Cricket 1909

: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. Nov. 25, 1909. 460 CR ICKET ABOUT THE CHAMPIONSHIP. After recommending last spring that the decision of the Championship on divisional lines m ight be kfpt in view in 1909, colla'er- ally with the authorised Bystem, silence now as to how the much-discussed scheme of last winter would have operated might be open to misconstruction. Here then is the com­ plete return : — COMPETITION PROPER. Won. Lost. Drawn. Points. * Kent .......................... 7 2 ... 5 .... 5 * Lancashire ........... 8 ... 4 ... 2 ,... 4 * Surrey.......................... 7 ... 6 ... 3 . ... 1 * Sussex.......................... 3 ... 2 ... 11 . ... 1 * Y orksh ire.................. 4 ... 4 ... 6 , ... 0 * M iddlesex................... 2 ... 4 .. 10 .. — 2 * Worcestershire........... 5 ... 8 ... 1 ,... —3 * Hampshire.................. 2 ... 5 ... 3 . ... - 3 Nottinghamshire ... 2 ... 5 ... 3 , ... —3 QUALIFYING COMPETITION. Won. Lost., Drawn. Points * Northamptonshire ... 5 ... 3 ... 0 .... 2 Som ersetshire........... 2 ... 0 ... 0 . 2 | E s s e x .......................... 2 ... 0 ... 3 ... 2 W arwickshire........... 2 2 ... 4 ... 0 | Leicestershire........... 2 ... 2 ... 3 ... 0 Gloucestershire 1 ... 4 ... 3 ... - 3 Derbyshire ........... 2 ... 5 ... 1 .... —3 Staffordshire ........... — ... — ... — . ? * The nine leading counties of 1909 under the M.C.C. conditions, t One match abandoned. It w ill be noted that in the first section only 62 of 72 possible meetings were arranged, and in the second only 24 of 56, so that the p sitions are not so thoroughly established as they would have been if the lists had been drawn up with regard to a contest on these lines. On the other hand no fewer than 92 other so-called Championship fixtures were arrange!, which are not included in the above tables. These games by clubs in one section against those in the other, resulted as follows :— W. L. D. W. L. D. Kent ........... 9 0 3 *Notts ......... 4 3 2 Yorkshire 8 0 4 Northants .. 4 5 1 Surrey ........... 9 1 4 Somerset 2 7 5 Lancashire ... (i 0 4 Warwickshire 1 0 5 Worcestershire 3 0 3 Leicestershire 1 8 5 Sussex ........... 4 1 5 •Essex ......... 0 7 6 ♦Middlesex ... 4 1 0 Glou’stershire 0 9 5 Hampshire ... a 2 5 •Derbyshire .. 0 10 3 * One game each abandoned. If the divisional scheme had been adopted, these “ extraneous ” games might still have been played (or such of them as a fuller complement of Championship games ad­ mitted), would have been regarded as first- class, and might even have ha 1more bearing on the competition than at present. For, where the competition records of counties liable to promotion or supersession tied, it would be useful to extend the comparison over an extended fixture list— a course which would this year decide the inclusion of Northants in, and exclusion of Notts from, the Championship Proper cf 1910. And, curiously enough, if the scheme were now adopted, this result would be exactly equiva­ lent to taking the nine top counties, as they stand in the M.C.C. arrangement, to consti­ tute the entrants for next year’s Competition Proper. And. with a ll due sympathy with Notts, does not fairness decide that these nine would be sufficient ? If Notts, or any other county in the qualifying section, were capable of making a fight for the Champion­ ship, they would naturally qualify to do so next year, but, as things stand, none of the seven bottom clubs in the table has made out a title to encumber and complicate the contest for chief honours at the present moment. A ft(r nearly a twelvemonth’s interval, I have just re-read the original suggestions that appeared in C ricket of last November, and, in spite of much reflection and many (xemplifications meanwhile, I am tempted to amend it only iu two very minor particulars. One is the substitution of “ Proper ” and “ Qualifying ” as above, or adjectives cf sim ilar import, for the proposed “ F ir s t” and “ Second” divisions. It is the Com­ petition, not the first-class counties, that was intended to be divided and the new terminology might be acceptable as savour­ ing less of class degradation 01 * sub-division. The other alteration is that the qualifying contest might be extended to nine, instead of eight, counties. This would allow of two probationary “ Minors,” instead of one, being permitted to prove their mettle, and would reduce almost to impossibility the danger of a really first-class county, however un­ fortunate, having to struggle or supplicate for further consideration. Staffordshire and W iltshire have surely earned a trial in first- class company, and, if either failed to accept the opportunity, an offer might be made to Glamorgan, who would not disgrace the list. Otherwise the ta’ly might be left at eight and extended by one in the second season of trial. Posting up the results in the divisional form, match by match, during the past season—and if anybody else did the same, I think he w ll bear me out — confirmed me that it would have been a great improve­ ment on the present system of deciding the competition. Especially in these respects:— 1.—Right up to the last match nearly every county would have had an incentive to do its best. There was hardly a team with a couple of matches still before it that had not the possibility of top or bottom place in its section to fight for Or against. Contrast the position under the M.C.C. scheme when a dozen of the clubs had neither reward nor disgrace to stimulate them for weeks before the close. 2.— The added interest must have re-acted in financial benefit. I was at Leyton during two of the disheartening series of encounters with leading counties that “ counted.” I am sure enthusiasm and support would have been greater had they not done so. And I am equally sure that the Club would be well backed-up in a more complete series through a Qualifying Competition. And the same with all the counties who would not have a direct interest in the Championship — the very ones who most need financial assistance. Fo'lowers of their fortunes would see them fiercely fighting to get into a set, to be among whom itself would be an honour, or just as gamely trying to avoid relegation, instead of tamely and dejectedly carrjing out en­ gagements whose only consequence in the competition is now a slight increase or abatement of assured humiliation. 3. —The futility of including extraneous matches in the tables. In 1909, the only four real challengers for the Championship (Kent, L^ncs, Yorks and Surrey), won and lost 10 matches among themselves. Against the remaining dozen couuties, they, between them, won 48 games and lost 7. Against the bottom seven clubs they, indeed, lost only one. Now, with clubs collectively of such different strengths, it is obviously a matter of arranging a long programme for the leaders to obtain a long array of victories. But it is also obvious that the few defeats they sustain are unmerited: dictated one may say by chance. Why then should the recognition of a club’s deserts be dependent on its arranging a long string of otherwise purposeless matches and, at the same time, be put in jeopardy by the manner in which' a few chance defeats happen to be distri­ buted ? That an acknowh dged weakling happens to beat Yorkshire one year, or another Surrey the next, proves nothing in itself but may at any time (and has done) cost a county who deserves it the Champion­ ship. 4.— The approximation of fix ure-cards. The chief objection raised to the divisional scheme was that the counties dtsire freedom in choosing their opponents. Freedom of choice is unquestionably an excellent thing, but, like other liberties, it does not suffer by some tempering, and in fact absolute freedom has never ruled. In a competition professing to decide some order of merit, to be fair, a degree of equality in the tests undergone is absolutely necessary; and the divisional arrangement, while not decreeing that every club should meet all the rest— they could leave out any to -their own dis­ advantage—would at least ensure that all the matches taken into account were against clubs of about one standard of strength. Under the authorised system that is not the case. How unjustly the indiscriminate selection of opponents may affect relative positions can readily be exemplified from the M.C.C. table of results in 1909. (I think I gave other instances in “ The Future of the Championship,” in C rick et , about 1899, and no doubt they could easily be multiplied.) In the season just finished the awarding of first place was not affected by this cause. A comparison of Kent’s record with that of any other county, in equal fixtures, fortunately always gives Kent the advantage; but the case is different at the other end of the table. For instance (I mention it for an example only, and not invidiously) Gloucester’s record compares with Derby’s thus, in parallel matches :— Gloucester won 1, lost 8, drew 7. Derby won 1, lost 11, drew 3 (abandnd. 1). Derby and Gloucester, themselves, did not meet, and, although Gloucester had in sim ilar engagements a slightly less un­ satisfactory return, they take bottom place; for why? They lost five more matches to counties (Middlesex. Somerset and W or­ cester) that Derby did not meet, whilst Derby improved their sheet by antagonising Leicester, who were not on Gloucester’s card. To invert this position; suppose Yorkshire had won 11 games, and Kent 8 to one loss apiece, iu equal fixtures, whil>t Kent had secured the Championship by playing Hants and Gloucester additionally, instead of Notts and Warwick as Yorkshire did ; what would be thought of the M.C.C. competition then? And such might easily have happened. Take, again, two counties who finished up seventh and eleventh in the M.C.C. tally, with percentages respectively of plus 5*88 and minus 27*27. The first one, Northants, looks clearly very much better than the other, Somerset. These two also did not meet, but, in matches iu which they faced the same opponents, the results were :— Somerset won 3, lost 3, drew 4. Northants won 3, lost 6, drew 1. Somerset spoilt their balance by meeting, additionally, Lancashire, Middlesex and Worcester, who were unknown to Northants; whilst Northants improved their position at the expense of Notts, Derby, Leicester and Warwick who had nothing to do with Somerset.