From Surf Wiki (app.surf) — the open knowledge base
1911 English cricket season
none
none
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| previous_year | 1910 |
| previous_tournament | 1910 English cricket season |
| next_year | 1912 |
| next_tournament | 1912 English cricket season |
1911 was the 22nd season of County Championship cricket in England. Warwickshire were champions for the first time.
Honours
- County Championship – Warwickshire
- Minor Counties Championship – Staffordshire
- Wisden (Five Members of the MCC's Team in Australia) – Frank Foster, J. W. Hearne, Sep Kinneir, Phil Mead, Herbert Strudwick
County Championship
Main article: 1911 County Championship
The experimental point scoring system adopted for 1910 on the recommendation of Lancashire was generally regarded as unsatisfactory. Several alternative proposals were put forward by counties such as Yorkshire Sussex, and Surrey. Ultimately Somerset in February 1911 put forward a scheme in which, for the first time, points were awarded for a win on the first innings, and this was accepted by the MCC in the final week of that month.
| County | Played | Won | Lost | First Innings | Points | % | Won | Lost | No | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| result | Poss | Obtd | Details as recorded in *John Wisden’s Cricketers’ Almanack* | |||||||||
| 1 | Warwickshire | 20 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 74 | 74.00 | ||
| 2 | Kent | 26 | 17 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 130 | 96 | 73.84 | ||
| 3 | Middlesex | 22 | 14 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 110 | 79 | 71.81 | ||
| 4 | Lancashire | 30 | 15 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 150 | 93 | 62.00 | ||
| 5 | Surrey | 30 | 15 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 150 | 91 | 60.66 | ||
| 6 | Essex | 18 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 90 | 53 | 58.88 | ||
| 7 | Yorkshire | 28 | 14 | 8 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 135 | 77 | 57.03 | ||
| 8 | Nottinghamshire | 20 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 100 | 57 | 57.00 | ||
| 9 | Worcestershire | 24 | 12 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 120 | 61 | 50.83 | ||
| 10 | Northamptonshire | 18 | 8 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 85 | 40 | 47.05 | ||
| 11 | Hampshire | 24 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 120 | 50 | 41.66 | ||
| 12 | Gloucestershire | 20 | 5 | 12 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100 | 38 | 38.00 | ||
| 13 | Sussex | 24 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 120 | 28 | 23.33 | ||
| 14 | Derbyshire | 18 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 90 | 13 | 14.44 | ||
| 15 | Leicestershire | 22 | 1 | 16 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 110 | 14 | 12.72 | ||
| 16 | Somerset | 16 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 80 | 7 | 8.75 |
- Five points were awarded for a win.
- Three points were awarded for "winning" the first innings of a drawn match.
- One point was awarded for "losing" the first innings of a drawn match.
- Matches in which no result was achieved on the first innings were not included in calculating maximum possible points.
- Final placings were decided by calculating the percentage of possible points.
Minor Counties Championship
For this season, the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire Second Elevens withdrew from the competition due to their counties' financial difficulties; however, Kent Second Eleven joined the South and West division and Hertfordshire moved to the North and East.
North and East
| County | Played | Won | First Innings | Points | % | Won | Lost | No | Possible | Obtained |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Staffordshire | 8 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 35 | 87.50 | |
| 2 | Durham | 10 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50 | 36 | 72.00 | |
| 3 | Bedfordshire | 8 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 24 | 60.00 | |
| 4 | Hertfordshire | 10 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 50 | 27 | 54.00 | |
| 5 | Cambridgeshire | 10 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 50 | 24 | 48.00 | |
| 6 | Northumberland | 8 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 18 | 45.00 | |
| 7 | Suffolk | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 16 | 40.00 | |
| 8 | Lincolnshire | 10 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 16 | 36.00 | |
| 9 | Norfolk | 12 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 60 | 16 | 26.66 | |
| 10 | Cheshire | 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 40 | 6 | 15.00 |
South and West
| County | Played | Won | First Innings | Points | % | Won | Lost | No | Possible | Obtained |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Berkshire | 10 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 45 | 45 | 100.00 | |
| 2 | Surrey Second Eleven | 8 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 33 | 82.50 | |
| 3 | Kent Second Eleven | 10 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 40 | 80.00 | |
| 4 | Glamorgan | 10 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 38 | 76.00 | |
| 5 | Monmouthshire | 8 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 40 | 24 | 60.00 | |
| 6 | Dorset | 8 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 40 | 15 | 37.50 | |
| 7 | Buckinghamshire | 10 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 50 | 15 | 30.00 | |
| 8 | Devon | 10 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 50 | 13 | 26.00 | |
| 9 | Cornwall | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 10 | 25.00 | |
| 10 | Wiltshire | 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50 | 4 | 8.00 | |
| 11 | Carmarthenshire | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 35 | 0 | 0.00 |
South and West Challenge Match
Because Berkshire had not played Surrey Second Eleven, the new rules required a challenge match.
Final
Leading batsmen (qualification 20 innings)
| 1911 English season leading batsmen | Name | Team | Matches | Innings | Not outs | Runs | Highest score | Average | 100s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C. B. Fry | Hampshire | 15 | 26 | 2 | 1728 | 258 not out | 72.00 | 7 | |
| Phil Mead | Hampshire | 29 | 52 | 5 | 2562 | 223 | 54.51 | 9 | |
| Reggie Spooner | Lancashire | 26 | 45 | 0 | 2312 | 224 | 51.37 | 7 | |
| Percy Perrin | Essex | 15 | 27 | 2 | 1281 | 114 | 51.24 | 6 | |
| Septimus Kinneir | Warwickshire | 20 | 36 | 3 | 1629 | 268 not out | 49.36 | 6 | |
| Tom Hayward | Surrey | 30 | 51 | 6 | 2149 | 202 | 47.75 | 5 | |
| Plum Warner | Middlesex | 31 | 51 | 5 | 2123 | 244 | 46.15 | 5 | |
| Frank Tarrant | Middlesex | 29 | 48 | 4 | 2030 | 207 not out | 46.13 | 5 | |
| Joe Hardstaff senior | Nottinghamshire | 21 | 40 | 6 | 1547 | 145 | 45.50 | 5 | |
| Cecil Wood | Leicestershire | 23 | 44 | 7 | 1614 | 117 not out | 43.62 | 5 |
Leading bowlers (qualification 1,000 balls)
| 1911 English season leading bowlers | Name | Team | Matches | Balls bowled | Runs conceded | Wickets taken | Average | Best bowling | 5 wickets | 10 wickets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Punter Humphreys | Kent | 29 | 1073 | 534 | 33 | 16.18 | 5/29 | 1 | 0 | |
| George Thompson | Northamptonshire | 22 | 4415 | 1889 | 113 | 16.71 | 7/44 | 13 | 4 | |
| William East | Northamptonshire | 17 | 2647 | 988 | 59 | 16.74 | 7/11 | 4 | 1 | |
| Arthur Day | Kent | 12 | 1259 | 583 | 34 | 17.14 | 8/49 | 2 | 0 | |
| Schofield Haigh | Yorkshire | 31 | 4047 | 1684 | 97 | 17.36 | 7/20 | 2 | 0 | |
| Harry Dean | Lancashire | 28 | 7781 | 3191 | 183 | 17.43 | 9/109 | 15 | 3 | |
| J.T. Hearne | Middlesex | |||||||||
| MCC | 24 | 6246 | 2134 | 122 | 17.49 | 7/33 | 7 | 0 | ||
| Arthur Litteljohn | Middlesex | 7 | 2011 | 904 | 51 | 17.72 | 8/69 | 5 | 2 | |
| Douglas Carr | Kent | 9 | 1818 | 985 | 55 | 17.90 | 8/67 | 4 | 2 | |
| John Evans | Oxford University | |||||||||
| Hampshire | 9 | 1308 | 575 | 32 | 17.96 | 7/50 | 2 | 1 |
References
Annual reviews
- John Wisden's Cricketers' Almanack, 1912
References
- (8 October 1910). "County Cricket – Yorkshire Club's Suggested Scheme of Counting". Weekly Examiner.
- (25 February 1911). "Cricket Reform: Somerset's Proposal Carried – Five Points for a Win Outright". [[The Guardian]].
- (1912). "John Wisden's Cricketer's Almanack". John Wisden & Co..
- (13 April 1911). "The Cricket Season: Attempts To Awaken Interest – Prospect of the Counties". [[Western Daily Press]].
- (7 December 1910). "Minor Counties' Association". Evening Despatch.
- (1912). "John Wisden's Cricketer's Almanack".
- (25 August 1911). "Minor Counties' Championship". [[Daily Mirror]].
- (1912). "John Wisden's Cricketer's Almanack".
- Wynne-Thomas, Peter. (1983). "The Rigby A-Z of Cricket Records". Rigby Publishers.
This article was imported from Wikipedia and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Content has been adapted to SurfDoc format. Original contributors can be found on the article history page.
Ask Mako anything about 1911 English cricket season — get instant answers, deeper analysis, and related topics.
Research with MakoFree with your Surf account
Create a free account to save articles, ask Mako questions, and organize your research.
Sign up freeThis content may have been generated or modified by AI. CloudSurf Software LLC is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of AI-generated content. Always verify important information from primary sources.
Report