Cricket 1894

CRICKETs A WEEKLY KEUOKD OP THE GAME. NOV. 25, 1894 THE CHAMPIONSHIP. To tin Editor of C btcket. Sib,— Is not friend Ho mes getting just a wee bit bouncy ? We like oar Notches im- mtnseh-, but we don't want th-m to get too dogmatic Give au opinion, by all means, Mr. H ., but do not get into the way of thinking that it ought to be final. Your last communication bristles with heresies that make the hair of an old hand like myself stand on end. Fancy advocating the shunt­ ing of the Gents, v. Players matches in order that Essex may tryconclu-ions with Somerset, and Leices’ er fight it out with Gloucester ! Great Heavens ! Why not pull down St. Paul's Cathedral to make room for the biggest wheel in the world ? What if some of the gsnilemen do get a penny more than their legit mate expenses, does it make them worse cricketers, <r less gentlemen ? I do not imply that professional cricketera are not gentlemtn, for many of them are gentle­ men of the very les kind, whom one would be proud to call friends. Still it is idle to deny that there arc class distinctions, and, democracy to the contrary notwithstanding, there will be so long as human nature remains human nature. We have not reached the transcendental age yet. And if some gentle­ men to their honour consent to be cal'ed profes-iona's, we are not thereby called upon to thivw stores at those who prefer to be ranked as gentlemen. I think it very bad taste in Mr. Holmes to show this bitter feeling against Mr. Bead and others. Mr. Read has done as much for erioket as any living man, and it does not lie with Mr. Holmes to bespat'er him. I think.the Gentlemen v Players matches the most interesting left to us now that we h a ie e e tu p the god Countv, and fall down and worship it. Mr. Holmes may like to have partridge f<r dinner ev. ry -day, but many of us-think that variety is the spice of life. These matches may be scratch matches—what then? No matches ever equal'ed in interest the old A.E.E. v. U. A..E.E., w lich were only matches between elevens cho-en by two captains. For my part (and I claim to have loved cricket at least as well and as long as Mr. Holmes), I would shunt county matches for mere interesting on es; such as North v. South, Married v. Sing'e, Old v. Young, Players of South v. Hayer3 of North, Gentlemen (f South v. Gentlemtn of North, First Eleven of England v. Next Eleven, e tc.; and in order that as many cricketers as possible should be employed, second teams of tho same kin i (and if possible third) should play simultatiously at some other centre of population— for instance, while .First Eleven v. Next Eleven played at Lord’s or the Oval, Third Eleven v. Fourth Eleven should play at Manchester or somewhere else in the North, and Fifth v. Six h elsewhere. I maintain that these coun'y contests ore demoralising, and are reducing cricket to the level of a mere popular show. The great increase in the attendance at them is not made up of lovers of cricket, but of se:k-rs after excitement. A very large proportion of them would just as soon go to any other show that gave them excitement—a football match, a bull fight, a tightrope walker, a daring acrobat, a prize fight, and I believe many of them even an execution. Now this kind of people are not wanted at cricket matches. It is they who create all the noise, and make remarks, and generally work up the excite­ ment. They would never have been attracted to cricket but for the excitement of the County championship, and they ought to he kept out of it by raising the entrance money to at l ast a shilling Season tickets and match ticktts at reduced rates could be issued for those who com -3 to see eiicket only. But, Sir, with 1our p ’mii sion I L’ ave not done with friend Holme) yet. Impelled by h s great love f ir the championship contest he is constrained to give expres-ion to his nr qualified pleasure at the M C.C. taking it up, and to “ commend in the warmest terms tho consummate wisdom shown in the drafting of the new scheme,” which, in his judgment, if “ perfect.” “ Con ummate wisdom ” is g ood ; let us imbibe of it. “ First-class counties,” it says, “ are those whose matches with one aro'.her. . . , tr j used in compilation of first-class averages 1 Really, now. I should never have thought it. I always thought that first cites averages were compiled from first-class counties, not first-class counties reckoned from first-class averages. But tho main question is, Who uses them ? 'Jhe M.C.C., in its consummate wisdom, has forgo t»n to tell us this. It does not do so itself, for it does not compile averages, so that after all it appears to te left to the press, and to stray correspondents, tod ecile. Last year the Spo tsman published for me tab’es of what I called the first-class averages for the y>ar, and in which I used those of Hants, Leicester, Derby, Essfx, and Warwick. Did that make these coun’ ies first-class V Apparently the M.C.C. thinks so, for it has come round to my way of thinking. It is quite true that in the next paragraph the M.C.C contradicts itself, and says thit it is itself the arbiter ; but then we know that contradiction is one of the atributes of people of consummate wisdom—especially if they are politicians. But which pronouncement is the final one ? Your correspondent, Mr. J. B. Payne, has pointed out another piece of consummate wisdom, which I should have thought would have occurel to any one, and which to my mind renders the “ scheme ” unworkable ; and the case of ties is not touched on. But there remains yet another. “ After the close of each cricket season the committee of the M.C.C. shall decide the county champion­ ship.” But almost immediately it appears that the M.C.C. do not decide it, for it is automatic— “ The county which during the season shall have in finished ma ches obtained the greatest proportiona'e number of points shall be reckoned champion county.” But, anti here, as it seems tome, is the deepest piece of consummate wisdom,— what are the points to be propot tionate to ? To each other, or to what ? Jf the greatest number decides, why proportionate? and if pmpoitionate. are they propoitionate to the total number i f matches played, or to what ? Perhaps this is the point the M.C.C. reserves for decision year by year; alas, poor counties! Really, Sir, after wrestlin? with this miracle of d en om ­ inate wisdom I fe;1 like a consummate fool, for I cannot make head or tail of it. It is like a Government lill, that requires amend­ ing in every clause before it can be made workable. In Mr. Holm ts’ very interesting and valuable analysis of Surrey County Cricket, printed a few months ago, occur three errors which have never been corrected. He gives Lockwood’s figures as 91 inoings, 2304 runs, average 24.5. How he got at these figures I cannot make o u t; the correct ones are 149 innings, 3342 runs, average 22.3. In the list of centuries played against Surrey F. W . Marlow’s 126, in 1893, was om itted; and he says that Jupp’s larg st number of runs in a year w. s 900 in 1874, whereas Jupp made 922 in 1866. In your current number Dr. H. R . Brand has statist'cs of the last thirty years, which would t e most in'eresting if they were reliable; but are they ? My eye first caught the names of M. Read and Abel, whose figures are given a;— Read, 314 innings, 8501) runs, and Abel, 446 innings, 11307 runs. I kn w in an instant that t!:ese fig ires could no! be coirect as these two players are very much on an equality. Referriug to my note-book, whose pa'ticulars are most, if not all, taken from “ Wisden’s Almanacks,” I find Herd to be credited with 11746 runs in 46S innings and Abel with 12103 runs in 476 innings. Jupp’s figures are certainly not c )rrect. They are givtn as 539 inning ', 13080 ums. I have not got complete figu es of his doing*, but for Surrey he made 11616 runs in 437 innings', all first-class unless we except two or three matches against 14 of Hants ; for Players v. Gents, he made 1321 runs in 62 innings; then among other matches I can remember inoings of 170 for Play, rs of South, 114 for United South v. United North, and 90 and 80 in Canterbury week matches. 1’t.is makes 503 inningsand 13411 runs. Considering thathe played in every great mateh for twenty years he must have bad more than 50 other innings. As a matter of fact it will be found that Jupp made jttst over 15000 runs. W . W . Read’s figures are given as 582 innings, 18714 runs; my book says 593 innings, 19477 run'. The system of selection follow, d is very peculiar, for while the names of 17 gentlemen who have played less than 200 innings appear in the list, that of John Shuter with 458 innings and 10142 runs does not, nor do those of Scotton, Oscro.t, Selby, Bates, Chari aood, and many another famous, professional. Among bo* lers the nam< s of George Freeman and J. T Hearne are conspicuous by their absence, and to meDtiou one or two more those of Hewett, Lockwood, Bowley, and Sharpe do not appear. On the whole I am sorry to say that the tables are of very little value for purposes of reference.— Yours faithfully, G eorgk L acy . Barmouth, October 28. SCORISG BY POINT3. To t h e E d i t o r o f “ C r ic k e t .” S ir ,— Since posting my letter to you on Sunday, it has occurred to me that the ocoa- . ion of Mr. Holmes publishing the statistics of the first-class counties since 1873 is an opportune one for showing that the system of recording relative meric by points, as at present in vogue, does not, and cannot, give results reflecting the true status of the various sides. It can be mathematical!,! demonstrated that it gives undue advantage to the stronger counties, and unduly handicaps the weaker ones. I have never seen it pointed out, but it works in this way. All the weaker counties are at the disadvantage of being compelled to p]a, a i l the stronger ones, but have rot the advantage of plasing all the weaker ones, beoause they cannot play against themselves. On the other hand, the stronger counties have the advantage of contending with all the weaker ones, but meet one less of the stronger sides than the weaker ones do, namely, them­ selves. In the case of those at the two extremes, Notts and Sussex, it is almost exactly equivalent to giving the former two points every year, and handicapping the latter with the same number of losses. The figures of the intermediate counties are fallacious in the same way, but it would require a better mathematician than myself to work out the proportions by which they are so. The rela­ tive positions of the counties would not be N EX T ISSUE DECEMBER ‘28