Cricket 1912

544 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. OCT. 12, 1912. Bannerman, Dr. H. V. Hordern, A. C. K. Mackenzie, and C. T. B. Turner. S ib J o s e p h C a r r u t h e r s , in an eloquent speech, dwelt upon the reforming work done by Mr. McElhone, the sacrifices which that gentleman had made for the game, and the vastly improved position of the State Associations, financially and otherwise, brought about by the Board of Control. The Hon. J . S. T. McGowen and the Hon. 0. W. Oakes spoke to the same effect. Here is an extract from the former’s speech. “ I n d iv id u a ls were no longer allowed to control the game. That was now the work of bodies appointed by the cricketers themselves. The change came not too soon. It was inevitable, and had to come, for it was order out of chaos. In workmen’s parlance, the guest of the evening was the ‘ king pin ’ of that organisation which had so satisfactorily assumed control of our national game, but at the same time he had behind him other members of tho Board, besides others not on the Board, who had loyally supported him from one end of Australia to the other. . . . There were going to be no further difficulties in the future.” T h e last statement seems conceived in a spirit of large optimism. It will be most remarkable if there are nd further difficulties. One must not ignore the fact that the “ revolting players ” had and have behind them a strong body of public support. An argument frequently used against them is that their leading supporters are all old Australian cricketers, themselves past participants in the “ share the spoils ” game. But these men—Harry Trott, William Bruce, the Trumble brothers, George Giffen, •Toe Darling, Tom Garrett, and others—have no personal interest in the management or profits of the recent tour or of future tours. The Board cannot touch them. In all fairness we must credit them with sincerity. M r. M c E lh o n e , replying, disclaimed his right to much of the honour thrust upon him. Other men (he said) had done more than he. “ There had been heartburnings, and no man regretted it more than he, but that was inevit­ able in any movement of reform. He could spealc sincerely on behalf of the Board of Control in saying that every member of that body desired to sink all differences and pull together for the sake of Australian cricket. It was very hard for persons not holding the responsibility ho and other members of the Board had held to understand how delicate and difficult had been their work. “ I n the many actions the Board had taken there was much which was regrettable. Many hard things had to be done, but he would give his assurance that nothing was done which was not absolutely necessary if the Board of Control was to carry out the work for which it had been founded. There were certainly many sad hearts when it came to the parting of the ways, and his heart was the saddest of them all. But he sincerely hoped to have peace, and that no private bodies of any nature would ever try again to regain the control of cricket.” T h e New South Wales Selection Committee for i 912-3 consists of Victor Trumper, .T. B. Lane (the Sydney Univer­ sity captain), and the Rev. E. F. Waddy. Last season Warren Bardsley and the late E. Hume were Trumper’s colleagues. E ig h t nominations were made, the five who failed to secure election being M. A. Noble, W. Bardsley, Dr. L. O. S. Poidevin, A. .T. Hopkins, and T. H. Howard. It is said that Noble’s failure to obtain sufficient votes was largely due to the fact (or the report.) that two years ago he expressed an opinion that Hordern was not good enough for the N.S.W. team. If this be true, it seems a pity that the matter should have been remembered at all. All selectors make mistakes at times, and Noble has doubtless long ago perceived his, and would be willing to admit it candidly— if, indeed, he ever made it. The fact that a statement has appeared in print and has not been contradicted does not necessarily hall-mark it as the sterling silver of truth. A n d r e w D u c a t will have cause to remember his association with Aston Villa. It seems quite likely that he may never play football again, though I sincerely hope that such will not be the case. Something has gone wrong with his broken leg since it was set, and another operation has been necessary. Hard lines, Mac ! I h a v e not yet seen—though possibly it may appear elsewhere before this is printed—a complete schedule of the Australians’ programme on the Western Continent. Here it is. Some oftthe matches, of course, have already been worked off, and reference to them will be found elsewhere. Sept. 27, 28, 30— v. Gentlemen of Philadelphia. Oct. 1, 2— v. New York. ,, 4, 5, 7— v. Gentlemen of Philadelphia. ,, 8—v. Colts of Philadelphia. 12, 14— v. A ll Bermuda, at Ham ilton. ,, 18, 19— v. All Chicago. ,, 21, 22— v. W innipeg Crioket Association. „ 25, 26, 28— v. All British Columbia, at Victoria, B.C. T h e trip to Bermuda is an unexpected addition to the tour, unexpected as far as we on this side are con­ cerned, I mean. When the Australians left no one seemed to know anything about the programme arranged for them. It is rather a misfortune that such great men as Macartney and Bardsley should not have made the trip. There will have been keen disappointment across the Atlantic at not seeing these two as well as Minnett, Hazlitt, and Jennings. But the eagerness of the American and Western Canadian cricket leaders to secure a visit is shown by their willingness to accept one made by a depleted team and at so late a period. Not many-tours have been made by teams from the United Kingdom in the States and the Dominion during quite recent years. W h e n the next English team visits the West Indies, there would be general joy in cricket circles across tho big ditch if it could extend its tour to the continent. After finishing up in Jamaica, say, the men might make for San Francisco by way of the Panama Canal. They would find foemen worthy of their willow in California, though the San Francisco wickets would not delight them, if all I hear bo sooth. T h e n northward ho ! for Seattle and Portland, and on to British Columbia. By this time the cricket season would be beginning there, and they would be certain of a hearty welcome in Victoria and Vancouver. Thence they would go eastward through the Rockies and over the vast whoatlands. playing in the chief cities of Saskatchewan and Alberta on the way, to Winnipeg, and from Winnipeg on to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, and Halifax. If they could spare time for New York arid Philadelphia they would find cricket in full swing in these cities. Balti­ more and Washington would welcome a visit, and—but enough ! One fears that it would be quite impossible to get togother a team of men with sufficient leisure for so extendod a tour. Yet one may dream sometimes, and dreaming has its charm. U n d e r the County Championship scheme in use two years ago—the Lancashire scheme—Northamptonshire would be first, with Kent second, and Yorkshire no higher than third. Under the scheme in use from 1895 to 1909 Lancashire and Kent would have changed places. By “ figure of merit ” — i.e., the deduction of the average per wicket against the average for—the order would have been Lancashire, Yorkshire, Kent, Northants. This last plan, though highly recommended by some statistical enthusiasts, has of course, never been used, and doubtless never will be. T h e r e are some shiftings under the various schemes among the other counties : Hants goes above Middlesex by both the 1895-1909 and the figure of merit systems, and Sussex above Warwickshire by the latter. Three of the tail-enders also move a bit. But Surrey is always s e v e n t h (bracketed even with Hants for sixth place under the Lancashire scheme, but that comes to the same thing), Notts always eighth, Gloucestershire eleventh, Essex fifteenth, and Worcestershire last by all four tests.