Cricket 1910

7 6 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME A p r i l 2 1 , 1 9 1 0 . CORRESPONDENCE . [ The Editor docs not hold himself responsible for the opinions of his correspondents.'] DRAWN GAMES. To the Editor of C ricket . D ear Sir,—I am utterly tired of seeing the 1909 record of my county quoted as a shocking instance of the policy of playing for a draw. Whatever Sussex may have been guilty of in the less recent past—and I submit that a side which possessed two such gr< at scorers as C. 13. Fry and Ranjitsinhji, and was short of match-winning bowlers, had some excuse for not finishing as many games as the very weak sides or the teams of all-round strength —I deny emphatically that the 16 draws debited to the county in 1909 were the result of a policy of playing for the draw. “ When Surrey had finished ten matches their percentage stood at CO’OO, but they ultimately fell below Sussex because — forsooth !—they went on finishing matches,” says “ H. P. T.” If he does not nifan that Sussex ought to have been ranked below Surrey, it is hard to see what he does mean. But—why ? Here is an analysis of the drawn games played by Sussex in 1909:— v. Derbyshire, at Derby.—“ Rain and bad light saved Derbyshire from defeat.” (Wtederi). v. Middlesex, at Lord’s.—One day’s play, in which Sussex altogether outclassed the home side ; then two days’ rain, v. Hants, at Southampton.—Two days blank, owing to rain, v. Gloucestershire, at Bristol.— “ Bad weather utterly spoiled the game. ( Wisden). v. Yorkshire, at Sheffield.—Only eighty minutes’ play on third day. v. Surrey, at Horsham.—One of the few cases in which Sussex actually did, on the last day, and with no possibility of winning, play for the draw, v. Oxford University, at Hove.—Rain interfered almost throughout match, v. Worcestershire, at Worcester.—“ Owing to rain, the match had to be left drawn.” (Wisden). v. Leicestershire, at Hove.—Only three hours’ play second day, none on third—rain, v. Kent, at Tunbridge Wells.—No play on second day. Sussex had much the worst of wicket, and were fully justified in playing to escape defeat, v. Middlesex, at Hove.—Middlesex, not Sussex, played for the draw, v. Surrey, at the Oval.— Surrey, not Sussex, played for the draw, v. Kent, at Hove.—Kent, not Sussex, played for the draw, v. Notts, at Nottingham.—Both sides scored too heavily and too slowly on an over-prepared wicket to make a definite result possible, v. Leicestershire, at Leicester.—No play third day—rain, v. Warwickshire, at Chichester.—In all, 1 £ hours’ play, v. Yorkshire, at Hove.—Sussex were with­ out Albert Relf. Yorkshire started with a big total. Sussex had only a draw to play for. Weather wretchedly grey and cold, not of the type to induce sparkling cricket. In 11 of the 17 drawn games bad weather was the cause of the absence of result. In one, that with Notts at Nottingham, no more blame could fairly be attributed to Sussex than to their opponents. In three of the remaining five Sussex were well on top, and in each case the other side made a successful effort to avert defeat. If the farcical system of scoring upon wins only had been in force in 1909, Sussex would have been bracketed seventh with Hamp­ shire. Fourth was very much nearer the position the side merited than seventh. Personally, I do not believe that there were even three sidfs essentially stronger. Their defeat by Warwickshire was only by two wickets, and had a distinct element of bad luck about i t ; Lancashire (twice) was the only other county side that beat them, and the Australians only snatched victory by one wicket. I wish the critics would give Sussex a rest, and select some other shocking example. From what I have seen of the sides I should say that, in general, Notts, Warwickshire, Essex, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire all play slower cricket than Sussex. Yours very truly, J. N. PENTELOW. THE INDIAN TEAM OF 1911. To the Editor of C ricket . S ir , —I have read with some regret (for the sake of Indian cricket) the note from Amicus newspaper of Colombo in your issue of April 14th. Amicus mentions, as “ the nucleus of a strong all-round side that should give many of the English teams a good game,” the following: the Maharajah of Patiala, Princes Nara.yan and Victor of Cooch Behar, K. M. and K. B. Mistri, Baloo, Sbivram, Telang, Meherhomji, Mehta, Mulla, Seshachari, War­ den, Jayaram, Ahsan-ul-Hak and Dr. H. D. Kanga. Perhaps Aviicus does not know that the Indian team of 1911 (if it comes) is to meet most of the first-class counties. Assuming H. H. the Jam Sahib comes, the above list of 17 names contains at most three first- class men, viz: H. H., K. M. Mistri, and Jayaram, while it contains the names of several men who simply could not now stand the strain of a cricket tour in a strange climate, viz : Jayaram, K. M. Mistri, Se- sachari, Mehta, Telang and K. B. Mistri. Several are some years past their prime, viz : K. M. and K. B. Mistri, Jayaram, Seshachari, Mehta, Baloo, Ahsan-ul-Hak, Telang, and perhaps Shivram. Amicus stumbles in fact over the old block, viz., Past v. Present. Their team is one of past celebrities who have now no chance of success in England. Had tbe “ names” come over eight or ten years ago it would have been a different thing. I hope this note of warning will reach those responsible for selecting the team. It will serve their purpose—the improvement of cricket in India—better if they chose young and untried men in preference to has-beens. The crack Parsi bowler of the time, Mehta, met with no success at all when qualifying for Lancashire several years ago. Easily their best bowler then, he was nowhere in English cricket and a climate that was dead against him throughout. It would be quite useless to bring him over next year—a mere waste of hardly- collected funds. There must be dozens of young Hindu, Mahommedan or Parsi cricketers of between the ages of 19-26 who are worthy of trial with a view to selection. Natives of India age rather early, and this team ought for its own sake to be a cace of “ nobody of 30 ne* d apply ’’—unless there are exceptional reasons why a man in the thirties should make the trio. Finally, the programme of matches ought not to begin until June. Yours, &c , “ INTERESTED.” L ondon , April 16th. APR IL TEARS . [ provoked by reading certain recent testim on ials .] The secret’s ou t! Cricketic skill's Wrapt iu proprietary ] ills And such-like things they represent Iti pages of advertisement. * * * * * Electropathic treatment made One sturdy wielder of the blade; Auother used the ball to welt Invigorated by a belt; One trundler on pale pills relies ; Others on backache remedies; While sundry active fielders prosper Sustained by liniments and phosphor. * * * * * Too late, alas ! I fear, for service I’ve learnt what best for cricket-nerve is ; Had I but known these things before I might have been a giant of yore ! * * * * * If I’d used hair drill (on my faccj I might have rivalled Dr. G . . . .; Or, less on my complexion stingy, Through Pears’ have been a R ...................... ; If Antipon I’d known at first I might have been a M . nn cr H . . . .; Or, yet, if Biookes’s soap I’d sworn by, (His Monkey brand), have been a H .......... ; If Day and Martin aid had lent, Or Carr, a second Shine in Kent; Iron tonic should have made me St . . 1; Pink’s marmalade at least a P . . 1; Stickfast a little Q .......... .. perforce ; Thorley’s or Elliman’s, A. N ...........; Bovril a Kn . . , (if I’ m allowed a Punster’s license!) Keating's powder A Spring, or other useful bounder ; Yorkshire Relish a Good all-rounder. Lino a Board had made me turn-up ; Bryant and Mays, mayhap, a B .......... ; “ Talking of Graves ” had bade me go forth A L . hm . . n. M . Id, or Demon Sp.........th ; While Piggott’s requisites, well-taken, A Kitchener, Light, Smoker, Bacon, Or Fry, or other Hampshire Hog Might have produced ! The catalogue, Indeed, appears to be unending And, worst of all, the fault’s past mending. * * * * * But wait; there’s Chanticleer’s Corn-plaster, I’ll see if I can’t get runs faster ! PoiT. TENN IS COURT BORDER NETS, good colour, 1 especially prepared, with strong line attached to net at top and bottom ; easy to erect or take away ; will not rot, can be left out in all weathers ; 25 yds. by 2 yds., 6s. 6d. ; by 3 yds., 7s. 6d. , by 4 y d s , Ss. fid. ; any size made. Standards for same, 10 ft. high, Is. each. Garden Netting, 30 sq. yds for Is. Orders over 5s. car. paid. List of Fancy Tents free.—H. J. GASSON, Net Works, Rye. Est. 126 years.