Victor Trumper

[Hodgepodge]

The chairman of the SCG Trust yesterday named Victor Trumper as the greatest cricketer of all time, and on doing some research I noted that he is listed among Wisden's 6 Giants of Cricket alongside the Don, Grace and Jack Hobbs.

So what's the deal with Trumper? His stats at test level don't look all that impressive, although I'm aware that they don't tell the full story, so hopefully somebody can fill us in.

In tests he averaged 39 with both bat and ball and took 31 catches.

His first class record is similar.

 

[Black Diamond]

This is what I said in another thread:

It's a good question about Trumper. All we really have is anecdotal evidence and his raw numbers. Why is Trumper rated so highly compared to somebody like Clem Hill, particularly when their raw numbers are much the same (right down to date of birth)? I can't recall exactly where I read this, but Trumper was a very good player on particularly dodgy wickets, and he provided quite a spectacular image as a batsman which has added to his reputation. Perhaps even passing away so young helped his legend grow? This is what Cricinfo has to say which sums up what I've seen elsewhere:


He was great under all conditions of weather and ground. He could play quite an orthodox game when he wished to, but it was his ability to make big scores when orthodox methods were unavailing that lifted him above his fellows.
For this reason Trumper was, in proportion, more to be feared on treacherous wickets than on fast, true ones. No matter how bad the pitch might be from the combined effects of rain and sunshine, he was quite likely to get 50 runs, his skill in pulling good-length balls amounting to genius. Of this fact our English bowlers had convincing evidence day after day during the season of 1902. Trumper paid four visits to this country - in 1899, 1902, 1905, and 1909 - but it was in 1902 that he reached his highest point.

There are plenty of players from his era whose stats don't look so great so we rely on anecdotes from historians. Trumper is one who for some reason really caught the eye of 20th century cricket tragics.

 

[Wallaby]

Very attractive batsman - maybe as Mark Waugh or David Gowwer were rated higher for their 'elegance'. Also a bit of a dasher - scored very quickly. Tended to make runs on the difficult pitches and not cash in so much on flat decks. He may not have been Australia's Number one batsman during his time - Clem Hill was at least as good.

Then he did the best possible thing to ensure lasting, romantic fame - he died tragically young. A lot of his fame came after that - many, many articles written about how he was the 'young, dashing D'artagnan of the wicket' etc.

The Wisden '6 Giants of the Game' was nothing official - it was just an article written by Neville Cardus. Cardus was a bit of a w***er of a writer - apying most of his attention to esoteric aspects of the game - beauty, charm etc rather than the actual sport. Also, he probably saw Trumper 3 times in his life.

Trumper was certainly a very, very special player.

 

[Black Diamond]

Whenever I pick an all-time Australian XI I never select Trumper.

 

[sherb]

The chairman of the SCG Trust yesterday named Victor Trumper as the greatest cricketer of all time, and on doing some research I noted that he is listed among Wisden's 6 Giants of Cricket alongside the Don, Grace and Jack Hobbs.

So what's the deal with Trumper? His stats at test level don't look all that impressive, although I'm aware that they don't tell the full story, so hopefully somebody can fill us in.

In tests he averaged 39 with both bat and ball and took 31 catches.

His first class record is similar.

His first-class average was actually 5.5 runs per innings higher.

16,939 runs at 44.57 with 42 hundreds.

He does however have eerily similar first-class figures to Clem Hill - who also averaged 39 in Test cricket by the way.

17,213 runs at 43.57 with 45 hundreds.

They were also born about six months apart.

Both clearly outstanding batsmen of the day in Australia.

 

[sherb]

Very attractive batsman - maybe as Mark Waugh or David Gowwer were rated higher for their 'elegance'. Also a bit of a dasher - scored very quickly. Tended to make runs on the difficult pitches and not cash in so much on flat decks. He may not have been Australia's Number one batsman during his time - Clem Hill was at least as good.

Then he did the best possible thing to ensure lasting, romantic fame - he died tragically young. A lot of his fame came after that - many, many articles written about how he was the 'young, dashing D'artagnan of the wicket' etc.

The Wisden '6 Giants of the Game' was nothing official - it was just an article written by Neville Cardus. Cardus was a bit of a Moo of a writer - apying most of his attention to esoteric aspects of the game - beauty, charm etc rather than the actual sport. Also, he probably saw Trumper 3 times in his life.

Trumper was certainly a very, very special player.

I was going to mention that, he died in his late 30s of kidney disease.

I think that is part of the reason for the reverence in which he is held, no doubt.

On a side note, he was also a very good Australian Football and Rugby Union player. He was involved in the establishment of Rugby League in Australia.

The local Australian Football comp here in Sydney has for a long time played at Trumper Park in Paddington, named after you know who. Grade cricket (obviously!) is played there also.

 

[Hodgepodge]

There are quite a few docos on the legends of cricket courtesy of ESPN on youtube. I have gone through quite a few, will check out Trumper soon if he's there and report back.

 

[CAS79]

The chairman of the SCG Trust yesterday named Victor Trumper as the greatest cricketer of all time, and on doing some research I noted that he is listed among Wisden's 6 Giants of Cricket alongside the Don, Grace and Jack Hobbs.

So what's the deal with Trumper? His stats at test level don't look all that impressive, although I'm aware that they don't tell the full story, so hopefully somebody can fill us in.

In tests he averaged 39 with both bat and ball and took 31 catches.

His first class record is similar.

Averaging 39 on pre WW1 wickets, with a stick for a bat, cotton for gloves and pitches that they would play straight after rain to face a style of bowling that has died because of the covers on the wicket, the sort that Syd Barnes bowled... Rember the great WG Grace only average 32 in test cricket and 39 in FC, and that for his time was exceptional.

I don't know about the best of all time as that's Bradman without peer but that average stands above his contemporaries . You don't look at that average as a concern against modern players, it's what prove he was great.

 

[Wallaby]

Averaging 39 on pre WW1 wickets, with a stick for a bat, cotton for gloves and pitches that they would play straight after rain to face a style of bowling that has died because of the covers on the wicket, the sort that Syd Barnes bowled... Rember the great WG Grace only average 32 in test cricket and 39 in FC, and that for his time was exceptional.

I don't know about the best of all time as that's Bradman without peer but that average stands above his contemporaries . You don't look at that average as a concern against modern players, it's what prove he was great.

Yes, but - Clem Hill averaged 39, Vernon Ransford averaged 38, Reggie Duff averaged 35, Warren Bardsley averaged 45 up to WW1. Those are Trumper's contemporaries. He was very good, one of our best at the time, certainly but he was certainly, not head and shoulders above his peers.

I am not bagging Trumper. In his case, I certainly think he was better than his average - his ability on bad wickets was legendary. But I think he is one of those who get's rated higher as a batsman because he was so elegant. Similar to Mark Waugh and David Gower.

Now, I'm like anybody else - I like elegance too. I would much rather watch a Mark Waugh century than a Steve Waugh century. But Steve was more lilely to make one.

 

[the_interloper]

I honestly think it has a bit to do with the famous photo below, "wow he plays a drive with his front foot in the air". He must have been a great player no doubt, but as Wally says above other players have similar if not better credentials. Plus the early death (hello Hendrix) helps his legacy:

 

[Copernicus]

Very attractive batsman - maybe as Mark Waugh or David Gowwer were rated higher for their 'elegance'. Also a bit of a dasher - scored very quickly. Tended to make runs on the difficult pitches and not cash in so much on flat decks. He may not have been Australia's Number one batsman during his time - Clem Hill was at least as good.

Then he did the best possible thing to ensure lasting, romantic fame - he died tragically young. A lot of his fame came after that - many, many articles written about how he was the 'young, dashing D'artagnan of the wicket' etc.

The Wisden '6 Giants of the Game' was nothing official - it was just an article written by Neville Cardus. Cardus was a bit of a Moo of a writer - apying most of his attention to esoteric aspects of the game - beauty, charm etc rather than the actual sport. Also, he probably saw Trumper 3 times in his life.

Trumper was certainly a very, very special player.

As much as anything, Trumper was renowned for his ability to smack the cover off a ball. Plenty of stories tell of him putting a ball way over the stands. I don't know how big those grounds were by comparison to today, but he was certainly a sweet striker of the ball.

 

[CAS79]

Yes, but - Clem Hill averaged 39, Vernon Ransford averaged 38, Reggie Duff averaged 35, Warren Bardsley averaged 45 up to WW1. Those are Trumper's contemporaries. He was very good, one of our best at the time, certainly but he was certainly, not head and shoulders above his peers.

I am not bagging Trumper. In his case, I certainly think he was better than his average - his ability on bad wickets was legendary. But I think he is one of those who get's rated higher as a batsman because he was so elegant. Similar to Mark Waugh and David Gower.

Now, I'm like anybody else - I like elegance too. I would much rather watch a Mark Waugh century than a Steve Waugh century. But Steve was more lilely to make one.

Yeah, my main point was to HodgePodge that 39 was the 59 of it's day.

In relation to your comparisons ... and here goes the game of rating players most of our parents never saw let alone us.

Clem Hill/Trumper, on a par. Bardsly pre WWI average is asked by the high series he had against South Africa, at that point a little like padding your average Banagladesh. Ransford was hurt by WW1 but Trumper ratio of innings to 100s and 50s (A Relevent stat for his day too) both in test and FC cricket is superior, and as you quoted who was most likely to make one, of all the players you named pre WW1, It was Trumper. (Hill kept out in the 90s...)


As for Reggie Duff, I thought I was the only one who ever rated him at all

So to rate them

Trumper/Hill
Bardsley
Ransford
Duff

 

[Wallaby]

Hmm - a bit tou

Yeah, my main point was to HodgePodge that 39 was the 59 of it's day.

In relation to your comparisons ... and here goes the game of rating players most of our parents never saw let alone us.

Clem Hill/Trumper, on a par. Bardsly pre WWI average is asked by the high series he had against South Africa, at that point a little like padding your average Banagladesh. Ransford was hurt by WW1 but Trumper ratio of innings to 100s and 50s (A Relevent stat for his day too) both in test and FC cricket is superior, and as you quoted who was most likely to make one, of all the players you named pre WW1, It was Trumper. (Hill kept out in the 90s...)


As for Reggie Duff, I thought I was the only one who ever rated him at all

So to rate them

Trumper/Hill
Bardsley
Ransford
Duff

Hmm - a bit tough on Bardsley - he was the first player to make 2 centuries in a test (in 1909 vs England), and Trumper also boosted his average against South Africa (even more than Bardsley). In the tests they played together, Bardsley performed better against England, and Trumper was better against Sth Africa.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Yes, but - Clem Hill averaged 39, Vernon Ransford averaged 38, Reggie Duff averaged 35, Warren Bardsley averaged 45 up to WW1. Those are Trumper's contemporaries. He was very good, one of our best at the time, certainly but he was certainly, not head and shoulders above his peers.

I am not bagging Trumper. In his case, I certainly think he was better than his average - his ability on bad wickets was legendary. But I think he is one of those who get's rated higher as a batsman because he was so elegant. Similar to Mark Waugh and David Gower.

Might it also be because he was a handy bowler too?

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Clem Hill is right up there, would have played more Tests had he not punched Peter McAlister senseless at the Selection meeting for the 1912 Tour. One of my favourite cricket characters.

 

[CAS79]

Hmm - a bit tou

Hmm - a bit tough on Bardsley - he was the first player to make 2 centuries in a test (in 1909 vs England), and Trumper also boosted his average against South Africa (even more than Bardsley). In the tests they played together, Bardsley performed better against England, and Trumper was better against Sth Africa.

Before WW1 no. Bardsley batted 21 times against England and crossed 50 on 3 occasions, 2 of those were from that test match you mentioned. And when you look at the rest of the series Bardsley battled to impact before than. Trumper had 74 innings for 6 tons against England and a total of 15 scored over 50. if you ask to name the better performer of the two pre WW1 which was my point about ratings before the war it was Vic.

It should also be noted Bardsley only got the 1 other ton against England from 49 innigs. Trumpers ratio of tons against England was better and Trumper had to face the best of Syd Barnes for longer too.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Clem Hill is right up there, would have played more Tests had he not punched Peter McAlister senseless at the Selection meeting for the 1912 Tour. One of my favourite cricket characters.

Hmmmm, might be something in that for the modern day player - with the previous selection panel it would certainly have been forgivable and even applauded at times.

 

[courtjester]

Whenever I pick an all-time Australian XI I never select Trumper.

I always do.

- Arthur Morris
- Bill Lawry
- Don Bradman
- Greg Chappell
- Victor Trumper
- Keith Miller
- Adam Gilchrist
- Shane Warne
- Dennis Lillee
- Bill O'Reilly
- Glenn McGrath