Notes by the Editor

When Wisden's Almanack for 1908 appeared, Mr. Abe Bailey's proposal for a Triangular Tournament between England, Australia, and South Africa in 1909 was engrossing the attention of cricketers and the fate of the project remained in doubt. The M.C.C. Committee had decided that they could not express any opinion until something like a definite scheme had been put before them, and nothing was known as to the feeling in Australia. With the subsequent course of events everyone interested in cricket is familiar. A draft scheme was duly drawn up, and the Tournament approved of by both England and Australia. This draft scheme, somewhat unwisely in my opinion, provided that the Test Matches, nine in number, should all be restricted to three days. The idea of arranging such a Tournament with no certainty of arriving at a definite result, seemed to me at the time to involve in our uncertain climate the risk of a dismal fiasco. However, the feeling on the part of our authorities against extending the matches over more than three days was, so far as I could learn, more or less unanimous, the opinion being probably influenced by the monotonous character of the cricket shown in the Test Matches in Australia last winter. The draft scheme having been duly sent to Australia, matters remained in abeyance pending a reply from the Australian Board of Control. That reply came on the 29th of May, Mr. Lacey receiving a cable message - "The Board decline to accept the Triangular scheme." The refusal caused no surprise, a private letter from Noble and various newspaper cuttings having made it clear that the Tournament was regarded in Australia with very little favour. Though one or two writers took the opposite view there can be no doubt that the Board's decision reflected the general opinion of the Commonwealth. The next official step in the matter taken in this country was the calling of a meeting of the Advisory Committee, at Lord's, on July 3rd. Prior to this meeting, Captain Wynyard, as representing South Africa in England, wrote a letter to the First-class Counties and the Minor Counties Cricket Association, expressing a hope that the South Africans would not be placed in a more unfavourable position than if the Tournament had been agreed to, and that they would not be asked to postpone their visit to England till after the requirements of the Australians had been satisfied. Enclosed in this letter was a copy of one written by Mr. Abe Bailey to Mr. Lacey on May 30th, in which Mr. Bailey ventured to hope that the M.C.C. would invite the South Africans to come here in 1909. The Advisory Committee duly met on July 3rd, the M.C.C. and all the first-class counties except Derbyshire being represented. The M.C.C., as an instruction to their representative, had passed a resolution - that a visit from the Australian eleven in 1909 should not be refused because they have declined to take part in a Triangular contest, but the M.C.C. would prefer to see the proposed Triangular contest carried out." At the meeting of the Advisory Committee it was proposed by Sussex, seconded by Hampshire, and carried by a large majority - "That the representatives of the counties here are in favour of a Triangular cricket contest." A second resolution proposed by Hampshire, and seconded by Northamptonshire, was also carried after the original wording had been slightly altered. - "That the M.C.C. be asked to impress on the Australian Board of Control that the counties are so strongly in favour of the Triangular contest, that the M.C.C. would not be in a position to invite any Colonial eleven in 1909 except for that purpose." These two resolutions were cabled to Australia by the M.C.C. with the addition that - "In face of the action of the Counties the M.C.C. regret that they cannot offer Australia a separate programme in 1909." A feeling that the Advisory Committee had treated the Australians with something less than due consideration had soon found expression, and on Thursday, July 9th, the Hon. F. S. Jackson's now famous letter appeared in the Times. In this letter Mr. Jackson put the case for the Australians in the strongest terms, saying he feared that the harmony and good feeling which must exist between us and them if International cricket is to flourish would be rudely shattered by the sending of such a message as the decision of the Advisory Committee. He added that he sincerely hoped the counties would see their way to extend the Australian team, on the old lines with no new conditions, a cordial invitation to visit this country next year.

Mr. Jackson's letter cleared the air and events developed rapidly. A cable message was received from Australia finally declining the Triangular Tournament, and within a day or two resolutions were passed by the Notts, Essex, and Derbyshire Committees in favour of the Australians being invited to England in 1909, and requesting the M.C.C. to call a further meeting of the Advisory Committee. This further meeting was duly held at Lord's on July 29th, and the Committee, rescinding their resolution of July 3rd, asked the M.C.C. to invite the Australian Board of Control to send a representative team to this country. The invitation being promptly sent, and in due course accepted, our cricket authorities escaped from a very awkward situation. The counties, of course, laid themselves open to criticism by going back on themselves, but public opinion was clearly with them. Everyone felt that the change of front, however sudden, was better than persistence in a wrong course. The credit of putting things right belonged mainly to Mr. Jackson. But for his timely action, the relations between English and Australian cricketers might, after thirty years of friendly relations, have become very strained.

I have gone at somewhat undue length into a subject which is more or less out of date. Personally, I was always on the side of the Australians. To tell the truth the Triangular scheme was put forward in too much of a hurry. In the idea itself there was a certain fascination, and important issues involved scarcely received sufficient consideration. Moreover, when the draft scheme had been prepared, there was a tendency to overlook the fact that before anything was known of Mr. Bailey's project, the counties had, in response to a circular from the M.C.C., approved unanimously of a visit from the Australians in 1909. It seemed to me quite a mistaken policy to attempt to force the Australians into the Tournament against their will. Having come to England at regular intervals since 1878 the Australians had the first claim to consideration, and I am strongly of opinion that nothing should have been done in the way of arranging details until their consent to take part in the Tournament had been received. From the first they held the key to the situation. They have been accused of acting in an unsportsmanlike manner, but I cannot see that they exceeded their rights in asking that before they met the South Africans in England, the South Africans should pay a visit to Australia. The question is now being looked at in a far more reasonable way and, as Mr. Lacey announced at the Secretaries' Meeting at Lord's, it is hoped during the coming summer to hold a conference between the representatives of England, Australia, and South Africa, at which the whole matter can be gone into. While it lasted the controversy provoked an immense amount of newspaper comment. For the most part, the case was fairly argued from every point of view, but certain over-zealous people in Johannesburg, including it would seem Mr. Abe Bailey himself, went so far as to suggest that the Australians declined the Triangular Tournament because they were afraid to meet the South Africans. This attitude would have been offensive if it had not been so transparently absurd. The Australians have their faults, but lack of courage is assuredly not one of them.

There has been a good deal of talk about the County Championship and the method of deciding it, and in the November number of Cricket the old suggestion of dividing the counties into groups, after the manner of the Football League, was one more put forward. To this proposal I am glad to find that those best qualified to give an opinion lend no encouragement. To my mind, Lord Harris, in reply to a request for his views on the matter, wrote words of wisdom. He stated, "As long as the Kent Eleven plays good cricket, I am very indifferent to the method by which the merits of the County Elevens are computed," adding, that efforts to alter the present system had been unsuccessful and that he did not see any advantage, so far as Kent was concerned, in forming the Counties into Divisions. Speaking for myself, I think the aim should be to make cricket less rigid. Rather than run the risk of putting a famous county into the second rank on the strength of one bad season, I would abolish the present system of points altogether and let the order of merit be decided on the general play by the M.C.C., or by an independent committee appointed by the leading club. The great point is that the championship exists for cricket, not cricket for the championship. This is a truism that cannot too often be insisted on.

I fear that in one or two quarters there is a tendency to return to the marled wicket. This, I am sure, is a mistaken policy. It is a far smaller evil that the ball should jump up now and then than that matches should be played under conditions that in fine weather give little hope of a definite result in three days. To the marled wicket there are two objections. It is almost impervious to natural wear, and it is so easy in pace as to make even the best of bowlers harmless. On such wickets at The Oval as the one referred to Mr. Albert Lubbock in his article, I have seen Rhodes and Albert Trott, at their best, reduced to helplessness. No one asks for a dangerous half-rolled wicket, but in three-day matches it is essential to have a pitch with a little life in it.