Cricket 1911

A p r i l 29, 1911. CRICKET : A W EEK LY RECORD OF THE GAME. 93 Cricket Notches. B y t h e R e v . R . S . H o l m e s . The construction of the Demon Drivers is fully described in The Evolution of a Cricket Bat , which may be obtained free upon applica­ tion. i :l i f .W £ CRICKET IMFROVED MAKE KEEPTHEIRSHAPE-LASLOIMCER BALLS T CATALOGUE UPON APPLICATION. CAIALOGUE UPON APPLICATION. CATALOGUE UPON APPLICATION. n c ,SO C 'A T)0 aj BUSgE r < y n i M L D W i HWWED MAKE-KEEP THEIR SH*PE-lA5TU)NC£r|- ~r | CATALOaUE UPON APPLICATION. .DEMON D R I V E R S 8 ' e _ ARE OUT AND OUT THE BEST. f Q OTHER GRADES 7-6-5'- 'e - 3r-2.’s~z'~ l|cATAC0GUEI0N:APPLICAf~iON .^CATALOGUE UPON APPLICATION TO GEO. G. BUSSEY & Co.. L td . 36 & 38, Queen Victoria St., LONDON. Manufactory — Timber Mills — PECKHAM, S.B. ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK. Agents all over the world. ' N my closing paragraph last week I mentioned a County Championship scheme I should like to have a trial. It runs thus : find the runs scored by each county for every wicket lost, and then deduct the runs for every wicket taken ; the balance will show a county’s superiority or inferiority to all its opponents. Let us see how the first-class counties would have come out of this ordeal last season. Runs per wkt. Runs per wkt. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Kent (1) Lancashire (4) Middlesex (3) Surrey (2) Notts (5) Yorkshire (8) Hampshire (6) Sussex (7) Leicester (10) Essex (11) Worcester (13) Northants (9) Warwick (14) Gloucester (12) Derby (15) Somerset (16) lost. taken. Balance. 27-77 15-70 + 12-07 26-92 20-07 + 6-85 23-33 19-13 + 4-20 21-89 17-86 + 4-OS 24-48 20-73 + 3-75 21-99 20-48 + 1-51 24-07 22-66 + 1-41 23-44 24-24 - 0-80 23-21 24-56 - 1-35 18-44 20-28 - 1-84 22-33 24-95 - 2-62 18-14 21-68 - 3-54 22-98 27-02 - 4-04 18-84 23-28 - 4-44 1772 26-90 - 9-18 15-22 31-44 -1 6-22 The figures in brackets after the name of the county shows its position in the table adopted last year. Five counties keep the same place in both schemes, viz., Kent, Middlesex, Notts, Derbyshire and Somerset. Kent was strongest both in batting and bowling ; seldom has this double-first been taken by a county. Somerset on the other hand were weakest in both departments. The difference between the respective balances of Kent and Somerset is no less than 28'29 runs per wicket ! It may be mentioned that in all the five different ways of deciding the order of merit Kent would have filled first place, Somerset the last. Note that Lancashire and Surrey exchange places, as they ought to on last year’s form. Only a bigoted Surreyite—and he may be ignored—would maintain that his county last year should rank two places above Lancashire, who were a far stronger all-round side than their Southern rival. Lancashire’s wonderful victories over Notts at Manchester and over Hampshire at Southampton, when on each occasion they scored more than 400 runs in the fourth innings, prove that they had no superior among the counties, barring Kent. Yorkshire also go up two places ; that promotion they deserved after their memorable defeat of Middlesex at Lord’s when they notched 331 for 8 wickets, winning the match in the last over before time. Of course, we are chiefly interested in the counties which are at the top and the bottom—the first three and the last three. The intervening posi­ tions have no interest for the cricketing public. Meanwhile Somerset’s suggestion is to be tried during the approaching season. It certainly is an improvement on that which hailed from Lancashire. Yet it has, in my judgment, one serious flaw, viz., the award of ‘ 1 one point for a loss on the first innings ” when a match in unfinished. What is the sense of that ? You might just as reasonably give a point to the loser of a completed match. It would be far better to give only two points for a lead, not three, in drawn games. In the share of a gate the loser is never forgotten in any branch of sport, for we pay to see him play his part in a contest; but the awarding of points is an entirely different matter. I hope it is not too late for this suggestion of mine to receive due consideration. I am heartily in favour of the proposed new law respecting no-balls ; in future they will count against the bowler and will be scoreless as far as the batsman is concerned. As long ago as November, 1893, I wrote in this journal that “ no balls and wides should be put down to the debit of the bowler ” ; and, when in March, 1894, I revised all the laws I thus spoke of no-balls : “ a no-ball is dead ; the batsman shall not be out from a stroke nor shall any runs be scored therefrom.” Inasmuch as the bowler is responsible for wides as for no-balls, wides ought also to figure in his analysis. But not overthrows, as at present. Count them as extras ; they ought not to increase the striker’s score, for in many cases it is the non-striker who risks his wicket in making a short run for his partner’s stroke. At any rate it is unfair to a bowler that he should be penalised for a mistake not of his own committal. It is not to the point to retort that other mistakes on the part of the fielders, such as missed chances, have to be bome vicariously by the unfortunate bowler.