Suppose, therefore, 100 runs scored; 90 by hits, 4 by wide balls, and 6 by byes and leg byes--the loss is commonly as follows:-- 1. Singles lost from hits about 10 2. Ones instead of twos, by not making the former run quickly and turning for a second, but over-running ground and stopping ” 4 3. Runs that might have been stolen from balls dropped and slovenly handled ” 3 4. Loss from fieldsmen standing where they please, and covering more ground than they dare do with sharp runners ” 5 5. Loss from not having those misses which result from hurrying the field ” 4 6. Loss from bowlers not being ruffled, as they would be if feeling the runs should be stopped ” 7 7. Extra loss from byes not run (with the least “slobbering” the runners may cross--though Dean is cunning) ” 6 8. From having draws and slips stopped, which long-stop could not stop if nearer in ” 5 9. One man run out ” 8 10. Depressing influence of the same ” ? 11. From not having the only long-stop disgusted and hurried into missing everything ” ? 12. From not having the adversary all wild by these combined annoyances ” ? -- Total ” 52 13. Loss from adversary playing better when going in against a score of 100 than against 152 ” ? Now, though I have put down nothing for four sources of loss, not the less material because hard to calculate, the difference between good runners and bad seems to be above half the score. That many will believe me I can hardly expect; but, before they contradict, let them watch and reckon for themselves, where fielding is not first-rate.