Cricket 1885

392 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME* s e p t . 10 . is s s . RICHARD HUMPHREY, Member o f Surrey and Australian Elevens. 16, K IN G ’ S RD ., B O Y C E ’ S A V E N U E CLIFTON, BRISTOL, Every article In connectionwith C R I O K E T And other Sports supplied, of the Best Quality and at Reasonable Prices. PHOTOGRAPHS of EMINENT CRICKETERS- M esses . W eight & Co. of 41, St. Andrew’s Hill, London, E.C., have pleasure in submit­ ting the following list of Photographs of Eminent Cricketers:— D r . W . G. G race . G rimshaw . M b . A. N. H ornby . H unter . M r. J. S h u t e r . P e e l. M r . W . W . R ead . E mmett . M r . W . E. R oller . A. S haw . M r . F. M. L ucas . A. S h rew sbury . Mr. W. H. P atterson .T he F our H earne s. Mr. W . N ewham . B arlow . M r . W . R . G ilbert . F illin g . TJ l yett . W atson . P eate . H all . B ates . M r . W y a tt, P h illip s , Humphreys (group,) M. P . and F. M. Lucas (group.) Splendid Pictures, '12 x 10 inches, 5s. each ; Three jor 12*, post fr e e ; al o groups o f most of the County Elevens, 3*. 6 1, each. Also Cabinets, price 2s. each, Three assorted, 5s., Six assorted, 9s., Twelve assorted, 15s., all post free. Wholesale and Retail Agents :— W R I G H T & C o . , 11, S t . A ndrew ’ s H il l , L ondon , E. IM P O R T A N T N O T ICE . The last Summer Number of C r icket , for th:s year, will be published on Thursday, the 21th inst. The Winter Monthly Issues will appear on the last Thursday of October, November, D.cembar, January, February, and March. The dates will be— No. 107, OCT. 29. No. 110, JAN. 28. No. 108, NOV. 26. No. I l l , FEB. 25. No. 109, DEC. 24. No. 112, MAR. 25. The six numbers will be forwarded im ­ mediately on publication for Is. 3d., to be sent to Mb. W . R . W right . Manager of C ricket , at this office. CRICKET : A W EEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 41 8T. ANDREW’S HILL, LONDON, E.O. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1885. The abstract and brief chronicle of the time .— Ham let M y rem a rk s o n th e su b je ct o f th e sy stem a d o p te d b y som e o f th e c ric k e t c r itic s to d ete rm in e th e p o s itio n o f the leading counties have elicited a very large number of communications for which the Editor regrets his in­ ability to find space. Without excep­ tion the correspondents who have written to this paper on the subject are thoroughly with me in depreca­ ting a mode of classification so mani­ festly unfair and absurd as to create a general feeling of wonder that it has not fallen into disuse long before this. I t would appear to be hardly neces­ sary to point out to what ridiculous lengths the principle hitherto adopted might be carried, and yet there are papers to advocate its retention for no other reason than that it has been tacitly acquiesed in. Though such reasoning can hardly be dealt with seriously it is at the best a negative argument. The force of absurdity can certainly no further go than to carry out to its logical conclusion the system at present in vogue. To give an illustration, Derbyshire plays eight matches, of which one is won ,five lost, and two drawn. Merely because the eleven of that county have lost two less than Gloucestershire and Middle­ sex, and three less than Sussex they are placed above all those three shires, two of whom have played four and the other two more matches during the season. It is only fair to argue that in strict compliance with these conditions, if Hampshire and Somersetshire, who are reckoned as first-class counties by the Sportsman, were to confine their cricket to a home-and-home match, and both fixtures happened to be drawn, they would be at the head of the poll be­ cause neither had been defeated. I notice , too, that my remark that “ no county can be considered champion which has not played all the other shires ” evoked comment in Monday’s Sportsman from a corre­ spondent, one “ Observer,” whom from the tenour of his remarks I take to be a Nottingham man. At least the sole apparent object of his letter was to advertise Notts and prove its superiority over Surrey. But what on earth this comparison had to do with the question raised I am quite at a loss to conceive. “ Observer” has secured for the Nottingham players a j gratuitous advertisement, andno doubt j his purpose was served. He altogether, though, evades the point of my argu­ ment, and as I have never mentioned Surrey at all in the matter it seems to me idle to treat his letter as serious. I am not aware that “ Surrey want to alter the rule about defeats ” as he states, and personally I am ready to admit that Notts and Yorkshire are both, on the season’s result?, certainly better than Surrey. M y contention was that no county which did not play all the other shires was entitled to be considered champion, and no impartial person, I think, will dispute it. Notts this season neither played Lancashire nor Kent, who, between them, had a very good chance of beating Notts in one of the four matches, and in such an event Notts and Yorkshire would have had the same number of defeats. A fair average ought to be made of the entire results of the season, and without giving his figures I think a corre­ spondent," L. R. Y .,” to whom I am much indebted for a very able analysis, is about right in his apportionment of the places for this year— 1, Notts ; 2, Yorkshire; 8, Lancashire; 4, Surrey ; 5, K en t; 6, Gloucestershire ; with Sussex, Middlesex, and Derby­ shire about level. T h e following plan suggested by Mr. Owen C. Whitehouse, of Ches­ hunt, Herts, seems to be as good as any that can be put forward, Matches p’ayed. Won. Drawn. Propoition. Nottinghambhiro . .12 .. 6 .. 5 .. i £ .. 84 12—17 24 Yorkshire .. ..16 .. 7 .. 7 .. 8£ ..lU -lft-21->2 Lancashire .. ..11 .. 6 .. 2 .. 1 .. 7 -1 1 - 7-11 S u rrey.................... 16 .. 8 .. 4 .. 2 .. 10-16— Kent..............................9 .. 4 .. 2 .. 1 .. £-9— 5-9 Gloucestershire ..12 .. 4 .. 1 .. J .. 4i-lf— 8 S u ssex .....................12 .. 2 .. 2 .. 1 .. tt-12— i Middlesex .. ..10 .. 2 .. 1 .. £ .. 2A-10- J Derbyshire .. .. 8 .. 1 .. 2 .. 1 .. {— | I n o tic e as the result of a match last week at Harthill, in Cheshire, between the ladies of Harthill and Haughton, in which, by-the-way, the superior bowling and fielding of the former enabled them to win by fifteen runs, a unanimous verdict of the players that cricket is a much nicer game for ladies than lawn-tennis. This must oe eminently satisfactory to every supporter of our national game, though personally I cannot myself soar sufficiently high into the realms of fancy as to speculate on its future if cricket should come to le really taken up seriously and as a regular amusement by the softer sex. According to some writers the first idea of round arm bowling was due to a lady, and there is no knowing with this evidence what may be in store for us, even in the near future.