Cricket 1910

86 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A p r i l 2 8 , 1 9 1 0 . CHAMP IONSH IP PO INTS. I have read Mr. J. B. Payne’s closely reasoned article with great pleasure. In these times of emotional bias it is so refresh­ ing to meet with a dispassionate investigator who has a regard for theoretical exactitude, and who favours what is right unswayed by other sentiments. As such his arguments command respect. None the less one may dissent from some of his recommendations. Of the League-cum-Championship com­ promise, which he no doubt offers in all kindness as a sop to “ Divisionalists,” if the horrid allusion in the first syllable did not at once condemn it, a fault inherent to it must undoubtedly prove its undoing—the fact that Championship programmes would be, if anything, more unequal than at present. No uniform system of points or percentages could fairly compare two sets of clubs, some of whom met eight strong opponents and two weak ones, while others met four strong and six weak. In 1910, for example, Surrey, playing the remaining ten top counties of 1909, and Warwick, playing the remaining bottom ten, would not have to meet each other and might have only six collateral fixtures in their two lists for determining positions. This inequality of fixture lists is the crux of ihe whole question. The mere method of scoring points is a minor matter. For my own part I find no fault with the existent system of counting (though it might be more simply expressed as “ wins in finished games ’ ) so long as the club programmes fail to correspond ; (to me) it seems the best that can be employed so long as that regrettable condition continues. The idea that it puts a premium on drawn games is generally overdrawn, and invariably has to be exemplified by the “ extreme case ” of a club winning only a few matches and drawing the rest of its fixtures in order to retain a highest possible percentage. I have used the illustration myself. But it has to be applied apologetically with a recognition of the extreme unlikelihood of such a thing ever occurring. For some time, at the beginning of most seasons, a club or two will retain this fallacious 100 per cent., but in fact none has ever held it to the end, unless it has been so strong that the number of its victories has run well into double figures, and probably none ever will. Directly a club has lost its first match the whole theory of draws favouring it collapses. The club has now to try to win every match in order to keep, or get, ahead of its rivals, for it must win at least half as many games as a com­ petitor that has suffered twice as many defeats; and it is “ all up ” with a misguided team that has wasted its opportunities by allowing opponents to escape. Sussex aud Middlesex have more than once found this out to their cost. Kent have shown contrarily that winning pays under present conditions aud is the only set-off that can be provided against the defeat that is bound to overtake all but the very strongest and luckiest of counties in an English season. If, however, a county can fulfil that double qualification of strength and luck, can any other claim to be really superior to one that has withstooJ every effort to defeat it and has ended up the season unbeaten ? Personally I have not grasped the necessity for taking the draw into consideration in the present condition of the Championship. The lesson of actual results ought to show that it does not need discounting. But if the majority of opinion be otherwise (as the Advisory Committee’s recent decision seems to imply) then certainly Mr. Payne’s sugges­ tions are to fce preferred to the Lancashire drastic proposal of penalizing the unfinished game as a loss. These ingenious methods (nhich I am afraid, to certain folks, must savour of the higher mathematics) have the effect of treating a drawn game as a fraction of a loss only. But if unfinished games are tobe taken into account at all would itnot be better still to regard them as what they really are, half a loss and half a win to every side concerned ? This course, it must be observed, would rectify every glaring example that Mr. Payne has instanced. Such a method of counting could be obtained by the following formula: Award 2 points for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss, and compare points gained with points possible. To introduce the inevitable explanatory table, the following would have been the result of the 1909 competition. Where the resultant positions differ in the M.C.C. table and in Mr. Payne’s “ 1—4 ” and “ 1—3 ” schemes, those variant positions are noted in in columns A, B and C respectively. is 1. Kent ...........10... 2. Lancashire...14 . 3. Yorkshire ...12 ., 4. Surrey..........16... 5. Sussex ... 7... 6. Northants... 9... 7. Middlesex... 6 .. 5...10...22...42...52 3 r-' *“5 M S K 'S " e» cC .S3 co U O B O O <D j c eu ph P h 2... 8...40...52...76-9 4... 6 . 34...45...70 8 4...10...34.. 52...65-3 7... 7...39...60...65-0 3...16.. 30...52...57 6 ... 1...19...36.. .52-7 4...20 ..40...50 0 7... 7 8...22...44 . 50'0 6 .. 8... 5...17...38...44-7 4... 7... 5...13 ..82...40-6 3... 8 ... 9...15...40...37-5 2... 7... 9...13...36...36-1 3...10... 8...14...42...33 3 1...13... 8 ..10...44.. 22-7 2...15... 4... 8...42.. 19-0 A. B. C. — 3 4 6 7 7 5 5 6 8 9 — 7 6 — 9 — 14 14 14 13 13 13 16 16 16 15 15 15 ( Worcester \ Hants ... Notts ... , Somerset Warwick Essex ... Leicester Gloucester Derby ... It will be seen that this method simply effects two transpositions at each end of the table as compared with the M.C.C. (“ A ” ) placing. Twice it lowers a successful club credited with too many draws, and twice it improves the position of unsuccessful clubs who frequently staved off defeat. Mr. Payne’s placing (“ B ” and “ C ” ) deals more severely with the former delinquents and offers no compensation to the weaker teams for managing at times to escape a drubbing. Such a means of reckoning would increase the importance of winning outiight to all the leading clubs, but would make the mere avoidance of defeat a greater factor with the lower ones. Now there are draws aud draws and, if they are to be counted at all, it will be impossible to discriminate between them. If they arise from climatic conditions, either inducing long innings or preventing play, they are sheer misfortunes for which neither side is to blame ; but such are “ aU in the game,"’ and no county would -‘ grouse” unduly at such an occasional mishap, to which all are liable, if its consequences on the winning and losing side were balanced. The other class of draw, like a t:e-match, is legitimately half a win and half a loss to each participant. It is half a victory to the inferior side that can avoid a beating by its efforts : it is half a loss to the superior side that cannot force a win. And many a time have I enj -yed such a ter­ mination to a feast of cricket and come away from a play-field satisfied that the “ definite result ” is not everything in a game which blends defence with aggression. Mr. Payne, like everybody who has spent a clear-witted hour in thinking the matter out, agrees that the bare balance of wins or losses is the ideal mo 'e of reckoning, and that it accurately expresses the order of merit when fixture lists are equal in number and quality. This method of counting, aud this correspondence of fixtures, the Divisional system will establish as soon as the counties, timorous about their dignity or coffers, have come into line with Essex and Northants, and, perhaps, Warwickshire an 1Derbyshire, who also favt ur equal lists. It is curious that counties who have little assurance of senior honours at the outset should show the wa- in supporting this reform. Maybe the bistoiy of their own endeavours has im­ pressed them with the need for a guarantee tint merit shall ensure reward, with no loop­ hole for jiggerv pokery in its manipu'ation. The Championship is wot thy of a system of simple, sound and stable principles that will secure this end. It is to >good an insti­ tution to be m de a p.itchwork of abstruse regulations designed to meet particular expedience or to counteract temporary tendencies. H. P.-T. OB ITUARY . D r. H. N. Cappe. Dr. Herbert Nelson Cappe, who died on Friday last, was for some years captain of the Brookwood Asylum C.C. T h e B ev. C. M artin. The Lev. Charles Martin, who was born on October 17th, 1840, died at Daitiugton, Totnes, of which place he had been Hector since 1891, on February 23rd. He was educated at Winchester, where he was in the Eleven in 1857,1858andlt’59. He was coached by Caffyn and F. Bell, and was described as an effective and pretty bat and an excellent long-stop. In his three matches with Eton he scored 13 aud 0 , 0 and 21 and 2 and 5; Eton won by an i’.nings in 1857, but the other two games went to Winchi ster. Upon leaving Winchester, Mr. Martin proceeded to Christ Church, Oxford, where he was Senior Stu ent 1864-69, Tutor 1865 -69, aud Select Preacher in 1869. Afterwards he was a*i assistant master at Harrow 1869-70 and Warden at liadley 1871-79. Formauy years he was a well-krown figure at Oxford. J.D.B. C anon T i . otman . Cauon Edward Fiennes Trotm n, who was born on May ?5th, 1828, died on the 20th inst., at Marshfield, Wiltshire, of which place he had been Vicar since 1881, iu his e’ghty-secoud year. He was a sound and stylish batsman, but did little as a member of the Winchester Eleven of 1847. scoring only 5 aud 0 against Harrow and 6 and 14 against Eton. Both matches took place at Lord’s and were lost by Winchester by an iunings. Mr. Trotman proceeded to Oriel College, Oxford, but did not obtain his Blue. Iu 1889 he was appointe 1 Honorary Canon of Bristol. J.D.B. SURREY TRIAL MATCH. At the Oval on Friday and Saturday next the following sides will play in the Surrey Trial Match ; A. W. F. R utty ’ s S ide : Mr. J. E. Jewell, Hayes, Ducat, Goatly, Smith, Vigor, Hitch, Edwards, Harrison, Blacklidge and Spring. E. H. D. S ewell ’ s S ide : Mr. D. Knight, Mr. J. T. Piggott, Hobbs, Marshal, Davis, Lccs, Strudwick, Alwyn, Myers, W. J. Abel and Platt.