Cricket 1913

M arch 15, 1913. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. SI taking 4 for 20 ; and the runs needed were hit off by F. W. Holmes (44*) and A. C. King (24*) after the early dismissal of Field. Holmes made his first 6 hit in League cricket, and did himself justice for the first time this season. Claude Carter had a big share in Zingari’s narrow victory by 9 runs on the first innings against Escombes, though his dashing 85* (two 6’s, eight 4’s) in the second innings could not quite pull off the maximum points for his side. The totals were : Zingari, 78 and 169 for 6, dec. ; Escombes, 69 and 106 for 7, Carter had 5 wickets in each innings, total cost 88. The next highest score to his was N. C. Dauber’s 37 for Zingari; the best batsmen for the losers were K. O. Siedle (24) and G. T. Platt (27). Herbert Taylor was top scorer in each innings (35 and 36) for Queen’s Park v. Casuals, and V. L. Henwood (20 and 21) was his best supporter each time. A. A. Grice took 8 for 55 for Q.P. in the match ; but Casuals won by 14 runs on the first innings, thanks largely to H. V. L. Collins’s capital 68*. The totals were : Q.P. 119 and 108 for 6, dec. ; Casuals, 133 and 49 for 2. Up to February 8, H. W. T. heads the batting averages of the League with 345 runs at 43 per innings. His usual partner, H. W. Chapman, has scored most runs— 408 in 10 innings ; and they are only separated in the table by P. de Gersigny (Casuals), with an average of just on 42. C. C. Acutt (Casuals) and A. C. King (Greyville) average over 30, and there are 14 others who have played 6 or more innings averaging over 20, among whom may be mentioned H. A. Hawkins (Wanderers), with 335 at nearly 28, Nourse (Greyville), wfith the unusually low average for him of 26.28, L. B. Siedle (Escombes), with 300 at 23 per innings, and V. C. Robbins, with 301 at 21.50. Most wickets— 43 at under 11 each— have fallen to Carter. Nourse (38 at 7.71) and Kenneth Logan of the Zingari (38 at 12.65) come next in point of numbers, followed | by Harry Wood, Wanderers II. (37 at 12.18), Geo. Cox, Escombes (35 at 12.37), and A. A. Grice, Queen’s Park (29 at 8.62). There was a fine tussle between Maritzburg and Zingari at the capital on February 1. On the previous Saturday Maritzburg had run up 253, the chief scorers being V. Pearse (71*), E. Saville (46), and G. C. Anderson (44). Saville helped Pearse to add 80 for the seventh wicket, and Gooding, though he only scored 11, aided in a stand of 5T for the last. Dan Taylor (5 for 67) and R. H. Blake (4 for 64) did all the effective bowling ; and it was to these two that Zingari owed so much on the second day. Taylor went in at 4 for 60, and the fifth wicket fell at 67. Blake then partnered Taylor, and runs came at a great pace, the latter getting the lion’s share. The partnership added 116, and Taylor’s 81 were made in less than three-quarters of an hour. Blake’s methods were more restrained ; but he did rare good service with his 31, and if his partner could have stayed another ten minutes or so the match might have been won, for in the end Zingari only went under by 36 runs. Anderson took 4 wickets for 26, and C. O. C. Pearse, by getting Blake’s and Worthington’s at a critical stage for only 15, helped his side to victory. The match between Maritzburg and Northern Districts is dealt with elsewhere, and I need not say much here. Young Greaves, though he is good to the off, was not exactly convincing, for he is very weak on the leg side, and he had three lives. The best batting of the match was that of the Rev. C. D. Robinson, and the best bowling E. Ellison’s and A. Hair’s, the latter doing really well at the crease while his colleagues failed. F r e d e r ic k S e t a y . The County Championship Imbroglio. Every one seems to be agreed th a t something must be done, and that speedily, for county c ric k e t; but I doubt whether the majority of cricket enthusiasts will agree with the latest move for the reformation of the County Championship. Some will say that it savours too much of sauve qui pent. Others will consider it a cabal of eleven against 1five, and the average Briton is not keen on cabals. That the five counties marked for relegation will resist to the uttermost may be taken for granted. Derbyshire and Northamptonshire have spoken out strongly in objection to the scheme ; and though, up to the time of writing, Essex, Somerset, and Worcestershire have not expressed their views officially, it is safe to assume that their views coincide with those of the two who are first to speak. There are arguments on both sides, of course. The eleven— if they can afford to disregard public opinion, which seems unlikely, or can persuade the public generally that they are in the right, which seems to me even more improbable— hold the ace of trumps. “ We will not be forced to make fixtures with- any- 1body. We will play such counties as we choose. We don’t choose to play Derbyshire, Essex, Northants, Somerset, or Worcestershire.” Th a t’ s the ace of trumps ! As far as eight of the eleven are concerned, too, there is a very strong argument against the relegation of any one of them. It may fairly be said that when they made room in the upper circle for new entrants, they never contemplated the possibility of those new entrants crowding them out later on. If that had been even remotely suggested, they would have closed their doors. Only one of the eight, Gloucestershire, would be in serious danger of losing its place on recent form. The other seven would, on any score, be considered cer­ tainties for a smaller First Division ; and it is quite natural that they should stand b y the western county. Of the remaining eight, Warwickshire and Hamp­ shire can scarcely be reckoned doubtful. The former won the championship in 1911, and has won nearly as many matches as it has lost (93 and 96 are the figures) since its first appearance in the competition in 1895. Hampshire may fairly be classed to-day as among the first eight or nine on its merits. This reasoning would seem to foreshadow an attack upon Leicestershire’s claim to retain its place. I have no intention, however, of making any such attack. I cherish the greatest respect for the manner in which the county of the fox badge has fought an uphill fight against ill-luck. I do not say that Leicestershire’ s claims are inferior to those of any of the five marked out for doom. I only say that they are not plainly superior, and that the whole question needs threshing out in a different manner. It should be settled in the light of day, with due regard to the claims which all the five, as well as the eleven, possess. For, on the side of the five, it can be urged that when they stepped up they stepped up into a place equal to that of any of those who were there before them. They took upon themselves heavy responsibilities. They were not in the County Championship on sufferance, bu t as