Cricket 1906

34 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M ar . 29, 1906. cannot be surpassed in the field in any position.” W. A. B e t t e s w o r t h . R ic h a r d H u m p h r e y ’ s C a r e e r . Richard Humphrey was born at Mitcham December 12th, 1848. His first match for Surrey was against Gloucester­ shire at Durdham Down, in 1870, when though he failed with the bat, his very fine fielding did not escape notice. His highest and best of several useful innings was his 82 for Surrey against Cambridge University. Speaking of this innings, “ Wisden ” remarks that he showed “ good defence, clean and well-timed cutting, his form being rarely equalled by a first season’s colt.” The seasons of 1871 and 1872, in the latter of which he made 1071 runs were emphatically Humphrey’s best. He showed perfect defence, brilliant late cuttiDg and leg hitting, and was so fine a fieldsman that he was worth his place in any representa­ tive eleven. In addition to this he exhibited the rare faculty of often doing his best things when other batsmen were quite at sea. In 1871 he was secord in the Surrey averages with the excellent figures of 24 per effort, and some of his performances call for a short notice. His 116 not out against Kent at Mote Park was the only century of bis career, and converted a possible defeat into a creditable draw. At Sheffield, agfcinst the formidable Yorkshire attack, he made 80 and his brother Tom 60 not out in a total of 165, while he also ran up 70 against Gloucestershire at Clifton, and 46 against the M.C.C. Selected to represent the Players at the Oval be comparatively failed with the bat, but brought off a very brilliant catch. In 1872 his average of 26 was the highest for Surrey, and he especially shone against the redoubtable Notts and York- phire bowlers, being highest scorer in four innings against Yorkshire with 70 and 70 at the Oval, and 45 and 34 at Sheffield. Against Notts at the Oval be went right through the first innings with 30 in a total of 60, and made 52 in his second effort. In Gentlemen v. Players of that year his successes were very conspicuous, as he made 96 out of 160 from the bat at the Oval, aud 46 at Lord’s. For some reason he did not from 1873 to 1881 anything like maintain the high standard of excel­ lence he had set up, and though he had his successes they were far more inter­ mittent. However in 1874, v. Yorks, at Sheffield, he made a splendid 74 out of 127 from the bat, and in 1876 put together 71 against Kent at the Oval. Another fine performance was his 41 not out and 47, run out, against Yorkshire in 1878. Between 1873 and 1880 he also made 51, 51 and 52 against Cambridge University, 54 v. Middlesex in 1876, 57 v. the sluie side in 1880, 57 v. Kent in 1879, and 56 v. Sussex in 1880. Hum­ phrey also accompanied Dr. W. G. Grace’s team to Australia in 1873-4, but did not achieve any especial succ=ss. J. B. P ayne . D IM IN ISH ING THE DRAW . B y “ H. P.-T.” Now that the Advisory Committee has thrown out the proposals of Essex and War­ wickshire, in connection with the adoption by the first-class counties of the Minors’ system of scoring percentages, it is to be hoped that there will he no more of such suggestions for some time. Not that the various systems whichhavebeen proposed would not harmonise nicely with that already favouredby the front rank counties, for the two would go very well together—in a case in the British Museum for preference. The proposals of Essex and Warwickshire was irrational and a violation of the strict rules of mathematics, but these circumstances would be a small matter in a competition which awards positions by the results of unequal fixtures, and which trans­ lates the proportions of wins to finished games into what purports to be the percentage the balance of wins over losses bears to the total of wins and losses combined. How odd it is that cricket, a game whose very essence is the conversion of physical dexterity into statistics, should in its manage­ ment be ever at the mercy of “ schemes” which cast all the laws that govern statistics to the winds. Still, two or three wrongs do not make a right, and nonsense patched with absurdity is not apt to become less nonsensical. Presuming that the systemproposed was the modified form at present in use by the Minor Counties—though the same arguments would apply more forcibly against the original sys­ tem, which seems to have been in the minds of the proposers—a few words will show that it really was absurd and, what is very much worse, unfair. To begin with, putting a premium on long scores in the first innings is a somewhat Iernian method of getting the second innings completed, and so curtailing the number of drawn games. But this objection may be more apparent than real. More to the point is the fact that starting a match at all under such conditions, when there was no chance of finishing it, would inevitably set back both competitors in the race for the championship. If the game did not proceed to an innings apiece, both sides would be conceded one point and de­ prived of two out of a so-called possible three in the contest. One side might, by superior play or fortune, deprive the other of its solitary point, but at the best it would be bound to lose 33 per cent, of its assumed possible reward, and so be worse off than if the game had never started. Fancy the championship depending on whether the weather clears up enough to let Yorkshire start an abortive game and so drop behind Surrey or Sussex ! An invincible team that won every match the weather allowed it to finish might by this means, in a long programme, lose sufficient points to land it half-way down the table, below weaklings that finished all their few matches and received trouncings in nearly half of them. Another fault of deciding matches on a first innings is that it handicaps the better men more than the worse. This might com­ mend the method to partisans of a lowly- placed county, but it is hardly a suitable element to introduce into a table which is intended to indicate the real comparative strength of counties- It is evident that a weak side stands a better chance of leading upon one innings than on both, and the scheme distinctly offered such a team an in­ ducement to improve its position by playing for a draw whenever it hadmanaged to begin well. A strong county is frequently deter­ mined by its power of recovering from a bad start, whereas a weak county lapses from a good start, and any scheme which put a price on starts only would introduce alot more luck into the competition and set back real merit, in other words, prove unfair. To prove this assertion by actual instances, compare the doings of the top and bottom three counties in the championship of 1905. Giving them points after the fashion of the Minor Counties Competition, their Jinished games would have placed them as follows :— Games. Points. -^Fin- s ished. Won. Lost. Tossi- Ob- Per ble. tained. cent. Yorks. ... ... 21 .. 18 ..‘3 ... ... 63 ... 54 . . 85 Lancs. ... ... 15 . . 12 .. 3 ... ... 45 ... 36 . . 80 Sussex ... ... 17 . . 13 .. 4 ... ... 51 ... 39 . . 76 Derby ... ... 17 . . 3 ..14 ... ... 51 ... 9 . . 17 Somerset ... 11 .. 1 ..10 ... ... 33 ... 3 . . 09 Hants ... .. 13 . . 1 ..12 ... ... 39 ... 3 . . 07 This is the same order that the present terms of the championship allotted them. And surely the proportion of games won out of those finished, which the placing depends on, affords not only a fair index to estab­ lished merit, but the only reliable criterion for anticipating the results of the games that were left unfinished. If a county wins nine out of ten games that it finishes, however ill or well it commenced them, we can only justly estimate that it would have won nine out of ten of its unfinished games, in spite of how they stood in the middle, and therefore the proportion of games won to finishedneeds no tampering with in order to arrive at an estimate of its strength. But, under the Minor Counties’ system, the drawn games would have added the following disturbing values to the table:— Gaines. Points. On First Inns. Unfin-, — * >, Possi- Ob- Per ished.Won.Lost.Drn. ble. tained. cent. Derby Somerset.. . 3 ... 3 .. 0 . ,. 0 ... ... 9 .. . 6 .. . 66 . 7 .... 5 .. . 0 .,. 2 ... ... 21 .. . 12 .... 57 Yorks. .. . 7 ..,. 4 ..,. 2 .. . 1 ... ... 21 ... 9 .. . 42 Lancs. .. . 10 .... 5 ... 5 . . 0 ... ... 30 ... 10 .. . 33 Hants . 7 ... 1 . . 4 ..,. 2 ... ... 21 ... 4 .... 19 Sussex ... 11 ... 3 .... 8 .. . 0 ... ... 33 ... 6 .. . 18 Who will maintain, in face'of the previous table, that these latter awards would have been anything like justified if the unfinished games could have been played out to the bitter end ? or, failing this, that they have any title whatever to be taken into account in the adjudication ? If aremedy is wanted for ‘ ‘ doing away with so many drawn games,” the simplest is to apportion play by overs instead of hours, and to award whole victories after otherwise unfinished games, by the proceeds of equal tenures of the wicket. Vide the writer’s “ Cricket and the Clock,” Cricket , November- January, 1905-6. By this means, among the host of evils you would remove as therein stated, you would also obviate the desirability of conceding choice of innings to visitors—a matter which has lately been agitating the cricket mind. If both sides used the same wicket daily only a slight benefit could accrue either from this concession or from winning the toss. Whilst on this “ clock” theme again, the writer would like to mention that, in present­ ing his suggestions, he made the last move in the matter that he is capable of, and that he looks to the rulers of cricket—here or over­ seas—to take them up or let them lie as their better judgment directs them. R ICHARD DAFT’S “ Nottinghamshire Marl.” — Particulars apply, Radcliffe-on-Trent, Notts. [A d vt . J