M.J. Druitt - some interesting info!

[Adam Went]

Hi all,

I'm not sure if these have been shown anywhere else before (I know a lot of this sort of thing was printed in the recent book about Druitt, "Portrait of a Contender"), but I thought you all might be interested in these, which I came across on the web.

They are 2 scorecards from cricket matches that Druitt played in during the period of the Ripper murders. The first one took place on the 3rd and 4th of August, when the Gentlemen of Bournemouth went up against the Parsees, and the second is from that well known match that Druitt played on September 8, 1888 - the match which Druitt's candidacy as a possible Ripper suspect is questioned.

I'll put the scorecards up first, and then try and give a brief explanation of what it all means for those of you who don't really understand the game of cricket. Here we go:

(Gentlemen of Bournemouth VS. Parsees - 3,4 August 1888):

"Gentlemen of Bournemouth 1st innings
+Andrews c Divecha b Pandole 2
Kinsey c Cooper b Pavri 9
R Micklethwaite b Pavri 0
Lewid c Kanga b Pandole 3
MJ Druitt b Pavri 12
P Bevan c Cooper b Pavri 5
E Cusse lbw b Kanga 3
H Lacey c Kanga b Pavri 5
Marshall b Pavri 0
FB Bingham not out 12
Newman b Kanga 2
Extras (b ?, lb ?, w ?, nb ?) 3
Total (all out) 56


Parsees 1st innings
PD Kanga c Druitt b Bingham 0
JM Morenas c Newman b Druitt 1
+RD Cooper c Andrews b Druitt 21
KR Eranee b Druitt 1
MD Kanga b Bingham 4
NC Bapasola c Kinsey b Marshall 5
ME Pavri b Bingham 0
J Divecha b Druitt 3
S Harver st Andrews b Marshall 3
DC Pandole c & b Druitt 5
AD Vatcha not out 13
Total (all out) 61


Gentlemen of Bournemouth 2nd innings
+Andrews run out 4
Kinsey st Cooper b Pandole 2
R Micklethwaite b Pandole 2
Lewid b Kanga 10
MJ Druitt c Harver b Pandole 0
P Bevan b Pandole 0
E Cusse hit wicket b Pandole 11
H Lacey c Divecha b Pandole 0
Marshall b Kanga 0
FB Bingham c Cooper b Pandole 0
Newman b Kanga 0
Extras (b ?, lb ?, w ?, nb ?) 5
Total (all out) 41


Parsees 2nd innings (target: 37)
PD Kanga not out 1
JM Morenas b Turner 8
+RD Cooper c Druitt b Bingham 17
KR Eranee b Turner 3
MD Kanga b Bingham 0
ME Pavri not out 6
Extras (b ?, lb ?, w ?, nb ?) 2
Total (4 wickets) 37 "

So the result from that match was that the Parsees won by 6 wickets.

The next match is....
Blackheath Club VS. Brothers Christopherson - 8 September, 1888):


" Blackheath Club innings
FG Monkland b P Christopherson 15
E Woodman c C Christopherson b P Christopherson 2
RS Barrow c S Christopherson b P Christopherson 0
MJ Druitt b S Christopherson 2
HC Blaker b S Christopherson 14
THE Nicholls run out 2
RA Fegan c Sidney Christopherson b S Christopherson 0
GR Hutchinson not out 44
FS Ireland c & b Sidney Christopherson 14
JH Fegan c P Christopherson b S Christopherson 10
Extras (b ?, lb ?, w ?, nb ?) 12
Total (all out) 115


Brothers Christopherson innings (target: 116)
S Christopherson b Druitt 10
P Christopherson c Monkland b Ireland 7
K Christopherson c Monkland b Ireland 5
Sidney Christopherson c Woodman b Ireland 40
C Christopherson b Druitt 2
M Christopherson c Woodman b Ireland 9
Douglas Christopherson c Monkland b ? Fegan 8
D Christopherson b Druitt 0
H Christopherson not out 1
D Christopherson jnr b Ireland 1
Extras (b ?, lb ?, w ?, nb ?) 10
Total (all out) 93 "

....And the result from that match was that Blackheath Club won by 22 runs.

Now, just for those of you who have little or no idea of what any of those scorecards mean, here's a little explanation of it all...

I'll start with a little chronology of the way the batsmen were dismissed in these scorecards (anywhere that I use names is just an example of such a dismissal so you know what I mean...)

b: Druitt = the batsman was clean "bowled" by Druitt, or whoever the bowler was. That is, the 3 stumps that each batsman stands in front of, and has to try and protect, were hit by a delivery from the bowler that is named. (A bowler is similar to a pitcher in baseball terms.)

c: Monkland b: Ireland = this occurs when the batsman hits the ball in the air and is caught by a fielder, without the ball ever having made contact with the ground after it came off the bat. C = caught. So, that particular example would mean that Batsman A was dismissed by being caught in the field by Monkland, from a ball bowled by Ireland.

not out = Pretty simple - the not out batsman is the last remaining batsman to not be dismissed by the fielding team.

LBW = This means Leg Before Wicket. This means that if a ball from the bowler hits the batsman on the leg, or any other part of his body, for that matter, is judged by the umpire to have pitched in line with the stumps, and would have gone on to hit the stumps had it not hit the batsman first, then he is given out LBW. Also, the ball must not have made any contact with the bat before it struck the leg or pads of the batsman, or else it's not out.

run out = If the 2 batsmen are trying to take a run between wickets, and a fielder throws the ball which hits the stumps before the batsmen is in his "crease" (i.e. made his ground), he is out via run out.

st: Cooper b:Pandole = st = stumped. A stumping is done by the wicket-keeper, cricket's equivalent of a baseball catcher. If the batsman, for example, goes down the pitch to try and hit a delivery, misses, and has no part of his body or bad in his crease, if the wicket-keeper successfully knocks his stumps over, with the cricket ball in his hand, then the batsman is out "stumped".

c & b: Druitt = That's right, caught & bowled by Druitt. Pretty simple really - it happens when the batsman hits the ball straight back to the bowler, in the air, and the bowler takes the catch. That is caught and bowled.

hit wicket = Probably the most embarrassing way to get out in cricket. If you hit wicket, it means that you've somehow managed to knock your own stumps over, either by stepping backwards and kicking them over, ducking under a ball and managing to fall onto your stumps, or knocking them over with your bat while trying to play a shot.

Sorry to have gone on there a bit, but hopefully, if for no other reason, it's atleast increased some of your understanding of cricket. :)

The other, and final, thing that I wanted to mention is that it's been said before that Druitt's performances in cricket matches dropped off pretty dramatically during the period of the Ripper murders, leading up to his suicide. Now I can't work out how that conclusion was made, because unless he is one of the best cricketers the world has ever produced, his record in those 2 matches is quite good, particularly his bowling.

Sure, with the bat, Druitt only managed scores of 12, 0 and 2, which is pretty poor, but it's important to look at that in context. None of the totals exceeded 115 runs, and 115 runs in any match is considered a pretty poor total, but 50's and 60's like the teams made in the first patch is just downright disgraceful, even if they weren't a very good team. Infact, Druitt was equal top scorer with 12 in the first match, which isn't much to complain about. Aside from that, he also picked up a 5 wicket haul, which is a great achievement for any bowler.
In the second match he only scored the 2 runs, but there were several other batsmen who also scored 0, 1 or 2 runs. And he also picked up another 3 wicket haul, which is another fine result.
I don't see how his performances could have been a lot better than that prior to the time the Ripper murders took place, but even if they were, he still seems quite a good cricketer even during that time.

Anyway, I think I've rambled on more than enough now, so I'll just finish by saying that I got the scorecards for those 2 matches from the following 2 pages:

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1880S/1888/OTHERS+ICC/PARSEES_IN_ENG/PARSEES_GENTLEMEN-BOURNE_03-04AUG1888.html

And:

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1880S/1888/ENG_LOCAL/OTHER/BLHTH_BROTH-CSON_08SEP1888.html

Very worthwile to check out if you're interested, and they have plenty of other great stuff on those sites.

Anyway, I hope you all found those atleast a little interesting, and by all means, please post up any comments or questions you might have!

Cheers,
Adam. :)

P.S. Just a little food for thought.... In the 8 September, 1888 match, for the Blackheath Club team, you might have noticed that M.J. Druitt was playing in the same side as a certain "G.R. Hutchinson". Hmmm, could it be...?? ;)

[Adam Went]

OK, no idea why it's so pathetic, but the filter on this forum must have blocked out the full name of the P-a-r-s-e-e-s cricket team. Anyway, that's what the name is. (Hopefully that works!) If it doesn't, Howard and Tim are going to be getting mail....

Cheers,
Adam. ;)

[admin tim]

Problem fixed. :D

An overzealous and puritanical censorship program was the culprit here. Trying to contain the foul-mouths sometimes intrudes on others; sorry. :o

[Robert Linford]

TEST Maybrick was an arsenic addict. :)

[Robert Linford]

Adam, we still don't know what kind of bowler Monty was, do we?

Robert

[Adam Went]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for fixing that up, makes things look a bit better.... :D

Hi Robert,

Well, while I was looking through all this stuff to do with Monty, I read that in his day he was a "feared opening bowler" for Blackheath. So based on that, I think it's pretty safe to say he was a pace bowler (fast or fast medium), because as you would know, it's not too common for slow bowlers to open bowling for any team, or to be feared by the opposition. Unless their name is Shane Warne, of course. ;)
Can't be certain of that, though.

Cheers,
Adam. :)

[Robert Linford]

Adam, I agree it's looking like a fast bowler. In the two matches above combined, he removed the number 1, 2 and 3 batsmen. Of course, if we found a stumping it might suggest slow, but at the moment it's looking fast.

Robert

[Adam Went]

Hi again Robert,

My apologies for the slow response.
I think you're right that it's definitely looking like Druitt was a pace bowler of some sort. But the smaller details, such as what sort of pace bowler he was - fast, fast medium, medium, etc...whether he was a left-armed or right-armed bowler....whether he was a seam bowler or a swing bowler....they all remain open to debate. Do you have any idea about any of those?

Besides that, we know that Druitt was quite an athletic person, and fast bowlers need to be athletic. All in all, it seems that all the signs point to him being a pace bowler, as you said, but unfortunately some of those smaller details still remain a mystery.

Cheers,
Adam. :)

[Robert Linford]

Hi Adam

My only guess would be, that since he seemed to bat middle order, he might have been fast medium rather than out and out fast. Real pace bowlers tend to be rabbits with the bat, don't they? On the other hand, wicket-keepers tend not to be openers, and yet in the match above Andrews carried out a stumping!

Robert

[Adam Went]

Hi Robert,

Whoops! I completely forgot that I was owing a reply to this thread! Sorry about that.... :o

About your question - yes, you're right. Not only fast bowlers, but most bowlers in general tend to be pretty dodgy with the bat. But that isn't always the case - look at England's Andrew Flintoff - he's a fast bowler as well as a very good batsman. Same as South Africa's Jacques Kallis - one of world cricket's best batsmen (and bats at #4, like Druitt), and a handy pace bowler as well.
Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar, the 2 fastest bowlers in the world at the moment - neither of them are mugs with the bat. Neither of them are brilliant either, for that matter, but they can make some runs.
I know there's a big difference between 2000's international cricket and 1880's club cricket, but there's no reason why Druitt couldn't have been an out-and-out fast bowler as well as an upper-middle-order batsman.

The other thing - wicket-keepers opening batting - again, you're right that usually they don't open, but some of them do. Australia's Adam Gilchrist has been opening batting for us in one-day matches for a long time now, as well as keeping wicket, so it does happen. Doesn't look like Andrews was too great of a batsman, though - only scores of 2 and 4 on that scorecard!

Did you happen to come across any more info on Druitt's cricketing career since the last posts on this thread? Or any more thoughts?

Again, sorry for the very slow reply!

Cheers,
Adam. :)

[Shawn-a]

Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar, the 2 fastest bowlers in the world at the moment -
Adam. :)
I looked these fellows up and found their top speeds to be 156 km per hr. Maybe Howard can do the math and compare with American pitchers' top speeds of 98-100 miles per hour standing still....
(Modern human psycho-physical, not just socio-ideological, evolution is still an untried option in Ripperology in my estimation and it's easier to prove the physical part.....)

[Howard Brown]

Shawna...

Thats 93 MPH.

Take .6 ( as a kilometer is 3/5ths of a mile...) and multiply it by 156. It comes out to 93 MPH. Cricketers also have a slight advantage because they are allowed to run towards the batter when they hurl that ball.

These cricket guys are usually throwing downward,where baseballs are thrown almost laterally. In fact,I've heard that softball ( the larger ball,which is just as hard,used in a game nearly identical to baseball ) pitchers can "bring it" even faster in some cases,since they are not fighting the force of gravity by throwing underhanded,or swinging the ball downward with a different impetus.

Stan or Don Souden may be able to qualify my statement better...

In any event,I would NOT want to get hit by a cricket ball either. Anything moving at that speed from that close distance can be lethal at that speed. I got popped in the noggin once back with a baseball. It wasn't a 90 mph fastball....but it damned sure hurt like one from that speed.

[Adam Went]

Hi again everyone!

Shawna:

What you said is right, but just as a little side note, it should be said that Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar are the 2 fastest bowlers CURRENTLY playing cricket. There have been slightly faster bowlers before.
IIRC, Australia's Jeff Thomson recorded the fastest ever delivery back in the 1970's, when he bowled an absolute rocket at just over 160 KMH. (Can't be sure of the exact conversion into MPH, sorry, but probably somewhere around the 95-96 MPH mark.)
And believe me, you did not want to be facing Jeff Thompson - he had a famous delivery called the "toe cruncher", when these rockets of balls he was delivering would be spot on perfect to slam straight into the batsman's foot or toes. He not only collected many LBW's from it, but also broke plenty of bones as well!

How:

That's some very...err...interesting cricket terminology you used in that post! ;)

I must say, you'd probably much rather get hit by a 100 MPH baseball that a 90 MPH cricket ball. Aside from Jeff Thomson's toe crunchers, many batsmen have been seriously injured from deliveries which hit their bodies. These days, they have helmets and padding all over them, but plenty still get hurt.
Tail-end batsmen are usually subject to the worst treatment.
Geoff Lawson, an Aussie bowler of the 80's - early 90's, who was pretty lousy with the bat, once got struck on the head with a fast "bouncer", and literally had his cheekbones and jaw just smashed to pieces. Took him a long time to fully recover. Plenty of ribs are still broken by such deliveries as well, as well as broken fingers.
You'd have to know about everything that has happened in the game, but I can assure you, from what I know, you're much safer being a baseballer than a cricketer! ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

[Howard Brown]

Adam:

I wouldn't know what to do in a cricket game. I watched it and knew less after watching it than before watching the game...:confused:


These "bowlers".....those are the guys who run up towards the guy with the thing that looks like a big paddle that they use to spank kids with,right?

Then what do they do? Why do they only run to that stick?

How do they score? Where's second base? HELP !

[Adam Went]

Hi again everyone!

Shawna:

That's right. And we all know that the Aussies are the best in the world at everything they participate in, don't we? :p

Howie:

I have to be honest - trying to explain the game of cricket to people who know very little about it is pretty difficult, because it's so complex.

The way a batsman scores runs is that he has to hit the ball which is bowled by the bowler - the guy who runs up, yes - and then run between the "sticks" (known as stumps or wickets) for as many runs as they can. They can also hit the ball for four, which means the ball is hit to the rope around the outside of the field, or they can hit it for six, which is when the ball goes over the boundary rope on the full - like a home run in baseball....

The aim of the batting side is to get as many runs as they possibly can on the board. 300 is generally considered a pretty good score for an innings of Test match cricket. Anything under about 230 is....well...something of a disaster.
The aim of the fielding side is then obviously to get the batting side all out as soon as they can, and for as few runs as possible.

So, that's the basics. Anything more would only make you more confused....i'll tell you what, though....I have a pretty new DVD called "The Fight For The Ashes" which is about last year's England VS. Australia Test match (Ashes) series - England of course won 2-1, but it's interesting nonetheless, and filled with some fantastic highlights and commentary. Perhaps you'd like to have a lend of it? Let me know if you do and I'll send it....you'll pick up plenty from it. I doubt even you would find it boring!
(Except, maybe, when Ian Botham is commentating.) ;)

Cheers,
Adam. :)

[Howard Brown]

The aim of the batting side is to get as many runs as they possibly can on the board. 300 is generally considered a pretty good score for an innings of Test match cricket.

So...if this batter hits the ball into the field...how is he made "out' ? If the other team catches the ball?

300 runs in an inning? How many innings are there in these games?

It is a confusing game.

[Adam Went]

Howie,

The batsman can be "made out" in a number of ways.

First, he can be caught. If the ball comes off the edge of his bat, or off his glove, and is caught by the wicket-keeper (known as "caught at the wicket")or "slips", who stand in a line behind and slightly to the side of the batsman, he is out. He is also out if he hits a ball on the full in the air and is caught by a fielder, either "in close" or "in the deep".

He can also be "clean bowled" - that is when any of the stumps behind the batsman get knocked down (or bails on the stumps get knocked off) by the bowler's delivery....that is "bowled".

He can be LBW, or "leg before wicket", which is when the pads the batsman wears on his legs are hit by the ball from the bowler, and if there is an appeal from the fielding side, and the umpire gives the batsman out, that means the umpire thinks the ball, if it had not hit the batsman's pad first, would have gone on to knock over the stumps. However, the batsman isn't out just because he gets hit on the pads - the ball has to have pitched in line with the stumps (i.e. it can't have bounced 3/4 of the way across the pitch, then come back in after the bounce and be given out LBW.) The only exception to that rule is if the batsman doesn't offer a shot - so if he tries to let the ball go through to the wicket-keeper, and gets hit on the pads from a delivery that might have swung back in, even if it pitched outside the line of the stumps first, he can still be given out. A batsman also can't be given out if the ball bounced too much and hit too high on the pads - otherwise it would have gone over the top of the stumps. Same again with balls that are "going down the leg side" (not swinging/turning back in enough) or balls that do TOO much and would have missed the off-stump (opposite to the leg stump.)

Another way of getting out is to be run out. This can happen, for example, if the 2 batsmen try and take a quick single run, but a fielder picks up the ball, throws it and knocks down the stumps at either end before the batsman has made it back into his crease (his safe ground). That is a run out.

2 other modes of dismissal, but less common, are to be "stumped" and to "hit wicket". Being stumped usually only occurs against spin bowlers, and it's similar to a run out - if a batsman, for example, comes down the pitch as a ball is delivered to try and hit it away, or meet the "pitch" of the ball, but misses it and the wicket-keeper grabs the ball and knocks over the stumps before the batsman can make it back in - that is a stumping. It's the same if a batsman makes it back into his crease, but still has a foot or a bat (depending on what he used to try and get back into his crease) in the air, then that is a "stumping". A wicket-keepers only job.

Hit wicket is the worst way to get out. It happens when a batsman knocks over his own stumps. It might happen if they swing the bat too hard and knock their own stumps over, or if they tred back in their crease and kick their stumps over. Or fall into them. So, if a batsman is out "hit wicket", they've literally got themselves out!!

As for how many innings there are - in an ODI (One Day International), there is only 1 innings for each team, and a maximum of 50 overs (6 balls per over) each. In a Test match, there is 2 innings per team - unless, for example, Team A make 200, Team B then come out and make 500, then Team A are out for 200 again - that means that Team B have no runs they need to come out and chase, because they've got the opposition out twice for less than what they scored in one innings, so, in that case, they would have won by "an innings and 100 runs" !!

Phewf!!
You sure it wouldn't be easier just to borrow the DVD? Haha. ;)

Cheers,
Adam. :)

[Mansun]

If you want to read a really interesting article on Druitt then get the new April edition of the WS1888 Journal which will be out in April. Here I will discuss over-looked information on his legal career and also his finances. Worth a read.

Was interested to see those cricket results. I had lunch with the writer, John Leighton - 'Portrait of a Contender' and he told me that the Christopherson that was in the list was his grandfather and that he bowled Druitt Out!

ADRIAN.:lol:

[Howard Brown]

Dear Adrian:

This looks like a very interesting piece on Druitt. I know a lot of interest in him revolves around his finances. Thanks for the sneak preview,sir.