FROM THE ARCHIVE: The public react to the 1980 Lord’s Centenary Test

In the summer of 1980, England and Australia played a one-off match to mark the hundredth anniversary of Test cricket in England, however, it didn’t go to plan

The norm is for England and Australia to face each other in a Test match, at Lord’s, once every four years.

Yet sometimes, this occurs much more regularly; most notably in 1980, when England welcomed Australia to mark the hundredth anniversary of Test cricket being played in England.

However, the game didn’t go as planned. 

Rain ruined the second day and controversy the third, as the umpires were reluctantly to play in clear sunlight. Their reluctance angered the crowd, including MCC members, as play eventually began at 3.45pm.

Although the match had been significantly reduced, there was still the chance of a result – and Australia were pushing. They declared at the beginning of day five and set England 370 to win.

But Geoffrey Boycott was having none of it. He hit an unbeaten century, comfortably playing 252 balls at a rate of little over 50. Yet he still struck quicker than Mike Gatting, who scored off just a third of deliveries faced. 

^{Mike Gatting plays a challenging delivery}

Readers of The Cricketer were angered by what they had seen and sent in their letters at will, as editor R.J. Hayter was keen to point out.

The events of the Centenary Test provoked one of the largest volume of letters we have received on a single subject for some time. 

Space precludes us from publishing more than section of the correspondence, but we thank the very many readers, from a number of countries, who have written to us on this matter.

The first letter was from J. Doyle of West Malling in Kent:

As one of the spectators who had paid £6.30 in advance to see the Centenary Test match on the Saturday, I was amazed at the sequence of events which resulted in 90 minutes play being possible. 

The match was supposed to be a special “showpiece,” but there was no apparent attempt to arrive at a balance between the suitability of playing conditions and the duty to entertain 22,00 spectators.

While recognising that the ground was not in an ideal condition on Saturday, it should have been possible to start play after lunch. The lack of information about what was happening after the numerous pitch inspections was farcical and, bearing in mind the long days, the crowd was remarkably patient, particularly the poor spectators left queuing outside the ground until 3.30pm.

The undertaking to play until 8pm was clearly unrealistic and the additional hours of play on Monday and Tuesday were little compensation to people who had paid to watch the game on Saturday.

Administrators often express fears about declining attendances and the uncertain financial future of the game, but this shambles is hardly likely to guarantee that spectators will clamour to pour through the turnstiles again next season.

^{The Centenary Test was John Arlott's final as a commentator on Test Match Special}

The next was from David Wynne-Morgan of London:

I was appalled by the performance and attitude of the England team on the last day of the Centenary Test at Lord’s, and even more angry over the almost total failure of the British press to castigate the team and its captain in their disregard of thousands of spectators.

Cricket, and the highly-paid players who benefits most from it financially, depends for its survival almost entirely on the public who pay to see them. Satisfying and entertaining that public should be a major priority.

No-one is suggesting that the English batsmen should have given up their wickets and made suicidal strokes in a hopeless run-chase. 

What they should have done was to introduce a sense of urgency into their play, look for every single, and play into their shots when possible. Thus, sustaining excitement until the end.

It was the under-rated Australians who captured the sprit of the centenary, and the English who failed to measure up to the real challenge. It was a tragic and selfish waste of an unrepeatable opportunity. 

^{Geoffrey Boycott celebrates his controversial century}

And to finish, here’s one from Arthur W. Lee of Manitoba, Canada: 

In common with thousands of others I made the long pilgrimage at great personal expense and I think I am justified in saying that we did not get value for our money.

My complaints are not so much with such minor irritants as the decrepit and garbled public address system. Nor, indeed, with the flagrant indifference displayed by what must be a minuscule public relations department at Lord’s when, after the umpteenth inspection on Saturday morning, the crowd was still left in the dark.

Nor yet with the off-handed manner of several gate officials, nor the unenterprising batting by England on the final day. My main criticism is centred around the hopelessly ineffective covering of Test match wickets. 

Would it not be feasible, in these times when men have walked on the moon, to borrow an idea from our American baseball cousins and invest in tarpaulins to cover the entire ground in the event of rain? 

Little wonder that tempers in the pavilion became a little heated. As one Aussie pointed out, if such a combination of circumstances had occurred in the Antipodes, it is likely that the pavilion itself would have been burned down!

To celebrate England winning the World Cup you can subscribe to The Cricketer for just £20.19. Click here to learn more