was the impressive fact of Australia and South Africa meeting at the headquarters of cricket, thousands of miles from their respective native grounds; and this received recognition by the King visiting Lords on the occasion, for the first time since his accession; but the game itself was as disappointing as the remainder of the series. To conclude with four test matches in consecutive weeks was to convert what should be the highest development of the game into stereotyped encounters, wearisome to all concerned. Surely there will never be a parallel to the cases of F. R. Foster, Hobbs, Rhodes, Barnes and Woolley, who have played in eleven test matches in nine months. Too much has been heard of those mythical 'ashes,' which have been discussed ever since the symbol was first evoked by a sporting newspaper thirty years ago; and by general consent they may be put upon the shelf for a while, lest they should crumble into dust of oblivion through over-much exposure to public notice. In all 129 matches have been played. Of these England has participated in 118, winning 55 and losing 42. Australia has engaged in 105, winning 43 and losing 41. South Africa has played 35, winning 8 and losing 23. England has defeated Australia on 40

occasions and succumbed on 35, of which 27 have been in Australia.

The county championship was originally the invention of the Press; and it has been the means of fostering the public interest in first-class cricket almost to the exclusion of other matches, so that the chief engagements of M.C.C. and the one-time popular North v. South have fallen into comparative disregard. There was a divine simplicity about the notion of subtracting losses from wins and ignoring drawn games which, in all its illogicality, was exactly what the public wanted. The various methods that have been tried as to the assignment of points have been pious efforts to redress the admitted injustice of the original simple method. Apart from complicating the issue for the the mere man in the street, none can be really satisfactory until all the sixteen first-class counties meet one another in out-andhome engagements. As this was absolutely impracticable, some three or four years ago I brought forward a

proposal, advocated by Lord Hawke and others, to divide the counties into two divisions, A and B, composed of the first eight and the second eight, all the matches ranking equally as first-class. All the counties of each division should meet one another twice to decide the championship of the division. Further, at the end of the season, the champion of B should play out and home engagements with the county at the bottom of A to decide which should rank in the A division in the following season. This was not adopted because it was thought that the public in the counties in the B division would not find their matches sufficiently attractive. This objection is probably invalid, because, as has frequently been pointed out, every match would then be of importance, whereas more than one-half of the matches at present played in the county championship can have no possible effect in deciding which county will head the list. There would be no reason why the B counties should not play extraneous matches, also ranking as first-class, with counties in the A division. This scheme merits renewed attention because it is going to be formally proposed by several counties for adoption in the future. At present what is known as the Somersetshire system is in vogue, and gives general dissatisfaction. By it five points are allowed for a win, while in drawn games three points are given to the side leading on the first innings and one point to the side behind. The result of this has too often been that a side gaining its three points has been content therewith and made no effort to do more than tamely play out time. The introduction of the system of declaration' was a valuable effort to obviate unfinished matches, but in the hands of a pusillanimous captain this has been misused to create insufferable and useless tedium.

It may be pointed out that since 1878 until last summer, when Warwickshire unexpectedly headed the tables, Notts, Lancashire, Yorkshire and Surrey divided the premier honours between them, except that in 1906 and 1909 Kent won first position, and in 1908 Middlesex. Considering that sixteen first-class counties are now engaged in the competition, and that there have been fifteen for many years past, this limited number of winners is curious. Yet it is not nearly so remarkable as

the fact that only sixteen counties in England should have first-class elevens, for the gap-except in the case, perhaps, of Staffordshire-between these and the twentythree participating in the minor counties competition is very wide. How is it that splendid cricketers keep filling the ranks in the more prominent counties, whilst Berkshire, Lincolnshire and Dorsetshire have practically none? Kent and Sussex have no advantages geographically over Hertfordshire, nor Notts over Cambridgeshire. Somersetshire is the westernmost county to achieve importance in cricket. Oxfordshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Bucks are theoretically as likely to produce good cricket teams as those that do. Still, the fact is undeniable that county cricket is confined to a few shires, though the interest in the game is widespread. Neither in Scotland nor in Ireland or Wales has cricket taken root, albeit the first two have sent eminent players to Oxford and Cambridge, some rendering yeoman service by residential qualification to first-class counties.

A survey of first-class cricket for the last thirty-four years suggests that the standard of excellence is now higher than ever. It is true there is to-day no W. G. Grace, no A. G. Steel, no Lockwood before the public; but, on the other hand, the general level of the play of a county eleven is now far higher, right through the sixteen first-class counties, than was the case below the first five in the eighties and the first eight in the nineties. What has occurred is a falling off in second-class cricket. The standard of the leading clubs is nothing like what it was in the eighties, when fewer county matches were played and there was nothing approaching the breadth of the gap between first-class and other cricket to-day. More games are played, but there is increasing difficulty in getting up sides and there are far fewer instances of men widely noticed as being 'good enough to play for the county.' It is not necessary to consider here whether the system of declaration,' by giving the later batsmen less chance of an innings, has affected this, or whether it is due to the rival attractions of golf. What is here dealt with is first-class cricket; and the point suggested is that, apart from boys fresh from school and young professional colts, there is less mature talent in reserve Vol. 217.-No. 433.

2 M

to-day to be drawn upon for good cricket than was the case thirty years ago

Moreover, with the increasing stress of life, forcing practically all young men to earn their living, it becomes more and more difficult to obtain that combination of amateur and professional which makes a really desirable county side. Notts and Yorkshire generally play an amateur captain with ten professionals; and this is often the case with Surrey, whilst others are little better off. Admirable as is the present standard of professionalism in cricket-and in nothing else has the advance been so marked-it is obvious that, in the nature of things, the paid division cannot habitually display that finest sporting spirit of taking risks in a game, because to do so is incompatible with the honourable business of earning a livelihood from its pursuit. That the obtaining of a sufficiency of amateurs able and willing to participate regularly in first-class cricket will prove an increasingly difficult task, must be admitted; and, however good it is that healthy English gentlemen should be doing something more profitable than devoting the summer to a game, the fact remains that a change is taking place which furnishes one of the most serious problems to be faced by future cricket.

Another and an even more momentous problem is the financial aspect of first-class cricket, which inevitably corresponds with its popularity. The creation of expensive organisations in connexion with county cricket has tended to make this dependent on the gate-money-that is, on public support; and, because the latter is waning, the position of first-class cricket is becoming precarious. The problem of bringing people back to the land is not more difficult than that of attracting spectators to pass through the turnstiles. At present it looks as though the public preferred reading about several matches played simultaneously, to travelling a few miles in order to watch one. This suggests the question whether cricket is really adapted to be watched by countless thousands. The niceties and science of the game, the splendid tussle between batsman and bowler, are too subtle to be appreciated by the many. As for the prevalent complaint about slow cricket, it is a fact that the first-class game is to-day more rapid than it used to be,

though this is partially concealed by the abolition of trial balls and the allotting of six balls instead of four to the over. Stolid defensive 'stonewalling' batsmen have always been prevalent in cricket. Is it not recorded that Tom Walker, one of the heroes of Hambledon, once received 170 balls from David Harris without making a run? Those of us who were bored to death by Kellaway's lethargic century in the test match between Australia and South Africa at Lords may be reminded that in 1775 Aylward took two days to score 167 for Hambledon against All England. To recall the passive resisters of the past is to pronounce to-day's cricketers on the whole more energetic. Memory reverts to Hall, Scotton and Barlow; then Dench, H. B. Daft, Chatterton, Storer, Davidson; William Gunn and Arthur Shrewsbury in their later development; C. W. Rock, E. Crawley, Alec Bannermann, as well as Dr Macdonald and the portentous Dr J. E. Barrett. Compared with these, Douglas, Vine, Kinneir, Quaife and Kellaway are comparatively punishing.

The real fact, however, is that other things beside an apparently increasing percentage of passive resistance have mitigated the popularity of first-class cricket. The refusal to play in light which their predecessors would never have shirked, the odious innovation of the tea interval, the drawing of stumps at half-past six instead of seven, the general reluctance to pronounce wickets fit for play after rain, the slackness too often noticeable in the wearied deportment of some noted cricketers, are all unpleasant features arising from the business of cricket being overdone. Almost the last words written by the late Mr Andrew Lang were written on this subject, in his contribution to 'Imperial Cricket'; and they are worth quoting and endorsing.

'Let us' (he observes) 'remember that cricket, though incomparably the best of games, is no more than a game when all is said. The stress of competition tends to reduce cricket from the level of a game to that of a dull and worthless science, the science of saving a match by prolonging it into a draw. Things are not so bad as in the days of the off theory, when batsmen would stand and leave alone balls which they ought to have cut or driven. Men should play for play's sake, not for the sake of avoiding defeat by efflux of time.