THE TIMES REPORTS, 1894 Tuesday 2 January, page 9: CRICKET “John Wisden’s Cricketer’s Almanack” has now reached its 31st edition, and the issue for 1894 numbers over 470 pages. It contains a faithful record of last season’s doings under the following headings: - The Leading Counties in 1893, the Australians in England and in America, M.C.C. and Ground, I Zingari, the Universities, Gentlemen v Players, North v South, Second Class and Minor Counties, Public Schools, Amateur and Professional Batting and Bowling Averages, Innings of 500 runs and upwards, Individual Scores of three figures, Lord Hawke’s Team in India and others. “Five All-round Cricketers” forms the title of the frontispiece, which gives excellent likenesses of Mr F S Jackson, Mr G Giffen, Mr G H S Trott, Alec Hearne and E Wainwright. An interesting feature of the book is a chapter on the “Follow-on” – a question which is at present occupying the attention of cricketers generally. Mr S H Pardon, the editor, having invited the opinions of many well-known men on the point, remarks, in introducing these, that “little attention had been given to the matter in England until the occasion of the Oxford and Cambridge match in July, when Oxford’s attempt to secure a follow-on and Mr C M Wells’s successful endeavours to frustrate their intentions set all cricketing England talking on the subject.” The majority of opinions (including that of Dr E M Grace) are in favour of the matter being left to the option of the side which has the lead of 80 runs. Others think that the rule should be abolished; and a few that the number should be increased to 100 or 120. The most original suggestion emanates from the Honourable Edward Lyttelton, who writes: - “For my opinion the 60 and 80 runs should be 100 and 150 to constitute the difference between two totals necessary for a ‘follow-on’ in a one-day’s and two (three) days’ match respectively. I should reserve the option to the side which lost the toss, both of following on and of making the enemy follow on.” This would have the effect of minimizing the value of winning the toss, the advantage of which is, in the opinion of many people, far too great. Marylebone exercise a wise conservatism in the matter of altering their laws, but the subject will be fully considered at their meeting next May. The “Almanack” is published at 21, Cranbourn-street, Leicester-square.” 1 Monday 15 January, page 7: LORD HAWKE ON COUNTY CRICKET A complimentary dinner to the Yorkshire county cricket team was given at Sheffield on Saturday evening. Mr M J Ellison, president of the Yorkshire County Club, was in the chair, and amongst those present were Lord Hawke, Major Shepherd (Bradford), Mr Jackson, Mr Frank, the Mayor and Master Cutler of Sheffield, the Sheffield members of the Yorkshire committee, and almost all the professional members of the Yorkshire county team. Responding to the toast of “The Yorkshire County Eleven of 1893,” which was honoured with great enthusiasm, Lord Hawke said that during the past ten years the committee and the county team had been more maligned within their own borders than any other team that played, or professed to play, first-class cricket. Those who had maligned them had, he thought, forgotten the causes which led to the ill-success of the past. The success of 1893 was not the success of any particular individual, but the success of the whole. He supposed that Sheffield had been maligned more than any other town in the world with regard to cricket. At the same time the people of that city had not in the least deserved it, but, on the other hand, were worthy of every consideration. Whatever the Sheffield committee had done had been for the good of county cricket. Lord Hawke then addressed himself to the subject of the county championship. He expressed his dislike to the term “champion county,” for the reason that he was strongly of opinion that the county classification must be altered. He did not see how the first-class counties could any longer consider themselves a select circle to which there was no entry when there were counties outside as good as four or five that were in it. They owed, no doubt, a great debt of gratitude to the Press for having started the very keen competition, but he maintained that if it went on it would not be to the benefit of cricket. The main characteristic of the national game was that amateur and player, or professional, met together on the same side, went in together on the same field and were the best of friends, and that twice a year they met in friendly rivalry in the noblest game that England had ever seen. But, he maintained, if this high pressure was kept up they would no longer have amateurs and professionals playing on the same side, for the reason that the amateurs must in these go-ahead days attend to business. He could not play in 16 matches, and they knew perfectly well that it was useless to play a man one day and not the next. Amateurs must either play continuously or, unfortunately, disappear from the arena of first-class cricket. He did not think the players wished this; he thought there had always been a friendly feeling between players and amateurs, and that the players would be sorry to see such a state of things. The resolution that their president brought forward at Lord’s (and he might say that the resolution was more of less his and Mr Hewett’s, the late captain of the Somersetshire team) proposed to enlarge the first-class averages and to admit within the inner circle all counties which could play six three-day matches with those nine counties and among themselves. It was simply ridiculous to keep men out who were as good cricketers as they were themselves. He maintained that if the change was made more interest would be created in cricket generally. If Yorkshire was playing Essex and people knew that the match was going to count more would go to see it. There would also be better cricket. By increasing the number of counties to 13 or 14 they could at once do away with the championship. Some people had objected to the new arrangement on the ground that some of the 2 leading counties might choose the six weakest counties to play against. The argument was ridiculous. He did not believe that such childish actions would be practised by any county. He thought the change would tend to make young players stay at home and to stop that buying and selling which they saw practised now to such a large extent. They wanted to have such counties as Derbyshire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Essex and perhaps Hampshire recognized. He suggested that the proposal should be given a trial, and he believed it would work out successfully. At the end of the season there would be plenty of people ready with figures to show who was at the top and who was at the bottom of the list. Something must be done, and if Mr Ellison’s proposal was not accepted in February some other remedy must be found. 3 Tuesday 16 January, page 5: CRICKET CLASSIFICATION TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES Sir, - For some years nine of the older counties of England have arranged 72 matches amongst themselves, each county playing eight matches out and eight home. For some reason or another a fashion or custom, without any authority, has sprung up of calling these nine counties “first class” and all other counties “second class,” and of assigning the championship of England to the county which is at the head at the end of the season, and of confining the record of averages of the season to players in these nine counties. I do not believe that one in ten of the bona-fide cricketers cares a straw about the championship and average business as a badge of honour; but a very large section of the best men in England, including not a few who have “run the gamut” and, commencing as boys, have passed through the public school, University, county, Gentlemen of England and All England elevens, do protest against nine or more counties being styled “first class” and the remainder “second class.” The title cheapens a county to which it is applied. I have authority for what I say, as by correspondence and personal interview I have pretty well gauged the feeling of very many of the most influential cricketers. This subject was mooted some years ago in The Times, and you had a leader about it, I think in 1887, on September 5. A writer in Baily’s Magazine has renewed the question with so much energy that captains and secretaries have arranged to meet at Lord’s this month on the subject. Yours, &c., Sandgate, Kent, January, 1894. F.G. Friday 19 January, page 4: COUNTY CRICKET CLASSIFICATION TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES Sir, - The statement of the well-known cricketer “F.G.” in the letter to The Times that “for some reason or other a fashion or custom without any authority has sprung up” of calling the leading nine counties “first class” is not, as regards the words “without any authority,” accurate. Appended is a notice of a meeting, taken from “Wisden” of 1890 and reported briefly in The Times of December 11, 1889, which furnishes some authority: - “On Tuesday, December 10 (1889), a private meeting of the (then) eight first-class counties – Surrey, Notts, Lancashire, Kent, Middlesex, Gloucestershire, Yorkshire and Sussex – was held at Lord’s to discuss the method of deciding the county championship, and it was agreed that in future drawn games should be ignored altogether and only wins and losses counted.