I do not believe that score is more important that a win. As you all know playing the back of the table off the spot is a bit of an art form. I believe it a skill in its self to prevent somebody from scoring freely. I know of players that when ahead leave balls in awkward positions and then load the table. This should also be awarded the credit it deserves.
The point of this game is to out score your opponent and to therefore win the game. Not to outscore the person you are not playing.
I would suggest that wins are the most important then score. Istead of the 1st round of the main comp on the saturday. is there time to have all the runners up play 2 legged knockout game to decide who goes through.
Have to say that I am disappointed that you firstly dismiss the suggestion as "nonsense"...... >:( .....and then go on to say that you would be in favour of "double games throughout as the fairest method for all concerned"...... :o ...... which is exactly what I had proposed! :P ;D
Okay I apologise for the 'nonsense' comment and have moderated my post accordingly, although you go on to admonish me for stealing your idea when all I was doing was showing support for it IF there was a practical way for it to be introduced:
Basically, I would be in favour of the 'double games throughout' as the fairest method for all concerned, but this is simply not possible in the time frame available.
There are ways that a 'timed break' can work (in the Limes Triples, for instance the bar is pulled half-way through to give a game of 1.5 games duration.) To many people, myself included, the actual term 'timed break' suggests being up against the clock, on top of being up against the opponent, whilst having to cope with possibly a difficult table and under Jersey Rules. Rather a turn-off, and the organisers might find that is just too radical a change, and in direct opposition to what they have already taken the trouble to work out and assess as 'fair'.
In a competition like this, if you level the playing field too much to cater for the habitual star performers, the danger is that a lot of the glamour will be removed for the other 90% of us. You may as well then introduce 'seedings' of players - which would halve the entry at a stroke. :-/
Lots of ideas and suggestions which can only be good.
So here's mine.
Limit the competition to 160. 32 groups of 5 Top 2 through to last 64 for the live draw (very good idea) Position decided on games won the score if required. Single leg matches. 2 breaks each worked out by position drawn in group.
We play opens all year at 2 legs a time. I understand this had to be changed but why such a big confusing change like this? The easiest change would of been to 2 legs all the way through. I may not be a top player but this group thing is confusing and takes away the excitement. (tipsters) :)
Basically, I would be in favour of the 'double games throughout' as the fairest method for all concerned, but this is simply not possible in the time frame available. What the organisers are now proposing seems to be the next best compromise, and I think we should applaud them for that and give them our backing.
How can you say there is not enough time for double games all the way through? Perfect example was Sunday at the Sussex Open, there were 108 entrants and that was played on 1 day - are you saying that just having another 60ish entrants, that would take more than 1 day? (can't be bothered to work it out!)
If time doesn't allow it, why not start the tournament on the Friday morning ? Maybe there would then be enough time to keep the groups and make all them double games, so it still creates that "unique" feeling ?
World Champion 2013, 2017 You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.
I admire Nigel's views... he will advocate, quite rightly, for the many good players ----not himself and I truly understand what he puts forward and why. ( Don't agree as hey so will I for the lesser players)
My views are with Tommo and the lesser players ...
Despite my/others views there needs to be a balance as regardless of what I say, I respect any better player than me and always will go out to beat them whatever the format.
Whatever is decided it needs to be fairly soon, as flights are reasonable now and will increase and some may book against decisions made.
I applaud Jersey for inviting views and you have many... but you are running the competition ( thankyou) so it is up to you ... you will never please all of us.
We are booked on flights.
I am grateful for all the hard work and playing at least 3 ganes.
As I have only played in Jersey once and really enjoyed it I will not comment on the format, however, if the previous format was so bad and unfair why did you all go for so many years ?
I would be interested to see the comments of a previous winners of the tournament
I think the reason people went is because they understood there was not enough time to play double games all the way through. But now there are a lot less entries (partly because of the format) and time allows, people think it should be changed to double games all the way through.
World Champion 2013, 2017 You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.
Thanks to those who have put some thought into this.
Some very radical but exciting changes to make sure the world championships keeps it's unique edge . The live draw,the "roll up" for choice of break and the common sense used in deciding final league positions(points first).
Well done Sean, Graham and the rest of the committee. As some have said, these are radical changes, but necessary ones. With numbers dropping every year, something had to be done, especially finding a venue like the Merton. It would be a shame if it wasn`t filled. Those of you that haven`t been for the last two years really ought to give it a try ;), it`s a fabulous hotel, reasonable price too. Hayley and I are certainly looking forward to coming this year (as always) and trying the new format. Who could complain about having at least 3/4 or 5 games ;D
Roll on November ;D ;D
Yes, once a King always a King but once a Knight and happy
Me and Lorin Clough will be there, representing Northamptonshire!
2011 - Inter Area under 22's winner 2012 - Under 25's Highest break- 15030 2013 - British Pairs Open Q/F, Sussex Open Winner, First England Match 2014 - Inter Area Under 25's Runner Up, British Pairs Open Plate Winner, Northants Individual Runner Up, Northants Pairs Winner, AEBBA Under 25's Winner. 2015 - EA 4 Pin Plate Winner, Oxford Q/F
Post by The Chubbster™ on Aug 8, 2011 12:00:54 GMT
I'm coming late to this party, as always... but thought I would add some words to this very interesting debate (although it's probably over now).
First of all, I've not picked up a cue in years but here is my take on things as they stand.
Firstly, radical change was needed for the World Championships. A tournament where you can lose without hitting a ball was quite frankly silly. To me, any format would be an improvement, and I think the tournament organizers have done a great thing here, so the idea of change gets 2 thumbs up from me.
On a side note, you would be surprised how many people I used to know who didn't go to Jersey simply because of the old format where you could get knocked out without doing anything wrong, so I would not be surprised if your numbers increased this year. Another reason why this change was so badly needed. Dave Reeves was one such person, he went 1 single time with me and Chris, and got to the quarter finals, but never went before or after simply because of the 1 leg games to start with.
As for the debate about scores vs win/loss records for advancing, this has always been a simply argument for me.
Any game is about winning the game, that is why it's called a game. How you win it is up to you. Different people/teams have different styles of play, and to my knowledge no person/team has ever been penalized for the style in which they play. Do Arsenal get extra points in the Premier League if they win by more goals, or play with more flair? No of course not. Does a snooker player progress further if he makes more century breaks that his opponent? No of course not. Does Phil Taylor get given extra legs if he hits the most 180's? No of course not. Does a Golf player progress higher up the rankings if he wins an open by 20 shots rather than a single shot? No, of course not. In a semi final in the 100 meters, do they give the middle 4 lanes to the 4 fastest men in the semi's? No of course not, they give them to the first 2 finishers in each race.
Of course doing any of these things means you going to be doing well anyway, but it's not the technicalities I'm talking about, it's the overall principle.
And this list goes on forever. In every sport, every single one (ok I know Bar Billiards may not be a sport, but you know what i mean) winning is always the main objective. After that, in the event of a tie.... then to split them apart you use the scores/points whatever you happen to be playing for. So for example in football if two teams end up on the same number of points, you then use the goal difference just to tell them apart.
Anything else to me (and this is just my point of view) seems a bit silly. Because by using average score to determined who goes through, your basically saying that the way someone plays, rather than there ability to win a game is more important. I can see both sides of the argument, but to me when you start using scores as a priority over a players ability to get a result, then you are in effect taking away the fundamental point of any game of any sort and it's sole purpose in being..... that is to win. Sure you can get bonuses for high scores (like high breaks in snooker, and 9 dart lets in darts) but they don't effect the tournament or game structure in anyway.
Of course, all the time 1 leg Bar Billiards exists, there is always going to be problems, and things that happen that are unfair. If it was up to me, 1 leg Bar Billiards would not exsist.... anywhere, not even at league level. But that's the way it is. But i do think it would be a mistake to prioritize someones score over there ability to win.
A game is about winning, and as long as you play sportingly (most important, because I've seen some real bad sportsmanship in Jersey from mainland players using up time, including putting there cue down... slowly, and ballancing it on the table to check there watch in the middle of a break.... mini rant over) and play within the rules, then who are we to say how a play should win? Would I not be a better player for winning 90% of the games of bar billiards I play compared to someone who wins 70% but can play faster than me and get bigger scores? Sure you may think he has more tallent, flair, ability, better to watch, more potential than me.... but I won more games, and under the rules of bar billiards that makes me a better player.... end of story.
Those are just my thought.
That said, either way this system is miles better, and I can't thank enough the tournament directors and all those folks in Jersey for giving this a try. In whatever group format you decide, 2,3,4,5 players, 1 leg, 2 legs, timed breaks, standing on your head.... Whatever it may be, it's a big improvement on what we had previously. I'm not one for the "magic" of seeing someone go out first round without hitting a ball. To me that's just unfair, and a waste of someones hard earned money. So like I said a big 2 thumbs up from me.
And you never know, maybe the time has come......
Anyway, this has been fun. Good old forum this place. kind of reminds me of one I used to run myself! Was a load of hassle though, wouldn't like to be the person/people who take care of this place :)
Yours love always,
An Old Friend
Semi-Finalist - Mermaid Open 2005 Semi-Finalist - Sussex Open 2005 Semi-Finalist - All England Grand Prix 2005 Semi-Finalist - Surrey Open 2015 Semi-Finalist - Brighton Singles 2014
1. Are players allowed to use cushions for the nearest the peg shot to see who chooses to break first?
2. If a player doesn't fulfil all of their fixtures in the Group stages, for whatever reason, will all points involving that player be null & void or will their opponent get the 3 points + an average of the other games they have played?
Proud holder of the World Record score for Off The Spot of 25,950.
Post by Secretary J.B.B.L. on Oct 20, 2011 8:31:12 GMT
Thanks for the questions.
In a nut shell, the third break being decided by rolling up to the white peg has to be completed directly and not via any cushions.
If a player doesn't complete all their fixtures in the group, either by being omitted or withdrawing themselves then the remaining players would receive at present, 3 points each only, however, I note your comment regarding including the 'average' from their other games and I think this is a valid point. This is something that I shall raise with the other Tournament Directors.
How will we get ranking points? ive heard that we only get them if we progress past the groups?
Previously ranking points were awarded from the last 64 onwards in the World champs, and can't see a reason why we should change this, so yes you will have to get past the group stage to get into the last 64.
Also in the past we have awarded 0.5 points for any match won in round where ranking points are not at stake, which here would mean awarding 0.5 points for winning any group game, again I would have though we would keep this but will wait and see how it pans out when the results come in- (may need to tweak this to 0.25 per win but can't really say until the results come in)
Just to reassure you - 122 players out of the 164 earned ranking points last year, with 369.4 points awarded in total......and a similar amount of points will be up for grabs this year
Most serious forum user 2004/05 You know that look women get when they want sex? Me neither. "Spiderpig, spiderpig, does whatever spiderpig does. Can he swing from a web? No he can't he's just a pig. Look out here is the spiderpig" Homer Simpson, 2007
I am in favour of the new rulings as it gives the reset of us non-pro's a bit of a chance. I know these changes are radical but they are more fair, maybe with a few flaws but I think it is generally better and any major upsets this year can be fixed by next year.
The only thing I don't like along with others is that if there are, for instance, 2 players tied for 2nd place, then the person with the highest average/score gets into the main comp and the other player in the plate. I don't like this as players could purposely play slower/load the table up so that the person in joint 2nd place can't get into the main due to lack of points (average etc).
Personally it won't bother me either way as if such a player did have a higher average then me, I'd only lose to that player or an equally good player in the main competition anyway so maybe I deserve to go into the plate. But I can see how this can upset some good players wanting to get into the main competition. It's the same as the World Cup in football, if you don't qualify well enough in your group then you can't get in no matter who you are it's your fault for not getting a high enough score! Plus the pro's can't complain because in the old format, if two 20k players get draw in the first round, then one will go into the plate anyway so in theory the pros actually get a better shout too.
Bring on Jersey!!
P.S. Alan Brackenridge is in my group and he just beat me on the last ball on Wednesday in the Brighton league so I owe him a whooping but whether that happens or not we'll see!