Tables ladder table

A slight tweak to the Ladder table, following a) the missing Watermill A v Greyhound report from Week 7 and b) the first round of Team Knockout games - which involved 8 out of 13 tables (no doubt the other 5 will get a game on them in later rounds).

1 Hurstpierpoint
2 Greyhound
3 Sportsman
4 Handcross
5 Laughing Fish
6 United Services
7 Clayton&Keymer
8 Royal Oak
9 St Francis
10 Watermill
11 Brewers
12 White Horse
13 Plough

With glowing reports on the top three tables (H 10,830 at Hurst; Mama Hall 5180 and Sheriff 5260 at Greyhound; and Alan Downs 6200 at Sportsman) these stay put.
Handcross rises a place thanks to Ex-PonyTailedGuy's 5640. But Laughing Fish can gain it back if there is a big score when Hurst A and Sportsman play the postponed match there.

One change down near the basement where Watermill yet again exchanges places with the Brewers: this on the basis of Peter Burchell's score of 7090 on the Watermill in the late match report from the previous week, contrasted by a low scoring match on the Brewers in the Team Cup.

League week 8, and only two changes this week. The top three stay put, with 11,430 from the Reaper; 8370 from Sir KT and 6150 from BobHall on the Hurst. All five games at the Greyhound were won with scores of 5k-plus, and the Warrior was his mighty self again with 6420 at the Sportsman.
Laughing Fish take over 4th from a rather tentative Handcross, and have Dazza's 5290 to thank for that.

SpecialOne will be pleased to note that his St Francis top has moved up a place - due to his own excellent score of 6820.

1 Hurstpierpoint
2 Greyhound
3 Sportsman
4 Laughing Fish
5 Handcross
6 United Services
7 Clayton&Keymer
8 St Francis
9 Royal Oak
10 Watermill
11 Brewers
12 White Horse
13 Plough

[bobhall]

tommo i know u have not done the table ladder yet but i would like to give my rating on the hhusc table i feel out of 10 i would actually give it an 8 it does have it quirks but what table doesnt. but this table last night was actually my second favourite table played on so far and this deserves to be recognised

Recommendations are welcome, and flexibility is the order of the day.
So far IMHO this thread is achieving its purpose, that a core of us are tuned in to the improvement in quality of our tables.

And the surprise knock-on effect is that the standard of play in our league is taking off in a big way.
Ian has mentioned 'the 10k club' - and of course Warrior has already started off a thread which documents the biggest scores: we're only a quarter of the way through the season and already last season's performances have been eclipsed.

Anyway, down to business. As pointed out, it is necessary sometimes to allow going up or down two rungs in the ladder, otherwise a particularly good performance might gain no reward and the situation become too static.

This week four tables had exceptional scores on them, there was a dour match on the Royal Oak, and nothing more than some 'solid scoring' on both sides at the CKRBL and the Watermill.

No change at the top therefore with a 7k on each side at the Hurst from Steve King and Barry Timson. The United Services Club moves up a rung thanks to 6840 from BobHall and a 5600 break (lost) by the OldFella. Then comes the leapfrogging: Brewers go up two rungs in acknowledgement of H's 9k and Andy F/W's 8k; and White Horse also jump the hurdles on the back of BB Warrior's happy return visit to the tune of 12,890.

1 Hurstpierpoint
2 Greyhound
3 Sportsman
4 Laughing Fish
5 United Services
6 Handcross
7 Clayton&Keymer
8 St Francis
9 Brewers
10 White Horse
11 Royal Oak
12 Watermill
13 Plough

[iang]

umm Intersting.
The team at the top of the table is at the bottom of the Ladder
;D ;D

Well, we haven't seen the scores from yesterday's match yet, and if they're good they could knock the poor old Watermill to the bottom.

H mentioned a while back that the Brewers plays well some weeks and badly others. This is true to a large extent about the Watermill, and to a lesser extent of the Handcross, the latter being responsive to changes in weather.

With the Plough, we played there recently and the table changed during the course of the evening: difficult with the roaring fire going full pelt (which heated one side of the table) and then quite benign for the last two games when it had died down a bit.

[bobhall]

i see where ur coming from but 1 game was no scores and the other had the black peg and was higher up plus in my eyes ckrbl and the greyhound are both premier teams and are all capable of hitting big scores where as hhusc are up and coming and are learning the game and i am glad to see there table moves up a place

[bobhall]

oh yes i understand but like u said weaker teams dont get as great scores so its hard to work out and im happy with the fact that were at the top of the table and also the hhusc moved up in my eyes it was infact a very good top on the night. and i was 1.5 k away from hitting my ten in a game against my father but i left a ball short

Nov 20, 2008 23:40:59 GMT BB Warrior said:

Although I agree with the principal behind the "Tables Table" and think that it is great to see the standards improving throughout the League, this is where I start to wonder how fair it is to ALL teams, rather than just a select few........ :-/

Fair ? Whoever said that bar billiards in Sussex should be fair ? ;D

You're beginning to sound like me on this thread:
barbilliards.proboards30.com/index.cgi?board=sussex&action=display&thread=950

Your efforts in changing things would be better directed in obtaining a level playing field at county Interleague.

In fact, you are about to publish a five-year list and ten-year list of Interleague performances, but the whole thing is artificial and hypothetical as the captains are allowed to play God and decide who plays who and who has the break and who doesn't !

The whole point of this tables ladder is that fortunes change and it's rather like snakes and ladders. I'm sure the Watermill will bounce back, and that certain other tables will begin to slip before too long.
My own Handcross table is dropping in the ratings and that presents me with a challenge: Last year it played badly up to Christmas and improved for the second half of the season. I have to ensure that that happens again. Reputations at stake and all that.

[H]

I am going to be controversial here - is it fair to say, that some players will score 2kish on almost any table no matter how bad or good, and yet some players, like myself can score 10k+ on some tops and yet struggle to get over 3 on others...should tops not be judged on the contrast between scores for certain bands of players if we are going to be totally honest? (yes, before I get a flaming I know that could never truly be done without upsetting half the league, but hey, I am right-wing!)

[Chunky Monkey]

Sept 25, 2008 18:45:00 GMT tommo III said:

Just a bit of fun this. We on the Forum will monitor tables week by week.

Let's try it and see - and please ! This isn't meant to be taken too seriously.

This is what was posted by Tommo at the start of this thread but edited slightly by myself. But if you read it, it says JUST A BIT OF FUN. AND PLEASE THIS ISN'T MEANT TO BE TAKEN TOO SERIOUSLY.

I am not sure what all the fuss is about! At the end of the day it doesn't account for anything.
So what if the plough is at the bottom of this table ladder or where ever they are. They are top of the league and am sure that is where every one else wants to be! So pull your fingers out and start trying to knock them off, rather than getting upset over something that means very little and meant to be a bit of fun.

[H]

Perhaps, and this is a good thing, improved tables are still at the bottom because tables across the whole league are improving. I have only played on two away tops in Mid Sussex this season that I would consider to be "unacceptable" by my standards, one of which I have been back to twice since and seen a huge improvement in! So, perhaps a new system needs to be considered where tables are placed into catagories based on the aggregate score over an entire night rather than just ranked in order by high scores...

[Chunky Monkey]

Nov 21, 2008 8:47:41 GMT BB Warrior said:

Point taken...... and I agree that it means nothing...... however I also believe that part of the idea behind this was to try to encourage teams to improve their tables?

What encouragement is there for the teams that have done that....... when they are still down near the bottom of the list? ::) ???

I have just gone to page one of this thread and gone through every post! and from what i can work out is nobody cares!
There are 20 somthing posts from Tommo bearing in mind he is updating the ladder each week.
Next is You Warrior also with 20 something posts!
Followed by Bobhall and 'H' with 5 posts
me with 4,
Iang And 'SPO' with 2 posts
sir Jock and TJ with 1 post each.
I make that 9 people, One of which doesn't play the league and myself once in a blue moon if Bob needs me and i have a bye in Brighton. How many players are there in the mid sussex league? Because i can only see TWO people really posting on this topic and One of which is Tommo updating the table each week.
So from what i can gather this thread is playing NO part in the tables improving!
Is it the tables that have improved or is it The players?

Thank you, Mr Reaper, and you've hit the nail on the head when you pointed out:

JUST A BIT OF FUN. AND PLEASE THIS ISN'T MEANT TO BE TAKEN TOO SERIOUSLY.

I don't agree with the concept that overall scores for a match should be taken as the measure for movements up and down.
With differing abilities of teams, it would just be a question then of which team happened to be visiting: the Greyhound for instance are consistent scorers away from home, and the Royal Oak are a 'rookie team'. Judging a table on away scores would not necessarily be a reflection of how good a table was - unless you just wanted to follow the Greyhound around and judge it on that.

At the moment the number of high scores across the board has risen - no question about it. I think is it good to follow the exploits of H or the BB Warrior and praise the tables they can get 10k+ on. I'm sure I wasn't alone in thinking 'maybe the White Horse ain't so bad if 12890 is possible on it'. I'm now actually looking forward to going there - rather than dreading it, as before. Likewise the Laughing Fish - no trepidation in going there if 17k is possible on it.

[Chunky Monkey]

I must say i think this thread is a Joke, and i cant belive there is this much fuss over something that doesn't matter to anybody.
It is Not going to make you Player of the Year, Its Not going to win you the singles title, doubles. and it is certainly Not going to win you the League title.

[bobhall]

at the end of the day i have seen every table i have played on so far the tables and have improved so the ladder means nothing apart from it has shown us what tables are where and every one has a look and the tables have improved so i say now stop this so cold constructive criticism its useless and what tommo has done is helped everyone realize that tables weren't that great and they are getting better and thats what should matter not where we are.

I'm not a great player so i can play on 1 top and score 2 thousand and you can get the reaper score 12000 thats how you come to understand the top and thats what makes you a better player not if the table is 2nd on the tables ladder or last who cares

[BB Warrior]

Sept 26, 2008 6:38:46 GMT BB Warrior said:

Sept 25, 2008 18:56:20 GMT tommo III said:

League week 2, Sir KT scores 14,800 at the Hurst; BB Warrior gets 11k at the Sportsman, and low-scoring maatches are reported at the Brewers and the Watermill:

1 Hurstpierpoint
2 Greyhound
3 Sportsman
4 Handcross
5 Clayton&Keymer
6 Laughing Fish
7 HUSC
8 Royal Oak
9 Plough
10 St Francis
11 Brewers
12 White Horse
13 Watermill

Unfortunately, this is where Johnny's comments (under Table Poll) that you can't judge a table on one individual score are proved to be correct......... ::)

The Watermill have been moved down a place due to "low scores being reported"..... admittedly the home team only averaged 960 but their opponents (Plough) players had an average score of 2798.

Meanwhile, the Sportsman move up a place when Greyhound (one of the strongest teams in the League) players average 1634 and the home team (excluding my score) average 1713... ??? ::)

We hear that H hits a low score..... and he opens up the Table Poll again to comment about tables..... but we don't know what the scores were for any of the matches - but the Brewers table moves down a place! ::) H subsequently reveals a possible reason for his low score....!! :o

No mention of the match at the White Horse where the home team averaged 2078 and Hurst B 3493........ giving higher averages than those at Hurst Club with 2510 for home players (excluding Sir KT! ;)) and 2534 for the Zeds. :o

At USC, the new team there averaged 1826. The visiting Droops averaging 2896, Big Andy hits 6810 and Sir Jock predicts big scores there...... but again, not mentioned or moved in the table. ???

I like the idea of having a "League Table of tables"...... but unless we get every team to give a rating of the tables for each match I think that we will end up distorting the figures if we just base the positions on 1 individual performance in a game.

Also, surely we should start with each table being on an equal basis and not basing it on how they were last season.......

I have just looked back over this thread and realised that since my first post (see above) I have been saying pretty much the same thing all the way through....... that I like the idea of having the Tables Table, but that it is flawed in the way that it is represented here. ::)

To save space...... and my sanity...... I have now deleted all of my other posts here and will leave it to others to make their own judgements in future on this subject.

This thread was started as a tool to help us monitor deteriorations or improvements in tables.

I think that it has already served its purpose to a small extent as a safety valve should someone wish to vent their feelings - for example, one table, justifiably or not, was described as 'firewood'.

But there were fors and againsts, and no-one got nasty and reported it to the committee. We discussed it here.

Before I consign this thread to the bin, 6 months early, perhaps we should add our own conclusions. This is what we have so far:

Mr Reaper: much fuss over something that doesn't matter to anybody.
BobHall: tables weren't that great and they are getting better
IanG : The team at the top of the table is at the bottom of the Ladder
H: some tables change with temperature and humidity etc. and can play very well some times, and some times not

[BB Warrior]

Don't bin the thread early Tommo.

I may not agree with the way that it was started, or that it is based on individual rather than team performances, but there are still some very valid points that have been made here.

Okay we'll keep going for the time being, as you say it offers the opportunity for a 'heated debate'. Frankly, there's not a great deal else being discussed in the bar billiards world at present.

But I must insist that we don't get too 'anal' about the system on which it's based. At the moment a weekly update takes about ten minutes' effort, that's all. Which is quite sufficient for something that has no true meaning.

As the great Humph would have remarked: "It doesn't add up to a whole hill of beans".

[specialone]

Don,t bin it Tommo. I may not be participating, but I am still enjoying it. Sometimes it's nice just to watch.
Shaun

[H]

I don't understand why everyone is getting so annoyed. This is just a discussion about our own opinions, there is nothing official about it, and it is interesting to see how different people think about these things.

[iang]

Nov 21, 2008 8:35:46 GMT Chunky Monkey said:

Sept 25, 2008 18:45:00 GMT tommo III said:

Just a bit of fun this. We on the Forum will monitor tables week by week.

Let's try it and see - and please ! This isn't meant to be taken too seriously.

This is what was posted by Tommo at the start of this thread but edited slightly by myself. But if you read it, it says JUST A BIT OF FUN. AND PLEASE THIS ISN'T MEANT TO BE TAKEN TOO SERIOUSLY.

I am not sure what all the fuss is about! At the end of the day it doesn't account for anything.
So what if the plough is at the bottom of this table ladder or where ever they are. They are top of the league and am sure that is where every one else wants to be! So pull your fingers out and start trying to knock them off, rather than getting upset over something that means very little and meant to be a bit of fun.

??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
I'm sorry Reaper from my post you will see the use of smiley's which indicates I was having FUN !!!!!!
If others jump in & start yet another drawn out war of words thats down to them but I was not making a fuss.
This thread as has been said has no bearing on anything official but I bet you all check it ASAP every week ;D ;D

Week 10, plenty of commendations, but not much change to the table.

1 Hurstpierpoint
2 Greyhound
3 Sportsman
4 Laughing Fish
5 United Services
6 Clayton&Keymer
7 Handcross
8 St Francis
9 Brewers
10 White Horse
11 Watermill
12 Royal Oak
13 Plough

The top four all had games with good scores and stay put:
(1)There were 3 home scores of 5k-plus on the Hurst, including one by the OldFella who was taken ill on the night. We wish him well.
(2)At the Greyhound, 9k was shared in each of the first two games, and King Lear all but scored 8k in the last....
(3)BBW was his normal self with 9750 on the Sportsman; and
(4)Aitch recorded 6660 at the Laughing Fish - and was disappointed!

Clayton and Keymer staged the postponed game from Week 5 and the BBW was rampant again, scoring 7610 as an away player - and almost another thou on top ! They change places with Handcross, who had their match cancelled by visiting Brewers.

St Francis and the Brewers both receive commendations - SpecialOne showing that as many as 6590 is possible on a once-awkward top; whilst ex-PonyTailed Guy and Mal Fuller scored 6590 and 5070 as home and away player respectively at the Brewers.

The Watermill could yet show a movement if some scores come through from their 4-1 win over CKRBL.

Nov 30, 2008 14:14:52 GMT BB Warrior said:

Report from the Old Fella on the other match.....
The A Team had a good home win over struggling Kleiners to widen the gap at the top of div. 1. Chris Nikolaj won a close first frame before Laser-Eyes hit the best of the match with 8590 to put the home side 2 up. Shaky Coles grabbed Kleiners only point with a win in the third, but Big Norm then smacked in a 7420 to wrap up the match. Icing on the A Team’s cake with a last frame win for John Staplehurst.
A couple of good scores for Laser-Eyes and Big Norm, which should move the Watermill table up the Tables Table...!! ;D

Definite justification for a move back up in the right direction for Watermill - table adjusted above.

Week 11 and some movements in both directions........

1 Hurstpierpoint
2 Greyhound
3 Sportsman
4 United Services
5 Laughing Fish
6 Clayton&Keymer
7 Handcross
8 Brewers
9 St Francis
10 White Horse
11 Watermill
12 Plough
13 Royal Oak

Hurst remains 'the' table, with 7300 from Steve King and 6330 from Dazza, plus 5380 and 5970 from away players Norman Cragg and Kim Stenning.
H/H USC received a glowing report from the Zeds: despite others losing sizeable breaks, Mike Holmwood made 6450 (which included a 5000 break) in the decider. They rise in the table to fourth.
Commendations only for White Horse and Watermill (7200 by H on the Horse and 10660 by BBW on the Watermill) but they can't go higher with the two teams above swapping places........aggregate scores deciding that one, no game making 6k between players at St Francis, but one super game aggregate of 8850 at the Brewers.
Finally, Plough benefitted by no game making a 5k aggregate at the Royal Oak, who go bottom.

Dec 5, 2008 22:21:39 GMT BB Warrior said:

Scores from CKRBL v Plough.....

Dilly Williamson 7300
..... should lift CKRBL up the Tables Table

A commendation only is possible this week for CKRBL as the Laughing Fish can't go down two places when they had no game on the table.

Week 12, and - big shock :o - Greyhound table has snatched top spot.
BobHall managed 4690 at Hurst, but this was overshadowed by Greyhound performances of Paul Goodwin (7700), Peter Burchell (6740) and Neil Burchell (5720).
Sportsman have to stay put despite BB Warrior's 7350, but Laughing Fish grab back fourth place thanks to H's 8140.
Handcross go back up one with some better-than-usual scores on the top - tommo 5670 and a good aggregate last game of 8k.
Brewers have to stay put despite XPTG's 5010 as the two above swapped places.
With one match report still to come in from the Watermill, only other movement is the Plough, whose new table had a tentative start - especially for the home team who face a learning curve on it. They will be hoping for great things to come.........

1 Greyhound
2 Hurstpierpoint
3 Sportsman
4 Laughing Fish
5 United Services
6 Handcross
7 Clayton&Keymer
8 Brewers
9 St Francis
10 Watermill
11 White Horse
12 Royal Oak
13 Plough

Stop Press ! Kim Stenning scores 5020 on the Watermill, so the table moves up a rung...........

Week 13, and plenty of commendations for the Mid Sussex tables, but a log-jam at the foot of the table where Paul Goodwin's 6550 at the White Horse and tommo's 10,020 at the Royal Oak unfortunately have no effect for the moment.
High scoring on the Watermill continues - a rarity last season: The Laughing Fish's Henry bagged 8960 and Jim Ashton 5620. The table goes up one.
The Brewers also seems user-friendly at present - not only for home players Jock (8290) and Andy (5890), but Plough's Malc Fuller also enjoyed it to the tune of 6130. Brewers also goes up one.
Handcross benefits from some good scores in the Tuesday postponed match - tommo 6290 and a Graham Daniels v Jock thriller yielding a 9k aggregate.
The Sportsman takes over 2nd place from a slipping Hurstpierpoint - ex-PonyTailedGuy's 5340 being enough to do it. A solution to the mystery is that the Hurst table was recently moved onto new carpeting and is awaiting some TLC from Papa Hall prior to the continuance of the programme in the New Year.

1 Greyhound
2 Sportsman
3 Hurstpierpoint
4 Laughing Fish
5 Handcross
6 United Services
7 Brewers
8 Clayton&Keymer
9 Watermill
10 St Francis
11 White Horse
12 Royal Oak
13 Plough

[iang]

The Hurst Carpet is a temporary blip as at the Interleague match on the Sunday night
there was a 7050 from Paul Jobbins, bobhall 6120 Trevor Rees 6160 & for the away side Paul Phillips 8930 !!! & Steve Eely 6030.
;D ;D

Jan 8, 2009 0:22:32 GMT H said:

Sorry to hear that there are more disagreements on the Hurst top. Every time I have played on I have found it lovely where other people have struggled. Nonetheless Dave is a good player, and for him to only score 1.8k must mean something is wrong somewhere. Obviously I haven't played on it since it has been moved so I am just going on what I have been told!

Week 14 and there were 6 commendations and 2 condemnations - remembering that this is 'tongue in cheek'. ;)


1 Greyhound
2 Sportsman
3 Laughing Fish
4 Handcross
5 Hurstpierpoint
6 Brewers
7 United Services
8 Clayton&Keymer
9 Watermill
10 St Francis
11 White Horse
12 Royal Oak
13 Plough

Plough's new table and Hurst's reinstalled table on the carpet need time to bed in - only 3 scores of over 2k on the Plough and 4 scores of over 2k on the Hurst leaves much room for improvement - and it will surely come !
TIR's 7920 confirms the Greyhound's pedigree at the top, while Laughing Fish (with H's 11,170 and 8010 by away player SpecialOne) and Handcross (with MrMike007's 7690 and Barry Timson's 6020) are bearing down on second-placed Sportsman.
Brewers continues to improve and is up to 6th, thanks to Ex-Pony Tailed Guy's magic 10,930 and Dazza's 5210 for the away side.

Mid table, and there were a couple of good scores each on the CKRBL and the Watermill (Pete Edwards 6240 and Dereck Taylor 6410 at CKRBL, and Chris Nikolaj 6450 and John Staplehurst 5240 at t'Mill). But as HHUSC didn't have a game, they can't drop more than one place so both have to tread water for the present.