Cricket 1910

43 8 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. O c t . 2 7 , i g i o . ABOUT THE CHAMPIONSHIP AGAIN. By H. P.-T. The M.C.C.’s decision to award the Championship by tbe “ Lancashire Rule,” as it got to be known, or the proportion of games won to those started by com­ petitors, irrespective of whether the remainder were finished or otherwise, has had its season of trial, and its failings and excellences are now food for legitimate discussion. In tbe ordinary way it must shortly come up for re-enactment, amend­ ment, or, as some of us hoje, for super­ session. The contentions that the trial has not been sufficient and that the past season was not a fair one for testing its merits are altogether out of court. A system by which the premiership among the counties is to be decided must be adapted to every kind of season and be judgable by any; and one which depends for efficiency upon a summer of consistently fine weather is transparently inapplicable to an English summer game. Moreover, a system which does not bear analysis on its own merits, but whose only recommendation is the beneficial influence it is supposed to wield on some passing phase of play, is unworthy of a contest running through the ag» s. Dignity should be tlie inheritance of county cricket, which has now been in existence for nearly two hundred years, and the prime essential of dignity is order. A system that conforms to th's standaid must le based on sound principles of computation, have unvarying terms and be capable of determining the best records in any and every year simply by the degree with which results fulfil its requirements. Measured by this standard, the system dominated by “ the Lancashire rule” is utterly inadequate. Beyond the accideut of its awarding the actual Cham p ot ship correctly (which no rational method could have failed to concede to Kent in 1910) the present system has settled nothing else decisively. To render the percentages it has product d reliable, all manner of allowances have to be made for the different number and quality of opponents that the competitors have met, as wrell as for the character and quantity of unfinished games that have affected them adversely. So much, few even of those who uphold the present terms will probably dispute. Nevertheless, quite a number of nice things have been said about the newr means of reckoning on the supposition that it has induced brighter play in general, more definite results and some fine finishes in 1910. That much has been freely taken for granted, but do facts bear it out? Take the season’s results collectively. The county fixtures arranged for the season, and all commence I (after two postpone­ ments), numbered 182. Of these, 133— or 73 per cent. — resulted in “ definite issues” being arrived at. In the preceding five years the proportions had been 67, 75, 71, 63 and 65—not a remarkable difference. In 1910 play, though curtailed by some hours by arrangement in six instances, was entered upon in every case. In the previous five years in eleven instances no play at all was possible; and the total of games really started and left drawn (49) in 1910 was greater, both actually and proportionately, than in 1906 and 1907, when 43 (of 172) and 48 (of 180) were so left undecided. The past season was, besides, a favourable one for finished games : a year of slow wickets and innings considerably shorter than the average. Wet weather in occasional excess has been practically the only factor in preventing finishes, whereas in most seasons high scoring is an additional cause. The new rule, therefore, cannot have appreciably lessened the proportion of drawn games. A further proof is forthcoming in the fact that a still more pronounced diminution of unfinished games (than in county matches) occurred in the other first-class and public school contests to which no “ Lancashire rule ” or other artificial stimulus applied. The remediable excess of drawn games had, in fact, remedied itself before the new rule was begotten, and the irremediable (except by protecting wickets, to some extent) it perforce leaves unaffected. Next take the handful of thrilling finishes attributed to the new regulation. It is idle to suppose that nothing of the kind would have happened without it. To make a bold bid for victory is no new thing in cricket, and one can recall quite as notable exploits, and quite as many, in previous years. For example, when Derby at Leyton, after being 122 behind on the first innings, played up and won by 39 runs ; whilst at Chester­ field, after fielding out whilst 597 were notched against them, they went for the runs and actually gained a nine-wickt ts victory. Two extiaordinary recoveries one year by one team and in the same fixture! Then Kent, at Worcester, wanting 82 to win, hit them up in the last half-hour of the game and succeeded sensationally. Middle­ sex, eager to defeat the Essex men at Lord’s, “ declared ” at three wickets down and lost by seven wickets, their rivals scoring 254 for three wickets on the last afternoon. Gloucester, at Bristol, “ declared” both their innings in the effort to defeat their neigh­ bours ; and Somerset, wanting only 115 to win, had obtained 102 with eight men out at the finish. Hampshire, at Southampton, “ declared ” their Jir»t innings while still two dozen luns behind and secured a brilliant victory over Northampton by nine wickets. Kent, again, “ dec'ared ” their second innings, after some furious hitting, early on the second afternoon in order to have time to get Somerset out on a good wicket at Taunton, and had their reward. At Lord’s, on another occasion, Kent, after “ declaring” their first innings, lost by one wicket to Middlesex, some minutes after the ordinary time for drawing stumps on the last day. All of these things, and very many more of their kind, happened in county cricket between 1904 aud 1909 ; and it is pretty safe to say that, if the “ Lancashire rule ” had come into force six years earlier than it did, every one of them would have been ascribed to its influence. Then as to the general brightening up of play that is claimed to have been induced. It is questionable whether the new conditions have not rather been answerable for tame and lifeless “ displays” by teams to whom a win outright had become impossible, and for whom an effort to avoid defeat had become objectless if it had not even been made to appear perfectly ungenerous. Ihrice last season 1 saw the finest team of the year go down under these conditions, and I am sorry for those who prefer that kind of “ finish ” to a determined attempt to save the game. Kent may be incapable of drawing but, if so, though second to none in their winning mood, I should hesitate about putting them on the same plane with the Notts of the early ’80’s and the Yorkshire of a decade back— teams that could not only vanquish but could hardly be beaten. This inducement “ to take things lying down,” which the new rule offers, will be a very serious matter if men inured to the habit get confronted with stubborn opponents in international cricket. As Englishmen I doubt whether we should be so enamoured of “ finished games ” as we profess to be in the county competition. To some minds “ finished” games of any designation, under such circumstances — finished, to all intents, often on the first afternoon; sometimes as soon as the toss is decided-would appear infinitely more tedious and spiritless than such “ un­ finished ” climaxes as when Sussex and Derby saved their bacon against Warwick in the season just departed. Paradoxical as it sounds, too, while the new rule inclines the chivalric to the idea that it shows good sport to lose without much effoit, to those otherwise minded it offers a direct encouragement to degrade cricket into a game of doubtful tactics. Under certain conditions teams are tempted to put other considerations before the game ; a side perfectly incapable of winning can inflict the equivalent of a defeat on its opponents by playing out time, and can thereby put itself in a better position relative to an invincible opponent than if drawn games had been ignored, or had been counted as midway between wins and losses. Your cricketer would not descend to study such meannesses. Perhaps not, but the temptation need not be put in his way. We have been told a good deal that it is honourable only to score points when we w in; but surely the logical corollary is that we should lose them only when we are beaten.* To justify the continuance of the “ Lanca­ shire rule ” one would have to presuppose two conditions : That there will always be a phenomenal Champion team in the com­ petition, capable of winning a goodly excess of its fixtures ; and that the subsequent placing of the counties will always be a matter of indifference. In so far as these conditions obtained in 1910 the year was exceedingly favourable to its trial. How satisfactory it would prove under other cir­ cumstances may readily be left for Surrey, Middlesex and Lancashire men to decide, assuming that the Kent XI. of the past season had been a myth and that its record had been expunged from the table of results. Turning now to the method which the builders rejected when, with the best of good intentions undoubtedly, they sought to rehabilitate the old order of unequal fixture lists with a new rule that should tickle public iuterest. If the counties had taken that cold plunge, which some of them shudder to contemplate, and had boldly split themselves into two competitions, each of which wou’d have involved a similar test and comparison on equal terms, the follow­ ing would have been the final position in THE CHAMPIONSHIP PROPER. PI. W. D. L. Points. Kent ......... . 14 ... 9 ... 4 . . 1 ... 8 S u rrey......... . 16 ... 7 ... 5 .,.. 4 ... 3 Lancashire .. . 10 ... 0 ... G .... 4 ... 2 Middlesex .. , 14 ... 5 .. 4 ... 5 ... 0 Yorkshire .. . 10 ... 5 ... 0 .... 6 ... 0 Notts .........., 12 ... 4 ... 4 .. 4 ... 0 S ussex......... . 14 ... 4 ... 3 ... 7 ... —3 Northants .. . 12 ... 3 ... 3 ... 0 ... —3 Hampshire .... 14 . 2 .. 3 .... 9 ... - 7 * I do not wish to imply that it is straining sportsmanship to play for a draw, but to trim one’s intentions of endeavouring to save the game or not ac­ cording to the exigencies of the table of percentages.