# Cricket in Patrick O'Brian's "The Fortune of War" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 17, 2004, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cricket-in-patrick-obrians-the-fortune-of-war/260175 "2004-08-17T01:56:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![gentle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/eb8c5e/32.png) [@gentle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gentle)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2004, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cricket-in-patrick-obrians-the-fortune-of-war/260175/1 "2004-08-17T01:56:33Z")
In Patrick O’Brian’s novel _The Fortune of War_ the Leopards are playing cricket against another ship’s team. Stephen Maturin, who has “never watched a cricket match before”, but recalls “the hurling of his youth”, is their “only hope”. Here’s O’Brian depiction of the scene: > [@](#): > > A rapacious grin ran round the Cumberlands: they moved much closer in, crouching, their huge crab-like hands spread wide. The Admiral held the ball to his nose for a long moment, fixing his adversary, and then delivered a lob that hummed as it flew. Stephen watched its course, danced out to take it as it touched the ground, checked its bounce, dribbled the ball towards the astonished cover-point and running still he scooped it into the hollow of his hurly, raced on with twinkling steps to mid-off, there checked his run amidst the stark silent amazement, flicked the ball into his hand, tossed it high, and with a screech drove it straight at Jack’s wicket, shattering the near stump and sending its upper half in a long, graceful trajectory that reached the ground just as the first of _La Flèche_’s guns, saluting the flag, echoed across the field." Like Stephen I have never watched a cricket match before, so the above description is extremely ambiguous to me. Initially I interpreted the scene as Stephen amazing the teams with his unexpected skills – the Leopards are, after all, the underdogs, and apparently on the verge of losing – but after thinking about the build-up (Stephen brags of his mastery of hurley; he has, during the day, fashioned his own bat out of an exotic tree; and in the middle of the game he wanders off somewhat absent-mindedly), and the description itself, I am thinking it’s rather the opposite: Mirroring his naval incompetence, Stephen is making a complete fool of himself by misinterpreting the rules of the game. Could someone who knows cricket please illuminate? Bonus points for pointing to a really good page about cricket, for the Stephen Maturins among us, perhaps. Especially as I believe the game reappears later in the series. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2004, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cricket-in-patrick-obrians-the-fortune-of-war/260175/2 "2004-08-17T02:23:54Z")
OK, first things first: [this is a very good explanation of the game](http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/EXPLANATION/EXPLANATION_OF_CRICKET.html), which will tell you more than you need to know. On to O’Brien’s passage. It is clear from the context that he is referring to the game as it was before round-arm bowling was legalized in the early 19th century. “Lob bowling,” as it was known, was in vogue beforehand; it was somewhat akin to pitching in slow-pitch softball. So, the Admiral begins the action by bowling underhand to Stephen. Now, Stephen’s bat. Back in the old days, cricket bats were curved like modern field hockey or hurley sticks, and skinny–not like modern bats, which are straight and rather thick. Stephen treats his bat more like a hockey stick, which will be important shortly. So. The idea in batting in cricket is that you strike the ball, normally on one bounce, with one smooth swing. Stephen, instead, plays the Admiral’s bowl like a field hockey player would, by trapping it, then dribbling with it for awhile. He plays the ball forward and to his right (“cover-point” as O’Brien says). He then picks the ball up in the crook of his stick, tosses it in the air like a hurley player would, and strikes it at his partner Jack’s wicket, down on the other side of the pitch. (Remember that Guiness commercial from a while back with the hurley player scooping up the ball, tossing it in the air, and giving it a good whack? Just like that.) Allegedly Stephen hits the ball at Jack’s wicket (here O’Brien means “set of stumps” when he says “wicket”–that’s a modern imprecation there, BTW) so hard it breaks one of the stumps in half, which I find hard to believe, myself. So, in a nutshell, your interpretation of Stephen’s behavior is completely correct. In the midst of a cricket match, he breaks out into a hurley game. IMHO Stephen is acting like a right prat, which I believe is the implication that O’Brien intends as well. And, if somebody tried this in an actual match? After the second time Stephen hit the ball, he would be called out on appeal for “hit the ball twice.” See [the ninth way of getting out, on this page.](http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/EXPLANATION/EXPLANATION_OF_CRICKET.html#out) ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2004, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cricket-in-patrick-obrians-the-fortune-of-war/260175/3 "2004-08-17T02:58:13Z")
Stephen wants to hit the ball as far as possible, so that he and Jack can run between the wickets to score runs. Instead, he does something that displays an utter lack of knowledge of the game, and manages to get himself out (and possibly Jack out too, if Jack had been out of his crease). He could hardly have played more badly, and so the Cumberlands’ amazement is reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![gentle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/eb8c5e/32.png) [@gentle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gentle)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2004, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cricket-in-patrick-obrians-the-fortune-of-war/260175/4 "2004-08-17T03:10:58Z")
Thankee, **Duke** , for a most detailed, illuminating and erudite explanation. Exactly the kind of answer I was looking for, even if it makes me rather embarrassed for Stephen. I shall be reading up on the rules of cricket now – see you in a couple of years. > [@Duke](#): > > Allegedly Stephen hits the ball at Jack’s wicket (here O’Brien means “set of stumps” when he says “wicket”–that’s a modern imprecation there, BTW) so hard it breaks one of the stumps in half, which I find hard to believe, myself. O’Brian narrates a lot of incidents, usually involving physical phenomena and a disproportion between force and effect, that I find rather hard to believe, and this is only one such case that made me frown. The only other, less typical example I can recall right off the bat (do you smoke it?) is when, in _Treason’s Harbour_, he has a man dive into the Red Sea: > [@](#): > > He dived into the warm, opaque sea with scarcely a splash and swam aft along the side under the surface, reappearing by the mainchains, looking up at the quarterdeck and laughing. Abruptly his cheerful face jerked upwards – his chest and shoulders shot clear of the water. A long dark form could be seen below him and while his face still looked up, his wide-open mouth uttering an enormous cry, he was shaken from side to side with inconceivable ferocity and he vanished in a great boil of water. Once again his head rose up, still recognizable, and the stump of an arm: but now at least five sharks were striving furiously in the bloody sea and a few moments later there was nothing but the red cloud and fishes questing eagerly in it for more, while others came racing in, their fins sharp on the surface. The scene itself is deliciously horrific, surprising and numbing; but hardly credible. Australian saltwater crocodile, perhaps – but a shark I doubt. Nothing to do with cricket, though. ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2004, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cricket-in-patrick-obrians-the-fortune-of-war/260175/5 "2004-08-17T10:08:31Z")
> [@gentle](#): > > O’Brian narrates a lot of incidents, usually involving physical phenomena and a disproportion between force and effect, that I find rather hard to believe, and this is only one such case that made me frown. > > The only other, less typical example I can recall right off the bat (do you smoke it?) is when, in _Treason’s Harbour_, he has a man dive into the Red Sea: > > The scene itself is deliciously horrific, surprising and numbing; but hardly credible. Australian saltwater crocodile, perhaps – but a shark I doubt. > . O’Brian may have been a bit of a fraud anyway [BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Nautical novelist 'couldn't even sail'](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3570988.stm) ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2004, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cricket-in-patrick-obrians-the-fortune-of-war/260175/6 "2004-08-17T13:04:07Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > Instead, he does something that displays an utter lack of knowledge of the game, and manages to get himself out (and possibly Jack out too, if Jack had been out of his crease). Right on, although in defense of Stephen (perhaps his only defense), he couldn’t have managed to get both himself _and_ Jack out at the same time. When an appeal is made, and the umpire adjudges that both batsmen can be considered “out,” the umpire can only declare one of them out, usually the batsman who made him/herself out first–in this case Stephen, who hit the ball twice before he could have run out Jack. Now, if the fielding side was thinking sharply, they could have specifically appealed whether Jack was out, by asking the the umpire “How’s that\* for run out?” and gesturing towards Jack. That would have been favorable to them, since it would have left Stephen, who obviously didn’t have a clue, still batting. \*Nobody has ever appealed with “How’s that?”, at least not since the Laws were first written in 1744, even though the Laws still retain the phrase. More often you hear “Howzat!?!?”, “'Zat?!?!?”, or, as I’ve sometimes shouted, “ZaaaaAAAAAaaaaaaahhht?!?!?!” ---
**Author:** ![Silentgoldfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@Silentgoldfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silentgoldfish)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2004, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cricket-in-patrick-obrians-the-fortune-of-war/260175/7 "2004-08-17T13:12:58Z")
> [@scm1001](#): > > O’Brian may have been a bit of a fraud anyway [BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Nautical novelist 'couldn't even sail'](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3570988.stm) It his defence, it’s an account of a boating trip taken when he was 80. The article makes him sound like a demented old man (and I mean in the medical sense) rather than a liar. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cricket-in-patrick-obrians-the-fortune-of-war/260175/8 "2004-08-17T22:20:38Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > \*Nobody has ever appealed with “How’s that?”, at least not since the Laws were first written in 1744, even though the Laws still retain the phrase. More often you hear “Howzat!?!?”, “'Zat?!?!?”, or, as I’ve sometimes shouted, “ZaaaaAAAAAaaaaaaahhht?!?!?!” I’ve never watched cricket, never gotten within any reasonable distance of a game being played, and have no idea how it’s done. But the idea of professional game-players shouting “ZaaaAAAAAAaaaaahhhht?!?!?!” strikes me as hilarious. 😃 American sports need something like that. I mean, we could shout “GOOOOOOOOOOAAAAL!” every time someone makes a touchdown in real football, but that’s not quite the same, is it? Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![gentle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/eb8c5e/32.png) [@gentle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gentle)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2004, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cricket-in-patrick-obrians-the-fortune-of-war/260175/9 "2004-08-17T22:24:53Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > I’ve never watched cricket, never gotten within any reasonable distance of a game being played, and have no idea how it’s done. But the idea of professional game-players shouting “ZaaaAAAAAAaaaaahhhht?!?!?!” strikes me as hilarious. 😃 I don’t think anyone here would argue that cricket _isn’t_ silly. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cricket-in-patrick-obrians-the-fortune-of-war/260175/10 "2004-08-18T01:58:45Z")
> [@scm1001](#): > > O’Brian may have been a bit of a fraud anyway [BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Nautical novelist 'couldn't even sail'](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3570988.stm) I agree with **Silentgoldfish** that the article doesn’t really prove anything about his knowledge of sailing. I mean, _I_ know that one can’t circumnavigate the Mediterranean in 2 weeks. This knowledge doesn’t come from any deep understanding of sailing, but just from common sense. Therefore, for O’Brien to screw this up probably indicates senility or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cricket-in-patrick-obrians-the-fortune-of-war/260175/11 "2004-08-18T02:02:46Z")
> [@gentle](#): > > I don’t think anyone here would argue that cricket _isn’t_ silly. Hey, of course it’s silly, that’s why I play 😃 Besides, at what other sport is it acceptable to drink gin-and-tonic during the game? Oh, sure, they call it “lunch,” but we all know better…