Cricket 1913

82 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M arch 15, 1913. integral parts thereof, with exactly the same rights as the other integral parts. Which may seem to conflict with the theory as to the older counties having a lien upon places, and does so conflict, I admit. Bu t I am trying to state views held b y bodies with conflicting interests, so that some apparent inconsistency is inevitable. This matter will never be settled on the score of form in the field alone. North­ amptonshire’ s running-up for the Championship in 1912 is part of a very strong case which that county has. B u t it is not, per se, conclusive in the view of Northamp­ tonshire’ s peers, it seems. Was it Lord Palmerston who said that he liked the Order of the Garter, because “ there was no damned merit about it ” ? Some such attitude may possibly be ascribed to the eleven. Quite certainly the seven or eight or nine who may be supposed to have picked out the other four or three or two of the eleven did not make their choice on the ground of form in the field alone. No doubt they also considered attractiveness (i.e., gate- drawing powers), financial stability, and length of time in the Championship; while possibly the personal equation may have played its part. B u t sheer merit ought to have a big say in the matter, and on this score Northants, Essex, and Worcestershire would all appear to have a very genuine grievance. It is true th at Essex and Worcestershire did badly last year ; and with them in the last five were Derbyshire and Somerset. But if last year’s results were to settle the matter, there could be no hesitation between Leicester­ shire’ s claim and Northamptonshire’ s. One may take it, then, th at the 1912 figures were not the chief guide. Let us take the figures for 19 10 ,19 11, and 1912, leaving out of account Yorkshire, Lancashire, Surrey, Kent, N otts, Middlesex, and Warwickshire, counties whose degradation it would be absurd to suggest. The other nine stood thus on the three years : North­ amptonshire won 25 matches, lost 18 (percentage of wins to games finished, 58-1) ; Hampshire won 24, lost 23 (51-0) ; Essex won 14, lost 21 (40-0) ; Worcestershire won 18, lost 29 (36-3) ; Sussex won 20, lost 35 (36-3) ; Gloucestershire won 13, lost 31 (29-5) ; Leicestershire won 10, lost 40 (20-0) ; Derbyshire won 6, lost 34 (15-0) ; and Somerset won 3, lost 36 (7-6). B u t a three-year record is not really long enough. Going back for eight seasons, which covers the time since the last promotion (that of Northants), we find that, on percentage of wins to games finished (which is the old M.C.C. system simplified), the nine stand in this order : (1) Sussex (45-3) ; (2) Worcestershire (45-1) ; (3) Essex (42-5) ; (4) Hampshire (42-2) ; (5) Northamptonshire (39-1) ; (6) Gloucestershire (34-1) ; (7) Leicestershire (28-0) ; (8) Somerset (16-1) ; (9) Derbyshire (15-3). Or, on the Somerset point-scoring system, though some may argue that it is unfair to apply this to years in which it was not in force : (1) Essex, 312 points of a possible 730 (percentage 42-7) ; (2) Sussex, 430 of 1015 (42-36) ; (3) Worcestershire, 324 of 765 ( 4 2 - 35 ) : ( 4 ) Hampshire, 342 of 835 (40-9) ; (5) North­ amptonshire, 258 of 690 (37-3) ; (6) Gloucestershire, 273 of 780 (33-7) ; (7) Leicestershire, 245 of 810 (30-2) ; (8) Somerset, 137 of 665 (20-6) ; (9) Derbyshire, 143 of 765, i8-6. During the 8 years Derbyshire led on the first innings in 10 drawn games of 23 in which such a lead was regis­ tered ; Essex in 26 of 45 ; Gloucestershire in 13 of 27 ; Hampshire in 19 of 44 ; Leicestershire in 17 of 41 ; Northamptonshire in 5 of 23 ; Somerset in 12 of 28 ; Sussex in 31 of 73 ; Worcestershire in 20 of 49. The number of matches in the case of each county (excluding those ruled out in 1910 owing to the death and funeral of his Majesty, K ing Edward V II., which are not taken into account at all here) which would have been recorded “ no result ” under the Somerset system was : D erby­ shire 6, Essex 10, Gloucestershire 6, Hampshire 13, Leicestershire 5, Northamptonshire 5, Somerset 7, Sussex 6, Worcestershire 7. Games not started are ignored entirely. Perhaps it may be as well, after all, to give the figures (wins and losses) during the eight-year period of the seven I have reckoned as certainties on form. Yorkshire won 112, lost 29 ; Kent won 121, lost 35 ; Surrey won 111, lost 44 ; Lancashire won 105, lost 43 ; Notts won 65, lost 40 ; Middlesex won 60, lost 43 ; Warwickshire won 49, lost 47. All, of course, have a percentage of over 50, whereas the other nine all fall below th at figure. On the ground of financial stability, one may remark that there are not eleven first-class counties which can claim that asset. Of the eleven three or four are scarcely less shaky than some of the five. It is unnecessary to particularise ; everyone knows. A s to length of time in the championship, Somerset (promoted in 1891) has a case here, and so has D erby­ shire (first-class from 1871 to 1887). On any other score, I fear it must be admitted, these two are scarcely strong candidates for retention of place. Gate-drawing power is an important matter. It is quite reasonable that Loamshire should say to Blank- shire : “ We don’t care about playing you again. Our supporters won’ t pay their sixpences to see you play.” Bu t the case is altered when eleven counties— one or two of them, at least, b y no means favoured of the average crowd— combine to say this thing to the other five. Such an attitude raises all sorts of questions. Are the eleven so united, so satisfied that they are on the right path, I wonder, that they will be ready to pool gates ? Th a t would only be a reasonable sequel to their determination to discard the five who do not draw the crowd— if this is the main objection to the five, as may fairly be supposed. J. N. P e n t e l o w . -------------- ------------------- The Kingston C .C ., o f Jamaica, recently celebrated its golden jubilee by a dinner at the Myrtle Bank Hotel, Kingston. Sir Sydney Olivier, K .C .M .G ., who is about to quit the governorship o f the island to undertake im­ portant duties at home, was the principal guest o f the evening, during which a telegram was despatched to H .M . the K ing at Sandringham, and a reply received. G E O R G E LE W IN & Club Colour S peci al ist s & At hl et ic C l ot h in g M a n u f a c t u r e r s . OUTFITTERS BY APPO INTMENT TO The Royal Navy and Arm y, Cornwall, Kent, Middlesex, Somerset and Surrey Counties, and London Scottish, Irish and Welsh, Blackheath, Harlequins, Rich­ mond, Catford Rugby Football Clubs, and all the leading Clubs in the British Isles and abroad ; M.C.C. S. African Tour, 1909, S. African Cricket Association 1910, and Queen’s Club, Kensington, the M.C.C. Australian Team 1911-12, and the South African Association Cricket Team 1912. Established 1869 . W r ite f o r E stim ates. Telephone: P.O. 607 C IT Y . Works at Camberwell. 8 , CROOKED LANE, MONUMENT , E.C.