Cricket 1893

“ Together joined in cricket’s manly toil.5’— Byron • No. 3 2 0 VO L . X II, Registered for Transm ission A broad. CRICKET NOTCHES. TWENTY YEARS OP COUNTY CRICKET. B y the R e v , R . S. H olm es , Just twenty seasons liave passed since the “ Rules of County Cricket ” were finally adopted. And as public interest in the County competition has almost reached fever point, no apology is needed for a detailed review of the part played therein by the so-called First-Class Coun­ ties. The importance of these “ Rules ” was evidently fully recognized by their original framers, for they were discussed again and again both by the County representatives and by the M.C.C., be­ tween December, 1872, and June, 1873, several meetings being held. The initia­ tive was taken by Surrey, and invitations were sent to Yorkshire, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Middlesex, Gloucestershire, Sussex, and Kent. It is not easy to see why the list was not extended, especially as the matter affected all the criclsetiug counties, and the rules have since been binding both on the second-class and the first-class coun­ ties. Those rules, put briefly, exacted that no cricketer could play for more than one county in one and the same season, and that a two years’ residence was necessary in the case of a cricketer electing to play for any county other than that in which he was born. In December, 1888, a new rule was passed, which allowed a cricketer to continue playing for the old county during the two years he was qualifying for another county. When this was passed, nine of the second-class counties were present and had a voice in the decision. These rules have now been tested for tw enty years, and have not been found w anting. U rgent circum stances created a necessity for them , and subsequent experience has confirm ed their utility. Som e o f us w ould w el­ com e any reasonable check to the m igration of good cricketers from the weaker to the stronger counties, for in THURSDAY, JANUARY many of these cases it is a case of finance pure and simple. It should be a point of honour with every county not to go poaching, and never to import a cricketer without first obtaining the sanction of the county he is leaving. County cricket will never be perfected until each county eleven is composed exclusively of its own home-born cricketers. But with this ex­ ception,the rules have unquestionablydone good. Many a cricketer of marked ability would never have had the chance of dis­ tinguishing himself had the birth qualifi­ cation not been modified. And now for summaries. If any reader has no stomach for statistics, he had better go no further with me. Let me assure him that they are n<5 more to my taste than to his, and let me add that if the reading of statistics be dry work, the compiling of them is infinitely dryer. This “ notch ’’ has cost more time than any six of its predecessors. I was tempted several times to abandon i t ; but I began to fear that “ Young England ” might possibly be weary of writers who, like myself, had sooner read one article on by-gone cricket than a dozen on the cricket of to-day. So this “ notch ” is scored for his special benefit. During the last “ Twenty Years of County Cricket,'’ there have been ten first- class counties. How they, and they alone, came to monopolise this category at the outset, I know not. Surrey’s invitation in December, 1872, may be responsible for it. Anyhow, spite of the “ Old Buffer’s ” oft-repeated protest, there has since then been a distinct line of cleavage between the counties. Of these ten, eight have played right through the entire period, viz., York­ shire, Lancashire, Notts, Middlesex, Glo’stershire, Surrey, Sussex, and Kent. Derbyshire kept in the “ ring” till 1887, and then dropped ou t; whilst Somerset­ shire were admitted in 1891. Other candi­ dates are waiting at the door. Well then, let us see how these counties have fared in their yearly contests with one another. Some of them have tackled second-class counties, but these matches, though indispensable to the best interests of cricket,cannot be noticed in this review. 2 0 , 1 8 £ o P R IC E 2d. Nor should we forget to add, that it was not until last season (1892) that every one of the nine met all the others. In the earlier years of the period under notice the list of matches was far from complete, Derbyshire, e.g., not trying conclusions with several of their rivals. Let me also say here that I have been able to summarize the batting only. I f ever the bowling should be done, it must be by some one blessed with more patience and leisure than I have at command. Including Derbyshire and Somerset­ shire, the first-class counties have in twenty years played 990 matches in all, the one against the other. With what results ? T able N o . 1. Hatches Played. Won. Lost. Drwn. Ties 1 Nottinghamshire241 . . 121 .. 47 .. 73 . __ 2 Lancashire ... 231 . . 124 ... 63 .. 44 .. _ 3 Surrey ........... 276 . . 134 . . 94 .. 47 .. . 1 4 Yorkshire ... 282 .. 122 . . 87 .. 73 .. , — 5 Som ersetshiie 28 . . 13 .. 11 .. 4 . , __ 6 M iddlesex ... 187 . . 62 .. 76 .. 48 . . 1 7 Gloucestershire 221 . . Gi .. 91 .. 66 . t __ 8 K ent.................. 213 ... 71 .101 .. 41 . , __ 9 Sussex ........... 202 . . 40 ..133 .. £9 . __ 10 Derbyshire ... £9 . . 21 .. C9 .. 9 . • — Some things worth noting :— 1. Five counties only have won more matches than they have lost. 2. Notts’wins average about 2 Jto each loss ; whilst Sussex’s losses average rather more than three to each win. 3. Of drawn matches, Notts have played nearly one-third of their gross total, Yorkshire just one-fourth, Sussex only one-seventh. In the last eight seasons, Sussex have drawn 15 matches, Surrey 14, but with this further differ­ ence, that during this octave Surrey have won 88, and lost only 20, whilst Sussex have won but 10 and lost 71. 4. Dividing the counties into North and South, we see that the four Northern counties have played 853 matches, won 388, lost 206, drawn 199. The six Southern Counties have played 1127 matches, won 384, lost 500, drawn 235, whilst two matches ended in a tie. The supremacy of the North is thus made very manifest.