Druitt info

[MrTwibbs]

Monty was good at bowling a few "rippers" and chalking up "maidens"

[Adam Went]

Just thinking about those bowling figures again, while they were great, there was 4 maidens in that, which means that his other 6 overs went for 38 runs - which is fairly expensive, especially if you consider it in terms of 5-ball overs.....so while he obviously bowled pretty well, i'd say somebody gave him a bit of a touch up at some point during that innings.

Cheers,
Adam.

[MrTwibbs]

Just thinking about those bowling figures again, while they were great, there was 4 maidens in that, which means that his other 6 overs went for 38 runs - which is fairly expensive, especially if you consider it in terms of 5-ball overs.....so while he obviously bowled pretty well, i'd say somebody gave him a bit of a touch up at some point during that innings.

Cheers,
Adam.

one thing I've noticed being on this site is the number of theories that evolve. I even read a post where someone actually believed Druitt was a spy as he found dead near the missile factory.

I'll now put forward my own theory. He bowled "4 maidens" i.e. he was telling the world that he killed 4. *cue dramatic music*

just kidding he could never have controlled the amount of maidens he bowled and i doubt he was jtr

[m_w_r]

Just thinking about those bowling figures again, while they were great, there was 4 maidens in that, which means that his other 6 overs went for 38 runs - which is fairly expensive, especially if you consider it in terms of 5-ball overs.....so while he obviously bowled pretty well, i'd say somebody gave him a bit of a touch up at some point during that innings.

Hi Adam,

I'm not a statistician, but I am a notorious pedant, so please bear with me. All Swedes and Americans may wish to visit another thread at this point.

First to my post (#26 in this thread), in which some of calculations are in error. I had not noticed - no excuses - that this was a ten-a-side game, with each side requiring nine wickets to end the opposition innings. Therefore, if Ireland had taken the further four wickets at the economy rate with which he took his five in the Christophersons' innings, the Christophersons would have made 52 (rounded to the nearest integer). If Monkland had taken the further eight wickets at the economy rate with which he took his one in the Christophersons' innings, the Christophersons would have made 63. If Monty had taken the further six wickets at the economy rate with which he took his three in the Christophersons' innings, the Christophersons would have made 114. This affects my previous reasoning slightly, since Blackheath would still have won by one run even if all the wickets had fallen at Monty's economy rate. It seems only fair to point this out, but the fact remains that he was the third-most economical bowler of the four used in the innings, and that the fourth took no wickets. I hope this clears things up here - not that I had a sleepless night worrying about my mistake, of course...

Now to your analysis of the bowling figures. I think I have given quite cogent reasons for believing this match to have played under five-ball-over conditions, which you seemed to accept previously, despite your "blonde moment". Now (in the quotation above) you appear to be returning to the idea of an eight-ball over. I think it is much more probable that Monty bowled sixteen overs, of which four were maidens, the other twelve going for a total of thirty-eight runs at a net rate of 3.17 runs per over. I think it's possible to argue from this that he was regularly milked, perhaps through the on side, having bowled a line on the wickets with only qualified success (by comparison, four of Ireland's five wickets were caught). If anyone took a shine to him, it was very probably Sidney, who clearly outscored all the other players on the Christophersons' team.

I don't think this tells us much about whether he was Jack the Ripper, to be honest, but die-hards might like to note that the top scorer in the match, batting eight for Blackheath, was G.R. Hutchinson.

Regards,

Mark

[Robert]

We don't really know what the situation was in the match, do we? If the other side were throwing the bat, Monty's figures would have suffered. Likewise if Monty was told to throw the bat. After all, this was just a one day game, wasn't it? Or was it?

[m_w_r]

After all, this was just a one day game, wasn't it? Or was it?

Hi Robert,

It was, as far as I can tell. The Christopherson Brothers' innings (batting second) was completed in 37.4 five-ball overs; I don't know how long Blackheath batted for. But there's no indication that the match went to a second day. As for the state of play, we don't know what sorts of urgency had to be injected, by whom, or when - that's true. Likewise, even though he was comparatively expensive, Monty was obviously kept on for sixteen overs in the innings. Fegan and Monkland only bowled six between them. There is obviously some reasoning behind this, but we can't tell what from this distance.

Regards,

Mark

[Adam Went]

Hi MWR and all,

Unfortunately I don't have D.J. Leighton's book, so anything i'm stating from my own information on here is coming from the Cricinfo scorecard for that September 8 match, which you can find by following the link that was posted up on this thread earlier....

It does seem likely that they were 5-ball overs, but then again, if this was a one-day match.....what you're saying then is that Druitt bowled 16 overs out of a completed innings of 37.4 overs? That means he bowled virtually non-stop from one-end, most fast bowlers these days struggle to bowl more than 6 or 7 overs in a row, so either he was unbelievably fit, or there's something up with those stats?

Cheers,
Adam.

P.S. I noticed that G.R. Hutchinson before....maybe it's George....

[m_w_r]

That means he bowled virtually non-stop from one-end, most fast bowlers these days struggle to bowl more than 6 or 7 overs in a row, so either he was unbelievably fit, or there's something up with those stats?

Hi Adam,

I doubt Monty was the Victorian era's Brett Lee, although D.J. Leighton says that he was indeed a pace bowler. 1888 was apparently a bad season for Monty, judged from the number of wickets he took and the number of runs he scored and in comparison to previous seasons. I fancy that the edge had been taken off his pace, and he was now bowling mainly for gazunders, which don't require one to be terrifyingly quick. He could, in fact, have been coming in off a few paces. This is no more than my suspicion, though.

Regards,

Mark

[MrTwibbs]

Normally Druitt was very economical 2rpo or less on some score cards,plenty of maidens but if you compare other bowlers in those matches that was the norm. Runs were not scored quickly. Remember they had uncovered pitches back them and this aided bowlers.
Druitt was a pace bowler. Perhaps he just had a few loose overs or the batsmen got lucky edges. It happens.

[Adam Went]

Well Druitt was starting to get on a little bit in cricketing terms by 1888....once you get past 30 it's over the hill really, particularly if you are a fast bowler. Don't know that too much can be read into that form, we know he had personal problems in 1888 as well which might have affected his form, focus and training.

Druitt might well have been little more than a medium pacer coming in off a few steps, but 16 overs on the trot? Surely that would be very, very rare, even for a spinner, never mind a pace bowler? Again, he wasn't 20 anymore.

Then again, he only made 2 with the bat so he wouldn't have expended too much energy there.....but let's be honest, we're basically just guessing here, it's difficult to read much into the match using just statistics, and somewhat unclear ones at that.

Cheers,
Adam.

[m_w_r]

Druitt might well have been little more than a medium pacer coming in off a few steps, but 16 overs on the trot? Surely that would be very, very rare, even for a spinner, never mind a pace bowler? Again, he wasn't 20 anymore.

Hi Adam,

I dunno. If you think that this was a suspiciously superhuman effort by Monty, you've also got to account for the fact that Ireland did almost exactly the same thing from the other end, and was only spared from bowling his eightieth delivery by taking the Christophersons' final wicket with his seventy-ninth. So either Blackheath had two bowlers of preternatural stamina, or it could, feasibly, be undertaken by conventional cricketers. Unless the scoring convention has changed, Monty opened the bowling at one end, and Ireland at the other, and, although it's not impossible that Monty bowled unchanged for the first sixteen overs from his end, it seems very likely to me that he and Ireland were both relieved part-way through the innings by Monkland and Fagan, before Monty and Ireland returned towards the end of the innings. This isn't certain, but I think it's a reasonable guess. So he may indeed have bowled sixteen overs on the trot, but so might Ireland, and if he didn't then he bowled in spells, with a rest in the middle. None of this seems beyond the scope of human endurance.

...but let's be honest, we're basically just guessing here, it's difficult to read much into the match using just statistics, and somewhat unclear ones at that.

I agree, but I thought it was jolly good fun while it lasted, and this sort of light-hearted speculation isn't, I think, to be taken sufficiently seriously as to cause it to impair anyone's general reputation as a responsible, data-led historian. On the other hand, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you rather keen on Klosowski as Jack the Ripper? I don't see how a conclusion like that - which, truth be known, has very few hard facts to support it - is all well and good, the sort of thing a historian can do and defend doing, if the much-less-significant suggestion that Monty was coming in off a few paces in a cricket match isn't to be relied on because of a lack of data. Anyway, that's just me.

Regards,

Mark

[Robert]

Tragic barrister drowns himself in betting scandal? No....no....

[Adam Went]

MWR:

The only other possible conclusion that I can come up with which might be worth considering is that the game was affected by rain. If Druitt and Ireland opened the bowling, then there was a delay of, say for instance, an hour because of poor weather, then perhaps they would have been suitably refreshed to continue bowling such a hefty amount of overs. Having said that, it still seems somewhat odd to me - and, if it is so, it's a rather bad sign for the case against Druitt as the Ripper. Bowling sixteen overs on the trot would be work reserved only for the fittest on any occasion - as I said already, few international bowlers other than spinners would be able to successfully undertake such a workload even now, and we're talking about 1880's club cricketers here - and those who were full of stamina, not those who were wandering the streets of Spitalfields at 5 o'clock that morning.....

"On the other hand, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you rather keen on Klosowski as Jack the Ripper? I don't see how a conclusion like that - which, truth be known, has very few hard facts to support it - is all well and good, the sort of thing a historian can do and defend doing, if the much-less-significant suggestion that Monty was coming in off a few paces in a cricket match isn't to be relied on because of a lack of data. Anyway, that's just me."

You're right, I am a Klosowski-ite, but that doesn't stop me from having an objective viewpoint as I see Klosowski merely, to borrow a phrase, as the "least unlikely" out of the current field of suspects. I don't wish to turn this thread into a discussion on the pro's and con's of him as a suspect, but I can't understand your comment saying there's few facts which support that theory though - I could start with the 3 senior police officers, including the man in charge of the case, who named him as their man - comparing this to Druitt's cricketing career, if you or anyone are able to find 3 cricketers or umpires who participated in that match who could clarify Monty's bowling figures and performance in general during that game, that would certainly be fantastic!

Cheers,
Adam.

Cheers,
Adam.