Spencer Thomas Oldham was born in Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, England—what the “The American Cricketer” called “that famous nursery of cricketers.” By 1883 he had been playing professionally in the United States for a decade, and The Associated Press called him “One of the best-known cricket players in the country.”
Cricket Match, 1800s
That year, The Baltimore Sun, which said of Oldham, “(H)is accent is strong, his views are decided and he comes from a village where seventy-two professional bowlers may be found, ” asked him for his opinion of baseball. He had just seen his first game in August when the St. Louis Browns played the Orioles.
“It was a sight, such throwing and catching and fielding, I never saw the like before. The tall fellow on the first base of the St. Louis (Charles Comiskey) could catch anything. We can’t work together that way in cricket. The ball is too big, hard and heavy.”
Charles Comiskey
And, he was asked, if he noticed the curveball thrown by Baltimore pitcher Bob Emslie:
“’Aye, did I?’ was the reply. ‘I was sitting just in line with the pitcher and catcher. That fellow Emslie was a terror. I saw the balls break in the air without touching the ground. They just curved around and fooled the batters that funny.’”
Bob Emslie
So impressed was Oldham, he claimed he saw a pitch “start straight, shoot down and then up again.” And he was unsure how anyone was able to hit “with the broomstick handles they use.”
But asked to compare the two games, Oldham refused.
“It’s different altogether.”
Oldham said most people didn’t understand the scientific nature of his sport:
“The feature of cricket is batting. Fielding, of course, is necessary, but a good batter is of more use than a good fielder. A bowler’s object is to get your wicket down. You try to keep him from doing it. The balls you see coming on your wicket you block by bringing your bat down to the ground. The balls that you know are off your wicket you must hit for all you are worth…The power of attack is smaller than the power of defense, and therefore runs are plentiful. Now in baseball, it seems just the other way. A man who makes two runs is doing good business. Errors are therefore more costly and good hits more praiseworthy.”
He also implied that Americans were too impatient to appreciate cricket:
“It takes all day to play a game of cricket. Two hours and a half suffice for a game of baseball.”
Oldham thought some professional baseball players might be able to play cricket, but it wouldn’t be easy to make the transition:
“Well, the fielding is the same, but when he goes to the bat he must unlearn all his baseball tactics and learn how to cut, drive, stop, hit to leg or off to side…I wish some of those (baseball) players would devote the time and study they give to baseball to cricket.”
While never conceding that baseball was superior, or even equal to his game, Oldham concluded:
“Baseball—well, baseball is a splendid game. I’d like to see some more of it. I would learn some points from it.”
Baseball History Daily 
Leave a Reply