IF, taking it as a whole, the weather was abominably bad, the first-class cricket played in 1910 presented many interesting features. As is always likely to be the case when the wickets are slow and the ball travels at a snail's pace towards the boundary, the veteran brigade fairly held its own; and the many successes of Hirst, Tyldesly, Jack Hearne, and other popular favourites gave rise to the suggestion that in a match played between cricketers under and over thirty five the latter were likely to come out top. A truly ominous suggestion this, so far as the vitality of English cricket is concerned! The disastrous results of the international matches played in 1909 should surely have brought home to us the truth that in any match played in reasonably good oricket weather a first-grade young side is not by way of playing second fiddle to any eleven of middle-aged performers. Youth will be served in cricket as well as in all other manly sports, and it is idle to argue that because the old stager can hold his own with the youngster in the mud he will necessarily do the same when the ground is hard and dry. We neither believe that Caraotacus was the best horse of his year when he won the Derby, nor that it would be wise to call upon Jack Hearne to open the bowling in an

And yet an additional word of praise cannot be out of place for a band of men who have done yeoman service in the past, and of whom some seem likely for still another few seasons to play their part in the struggle for the County Championship. It is-dare we say unfortunately?- our custom in England to take our sports and relaxations so seriously, that professional gameplayers have come to be regarded as part and parcel of our social system. All the more important, therefore, is it that these paid game-players should be men of good address, orderly life, and undeniable integrity. It is pleasant, then, to be able to assert that at no period in the history of the game has the reputation as a good fellow of the professional cricketer stood higher than it does to-day. It is difficult, no doubt, for the

the eventual winner. Under such a system Eton, had bad weather intervened and necessitated arbitration, might have lost to Harrow, and Middlesex to both Yorkshire and Essex, and a nail would have been put into the coffin of the "glorious uncertainty" of the game. As it was, the gallery was privileged to see stout uphill fights for victory, now and again crowned with success, where under the old system of scoring one side would have been tempted to mark time in the hope of seouring a draw. a draw. Nevertheless we venture to question whether the abandonment of a match or an innings on the score of bad light is either altogether in accordance with the spirit of the game or fair to the ring of spectators, who after all may be reckoned as the paymasters of first-class cricket. It is hard lines, doubtless, for a side to be expected to bat in a bad light. But is it not equally hard lines to lose the toss on a perfect wicket and later to have to go in against a long score on a pitch which has either failed to wear well or has been practically ruined by rain? Such a fate befell the two Counties which encountered Kent in the Canterbury week, but no appeal to stop the match because one side did not find the wicket in such a perfect state as the other had done would hold water. To return to our other point, it is distinctly hard lines upon the clerk or business man, who can only put in an appearance late in the afternoon, to pay sixpence or a shilling for

the privilege of watching perhaps an hour and a half's cricket, and then to take his seat only to see the day's play brought to a premature conclusion on the score of bad light.

"I took all the trouble to go to the Oval this afternoon, and had only been there half an hour when that old fool said that he couldn't see, and they chucked the match. I could have seen perfectly well."

We have heard remarks of this kind over and over again, and our sympathy has lain with the grumbler. May it not be that the first class oricketer, who has occasionally reached that period of life when spectacles-absit omen are recommended by the faculty in a fading light, has grown to be a little over - fastidious in this matter? Even in secondclass cricket nine men out of ten probably prefer to bat in a morning light, and we never yet met the player who actually pined to commence his innings at 6.15 P.M.; but on the other hand, through a rather lengthy experience, we never remember hearing single appeal lodged against the light. If we cannot commend for imitation the example of the Winchester boys, who practically threw away every chance of winning their match against Eton in 1909 by remaining in the field through alternating pour and drizzle, we infinitely prefer their idea of of "playing the game to that of the man who finds in every temporary inconvenience a ground for appeal. Be it

further said that the appeal on the ground of failing light is distinctly a modern innovation. Old stagers will readily recall the time when country batsmen, playing for local Twenty-twos against either the A.E. or the U.A.E. Eleven, with perhaps more Courage than skill, stood up on villainously bad wickets in all kinds of light against Jackson, Tarrant, Macintyre, and other fast bowlers, and accepted as matter of course the visitations of Providence, some of them very painful, without any thought of appeal. Is it that our summer light has deteriorated or that ultra-civilisation has made the modern cricketer either less clear-sighted or more exacting? At any rate, appeals were few and far between in the days when eleven picked English players were by way of taking on and beating twenty-two Australians.

Yet one more grumble. While we have small grounds for gratitude to the vagaries of the weather, may it not be said in their favour that they brought into strong relief the fact that there is something radically wrong about the condition of the turf at Lords? He would need to be singularly optimistio who expected that in this fog-ridden island of ours cricket is likely to be played at any given period of the year under a guarantee of ideal conditions of either ground or weather. But in the last two or three seasons the announcement, "No play possible at Lords," has appeared with a too startling frequency in the

columns of sporting intelligence, and the tempers of the expeotant spectators of the game at its recognised headquarters have not been improved by the knowledge that cricket has been quite practicable on other grounds, nay, even on the Oval, The 'Varsity match, not merely one of the most popular fixtures of the season, but in many cases the raison d'être of membership at Lords, was a typical case in point. On that occasion, though cricket was going on merrily on county grounds in pretty well every part of England, no play was permitted at Lords till 4 P.M. on the first day; and as the ground was reported to be totally unfit for play on the third day, nothing but the unaccountable collapse of the Cambridge batting allowed what is to many of us the match of the season to be brought to a definite conclusion. That the authorities were right in postponing a game which we propose to comment upon shortly there is no manner of doubt. fact, we were privileged to hear some parts of a discussion that arose in the Pavilion between two great judges of the game, in which the point at issue was whether the ground was in a playable condition when the match was actually started. Needless to say, the disputants hailed from rival universities. But, granting the fact that play was barely possible on the first day and would have been wholly impossible on the third, are we out of court in suggesting that some explanation is

In

due to the members of M.C.C. on the subject of the recognised deficiencies of their ground?

"I have been to Lords five days this year," plaintively remarked an old subscriber, "and three times out of the five there has been nothing to see except telegrams about matches everywhere else."

It is quite on the cards that steps to ensure a more satisfactory state of things in the future have already been taken or are in contemplation. In that case the blank days and other disappointments of 1910 may be regarded as so many blessings in disguise, in so far as they have opened the eyes of the powers that be to the sensible deterioration of what once was, and certainly ought to be, one of the very best grounds in England. Possibly a conference with Mr Lloyd George, who seems to know more about land and its requirements than his neighbours, might produce desirable results.

And now for a few words on the 'Varsity match, not only far and away the most sensational of modern times, but in one respect the most sensational of all encounters between the two Universities. For never before has it been vouchsafed to an individual player to dominate the position of a 'Varsity match almost from start to finish with both bat and ball.

If on paper, of two apparently equally balanced sides, Cambridge-given a fast and true wicket-appeared to be a shade the stronger, those who had followed the fortunes of

the rival Elevens from the beginning of the season could hardly have failed to notice that eight-indeed we are not quite sure that nine is not the correct number-of the Oxonians had shown themselves competent on occasion to make fifty runs against good professional bowling. True, the merit of these performances had been somewhat minimised by the circumstance that the Oxford cracks had generally elected to come off in pairs only, and the side on which two men do all the batting work and the remaining nine are practically nowhere is more often than not likely to be beaten. Where, however, the in-and-out batting of the Oxonians was not without elements of encouragement to their supporters who argued that a man who could make fifty runs in good form one day is quite capable of repeating the performance on another, the previous results of the season had instilled into the minds of many critics grave doubts as to the ability of the Oxonians to cope successfully with fast bowling. And Cowie, the Cambridge freshman, was reported to be not only fast but good,-good enough possibly, if luck turned his way, to have been found representing the Gentlemen at Lords. How the Oxonians might have fared against Cowie on a fast wicket still remains an open question, but, as matters turned out, the public, when they watched the two last men, Tuff and Vidler, playing a species of tip-andrun with the Cambridge bowl