Cricket 1910

A p r i l 14, igio. CRICKET A W E E K L Y R K C O k i) OK T ftfe GAMfe. 53 closed for 103. Blythe taking seven wickets for 46. The only batsman to meet with much success was Zulch, who, going in first, carried his bat through the innings for 43. He batted 135 minutes for his runs, and played a useful and very patient game : he was, however, missed when 19. In the follow-on it appeared as though another collapse would take place for Commaille left at 25, Zulch at 29, and Nourse at 31. Snooke and Faulkner then played a very watch­ ful game, and with such success that by the time stumps were drawn they bad taken the score to 102 without further loss. In all, they added 120 for the fourth wicket. The stand was ended by the dis­ missal of Snooke, who scored 47 in 130 minutes by very sound cricket, and hit four 4’s. Sinclair hit freely and helped to add 48, of which his own share was 37, for the fifth wicket, which fell at 199. He made his runs in 35 minutes. Bisset then came in, but at 226 lost Faulkner, who scored his 99 out of 195 in 160 minutes without a mistake of any kind ; he gave an excellent display and bit fifteen 4’s, and, further­ more, mada his runs at a time when they were needed. Three runs later Vogler was bowled, but Schwarz hit successfully and well, and scored 44 of the 67 put on in an hour for the eighth w icket; he hit six 4’s in his valuable innings. Norton and Samuel- son made 7 each, and when the innings closed Bisset earned out his bat for a very steady 27, which took him 125 minutes to compile. England lost Bird without a run, but won the game without further loss. Score and analysis:— E ngland . First innings. Second innings. H obbs,htwkt., bNorton ...187 Rhodes, b Nourse ...........77 notout................... 0 Denton, c Samuelson, b Nourse .......................... 26 notout...................16 F. L. Fane, b Norton.......... 6 Woolley, b Norton ........... 0 Thompson, c Sinclair, b Faulkner .......................... 51 M. C. Bird, c Faulkner, b Norton .......................... 0 c Bisset, b Vogler 0 G. H. Simpson-Hayward, c Snooke, b Faulkner ... 19 N.C. Tufnell, c and bVoglcr 14 Strudwick, c Zulch, b Faulkner ........................... 2 Blythe, not out ................... 2 B 30, lb 3 ...................33 Total ...417 S outh A frica . First innings. M. Commaille, b Blythe J. W. Zulch, not out ... S. J. Snooke, b Blythe A. D. Nourse, lbw, Thompson.......................... 8 G. A. Faulkner, c Bhodes, b Blythe ...........................10 J. H. Sinclair, c Denton, b Thompson........................... 1 M. Bisset, c Rhodes, b Blythe ................... ... 4 A. E. Vogler, b Blythe ... 0 R. O. Schwarz, c Denton, b Blythe .......................... 13 N. O. Norton, b Blythe ... 2 S. V. Samuelson, b Simp- son-Hayward ........... ... 15 Lb 2, nb 1 .................. 3 ... 4 ... 43 ... 0 b Total (1 wkt) 16 Second innings, lbw, b Thompson 5 b Woolley ...........14 b Woolley ...........47 c Simpson-Hay­ ward, b Woolley 0 c Woolley, b Thompson ... 99 st Tufnell, b Blythe ......... 37 not out........... b Thompson c Bird, b Hobbs... 44 c Fane, b Bly*ho 7 Total ...........103 E ngland . b Blythe ........... 7 B 25, lb 5, nb 8 38 Total ........... 327 First innings. Second innings. ,. O. M. R. W. O. M. B. W. onooke ......... 5 0 17 0 ............ 2 2 0 0 Vogler ........... 26 2 103 1 ............ 2‘1 1 16 1 Faulkner ... 25-2 6 72 3 ........... Samuelson ... 18 2 64 0 ............ N orton ........... 15 4 47 4 ............ Sinclair ........... 8 1 36 0 ............ N ourse ........... 8 1 35 2 ............ Schwarz ........... 3 0 100 ... !!! S outh A frica . First innings. Second innings. Hobbs ......... Blythe ......... . Thompson ... S.-Hayward ... O. M. B. W. O. M. B. W. 4 1 11 0 ... ... 8 3 19 1 18 5 46 7 ... ... 30 13 58 3 12 6 28 2 ... ... 30 5 96 3 ' 4-5 0 15 1 ... ... 8 1 35 0 Woolley... ... 13 3 47 3 Bhodes ... ... 7 0 22 0 Bird ... .. 3 0 12 0 Thompson bowled seven no-balls and WooBey two. R ^ H A R D D A F T ’S N O T T IN G H A M S H IR E Notts articular8 api>ly Radcliffe-on-Trent, CHAMP IONSH IP POINT- SCORING. B y j . B. PAYNE. That the Counties themselves are by no means satisfied with the present method of awarding points in the Championship was clearly shown by the unanimous support which they accorded to a reform proposed by Mr. Gilbert Jessop in the spring of 1907. Mr. Jessop’s suggestion was to award five points for a win, deduct only two points for a loss, and calculate the percentages on the ratio of actual to possible points in matches actually finished. This suggestion was admirably conceived, inasmuch as the guiding motive was obviously to increase the value which at present attaches to a win, and it was his misfortune rather than his fault that it should have failed on an arithmetical technicality. That is to say, all systems which are based upon finished matches only must, in any given year, or under any conceivable combination of wins, losses, and drawn games produce an identical order of merit. Moreover this holds true quite irrespectively of how many points are allotted for a win or deducted for a loss. Two conclusions, however, follow from what has been said: first, that the counties would still welcome a reform which increases the value of a win ; second, that such a reform cannot be achieved unless drawn games as well as finished games are taken into con­ sideration. And the far-reaching question raised by Mr. Jessop, so far from being dead, becomes yearly more pressing. How in­ adequately a win is rewarded wa3 again forcibly demonstrated last summer, when a county that had won 26 per cent, of its matches was officially preferred to a lival that had won 53 per cent.—small encourage­ ment assuredly for a match winning side. It is the excessive value which attaches to the “ ignored” drawn match that is mainly responsible for the policy which dominates the play of so many county elevens. To avoid defeat, quite as much as to attain victory, is the goal primarily kept in view. The consequence is that County Cricket has begun to lose that vim and enterprise which is indispensable to the well-being and pros­ perity of the game. The result too often manifests itself in diminishing attendances and subscriptions and an impoverished exchequer. How utterly the present system fails to disciiminate between the relative values of a win and draw is easily seen from an imaginary case:— Played Won Lost Drawn Pts. P’c’tage. “ A " 26 ... 20 ... 4 ... 2 ... 16 \ “ B ” 26 ... 10 ... 2 ... 14 ... 8 66-66 “ O ” 26 ... 5 ... 1 ... 20 ... 4 ) Here we have three sides engaging in equal programmes, but with results as widely divided as the Poles, bracketed together with equal honours. “ A,” that has won 20 matches, receives no higher reward than “ 0 ,” who, in the same number of games played, has won but 5. By an easy stage we may pass from the abstract to the concrete. It may be better to quote actual instances:— Pl’d. Won Lost Dr’wn. Pts. P ’c’tage. 63-63 1904 Y’kshire 27... 9 ... ? ... 16 1906 Surrey 28... 18 ... 4 ... 6 ... 14 Pl’d. Won Lost Dr’wn. Pts. P’c’tage. 1903 Sussex 23... 7 ... 2 ... 14 ... 5 V \ )■ oo L 1909 Lancash’e 24 ... 14 ... 4 ... 6 ... 10 J >•55 W h e n a m anifestly in ferior record is preferred to on e obviou sly m ore brillian t the an om aly becom es still m ore s tr ik in g :— Pl’d. Won Lost Dr’wn. Pts. P’c ’tage. 1899 Surrey 26 ... 10... 2 ...14...8 ...66'6 1895 Surrey 26 ... 17...4 ... 5 ... 13 ... 61-90 Pl’d. Won Lost Dr’wn. Pts. P’c’tage. 1900 Y’kshire 28 ... 16...0 ... 12 ... 16 ...100-00 1901 Y’kshire 27 ... 20... 1 ...6...19 ...90*4 N.B. —To score 19 points in 27 matches is distinctly better than to score 16 points in 28. To assess the 1900 record as 10 per cent, higher than that of 1901 is a palpable reversal of the actual facts. Pl’d. Won Lost Dr’wn. Pts. P’c’tage. 1909 Sussex 26 ... 7...3 ... 16 ... 4 ... 40-00 1909 Surrey 30 ... 16...7 ... 7 ... 9 ... 39’13 The final instance, it will be noted, occurred last summer. It is certainly inconceivable that any jury of cricketers would have placed Sussex above Surrey, and it is hardly less remarkable that if the 26 matches played by the former county had produced 14 wins, 6 losses and 6 drawn games, their percentage would have been no higher though their record would have been immeasurably more brilliant. It at once becomes evident that those 16 drawn games were a potent, if not the principal, factor in securing for Sussex the fourth place among the counties and, secondly, that the 16 victories of Surrey, who won as many matches as the champion county, were far from receiving their full measure of recognition. All these palpable anomalies would be rectified by the adoption of either of the two systems which are ex­ plained later on. Before going further it may be w'ell to recall the circumstances which led to the introduction of percentages in 1895, only upon a clear understanding of which can a right judgment be arrived at. From 1892 to 1894 each of the nine first-class counties played every other, the card of each amount­ ing to 16 games. The programmes bting equal, percentages were unnecessary, and the positions were determined by the excess of wins over defeats. It is perfectly true that the rule professed to ignore drawn games, but the fundamental ‘principle of this system was to obtain a maximum, or the equi­ valent of 100 per cent., it wan necessary that all the 16 games should be won. There was no such thing as reaching a “ highest possible ” by winning some of the matches and drawing the remainder. Thus “ A,” who won 13 matches, lost one and drew 2 , would secure the Championship to the exclusion of “ B,” who won 10, lost none and drew 6 . From this it is clear that the positions of A and B depended upon the relation of their respec­ tive points to the 16 games arranged, not the games finished, for in the reverse case it is obvious that B must have preceded A. In other words, the drawn games were ignored only in the sense that no points were awarded in respect to them, but as an actual fact they were included in the 16 matches which formed the common basis by which the nine counties were compared. The suggestion to count drawn games is therefore not so revolutionary as may appear, but is rather a return to an order of things against which no protest was ever heard, and which would, without doubt, be revised if a complete exchange of fixtures should again become possible. Now when, in 1895, five new competitors were added to the list it became impracticable for the whole of the counties to play the same number of matches. Becourse was therefore had to percentages as the only means of dealing with the altered situation. There was no question of reforming in any