Cricket 1910

M a r c h 31, 1910. CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 35 The construction of the Demon Drivers is fully described in The Evolution of a Cricket Bat , which may be obtained free upon applica­ tion. m m m BALLS ItMFHOVED MAKE-KEEP THEIR SHftPE-LAS t LONG ER ! C A T A L O G U E U PO N A P P L IC A T IO N . C A T A L O G U E U PO N A P P L IC A T IO N . C A T A L O Q U E U PO N ] iA P P L IC A T IO N . O ' n THE D IV IS IONAL CHAMPION ­ SHIP. C A T A L O Q U E U PO N A P P L IC A T IO N . B U S Y ’S ill !.JA „D EM O N d r i v e r s » ARE OUT AND OUT THE BEST. OTHERGRADES7 'o's ’ 4'e-4-'-3'e-3'-2'6~Z'- jCATALOGUL GN APPUCAT I ^ C A T A L O G U E U PO N A P P L IC A T IO N TO GEO. G. BUSSEY & Co., L t d . 36 & 38, Queen Victoria St., LONDON. Manufactory— Timber Mills — PECKHAM, S.E. ELMSWELL, SUFFOLK Agents all over the world. A REPLY TO “ WISDEN.” N j man’s opinion stands, deservedly, higher in estimation than that of the Editor of “ Wisden.” The fact that in the last two issues of “ the Cricketer’s Bible” he has pronounced unhesitatingly against any alteration of the Championship has prob­ ably been the greatest encouragement that tbose whose fancied interests prompt them to fight shy of reform could have received, and has consequently, perhaps, been the greatest factor iu hindering its acceptance. But, not to mention lesser authorities, in Lord Hawke ajudge as sound and experienced, and indubitably actuated as much by regard for the welfare of the game at large (an i not for that of any single county or coterie) has come to a directly opposite conclusion, and has earned the gratitude of all who value the continued prosperity of County Cricket by championing a revision of the terms on which it shall be played. Both authorities cannot be right. When, therefore, “ Wisden” (unlike the wise umpire) gives the reasons upon which his judgment is founded — as he does upon pp. 173-4 of this year’s “ Almanack ’’—those reasons becomes fair game for examination and criticism in determining between the two. And here let the curious fact be noted that, instead of attempting to rebut the arguments of those who favour a Divisional Championship, its opponents have mainly contented themselves with urging other con­ siderations—generally the fear of depreciated “ gates ” —that in their opinion outweigh them. “ Wisden ” at the outset somewhat dis­ counts the value of this particular judgment by the avowal that he “ can never get up the least interest in the discussion.” The find­ ing of a judge who hears a case in this pre-convinced and lackadaisical frame of mind hardly commends itself to respect. Then, he continues, he is satisfied with the existing system because under it “ no county has won the Championship without fairly deserving the honour.” One might reply that under it on at least four occasions (as shown by an analysis on p. 469 of last December’s Cricket) other counties equally deserving of the honour have failed to secure it. But, leaving this objection aside, can any accidental coinci­ dence of fairness justify a scheme which is radically unfair in itself ? Supposing we desired to decide a cham­ pionship among cricketing books, and set out with two rules, that any book mention­ ing the game was qualified to enter and that the largest number of pages should be the basis of comparison : then the “ London Directory ” might fairly deserve the award because it had earned it under the terms of the competition ; but would that fact prove the wisdom of those terms ? Or, if by chance a volume of Gale or Nyren happened instead best to fulfil those conditions, and so tallied more with our conception of fitness, would that fact justify the rules any the more ? The rules of a competition must stand upon their own merits, and not only have those determining the County Cham­ pionship more than once failed to give general satisfaction by their result, but they absolutely collapse when stood upon their own bottom. The chief reason for tlieir failure is this : With so many counties as sixteen competing in one group , it is perfectly impossible for all of them to play each other and, meeting different opponents, it is equally impossible to judge them all by the same te.st. Taking 1009 for example, only one county attempted the toilsome feat of engaging every other, and no single pair at the finish had their percentages struck from a corresponding list of fixtures carried o u t! It may be demurred that the match lists are sufficiently alike in quality for all reason­ able purposes and that, the counting being practically by the proportion of wins per loss, instead of by the simpler balance of points which would otherwise suffice, the mere difference in number of games played makes no odds. But such is not the case. In 1909 the number of matchfes arranged varied between 30 in one case and 16 in another. Now, of the 16 competitors, the top eight (including Worcestershire), except in matches agaiust each other, won 57 games and lost only 10, whilst the remaining eight (including Hamp­ shire) of course won 10 and lost 57. Collectively, therefore, the former group were nearly six times as successful as the other. If, then, a club playing 16 matches had chanced to meet only the former eight opponents, it would have been undertaking a task nearly six times as heavy as that of a club antagonizing the other eight! So extremely different a selection is of course improbable ; but every pair of unequal match-lists more or less approaches it. For example : the opponents of Somerset last year won 80 games and lost 50; those of Northants won 66 and lost 74. The com­ parative strength of the two oppositions was thus represented by the figures 1*60 and 0' 89; or, in other words, Somerset undertook at the outset a task nearly twice as difficult as that of Northants. How can a column of uniform percentages compare the results of two such different undertakings ? But even if the relative strength of opponents happened generally to be in agreement, the mere inequality of their number must always result in injustice. Take the case of two clubs which we will assume to be absolutely equal in strength. One, Golashire, plays 30 matches, the other, Coppershire, can manage only 16. Against each other fortune gives each a victory, and both win every other match. Common- sense says that both should share the Championship, but the proportion of wins per loss (which determines the M.C.C.’s involved percentages) is 29 to 1 in the one case, 15 to 1 in the other—or nearly twice as high in Goldshire’s favour, who easily get the award. If on the other hand the two, still equal, are so weak as to be able to beat only one other opponent, Leadsliire, then, while Coppershire’ s proportion of wins (3 to 13) will fall to *23 of its losses, that of Goldshire (3 to 27) will descend to -11, or less than half. So that a short programme is a mani­ fest disadvantage to a strong club, propor­ tionately an advantage to a weak one, aud only a negligible matter when the club is absolutely mediocre. Which, being trans­ lated, means that the present Championship system may be capable of fairly deciding the middle position but not the top or the last. Another anomaly arising from diverse programmes is that, with two clubs holding identical records against the same opponents, the one doing better in its remaining fixtures may easily be left behind at the finish.