Cricket 1907

-1GO CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. Nov. 28, 1907. OCTOBER. 5. A. Richardson, Sevenhills v. Clare .......... 181 5. A. Chittleborough, Mount Perry v. Gayn- dah (Queensland) ................................*108 5. C. McKenzie, Fitzroy v. Essendon (at Mel­ bourne) ..................................................... *221 5. T. Horan, Prahran v. Northcote .................*121 5. C. E. Dolling, Adelaide v. Bankville ..........*103 5. J. Brunton, Glenelg v. Sir Janies Fergusson *130 5. W. T. Magarey, Adclphian A. v. Stow... •• *10S 5. S. Waye, Willunga v. Aldinga........................*101 5. F. Webber, Albert v. Sir William Robinson 101 5. V. Gundry, Kolar Gold Fields v. Royal Field Artillery..................................................... 105 5. P. Morris-Davis, Kolar Gold Fields v. Royal Field Artillery .......................................*102 5. P. Watson, Williamstown v. Melbourne University .............................................. 109 5. Grimshaw, Port Melbourne v. North Mel­ bourne ..................................................... 132 7. H. Turner, Petersham II. v. Sydney II. ... *144 7. R. Beavis, Randwick-11^ v. Middle Harbor II. ... ..................................................... 102 7. W. Farnsworth, Redfern v. Paddington ... *104 12. J. Crouch, Grace Plains v. Windsor ..........*142 12. M. Wave, McLaren Vale v. Sellick’s Hill ... 107 12. L. Tlllbrook, Clare v. Blyth ........................*106 12. J. T. F. Johnson, Balaklava v. Boundary ... 107 12. J. Sugars, Balaklava v. Owen........................ 103 12. O. L. Wilkes, Queen’s Park, Durban, v. Casuals.....................................................*103 12. —. Wilson, Wanderers A. v. E. R. P. M. (Johannesburg)....................................... 127 12. —. Handfield, Commonwealth v. Pirates A. 122 12. G. Hazlitt, Melbourne v. Carlton ................ 103 12. R. N. Hickson, Gordon v. North Sydney ... 113 12. A. Libley, Willunga v. Noarlunga .......... 106 16. —. Lakshmikantha, Presidency College v. Madras..................................................... *101 19. W. Zulch, Wanderers A. v. E. R. P. M. (at Johannesburg) ....................................... 206 19. L. D. Dalton, I. Zingari v. High School (Durban) .............................................. 102 19. G. L. Wilkes, Queen’s Park v Casuals (Durban) ..............................................*103 23. A. A. Ferguson, Godavcry District v. Viza- gapatam District....................................... 101 26. II. B. Floquet, West Rand v. Pretoria......... 126 NOVEMBER. 9. C. H ill , Souni A ustralia v . E ngland ( at A delaide ) .............................................. 104 11. A. O. J ones , E ngland v . S outh A ustralia ( at A delaide ) ....................................... 119 12. B raund , E ngland v . S outh A ustralia ( at A delaide ) ............................................. 160 12. H ardstaff , E ngland v . S outh A ustralia ( at A delaide ) ....................................... 135 12. J. N. C rawford , E ngland v . S outh A us ­ tralia ( at A delaide ) ................ .. 114 19. V. R ansford , V ictoria v . E ngland (at Melbourne) .............................................. 102 CTotrcfipo iflcncf. The Editor does not ho1d himself responsible for the opinions oj his correspondents. A DISPUTED CRICKET RECORD. (<Continued from P>ge 352.) To the Editor of Ckickbt. S ir ,— In fairness to myself, as an Austra- lian cricket authority—Mr. Ashley-Cooper has somewhat pointedly questioned a record by me best explained by the folio A rin g extract from the Australian Star of October 14th, and 1 court the privilege of a reply per medium of your columns. Perusal of extract ref-rred to, supported, if Mr. Ashley-Cooper is pre­ pared to go to the expense following upon a “ statutory declaration” would probably bring about “ a homely lesson.*’ Without further comment, and smarting somewhat under the indignity of what he construed on iny part a9 an attempt to mislead, I cannot do better than give the extract referred to as printed for this gentleman’s information as follows. In doing so, I have to thank you in anticipation for its insertion :— A DISPUTED CRICKET RECORD. The controversy on the above and in the English press between Mr. Ashley-Cooper, of England, and Mr. F. J. Ironside, of Sydney, in which the former disputes a certain record of 1,238 runs made in one inning* between the Ulsters and Macquaries, and appearing in Anthony Hordern’s Cricket Almanac, com­ piled by the last-named authority, has now assumed a definite shape, and is best sub­ stantiated by the following strong evidence. The first is from Mr. J. Costello, now secre­ tary of the New England Cricket Association, who recollccts the match being played, being at the time named secretary of the City C.C. The second is a statement from Mr. Victor Cohen, an ex treasurer of the New South Wales Cricket Association, and who in the year 1893 went to England as manager of the eighth Australian Eleven. This gentleman writes as follows:—“ If the score referred to is that of Ulster v. Macquarie, I know some­ thing of it. When I was in partnership with my brother we decided to publish a cricket annual, and I gathered the details. We sent circulars throughout the States asking for scores as th^y were made each week, and in the ordinary course of time the Ulster v. Macquarie came to hand, not in the ordinary course of post, but was each week handed in to me, and by me sent to press. The members of both clubs were customers of ours, and I have no reason whatever to doubt the match took place, and the scores were made as pub­ lished in our guide. I must sny that it is rather late in the day to question the score. I have never heard of it being done before.” These two statements prove conclusively the correctness of Mr. Ironside’s record, and Mr. Ashley-Cooper must now accept them as conclusive. I am, etc., F. J. I ronside . “ Cromwell House,” Moore Park, 8) dney, New South Wale?. In reply to the above Mr. Ashley-Cooper wiites:— “ Neither Mr. Ironside’s letter nor the extract accompanying it contains any proof whatever that the score of 1,238 was ever made. Mr. Costello’s remark that he remembers the game being played carries no weight unless he witnessed i t ; his state­ ment implies that he merely heard the score alluded to, or saw it mentioned in print, some time after it was supposed to have been made. The exact date of the match, by-the-wajT, has always been a mystery. Mr. Victor Cohen says : 41 must say that it is rather late in the day to question the score.’ Presumably he is unaware that the authenticity of the match has often been doubted, and that Mr. Ironside, in a letter dated Mirch 25tli, 1896, and reproduced in Cricket of May 7tli that year, stated : ‘ This match Las cropped up again in the Colonies, and I have given evidence so conclusive that I am not likely to hear anything more of, as was asserted, “ the match being played in some back parlour.” ’ It was this ‘ evidence so conclusive ’ that Mr. Iron­ side was invited to place before the English authori­ ties, and this he has failed to do. But the fact that the genuineness of the record was doubted far earlier is mentioned in Conway’s Aus ralian Cri-keters Annual for 1876-77 (page 231)—‘ There are many who doubt as to its authenticity’—and in Sidney Cohen’s NewSouth WalesCricketer* GuideandAnnual for 1877-78 (page 249)—‘ Many doubt this match ever being played.’ Mr. Coflfcn’s statement that ‘ the members of both clubs ’—Mr. Ironside had previously said they were merely ‘ two impromptu elevens’— ‘ were customers of ’ his brother and himself leads one to hope that the authenticity of the score, if ever made, may yet be established, for it is possible that Mr. Cohen may still be acquainted with, or able to trace, at least one of the many players who so distinguished themselves. About thirty-five years ago, and for some time afterwards, several imaginary scores were published in the newspapers —one such, of fifteen years’ standing, was exposed in Cricket of 1888, page 408—and I still sec no reason why the Ulster and Macquarie record should be regarded with anything but the gravest suspicion. The score has never been credited by ‘ Not Out’ of the Sydney Referee , and this fact carries much weight, for he is not only probably the greatest living authority on Australian cricket history, but a Sydney man. Alluding to the matoh in his notes in the Referee last month, he remarked :— “ F. J. I. stated that he had a letter put away somewhere from one of those who played in the alleged match. But for all that the evidence, or lark pf evidence, of the authen­ ticity of the m it^i ha* long since made the ordinary cricket follower consider it a myth.” If Mr. Ironside succeed* in unearthing the letter referred to it may enable him to trace the writer of i t ; otherwise it would be of no value, and of little interest save, perhaps, in showing whence the report originated. Jingle informed Mr. Pickwick that he made 570 in a single-wicket match in the W -st Indies, but that was no proof that he ever did compile such a score, and—I trust the remark will not be deemed offensive—it appears to me that the position of Messrs. Ironside and Cohen is analogous to that of Mr. Pickwick. The score of 1238 has never been accepted by Mr. C. P. Moody, nor, so far as I am aware, by any recognised authority on the game in Australia. The late Mr. George Lacy, who lived in Sydney from 1879 to 1884, has said ( Cricket , 1896, page 74):—“ An innings of ten runs on Moore Park in those days was as good as one of a hundred on the Association ground. There were one or two clubs that kept their pitches in some order, but anything like huge scoring was a physical impossibility.” Furthermore, Mr. Ironside himself, in Conway’s Australian Cricketers' Annual for 1877-78 (page 179), has stated that the ground, which he described as a “ field of cricket wonder­ ment,” was “ thoroughly ill-suited ” to the game, and was “ about as level in most parts as a potato-field,” and here, he would have us believe, it was that eleven crickcters, unknown to fame, compiled a record score on an unknown date. The opinion of the ground held by Mr. Ironside 30 years ago is evidently very different from the one he entertains now, for in his letter in Cricket of August 15th he stated that the Ulster v. Macquarie match was played “ under conditions as to locality which strongly favoured the batsmen.” It is difficult to reconcile these two expressions of opinion. I shall be willing to pay the expenses of an affidavit, as Mr. Ironside suggests, provided I am first acquainted with the nature of the matter he proposes to place upon record. I make this stipulation as it is obvious that his opinion of what constitutes ‘ ‘ conclusive evidence ” differs from mine. Finally, I wish to say that I have never suggested that Mr. Ironside has wilfully intended to mislead anyone in this matter, and that I much regret that any remark of mine should have caused him to entertain such a notion. I have no doubt whatever that in his own mind he is firmly convinced of the genuineness of the score, and the same remark applies to Messrs. Cohen and Costello. ’ TI1E COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP. Of matters exercising theminds of crickete;8 during the present winter not the Last im­ portant is the vexed question of point-scoring in the County Championship. Last spring .Mr. Jessop broached a scheme whereby 5 points were to be added for a win, 2 deducted for a loss, and the positions calculated on the proportion of actual points to the maximum points possible in matches finished. To this the counties gave their unanimous assent, as well as to the final clause which stipulated that drawn games should not count. Now it is well known that in the case of counties whose wins exceed the losses, the effect of a defeat is to reduce the percentage by more joint* than a win would increase it. The more numerous the wins and the fewer the defeats the more pronounced does this feature bccome. Mr. Jessop’s scheme was doubtle s intended to remove this seeming discrepancy, but he appears to have overlooked three facts: (1) that where the defeats exceed the victories the converse of the above holds true; (2) that what appears a discrepancy is in reality no discrepancy at all, but that on the contrary it is in strict accordance with the laws of arithmetic; (3) that so long as percentages are calculated upon finished matches, the order of merit will be the same and the relative effect of a win and loss will be in precisely the same latio, no matter how many points are awarded for a win or deducted for a loss. Assume for argument sake that oven ten points are given for a win and only one deducted for a loss, and compare the ollect of a win and lossunder such a schema and under that of the M.C.C. upon a county that has won 8 matches and lost 1. Percentages. M.C.C. + Ten and - One. 1 Von8, lost 1 ... 77‘77 ...... 87'77 Won 9, lost 1 ... S0,00(win) ... 89-00(win) Won 8, lost 2 ... 60 00 (loss) ... 7S-00 (loss) It will be found that under either system the fall in percentage is eight times as grr at as the lise.