Cricket 1909

Dec. 2 1, igog. CR.ICfc.ET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 469 played, how each Division of the Competition would have been constituted year by year, and the points that every county would have earned in its Division. This course would have ensured the pro­ motion of one— the best— of the new candi­ dates immediately, and the trial of others by degrees, as they demonstrated their right to advancement. Three, in fact, would apparently have gone up in the first three years to try their mettle in stronger company. But for a decade the older combatants would have suffered no other intrusion (even if these had fluttered them), and there is no gainsaying that, collectively, the new-comers never justified that upsetting of the terms of contest for the Championship itself that they were permitted to involve. It is by the examination of these tables that an insight can be obtained as to how the future application of the Divisional System would affect the Championship; and one, with the mass of their details before him, may be pardoned for venturing to illustrate the advantages they seem to offer. Under the Divisional scheme there would have been three interesting points for decision in each year’s competition, which would have magnified the interest taken in who was going to win any particular match: (1) the carrying off tbe Championship; (2) the exchange of places in the Proper and Qualify­ ing sections; and (3) the tailing off of the latter Division and consequent relegation to the list of Minors. In the last respect it has already been shown that, for want of any pro­ bationary teams’ records and the scautiness of the remaining fixtures, the tables can tell us nothing, but in the ether two regards we can easily compare results with those in the Competition as constituted. First, with regard to the actual Champion­ ship. In twelve cases, out of the sixteen, the award would have been precisely similar under both systems, and may therefore be accepted as doubly justified. Here are the full records of the rival Champions in the four remaining years :— 1895 |Lancashire [ Surrey C. P. Games. Extra Games. PI. W. D. L. PI. W. D. L. ... 15 11 1 3 ... 6 3 2 1 ... 16 10 3 3 ... 10 7 2 1 1SQ7 (Surrey .......... 16 9 4 3 ... 10 8 1 1 \ Lancashire ... 16 8 5 3 ... 10 8 2 0 i qqo J Middlesex ... 12 7 3 2 ... 6 4 1 1 \ Surrey ............ 16 5 10 1 ... 12 5 6 1 ioaq I Sussex ............ 13 5 8 0 ... 10 2 6 2 1W6 |Middlesex ... 11 3 7 1 ... 5 5 0 0 The “ C. P. Games” are those, only, which would have counted iu the Divisional “ Competition Proper,” —against clubs, that is, who had established some pretension to be in the contest. The “ Extra Games ” are those against very evidently weaker clubs, who would have been standing down in the Qualifying Competition. Victories in these inter-divisional games would have very little value, whilst defeats would be manifest viola­ tions of general form (that the best regulated of champions are subject to), yet all of these were also taken into account by the M.C.C. mode of reckoning. In each case it w ill be seen tbat the first- quoted county, the Champion by the Divisional method of reckoning, has the better record when only the results of (“ C. P .” ) matches, played against teams of approved calibre, are compared by the old-fashioned manner of points, or (even in 1899) by the dictates of common sense. Yet in each case it failed to secure the official Championship, either through not inviting enough of the rabbits to come up and be sacrificed, or through not making sure of slaughtering those it got iu its hands. That the second-named county in every instance earned the Championship, as it won it under existing terms, need not be dis­ puted. But in no case did it show any real superiority over the club that would have ousted it, if only the games that had a claim to be taken seriously had been admitted to comparison. W ith respect, now, to the interchange of positions in the two divisions of the Compe­ tition : that shocking bugbear that fore­ shadows loss of prestige and patronage and all manner of kindred evils— even ex­ tinction— to club committees who would be afraid to show their tongues to the doctor. The following are the figures in the Compe­ tition Proper that would have “ let down ” the unfortunate figurants :— PI. W. L. 1894 Gloucester 16 2 13 1895 Kent .. 1896 Sussex ... 1897 Hants 1898 Somerset... 1899 Warwick... 1900 Essex 1901 Surrey ... 3 10 1 7 1902 Gloucester 14 1903 Hants ... 7 1904 Surrey ... 16 1905 Essex ... 16 1906 Leicester.. 12 1907 Sussex ... 16 1908 Leicester.. 13 1909 Warwick.. 10 PI. W. L. None of these records can, by the greatest stretch of imagination, be described as flattering, or as betokening that their posses­ sors had any likelihood of challenging the holders of the chief honours in County Cricket the following season. In each case, too, be it remembered, eight of their com­ peers would have earned superior records, while one at least-of the less favoured divi­ sion would have established a better claim to undergo the trial in which they had failed. Strictly on their merits, then, what earthly title had any of them to continue in the real Coampionship Competition simply as a chop­ ping block to stronger rivals ? What shadow of injustice would have been inflicted by ex­ cluding them at least till they had shown some sign of returning superiority? And, if the lim itation of the Competition be to the general advantage, and their ex­ clusion fair, why should any other consider­ ation whatever be allowed to stand in the way of its accomplishment? Surely by accepting that verdict, too, any club worthy of the traditions of the game would rather have found its feet again than lost its head, and would have gained all round in public respect. What is the sense of posing still as a strong man when one is pushed hither and thither by a parcel of boys ? Would it not be wiser, as well as more honourable and unselfish, to stand down from a platform where one’s exhibition was gaining no credit, and to take a bracing course in a lower sphere— the Qualifying Competition ? A few more figures w ill show how illusory is the dread that such re’egation would have spelt practical effacement. And, if club sup­ port could not meanwhile have stood the stress of seeing its favourites battling in a more lowly but befitting role—at least as well as seeing them mercilessly smothered in the tail of a long screed of M.C.C. percentages— then cricket patronage is made of less whole­ some stuff than one who has sat in the crowd for over a quarter of a century gives it credit for. Here are the figures :— In 1 he fifteen years capable of being tested, ten times a club that had gone down would have been up again within three seasons: five times after a solitary season of exclusion. Yet no club, once relegated, would ever have secured the Championship within half-a- dozen seasons of its going under. A suffi­ cient proof both that the danger of per­ manent injury to a team of any pretensions is perfectly figmental, and that no prospec­ tive Champion would ever have been shut out by the process of translation. Furthermore, of all the clubs whose en­ deavours would have been limited to the Qualifying Competition during fifteen years, in only eight instances would any of them ever have earned a balance of wins over losses if included in the Competition Proper instead. And the only case of one being as many as three points to the good would have been Worcester’s in 1907, when they might have tied with Yorkshire, three points below the Champions, if so regarded. But Worcester’s case has already been referred to as extremely exceptional. Only five other examples occur in which a Qualifying candidate’s record against the Proper competitors would have entitled it to a position above the middle of the upper table. In two of these instances the club (Surrey) would have been rewarded by immediate reinstatement; in the remain­ ing three, if such had happened, the pro­ moted club would have held no higher a position than eighth or ninth in its first season after elevation to the Championship Proper. Indeed, of the whole 91 cases in which recognised First-class clubs wTould have been debarred from direct participation in the chief competition by this scheme, in no less than 41 of these, if their records against the clubs selected for that purpose were taken instead, they would have earned for them no higher a position than ninth in the Competition Proper. So much for the fairness with which exclusion would automatically have operated. The figures that would have gained admission to the real Championship tourney are as follows, and they may be left to tell their own tale of the difficulty, or otherwise, of gaining such recognition :— PI. W. L. PI. W. L 1894 Warwick.. 5 3 1 1902 Surrey ... 10 3 1 1895 Hants 6 4 2 1903 Essex ... 4 2 0 1896 Essex 4 2 0 1904 Leicester 6 4 1 1897 Gloucester 4 2 0 1905 Surrey ... 10 7 1 1898 Kent......... 2 1 0 1906 Hants ... 8 6 1 1899 Sussex .. 6 4 0 1907 Leicester 6 5 0 1900 Warwick.. 8 3 0 1908 Sussex ... 10 5 0 1901 Hants 8 5 1 1909 North’nts 6 4 2 Five minutes’ averaging w ill show that a Qualifying club playing 7 or 8 games against the four very bottom-most clubs in the com­ petition, winning 4 and losing 1, would have earned sufficient points for its purpose; certainly not a stupendous-looking task. And, in fact, only once would it have been necessary to exceed those points by one, whilst eight times a win less would have stiil left the leaders with a clear lead over the runners-up. Yet that even these moderate records would have been sufficient to warrant promotion to the ample ranks of the favoured nine is evident from the fact that only once in sixteen years would a club so advanced have held a worse pointage than the club it displaced, when compared on a Cjmpetition Proper basis. If all these details do not prove that the Divisional System would have been much more equitable and satisfactory than that which the M.C.C. has countenanced, the statistics must be marvellous1^misleading. But in reality it would have effected more than this. By providing an objective for the lowly-placed counties in the contest, it would have galvanised the competition from top to bottom. Clubs quite outclassed by the lead­ ing Elevens would always have had tho ma:ntenance of their position in the Qualify­ ing stage to stimulate them, and with no overwhelming surplus of defeats in the reckoning to depress them or to stifle interest in their proceedings : the two chief obstacles to public support. To be concluded.)