Cricket 1909

J an . 28, 1909. CR ICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 7 ABOUT THE CHAMPIONSHIP. I am glad that Sir Home Gordon has called attention to iny having raided his preserves. When I did so, I was quite unconscious of any trespass, in spite of having read with close attention, some time previously, the interesting Chat with himself that appeared in Cricket. The general pro­ position of a Divisional competition is, of course, an antique and common possession. What I thought was new—“ fresh’’ would have been a better word—about my “ Idea ” was its reduction to a very simple and practicable form ; its application to the present standing of the^Counties, and its readiness for immediate adoption. If in these particulars I have unconsciously borrowed I beg pardon but remain glad. It is so flattering to think that one’s mind has run in the same groove as that of so shrewd and level beaded a judge of fitness; and the fathering of one’s scheme by such an authority gives it., an added chance of being eventually accepted. Beyond this it is hardly forme to comment on the remarks of the critics who have so kindly voiced all sides of the question—a courtesy which I hope that I, and the leaders of Cricket, appreciate as greatly as the Editor does. It may be a pardonable bias if I fancy I read a considerable amount of approval of the divisional arrangement in them, and if I think that some of the objections were met in the original article itself. But I should like to express my views on one or two matters of opinion. The impression that under the suggested scheme the money bags would suffer is, I think, quite unjustified and the very reverse of what would happen. Many people (at Woolwich, Chelsea, Fulham and Tottenham for example) have cared to witness “ Second Division” football, and clubs have thrived while playing it. And, if the analogy is not accepted, I am not so sure that the cricket counties promoted in the ’nineties were much worse off then than now. To take a concrete instance: the little Essex which the “ Old Buffer ” held up (in his “ Game of Cricket,” 1887) to admiration as earning and deserv­ ing prosperity: I cannot help thinking that another season or two of endeavour in a more moderate sphere would be her salvation in popularity and financial support. And so with other counties similarly placed, who have a trouble to get along now in boots a wee bit too big for them. TheDivisional grouping, be it remembered, would be for Championship purposes only. And those who deprecate tampering with the existing arrangement, for fear of over-organis- ing the game, perhaps forget that it would leave the Counties more free than at present to use their own sweet will in choosing opponents. Only the few in their own Division of the competition would be prescribed for them, and all of these it would not be obliga­ tory for them to meet, though omitting to do so would, of course, be a handicap under the terms of scoring. Notts, it may be recol­ lected, used to accept this handicap prior to 1895. Inside the Championship the non-selection of opponents would ensure a fair decision of the honours. The quotation of one team having risen from fourteenth to first place in a season—the same team mind you—so far from convincing one that at least fourteen counties should be allowed to contend for prime honours, seems to indicate a blemish in the system that allowed so great a dis­ parity. Middlesex could hardly have deserved both positions in so short a period ; and under the Divisional arrangement I doubt whether she would ever have dropped so low in the one instance, whilst, if she had risen as high in the second, her desert could not then have been questioned, as one remembers it actually wTas in mauy quarters. We can say what we like in disparagement of “ the Championship,” but in some form or other it is bound to survive. That is, the followers of cricket will always take some means of satisfying themselves about which County can put the best eleven in the field. It is to determine this point, I take it, that the competition exists. And obviously the point can be decided by comparing only a few of them. It is not necessary to measure all the frees in the forest to tell which is the tallest. A First Division w’ould afford a sufficient selectiou of probables, and a Second would automatically refresh them with possibles. The result arrived at would be equitable, acceptable, and indisputable, and the' limitation of contestants would leave the Counties free for many other enjoyable games, unshackled by competition rules and undaunted by the terrors of tables and per­ centages. As to Counties, like Yorkshire and Kent, which distribute their favours over many fields : so long as they justify inclusion in the First Division, they would always be able to allot one Championship match, and as many others as they pleased, to each of eight grounds. And when they no longer justify that distinction, one who is Kentish to the finger-tips would rather see his own county recovering its title in less pretentious fashion, than hampering the fair decision of supremacy among the others by lingering superfluous on the Championship stage. I note that the Editor of Wisden has digni­ fied this controversy by a reference in the 1909 Almanack and, whilst bowing to his superior judgment, I am hopeful that “ the great point of the Championship existing for Cricket ” which he insists on will ere long be found reconcilable with some such scheme as Sir Home Gordon shall take the credit for. Finally, as I said the other day, I think the coming season’s Championship will gain in interest if the eventuality is kept in view that perhaps only the nine most successful participants in it may share that honour in the season that is to follow. H. P.-T. BOOKS RECEIVED. Aares' Lawn Tennis Almanack , 1900. Edited by A. Wallis Myers. London: F. H. Ayres, Ltd., Ill, Aldersgate Street, E.C. Price Is. Highways and Byways in Surrey. By Eric Parker. With illustrations by Hugh Thomson. London • Macmillan and Co., Ltd., St. Martin’s Street. Price Os. Tasmanian Cricket Association. Report of Season 1907-8. Forty-second Annual Circular. Hobart: Tasmanian Cricket Association Offices. Wisden’s Cricketers' Almanack, 1009. London: John Wisden and Co., ‘21, Cranbourn Street. Price Is. Wisden's Cricketers' Arot< Book, 1909. Edited by F. S. Ashley-Cooper. London : John Wisden and Co!, 21, Cranbourn Street. Price 6d. The AMERICAN CRICKETER. F ounded 1877. Published by H. H. Cornish on behalf of The Associated Cricket Clubs o f Philadelphia. A 11 Illustrated Journal of Cricket, Association Football, Tennis, Golf, and Kindred Pastimes. No. 632, Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa , U.S.A. pr ic e :— 10/- per annum , post paid anyw here. Specimen copies mailed on request. CRICKET IN NEW ZEALAND. CANTEEBURY v. XV. COLTS. Played at Christchurch on November 7 and 13 The Colts won by 104 runs. The success of the Colts was obtained on the stroke of time, the finish being very exciting. Humphreys, of Kent, who was allowed to assist the Colts, took eight wickets for 67 runs in the first innings and five for 21 in the second. Score :— XV. C olts . First innings. Second innings. A. Jones, c Patrick, b Bennett ..........................13 b Bennett ... ... 5 J. Bruges, lbw, b Bennett 9 b B en n ett.........10 L. Gordon, b M alone............ 2 st Boxshall, b Malone ........... 0 A. Norman, b Malone ...1lbw, b Bennett... 10 E. Caygill, st Boxshall, b R eese..................................10 notout .........71 F. C. Fryer, b Malone ..l b B en n ett...........12 Humphreys, lbw, b Malone 2 run out ............53 W . Hayes, c Orchard, b Ellis ................................. 8 b Reese ............14 H. M. Clirystall, b Reese ... 3 b O rchard............ 0 Macfarlane, c Lusk, b Malone .......................... 20 b O rchard............ 7 A. H. Addison, b Reese .. 0 st Boxshall, b Bennett........... 0 Bridges, b Reese.................. 38 b Bennett ............ 1 E. Crawsliaw, c Wood, b Malone .......................... 8 b B en nett............ 0 H. Watson, c Malone, b R eese......................... ... 14 b Malone ............27 Tate, not out ........... ...() b Lusk............... 17 Byes, &e...................... 4 Byes, &c. ... 13 Total...........210 Total ...................133 C an terbu ry . First innings. Second innings. H. B. Lusk, c Watson, b e Tate, b Hum- Humphreys ......................18 phreys ... . 7 B. B. Wood, c Tate, b Craw shaw .........................43 b Crawshaw ... 13 D. Reese, c Fryer, b Hum- c Crawshaw, b phreys ...........................21 Watson ............16 W. Patrick, c Joues, b st Tate, b Hum- Humphreys ................... 0 phreys ............ 1 S. A. Orchard, b Hum­ phreys..................................... 20 bW'atson ...27 A. Anthony, c Bridges, b Humphreys ...................... 19 b Humphreys ... 3 E. Ellis, c Watson, b Hum­ phreys.................................. 6 notout ... 5 A. Norman, not o u t ...........28 c Chrystall, b Humphreys ... 6 C. Boxshall, b Watson ... 9 b Humphreys ... 0 J. H. Bennett, st Tate, b Humphreys ................... 0 st Tate, b Watson 0 T. W. Malone, st Tate, b Humphreys ................... 0 c and b Watson .. 0 Byes, &c...............19 Byes, &e... 8 Total ...183 Total .. 86 LINWOOD v. IlICCARTON. Played at Christchurch on November 14 and 21 and won by Linwood by 54 runs. A. E. Ridley carried his bat through the Linwood innings for 217, which is the largest individual score ever made in a Senior Cup match in Canterbury, exceeding H. B. Lut-k’s 200 not out. Humphreys scored 32 and took one wicket for 74 runs. Score :-y A. E. Ridley,not out...217 S. A. Orchard, c sub., b Fryer .................. 0 R. Ridley, c Caygill, b A n th on y...................31 E. Humphreys, c Par­ ker, b Anthony ... 32 T. Dean, c Parker, b A n th o n y .................. 1 W.A.Cooke,b Anthony 11 F. Wilding, e Wall, b Anthony.................. 20 G. Robertson, b Fryer 10 G. Taylor, run out J. Arris, c Wall, Fryer ........... A. Doell, b Fryer Byes, &c. ... 19 i 1 , 39 15 Total R iocarton . E. Caygill, b Orchard 10 A. Anthony, b Wilding 14 A. Norman, o Orchard, b A. Ridley .................15 H. Ellis, run out.................34 E. T. Harper, st Arris, b Orchard....................102 ! F. C. Fryer, c A.Ridley, b Dean ........................ 63 H. B. Whitta, not out 62 Parker, lbw, b Wild­ ing ... .................. 11 K. S. Williams,c Dean, b Orchard. .......... l W. B. Clarkson, c A. Ridley, b Hum­ phreys .................. 13 Byes, &c..............23 Total (9 wkts) 348 Wall did not bat.