Minor Counties Championship 1909

7 counties they had to meet could only play late in the season, when it was no use to his county to try young players who might be of service to the first eleven – he also stated that the games were of no financial benefit. Mr R W Allen (Bedfordshire) opposed the motion, although allowing that Mr Brain had one or two valid points. He stated that the creation of Divisions had not been done in haste, discussions being held over a couple of years, and that a return to the old system would be a retrograde step. He suggested that the system used in first-class cricket might also lead to one county facing a set of opponents significantly weaker than others and so “gain the Championship” in the way Mr Brain feared might operate in the Minor Counties Championship [and, merely two years later, Warwickshire did indeed win the County Championship having fulfilled a fixture list significantly less strong than its closest opponents]. Mr R H Mallett pointed out that the system of Divisions had become necessary because the old system did not “afford an efficient test”. The number of competitors had now increased to 21 [sic – 22 actually] and, even with five instead of four out-and-home games, it was a very different proposition to that in first-class cricket, where there was a minimum of eight, with only 16 competitors, and many of them played practically all the others. The divisions had been created, where possible, for the geographical convenience of the counties. He went on to suggest that there should be a reduction to two divisions only, with plenty of time for a final between the two teams heading their respective divisions. Under this system, he suggested that the committee should be trusted to establish a minimum number of out-and-home matches and to overcome the “existing disadvantages”. After further discussion, it was decided that the committee should be instructed to draw up a scheme and present it to a special general meeting, to be held prior to the beginning of the cricket season for 1909. Counties having recommendations to make were asked to send them to Dr Earl Norman before the end of January so that the work of the committee be expedited. [As Dr Norman had inferred, the already completed organisation of the Championship fixtures was left in place for the 1909 season and significant alterations were not in fact made to the competition before the 1910 season.] No action was taken in respect of the motion proposed by Wiltshire: “that the dates of the semi- finals and finals be fixed and that choice of grounds be drawn for at the annual meeting” as Mr A M Miller could find no seconder. It was noted, however, that the dates by which the group matches, the semi-finals and the final had to be completed had already been decided (as referred to on Page 4, the deadlines were August 19, August 28 and September 4 respectively). The semi-finals would be between the winners of the Northern and Western Divisions and between the winners of the Southern and Eastern Divisions. Dr Earl Norman then advanced on behalf of the committee the following addition to the rules of the Association: “Should any matter arise not provided for in these rules the committee shall have the power to deal with it.” He stated that, had this rule been in existence, much of the trouble of determining who would qualify as winners of the Western Division the previous August would have been avoided. Mr R W Allen then moved a motion expressing regret at the resignation of the joint hon. secretaryship of Mr R H Mallett and placing on record their great appreciation of his long and valuable services. He described Mr Mallett as “the friend of cricket”, as exemplified by the great aid he rendered to Bedfordshire when that club was reorganised some years ago. This vote was carried with acclamation.