Cricket 1908

4 6 3 CR ICK ET : A W EEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. D e c . 24, 19 0 8 . counties and, therefore, do not affect the main principle of the Championship. I have not a word to say against the scheme pro­ pounded by your correspondent “ H. P -T.” It may be excellent, but what I have endeavoured at this juncture to do is to emphasise the fact that there is 110 pronounced desire on the part of the counties for a change, and, further, there is nothing to interpret that the general public require a change. In my own county, the followers of the game con­ tinue to increase and the attendances at both county and local matches are much better now than for some years past. You will, therefore, excuse my advocating au alternative scheme, which in itself is an easy matter, but which has already been done to a state of “ stileness,” and sometimes without any serious consideration for the consequences. At all events, it is to be hoped that the purest of all games will maintain sufficient interest to avoid the “ tinkering ” which has proved so disastrous to other pastimes. Perhaps if a little more consideration were given to the following points greater enthusiasm would be manifested (1) Covering the bowlers’ and bats­ m en’s footholes; (2) the tea interval; and (3) strictly a-ihcring to the time of starting and closing of play and a compulsory time for the luncheon interval. To suggest alterations and to criticise the existing system are equally easy matters. I hope I have refrained from both. Mr. H. D. G. Leveson Gower, the Surrey captain, says:— The Championship scheme propounded by “ H. P.- T .” would, I think, require to be very care­ fully examined before being adopted officially. It may be doubted whether the “ friendly ” games which would be played by the first-class counties outside the Championship Competition would prove very attractive to the public, especially as a side like Yorkshire or Surrey would be only too glad of the opportunity to give a well-deserved rest to some of their chief players, and it is surely questionable whether the games played by the Second Division teams against each other would prove successful financially: as it is, several of the weaker sides, although playing Chaftnpionsliip matches with coun­ ties like Yorkshire and Kent, find it difficult to make both ends meet, and generally look forward to an “ Australian Y ear” when their share of the profits from the Test matches proves a very great boon, and in some cases even determines whether the Club shall be continued or not. It appears not unlikely, too, that a team gaining promotion, either to the First Division from the Second or to the latter from the Minor Counties, m ight experience financial difficulties as a result of their success through being obliged to arrange a larger pro­ gramme. The Championship may at some time be decided in the manner suggested by your contribu­ tor, but I do not think it will be yet. Mr. Henry Y. L. Stanton, “ Wanderer ” of The Sportymm, Writes :— If it is desirable to adopt a Championship scheme by which every first-class county shall play every other it can only be accom plished by following the practice in vozuc in the Rugby County Championship and the Southern Countie.-*’ Amateur Championship (Association), viz., lim iting the programme to on*. match per season. I have more than once advanced the alternative suggestion of a division into two groups, and in each Instance there would be a total of fourteen fixtures. Tho objections are two-fold : (I) That counties have not a free hand in selecting their opponents. [This has been urged by Mr. J. H. Brain, on behalf of Glamorgan, in connection with the Second Division Championship]. (2) The lack of interest which might affect the majority of extra matches with other counties, arranged as “ friendlies.” My own suggestion, in the event of forming two groups, has been that a county in (say) 1!)I0 should play those not opposed in the Championship in 1909, so that at the close of the second season there would have been a complete interchange of matches. A First and Sccond Division with a system of prom o­ tion would not, I think, prove acceptable. Dr. E. M. Grace, exoressing no person'll opinion concerning H P -.T .’s scheme, cjn- tenls himself with saying : — “ You ask me for xay views about the County Championship. Thu^aje that there never ought to havj beon one and the sooner it is done away with the better. It simply spoils the enjoym ent of cricket, which ought to be a matter of pleasure, like hunting is for instance. I would do away with all averages—batting and bowling. When I first played cricket it was entirely a game of pleasure ; now it is simply a game of profit and averages and expense. In old days gent'emen used to pay their own expenses and not, as now, charge every penny out-of-pocket and often more to those that they played for. ’ Mr. T. J. Matthews, the Lancashire Secretary, writes from Manchester:— I can only say that I think our present system is incomplete and frequently unfair in its application. We in Lancashire have experienced that in the past. Its great failings are (1) that drawn games arc not adequately provided for and (2) that no encourage­ ment is offered to aspiring counties outside the charmed circlc. Of course, there are others. I am not unaware of the view taken in some quarters that many counties do not desire to become “ first-class ’ because of the incidental expense, but I often think that that objection is based on the supposi­ tion that they would be called upon to play (under the existing system) moro matches than their funds would allow. It seems almost like heterodoxy to say it, but I have long thought that the divisional system, as in the case of football, would be better. There should be a first and a second, and, if you like, a third division, each striving for promotion, the last in each division dropping out and the first in the next beingbrought into the vacant place. As to the suggestion that a county accustomed to a prominent placc would suffer in dignity by dropping into another division, 1 cannot quite see the obviousness of the objection. Merit, not dignity, seems to me to be the great desideratum in these days, and I am convinced there are one or two minor counties who would give several of the so- called first-class counties a really excellent game. The drawn-game question is important and vital, and I am inclined to think, though I am quite open to conviction on the point, that the system adopted by the Minor Counties of which I have had some experience is not without its advantages. Mr. H. J. Henley, “ Long-Leg” of The Sporting Life , writes: — The great drawback to the “ New Divisional Idea,” as it appears to me, is that, if carried into practice, it would bring black ruin to counties already financially embarrassed who were so unfor­ tunate as to be elbowed into the shadow of the Second Division. A club in the poverty-clogged condition of Essex would lose much of the little support remaining to it if denied matches with the strongest and most attractive teams. For it is the presence of the giants on the home ground that keeps the turnstiles busy. “ H. P.-T.,” I know, sug­ gests that most of the present fixtures could “ remain as first-class matches, having no hearing on the Championship,” but one need not be unduly pessimistic to believe that the dignities of the First Division would use the opportunity to rest their hardest-worked players when meeting their lowly brethren in friendly games, the public reserve their sixpences for the serious encounter of the Champion­ ship, and the matches drop out through lack of support. The question, then, seems to amount to th is: Is it in the interests of cricket to sacrifice some poor but possibly sporting counties in order that the Championship system (which, after all, has in fourteen years caused little injustice) might be made less cumbersome than at present.? I doubt it. Dr. Russell Bencraffc, the Chairman of the Hampshire County C.C. Committee, sends the following interesting letter :— I am strongly opposed to any division of first- class counties, as 1 believe whatever method is adopted would operate to the financial disad­ vantage of the struggling counties. Were auy division to take place, the territorial one is the only possible, and I feel sure that neither Surrey, Kent nor Middlesex would agree to this, as it would mean that they wou:d never meet York­ shire or Lancashire except in a final. With regard to “ H .P.-T.’s ” contentions as to gates, as far as Hampshire is concerned we take much more money when playing counties stronger than ourselves, such as Yorkshire, Surrey, Kent and Middlesex, than we do when playing counties more on an equality, as Warwickshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Northants. 1 object altogther to any argument which seeks to assimilate County Cricket to League Football, but if any arguments are to be drawn from football expei-icnce, 1 would at on ce point out that “ friendlies” are absolutely luiremunerative, and that the reason why football is so popular, as a matter of gates, is that the whole game can be seen in an hour and a-half, instead of three days, and is full of stirring and rapid incident from end to end. If so few matches were played as “ II.P .-T .” suggests, we should have our professionals “ eating their heads off ” at our expense for half the season. In my opinion the sole argument in favour of sub­ division and the reduction in the number of matches is that it would enable amateurs to take part more frequently in them, but the number of amateurs who are really in the first rank of cricketers and cannot play in most of the first-class matches is very small. Mr. Alfred D. Taylor, the well-known Brighton critic and bibliophile, remarks :— “ Not being directly interested in the finances of a County Cricket Club I welcome any change likely to infuse interest in the Championship, but I doubt whether the new divisional scheme propounded by II. P.-T.’ will find favour with the various-cricket executives. Your contributor asks, If a club has ceased to be first-class in actuality what benefit can result from keeping up the pretence ? The obvious answer is ‘ The Gate,’ for, despite the logical argu­ ments contained in the article referred to, the match Derbyshire v. Yorkshire would prove a greater attraction to the Peakites, despite the former’s very remote chance of victory, than, for example, Derbyshire v. Leicestershire. It is the ambition of every ‘ weak ’ county to lower the colours of their admitted superiors, irrespectiv ? of their own particular prospects of winning the Championship, and, as an instance, Kent would never have secured premier honours but for Gloucestershire’s one-run victory over Yorkshire two years a g o ; while such memorable matches as Kent v. Hampshire at Canterbury last season would be lost to cricket history from the fact that the two counties would not have met under the proposed conditions. Mr. W. Findlay, the Surrey Secretary, remarks:— I have read the New Divisional Idea for the County Championship with much interest. There is no doubt a very great deal in the arguments advanced, though I personally think the order, as worked out under the present scheme, has given, on the whole, a correct idea of the respective merits of the coun­ ties. It is, however, quite certain that no thor­ oughly satisfactory method will be introduced until all counties play the same matches. Mr. Y. F. S. Crawford, the Leicestershire Secretary, writes :— I think the Championship might very well bo based upon the method adopted by the Football Association in the matter of points, assigning, however, three points for an innings victory, two for an ordinary win, and one for a drawn game. However points may be counted, I think that one or two counties will always stand out prominently and 1 am also of opinion that f ir too much import­ ance is attached to the “ decim al’’ side of the question. Mr. J. B. Payne, who is no stranger to the pages of Cricket , has favourel us with the following : — There seem to be insuperable difficulties in tho way of “ H. P.-T.’s ” suggestions. Take the case of Yorkshire or Kent. These counties have to allocate to various grounds some thirteen or fourteen “ hom e” Championship matches. The reduction of these matches to eight would entail the withdrawal of five or six “ home ” games, which would mean a loss in “ gates” and membership in the districts affccted. The substitution of “ friendly” matches would prove a very sorry compensation. Relegation from the First to the Second Division would mean serious financial loss, and relegation to any Third Division would at present be tantamount to extinction. It is unreasonable under such cir­ cumstances to expect any county to run the risk of degradation. Some such scheme as the following occurs to me as feasible. Let there be two “ Leagues ” and one Championship, the First League to comprise the first nine counties in the Championship of the previous year and the Second to comprise the other seven, each county playing every other in its own League. For Championship purposes counties in the First League should add to their League fixtures out and home games with not less than two counties in the Second League, and counties in the Second League should add out and home games with not less than four counties in the First. This would lend greater interest to tho do­ ings of the weaker countics, while every match would count in the Championship. The qualifying minimum for the Championship would be increased from sixteen games to twenty, but the former figure is quite abnirdly too small as compared with the possible maximum of thirty. J. B. King has taken to golf, and with the greatest success. J. E. West, Schofield Haigh, Blythe, and Bowley are to receive benefits next season. It is exactly 20 years since Merion last won tho Halifax Cup, although they tied with Germantown in 1897. Several cricket matches were played in honour of the visit of Admiral Sir Percy Scott’s cruiser squadron to Rio de Janeiro (Brazil'. The balance of gate-monoy over expenses at Braund’s benefit at Bath last season was only £1 7s. 9d. A. D. Watson (1(59 not out) and G. D. Macintosh (109 not out) put 011 259 without being parted for the sixth wicket of Sydney University 3rd v. Central Cumberland 3rd 011 the University Oval, Sydney, on October 10. On the invitation of the South Australian Cricket Association, Geo. Giffen and J. C. Recdman attended the inter-State practice nets at Adelaide for the purpose of assisting the players chosen to practise for the match with Victoria.