Cricket 1900

Nov. 29, 1900. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 4 5 5 * scored more heavily than their new opponents, whilst every new county has done worse than its old antagonists. (The figures of Notts and Somerset, it may be mentioned, are a shade too flattering, from their meeting only the weakest of the weaker set.) AN ALYSIS OF THE SCOBING OF 1900. •uoijjod -cidtroajf g a a £ i O 60 * < S3 * “ O > ^ 6 •d < o £ > to co to eo® o» eo — m CDTfO5WNHH© H H H H H H H O COCOCOU205lO<NCO w SSSaSaB ccS A-i A- o o o h o eOrHrHt-Olt-OJeO uu - + £ ► o q eo cc en-* CO05O CD 00C (£ 05 toc*eo©»eocD»oco 0505 CDCOO COCO C rJ® S O M « a COCOt^to'M—>Q«5 eo«eo<Neoeo«oco <1 ft M <1 £ OlO'ftOlQCC-'fCQ CO•'fIQ-T-iO*■*}«'Co"CO iSS 0505 © tO w -if lOCC CO*-Tj"'CO DCD05O lO>CH odeo t» t- ■« -# ©» cc 35eo53§ 5$o3 COCO<Nto—< 05 b»u. CO»Cto o o c c o o o r-lOJeoO 05 CO05 CN 05 g COCO© COCO© (N3 co't> »*"COCO«T05 >0?»« >CN 05■* ^ COCO tO <N ■>»t> O*—<NCOt» r^fc- 05©© t> co t> <c i>bTco t> COCOCOCSCO'■f s s s ? s 8 s a c o r « ffacqo o« ^’ lOlOldlOiOiOCD --Q05OJ—‘ -'•CDCO I 05 «> a o oo 5 cc'^ w 1 © N N W N r lT iN fl t> o s o ® * c c o o i c^cqoo cqos^aqic cq tOV tO■*-<*to tOto <N05CO(N»o^»oeo O 05C. >H 05" Tf 5CO t- 05eoINCO 5C* 0505 COCO •?-<cq 05 to t>c* eo cooJoi eo^ 50512e? ? n eo <_• -H H n lN CO - —I I <N 0O 1« »o 2 os cc 05^ s< S COCO»0rHtoCO N # -" * © V*ofte to eo ■'* D © to ec05 r eo■*}>'rf’©ico~ . l l 11 i l l ill IfcWB J5 :.S.§i : I -s-S s s s a i s-s S’S i The last imperfection of the present system that I need refer to is rather apparent than real. I allude to the fanciful manner of computing the “ per­ centages.” The method as it stands may be thus expressed :—Let w — a county’s wins, I its losses, / = its finished games, p —=its points, and x = its percentage; the value of the latter may be obtained by using the following formula :— w -J -1 —f , and w - l —p, and p : f : : x : 1 0 0 . * 0 - Therefore, / 100 — = — and 100 p x ^ p Thus, to take an easy example, Sussex in 1900 won 4 games and lost 2. Now 4 (w) + 2 [l) = 6 ( / ) , and 4 ( w ) - 2 ( 0 = 2 (p), and 6 ( / ) 4- 2 (p) = 3, and 100 -r- 3 = 33 3 or 33*33; therefore, 33*33 is the percentage of Sussex in 1900.- Q.E.D . Armed, then, with these equations every man outside the ropes may readily make his own little gymnastic exercises on a slate and put to shame those lubberly statisticians of the press who use crib tables to avoid the labour. Still (as I pointed out in the Sportsman when the scheme was first adopted), since the calculation starts only with data of wins and losses, it is as plain as daylight that the final positions must always be indicated by comparing these two only. All that is necessary is to divide the wins by the losses. Thus, Sussex won 4, lost 2 ; 4 -r 2 = 2. Am ., 2 00 w. per I. Alter the rule, then, to “ the county which has the greatest proportion of wins to losses,” and it might fairly stand as long as the present system of unequal cards continues. TH E COUNTY CH AM P ION SH IP . The following circulars have been sent to the Press for publication:— In the autumn of 1899 I was requested by the M.C.C. cricket sub-committee to report upon a scheme of Mr. Newberry's for scoring in the county championship. I have the sanction of that committee for publishing the report, which has, I believe, been sent to the counties. The sub-committee, agreeing with me as to Mr. Newberry’s scheme, were then of opinion that the counties were averse to any system of assigning a value to unfinished matches, and that was probably the case at one time, when they had no definite schemebefore them. The present system being unsatisfactory, I publish my suggestions for consideration. They may, or may not, be worthy of accept­ ance, but they are an attempt at meeting a difficulty. W. E. D e n iso n . Report on Mr. Newberry’s scheme and remarks on the system of scoring in the County Championship. Mr. Newberry’s scheme for determining the winner of the County Championship has much to recommend it. It is simple, fair, and convenient, as it gets rid of minus quan­ tities in the score. It should, however, make mention of the total number of matches played by each county. The existing system is a little cumbrous, this being due to its being a part only of a much more elaborate scheme, of which the portion relating to a method of assigning a value to unfinished matches was deleted after the portion relating to finished ones had been adopted, the result being that in the present rules arrangements exist and language is employed both of which have reference to something which has disappeared, Mr. New­ berry’s proposal would, therefore, be an improvement if the principle, that nothing but finished matches should be considered, be adhered to, which I hope will not be the case. At present every unfinished match, what­ ever superiority one side may have shown, is valueless, and, as regards the determination of the championship, merely represents so much wasted time. It would be well, if by assigning a value to the comparative merit displayed in these unfinished games, every match might be made to contribute something to the score of one or other of the contesting counties. In some contests, chess, (from which the practice arose) and football, a draw counts half a win, and fairly so, as there must be equality of position in the case of the first, and equality of scoring in the second, but this rule is not applicable to cricket, at which game a draw may mean that the chances are even, but is just as likely to mean that one side has been deprived of a certain victory, and the other saved from a certain defeat, by tho want of a few minutes more time, or by the intervention of a shower of rain. If, then, the position of counties in the championship is to give an approximately correct estimate of their relative strength, it is absolutely necessary that their performances in unfinished, as well as in finished games, should be taken into account. This has been so strongly felt, that very many recommendations have been made to M.C.C. that in the event of a match being unfinished half a win should be credited to the side which has made most runs in the first innings. This would be better than nothing, but the proposal is open to two very damaging objections ; the first being, that the side which has held a slight, or even a con­ siderable, lead in the first innings is very often, at the call of time, in a losing position, and it would therefore be repugnant to justice to assign to it a superiority which it had failed to maintain. Secondly, there would be a direct inducement to a side which had gained an advantage in the first innings and was losing it in the next to resort to dilatory tactics. Considering that it is most advisable to assign some value to unfinished matches, and that the system that I referred to earlier as part of the original scheme is too elaborate and in some respects unsatisfactory, I venture to propose that the principle to be acted upon be as follow8 : In every even draw each side should score half a win. When one side had a marked advantage, that side should score half a win. That the proportion which a county score bears to the maximum which it would have reached by winning all its matches should be that county’s figure of merit. A lteratio n s P roposed in E xistin g R u les . Par. 1. Delete. Par. 2 now 1. After the word “ cause” insert “ or if owing to such causes the side going in first does not complete an innings, the match shall be considered abandoned and shall not count, except for the purpose of computing batting and bowling averages.” Par. 3 now 2. Two points shall be reckoned for each win (rest of par. deleted). Par. 4 now 3. At the close of play the um­ pires shall, without consultation with either side, decide whether the match, as far as it .had gone, was of an approximately even character, in which case each side should add one point to their score, or whether one side had obtained such a material advantage as to render its victory probable, if the match sould be played out under a continuation of the then existing conditions, then that side shall add one point. Par. 4. An appeal from either side against the decision of the umpires will lie to the committee of the M.C.C. Par. 5. The county whose total score of points bears the highest proportion to its possible maximum shall be the champion county.