Cricket 1901

J an . 31, 1901. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 5 Brown, J. T., sen. 3 for 73 and 3 for 33 and scores of 30 and 54, York­ shire v. Mr. C. I. Thornton’s England X I., at Scarborough. Cuttell, W . R. 2 for 66 and 6 for 58 and score of 76, Lancashire v. Somersetshire, at Taunton. 2 for 64 and 5 for 51 and score of 63, Lancashire v. Yorkshire, at Manchester. 3 for 94 and 3 for 76 and ecores of 39 and 33, Lanca­ shire v. Gloucestershire, at Manchester. J. A, Dixon. 4 for 41 and 5 for 28 and score of 126*, Notts v Leices­ tershire, at Nottingham. E. M. Dowson. 6 for 69 and score of 81*, Cambridge University v, Surrey, at Cambridge. 4 for 163 and 3 for 86 and score of 65, Cambridge University v. Oxford University, at Lord’s. Geeson, F. 2 for 71 and 4 for 20 and score of 72, Leicestershire v. Derbyshire, at Leicester. W . G. Grace. 4 for 91 and 5 for 66 and scores of 30 and 20, London County v. Worcestershire, at Worcester. 5 for 76 and 1 for 35 and score of 93, London County v. Cambridge University, at the Crystal Palace. Gunn, J. 6 for 67 and 5 for 67 and score of 53*, Notts v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Lord’s. 4 for 67 and 5 for 99 and scores of 70 and 0*, N«tts v. Middlesex, at Lord’s. Haigh, S, 2 for 30 and 5 for 57 and score of 55, Yorkshire v. Hampshire, at Portsmouth. 5 for 81 and 2 for 41 and scores of 31 and 71, York­ shire v. Worcestershire, at Worcester. Hearne, A. 5 for 38 and 1 for 74 and scores of 24 and 61, M.C.C. and Ground v. Derbyshire, at Lord’s. 5 for 23 and 1 for 25 and score of 142, M.C.C. and Ground v. London County, at Lord’s. 3 for 23 and 4 for 29 and score of 69, Kent v. Hamp­ shire, at Southampton. 2 for 37 and 4 for 36 and sc res of 11 and 43, Kent v. Worcestershire, at Canterbury. A. J. L. Hill. 6 for 22 and 1 for 55 and scores of 87 and 19, Hamp­ shire v. Leicestershire, at Southampton. Hirst, G. H. 6 for 49 and 1 for 36 and score of 71, Yorkshire y. Sussex, at Sheffield. D. L. A. Jephson. 6 for 62 and scores of 57 and 8, Surrey v. Hampshire, at Bournemouth. G. L. Jessop. 8 for 82 and scores of 77 and 12, Gloucestershire v. Kent, at Catford. 0 for 42 and 6 for 25 and scores of 66 and 47, Glouces­ tershire v. Lancashire, at Manchester. 3 for 55 and 6 for 72 and scores o f 54 and 54, Glouces­ tershire v. Surrey, at Bristol. King, J. H. 1 for 52 and 5 for 36 and scores ol 17 and 68*, Leices­ tershire v. Hampshire, at Southampton. F. P. Knox. 2 for 47 and 4 for 39 and score of 64, Oxford Univer­ sity v. Sussex, at Brighton. Lees, W . 5 for 73 and 1 for 44 and scores of 48 and 8, Surrey v. Somersetshire, at Taunton. I ockwood, W . H. 5 for 63 and 6 for 60 and scores of 10 and 56, Surrey v. Middlesex, at the Oval. J. R. Mason. 4 for 23 and 6 for 31 and scores of 72 and 46*, Kent v. Middlesex, at Tonbridge. 2 for 22 and 6 for 43 and score of 66, Kent v. Somer­ setshire, at Taunton. 0 for 33 and 6 for 68 and scores of 137 and 16, Kent v. Hampshire, at Tonbridge. Rhodes, W . 7 for 32 and 4 for 45 and score of 53, Yorkshire v. Derbyshire, at Derby. 2 for 82 and 7 for 79 and score of 79, Yorkshire v. Sussex, at Sheffield. 3 for 21 and 4 for 54 and scores of 12 and 51*, York­ shire v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Scarborough. Richardson, T. 0 for 98 and 3 for 95 and scores of 51 and 21, Surrey v. Somersetshire, at Taunton. Robson, E. 1 tor 45 and 5 for 26 and scores o f 9 and 104, Somer­ setshire v. Surrey, at the Oval. b lor 71 and scores of 7 and 50, London County v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Lord’s. . Santall, S. o tor 99 and score of 52, Warwickshire v. Surrey, at. the Oval. Sharp, J. 2 for 40 and 5 for 65 and score of 55, Lancashire v. Worcestershire, at Worcester. E. Smith. 3 for 86 and 3 for 76 and scores of 70 and 7, North v. South, at Lord’s. C. L. Townsend. 7 for 99 and 1 f^r 55 and sore of 141, London County v. Surrey, at the Crystal Palace. 4 for 47 and 2 for 55 and scores of 59 and 5, Glouces­ tershire v. Lancashire, at Bristol. 2 for 39 and 4 for 58 and scores of 42 and 22, Glouces­ tershire v. Yorkshire, at Bradford. Tiott, A. E. 6 for 118 and 0 for 35 and scores o f 19 and 37,Middle­ sex t . YorHshire, at Lord’s. 4 for 88 and 2 for 52 and scores of 50 and 5, Middlesex v. Yorkshire, at Leeds. 3 for 52 and 6 for 81 and score of 74, Middlesex v. Notts, at Nottingham. 5 for 99 and 4 for 84 and score of 57, Middlesex v. Kent, at Lord’s. Tyler, E. J. 4 for 15 and 2 for 66 and score of 51, Somersetshire v. Hampshire, at Bath. Wass, T. 5 for 62 and 4 for 50 and scores of 33 and 17, Notts v. Derbyshire, at Chesterfield. C. M. Wells. 6 for 37 and 0 for 48 and score of 8?, Middlesex v. Notts, at Nottingham, W hitehead, Lees. 6 for 45 and scores of 62* and 9, Yorkshire v. M.C.C. and Ground, at Scarborough. Wilson, G. A. 7 for 71 (including hat trick) and 1 for 62 and scores 78 and 23, Worcestershire v. London County, at Worcester. S. M. J. Woods. 6 for 110 and scores of 40 and 14, Somersetshire v. Kent, at Blackheath. * Signifies not out. T H E F U T U R E OF T H E C O U N T Y . C H A M P IO N S H IP . By “ H. P .-T .” (Continued from page 455). I I .—P rospective R t forms . A calculation was recently made that if all the paying patrons of first-class cricket could be marshalled four abreast they would extend in a line from London to the moors of North Yorkshire. I have not checked the figures, but I feel sure that if the General President of the M.C.O. and his staff muster'd the sup­ porters of the scheme they at present father, at this end of the line, they would have to open the formation to get them to reach from Kennington to Lord’s. Whether the friends of any particular substitute could Bhow us the way out of Middlesex is another matter. Most people who pay their sixpences every summer to witness the feats of their fetishes in flannel are aware that the championships of other sports can be followed without undergoing “ an ad­ vanced course of mathematics,” and ara agreed that such ought to be the case in cricket. And we don’t expect our Foreign Minister to sit in helpless impotence because Tom, Dick and Harry have differeut views about the settlement of the Chinese question. In the multitude of counsellors is wisdom, however, if they only make us wise enough to avoid their errors. An assortment of this wisdom is appended. I showed, I hope sufficiently, in my previous article, how unfairly the diverse programmes of the counties have affected the Championship Competition. Their diversity is, in truth, the germ and kernel of the scheme’s shortcoming. It is patent that, if these dissimilar cards are to continue, no really satisfactory B ystem o f bestowing points can be devised ; for either all sorts of allowances and deductions must be made for the quality of opponents met, which would make the reckoning more fearfully and wonderfully complicated than is the present percentage of points, or else the figures must still remain unrepresentative of the teams’ deserts. If, one the other hand, every team underwent an equal test, as it should do, that is, played through a complete or parallel list of fixtures, then no more cumbersome mode of reckoning would be requisite than the mere substraction of wins from losses, as of old, without any regard for proportions and per cents. But this course with the present long list of candidates is practically impossible. Some counties manage to do it, but none ought to be expected to devote fourteen weeks of an English summer to twenty- eight hardly contested games in a com ­ petition. Only once in a way can any team remain fit during the whole of this struggle, and the final allotment of the championship must generally be decided by a fluke of fortune. Equalise the programmes and you can simplify the bestowing of points. Reduce the number of competitors and you can equalise the cards. Manifestly, then, the first step in any genuine reform must be to shorten the list of engagements. This may be done in any one of these ways which I shall presently examine :— 1. By ruling several of the present counties absolutely out of the competition. 2. By dividing the counties into higher and lower grades. 3. By playing the competition off in sections and stages. The remaining expedients may first be quickly examined and dismissed. First, there is the “ sudden death ” or cup-tie system, which I believe had a partial trial in the early seventies. This would need only the leaving of four dates open, and render the rest of the matches “ friendlies.” But its working could scarcely prove satisfactory— in the matters of “ draw,” selection of grounds, playing to a finish, etc.—and the result would probably, in nine cases out of ten, be belied b y the rest of the season’s play. The first slip would be fatal, and few champions ever get through the season without one beating ; as often as not, one of the tail-end counties administers it. In a long competition stronger teams cannot avoid a few reverses, for no eleven can keep for a protracted time in tip-top fettle ; but in a short competition, it may be said, if a weaker eleven wins that is the stronger one’s look out. Still, in a game like cricket, into which chance enters largely, the happy mean must be found and the contest made just long enough to enable a really powerful team to recover from one or two “ unfortunate occurrences.” I was told the other day that one county in 1900 had sustained seven un­ merited defeats ! But, if so, Fortune had evidently made such a dead set against