Cricket 1913

44 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. F e b . 15, 1913. The County Championship and the Divisional System. A SU G G E ST IO N FROM U TAH . A scheme for the amendment o f the County Champion­ ship reaches me from Salt Lake City— which seems an unnkely place, but that only goes to prove how wide is the sway o f K ing Cricket. My Utah correspondent (Mr. John Joseph Morris) has evidently devoted a good deal o f thought to the matter. He loathes drawn games, and would go to' any length to eliminate them entirely. But this is a more general attitude among those who take their big cricket on paper than among regular match attendants, I believe. T o see one side putting in all it knows to win a game and the other struggling hard to avoid defeat is far more interesting than to watch the fag-end of a match in which one team, already virtually defeated (bar rain), because they can’t possibly head their opponents, and time is left for them to be got out however well they play, goes through the formality o f losing its wickets one by one that a definite result may be attained. Taking the 1912 point-scoring as a basis, Mr. Morris divides the sixteen first-class counties into two equal divisions o f approximately similar strength. The first would consist o f Yorkshire, Middlesex, Hampshire, War­ wickshire, Surrey, Gloucestershire, Leicestershire, and Essex, who among them totalled 356.85 points (average 44.60) ; the second of Northants, Kent, Lancashire, Notts, Sussex, Derbyshire, Somerset, and Worcestershire, who totalled 355.58 (average 44.45). Starting with Yorkshire in one division, it will be seen he puts Nos. 2, 3, and 4 into the other, No. 5, 6, and 7 with Yorkshire, and there­ after allots one to each division alternately. He suggests ds the titles “ British L ea gu e” and “ Imperial League.” These would not do at all ; but that’s no matter. The status o f the two divisions would, o f course, be equal. Each side would play all the others in its own division. Each match would commence on a Tuesday, and, if neces­ sary, the rest o f the week would be given to it. A neatly- typed schedule o f fixtures arranged on these lines accompanies Mr. Morris’s letter, but for this I cannot find space. All matches would end by August 16, and there­ after the champions o f the two divisions would play three matches (to a finish) to decide the final championship. Any drawn games (but with five days for play draws would be almost impossible, it is suggested) could be re­ played after August 16. But this, would hardly work, for the replaying o f a single drawn game might quite possibly give a division a new champion. I take it, how­ ever, that the intention is to defer the three games between the leaders until these replays are over. Gentlemen v. Players could wait till the latter half of August, the author o f the scheme considers. of Hants in 1911, and Essex would have ascended into the place o f Sussex after that season. This done, the tables for 1912 would have read as follows :— C h a m p i o n s h i p P r o p e r . Yorkshire P. >5 W. 6 L. 1 D. 8 Pts. 5 Northants 10 5 1 4 4 Middlesex 14 5 3 6 2 Kent 14 6 5 3 1 Lancashire 12 3 2 7 1 Warwickshire 9 2 2 5 0 Surrey 15 3 5 7 — 2 Notts 10 1 4 5 — 3 Kssex 11 0 8 3 — 8 P. W. L. D. Pts. 12 5 2 5 3 10 5 2 3 3 8 . j 2 4 0 8 2 3 3 — 1 10 2 3 5 — 1 8 1 3 4 — 2 8 4 — 2 (?) H .P .-T . R E TU R N S TO T H E CH ARG E . The gentleman who chooses to veil his identity under the pseudonym o f H .P .-T . has before now explained in these columns his scheme for two divisions. H e would have nine in each, the seven o f the present first-class counties relegated to the lower division being reinforced by two o f the strongest second-class counties. He would call the two competitions “ Championship P roper” and “ Qualifying Competition.” H e would have a system of promotion and reduction, under which Warwickshire and Essex would have been in the qualifying competition in 1910. but Warwickshire would have gone up at the expense This table, o f course, only includes matches with the sides in the same competition, as does the following one. Q u a l i f y i n g C h a m p i o n s h i p . Hants Sussex Derbyshire Gloucestershire Somerset Worcestershire Leicestershire Two others Essex would have come down, and Hants would have gone up as a result of the last season’s plav. But why Hants and not Sussex, when their records are equal? may be asked. Because in cases like this H .P .- T .’s scheme provides for the taking into account of all matches, and Hants did better in matches with those in the upper division than did Sussex. The same system would have given Kent the championship in preference to Warwick­ shire in 1911, the matches with counties in the lower division being taken into account. Each had five points as the result of their matches in the Championship Proper, but Kent did better (under the system o f reckoning, not the Lancashire Scheme) in their matches with counties in the Qualifying Competition. Thus far I have given my own version o f H .P .- T .’s argument (I feel sure he will forgive this), because his version presupposes more knowledge of the scheme than, I fear, most of my readers have. I may add that the divisions are based on what has taken place in the Cham­ pionship ever since 1895. And now I will let him speak for himself. He goes on with : R e s u l t s o f M a t c h e s - b e t w e e n U p p e r a n d L o w e r D i v i s i o n C o u n t i e s . 1910— Upper Division won 61, lost 13, drew 23 1911— ,, ,, „ 61, 17, 16 1912— „ ,, 40, ,, 5. 35 Totals ........... 162 35 75 Query : How far has thereiteration o f thisadverse balance of 127 games in the Championship tables week by week affected the play, popularity, and exchequers o f the Lower Counties ? The “ two other ” counties in the Qualifying Com­ petition would have been supplied from the Minor Competition, their Champion having a title to dispossess the lowest club in this Division each year. The following comparison o f Minor Counties’ records with those o f Second X I .’s in the Minor Competition, 1907-12, gives a clue to the order of invitation for the initial couple. W. L. Wins per Loss W. L. Wins per Loss. Staffs . ... 38 .. . 6 — e -33 Surrey II. ... 32 .., 7 ••• 4*57 Glamorgan ... 38 •• 10 ... 3’ 8o Kent II. . .......... 11 ... ■ 4 ... 2*75 Durham . ... 26 .. 17 ... 1-52 Notts 11 . ... 8 ... 4 ... 2*00 Herts . ... 24 .. • *7 ... 1*41 Yorks 11 . ... 13 ... 10 ... 1*30 Norfolk . ... 24 .. • *7 ... 1*41 Lancs II. ............ 9 ••■ 7 ... 1*28 Devon Wilts Monmouth Berks . ... 22 .. . ... 21 .. ... 19 .. ,. ... 22 .. (20 Minor . 16 . 18 . 18 32 and 5 ••• i *37 ... 1*16 ... 1*05 ... 1•00 Second XI.'s in all competed.)