|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 15, 2013 12:40:38 GMT
I am sure that many of you will have read the comment that I made on the thread about the Surrey Open that took place yesterday about people that did not take part in the Plate Competition after losing their first match of the day.... Nigel Senior won the Plate Competition beating Damian Coates in the Final with Jim Greensted and Jason Wadsworth the losing semi-finalists.... perhaps the only disappointing thing about the whole day was the number of players who didn't take part in the Plate after being knocked out in the First Round which meant that in one series of games no less than 7 of the 10 tables had byes on them and left a number of players who wanted to play having to wait around for 5-6 hours for their next game..... ::) ....not the fault of the organisers at all but pretty unfair as I am sure that the players who left without taking part in the Plate would have stayed and played in the Main Competition! :-X .... and you have probably also seen the comment added by Chrissie.... As a person who rarely plays in the plate, I have to disagree with you Dave, I do though feel that it is a topic that needs some 'air' time, It is possible to do something about the plate issue and there are a number of things that could be done. I do not want to distract from what was obviously an excellent competition and therefore maybe a new thread for this topic would be appropriate. .... and I agree entirely with her that the Surrey Open Thread is not the right place to start a discussion about this subject, although I believe that it is something that does need discussion. ;) I will be the first to admit that this is a personal "bug-bear" of mine as in one of my first ever Open Competitions (Sussex in 2008) I was knocked out in the first round at 10am.... and then had to wait around for 7 hours before my next game as my Plate "opponent" had gone home. Something similar happened to me at another competition (Kent) when my scheduled opponent didn't turn up at 10am, I then lost in the next round and had to wait until nearly 5pm for next game as my Plate Opponent had again left early.... I vowed then that I would not ever withdraw from a Plate Competition as I know how frustrating it is to be left sitting there for hours waiting for your next match.... >:( Obviously, the decision of whether you play in the Plate is entirely up to the individual players involved and is a matter of personal choice.... but surely if you enter a competition you normally go there with the intention of playing ALL of your games and I am sure that most (if not all) of the players who choose to leave after losing their game would have stayed and played their next match had they still been playing in the Main Competition? :P So, I think that it is fair to ask the question WHY won't some players stay and play a Plate game? If they feel that they have "better" things to do, then perhaps they shouldn't have entered the competition at all....! >:( Is it being fair to their opponents who do want to play in the Plate for them to just go home and leave those people sitting around for hours, often not even knowing that their next opponent has gone home until they actually get to the table to play the game! A few experiences like that could make people decide not to enter the competitions in future, especially if they are fairly new to them and are likely to be playing in the Plate in most of the competitions. >:( Perhaps some of the players who don't play in the Plate feel that they are actually being "fairer" to the players that do want to play by not playing in it as it would give those remaining a better chance of getting further in the competition and maybe even winning it.... that is something that I have certainly heard some people say in the past. Okay, perhaps that is true to an extent.... but would those same players be happy if they had made a 3 hour journey to get to a competition for a 10am start only to find that their opponent hadn't bothered to turn up and they then had a 4 hour wait until their next match? Is there a difference between the player that doesn't turn up at all and the one that goes home early.... I think not, both show disprespect to their opponents. ::) (NOTE - I am not being critical here about players that have genuine reasons (illness, family crisis, accident on the way etc) for either not being able to get to a competition or having to leave early.... obviously there are a lot of things more important than bar billiards in life! I must also stress here that this is NOT a criticism of any of the people who give so much of their time and effort to run and organise the competitions for us, it is certainly not their fault if players either fail to turn up to play in the competition or choose to go home early, those are things that are totally out of their control.) At the moment we have a situation where some players are sitting around for hours without having a game simply because others have gone home. That even affects the players who are playing in the Main Competition as their matches are having to be played later than necessary as time has to be allowed in the schedules for matches that are not being played, we probably lost the equivalent of at least one (maybe two) series of games so everybody involved at the end of the day was there 30-45 minutes longer than they needed to be.... because a few people decided to go home early! :P So, what can we do about it...? I have seen discussions on here before about maybe doing a re-draw for the Plate Competition to just allow the players that want to take part into the competition. That would probably save some of the time and get people playing earlier although it would be a logistical nightmare for the organisers and would almost certainly lead to players being drawn on the same table that they have already played.... :-/ Should it be compulsory to play in the first round of the Plate Competition if you lose your first match.... obviously if you are so keen to go home then you can always choose to lose the match (although perhaps a few people would not allow their pride to do that! :o) and then leave? ;D Should players be "seeded" based on their current Rankings and be drawn to avoid each other in the first games of a Tournament as happens in many other sports? Personally I don't like that idea as I think that a random draw is much more exciting and can lead to some terrific early matches in a competition and you would also end up playing many of the same players in every competition if it was seeded.... however it could mean that nearly everybody would be staying to play their next match whether they were in the Plate or Main Competition, although my personal view is that we would lose a lot of players from the competitions as many people would not bother to enter. ::) Perhaps we should simply we scrap the Plate Competitions completely and then we can all go home early? No, that is not a serious suggestion as I am sure that would mean that we would lose a lot of entries for the competitions if 50% of the players that entered would simply have one match. :'( I am sure that EVERYBODY who enters the Opens wants to see them continue in the future and I am personally very pleased to see a number of new faces at some of the competitions that have been played this year already and hope that this is a positive move to more people entering the competitions in future. Surely we all want to encourage these players to take part and hopefully improve the standard of all of the competitions.... 8-) I thought that it was great to see a number of "shock" results in the early rounds of the Surrey Open yesterday and I am sure that many of the players in the Plate Competition would have enjoyed the opportunity to have played against some of the best players in the game in a single leg game which may have given them a chance to provide another "shock" result.... ;D .... but sadly for many that opportunity was removed and they ended up sitting around waiting hours for their next game. :P That's my rant over (for now) on this subject.... maybe some people will have some sensible ideas on how we can make this better in the future.... or maybe the players that decide to leave early rather than play in the Plate can explain why they do that and if there is anything that could be done that would make them happy to stay and play? ???
|
|
|
Post by H on Apr 15, 2013 12:49:52 GMT
As much as it may be a silly suggestion - what about negative ranking points for those that leave without an acceptable reason?
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 15, 2013 13:23:12 GMT
As much as it may be a silly suggestion - what about negative ranking points for those that leave without an acceptable reason? I think the problem with that idea could be the interpretation of what is an "acceptable reason".... I think that there would probably be players that would have either a "sudden illness" of "family crisis" that means that they have to go home.... the fact that they only found out after they had lost could never be proved! ::) It does however give me the idea that players could be asked to pay an extra amount to enter a competition (so perhaps increase the cost to £15?) and then have the extra amount refunded to them if they either play in the Plate Competition or obviously progress in the Main Competition with the organisers to retain the £5 if they go home without fulfilling their matches.... at least that way the people that do leave would be penalised and maybe the organisers could then buy the people left sitting around a drink from the money that is left behind! :o ;D ;D ;D On a (slightly) separate subject, I also think that people who withdraw from competitions or fail to turn up at all should also lose their entry fees. ;)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 15:15:55 GMT
Surely, at the very time when you are trying to encourage more people to enter Opens, bringing in punitive measures could prove counter-productive ?
I look at it this way, you enter an Open and you pay for a day's entertainment. It's a basic human right to leave a concert or a football match early and it's exactly the same with a bar billiards Open: The individual only hurts themself by not staying till the end and getting their full money's worth from the day. :P
There is however some merit in the case for a Plate 're-draw', if it looks like the line-up has been particularly ravaged, with the benefit of saving time within the schedule if all tables are being utilised as a consequence. :)
|
|
|
Post by The Chubbster™ on Apr 15, 2013 16:00:30 GMT
Very interesting discussion, I'll add my bit.
I'm against seeded draws in Bar Billiards, because it absolutely would lead to a drop in entries that we can't afford.
My preference, and I have been making this case for some time now with no responses from anyone at all, is to change the format and have a "group" phase before moving onto a knockout, and forgo having a plate competition altogether.
I think the purpose of the plate competition is so that people who lose their first game get another go (correct me If i'm wrong) and that's fair enough seeing as people have to travel, pay etc and can be great if your a weaker player or just starting out in the game. But I would prefer everyone to have a few goes whilst still in the main competition. A group phase ensures everyone has to stay until they are knocked out, where after they are free to leave.
I know the argument is going to be that you will get less "Shock" results, but I don't believe in that. If the group phase was 1 leg games, you would get even more "shock" results, to say nothing of that fact you might get a weaker group of players (no offence intended to anyone) as well as "groups of death" like you seem to get at every world cup etc.
I'm as yet undecided on the particular format (although groups of 4 playing each other over 1 leg with the top 2 progressing is pretty standard) but this format type has and always will be my preference with regards to any 1 day tournament, and I believe it would solve the problem.
But again I stress, I'm aware I'm in the complete minority here, so I'm under no illusions whatsoever that anyone will even consider this a possibility (although correct me if I'm wrong but I believe one open had this format once?). But I'll throw it out this one last time as I believe the problem that Dave mentions is a real one, and I must admit it was a bit strange on Sunday seeing one round of games with 6 (or was it 7?) tables unused.
|
|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Apr 15, 2013 16:25:10 GMT
Cant see any advantage in making players stay on if thay dont want to, thay may have more important things to do like appeasing the hard put upon wives, perhaps it would be curteous however,for those who wish to leave early to advise the controllers so that they can adjust the program. Which also would mean players would have to stay on site the majority of the time to note any start time adjustments rather than popping away for a constitutional for a few hours
The round robin sounds like it could take longer to run but could be off set by not having a plate, but expect an exodus at the second stage and maintaining scorers may be a problem, or course a lot of players may come as a group which will keep some avialable but i'm quite amazed at how many keep their heads down when scorers are required
This is putting more pressure on the important few who run these events but we definately dont want to deter players, we need to make it more fun and the easy answer is more great tables & bigger venues if people dont have to wait so long between games they might be prepared to stay on and yes i realise there are additional costs and if it does get more popular you will have more players waiting
regs cs
|
|
|
Post by bigtj on Apr 15, 2013 17:14:33 GMT
i think by stopping plte competitions we could lose entries as many enter with little chance of progressing andit would be poor value to just turn up to watch a long time during the main competition only to have then say the day is over.
A re-draw seems good in princible but that would cause logistcal nightmares with the days scheduling inh adavance ane the time factor of doing the draw. I do know it is frustrating to have people go home but that is an individuals right.
Lets remember if the numbers are not st the right level either the tournament would have to be cancelled or run at a lose, not practical at all.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Apr 15, 2013 17:34:57 GMT
I can see everyone's point of view here and I can only comment from mine, which is purely and totally selfish.
When I go to Guernsey I will enter the plate. I am staying in the hotel. I can plan my time to get some R and R. Go to the pool as I am on holiday, OH YES ;D ;D ;D
Won't bore any of you with my circumstances but for personal reasons family, health and work, time is totally precious. I truly resent hanging around for a few hours to play a plate, hence I have not entered many Opens this year, as I know I will not play the plate and although very nicely put from organisers, I am asked why.
I have also felt truly sorry for the organisers, as I am sure they have had grief from my opponents in the past in the plate, who wanted the game and have had to wait longer!! In this respect I fully agree with Dave. I know this happens having run the Portsmoutb Open many, many years ago.
I though don't mind paying my fee, entering the main and leaving, even if I only get one game. That is my selfish side.
I personally believe there are two answers, just my opinion. Both Chris and I have always believed in Glen's suggestion, which is the fairest. The other is a re-draw of plate competitors, which is totally possible. It could though mean that a player may get an advantage of having previously played on a table, as with a large entry it would be hard to guarantee otherwise.
This does not have to be punitive, it can be positive. Just a change of hearts and minds in terms of how it is played ::)
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 15, 2013 17:52:06 GMT
I look at it this way, you enter an Open and you pay for a day's entertainment. It's a basic human right to leave a concert or a football match early and it's exactly the same with a bar billiards Open: The individual only hurts themself by not staying till the end and getting their full money's worth from the day. :P With respect, I can't agree with this statement at all.... surely the person they were supposed to play next is truly the one who is missing out after they have patiently waited to play their game only to find that their opponent has gone home! :P Not only have they given up their time, they have lost out on the enjoyment of playing another game and potentially lost out on the chance of earning some ranking points (albeit very few) all through no fault of their own. >:( After all, the players who has stayed behind to play in the Plate have also paid their entry fee and that must entitle them to play as many games as their performance permits on the day to have their "full money's worth from the day"! 8-) Choosing to leave a concert or football match would not affect anybody other than the individual who decides to do that so that is clearly a "basic human right".... but would you insist that the person sat next to you leaves at the same time as you if they wanted to stay - no, of course not as that would be an attempt to deprive them of their enjoyment! ;D I feel that you are therefore trying to compare apples with pears by drawing the similarites that you have mentioned and have not taken into consideration the person who is actually missing out here.... ::)
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Apr 15, 2013 18:37:28 GMT
I am going to pull out of this discussion. My reasons are purely selfish as I have previously said.
I do though think that we all know the issues it causes re leaving early, of which I am guilty... should not the discussion be about purely the SOLUTIONS only :-*
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 18:56:24 GMT
With respect, I can't agree with this statement at all.... surely the person they were supposed to play next is truly the one who is missing out after they have patiently waited to play their game only to find that their opponent has gone home! :P Not only have they given up their time, they have lost out on the enjoyment of playing another game and potentially lost out on the chance of earning some ranking points (albeit very few) all through no fault of their own. >:( After all, the players who has stayed behind to play in the Plate have also paid their entry fee and that must entitle them to play as many games as their performance permits on the day to have their "full money's worth from the day"! 8-) Choosing to leave a concert or football match would not affect anybody other than the individual who decides to do that so that is clearly a "basic human right".... but would you insist that the person sat next to you leaves at the same time as you if they wanted to stay - no, of course not as that would be an attempt to deprive them of their enjoyment! ;D I feel that you are therefore trying to compare apples with pears by drawing the similarites that you have mentioned and have not taken into consideration the person who is actually missing out here.... ::) Okay Dave, You've very skilfully shot my argument down in flames, but it doesn't stop me from still believing in it. :P As Chris says, we should be looking at solutions rather than whether someone has mixed up his fruit ::), and to me the Plate is a minor consideration. Putting extra emphasis into the Main - possibly Glenn's idea of groups is the answer?, I don't know. :-/ The Plate is a mere sweetener to the disappointment of an early exit and there for the player to take up the option if he/she so wishes. What really prompted my post was the ridiculous concept put forward of fining players - either in ranking points or financially - for declining to play, which has an element of - erm - fascism about it ! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by H on Apr 15, 2013 19:17:33 GMT
Is it me or was that a stab at me Clive? I neglect to bite :-P
There is no fascism about my comment - like Dave I do feel for the individuals who are left sitting around - the plate is not a minor consideration for everyone, especially newer improving players - should we not be encouraging rather than deterring them? I will put my thinking cap on and try and table some solutions as I completely agree that that is the direction this discussion should be heading
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 19:36:00 GMT
Is it me or was that a stab at me Clive? I neglect to bite :-P No personal attack intended H, but an attack on the concept itself. And as usual Dave and I end up on opposite sides, when ultimately all we want is 'utopia'......maximum entry to all competitions, everyone playing at their best, everyone enjoying it until the end. Unfortunately, as we know, this is completely impossible ! Fortunately what we do seem to get is excellent tables, worthy winners and profitable ventures. Long may it continue.
|
|
|
Post by Ros on Apr 15, 2013 19:36:17 GMT
... should not the discussion be about purely the SOLUTIONS only :-* Why?? Surely we are all entitled to voice an opinion? I'm very much in agreement with Dave on this one. If you enter a competition that has a plate, then you have entered the lot and should be prepared (barring emergencies) to play all your games in either the main competition or the plate. Leaving early deprives others of games they are entitled to play and sometimes, in the case of smaller entries (like Ladies comps), can skew the results of the plate dramatically. It can also mean that some players are disadvantaged by not having 'match practice' on the way to later rounds of the plate. I don't like the idea of group stages and no plate - I don't like the group system in Jersey, where there is still a plate! I'm prepared to travel fairly long distances to opens, with the objective of stumbling through as many rounds as I can and maybe causing the odd upset along the way ;) - the current format gives me 2 chances to do that. Unless we can find a way to persuade people to stay, probably the only fair solution is to redraw the plate - however, I do appreciate that this gives the organisers a headache. The other objection to a redraw - that some might play on the same table again: this doesn't really hold water, because that can happen now with the existing system. It happened to me at last year's Sussex, I don't remember all the details (Jean could explain it!) but it was because of a bye on one side of the draw, so I ended up playing someone who had only just played on the same table. The very best solution would be to find a way to get everyone to stay - with incentives or penalties or both. Dave's suggestion of the 'extra' entry fee seems the best suggestion so far.
|
|
|
Post by chellster on Apr 15, 2013 20:57:54 GMT
I wish Nige had gone home!!!! Lol x
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Apr 15, 2013 23:03:51 GMT
I am sure that someone will work it out, but i don't think there would be time to run groups, even without a plate? personally, i don't like the idea unless all games are double games. Same reason as in Jersey, that you can go out of the comp without having a chance on the table.
I am going to make a suggestion and i mean no offence to anyone in this post, so please do not take it that way!
Maybe one thing to consider is to run two separate comps on the day? One comp for "top" players and another for the "lesser" players.
This could then give everyone a chance in either comp? Maybe nobody outside the top 50 can enter the "lesser" comp, but if you are outside the top 50 you can enter the "top" comp if you wish ? Just a thought?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 23:21:58 GMT
What Milhouse has just suggested is used in the Chess world..........Chess Congresses are run like bar billiards Opens (though of course they pre-date them) with a full hall and big white tournament sheets hanging on the wall.
When entering you choose to go in (in ascending order) Novice, Minor, Intermediate, Major or Open.
A variation of this (say Minor and Open) could conceivably work for bar billiards as Milhouse says.
Personally, I can't see the point of changing the whole concept of Opens because of problems in the lesser, gratis competition, the Plate. Unless by doing so you would attract a bigger entry (and I don't think this would be the case). :-/
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 15, 2013 23:30:48 GMT
Having run the sussex the last few years here's some thoughts from an organisational point of view.other counties please disagree with me if you think I'm wrong. 108 people and 12 tables needs organisation. The format is all sorted with tables allocated to the matches up to semi final stage. You have to wait until the 2nd round of the main has been completed to start the plate because of the inevitable no shows on the day.at this point you know who is in the main and plate comps. To then have to do a draw for the plate and allocate tables would be a nightmare.you would probably have to play the 3rd round of the main comp whilst doing this. After the people who had decided to leave and not go in the plate had gone this could leave 33 players. This would mean you would have to play one prelim game. When would you play this game? On its own whilst everyone else sits around waiting? Not knowing how many players would end up in the plate would mean everything would have to be sorted on the day. The day is long enough, busy enough and stressful enough for the organisers as it is.
Now my thoughts as a player Yes it's annoying when you have to wait a long time to play your plate game because someone's gone home but you can't stop people leaving. Groups I personally don't like.
I think opens as they are now are great and I would hate them to change. It's unfortunate that some people have to wait so long to play their plate game but unfortunately this is always going to happen with this format unless you lock the doors and imprison everyone and not let them out until they play their plate game! Ok don't take that last bit seriously lol.
Well that really helped to find a solution - not!
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 15, 2013 23:57:55 GMT
Maybe one thing to consider is to run two separate comps on the day? One comp for "top" players and another for the "lesser" players. This could then give everyone a chance in either comp? Maybe nobody outside the top 50 can enter the "lesser" comp, but if you are outside the top 50 you can enter the "top" comp if you wish ? Just a thought? I think that you probably mean inside the Top 50 (rather than outside) can enter the "lesser" competition Mark but it is possibly an idea worth considering.... I believe that (many years ago) there was a competition called the "Kent Minnows" that was based on a similar idea to this so maybe somebody who can remember that can maybe give some more details about that competition and why it was stopped...? ??? Whether something like this would help to solve the problem of players leaving early is obviously only a matter of opinion and it would be interesting to see if it had any positive or negative effect on the number of entries.... :-/ Personally I would not be in favour of "Groups" as although you may get a few "shocks" in a vast majority of cases the better players would progress (as has been proved in Jersey in the last 2 years) and we would have the same situation of probably having Open Champions that have lost a match.... which has never struck me as being correct. ::) I don't think there is a simple solution to this problem as in many ways the existing format is probably the best for the Open Competitions.... but keep the ideas coming people as you never know what may come out of this. 8-)
|
|
|
Post by The Chubbster™ on Apr 16, 2013 4:29:09 GMT
I see no reason to reinvent the wheel because of this problem, I am therefor totally against any kind of split competition for different levels of players. When you do that it no longer is an "open".
It would seem that the only problem with regards to a redraw in the plate is the logistics, which I completely understand. But if that's the case then this is I believe a fine example of how technology can massively help our game.
I have a piece of software right here on my ipad "brackelope" that does ALL of the logistics for you, and its awesome. There are many other pieces of software like that for the PC. So in the case of a re-draw, the computer can do that for you, and pick what tables they play on to ensure fairness, and re-schedule the whole day on the fly if needed.
So that's an option that could be looked into if it comes down to purely a logistical problem, as a re-draw in the plate would seem the most sensible option judging by what I've read so far.
|
|
|
Post by The Chubbster™ on Apr 16, 2013 4:59:37 GMT
Having thought some more (as one does at 5:50am) if our current tournament administrators currently use spreadsheets (and I have a feeling that most of them do) to run opens and other tournaments, I would be more than willing to have a bash and programming a spreadsheet that would assist with regards to a plate re-draw. Something along the lines of entering the names of the people in the plate and right before the plate series starts, pressing a button with does the random draw and allocates a table for each match that also factors in the table they have played before. You could then read out the draw and get started as the "brackets" would now be auto populated.
Can't promise sucsess of course, but I'll give it a go if so desired? I'd be interested to hear from Jean on this from a tournament organisers point of view and whether or not something like this would aid in making a tournament organisers life a little easier?
|
|
|
Post by The Chubbster™ on Apr 16, 2013 6:58:28 GMT
I've done what all good insomniac's do, and already done what I said I would before breakfast and not caring whether people actually want it or not :) Attached is a simple spreadsheet that does a random draw regardless of how many players you enter. please download it and give it a go. It's fairly simple, just enter the names of the players in the yellow area and press the "Draw Players" button. It will then fill in the draw randomly for you. Try pressing the "clear" button and doing it again to test it with the same players (The clear button clears the draw, not the list) or just keep press the draw button repeatedly.... You will see it draws the names differnetly every time. The good thing is that the code grabs players from anywhere in the list, so you don't have to keep them in order. You can have "Gaps" so to speak in the yellow area, and it will still do the draw just fine. This could be useful if someone pulls out at the last minute. There is no need to re-jig the list so to speak. Play around with it and you will see what I mean. Don't worry about the 0 values, I can fix that later, and this whole thing is pretty crude at the moment as it has no VBA code, but it's a sample of what can be done, so let me know what you think. I'm now off to work to..... guess what! Program spreadsheets all day long lol Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2013 7:10:36 GMT
I think that you probably mean inside the Top 50 (rather than outside) can enter the "lesser" competition Mark but it is possibly an idea worth considering.... I believe that (many years ago) there was a competition called the "Kent Minnows" that was based on a similar idea to this so maybe somebody who can remember that can maybe give some more details about that competition and why it was stopped...? ???
As a former winner of the Kent Minnows (that is right!! And to this day it remains the only thing I have ever won in Bar Billiards!) I remember it well.
It did not replace the plate for the Kent Open, in fact it was played the day before the Open.
It was open to entry for anyone outside the Top 50 in the rankings and was played with the same format as an Open. There was not a plate for this competition as far as I can recall. I'm sure I played plenty of games which leads me to suspect that it was well attended.
The important point, however, is that it was run before the open, not alongside and not as an alternative to the plate. I suspect the motivation for this was to keep the Open 'Open'. When you restrict entry, let us say to those in the Top 50 as an example, it no longer becomes an 'Open' but an 'invitational'. This has all manner of implications for the rankings etc. as it would effectively serve to tier the rankings system to ensure that those in the top always remain in the top section and those outwith the top section will rarely break into it. This will quickly render the national rankings pretty meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Apr 16, 2013 7:29:39 GMT
Yes i do mean inside rather than outside ;D
Glenn's idea is great and would definitely be the solution to the problem if it works. There are two problems i can see with this.
Firstly, when doing the draw, it is putting two byes together, in fact, it is putting all the byes at the bottom (probably easy to overcome). Also, does this work out the tables etc. for the following rounds ?
Secondly, this still needs to fit into the schedule. At any given time, there may be main competition games and plate games going on at the same time, so this needs to be factored in after doing the re-draw. I am presuming this would be a lot more difficult to do?
|
|
|
Post by The Chubbster™ on Apr 16, 2013 8:43:37 GMT
Yes i do mean inside rather than outside ;D Glenn's idea is great and would definitely be the solution to the problem if it works. There are two problems i can see with this. Firstly, when doing the draw, it is putting two byes together, in fact, it is putting all the byes at the bottom (probably easy to overcome). Also, does this work out the tables etc. for the following rounds ? Secondly, this still needs to fit into the schedule. At any given time, there may be main competition games and plate games going on at the same time, so this needs to be factored in after doing the re-draw. I am presuming this would be a lot more difficult to do? All good questions that would need addressing. With regards the following rounds, that’s easy. I could program a sheet that when the scores for both legs are entered, it could automatically total them and from that automatically place that name in the next round. You would not even have to press a button as the next round entrant would trigger the moment both scores are entered. I would imagine that would certainly save a lot of typing on the day if anyone is actually having to continually type each player into the next round, but I would imagine Nigel and a few others already have that programmed. The byes issue is going to be harder to overcome. This was done using random numbers (which you can see on the second tab) and the button effectively relists everyone in descending order according to a random number that’s generated for each entrant and then literally “copies & pastes” the list one name at a time into the schedule, going down the list. The problem is that the schedule is dependent of how many players you have entering the plate, which means they would need copying and pasting in different places for prelim rounds etc. It would be easier to manually just copy and paste them, but naturally the brackets will change and that needs some work. I’m yet to come up with a solution yet, but I’m working on it. For now though, I just wanted to show that a random draw/list of names can be as simple as a click of a button on the day.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2013 8:54:46 GMT
I think opens as they are now are great and I would hate them to change. It's unfortunate that some people have to wait so long to play their plate game but unfortunately this is always going to happen with this format unless you lock the doors and imprison everyone and not let them out until they play their plate game! Ok don't take that last bit seriously lol. Another three first round losers make a run for it ! Seriously, the discussion has now taken a move in the right direction, and there exists a viable option for if there is a Plate with too many dropouts. 8-)
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Apr 16, 2013 9:01:00 GMT
All good questions that would need addressing. With regards the following rounds, that’s easy. I could program a sheet that when the scores for both legs are entered, it could automatically total them and from that automatically place that name in the next round. You would not even have to press a button as the next round entrant would trigger the moment both scores are entered. I would imagine that would certainly save a lot of typing on the day if anyone is actually having to continually type each player into the next round, but I would imagine Nigel and a few others already have that programmed.The byes issue is going to be harder to overcome. This was done using random numbers (which you can see on the second tab) and the button effectively relists everyone in descending order according to a random number that’s generated for each entrant and then literally “copies & pastes” the list one name at a time into the schedule, going down the list. The problem is that the schedule is dependent of how many players you have entering the plate, which means they would need copying and pasting in different places for prelim rounds etc. It would be easier to manually just copy and paste them, but naturally the brackets will change and that needs some work. I’m yet to come up with a solution yet, but I’m working on it. For now though, I just wanted to show that a random draw/list of names can be as simple as a click of a button on the day. Red - Yes, this is already programmed in, so the winners automatically go through (I know this from creating the spreadsheet when i helped run the Oxford Open a few years ago!). If it can work out the tables, then great. The point about the byes is an issue for a random draw i have used to run pool comps. I have a random draw generator in excel for a 32, 64, 128 player tournaments, but it cannot cope with byes! Otherwise, i would have mentioned using it before now! if you would like me to email those over to you if they may help, then let me know?
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 16, 2013 9:18:49 GMT
This how the programme i have done for Sussex Open works. (other Counties im sure are slightly different). You then have a starting point of what the programme needs to do.
Entries are entered on first spreadsheet numbered as they come in. When I do the draw all I need to put in is the number drawn which automatically picks the person allocated to that number into the correct place in the draw. Byes would be allocated to certain numbers. eg if 1v2 and 3v4 then 1 and 3 would be allocated byes therefore avoiding byes drawing each other. Did that make sense think I might have had a blonde moment)
This also puts them automatically onto score sheets ready to print out. The scores are then put in and players names then either progress in the main comp or go into the spreadsheet for the plate. Again this automatically updates scoresheets ready to print. All times and tables are all initially worked out.
So all names are only entered once (I do this as I receive the entries) and on the day just scores need inputing and lots of printing. Apart from getting players, scorers to the tables, keeping the sheets that everyone sees up to date etc etc ....
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Apr 16, 2013 9:24:45 GMT
Sounds like you use the spreadsheet i created! Have a look in the properties and see who created it ;D
|
|
|
Post by The Chubbster™ on Apr 16, 2013 9:37:04 GMT
I see, that all sounds pretty good.
So the problem really comes down to byes and re-drawing.
I think if you have the entire schedule worked out for the day, that is when the problems arise because you have to fit everything around a pre-worked schedule. If a re-drawing of the plate is going to work, it needs to be able to be changed actually on the day to fit the number of players that choose to enter.
In that case, would it not make more sense to have a separate spreadsheet for the plate competition, and rather than work out the exactly schedule for the day, allocate the time slots for the plate, and then work the plate schedule as you go along.
I say that because it would be far easier to accomplish and cause less down time at the beginning of the day. Think of it this way, that series in Surrey where only 2 or 3 games were going on could have been avoided if that time slot was just marked for the plate games, rather than having a set plate format before the day started. If we can program a spreadsheet to bang out a draw (that part I’ve proved can be done) and more importantly a schedule fast enough, those 10 tables would have all been in use and nobody would be waiting around for hours on end for there plate game.
Which after all, I think was the main purpose of this thread I seem to be taking drastically off course with technical details.
Opinions welcomed on whether this is worth me programming, because it will take a bit of work (but I think doable).
|
|