Cricket 1899

Nov. 30, 1899. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 465 e r om g p o n O e n c e . Tie Editor does not hold himself responsible for thi opinions of his correspondents. THE COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP. DRAWN GAMES-A SUGGESTION. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . S ir ,—Although one of the charms of our national game lies in the fact that it can be enjoyed both by players and spec­ tators without any definite result being arrived at, there is nevertheless no doubt that the county championship is losing a great deal of its interest owing to the large number of drawn games. Several remedies have been suggested from time to time, but as a rule they are open to serious objections because they necessitate radical alterations in the rules (e.g., altering the size of the bat or wickets) which would act to the detriment of ordinary club cricket, aid ia wet sea­ sons, too, would be quite unnecessary. Of course, it might be argued that the proposed alterations need only apply to first-class matches, but there are obvious advantages in having the same rules for all classes of cricket. I saw a suggestion in one paper, that matches should be limited to one innings each, but this would have the same effect as increasing the time for play, and would be open to two objections, viz :— 1. There would he greater inducements to play a stonewall game. 2. Unless conditions were favourable to very high scoring, there would rarely he any play onWednesdays or Saturdays. I would suggest that it would be far better to make no alterations in the rules (except, perhaps, with regard to the follow-on rule, and to allow a side to declare at any time during the match), but, instead, in county championship matches, when a match is played to a finish, the winners should score + 2 and . the losers — 2, and in unfinished matches the side leading at the end of the first innings should score + 1 and the other side — 1. As a further improvement, I think that three points, instead of two, should be scored or deducted in cases when the match is won or lost by a very large margin, say, in a single innings, or by not less than 200 runs. The present official system is undoubt­ edly a very fair one, but I maintain that by either of the two systems I have sug­ gested (and more especially by the latter) the respective merits of the various coun­ ties can be more accurately gauged. I enclose a chart which will show you at a glance what alterations would have taken place in the position of the counties if either of these systems had been adopted during the past season. You will notice that Surrey improves her position at the head of affairs, and that Yorkshire is slightly above instead of slightly below Middlesex, which, I think, helps to prove the advantages of the proposed system, as time alone savedMiddlesex fromdefeat in her return matches, v. Yorkshire and Surrey. I have classified the sixty drawn matches in the season’s championship as follows :— 1. In four matches even the first innings was uncompleted. 2. In sixteenmatches matters were fairly even when stumps were drawn. 3. In thirty-six matches the side leading at the end of the first innings had at the end of the game a decided, and in many cases, an overwhelming advantage. 4. In only four matches did the side beaten on the first innings finishwith theadvantage, and in at least one of these cases the follow- on rule acted unfairly. The advantages of this system of scoring may shortly be summed up as follows:—• 1. The merits of the respective counties would he defined as accurately as possible. 2. The annoyance arising from so many drawn games would, to a great extent, be done away with, although games would still be drawn. 3. The matches would become much more exciting when the first innings was closed, and there was little prospect of finishing the game. 4. In many cases there would be greater inducements to fast scoring, e.g., when a side was beatenby a few runs on thefirst innings, it would often pay them to force the game, so that they might have the chance of finish­ ing up -f 2 instead of —- 1. I enclose my card. Yours faithfully, W. B. Dilcoya, Ceylon, September 26th, 1899. Explanation.—No. I. is the official method. No. II. Two points are scored or d( ducted for finished games, and one point in unfinished games is scored by the side leading at the end of the first innings, and is deducted from the other side. No. III. is the same as No. II., except that three points instead of two are scored (or de­ ducted) when a game is won (or lost) by a margin of at least 200 runs or in a single innings. I. Points Per- f or. Against. Balance, centage. 1 Surrey................ 10 ... 2 ... 8 ... 6366 2 Middlesex.......... 11 ... 3 ... 8 ... 57*14 3 Yorkshire......... 14 ... 4 ... 10 ... 5555 4 Lancashire ... 12 ... 6 ... 6 ... 3333 6 Sussex .......... 7 ... 5 ... 2 ... 16 66 6 Essex.................. 6 ... 6 ... 0 ... — 7 Warwickshire ... 4 ... 5 ... —1 ... —11*11 8 Kent ................... 6 ... 8 ... —2 ... —14*28 9 Gloucestershire.. 5 ... 8 ... —3 ... —2376 in JHampshire ... 4 ... 8 . . . — 4 . . . —33 33 |N otts.................. 2 ... 4 ... —2 ... —33*33 12 Worcestershire.. 2 ... 5 ... —3 ... —42 85 lq JLeicestershire ... 2 ... 8 . . . —6 . . . —60 00 Somerset......................2 ... 8 . . . —6 .. —60*00 5 Derbyshire ... 2 ... 9 ... —7 ... —63*63 II. Points Per­ Surrey .......... for. Against. Balance. centage. 1 . 29 ... 7 .. . 22 ... 61*11 2 Yorkshire . 34 ... 11 ..• 23 ... 51*11 3 Middlesex .. . 24 ... 8 .. . 16 ... 50*00 4 Lancashire ... 27 ... 16 ... 11 ... 2558 5 Essex ......... . 18 ... 14 .. 4 ... 12 50 6 Sussex ......... . 17 ... 17 .. 0 ... __ 7 Kent ......... . 16 ... 17 ... — 1 ... — 3*03 8 Warwick . 13 ... 15 .. . — 2 ..., — 7*14 9 Notts ......... 9 ... 12 .. . — 3 ... — 14 28 10 Gloucester ... 13 ... 20 .. . — 7 ..., —21*21 11 Hampshire .. . 11 ... 21 ... —10 ... —31-25 12 Worcester .. . 6 ... 12 ... — 6 ... —32 22 13 Somerset . 6 ... 20 ... —14 ... —53*84 14 Derbyshire .. . 6 ... 22 ... —16 ... —57-14 15 Leicestershire. 5 ... 22 .. . —17 ... —62-96 in. Points Per­ for. Against. Balance. centage. 1 Surrey ... ... 35 ... 7 .. . 28 ... 66 66 2 Yorkshire ... 42 ... 12 .. . 30 .. 55 55 3 Middlesex ... 27 ... 8 .. . 19 .. 54*25 4 Lane ishire ... so ... 19 .. . 11 .. 22 44 5 Sussex ... ... 20 ... 17 .. 3 .. 8-10 6 Essex ... ... 19 ... 17 .. 2 .. 5*55 7 Warwick ... 15 ... 15 .. 0 , — 8 Kent ... ,... 17 ... 18 .. . — 1 .. . — 2*85 Q!INotts ... ... 10 ... 14 — 4 ... —16 66 9 i[ Gloucester ... 15 .. 21 .... — 6 .. . —16*66 11 Worcester ... 7 ... 13 .. — 6 ... —3)00 12 Hampshire ... 12 ... 23 ... —11 .. . —31*42 13 ; tSomerset ... 6 ... 27 . .. —21 .. . —63*63 [ Derbyshire ... 6 ... 27 .... -2 1 ... —6.3*63 15 Leicester ... 5 ... 28 .... —23 .. . —69*69 DRAWN GAMES. To the Editor of C r ic k e t . S ir ,—May I venture to supplement the recent “ proposals” of the M.C.C. by suggesting that two points should be added for a win and two deducted for a loss, and that in the event of a drawn game one point should be credited to the side that won on the first innings, and one debited to the side that lost on the first innings. A side playing six winning drawn games would thus be credited with 50 per cent of the maximum number of points, and a side playing six losing drawn games would be debited with 50 per cent, of the maximum number. Is it not also worth consideration whether on the second and third days of a match play might not commence at 11a.m. instead of 11.30, the more especially so as the old drawing hour of 7 p.m. seems to have been universally abandoned in favour of 6.30. Y n n rs a I p Bloom Bank, J. B. PAYNE. Great George Street, Harrogate. November 25th, 1899. CRICKET IN CHILI. DINGLEY DELL v. ALL MUGGLETON. Played at Valparaiso on September 24. All Muggleton won by 88 runs. D in g ley D e l l . First innings. Second inDings. G. C. Brownell, b Steel ... 4 H. E. Woodgate. b Bushell 8 R. T. Moodie, c Quennell, b Steel .................................. 6 notout................... 68 C. McLean, b Steel .......... 2 b Steel................... 7 F. T. Price, b Steel .......... 0 W . F. Cargill, b Bushell ... 3 c Rawson, b Isaacson...........41 F. G. Thorne, b Steel........ 1 c Gifford, b Quennell........... 6 A. D. Price, not out .........21 c.Price, b Isaac­ son ................... 1 R. Cummiog, b McFadzen 4 b Steel...................17 A. Powditch, b McFadzen 1 not out................... 1 T. Millie, b McFadzen ... 5 H. Hammond, b McFadzen 0 B 2 , lb 3 .......................... 5 Byes ............... 4 Total ...................60Total (5 wkts)135 A ll M ugolbton . A. H. Price, b McLean 0 T. Gifford, b Price ... 0 G. Bushell, b Price ... 6 F. Quennell, b McLean 1*2 B. McFadzen, run out 53 E. Howe, b McLean ... 0 G. Steel, b Price . ... 1 L. Rawson, c F. Price, b Cargill .................. 6 H. Isaacson, b Cum- ming.......................... 32 R. C. Bushell, not out 15 W. Walbaum, b Mc­ Lean .......................... 4 A. P. Walbaum, b A. D. Price ................... 8 B 8, lb 3 ...........11 Total ...148