Australia's record at Lord's since W G Grace brought England to victory in 1896 is one of the unlikeliest and most unaccountable of sporting legends. Of the 24 subsequent matches they have won 11 times, England once. Detailed scrutiny does slightly relieve the picture in that of the 12 draws, Australia held an advantage in only one, England certainly in six. In 1968, for instance, in a rain-ruined match, captain Cowdrey declared at 351 for seven; Australia out for 78 and in the follow-on 127 for four.
Australia also followed-on when Hedley Verity spun England to victory in 1934. There will be a few of us looking on tomorrow able to recall how after hundreds by Maurice Leyland and Leslie Ames had brought England to 440, Australia had replied with 192 for two before the weekend rain. Bill O'Reilly always said it never occurred to them that they would not make the 99 more they needed with eight men left. As it was, against Verity's spin they failed by seven runs.
Those seven runs decided the match, for sun had made the pitch more awkward after lunch and O'Reilly and Clarrie Grimmett (who had taken 19 wickets between them in Australia's win by 238 runs in the first Test) would probably have reaped a harvest. As it was, Verity's 15 for 104 will be a permanent monument to one of the nicest men who ever played.
The England captain's OBE as he prepares to lead England for a record 42nd time is due recognition of his endurance through stress and toil into a happier situation tomorrow than he has known hitherto. Ever since his highly popular captaincy for two years at Cambridge he has been a leader his own generation have admired, whether in victory or defeat.
It was just four years ago against Australia at Lord's that, when his place was far from sure, he showed himself a thoroughbred with chanceless innings of 80 and 99 spread over eight hours.
One natural leader of outstanding guts faces another tomorrow. With so much in the balance and facing a desperate situation in all respects, who can withhold the utmost admiration for Mark Taylor's innings at Edgbaston.
ALTHOUGH Colin Cowdrey's life peerage is to be understood as a voice in the Lords for recreational sport generally and schools sport in particular, it is, of course, cricket which can enjoy the reflected glory of the first-ever such honour: Knights, yes, Lords hitherto, no.
In the decade since his presidency of MCC in its Bicentenary year, he has been the quiet, persistent diplomat, working always to preserve what can surely be called, without excess of sentiment, the fellowship of cricket against all the various modern evils.
The idea of referees for international matches and the Code of Conduct by either of which they can fortify the umpires, were his conception.
These, with help from others, and notably Sir Clyde Walcott, were steered through an initially sceptical ICC. It needed the intervention in the nick of time by John Major, briefed by Colin, which brought South Africa back into the ICC fold before the formal abolition of apartheid in 1991. As president of the Lord's Taverners he has worked hard to attract funds for helping cricket clubs and schools and providing transport for the disabled.
THE MCC Cricket Sub-Committee under Cowdrey's chairmanship is currently addressing itself to the acute problem of excessive and sometimes continuous noise around the bat.
As the law and ICC regulations stand, the umpires can intervene only if they consider the talk to be intimidatory.
As president of their association, the new peer knows the mind of the umpires when he says: ``They have no wish to add to their function by issuing yellow and red cards. They point out that in the first paragraph of the Unfair Play law, captains are held responsible for the conduct of the game.''
Talking of which, a change is surely due whereby captains at the end of every match report to the Board on the conduct of umpires. Is it not plainly fair that umpires, if they wish to do so, should report on the captains? Noise on the field in all grades of cricket is a pressing subject to which I intend to return.
THERE is no topic in the game more emotive than coloured clothing. It was introduced in Australia along with white balls and black sight-screens as an accompaniment to night cricket and floodlights. It was introduced here by the TCCB marketing department for the Sunday afternoon 40-over league as a purely commercial gimmick to sell replica shirts, with accent on ``the kiddies''.
Every poll among the watching public has strongly denounced it, nor have I heard it taken up at any other level of English cricket. White remains the universal uniform. Among discriminating followers ``pyjamas'' are a switch-off.
I have an idea for the attention of the ECB. For the 1999 World Cup which they are hosting here and for AXA on Sundays, assuming it is decided to continue with the competition, why not a coloured shirt with white trousers? The effect would be distinctly less offensive; we could have a red ball and a white sight-screen - no more pads of purple or pink. I wonder whether the idea will elicit the same official response as when I suggested that sight-screens might be green rather than funereal black: ``Afraid we never thought of it.''
At the risk of denting my no doubt Blimpish reputation, let me add that in these days of anonymous helmets for batsmen and even fielders, I would not be averse to numbers on the backs corresponding to the score card.
FOLLOWING my recent mention of Andrew Festing's Conversation Piece of famous cricketers which, lacking Geoffrey Boycott's portrayal, hangs in the museum at Lord's in the Fine Art of Cricket exhibition, I am pleased to hear from both artist and cricketer that they are due for a sitting this very day.
They are busy people, Mr Festing the more so since he is still less than halfway through a giant conversation piece of members of the House of Lords. He plans to add the figure of the trenchant TV critic when the exhibition closes at the end of the summer.