benefit: the pitch was good and Hampshire had no bowlers likely to do much damage. Surrey easily scored 103 for two before Fender declared to set Hampshire 222 to win in 165 minutes (53 overs were bowled). Hampshire lost five wickets in batting out time. Wisden concluded: “What purpose could possibly have been served by Hampshire declaring will ever remain a puzzle.”
The Surrey bowler Alf Gover, in Richard Streeton’s PGH Fender: A Biography (1981), recalled seeing Phil Mead, Hampshire’s senior professional, in the dressing room after hearing of Fry’s declaration; he was rocking back and forwards covering his face with his hands, groaning “He’s done what? Oh no – it’s that Fender – he’s diddled us.” But Fender claimed it was simply an attempt to engineer a result out of a game going nowhere.
Declaring while still trailing an opponent’s first innings was not a new tactic, and had first been used in 1908, but it was rarely used in the County Championship after 1911 when points were available for establishing a first innings lead. The law permitting declarations was relatively new, first appearing in the Laws of Cricket in 1889. Previously, an innings had to run its course; a captain could only end it early by instructing his batsmen deliberately to throw their wickets away – a fairly frequent occurrence. The 1889 laws permitted a declaration on the final day of a three-day match, but on any other day an innings still had to be ended by the self-sacrifice of the batsmen. From 1900, declarations could be made after lunch on the second day, and from 1910 at any time on the last two days (After this, change came slowly. For the 1946 season, a captain could declare on the first day after his team passed 300, and it was only in 1951 that captains were given a completely free hand over their closures).
However, interruptions by rain could complicate matters. If the first day of a three-day game was rained off, the oddly arbitrary rules for a two-day match applied: an innings could not be closed later than 100 minutes before the scheduled close of play on the first day. Captains often forgot this rule which led to several technically illegal declarations. Most infamously, Lionel Tennyson tried to close an England innings in the 1921 Ashes late on the second day after rain washed out the first, only to be informed by Australia’s captain Warwick Armstrong that this was not allowed; England had to carry on batting until the next morning. In 1930, neither captain noticed when an illegal declaration was made in similar circumstances in a match between Yorkshire and Glamorgan.
If the first two days of a three-day game were rained off, rules for one-day matches, which permitted declarations at any time, applied. Presumably, the many permutations over declarations, and the reluctance of the MCC to allow captains to declare when they liked were intended to prevent any artificial manipulation of a match by unscrupulous captains. But negotiating the labyrinthine rules regarding the closure of an innings required some thought. And Bev Lyon was a captain who thought a lot about cricket and how to make it more attractive.
Gloucestershire remained in the hunt for the Championship when they travelled to Sheffield to meet Yorkshire, another team very much in contention, from 3-5 June. To the consternation of both counties, rain prevented any play on the first two days. When play finally began on the third, the rules for a one-day game applied. The match was a certain draw: neither team could win outright in a single day’s play, leaving only five points available for whichever team could establish a first innings lead. As five points were not attractive, Lyon came up with a scheme to make all 15 available.
Frank Greenwood
Image: History of Yorkshire County Cricket 1924-1949 (1950) by JM Kilburn
He spoke to Yorkshire’s captain, Frank Greenwood, and proposed that both teams declared their first innings closed after facing one ball, which would be allowed to go for four byes. That way, neither team would have a first innings lead if the match was unfinished. Both teams would bat normally in their second innings, but with the maximum 15 points available to whoever came out on top. The Wisden match report noted:
“B. H. Lyon and F. E. Greenwood decided to take a course which, if certainly not contemplated by the authorities when drawing up the county championship rules for 1931, produced what was practically a one-innings contest for 15 points.”
Greenwood won the toss and chose to field. At the usual starting time of 11:30, Reg Sinfield and Alfred Dipper opened Gloucestershire’s innings. Emmott Robinson bowled a wide full toss down the leg side which went for four byes. The two batsmen returned to the pavilion, prompting some journalists to question whether it had started raining again. At 11:45, Percy Holmes and Arthur Wood, the Yorkshire wicketkeeper came out to bat. Wood faced the only delivery, pretending to attempt a big hit at a ball from Hammond which went for four byes. Greenwood then declared.
After the loss of half-an-hour to these manoeuvres, Gloucestershire batted again, this time seriously, at 12:00 and were bowled out for 171 in tricky conditions. In return, Yorkshire could only manage 124 as the need to score relatively quickly on an increasingly difficult pitch took its toll. Greenwood was left unbeaten on 33, but Yorkshire had suffered their first – and as it transpired, only – defeat of the season, by 47 runs.
At least three of the participants of the Yorkshire v Gloucestershire match left fairly detailed recollections. Bill Bowes, the Yorkshire bowler, wrote in Express Deliveries (1949):
“Beverley Lyon, the Gloucester captain, knew all the dodges of cricket and could recite the rules backwards. He suggested to Frank Greenwood that here was an opportunity of playing for full points rather than first innings points only … I begged to be allowed to open the innings for Yorkshire, but, as always, I was told I was wanted for bowling and that somebody else could do the job. Wanted for bowling! What could I be doing on such a mud-heap?”
Wally Hammond, in Cricket My Destiny (1946), recalled:
“For the first two days we sat in the pavilion while Beverley Lyon pored over the MCC rule book and rumpled his hair and would speak to no one. We knew something was brewing … He then had feverish and exalted arguments with Greenwood, the Yorkshire skipper, in which Greenwood was first puzzled, then cautiously non-committal, and finally delighted.”
Image: Wikipedia
The fullest account, and the closest in time to the actual events, came from the pen of Herbert Sutcliffe in For England and Yorkshire (1935):
“[Greenwood] showed his readiness to try any scheme he believed to be for the good of the game he loved so much. The originator of this scheme which set cricketers rocking with interest and resulted in the spilling of many gallons of good black ink, was, of course, BH Lyon, the astute and very capable captain of Gloucestershire.”
Sutcliffe described how the match was heading for an inevitable draw until Lyon stepped in:
“BH Lyon, I have no doubt, felt it was unfortunate that the first game of the year between the counties should have no bearing on the championship. As we sat in the Bramall Lane pavilion on the Thursday afternoon [the second day of the game] watching the rain, which had, so we in our innocence thought, knocked all the fighting interest out of the game, [Lyon] unfolded to FE Greenwood his scheme for beating the championship rules.
Our enterprising and keen captain listened attentively. Rule books were ploughed through to make sure that the proposed plan fitted in with the rules of the competition, advice was sought, and, eventually, it was agreed upon. I left the Bramall Lane ground on business fairly early that afternoon, and, consequently, I knew nothing of the carefully prepared and thoroughly discussed scheme until my telephone bell at home sounded late that night. Then FE Greenwood put the plan before me and said: ‘What do you think about it?’
I realised at once it was a magnificent idea, and, without any delay, gave it my support; but I added that I thought it would be best not to make any revelation before the game and I advised my captain to sleep on the matter before making a decision. I pointed out that there would be a deuce of a lot of controversy over the whole business, and that, while the spectators would revel in the fight for full championship points which the idea would certainly produce, the officials behind the scenes would be against it and that many at Yorkshire’s headquarters, and at Lord’s as well, would strongly disapprove of it.”
Sutcliffe described the game in some detail, noting that Greenwood made a mistake in choosing to bat last, but redeemed it with an excellent innings that, had someone stayed with him, would probably have won the game.
Greenwood did not respond to questions after the match, but Lyon defended their actions, which he said were aimed at giving an interesting day’s cricket and to provide some purpose to the play as first innings points were little use to either side. He didn’t think that other counties could have much cause for complaint.
The reactions to these events were, unsurprisingly, varied. The press reported the views of Lord Harris, the highly influential (and conservative) treasurer of the MCC, who said that he considered the captains to have acted within the law: “There is nothing objectionable in it, and it tends to brighten cricket in a case such as this with two wet days.” Lord Hawke, the Yorkshire President, was less keen: “It is a very funny position, but I am not going to say anything about it at the moment. I am going to sit tight until I hear more about it. I want to hear what my captain has to say and what everybody else down at Sheffield has to say before I express my opinion.” A few months later, he expressed his opinion very volubly.
Most newspapers refrained from passing too much judgement, although the Yorkshire Post said:
“It has been said and with some justification – the keenest admirers of the seekers after brighter cricket cannot deny this – that the settlement of two innings with two deliveries has made a farce of the county championship rules and, what is more, of the laws of cricket too, and this, of course, is a matter which may (there are those who say must) concern the authorities.”
The match report in The Times (6 June) suggested that the actions of the captains “seemed tinged with hysteria”. It continued:
“It is as easy to deplore such a procedure as undignified and fantastic as it is to hold it up as an example to be followed on every conceivable occasion. The award of 15 points for a win has led undoubtedly to situations which were not foreseen at the beginning of the season. The logic that governed BH Lyon and FE Greenwood, however, is clear and lucid enough.”
But such was the fuss caused, that it also made that day’s leading article in The Times:
“The Gloucestershire and Yorkshire Elevens have succeeded between them in creating an entirely new precedent in the oldest of our national games … Keeping strictly to the letter of the law they have brought to a full and definite conclusion a match in which, owing to the weather, no play was possible till the third and last day … The champions of brighter cricket will no doubt be ready to applaud … The object of cricket, no doubt, is to win matches and not to draw them. But the will to win, however admirable in itself, is not everything, and it may well be found that ingenious devices such as that adopted yesterday will complicate the difficulties of framing a satisfactory system for the regulation of the County Championship.”
The Manchester Guardian took a humorous line in its report by a “Special Correspondent” (6 June) , and accepted the logic of the captains, but its view of how the authorities would react is clear in the headline: “Giving the MCC Nightmares”.
Correspondents to the press in general were disapproving. Among letters to the Athletic News on 15 June were descriptions of the match as a “farce” and a “joke” and criticisms of the captains for catering to “the whims of a crowd craving for excitement”; others believed that such excitement justified the actions of the two captains. The Yorkshire Post printed many letters of disapproval, for example criticising the over-importance attached to scoring points or the unfairness to the other counties of such an approach. Some disliked the fact that the two captains had colluded beforehand. There were even grumbles at Lyon’s overzealous quest for “brighter cricket”. Letters to The Times expressed similar disapproval, including one from the writer RC Robertson-Glasgow, who questioned if the declarations were against the spirit, if not the rules of the game.
Other captains followed Lyon and Greenwood’s example. Four other matches had first innings which were closed in similar circumstances. Before long, the practice became known as a “freak” declaration, a term which gained widespread use after the next instance which, in many ways was the most curious.
- Glamorgan v Northamptonshire (25-27 July 1931): Northamptonshire 51 for one dec and 59; Glamorgan 51 for two dec and 60 for five. Glamorgan won by five wickets.
Only the first day of this game was washed out completely, but when play began at 3:15 on the second, a result looked unlikely. The captains, Glamorgan’s Maurice Turnbull and Northamptonshire’s Vallance Jupp, agreed to declare after scoring 51 runs in their first innings. As Wisden phrased it: “The particular purpose so served was not obvious”. In fact, Turnbull’s declaration, although no-one noticed at the time, was illegal as it came 40 minutes before the end of the day – much too late according to the rules for two-day games.
Glamorgan’s next home match was also affected by rain, and Turnbull again conspired with his opposite number, Percy Fender.
- Glamorgan v Surrey (5-7 August 1931): Surrey 0 for no wicket dec and 214 for three; Glamorgan 0 for no wicket dec and 216 for seven. Glamorgan won by three wickets.
The final two instances of “freak” declarations occurred on the same day, 11 August:
- Warwickshire v Leicestershire (8-11 August): Leicestershire 0 for no wicket declared and 179 for no wicket declared; Warwickshire 0 for no wicket declared and 85 for three. Match drawn.
This match was doomed in any case rain prevented any action until 2pm on the final day, leaving a maximum of five hours’ play.
- Yorkshire v Northamptonshire (8-11 August): Northamptonshire 4-0 dec and 86; Yorkshire 4-0 dec and 88 for five. Yorkshire won by five wickets.
Image: Wikipedia
The captains Greenwood and Jupp made their second “freak” declarations. According to the Yorkshire Post, spectators anticipated that something may occur when the first two days were rained off and 7,000 watched the action, a good turn-out at the time for the final day of any match. The Yorkshire press had warmed to the idea of “freak” declarations as so many of the county’s games had been affected by weather and gate receipts were suffering. The Yorkshire Post even went as far as describing the policy as in the “best traditions” of cricket.
On this occasion, Greenwood had a change of heart and Bowes was permitted to open the batting. He recalled:
Meanwhile I fulfilled one of my more light-hearted ambitions. I opened the innings for Yorkshire in the match against Northampton. We had another of those freak declarations, but, although he allowed me to be an ‘opening batsmen’, Frank Greenwood would not let me take strike. I merely stood at one end while Vallance Jupp bowled one ball which gave Yorkshire four byes.”
Contrary to Bowes’ recollections, contemporary scorecards record him taking strike for the solitary delivery. Incidentally, Greenwood was his opening partner.
All the games in this round (8-11 August) of the County Championship were rain affected. Apart from the freak declaration matches, a further two had no play on the first two days: Lancashire v Worcestershire and Somerset v Gloucestershire. But these were played for first innings points only. Gloucestershire did not repeat their tactics, possibly because Bev Lyon was not playing, or because there was no love lost between Gloucestershire and Somerset. As for Lancashire, at their Annual General Meeting that December, a representative expressed the view that “freak” declarations were unfair to the counties which would not engage in them and against the spirit of the County Championship.
Yorkshire won the County Championship – for the first time since 1925 – by the comfortable margin of 68 points, which perhaps fortunately meant that the “freak” declarations did not affect the outcome. But it was clear there would be a reaction from the authorities. While the cricket world waited, there was more considered reflection. Opinions emerged from various quarters over the winter and beyond.
Perhaps most incandescent with rage was Lord Hawke, who had taken time to think his position through. This was, remember, the man who hoped that 15 points would be a “bait” to encourage brighter cricket. Even filtered through the newspapers reports, it is still almost possible to hear him spluttering through his speech at the Yorkshire Annual General Meeting in January 1932. Although blaming Lyon, and regretting that Greenwood had got involved, he had this to say:
“The cricket world has been told that its Parliament is out of date and is antiquated, and that the game should be ruled by the captains. Ye gods! Is the game to be ruled by young men, some of whom are prepared to take the unwritten law, if not the written law, into their own hands? I am sure most will agree that the chief result of their efforts last season was to create a spirit of unrest, and, worse still, of disrespect for experienced legislators.”
Image: History of Yorkshire County Cricket 1903-1923 (1924) by AW Pullin
At that point, he practically becomes incoherent in listing the virtues of the various people and committees who had been so disrespected. Speaking later at the same meeting, Arthur Sellers, a long-standing Committee member at Yorkshire, felt the need to make clear that Hawke was speaking personally, not on behalf of the Committee. Sellars said that Greenwood had the support of the rest of the Committee and gently suggested that perhaps Hawke should take account of the number of matches affected by rain that could potentially have scuppered Yorkshire’s season. The Yorkshire Post was unconvinced by Hawke’s arguments, supporting the captains. A mischievous Yorkshire Evening Post reporter cornered Frank Greenwood that same afternoon and read extracts of Hawke’s speech to him; Greenwood merely smiled and said that he had no comment.
The Yorkshire Post expressed very qualified disapproval of Hawke’s comments, treading carefully around his seniority and experience but coming down gently on the side of “freak” declarations. The same newspaper carried the views of two other county captains. Unsurprisingly, Vallance Jupp disagreed, having been one of those involved in two declarations and defended his position vigourously. He concluded: “Why should not young men take responsibility? They had to do it in 1914 and have been doing it ever since.” Lionel Tennyson of Hampshire disagreed, believing that it was unfair on counties who would not indulge in freak declarations. In the Yorkshire Evening Post, AW Pullin sat on the fence slightly but said he was glad that Hawke had stated so plainly where he stood.
The Cricketer annual for 1931-32 took a long view, (echoing a point made by Herbert J Patterson in a letter published in The Times on 13 February in response to Hawke’s speech) comparing the actions of the captains to those who had manipulated the rules about the follow-on in 1892 and 1893 (the follow-on was then compulsory; bowlers in two matches, one of which was Cambridge against Oxford at Lord’s, deliberately bowled wides to take the batting side past the follow-on target to allow their teams to bat again). It also implied that among the critics of the policy were those who had ordered their teams to throw away their wickets to close an innings in the days before declarations were permitted before the third day. The writer, “Second Slip” actually went so far as to say: “It seems reasonable to think that some blame should be laid at the doors of those who drew up the conditions”.
The editor of Wisden, Charles Stewart Caine, was less tolerant. He noted the terrible weather during the 1931 season, and the number of rain-affected game. Then he came to matches restricted to play on the final day:
“These latter encounters, providing no opportunity of playing out a game in the ordinary way, were seized upon as opportunities for ‘freak’ declarations of the first innings and for a second innings battle which gave fifteen points to the side making the bigger score during the afternoon. The idea … was certainly ingenious but such a development was obviously not thought of when the Advisory Committee agreed to allow fifteen points for a win and the adoption of it seemed not a little discourteous to those responsible for the drawing up of the latest plan for deciding the County Championship. Clearly the Committee could not have contemplated two farcical processions to the pitch with a declaration in each case after the delivery of a single ball or have intended that a couple of hours hitting, however vigorous, should count as much as a victory as the result of a genuine demonstration of superiority. Possibly no great harm was done and much could be forgiven cricketers kept idle day after day by incessant rain, but such a practice might, in a close struggle for Championship honours, have reduced the competition to an absurdity.”
One who remained in favour, even in 1935, was Sutcliffe. In For England and Yorkshire, he wrote about the “ingenious scheme”:
“There were those who accused BH Lyon and the Yorkshire captain of a lack of sportsmanship when they inaugurated the ‘freak’ declaration idea at Sheffield. I have never been able to understand the reason for this. No rule was broken. The two captains, in discussion, merely came to an agreement in a perfectly fair way to enable them to play a game to a finish. As Greenwood said at the time, ‘We wanted a game and we got it: we wanted a fight and we got that also.'”
The solution came on 8 April 1932 when the Advisory County Cricket Committee made yet another change to the County Championship rules. In the event of play being restricted to the final day, no declarations could be made until a side had batted at least an hour. As compensation, a side establishing a first innings lead on first innings in these circumstances would receive ten points instead of the usual five.
This was not entirely the end of the matter as in 1939 Glamorgan and Warwickshire arranged first innings declarations with equal scores when play began late on the second day, and Hampshire and Glamorgan planned something similar in 1946 before cancelling when they realised they could be breaking the rules. In any case, the MCC condemned these declarations in 1949 and required that the umpires report any captains they suspected of contrivance. Any such instances would result in the points for the game being cancelled.
For now, the crisis was over. Possibly those lamenting the lack of enterprise brought about by the points system in previous years slightly regretted their words. Quite simply, it was very difficult to get the balance entirely right and tinkering with the County Championship continued for many years. Bev Lyon remained Gloucestershire captain but never managed to win the Championship. But the reign of his opposite number in that infamous match, Frank Greenwood, was destined to end, suddenly and mysteriously, the following year.
Note: There was, though no-one mentioned it at the time, a precedent of sorts. In 1900, Derbyshire played Essex in the County Championship and scored 508 in their first innings. Essex replied with a score of 273 for four by the end of the second day and rain delayed the start of the third until 3:00. Essex were bowled out for 368. The Derbyshire captain, William Delacombe, wanted to abandon his second innings to make Essex bat again immediately. The umpire, Alfred Shaw, would not allow this, an action retrospectively backed by the MCC. So Derbyshire batted for two deliveries: John Young was out second ball and Delacombe declared with a score of 0 for one wicket. Essex were left needing to score 141 in 70 minutes but chose to bat out time.
Old Ebor 
