Revised County Champions

[chasingthedon]

Hi all,

I thought it would be fun to re-calculate the county championships, which have been settled using a variety of means in the past, using 12 points for a win and four for a draw, i.e. the points awarded during 1999, the last time the championship was one division. Note that this meant equalising the number of games played, based on winning percentage, where this was unequal.

It would seem Kent has been particularly hard done by in the past, gaining an additional five championships using this method. Also, Gloucestershire and Northants would have won once each. Lancashire drop from seven (plus one shared) to only four Championships, including losing three in a five-year period 1926-30.

Here's the summary (sorry about the formatting, seems I can't insert tables):-

Team Totals Revised
Yorkshire 30 (+1 shared) 28 (0 shared)
Surrey 18 (+1 shared) 17 (0 shared)
Middlesex 10 (+2 shared) 13 (0 shared)
Lancs 7 (+1 shared) 4 (0 shared)
Kent 6 (+1 shared) 11 (0 shared)
Essex 6 6
Warwicks 6 5
Notts 5 6
Worcs 5 5
Glam 3 2
Leics 3 3
Hants 2 2
Sussex 2 2
Derbys 1 1
Northants 0 1
Gloucs 0 1

Here are the revised years:-

YEAR Champion Revised Champion
1897 Lancs SURREY
1899 Surrey MIDDLESEX
1903 Middlesex YORKSHIRE
1908 Yorkshire KENT
1911 Warwicks KENT
1912 Yorkshire NORTHANTS
1914 Surrey MIDDLESEX
1924 Yorkshire MIDDLESEX
1926 Lancs KENT
1927 Lancs NOTTS
1930 Lancs GLOUCESTERSHIRE
1948 Glam MIDDLESEX
1949 Mid/Yorks YORKSHIRE
1950 Lancs/Sry LANCASHIRE
1967 Yorkshire KENT
1977 Kent/Mid KENT

Dave

 

[Richard]

ITSTL.

Common consensus suggests bonus-points are a terrible idea. Not 100% sure I agree, but I've not liked any of the formats yet used.

I'd be interested to see the 1963(?)-1999 tables taken sans-bonus-points completely.

 

[chasingthedon]

Actually I can do that quite easily - watch this space. BTW, what is ITSTL an abbreviation for?

 

[Richard]

Interesting to say the least. Very common around these parts, you might say.

 

[James_W]

Interesting to say the least. Very common around these parts, you might say.

That acronym has been hunting me for too long. Finally I understand it.

 

[Richard]

Just ask. There's always someone willing to tell.

 

[James_W]

Just ask. There's always someone willing to tell.

Cheers , reckon I've got them all now though.

 

[GIMH]

Interesting thread...doing the same with footy produces similarly interesting changes actually. I guess you have to consider though that teams play differently in relation to where points will be awarded.

I actually think bonus points are fair enough given the amount of rain we tend to get...

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Pretty sure a bit of research has been done (might have been Cricinfo/TWC) into putting a 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw system in place. The differences in the tables were negligible and it would be so much easier to understand.

 

[Anna]

Erm, what happened to Somerset in your calculations?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Erm, what happened to Somerset in your calculations?

no wins before recalculating, no wins after...no point in mentioning them

 

[GIMH]

no wins before recalculating, no wins after...no point in mentioning them

 

[Richard]

Yeah, LOOOOL at Haakon.

 

[Anna]

no wins before recalculating, no wins after...no point in mentioning them

How many wins did they get last year, huh?

 

[Richard]

The calculations chasingthedon has done have only ever run up to 1999, when the Championship was split.

 

[Anna]

Oh, ok.

 

[chasingthedon]

Nice catch Anna, but as Samuel VImes said there was no change - still should have stated that though :-D