Cricket 1894

418 ©EICKEt's A WEEKLY RECOED OF THE GAMEo OCT. 25, 1894 lasted from December 1872 to June 1873 ■—may be read by all so disposed in any treatise that contains the present Laws of Cricket. There is no necessity to repro­ duce them here, One rule carried at the first conference, was ultimately dropped, though I have often wished it had been retained, with certain minor alterations; ran as follows:— “ Thatif a player elect to play for the county of his residence, he shall in that case be debarred from playing against the county of his birth.” Add these words, “ supposing he shall have at any time played for it,” and I imagine some sort of check would have been placed on the practice that has recently been too freely indulged, of importing certain cricketers from one county to another. But let this pass. It is interesting to note the difference in attitude of the M.C.C. in 1872 and 1894. In 1872, when approached by the Counties the M.C.C. replied that the matter was so intimately associated with the counties themselves lhat they must decline to interfere, though they were perfectly ready to pronounce upon any decisions that might ultimately be passed by the counties most concerned. In June, 1873, the M.C.C. set the seal of their approval to the Kules passed by the counties, and so they became law. But added years teach lessons. Even our cricket senators have learned wisdom since then. Thus, in 1873, they offered a County Champion Cup to be competed for by recognised county teams cn a neutral ground—Lord’s. Only oue match was fought. I believe, Kent v. Sussex. Then the scheme was abandoned, and one has heard nothing more of it since. Imagine the M.C.C. of 1894 seriously pro­ posing a similar competition! Well, I cannot—cricket, at any rate county cricket, must never sink to that level. But further: in the new County Cham­ pionship the M.C.C. have, with becoming dignity, taken the initiative; thou h they have, with no loss of dignity, first of all submitted their proposals to the counties, who have without exception endorsed them. I have so frequently urged in these columns that there should be only one court of appeal in cricket, that I am thankful beyond measure that the M C.C. have in this matter assumed their indi­ vidual responsibil ty. We want no Cricket County Councils, and I hope we have seen the last of them for ever. It is no less an unqualified pleasure to me to commend in the warmest terms the consummate wisdom Bhown in the draft­ ing of the new scheme. It is in my judg­ ment perfect. It embodies all I wanted to be included. May I call the attention of cricketers to the last clause of all— “ matches must be finished to count at all.” It remains to be seen whether each of the fourteen counties will be able to play all the others. Some will, of course. Where the finances are flourishing, and the elevens are mostly composed of pro­ fessionals, there will be no difficulty. Surrey and Yorkshire require only the most trifling addition to their programme to include every other county. Other counties may not be so fortunate, though perhaps when it is known that the matches played against Warwickshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire. Essex, and Hampshire all count, equally with the older matches, the former should certainly for a season or two prove powerful attractions for the public. There may be a further difficulty in the arrangement of dates, and certain time-honoured matches may be crowded ou t; the Gentlemen and Players matches, for instance. But for me these have long ceased to possess much interest. Were our Gentlemen bona fide amateurs, who never get a penny more than their legiti­ mate expenses, there would be a reason for such a contest. But I must not lose sight of the special business before me. It is none other than a complete summary of the county cricket played between the years 1873 and 1894. And I shall purposely make it full and detailed in the hope that it may prove to be useful for reference by all who care to know how the several counties have fared during this long and eventful chapter. I must necessarily travel over much of the ground covered in a Notch nearly two years ago, though this time very much more will be in­ cluded. Eight first-class counties have played throughout this period, viz.—Gloucester­ shire, Kent, Lancashire, Middlesex, Nottinghamshire, Surrey, Sussex, and Yorkshire. Derbyshire played for fifteen years, 1873 to 1887 inclusive ; whilst Somersetshire can show only four seasons’ work, 1891 to 1894. So that since 1891 we have had nine counties in the list, and in 1892, and up to date, each of these has played against all the others. These ten counties have played 1,123 matches altogether, the one against the other. We have nothing to do here with other matches in which any may have taken part, such as matches against the M.C.C., Australians, the Universities, or the minor counties. Our concern is with the first-class counties alone. Taking them first of all in alphabetical order, let us see how they have severally come out of the ordeal. Matches played. Won. Lost. Dr »n. Tied. 1 Derbyshire.......... 2 Gloucestershire .. 3 Kent ................ 4 Lancashire......... 5 Middlesex ......... 6 Notts ................. 7 Somersetshire ... 8 Surrey ................. 9 Bussex ................. 10 Yorkshire .......... Now if we deduct losses from wins, which has been the rule only since 1890, as it is undoubtedly the soundest method for getting at the true state of things, the following is the 99 ... 21 ... 69 ... 9 ... 0 253 ... 69 .. 115 ... 69 ... 0 214 ... 83 ... 111 ... 50 ... 0 ?63 ... 140 ... 75 ... 47 ... 1 219 ... 79 ... 87 ... P2 ... 1 273 ... 13» ... 62 ... 81 ... 0 60 ... 23 ... 26 ... 11 ... 0 308 ... 151 ... 104 ... 48 ... 2 234 ... 47 ... 151 ... 36 ... 0 313 ... 146 ... 92 ... 75 ... 0 Wickets Total Aver.per lost. runs. wicket_ 1 Surrey .......... ... 4899 ... 96280 ... 19 6 2 Middlesex ... ... 3543 ... 67c52 ... 19 0 3 Notts................ ... 4049 ... 75882 ... 189 4 Gloucestershire ... 4183 ... 74421 ... 17.7 5 Yorkshire ... 4975 ... 87400 ... 17 5 6 Lancashire ... ... 3992 ... 69718 ... 17.4 7 Somersetshire ... 993 ... 172-27 ... 37.3 8 K e n t................ ... 4H4 ... 68626 ... 16 6 9 Sussex .......... ... 4208 .. 67527 ... 16.0 10 Derbyshire ... ... 1877 ... 2:705 ... 12.1 OBDER OP MERIT. Points 1. Notts ......... 68 2. Lancashire ... 65 3. Yorkshire ... 54 4. Surrey ......... 50 5. Middlesex ... —8 Points s. Somersetshire —3 7 Kent ..........-8 8 8. (>loncestershire—16 9 Bus ex ..........—1C4 10. Derbyshire ... —48 Middlesex are put above Somers, tshire inasmuch as they have played more than three times as many matches, and have a better average according to matches played. For a similar reason Sussex takes the precedence of Derbyshire. No. ts and Lancashire are close together, though the former have a small advantage spite of their having played ten more matches. There is but little to choose between Yorkshire and Surrey, and it looks as if they will have a hard fight for the next few years. Notts will have to look to their laurels. But what a distinct line of cleavage between No. 4 and all the remaining six! Notts beat all in the num­ ber of drawn matches, though it comes as a surprise to find Yorkshire close behind them in this column. I am right glad that Sussex,, otherwise most un­ fortunate, have a goodlier return here than any other county. Anything pre­ ferable to a draw. Now for the runs scored by each county, and the average runs made for every wicket lost:— All figures carried out to one place of decimals. Extras are in every case in­ cluded. Various items in this table cannot be reconciled with the facts stated in the first table, Lancashire’s drop to the sixth position. So we must have a third table, containing the runs scored against each County, and the cost per wicket of all wickets taken by each county’s bowlers. And here there is another shifting of positions, as follows :— Runs Average Wickets scored by for each taken by. opponent, wkt.tkn. 1 Lancashire 2 N otts................. 3 Yorkshire.......... 4 Surrey................. 5 Derbyshire 6 Kent ................. 7 Somersetshire 8 Middlesex.......... 9 Gloucestershire 10 Sussex .......... ... 4444 ... 4447 ... 5122 ... 5138 ... 1401 ... 2820 ... 918 ... 3488 ... 3679 ... 3466 fl716 689:6 80H3 87*74 24632 69652 17581 67116 76583 760C1 13.8 15.5 J5.6 17.0 175 182 39.1 192 £08 21.9 As Notts are third in the batting column, and second in the bowling, one would expect them to stand first in the results. Had Lancashire’s batting been as strong as their bowling, they had known no rivals in the Competition. For several years Derbyshire had as good bowlers as any county, but never one great batsman. Had Gloucestershire closed the chapter as they opened it, and had Surrey opened it as they closed it, they would either of them have been easily first. The conspicuous weakness of Sussex has been in bowling, though their batting has seldom been of the highest order. Middlesex have only wanted a few great bowlers to make their batting resources a terror to all comers. Yorkshire have been high up in both branches of the game, Kent somewhat below the mean line in both. But these various columns or tables must speak for themselves. NEX T ISSUE NOVEMBER 29