Cricket 1900

412 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. S e p f . 13, 1900. v & i n i e s p o u O e n t t . The Editordoes not holdhimself responsible tor the opinionsof hiscorrespondents. T H E C O U N T Y C H A M P IO N S H IP . To the Editor of C r ic k e t. S i b . — I have read m any long-w inded articles on the season’s work in this con­ test, b a t not in one have I seen any reference to what, after all, is one of the chief factors in the gam e and certainly a very potent one in deciding the contest according to the curious method devised b y the pundits at L ord’s— I mean the element of luck. Yorkshire certainly owes its unique position to the influence of this element. The appearance of Rhodes— a bowler such as is only pro­ duced once in a decade— exactly at the moment when Peel was compulsorily retired was a great slice of luck, a propo­ sition it is impossible to deny. Then the carrying through of such a lengthy programme without accident to either of its bowlers was another. Yorkshire has two bowlers and tw o only ; W ainw right has entirely lo9t his bow ling and H irst is much too expensive to be anything more than an occasional change bow ler. Sup­ pose Rhodes or H a igh had been incapaci­ tated, where would Yorkshire be ? They are, in fact, Yorkshire, for the county bat­ ting has fallen off considerably, its general average being only fourth on the list. Other counties, notably Surrey, have been as strikingly unlucky as Yorkshire has been lucKy, and it is perfectly clear that the new captain is an unlucky man. The M C .C . method of deciding the contest was apparently devised for the express purpose of accentuating all the elements of luck which enter into the gam e— the luck of the toss, the luck of the weather, and that general luck which is so difficult to define but so clear to the unbiassed observer. It gives special prominence to all these and takes scarcely any account of the actual cricket played. A n d why the pundits should have gone such a round-about way of finding the simple percentage of wins to finished gam es— which is all the m ethod does— w ill take a very profound pundit indeed to explain. Tbere are two systems of deciding contests of this kind which practically eliminate the element o f luck, and several others which deprive it of much of its effect. The two are the w ell-known figure of merit, and one of m y own devising, which I call the better or worse system . A s most know , the figure of merit is arrived at b y striking a balance between the work done for and against a co u n ty ; as, for instance, Yorkshire has made 9,795 runs for the loss of 360 w ickets, giving an average of 2 7 '2, and her opponents 8,287 runs for 492 wickets, or 16 8. Thus she has an advantage of 10 4 runs per wicket over them . Treated in this way the leaders come out thus :— I Sussex ................... 1'9 Yorkshire ... 10-3 Lancashire ... ... 7-8 Surrey ........... ... 74 Kent ........... ... 24 Middlesex ... 2*2 Warwickshire Essex ... ... Notts- ........... 1 0 3 0'2 T he others are on the minus side. Rather d fferent to the order given by the curious official m ethod ! The “ better or worse ” system is more mathematically correct, though its results are practically identical w ith those o f the figure of m erit. B ut it is too intricate ever to com e in to use, fo r cricketers’ brains— as I know to m y cost, do not run to the abstruse. M y m ethod is first to find out h ow m any w ickets and runs a side has over in the m atches w on, and then by h ow m any she is short in those lost, and subtract the on e from the other. F or instance, in a w in in one innings and 100 runs there are ten wickets and 100 runs to spare. Than take the draw n games and add up the num ber o f w ickets lost and runs made b y each side and strike a b a la n ce ; add or subtract these, as the case m ay be, to tbe numbers already attained, and the result shows b y how m any wickets and runs the side is better or worse than its opponents. R educe the w ickets to runs on the basis o f the general average o f the season and add them to the other runs, and the total is the num ber o f runs b y which the side is better or w orse. D ivide them b y the num ber o f m atches played, and the quotient is the num ber o f runs per match b y w h ich the side is better or worse than its opponents. I give the figures shown b y K en t in illu stration : — KENT. Matches won. Matches lost. Wkt8. Huns. Wkt*. Runs. 10 ......... 4 ................ 0 ......... 131 10 ......... 1 ............... 5 ......... 12 6 ......... 152 ................ 0 ......... Ill 0 ......... 221 ................ 10 ......... 3 14 ......... 30 ................ — ----- 10 ......... 3 ................ 15 ......... 257 3 ......... Ill 0 ......... 231 52 753 15 257—Losses deducted 37 498 14 400—Deduct balance of drawn games 23 96 Twenty-three wickets at 25*9, the general average of Kent’s batting, gives 595 runs; add the 96 runs above, and Kent is 691 runs to the good on the season’s work. Matches drawn. Kent. Opponents. "Wkts. Buns. Wkts. Huns. 10 ......... 235 ................ 14 ......... 272 17 ......... 630 ................ 12 ........ 609 10 186 ................ 14 ........ 654 13 ......... 151 ..................... 7 ......... 200 13 272 ............... 13 ......... 181 20 ......... 660 ................ 10 ......... 585 12 265 ................ 10 ......... 551 20 418 ................ 18 ......... 240 9 ......... 230 ................ 10 ......... 171 8 303 ................ 10 ......... 335 132 ........... 3350 Less 118 ... 118 ... 3750 3350 14 400 Opponents are fourteen wickets and 400 runs better. Six hundred and ninety-one runs dis­ tributed over tw en ty-tw o matches shews K en t to be 31 runs per m *tch better than her aggregate opponents. Treated in this way the four leaders show as follow s:— Y orksh ire........... 182 runs pr match better. Lancashire........... 137 „ „ „ Surrey................... 117 „ „ Kent ................... 31 „ „ „ These are exact mathematical equivalents of the work done, practically ignoring the lu c k ; the M .C .C . system gives numerical equivalents of the luck, practi­ cally ignoring the work done. Yours faithfully, G E O R G E L A C Y . Sandgate, Sept. 8th, 1900. C A T CH E S . To the Editor of C r ic k e t. S i r ,— I enclose a list of catches made by counties during the County Cham ­ pionship of 1900, and tbeir various representa'ives who have obtained over twenty apiece. Y ours, etc., “ S T A T IS T IC U S .” Av. per Mtchs Ctchs. match. Gloucester .. 22 ... 221 ... Board 46, C. L. Town­ send 31, Painh 26, G. L. Jessop 21 ....................10-05 Yorkshire ... 28 .24' ... Tu'nicl ffe 48, Hunter 36, Wainwright 32, Birst 21 ...................8’£7 Lancashire 28... 234... A. C. MacLaren 39, Smith 37, Cuttell 22, W ard 21, W ebb 21 ... 8 3^ Sussex ... 24... 198... Butt 52, Tate 20........... 8 26 Notts ... 18... 143... Carlin 32 ................... 7 95 Somerset ... 16 ... 127 ... — ................... 7*94 Kent ...........22 ... 163 ... Huish32,J.R.Mason27 7*50 Middlesex ... 22... 160... Trott 24.......................... 727 Hampshire 22 ... 156 ... ............................ 7-09 Surrey ... 28... 185... Stedman 39, Hayward 2 4 6*61 Worcester... 22.. 145... Straw 31, H. K . Fos­ ter 20 ........................... 6*59 Leicester ... 22... 141 ... Whiteside 24 ........... 6’41 Warwick ... 18... 115... Lil'ey 27 ................... 6‘39 D e rb y .........18 ... 107 ... Chatterton 22 ........... 5 94 Essex ... 22 ... 125 ... Russell (T.) 24 ........... 5 68 Total number of catches, 2,462 for 166 matches; average per match, 14*83. A L T E R A T IO N S IN T H E L A W S A N D T H E D E T E R IO R A T IO N O F C R IC K E T . To the Editor of C r ic k e t. D e a r S ir ,— I have read “ A n Old Harrovian’s ” article in Cricket for Sep­ tember 6 with considerable interest, and agree in the main with the views enun­ ciated in it. There are, however, one or two points on which I must dissent. “ A n Old H arrovian” observes, inter alia, “ There are, it must be allowed, far too m any additions made of late to the laws of cricket.” N ow , how can this state­ ment be reconciled with the conservative character w ith which the M .C .C ., the governing body of cricket, has been credited ? Surely they have at times been accused of dilatoriness, when in m any quarters the opinion was that some law needed alterating, or even cancelling. M y interest in cricket dates from 1891, and I think I am right when I say that the only alterations of at all a radical nature have been those in L aw 10 (no­ balling) and in the law regulating the number of balls to an over. The rules about county cricket, made in the spring of 1899, do not so much affect the actual play. “ W isden’s A lm an ack ” describes the laws as amended iu 1884, 1889, 1894, and 1899, that is to say, only four times in sixteen years preceding the present one. Surely that is not excessive when we consider how cricket has developed during that period. A gain, “ A n O ld H arrovian” says “ The quality o f the great matches of the day has evidently been swallowed up by the quantity.” Surely, however, it is a bold statement to make, if we say at all, that good cricket has deteriorated. The larger number of first-class matches is simply to be explained b y the increased num ­ ber of first-class counties. This again m ay be accounted for by the fact that cricketers all round the country have so improved that new counties have proved