Cricket 1907

Nov. 28, 1907. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 461 Conversely the effect upon a side that has won 1match and lost 8 is worth observing. Percentages. M.C.C. + Ten and — One. Won 1, lost 8 ... — 77*77 .......... 2-22 Won 2, lost 8 ... — 60*00 (win) ... 12*00 (win) Won 1, lost 9 ... — 80*00 (loss) ... 1*00 (loss) Here the rise in percentageunder both systems is eight times as great as the fall. Had it been possible for Mr. Jessop’s scheme to have the desired effect, it is manifest that counties at the bottom of the list would have benefited out of all proportion to those at the top. It is scarcely necessary to point out that a win and loss can only have a uniform effect when the wins and losses were previously equal. Mr. Jessop’s scheme then had merely complicated a system already needlessly complex. He had sought to remove a dis­ crepancy which was no discrepancy at all, but simply * a property of arithmetic which nothing can alter. Major Trevor in his “ Problemsof Cricket ” seems to have fallen into much the same trap. On page 189 he gives an instance of what he terms the “ disproportionate award and the disproportionate penalty.” He cites the case of the Kent Eleven in 1906, whose percentage when they had only three more matches to play was 73*33. Their record at the time was 13 wins, 2 losse3 and 4 draws. He points out that, if the three last matches were won, the percentage would go up 4 44 points; but that if they were lost, it would fall 28 89 points (in error he wrote 33 points). This he stigmatizes as a “ most undesirable state of affairs.” But Major Trevor’s own scheme does not remove the “ discrepancy.” Had Kent’s last three matches been won, their percentage by the Major would have risen 3*88 points. If lost, it would have fallen 14*21 points. The difference in ratio between the rise and fall under the two schemes is explained by the points being made proportionate in one case to matches finished, and in the other to matches played. In principle the so-called discrepancy remains. Had the wins and losses been reversed, the degree of the rise and fall would have been reversed likewise; but in either case Tod- hunter and Barnard-Smith would have been perfectly satisfied. Of other suggestions, those of Major Trevor and Punch attracted a good deal of attention. Major Trevor was for scoring points as under the Jessop system, viz., + 5 and —1. Punch recommended that the M.C.C. method should be retained, viz., +1 and —1. Both, however, insisted upon this modification, viz., that the percentage should be calculated uponmatches played , instead of matches finished. The avowed intention of either scheme was to penalize all drawn games by including them in the denominator. To begin with, it requires a vivid imagination to regard a county that has won 3 matches and lost 7 as possessing a credit balance, and yet by Major Trevor, as by Mr. Jessop, such a county’s points would be represented by +1. Now, it is well to remember that in 1906 no less than 172 county matches were played, of which 129 were finished and 43 drawn. Never in the history of the game had so many matches been played in one season, but, what is more to the point, not since 1895 had so small a proportion of the matches been left unfinished. And yet the dry summer of 1906 was all in favour of long scores. As a matter of fact the percentage of drawn games had steadily declined from 46 in 1902 to 25 • E x p la n a tio n . —The relative effect of a Win and Loss is that the Rise bears the same ratio to the Fall that the Losses do to the Wins, and xice verm. —J. B. P. in 1906. It is also very significant that the drawn games of 1906, as pointed out in “ Wisden,” were “ due rather to occasional wet days in a wonderful summer than to excessive scoring.” Why then this sudden outcry about the unfinishedmatch? Granting that drawn games are to be penalized, is a county’s percentage to suffer because rain has precluded a definite result ? Are the counties to pay in their percentages as well as their pockets for the watery visitations of 1907 ? Nor must it be forgotten that the conditions under which a match is played may be so unequal as regards the state of the weather and wicket, not to mention interruptions for bad light, that a side through no fault of its own may easily find itself in a position which admits of no alternative but to play for a draw. But there are other aspects of these schemes which are best considered by taking the effect of a drawn game upon counties whose points are standing (a) at a “ plus,” (6) at a cypher, and (c) at a “ minus.” (a) The percentage isreduceJ, the penalty varying from a few or even several points, iQ the case of counties at the head of the list, to a comparatively fractional penalty where there is only a bare “ plus” per­ centage. Manifestly, as a draw would st 11 be les-s damaging than a defeat, a side finding victory out of the question would choose the lesser of two evils and play for a draw as religiously as ever. (b) The percentage is unaffected and consequently the intended penalty is in­ operative. A county could draw games to its heart’s content and still retain its position midway between the “ plus” and “ minus” counties. (c) The percentage is improved !! Did this escape the notice of Punch and Major Trevor? A drawn game between a ‘ ‘ plus” and “ minus” county therefore reduces the percentage of the former while improving that of tho latter, though the latter may have had all the worst of the play. Under the Punch system it would strictly be possible for a county that had failed to win amatch to occupy a respectable position in the list, for in no less than nine out of the last thirteen years have the “ minus” counties outnumbered those at a “ plus.” Taking the year 1897 as many as nine out of fourteen counties lost more matches than they won. At the head of the “ minus” divi>ion was Sussex, who played 20matches, winning 5, losing 6, and drawing 9. It follows, therefore, that a county winning 0, losing 1, and drawing 19 could have tied with Missex for sixth place. By Major Trevor, it is true, there would have been only three “ minus” counties at the end of last summer as against seven by Punch , but at the outset of a season there would be considerably more, and it is in its actual bearing upon the current play that any scheme has mainly to be considered. It* effects cannot be fully gauged by applying it to past years when the play may have been governed by quite a different policy. Even assuming that it is desirable to penalize drawn games, there is at least little direct evidence that either of the above schemes would attain the object in view. In many cases they would absolute’y defeat it. Judged by the records of past yeirs some extraordinary changes would occur. Thus:— 1907. Essex—Won, 10 ; lost., 7 ; drawn, 5 ; precede Lancashire—Won, 11 ; lost, 7 ; drawn, 8. (Trevor). 1904. Middlesex—Won, 9 ; lost, 4 ; drawn, 5 ; pre­ cede Kent—Won, 10 ; lost, 4 ; drawn, 7. (Punch and Trevor.) 1902. Warwick—Won, 6 ; lost, 5 ; drawn, 7 ; and Kent—Won, 8 ; lost, 8 ; drawn, G; precede Surrey —Won, 8 ; lost, 5 ; drawn, 15. (Trevor.) 1901. Gloucester—Won, 3 ; lost, 10 ; drawn, 11 ; precede Somerset—Won, 4 ; lost, 10 ; drawn, 3 ; and Leicester—Won, 4 ; lost, 10 ; drawn, 5. (Punch.) Warwick—Won, 7 ; lost, 4 ; drawn,5 ; precede Lancashire—Won, 11; lost, 5 ; drawn, 12. (Trevor.) 1900. Leicester—Won, 3 ; lost, 11 ; drawn, 8 ; pre­ cede Somerset—Won, 4 ; lost, 11 ; drawn, 1. (Punch.) 1897. Derby—Won, 0; lost, 9; drawn, 7; precede Leicester—Won, 1 ; lost, 10 ; drawn, 3. (Punch.) 1896. Sussex—Won, 2 ; lost, 9; drawn, 7 ; precede Leicester—Won, 2 ; lost, 8 ; drawn, 4. (Punch.) The chief objections to the M.C.C. s stem are that it is needlessly involved, and that except in the case of a side with an unbeaten record it undervalues the actual ivorlh of a County1 s performance. Thus, if Notts have played and won 4 matches, they have, by the M.O.C. and every other system, scored 100 per cent. The difference comes in where the fifth match is lost. lleie the percentage drops by the M.C.C. and Punch to 60, by the Jessop and Trevor systems to 72. The true percentage is clearly 80. In other words, Notts have now scored 4 wins out of a pos­ sible 5, i.e., $ths, or 80 per cent. Note that the penalty of defeat is lighter under the last method than under any other. To deduct the one defeat from the four wins, is to make Notts pay for the defeat twice over. They have already ] aid once in the reduction of their percentage from 100 to 80. By the very simple expedient of taking the proportion of wins to matches finished all “ minus ” quanti­ ties and ‘ ‘ points ’ ’ would be got rid of, and the real intrinsic value of the record would be obtained. All else that would be needed would be a safeguard against the remote possibility of a county gaining the Cham­ pionship by winning a mere handful of matches and drawing the remainder. If the M.C.C. have not the power of intervention surely it should be possible to insist upon some proportion of finished games as a sine qua von for the possession of the Champion­ ship — say 50 per cent, of the number arranged or played. It may be of interest to note that by such a rule the only displace­ ment of the Champion County since 1895 would occur in 1899, when Middlesex, with 11 wins, 3 defeats, and 4 draws, would sup­ plant Surrey, who won 10 matches, lost 2, and drew 14. J. B. I’ ayn h . OBITUARY. M r . A. S cott . Mr. Andrew Scott, one of South Australia’s leading bowlers in the early seventies, died suddenly at Ngoorla, Adelaide, on October 8th, aged 56. At the time of his death he was Principal of the Adelaida University Training College. In the match at Adelaide in November, 1874, between XVIII. of South Australia and XI. of Victoria he obtained ten wickets for 73 runs, and that season (1874-75), when playing for North Adelaide, headed the Association bowling averages with 52 wickets at a cost of 4*05 runs each. M r . W. S cott . Mr. Walter Scott, who visited England as a member of the Philadelphian team of 1889, died at Colorado Springs of pneumonia on October 24th, at the early age of 39. He was born at Huntingdon, Pa., on April 19tb, 1864, and was still a student of Pennsylvania