Cricket 1914

194 THE WORLD OF CRICKET. M a y 30, 1914. T he C h ie f F ix tu r e s fo r J u n e . i — Essex v. Derbyshire, at Leyton. 1— Sussex v. Kent, at Hove. 1— Somerset v. Gloucestershire, at Taunton. 1— Yorkshire v. Lancashire, at Sheffield. 1— Worcestershire v. Warwickshire, at Dudley. 1— Leicestershire v. Northants, at Leicester (Leicester Week). 1— Notts v. Surrey, at Nottingham. 1— Middlesex v. Hants, at Lord’s (begun May 30). 1— Oxford University v. Free Foresters, at Oxford. 1— University Trial Match, XII v. XVI, at Cambridge. 1— Lancashire II v. Cheshire, at Manchester. 1— Northumberland v. Durham, at Newcastle. I— Surrey II v. Glamorgan, at the Oval. I— Warwickshire II v. Derbyshire II, at Birmingham. 3— M.C.C. v. Egypt and the Soudan, at Lord’s. 3— Durham v. Glamorgan, at Sunderland. 4 — Leicestershire v. Yorkshire, at Leicester (Leicester Week). 4— Hants v. Gloucestershire, at Portsmouth. 4— Northants v. Kent, at Northampton. 4— Warwickshire v. Middlesex, at Birmingham. 4— Lancashire v. Notts, at Manchester. 4— Cambridge University v. M.C.C., at Cambridge. 5— M.C.C. v. Norfolk, at Lord’s. 6 (Sat.)— Surrey v. Essex, at the Oval. 6— Worcestershire v. Sussex, at Worcester. 8— Middlesex v. Warwickshire, at Lord’s. 8— Lancashire v. Kent, at Manchester. 8— Yorkshire v. Derbyshire, at Leeds. 8— Gloucestershire v. Northants, at Bristol. 8— Hants v. Notts, at Southampton. 8— Cambridge University v. Free Foresters, at Cambridge. 10 (Wed.)— Leicestershire v. Surrey, at Loughborough (Loughborough Week). II— Middlesex v. Yorkshire, at Lord’s. 11— Worcestershire v. Kent, at Worcester. 11— Somerset v. Hants, at Bath. II— Warwickshire v. Derbyshire, at Birmingham. 11— Notts v. Lancashire, at Nottingham. 12 (Fri.)— Northants v. Sussex, at Northampton. 13 (Sat.)— Essex v. Surrey, at Leyton. 13— Leicestershire C. & G. v. Mr. C.- E. De Trafford’s XI, at Lough­ borough (Loughborough Week). 15— Middlesex v. Lancashire, at Lord’s. 15— Kent v. Hants, at Tonbridge (Tonbridge Week). 15— Yorkshire v. Warwickshire, at Dewsbury. 15— Oxford University v. Mr. G. J. V. Weigall’s XI, at Oxford. 16— Leicestershire II v. Warwickshire II (Loughborough Week). 1 7 — Cheshire v. Staffordshire, at Stalybridge. 18— Kent v. Yorkshire, at Tonbridge (Tonbridge Week). 18— Lancashire v. Sussex, at Manchester. 18— Surrey v. Hants, at the Oval. 18— Warwickshire v. Gloucestershire, at Coventry. 18— Essex v. Worcestershire, at Colchester' 18— Notts v. Middlesex, at Nottingham. 19— Old Etonians v. Old Harrovians, at Lord’s. 20 (Sat.)— Derbyshire v. Northants, at Derby. 22— M.C.C. South African Team v. Rest of England (Lord’s Centenary Week). 22— Sussex v. Hants, at Horsham (Horsham Week). 22— Yorkshire v. Leicestershire, at Bradford. 22— Gloucestershire v. Worcestershire, at Moreton-in-the-Marsh. 22— Mr. H. D. G. Leveson-Gower’s XI v. Cambridge University, at Eastbourne. 22— Herts v. Suffolk, at Hertford. 22— Kent II v. Monmouthshire, at Folkestone. 22— Northumberland v. Lincolnshire, at Newcastle. 22— Durham v. Staffordshire, at Blackhill. 22— Warwickshire II v. Leicestershire II, at Birmingham. 22— Yorkshire II v. Surrey II, at Rotherham. 22— Lancashire lit;. Mr. H. Rhodes’s XI, at Manchester. 24 (Wed.)— Northants v. Somerset, at Northampton. 24— Durham v. Lincolnshire, at South Shields. 24— Essex II v. Cheshire, at Witham. 24— Beds v. Suffolk, at Bedford. 24— Northumberland v. Staffordshire, at Newcastle. 25— Royal Navy v. Army, at Lord’s (Lord’s Centenary Week). 25— Notts v. Yorkshire, at Nottingham. 25— Sussex v. Cambridge University, at Horsham (Horsham Week). 25— Leicestershire v. Kent, at Ashby-de-la-Zouch (Ashby Week). 25— Gloucestershire v. Lancashire, at Gloucester (Gloucester Week). 25— Mr. H. D. G. Leveson-Gower’s XI v. Oxford University, at East­ bourne. 27 (Sat.)— Surrey v. Middlesex, at the Oval. 27— Derbyshire v. Somerset, at Chesterfield. 27— Worcestershire v. Hants, at Dudley. 29— M.C.C. v. Oxford University, at Lord’s. 29— Sussex v. Notts, at Hove. 29— Warwickshire v. Lancashire, at Birmingham (Kinneir’s Benefit). 29— Gloucestershire v. Kent, at Gloucester (Gloucester Week). 29— Yorkshire v. Essex, at Leeds. 29— Staffordshire v. Northumberland, at Stoke. 29— Leicestershire C. & G. v. Mr. C. E. De Trafford’s XI, at Ashby- de-la-Zouch (Ashby Week). 29— M.C.C. v. Herts, at St. Albans. Q u a lif ic a t io n a n d C la s s if ic a tio n . T h e question referred to the M.C.C. as to whether E. L. Kidd and Buckenham may play in Scottish county cricket without becoming ineligible for Middlesex and Essex respectively is an interesting one not only on its own merits, but also as bearing upon a wider subject of debate. An attempt has been made to dispose of this particular difficulty in summary fashion by contending th at Stirling County and Forfarshire are not really counties at all, except in name, but merely clubs. This will hardly do, however. There is a Scottish Counties* Championship, and the matches played therein, though they may be more or less on a Saturday afternoon basis, must surely be considered county games. Otherwise the query : When is a county not a county ?— might be answered : When it is a Scottish county ! If it were Ireland now— another injustice ! B ut county cricket, though attempted spasmodically, has never taken root in the Emerald Isle. The wider subject referred to is one that has cropped up frequently of late— one that fairly bristles with anomalies. If the rules governing the Currie Cup contest in South Africa did not prevent it (and they did not in former years, when Lohmann, Mills, Washington, and Webb all played for Currie Cup sides), Western Province, Eastern Province, the Border, or Griqualand West might any or all of them play all the English professionals engaged in coaching within their limits without any man of them incurring a penalty. But if the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, or Natal played one man taking part in county cricket during English summers, he would be disqualified. Why ? Well, the Transvaal, the Free State, and Natal rank as “ British colonies, dependencies or states ” according to the cricket lawyers, while the other sides mentioned are merely “ centres.” William Quaife played for Griqualand West v. Transvaal in 1912-3, though the game was not a Currie Cup match. In New Zealand Albert Relf, Pearson, Thompson, and Board have all been suffered to appear in interprovincial cricket without penalty. If any one of them had played for New Zealand he would have been disqualified ! Hence old Euclid— the bugbear of my schooldays and of many another’s, I don’t doubt— is proven all wrong and the greater does not include the less. Thus would the cricket lawyers argue, doubtless. Auckland and Hawke’s B ay are not British colonies, etc. 1 hey are not even nowadays provinces for governmental purposes, though the old provincial boundaries have been retained for matters of sport. Here is another anomaly,, a less important one, for, high authority as the Editor of the Sydney Referee (Mr. J. C. Davis) is, * he cannot speak ex cathedra. His opinion is that while matches between New Zealand and a visiting Australian Team are first-class, matches between the visiting team and the various N.Z. provinces are not. Which is to say that Daniel Reese or L. G. Hemus is a first- class player when playing for N.Z., but not when the former plays for Canterbury and the latter for Auckland. Put it another way — six Canterbury men and five Aucklanders may make up a team to be labelled first-class. But the same six Canterbury men with five others from that province (all eligible to be considered first- class if chosen for N.Z.) do not make up a first-class side, nor do the five Aucklanders with six others (not even if those six have all played for N.Z. at some time). Can you have a first-class side every member of which is drawn from teams which are not first class ? Evidently the M.C.C. considers that the answer should be in the negative. Otherwise why should not M.C.C. v. Minor Counties (a strong team, though it was beaten) be ranked ? Mr. Davis would not hesitate, I imagine, to style first-class any match between N.S.W. and Victoria— even the first, in which several of the men played in their stockings, sans boots. J 3 ut surely the major provinces of N.Z. have developed their cricket, absolutely, and relatively (that is, comparing the first-class standard of to-day with that of the fifties) far beyond the stage attained by the Australian colonies then ? J. N. P*