Cricket 1907

M a y 9, 1907. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECOED O f THE GAME. 123 MUCH CRY AND LITTLE-GO- By H. P.-T. Mr. Jessop’s little joke, for as such his pointage proposals must surely have been intended, has served cricket a good turn. By reducing to a positive absurdity the silly methods of rf ckoning percentages in the Championship Competition it has compelled the recognition of a need for alteration. As one who raised his voice in the wilderness years and years ago*, the writer is satisfied with that result, especially as, with the fear of Todhunter now before them, the M.C.C. are scarcely likely to make confusion worse con­ founded—if they stir at all. But alarums have no effect on your cricket counsellor; he waits till the covers are stripped clean off him before he moves, and then, as often as not, jumps out of bed the wrong way. The readiness with which the “ Advisories” tumbled into Mr. Jessop’s trap certainly discounts confidence in the active player as a Chamber-man ; but then, the M.C.C. is not the Advisory Committee, and with all the arc-lamps and rushlights of the press now a-glow to direct them, they ought to make a move in the right direction. That direction is certainly, in the first plaoe, to simplify the manner of scoring in the competition. The means is clearly —if the competitors are to remain so many and to play unequal “ cards” — to cut out the “ p Dints ” altogether, and to adjudge the positions by the proportion of wins per loss, of wins per finished game (which is practically the sime thing and both equal to the method now in vogue, but simpler), or by the proportion of wins per started game (wtiich is so little different as to make no real odds). If the direction is, in the second place, to encourage the finishing of games, then the adoption of the wins per game system will obviously be the best. It seems to be the favourite, and to have the best chance of coming oft. To the writer the principle of ignoring drawn games is preferable, but this is comparatively a slight matter. Mr. Jessop’s scheme would, of course, take us no farther in either direction. He might have added 10 points for a win, instead of 5, and deducted 1 for a loss, instead of 2, when the task of computing his pointages would have been simpler; but the positions of counties would have remained exactly as now decided, and the scheme have any way been even more cumbersome and unintelligible than at present. But Mr. Pentelow’ s capital resume of the whole Championship competition under its present conditions ( Cricket, May 2nd) has come opportunely for pointing another very pregnant moral. His returns show convincingly that the army of aspirants for the Championship have, with remarkable consistency, fallen into three distinct and well-marked groups. This fact will be evident from a glance at the following table, in which the counties are arranged on their twelve * Vide “ The future of the Championship,” Cricket , Nov. 1900—Jan. 1901. years’ p erform a n ces (1 ) I n th e ord er to w h ich th eir w ins p e r 100 finish ed gam es entitles th em ; (2 ) B y th e “ figu re o f m e r it ” system ; a n d (3) B y th e p ercen ta g e o f w ins to gam es p la y e d ( i.e , started ). T h e tw o first colum n s are b o rro w ed fro m M r. P e n te lo w ’s tables. T h e th ird is th e ca lcu la tion th a t “ penalises th e d ra w ,” a n d has “ H e n r y ” fo r an ex p o n en t. [ “ H e n r y ” m ig h t be rem in ded, b y th e w a y th a t th e ord er in w h ich D e r b y alw a ys com es o u t to p — an d Y ork sh ire b o tto m — is the a lph a ­ b etica l o n e .] Wins in i?{„ n( Morft Wins in Matches finished. &' Matches played. ^ / Yorks ... 82 ... Yorks ...+9*29 ... Yorks ... 55 o Lanes ... 75 ... Surrey... + 5"59 ... Lancs ... 49 -ISurrey... (3(3 ... Lancs ... + 5*31 ... Surrey... 43 Midsx... 58 ... Midsx ..4-1*51 ... Midsx... 38 \Kent ... 51’4... Kent ...+0*88 ... Kent ... 35 . /'Sussex... 51.0... Notts ... + 0*84 ... Gloster 3 q o Notts .. 50 ... Sussex... + 0*4(3 ... Essex... 28 ^ Warwick49 ... Warwiek + 0‘22 ... Notts ... 2l5*9 ^ Essex ... 47 ... Essex... = ... Sussex... 2(3*7 VGloster 43 ... Gloster —2*83 ... Warwick 25 I Worster 37 ... Worster —3‘09 ... Worster 22’8 Somst... 30 ... Somst...—(3*1(3... Somst ... 22*0 Hants... 25'7... Derby...—(3*55 ... N’hants 21 Leicester 25*2... N’hants —(3*(57 ... Hants... 18 N’hants 25*0... Hants ...—7*27 ... Leie’ster 1(3 Derby... 23 ... Leic’ster—7*7(5 ... Derby... 15 Now, it will be noticed that by each of the.e diverse methods of computation five counties maintain the same positions. Yorkshire are always at the top, Middlesex and Kent fourth and fifth, and Worcester and Somerset eleventh and twelfth; so that we may take it as established that these p jsitions properly represent their deserts. Then the same five counties, ending with Kent, always occupy the five top ‘•places. All of these counties, and they only, have held the Championship during the dozen years summarised, and to them alone the actual Championship com­ petition might very well have been left without any great injustice to the others. They constitute Grade I. of the first-class cricketing counties. Between Kent and Worcester in­ variably follow the same five counties also, and these may fittingly be taken to represent the Second Grade. None of them has won the Championship, but all have occupied positions between second and fifth in the competition at different times. The same six counties always form the rearguard, and represent the Third Grade. Of these, only Leicester and Derby (once each) have ever stood as high as fifth in the Championship table. Taken collectively, matches played between clubs of different grades in the twelve years, 1895—1906, have resulted as follows:— First v. Second Grade, won 220, lost 102 Second v. Third Grade, ,, 141 ,, 49 First v. Third Grade „ 258 ,, 37 So that we may accept the three groups as actually representing three different standards of merit, the average strength of the first being more than double that of the second, and the second nearly three times that of the third. Such being the case, the following table shows how each of the oounties has fared (by the “ wins per game” percentage) against competitors of each grade; and the resultant mean per­ centage gives the truest index to their real strength that can be obtained under the unequal fixture-list system. JsS COo m m m h h lO ^ 93COJ) Cl © CO© © T* NWHrlrtH Opponents. Grade 3. ClCOO Tf CO © -o © o OO COO CO f O t O CO Cl O 93GONCl N ^ 93CJ93^ £ (MOO i- 1(3 21 31 39 34 © TfCO1- © © HWNHCO £ COCO d © Cl© O CO © COTt< Tf -t COt- Cl COCO© rH co © © Cl r-1 Grade 2. O'OOCOIO o ■«* < m co COCO00OCl MClHrlJJ COI— ClCOCO© © ClClH ri rl cs O Tf0OI- H OlO'f 09} CO© <N i-> CO OHHrlH COCl© rH© © S © © Cl© 1— rtHH 5500 © © T*Ol Tf 1- © © t- Tjl © O© Cl© O K COmri Grade 1. N ’j'OCliO CO T* Cl00HGOH Cl i—«Cl r—1i—I CO1- © COCO1— iO© & mcjcooco rr COCtCl CO I- CUM O CICICIC1 COClcovj © Cl S CO COTf ClClClClCl 120 117 101 119 81 •O© Cl ClI'- ^ rH© t- CO© Counties. • Yorks ........ Lancs ........... Surrey ......... Kent ......... . Middlesex ... r Gloster. Notts ......... E ssex .......... 1 Sussex ............. >. Warwick ... r Somerset ... Worcester ... Leicester ... Derby ................................... Hants........................................ ' Northants.... *1optuo "3aptuD *8apLuo Tne figures in the “ Mean ” column show each county’s to-be-expected per­ centage, supposing it to have played against an equal number of opponents of each grade. These corrected figures, it will be seen, leave the composition of the three Grades precisely as it was at the outset. How futile, then, has been the inclusion of the last six elements in the com­ petition ! And how simply and straight­ forwardly the competition could have been worked without them! Each county playing all the others, placing could have been decided simply by the balance of wins over losses (as is practically the case in the Football League, whose system was adopted from the old County Ciicket competition), without any need for a complication of points and percentages at all. If only the M.C.C. could be induced to recognize these three Grades, which have so actual an existence, and would limit the stern competition games to contests between clubs in the same Grade! Con­ tests between counties in the first and third groups are, so far as the champion­ ship is concerned, a waste of time. The first group teams are immensely the stronger; if they lose it is always some­ thing of a fluke; the long programme entails an unnecessary strain on them, and the gate returns—-— If each Grade had its own competition yearly, with a transfer of places between the top counties of the lower Grades and the bottom one3 of the Grades above, then there would be two lesser champion­ ships attainable by the weaker counties ; each county could save itself up for its eight or ten “ strenuous ” games, and the