Cricket 1900

454 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OP THE GAME. Nov. 29, 1900. and a few new fixtures with the older counties, with which to stand the test of comparison. To be precise, though, with one exception, every “ old ” and “ new ” county arranged every possible meeting with the others of its own status, only 42 out of a possible 90 matches were fixed up between competitors in the different cate­ gories. Withtheextendedlistof candidates nothing else could be expected, but how unfairly the arrangement worked I shall presently explain. The worst of the matter was that the M.C.C. and county captains, so far from solving had only shelved the real problem. They had merely postponed the day of reckoning to their successors, for fresh cases were bound to arise when it would be necessary to cease to regard as candidates for the Championship counties which could have no earthly expectation of acquiring it, or to promote such others as gave evidence of possessing skill enough to render that contingency possible. Yet to this day no mode of procedure has been authorised, by which the invidiousness of the task might be avoided. This, then, is the chief defect in the present arrangement as it was in the previous. And it is a real one. Cricket is still the National Game, and is not limited to fifteen shires. A t least eighteen other than first-class counties put repre­ sentative teams in the field in 1900, and a competition which exists for the good of the game ought to encourage its development in the so-called Minor Counties if only by assuring ready admission to the highest rank without a friend in court. Already there are voices raised for the exclusion of teams for whom the Competition has only served to demonstrate their weakness, whilst the reception that the Minor Competition has met with does not favour the idea that new aspirants would be welcome at headquarters. From the present long list of com­ petitors arises the second great blemish on the competition: the difference in the cards which various entrants play through. The table of percentages takes no heed of these. It merely records a comparison of the winning and losing brackets of every county without taking into consideration the calibre of oppo­ nents met. It is as if, in a weight-lifting contest, the rivals were permitted to select their own weights, and he who showed the highest proportion of lifts to essays won. For surely there is as much difference between “ taking on,” say, Middlesex or Notts and Derby or Hants, at present, as there is between attempting to lift thirty stone and twenty. It was under these iniquitous con­ ditions that the newly admitted counties, who were bound to score as many wins as losses among themselves, at first occupied respectable positions in the result sheet, whilst older counties that had limited their engagement to sterner and time-honoured antagonists earned inferior percentages, and the experiment of inundating the competition was deemed to have been justified. But, as the ill- faring oldsters began to extend their programmes and to show a corresponding percentic improvement, the new-comers gradually subsided into the tail-end of the chapter. And now the critics are awakening to the fact that the promotion was in some instances precipitate ! For example, Kent, who have generally occupied a modest position, never till this year met any of the four weakest teams at all. This year they added a pair of them to their card, and, by so doing, improved their record from four to eight wins, as against four losses, or just double the proportion. Consequently they went up several places in the table to a position that they might, perhaps, have occupied years before as others have been doing under the same conditions. The hardship of this arrangement has been little heard of, probably because it has fallen hardest on counties that have been lowly placed, and whose supporters may not have desired, by qualifying, to draw attention to their little mead of success. As Shakespeare discovered, “ there is small choice in rotten apples.” The three counties that have latterly shared the championship have usually played all comers, so that their positions, relatively, have been justified, and the fault has not appeared to affect the allocation of prime honours. But, in reality, at the close of two successive seasons (1898 and 1899), Middlesex stood well enough up to have a chance of easily coming out first if their programme had embraced the whole series. And how unfairly it has operated in the bestowal of the wooden spoon I will proceed to show. Kent men (not merely the men of Kent—poets and descriptive writers please note), in 1895 saw their favourites accredited with the soup-stirring imple­ ment. Few of them knew perhaps that in parallel fixtures two other counties had fared even worse. Here is a com­ parison of their records :— W ins Wins per per W . D. L. Loss W . D .L . Loss Kent ... 2 3 5 0 40 I Kent ... 2 2 6 0’33 Leicester 2 1 7 0*^8 |Hants ... 2 1 7 0’28 Kent obtained their inferior position by meeting Gloucester and Middlesex in addition, instead of Essex, Derby and each other, as did Hants and Leicester. But who supposes that if the White Horse wearers had also met this quartette they would not (“ unlucky ” as they were that year) have escaped from their igno­ minious position ? Then, in 1896, another old war-horse, in Sussex, stumbled and brought up the rear. But the following shows that even her poor record was worsened on equal terms:— Wins per W . D. L. Ixjas. Sussex............ 1 2 5 0'20 Leicester ... 1 1 6 O'lrS In this case Sussex filled her measure of disaster by meeting five of the older counties, whilst Leicester’s figures were improved by matches with three of the new ones. Since then, with extending cards, the newer counties have been finding their levelwith the result that one of their number has always provided the whipper- in. The point, I would impress, how­ ever, is that except as comparing the doings of Surrey, Yorkshire and Lanca­ shire with each other, the competition as it exists has afforded no reliable criterion of the strength of participants. Unequal cards have also obscured the fact that teams of two distinct orders of merit have been wasting time in a struggle that could only be fruitless of honours in one case. I have recently shown the poverty of the newer counties in really first-class men during the past five years. I will now show how they have acquitted them­ selves as teams during the same period. The following table gives the results of all the finished games in the championship during 1896-1900. It will be seen that I do not prejudice the “ new ” counties by including Somerset among them. v.O ldC’ntees. W . L. v. New C’ntes. W . L. v. A ll C’tes. W . L. Yorkshire £0 ... 11 45 .. 4 75 .. 15 Lanc’shire i8 ... 15 35 .. 6 63 .. 21 Surrey . 28 ... 15 36 .. 9 61 21 Middlesex 30 ... 19 11 .. 1 41 .. 20 Gloucester 19 .. 27 16 .. 6 35 .. 33 Notts 11 ... 20 6 .. 0 17 .. 20 Kent 11 .. 32 15 .. 5 26 .. 37 Sussex .. 8 ... 26 13 .. 5 'L\ .. 31 OldG’ tes.. 165 ... 165 117 .. 36 342 .. 201 Essex 15 ... 21 17 .. 3 32 .. 24 Warwick 6 ... 20 10 .. 5 15 .. 25 Som rstt 10 ... 42 3 .. 3 13 .. 45 Derby 0 ... 27 10 .. 10 10 .. 37 Worcester 1 ... 10 4 .. 5 5 .. 15 Hants 3 ... 28 12 .. 19 15 .. 47 Leicester... 2 ... 29 7 .. 18 9 .. 47 New C’ tea. 36 ... 177 63 .. 63 99 .. 240 We are frequently told that figures can be made to prove anything, but I challenge anybody so to manipulate the foregoii'g as to show that the lower group of counties taken collectively have proved anything like worthy opponents of the upper. Fixtures 306, 2 abandoned, 91 drawn, 36 won, and 177 lost, that is the full epitome. Never since 1895 has a single season yielded them a better harvest than one win in four finished games with older counties; over the whole term their average has been one in six, or less than one in eight commenced. As a group they have been overwhelmingly out­ classed. Examined separately, it will be seen that everyone of the old counties has shown itself greatly superior to the new opponents, whilst everyone of the new has been decidedly inferior to its old. Essex alone, of the second group has exhibited consistently anything like the form in either comparison which the lowest of the elder counties has maintained. The appended exhaustive analysis of the scoring in 1900 repeats the proof in the manner beloved by “ figure of merit ” critics. From this it will be seen that whereas, when old and new elevens have been pitted together, the former have, collectively, scored 30‘ 1 runs per wicket, the latter have obtained but 19'6. And this in a year when old v. old and new v. new have been worth, respectively, 24'7 and 25’4. It will again be noticed that the older couuties have in every instance