Cricket 1906

S e p t . 13, 1906. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME, 415 THE- COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP. Never, probably, since tbe institution of the County Championship, has public interest in the competition been so keen, or the race for first honours remained so open, till practically the close of the season. Theusual suggestions for reform are, however, forthcoming, and the veteran cricketer of cricketers, Dr. W. G. Grace, has condemnei the present method of deciding the Championship as “ simply rotten.” He would split the first-cliss counties into two divisions, retaining eight or ten counties in the first, and would form additional divisions of the remainder of those hitherto ranking as first-class and those now known as minor counties. As all who have read his scheme are aware, the essence of it is that each county plays every other in its own division, and that the bottom county in each division changes place with the highest county in the division immediately below it. Still, the regulation of the County Championship yet remains in the hands of tbe M.C.C., whose policy, unless much misunderstood, is all for the extension, rather than the reduction, of the number of first - class counties. “ There shall be no limit to the number of first-class counties,” it clearly enun­ ciates. The problem that sooner or later is the most Jikely to arise is “ How can room be possibly found for any more additions to the ranks of the first-class ?” It is quite true that the M.C.C. “ can bring new counties into the list and can remove existing ones from it,” but, even in this, the co-operation of ten premier counties is apparently needed. At all events, the promotion of a new aspirant depends in practice on the readiness of a sufficient number of first-class counties to give it fixtures. In the same way the relegation of a premier county to “ minor” rank, however poor its form, can hardly occur so long as its old rivals are willing to make matches with it. Since the Prets relegated Derbyshire to second-class rank at the close of 1887 no other county has suffered a similar fate, though many have reached the low water mark of failure. Derby­ shire were restored in 1894, but the conditions of county cricket have so altered sinca 1887 that relegation to “ Minor” rank would nowadays be tantamount to obliteration. Toe existing counties are hardly likely to allow any of their number to meet a fate, the conse­ quences of which they well understand. At the same time their fixture cards are so full that it is scarcely conceivable that they can find room for new-comers, how­ ever willii g to receive themtheymay be. In fact we nave almost reached a point at which Apiil and September would have to be utilised for cricket if any substantial increase in fixtures is to take place. It seems likely, then, that things will go on as they are for some time to come. The “ Minor ” counties are of modern growth and should have a future before them. They aie unfettered by precedents, and canstrike out onmodernandradicallines. There is no reason why they should not raise their cricket to a highpitchof excel­ lence, for no one is going to pretend that first-class formis the monopoly of sixteen shires. Lord Hawke’s opinion on Dr. Grace’s scheme was recently asked at Scarboro’, and the Yorkshire captain, whose knowledge of the management of a colossal county club is as acute as his handling of an eleven iu the field, at once foresaw the financial and adminis­ trative difficulties in the way. He pertinently asked what was to bs done with the professionals during the re­ mainder of the summer if the big counties were compelled to cut down their cards to the heavy extent required, and pointed out that matches between the greater teams and those less pros­ perous were the principal means of find­ ing good “ gates” for the latter. His Lordship expressed the opinion that each first-class county would do well to raise its card to a total of 20 matches. Tais would simply mean that Middlesex and Somerset each found one more opponent and Northamptonshire two. Each county would then play two-thirds of themaximumnumberof matches. There can bs little doubt that the latitude in the choice of opponents which the counties enjoy is a decided advantage, especially where “ strained relations ” exist, as is, unfortunately, the casein two or three quarters. I venture to offer the following scheme as a simplification of the existing method of deciding the Championship. In a word it is this: 1 ‘ The County gaining the highest percentage of wins in finished matches shall be Champion County.” His formula is very simple: “ Multiply the wins by 100, and divide by the num­ ber of matches finished.” By this means the losses work out themselves and need not be deductedfromthe wins. ‘*Minus ” quantities are wholly avoided and the anomaly that a side can lose more points by a defeat than it can gain by a win altogether disappears. The following table may be of interest : — Present Suggested per- per- Wins. Losses, centage. centage. Kent.......................... 16 ... 2 ... 77.77 ... 88.88 Yorkshire ...........17 .. 3 ... 7U00 ... 85.00 Surrey ...................J8 ... 4 ... 63.63 ... 81.81 Lancashire ........... 15 ... 6 ... 42*85 ... 71.42 Notts .................. 9 ... 1 ... 38.46 ... 69.23 Warwickshire ... 7 ... 4 ... 27.27 ... 63.63 Essex .................. 9 ... 6 ... 20.00 ... 60.(.0 Hampshire ........... 7 ... 9 ...—12.50 ... 43.75 Gloucestershire ... 6 ... 10 ... -25.00 ... 37.50 Sussex .. ........... 6 ... 12 ...-33.33 ... 33.33 Middlesex........... "i Northampt’nshire V 4 Somerset........... j W orcestersli ire ... 2 Leicestershire ... 3 Derbyshire ........... 2 10 ...-42.85 28.57 8 ...-60.00 ... 20.00 11 ...- 64.70 .. 17.64 17 . . —78.94 ... 10.52 J . B . P a y n e . CRICKET IN PORTUGAL. LISBON v. EASTERN TELEGRAPH STATION , CARCAVELLOS. Played at Carcavellos on August 15. This was the last match of the Lisbon Club’ s season and resulted in favour of the Telegraphists by eight wickets. P. Burtem­ shaw’s all-round cricket for the winners was the outstanding feature of the game. L isbon . First innings. D.Rawes,cPerkins,b Bishop 19 R. W. P.Henery, b Bishop ... 10 J. A. Read, c Strange, b Burtemshaw ................... 2 S.P.Mascarenhas, bBurtem- shaw ................................... 1 R. W. Frazer, c Mitchell, b Bishop.................................. 1 J.N. Rankin, eCottingham, b Burtemshaw...................21 B. J. Ebsworth, st Bolton, b O’Connor ................... 4 O. D. Barley, c Strange, b O ’Connor .......................... 0 N.McNicoll,jun.,bO’Connor. 6 D. Crawfurd, c Perkins, b O’Connor ........................... 3 W . M. F. Stilwell, not out... 0 B 2, lb 1 ................... 3 Second innings, c Burtemshaw, b Bishop ...........26 b Bishop ........... 9 b Burtemshaw... 0 b Bishop ........... cPerkins, b Burtem shaw... c Perkins, b Burtamshaw... c & b O’Connor 15 c O’Connor, b Burtemshaw... 19 b Burtem shaw... 4 b B urtemshaw... 0 not out................... 0 B 6, lb 2 ... 8 Total.......................... 70 Total ... 83 E astern T elegraph S tation . First innings. Second innings. C. Mitchell, b llaw es.........24 R. L. Perkins, b Rawes ... 1 notout................ 3 A. R. Godrich, c Crawfurd, b Henery ........................... 6 P. Burtemshaw,c&b Rawes 16notout... .i. ... 31 H. C. Wallich, c Barley, b Henery ......................... 12 L.F.Strange.cMascarenhas, c Ebsworth, b b Henery .........................10 Read .............. 21 O. J. O’Connor, c Rankin, b Rawe3 ........................... 0 M. H. Peik, run out ........... 0 R. T. Bishop, b Henery ... 2 W . Bolton, not out ........... 6 b Rankin ............. 0 A. I). A. Cottingham, b Henery.................................. 6 B 10, lb 2 .................12 B 2, lb 2 ... 4 Total... 95 Total (2 wkts) 59 PELHAM v. H IG H G A TE.-Played at Crouch End on September 8. C rouch E nd . G.H. Daye, c Morrison, b Delacour ........... 0 H. Macdonald, b Dela­ cour .......................... 14 J.Nelson, lbw, b Dela­ cour .......................... 32 W.Goodacre.c Robins, b Delacour .......... 1 D. Whitehead, notout 34 J. Jones, b Wallis ... 8 Limb, c Maylam, b Wallis ................. 5 T. R. Crofts, b Ling- w ood......................... 34 J. Taten, not out ... 14 B 8, lb 2 ........10 Total (7 wkts)*152 C. Matkin and J. W . Redding did not bat. * Innings declared closed. P elham . H. Seaward, b Matkin 1 E. Grayston, c Limb, b M atkin..................17 F. Delacour, b Jones 70 P. Lingwood, c and b Nelson .................. 4 A.Morrison.cRedding, b Jones .................. 20 Wallis, not o u t ...........22 F. Robins, b Matkin 5 A. E. Axbey, not out 9 Byes ................... 4 Total (6 wkts) 152 H. Atterbury and C. Maylam did not bat. LONDON & COUNTY BANK v. BRIXTON WANDERERS.—Played at East Dulwich on September 8. B rixton W anderers . J. Faulkner, run out... 7 [ C. J. Smith, b Mills... 6 A. J. Whyte, b Mills .. 98 L.M Simmons, not out 62 E. A. Brymer, b Bien- R. J. Burlington, not v e n u .......................... 1 out ........................... 5 F. P. Rider, b Mills ... 14 B 12, lb 3 ...........15 B.A.Glanvill,b Samms 1 — Total (6 wkts.)*209 F. Odell, A. E. Storey and O. B. Benge did not bat. ♦Innings declared closed. London & C ounty Bank. E. A. Tealby, b Storey P.F.Allen, c Simmons, b Benge .................. E. E. Bale, b Storey... W. D. Bradley, c and b Smith .................. W . J. Samms,b Storey J. A. Bienvenu, "c Faulkner, b Bur­ lington ................... 24 C. R. Trowell, not out 35 A. A. Feaver, c Sim- monds, b Smith ... 2 E. J. Stiff,bSimmonds 4 G.A.Mills,bSimmonds 0 W. Sutton, not out ... 26 B 2,1b 1........... 6 Total (9 wkts) 149