Cricket 1907

86 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A p r i l 25, 1907. THE COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP. B y J. B . P a yn e. W hen the regulations w hich govern the C ounty Championship were drawn up, the fact was wholly lost sight of that the clause w h ich requires one point to be deducted for a loss was needless and il­ logical. The follow ing illustration renders this clear. Yorkshire in 1900 w on 17 out o f 20 c ample‘ed m atches. N ow , without any deductions whatsoever, it is obvious that the county w on JJ or 85 per cent, of the possible m axim um . That is the self- evident and unadulterated value of the perform ance. W h y complicate it ? If, then, the positions of the counties were determ ined by taking the proportion of wins instead of points to matches finished, the same order o f merit w ould be obtained, the losses would w ork out automatically, and all necessity for “ points,” “ m in u s” quantities, and “ deductions for lo sse s” w ould disappear at once. W hile in principle the present scheme would remain unaffected, in m ethod and significance it w ould becom e immeasurably m ore simple and intelligible. N ow it cannot be too strongly insisted upon that a Championship “ table” which is to exhibit the progress o f the counties week by week should be as free from com ­ plexity |as possible. “ M inus” quantities, for instance, being entirely unnecessary, should find no place in it. The record of each com petitor should disclose on the face o f it a direct and intrinsic Viilue without leaving anything to ulterior calculation. Ihere should be a positive and uniform basis o f comparison and an accurately-defined m argin o f difference between each o f the counties. A bove all, the scheme should be such as mo.it readily to comm end itself to the intelligence of the general public. There are clearly two alternatives w hereby these conditions can be fulfilled and the principle o f the existing schem e nt the same time preserved. T hey differ m erely in p h raseolog y ; in percentages and results they are the same. The first consists in striking out o f the present rule the words “ One deducted for each loss,” in which case “ p o in ts” and “ w in s” w ould becom e synonym ous term s. This m eth od has at least the m erit o f involving the m inim um o f change in the w ording o f the rule. The second is to be found in the follow ing am endm ent, w hich for c om ­ parison’s sake is placed side by side with the present rule :— Amendment. Unfinished games shall not be reckoned. The county gaining the highest percent­ age of wins in finished matches shall be champion county. and under the suggested amendment. “ P oints,” under the present regulations, are o f course obtained by striking the difference between wins and losses. For convenience o f reference, the fourth and fifth colum ns are labelled “ A ” and “ B respectively. COUNTY CHAMPIONSHIP, 1006. “ A" “ IS” Percent- Percent­ age of YVins. . 88-88 j . 85-00 . 81-SI j . 71-42 | . 69-23 . 63*63 . 60-00 I . 43-75 | 37"50 . 33-33 , Wins. Kent .......... 16 ... 2 ... 18 Yorkshire .. 17 ... 3 ... 20 Surrey........ 18 ... 4 ... 22 Lancashire.. 15 ... 6 ... 21 N otts........ 9 ... 4 ... 13 Warwick .. 7 ... 4 ... 11 E ssex........ 9 ... 6 ... 15 Hants........ 7 ... 9 ... 16 Gloucester.. 6 ... 10 ... 16 Sussex.. 6 .. 12 ... 18 Middlesex ^ Northants ]- Somerset J Worcester .. 4 ... 10 ... 14 2 8 .., 10 Leicester .. 3 ... 14 ... 17 Derbyshire.. 2 ... 17 ... 19 It will be observ ed that, Present Rule One point shall be reckoned for each w in ; [one deducted for each loss]; un­ finished games shall not bo reckoned. The county which during the season shall have, in finished matches, obtained the greatest proportionate number of points shall be reckoned champion county. The appended table shows the positions o f the counties under the existing rule age of Losses. Finished. Points. 77-77 . 70-00 . 63*63 42-85 , 38-46 , 27*27 , 20-00 -12*50 -25*00 -33*33 -42*85 28*57 ..—60*00 ... 20*00 ...—64*70 .. 17*64 ...—78*94 ... 10*52 in “ B ,” points, as now understood, are dispensed with and the positions reckoned on the percent­ age o f wins. A s “ m inus ” quantities are also got rid of, each county’s perform ­ ances receive a positive, as opposed to a negative, value. The essential difference between “ A ” and “ B ” is that “ B ” states in a direct form what “ A ” puts in the form o f a problem . Thus, “ A ” m erely shows that Essex win 20 per cent, m ore matches than they lose. Their actual percentage o f wins and losses is left to “ ulterior calculation.” “ B ” gives the “ direct and in trin sic” value by showing that Essex w in 00 (and therefore lose 40) o f every 100 matches finished. Again, taking the case of W orcester, “ A ,” by way of para­ dox, tells that W orcestershire lose 60 per cent, m ore matches than they win. “ B ,” on the other hand, shows at sight that W orcestershire win 20 (and therefore lose 80) o f e-^ry 100 matches finished. B y “ B ” therefore, a “ positive and uniform basis o f com parison” between E ssex and W orcestershire is established, viz., Essex in 100 finished games win 40 m ore matches than W orcester. B y “ A ” there can be no such direct comparison, inasmuch as the one record is a “ plus ” and the other a “ m in u s” quantity. The many objections to the present complex system 'wholly arise out o f the practice o f deducting one point fo r a loss which has absolutely no logical founda­ tion. Suppose, for instance, Yorkshire and Lancashire are both “ going strong,” and have each played and w on nine matches. I f in the tenth game Yorkshire are victorious and Lancashire are defeated, the natural position in point of matches w on would be, Yorkshire ten-tenths or 100 per cent., Lancashire nine-tenths or 90 per cent. In other words Lancashire automatically fall behind Yorkshire without any deduction o f points whatever. B y the existing rule, on the other hand, while Yorkshire would remain at 100 per cent., Lancashire, in consequence o f the forfeiture o f a point being super-added to the defeat , would at once drop from 100 to 80 per c e n t.! H ence it is perfectly plain that the excessive penalty involved b y a defeat, to which many cricketers have ju stly taken exception, is entirely referable to the unreasoning system o f deducting points for losses. This has the tw o-fold effect o f penalizing the loser twice over and o f creating an altogether dispropor­ tionate m argin o f difference betw een the contending teams. In this latter aspect it is apparent that Kent, Yorkshire, and Surrey in reality stand m uch closer together than the margin between them as represented by “ A ” w ould indicate. The actual “ margin o f difference” between them in point o f m atch-w inning power is far m ore “ accurately defined ” by “ B ” than by “ A .” A gain, in exactly the same ratio that a coun ty winning all its finished games is credited with 100 per cent., so, by logical sequence 50 per cent, should obviously signify that half the completed matches have been won, i.e., that the wins and losses are equal. In the same w ay a cypher properly belongs to a county failing to win a single m atch, not to one that has w on and lost the same number o f matches. T o calculate the positions by subtracting losses from wins is nothing but a fallacy. L astly, where the defeats exceed the victories the bare fact that the percentage o f w ins stands below 50 is in itself sufficient evidence that the liabilities exceed the assets without any need o f “ m in u s” quantities to prove it. The “ m inus ” sign does not m ake this any clearer; it only destroys the “ positive and uniform basis o f com parison ” w hich is an essential part o f a cham pionship table. The position of a county is, therefore, best determ ined by m ultiplying its wins by 100 and dividing the result by the number o f its finished m atches. N or do these proposals involve any contravention of the principle which underlies the com petition. On the contrary, they are nothing more than the reduction to its simplest form o f the process w hereby the order o f merit is arrived at. T o sum up, it is abundantly clear— Firstly : That what is signified by points (as now understood) can be made m uch m ore apparent by taking the percent­ age o f wins. Secondly: That the reduction o f points entails ( a ) an excessive penalty in the case o f d efea t; (6) an altogether disproportionate margin o f difference between the cou n ties; (c) a fallacious v a lu e ; and ( d ) the needless use of “ m inus ” quantities. Thirdly : That “ p o in ts” (as n ow understood), “ deduc­ tions for losses,” and “ m inus ” quantities are therefore m erely so m an y useless encumbrances serving but to obscure what it should be the first aim o f a championship table to elucidate, v iz .: the “ direct and intrinsic value ” o f the doings o f the counties year by year. M r. Jessop’s schem e entirely defeats its ow n object. H a d his m ethod o f scoring been in force last year, the percentage o f K ent when they entered upon their last match with a record o f 15 w on and 2 lost w ould have stood at 88’52. B y w inning they would have increased it to 84'44, whereas, had they lost, it w ould have dropped to 70'60. The disadvantage of defeat, therefore, w ould outw eigh the benefit o f victory by nearly seven to one.. N ot on ly is(his m eth od m ore complicated, but a draw w ould still be nearly as valu­ able as a win.