Season 2012/13 in figures
The tables below contain information about the strength of teams and boards fielded in the league competitions this season.
Cooking the books
In order to interpret the figures you will want to know the basis of the calculations:
Team totals are calculated after the minimum counting grade has been applied to defaulted boards, ungraded and low graded players.
For individual boards, a minimum counting grade has been applied to defaults, but for lower graded players their grade has been used. For ungraded players estimated grades have been used. Some of these are unofficial estimates, and some have changed over the course of the season.
The difference in the treatments described above means that in divisions 2 to 4 the sum of the average grades of the boards is less than the team average. All averages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Defaulted matches have not been included in the calculations.
The figures
All teams
| Division 1 | Division 2 | Division 3 | Division 4
|
| average team | 816 | 695 | 497 | 418
|
| average board 1 | 186 | 168 | 148 | 128
|
| average board 2 | 175 | 151 | 126 | 102
|
| average board 3 | 162 | 133 | 111 | 88
|
| average board 4 | 155 | 120 | 95 | 73
|
| average board 5 | 138 | 107 | |
|
Av team
- sum av boards | 0 | 16 | 17 | 27
|
Team by team break down:
All figures are team totals.
| team | average | biggest | least
|
| Alsager A | 708 | 797 | 571
|
| Cheddleton A | 811 | 901 | 775
|
| Holmes Chapel Kings | 825 | 855 | 810
|
| Newcastle A | 801 | 857 | 781
|
| Stafford A | 883 | 950 | 788
|
| | | |
|
| Cheddleton B | 702 | 722 | 673
|
| Cheddleton C | 720 | 723 | 666
|
| Holmes Chapel Knights | 685 | 705 | 631
|
| Holmes Chapel Rooks | 658 | 665 | 634
|
| Macclesfield | 710 | 719 | 702
|
| Newcastle B | 704 | 725 | 677
|
| | | |
|
| Alsager B | 506 | 527 | 461
|
| Cheddleton D | 508 | 518 | 491
|
| Cheddleton E | 518 | 520 | 509
|
| Fenton A | 489 | 520 | 441
|
| Holmes Chapel Pawns | 454 | 515 | 427
|
| Kidsgrove A | 503 | 511 | 481
|
| Meir A | 499 | 515 | 478
|
| Newcastle C | 499 | 518 | 442
|
| Newcastle D | 494 | 518 | 465
|
| Stafford B | 499 | 516 | 466
|
| | | |
|
| Alsager C | 428 | 462 | 391
|
| Alsager D | 413 | 455 | 373
|
| Cheddleton F | 433 | 460 | 415
|
| Cheddleton G | 440 | 460 | 426
|
| Fenton B | 440 | 451 | 406
|
| Fenton C | 401 | 424 | 375
|
| H Chapel Tiny Pawns | 385 | 421 | 360
|
| Meir B | 421 | 445 | 360
|
| Meir C | 404 | 456 | 360
|
| Newcastle E | 415 | 455 | 385
|
Head to Head
The following table shows the average grading differences, i.e. shows by how much the weaker team/player is outgraded.
| Division 1 | Division 2 | Division 3 | Division 4
|
| team | 74 | 36 | 24 | 28
|
| board 1 | 14 | 18 | 18 | 20
|
| board 2 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 13
|
| board 3 | 20 | 13 | 16 | 16
|
| board 4 | 15 | 10 | 23 | 23
|
| board 5 | 28 | 14 | |
|
And finally, since there seems to be some concern about the lower divisions, I've looked at the extent to which each board for each team in divisions three and four outgraded their opponents - red numbers show boards that were outgraded on average. Inevitably these figures will be affected by the estimated grades I've chosen to use.
| Board 1 | Board 2 | Board 3 | Board 4
|
| Division 3 | | | |
|
| Alsager A | 3 | 15 | 2 | 1
|
| Cheddleton D | 1 | 3 | 4 | 9
|
| Cheddleton E | 8 | 13 | 24 | 15
|
| Fenton A | 11 | 1 | 5 | 11
|
| Holmes Chapel Pawns | 21 | 18 | 16 | 25
|
| Kidsgrove | 20 | 2 | 8 | 11
|
| Meir A | 4 | 6 | 1 | 7
|
| Newcastle C | 27 | 11 | 13 | 17
|
| Newcastle D | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1
|
| Stafford B | 1 | 4 | 5 | 12
|
| Division 4 | | | |
|
| Alsager C | 13 | 9 | 2 | 3
|
| Alsager D | 4 | 3 | 5 | 6
|
| Cheddleton F | 10 | 0 | 16 | 3
|
| Cheddleton G | 3 | 2 | 14 | 5
|
| Fenton B | 7 | 11 | 13 | 34
|
| Fenton C | 22 | 2 | 1 | 10
|
| H Chapel Tiny Pawns | 15 | 16 | 21 | 39
|
| Meir B | 4 | 6 | 4 | 9
|
| Meir C | 6 | 15 | 2 | 2
|
| Newcastle E | 2 | 2 | 23 | 28
|
Some figures for season 2009/10 are available here for comparison.
