Jack Crawford (cricketer) - Dispute With Surrey

Dispute With Surrey

During the 1908 season, Crawford narrowly failed to complete his third double. He scored 1,371 runs at an average of 37.05 and took 98 wickets at 21.48. He scored 232 against Somerset, his highest first-class score, as well as centuries against Derbyshire and Hampshire, but he only reached five wickets in an innings on three occasions in the season. In Surrey's final game of the season, Crawford captained Surrey and his brother Vivian captained Leicestershire, their opponents.

Crawford's performances in the 1909 season were less effective than in other years. His batting average fell and he bowled less frequently. However, his accomplishments were overshadowed by a public dispute with Surrey in July. During the season, Surrey experienced disciplinary problems with several of their professional players. The Surrey president, Lord Alverstone, believed that amateur cricketers should be favoured over professionals at all times. He argued it was preferable to have a losing team containing amateurs to a successful professional side. Apart from adversely affecting the careers of some professionals, this policy destabilised the team for several seasons. In 1909, Alverstone left out several professionals to allow amateurs to play for the team. As the regular Surrey captain, H. D. G. Leveson Gower, was unavailable for much of the season, Crawford frequently assumed the leadership. However, he disapproved of Alverstone's policy towards professionals.

The county twice played the touring Australian team; the bowling of Tom Rushby, a professional, was instrumental in a victory for the home team in the first match. For the second match, Crawford was asked to lead the team. However, Rushby and other important players were left out of the side for disciplinary reasons. Consequently, Crawford refused to be captain, and apologised to the Australians for the selection of such a weak side. In Crawford's absence, the professional cricketer Tom Hayward took over the leadership and the match, affected by rain, was drawn.

Alverstone ordered Crawford to write an apology to Leveson Gower but Crawford refused, writing to Alverstone: "I do not know who was responsible for the selection of the second eleven sort of team furnished up for such an important match ... There seems to be some impression amongst a few of the Surrey committee that I am some young professional instead of being a young fellow who has had an experience of cricket that has seldom fallen to the lot of anyone, and my request for an alteration of the team should have had some weight". Cricket historian Benny Green writes that the letter is evidence of a "literate and quietly self-confident young man who will not easily be manipulated." Lord Alverstone responded that he regretted Crawford's sentiment; Crawford further replied that the players omitted from the team against the Australians had been restored to the county side, making their exclusion in the first place harder to understand.

At this point, Leveson Gower withdrew his invitation for Crawford to appear at the Scarborough Festival; Leveson Gower also used his influence within MCC to prevent Crawford's selection for the representative winter tour to South Africa. Crawford's father became involved, writing to the Surrey Committee in support of his son. By the beginning of August, two weeks after the match against the Australians, the Surrey committee decided to sever their connection with Crawford. Wisden reported: "The committee were much incensed and passed a resolution that Crawford be not again asked to play for the county." Having been informed by letter, Crawford replied to the committee a final time: "I fail to see why I should practically be branded as a criminal because, as acting captain, I declined the responsibility of skippering a team which did not include three essential players, an independence which I trust will remain in spite of the awful example made of me to every amateur in the United Kingdom."

The Surrey committee initially attempted to keep the dispute private, but the story was eventually published in the sporting press. Although many commentators felt that the argument could have been solved easily, neither side made any concessions. It is likely that the committee either expected Crawford to back down, or were happy to sacrifice him to establish their authority. In either case, Crawford left England in October to take up a teaching position at St Peter's College, Adelaide, effectively ending his career with Surrey at the age of 23. Meanwhile, Rushby left Surrey at the end of the season to play league cricket, although he later returned to the team. Another professional, Alan Marshal, was suspended during 1909 and his contract was terminated the following year. Crawford's father made a further attempt to end the dispute between Surrey and his son in 1910, asking the committee to reverse their decision. Wisden reported that Lord Alverstone declined on the grounds that it would suggest a lack of confidence in the committee, but that if Crawford "came forward in a sportsmanlike way would be proud to give his personal support to the step proposed. This of course meant that an apology was expected."

Benny Green, in his History of Cricket, wrote that the "Surrey committee must be held accountable for a degree of idiocy rarely met with even in the realms of cricket administration" for the way they dealt with Crawford, "one of the world's most prodigious all-rounders." The Times, on the other hand, speculated that factors other than the dispute may have contributed to Surrey's decision. At the end of the season, Crawford played his last matches in England for 10 years, appearing for an "England XI" against the Australians and for the Gentlemen of the South.