Champion cricket teams since 1728

Introduction
1697 to 1796 | 1797 to 1824 | 1825 to 1863 | 1864 to 1889
1890 to present

Introduction

This work began life as an attempt to redress an imbalance.

The official County Championship of English cricket began in the 1890 season, having been ratified at a meeting of MCC and leading clubs in December 1889. Before 1890, all sorts of claims have been put forward about who was the champion in any given season. All sorts of criteria were advanced to support each claim: for example, most matches won, least matches lost, my favourite aunt's home county, you name it.

It is true, as Derek Birley says on p.115 of his Social History of English Cricket that county cricket by the 1870s was not yet "a homogeneous or even a coherent entity". As Birley says, there had from the mid-1860s been talk in the press of a "Champion County", but no attempt was made to create a structured system for it until 1889.

The concept was certainly alive but it was a matter of opinion only. And argument. Indeed, the arguments may continue to this day. It was this very argument that brought Rowland Bowen into cricket research. An article about Bowen in the old Cricket Lore periodical recounts that a row developed over a 1958 BBC quiz question that centered on the champion county in 1875. The contestant insisted that Sussex was the champion in accordance with a list published by Roy Webber but the BBC quoted a list of champions in Wisden which awarded the title to Nottinghamshire. Bowen, an MCC member, was asked by Wisden to prove Webber wrong and this investigation changed Bowen's life, with cricket research becoming something of a personal crusade. Bowen produced evidence that supported the Nottinghamshire claim.

There were ten "contestants" in 1875 and the number of matches played by each county varied from four by Hampshire to ten each by Notts, Surrey and Yorkshire. Winning records were posted by Lancashire (P6, W4, D1, L1), Notts (P10, W6, D3, L1), Sussex (P8, W5, D2, L1) and Yorkshire (P10, W6, D1, L3). Notts clearly had a better record than Yorkshire from the same number of games. But Lancashire and Sussex were equal with Notts in terms of matches lost and it could be argued that, with matches in hand, they might have won more than Notts did. True, but they might have lost more instead. In percentage win terms, Notts won 60% but Lancashire had 66.67% and Sussex had 62.5%. In percentage loss terms, Notts had 10% while Lancashire had 16.67% and Sussex had 12.5%. It is therefore very difficult to see how Webber using this data could ever have proposed Sussex as the champion: he must have used different data or else he made a mistake.

Another interesting point, one that confirms how anomalous is the unofficial concept, is that Sussex played only against the southern counties. They did not play any of the four northern counties including the three above who were "in title contention". Having said that, Notts did not play against Lancashire! Yorkshire played each of Lancashire and Notts twice apiece (and went 1-1 in both series).

In terms of cause and effect, the whole idea is a ball of confusion and is probably pointless. Some cricket enthusiasts with complete justification say that all claims to the championship before 1890 should be roundly ignored and not published. But it is an interesting exercise to think who the best team was in spite of all the arguments and confusion – the main argument for recording a list of claimants is that it is a historical fact that the claims were made.

The imbalance I spoke of concerns cricket in the 18th century and this work began simply enough as a proposed list of English champion teams during the 18th century because, in fact, the concept of a champion was alive in 1728, if not sooner.

The list published by CricInfo (see below) starts in 1825 when inter-county cricket was revived after the Napoleonic Wars. Inter-county matches had ceased after 1796 and it is true that you cannot realistically identify a "champion team" during the interim unless it is MCC. But MCC is a special case and it has always tended to be representative of several counties, rather like an All-England XI.

Through the 18th century Kent, Sussex, Surrey and especially Hampshire were pleased at various times to trumpet their superiority over rival counties. Even though the word "champion" was not actually used, the famous Slindon Challenge in 1744 loudly proclaimed that Slindon was the champion team and, hence, Sussex was the champion county. There is, therefore, no reason not to apply the same reverse analysis to the 18th century that has been applied to the 19th century.

Although the champion team should ideally be a county XI, it is not always clear if a team had a wider or narrower representation. For example, there are cases in which a team called Dartford is surely representative of Kent as a county and not just of Dartford CC. Similar examples exist re Slindon/Sussex, Hambledon/Hampshire, Chertsey/Surrey, Hornchurch/Essex and so on.

One difficulty is the original London Cricket Club which was ostensibly based at the Artillery Ground in Middlesex. It has been suggested that London was representative of Middlesex but the trouble is that it played matches versus Middlesex. It also played versus Surrey and to complicate things further it played some "home" matches at places like Kennington Common which are in Surrey. Using W G Grace’s Edwardian London County Cricket Club as a yardstick, I have taken the view that the old London CC was itself the equivalent of a county team and was not the same as either Surrey or Middlesex.

In addition, I see no reason why a strong town club like Dartford, Slindon or Addington should not be recognised in its own right and I believe that it is wrong to apply the label of "champion county" so literally. It is not the county that matters but the champion. If the champion is a small village in Hampshire or Sussex, so be it.

Hambledon is easily the most famous of the 18th century clubs and arguments continue about what it represented. In fact, Hambledon's history records that it was both a parish team and a county organisation. There are instances of the parish putting out a team that excluded the likes of Brett, Small and Taylor because they came from other parishes. The problem is that Hambledon in county terms may have been more than Hampshire. There is strong evidence that suggests it was a combined Hampshire & Sussex XI. Even so, I have taken the view that Hambledon was essentially a Hampshire XI because of the "given men" syndrome. In the scorecarded games of 1772, we find Yalden playing for Hampshire even though Sueter was playing: why did they need two top-class wicketkeeper/batsmen? Other counties used given men too: Lumpy played for every team under the sun.

One rule I do insist upon is that the title cannot be awarded to MCC or to any team labelling itself as England or All-England. The winner must have at least some semblance of a county or town club side and must not be one that is representative of several counties or the rest of the country. I use a loose classification of teams that is residential, regional and representative. A residential team is, for want of a better phrase, a parish XI whose players are for the most part residents of that parish. A regional team has cast its net wider and is effectively or substantially a county XI. A representative team is made up of players from many counties; in the 18th century, an "All-England" team consisted of players from several of the Home Counties.

A final word. The bottom line. This list is based on my personal researches and it has been compiled using reverse analysis. There was no official championship in the 18th century just as there was none in the 19th century until 1890. If someone else wishes to publish an alternative list I will be delighted because the aim of this is to promote interest in 18th century cricket. There were unofficial claims such as the Slindon Challenge but at the end of the day this list of champions is only my opinion (and that is always subject to change in the light of new evidence!).

1697 to 1796

1697

The first "great match" recorded was almost certainly Sussex versus another county (probably either Kent or Surrey).

1709

The first match labelled as an inter-county fixture was Kent v Surrey on Dartford Brent. The result is unknown.

1719

Kent defeated London at White Conduit Fields in August.

1720

London defeated Kent at White Conduit Fields in July.

1721 to 1727

Inconclusive. Few results are known in these years.

1728

Champions: Kent

This is where it begins, or at least where it is known to begin.

HT Waghorn in his Dawn of Cricket records the earliest reference to the superiority of one county and hence to the concept of a champion. Re a match in August that was 11 a side of each county (i.e., Sussex and Kent), "it is said this is the third time this summer that the Kent men have been too expert for those of Sussex".

The patrons involved were Sir William Gage for Sussex and Edward Stead for Kent. Stead had previously wagered (and obviously won) two matches against Gage's friend the 2nd Duke of Richmond, who was the main promoter of Sussex county teams.

1729

1747

Inconclusive. Only two results are known.

1748

Champions: Kent

Kent twice defeated All-England.

1749

Champions: Surrey

Surrey played All-England twice, winning the first by 2 wickets and drawing the return.

1750

Champions: Kent

Effectively an authentic county championship with Kent playing Surrey three times. Kent won by 3 wickets on Dartford Brent; Surrey won by 9 wickets at the Artillery Ground; then Kent won the decider by 1 wicket at the Artillery Ground.

1751 to 1753

Inconclusive. Kent have a tenuous claim in 1751 because they were deemed good enough to play All-England twice but they were well beaten. Otherwise, not enough results are known.

1754

Champions: Dartford/Kent

Dartford won one and lost one of its two matches versus Woolwich but it also defeated London.

1755

Champions: London

Very few matches are known in the 1750s but London in 1755 won by 20 runs against a combined Surrey and Middlesex XI.

1756

Champions: Dartford/Kent

Dartford is believed to have played three matches against Hambledon and two against London. It seems that Dartford won all three against Hambledon while the other two results are unknown.

Cricket was badly impacted by the Seven Years War which lasted from 1756 to 1763.

1757

Champions: Surrey

Surrey defeated London by 50 runs at the Artillery Ground but only two matches are known.

1758

Inconclusive with only one known game.

1759

Champions: Dartford/Kent

Dartford played a tri-series versus All-England and won it 2-1.

1760 to 1761

Inconclusive. No games at all have been discovered for 1760.

1762

Champions: London

A very tenuous claim but London did defeat Kent by 8 wickets after Kent had drawn with Surrey.

1763

Champions: Middlesex

Middlesex twice defeated Surrey, in one game "with great ease".

Inconclusive, although the emerging Maidenhead/Berkshire team defeated Chertsey. There were two games between the Alresford and Odiham teams who were prominent for some years. It is one of those years when the title would have to go to All-England, who convincingly beat Hampshire twice.

1781

Champions: Kent

Kent overcame Hampshire 2-1 in three matches. Hampshire defeated All-England.

1782

Champions: Kent

Kent overcame Hampshire 2-0. Hampshire went 1-1 versus All-England.

1783

Champions: Hambledon/Hampshire

Hampshire defeated Kent at Bishopsbourne following a tie at Windmill Down. Hampshire also played All-England but it was drawn.

Champions: Surrey

Surrey tentatively because they were good enough to play All-England three times, winning one game by an innings. More to the point, Surrey defeated Middlesex by 8 wickets in the last inter-county match to be played until 1825.

1797 to 1824

The wars against France took an increasingly heavy toll of the game’s resources from about 1797 and it was a long time after Waterloo before cricket was able to recover, though Derek Birley for one has justifiably blamed its slow rate of recovery on the incompetence and, sometimes, stupidity of its leading lights. It would be more appropriate to blame Regency society in general. Inter-county matches simply ceased after 1796. Investment was reduced and players were lost to the armed forces. It is also believed that the sport went out of fashion and even that it had fallen into disrepute. When you read accounts of Lord Frederick Beauclerk's career, the latter point seems not unlikely.

Having said that, MCC at all three of its Lord’s venues did become a bastion of sorts during the Napoleonic War and it did keep the sport going. But it is futile to speak of championship claims during a time when, for the most part, only Surrey had anything remotely like a county team. The truth is that cricket retracted to its village roots where it was still very strong. Of the few major matches that were played during these years, most involved MCC against occasional XIs of one kind or another.

There is little point in trying to identify a champion team again until 1825 when Sussex met Kent in the revival of inter-county cricket.

1825 to 1863

The list of proposed county champions in CricInfo dates from 1825 when inter-county fixtures were revived. It is based on analysis by Rowland Bowen and apparently first recorded by him when he was editing his Cricket Quarterly in the 1960s.

19th century match details are largely complete so there is less scope for speculation than in the 18th. The criteria used in the list are that a county has gone through the season unbeaten by another county (presumably it must actually have played inter-county matches vis-à-vis matches versus MCC and so on); or that the county has been proclaimed in contemporary references as the champion or the best or whatever. This is not dissimilar to my approach in the 18th century except that I have had to make assumptions about the status of some club teams and, as I said earlier, I do not have complete data.

The Bowen/CricInfo list spans the era of county club formation. So, when Sussex claimed the title in 1826 and 1827, it was the same loose association based on the Brighton club that was successful in 1792 as above. But the Sussex claims from 1845 were by Sussex CCC, which was founded in 1839 and is the same entity that finally won the official County Championship in 2003, 2006 and 2007.

Kent CCC was originally founded in August 1842, though substantially reorganised in March 1859. The titles attributed to Kent in 1828, 1837, 1838, 1839, 1841 and 1842 were to the former county organisation (the last one marginally so) while the 1843 title was the first to be claimed by Kent CCC.

Surrey CCC was founded in August 1845 and began playing first-class cricket in June 1846. The Surrey titles in 1830 and 1831 were attributed to the former county association, largely centered on the famous Montpelier club. The first title claimed by Surrey CCC was in 1850.

The other county in the 1825 to 1863 list is Nottinghamshire, which developed from the old Nottingham town club of the 18th century. Nottinghamshire CCC was officially founded in March or April of 1841 but there is evidence of an unofficial county club (distinct from the town club) since August 1835. However, Notts did not claim a title until 1852 so all of its victories have been as Nottinghamshire CCC.

1864 to 1889

All titles claimed to 1863 are entirely unofficial and are based on the views of Rowland Bowen in particular, who simply studied the match results and the contemporary references before making a restrospective judgment. These titles as such are opinions only and achieved by reverse analysis. From 1864 to 1889, the county championship title remained unofficial except that the idea was widely promoted by individuals in the contemporary press and that had not happened hitherto apart from an occasional point of view.

Being the press, each journalist had his own ideas and there was little in the way of consistency, although a merit table of sorts was proposed in the 1870s. There is a second list in CricInfo that gives the champions quoted by various sources, including the one and only W G Grace.

There is a certain amount of consensus but in the main there are differences. For example, Bowen (retrospectively) agrees with Baily’s Magazine (contemporarily) that Notts was the champion in 1868, but WG says it was Yorkshire. My inclination, given WG's stature in the game and the fact that he was playing at the time, is to treat his list as the default but note the alternative claims too. Therefore, I would list Yorkshire as the 1868 champion county but mention the Notts claim in a footnote.

Nottinghamshire was a strong club throughout this period which includes the first championships claimed by Middlesex (1866), Yorkshire (1867), Gloucestershire (1873), Derbyshire (1874) and Lancashire (1879). In all five cases, the existing county club had already been founded. The Derbyshire claim is interesting because they fell into disfavour in 1888 and were not considered a major county for some seven seasons. The same thing happened with Hampshire and Somerset at different times.

1890 to present

The official County Championship was constituted in a meeting at Lord’s of MCC with representatives of the principal county clubs in December 1889. The new competition began in 1890 and at first featured Gloucestershire, Kent, Lancashire, Middlesex, Nottinghamshire, Surrey, Sussex and Yorkshire. These were joined in 1891 by Somerset and then in 1895 there was a major enlargement with the addition of Derbyshire, Essex, Hampshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire. Later additions have been Worcestershire in 1899, Northamptonshire in 1905, Glamorgan in 1921 and Durham in 1992.

Date last modified:

top | contents | home