Cricket's elite still thrive despite amateur's demise

Radley College is one of four remaining boys-only boarding schools in Britain, the others being Winchester, Harrow and Eton.

Both were attended by Andrew Strauss, who resigned as England cricket captain last week.

It's unlikely that any professional footballer would have attended either institution and it is this link to selectivity that distinguishes cricket from the nation's favourite sport.

The link is relevant today as commentators will no doubt dissect Strauss's skills at man-management but also because September 8 marks the 50th anniversary of the final Players versus Gentlemen contests and with it the death-knell of the division between amateur and professional.

Amateurs and professionals were team-mates and colleagues but rarely comrades.

Most professionals were viewed as hired hands or tradesmen, who were paid for performing menial labouring jobs. The word amateur, on the other hand, derives from the Latin amator, meaning "lover" and implying the cricketer who plays for the love of the game.

Players used separate dressing rooms, ate from their own tables at meal times and approached the wicket from different gates. The amateur travelled to away games in a first-class railway carriage. The professional travelled third.

You detected the amateur by the initials placed before his name on the scoreboard. The professionals' came after.

The amateur led the side and as captain had a say in selection, and therefore who played and, crucially, who received payment.

In his autobiography The Hand the Bowled Bradman, Bill Andrews outlined how in the 1932 season he only played half of the games, and these included the difficult ones such as the northern tour. In contrast, the three matches at the Weston-super-Mare Festival saw only four, three and two professionals selected.

Through a combination of expenses, testimonials and administrative roles the amateur was also often better rewarded.

The Lancashire committee secured the services of Archie MacLaren by appointing him assistant secretary at the turn of the 20th century. While his clerical duties were none his salary at £40 a week contrasted with the £2 the Lancashire professionals were paid.

Fred Root played county cricket between 1910 and 1932 and claimed that many professionals would play as amateurs if the chance came again because they expected to make more money.

Amateur Ted Dexter admitted that he earned more from cricket than from his business interests, while Jim Laker, doyen of 1950s English spin bowling, considered the possibility of becoming an amateur in order to increase his income.

Cricketers who challenged this social equilibrium could find themselves ostracised.

Charlie Parker took 3,278 first-class wickets, the third highest in the history of first-class cricket, behind only Wilfred Rhodes and Tich Freeman. To Parker the professional was as good as any amateur and he was not worried about letting amateurs know how he felt. He would only play one Test, in 1921 against Australia.

When Percy Holmes was asked why he never got selected to go to Australia, he explained: "It was that bugger (Lord) Hawke. He said to me one day, 'Holmes.' And I said: 'Yes, Hawke. Wot?' And that's why I never went to Australia."

The second world war witnessed the easing of traditional master and servant relationships as the requirement to operate factory and administer state overrode social niceties. The promise of homes for heroes, welfare provision and the rejection of the old ways of doing things suggested a shift in emphasis away from the few towards the collective.

There was little place for formal segregation in a world where the belief in the "right to rule" was eclipsed by one of equality of opportunity. English cricket, though, continued as if little had changed.

In 1939 all the counties had amateur captains. By 1946 all but one remained the same. The exception, Leicestershire, appointed Charles Palmer to the post of secretary/captain in 1950. Gloucester's Sir Derrick Bailey moved up from the second eleven to captain them in 1951 and 1952, while Middlesex employed seven different captains during the 1950 season.

These were the last acts, though, of a deferential society and shortly after the start of the 1962 season the counties voted by 11 to seven to end the distinction between amateur and professional.

The passing of the amateur allowed the sport to become more professional. Stephen Wagg has noted that it needed to be. Test matches were now being sold to television and the reputation of the old colonial power was at stake against newly independent states.

England had to play their strongest 11, and the amateurs were not that good. In the twice annual Players versus Gentlemen contests, the Players won 41 times to the 15 of the amateurs in the 20th century. However, this dominance increases to 16 wins against two when looking at post-war matches.

There remain those committed to the old England of patronage and tradition, and they continue to find in cricket something of the old order. Journalist Henry Blofeld, for example, complained that cricket was "being increasingly controlled from those of a lower-class background who do not have a true appreciation and understanding of the innate standards and traditions of the game."

While seemingly quaint and whimsical, this influence can deter those who don't want to be associated with "something posh." In the 1997 edition of Wisden the editor Matthew Engel argued that cricket was seen as stuffy and elitist.

Author William Buckland chastised the Establishment using the phrase the "Lord's effect," a perception that cricket is a members-only affair for wealthy upper-class white males.

In reality, cricket has always provided an arena where the class struggle has been played out. That we are discussing social division today, not just because of the anniversary to rid us of this anomaly but because of the background of the ex-England captain, suggests that it remains pertinent. Indeed, take a look at the new captain's educational pedigree.

Strauss's record as cricketer is beyond argument. While struggling of late for form with the bat, no-one can accuse the selectors of picking him just because of his upbringing. Which side he would have represented 50 years ago, though, is one for the speculator to contemplate.