|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 16, 2009 12:43:16 GMT
As I'm sure you will all remember, not everybody was happy with the decision made by the Committee in respect of the format for this seasons matches..... :(
Although a majority of people seemed to want to play all of the other teams, it has given us a long season and the Charity Cup has had to be held on another night of the week which meant that some teams were not able to enter. :'(
So, with only a few weeks of the season left, I thought it might be a good time to start floating some ideas around to enable players & teams to put their suggestions forward for the Committee to consider in plenty of time for the AGM in the Summer. 8-)
Quite a few of the comments made here on the Forum about the matches played this year seemed to have been about the difference between the "serious" and "social" players within our League..... with grumbles from both sides on occasions about evenings that have been spoilt..... with the "serious" players stating that have had to take it easy on their opponents and "social" players pointing out that it's no fun being on the end of a thrashing. :-/
I can certainly understand both points of view. ;)
So, how can we find an answer to these problems..... ???
1) We want to make the League season shorter..... but still play everybody. :o 2) We want to include the Charity Cup..... but make sure that it is played on our usual League night. ;) 3) We want to give the "serious" players the chance to improve their game and hit big scores..... and make it fairer for the "social" players so they are not always the ones on the receiving end of those big scores! :-[
Over the past few weeks, I have been looking at the way that some of the other Leagues play their matches and, possibly, by using some of their ideas we can make the Mid-Sussex League an even better place to play than it already is..... 8-)
So, here is my suggestion as a starting point.....
Suppose we were to split the League into 3 Divisions....
Premier Division - 6 Teams. The Top 5 Teams at the end of this season, plus the winners of Division 1. Division 1 - 5 Teams. The remaining 3 existing Premier Teams, plus the teams that finished 2nd and 3rd in existing Division 1. Division 2 - 5 Teams. The remaining 5 teams from existing Division 1.
The fixtures could be worked out as follows....
Premier Division Total of 25 League Matches. Play other Premier Teams on a Home & Away basis and also at 1 neutral venue. AWAY Teams to have the breaks in ALL matches, EVEN Breaks in ALL NEUTRAL matches. Total of 15 matches. Play all Division 1 and Division 2 Teams once, AWAY from home with LOWER Division sides having ALL of the Breaks....... giving another 10 matches.
Division 1 Total of 24 League Matches. Play Premier Division Teams once, at HOME and WITH the Break in ALL games. Total of 6 matches. Play other Division 1 Teams on a Home & Away basis, with AWAY teams having ALL of the breaks. Total of 8 matches. Play all Division 2 Teams on a Home & Away basis, with Division 2 Teams having ALL of the breaks. Total of 10 matches.
Division 2 Total of 24 League Matches Play Premier Division Teams once, at HOME and WITH the Break in ALL games. Total of 6 matches. Play all Division 1 Teams on a Home & Away basis, with Division 2 Teams having ALL of the breaks. Total of 10 matches. Play other Division 2 Teams on a Home & Away basis, with AWAY teams having ALL of the breaks. Total of 8 matches.
It may sound more complicated than it really is.... and I do realise that the Fixture Secretary won't thank me ::).... but I think that it could provide some of the answers to the concerns / issues that seem to have arisen this season. ;)
I am not looking to be "controversial" with this thread or proposals and suggestions..... it is fairly common knowledge now that I will probably be only a reserve in Mid-Sussex next year rather than a regular player..... however as all of you should know, I am an enthusiast for the game and would like to see everybody enjoy playing it. 8-)
So, rather than just moaning about the length of this season, poor tables, players that are too serious / not serious enough, let's have some ideas and suggestions for next year. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Q on Apr 16, 2009 13:44:48 GMT
I started to read this and thought "Uhoh, he's being controversial again" ;D but then I continued reading and... despite it sounding very complicated (and a fixtures secreatary's nightmare) it actually makes a lot of sense, covering most of the objections (from the objectors) whilst giving a good all round feel to the league structure.
The complaints will come, and I know who from ;) but the AGM is the place for EVERYBODY to have their say, and vote for what THEY want. So come on the rest of you, what do you think of Daves ideas? and do you have any better ones of your own? if so put them on here to be discussed and propose them as rule changes at the AGM.
Even more important is to get as many people as possible to attend the AGM so that proposals passed reflect the MAJORITY of the league.
DAVE.... If that's controversial... keep it up ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2009 19:01:24 GMT
Dave, I am completely supportive of you on this concept of three divisions.
I came to the conclusion a while back that there must be a compromise between the 30-game league if it's all-play-all between 16 teams, and the 14 games if it's two divisions of 8 teams.
With, say, 24 games the Charity League can be accommodated once more on League night. Also, the three divisions can allow for 'never the twain shall meet' between top and bottom division.
I have not yet studied your format in depth and I'm sure it has merits, but I have worked out a format for 24 weeks which I had really intended to keep under wraps until just before the AGM - in case it got shot down in flames before it had the chance to be aired officially.
But I think it is safe, as both our systems are means to a similar end, and we could submit both and let the people decide ! (I will support yours if people don't take a shine to mine !)
Here is my rival system, and as I say, I have already worked out the combinations so know that it is viable..........
Premier Division Total of 22 League Matches. Play other Premier Teams on a Home & Away basis. Total of 10 matches. Play all Division 1 Teams on a Home & Away basis, with Division 1 Teams having ALL of the breaks in Away games (only). Total of 12 matches.
Division 1 Total of 23 League Matches. Play all Division 2 Teams once only on a Home or Away basis, with Division 2 Teams having ALL of the breaks in Away games (only). Total of 6 matches. Play all Premier Division Teams on a Home & Away basis, with Division 1 Teams having ALL of the breaks in Away games (only). Total of 12 matches. Play all other Division 1 Teams once only a Home or Away basis, with normal breaks applicable (2 home, 3 away) Total of 5 matches.
Division 2 Total of 21 League Matches Play all Division 1 Teams once only on a Home or Away basis, with Division 2 Teams having ALL of the breaks in Away games (only). Total of 6 matches. Play all other Division 2 Teams on a Home & Away basis + round once again, with normal breaks applicable. Total of 15 matches.
This will fit into a 24-match league schedule, with, say, week 18 reserved for a Team Cup Round. 6 Rounds of Charity League could either be sandwiched in between League weeks 12 and 13 - or as 'bookends' either side of the 24-week programme.
So there you have it !
|
|
TIR
Full Forum Member
Posts: 229
|
Post by TIR on Apr 16, 2009 19:07:43 GMT
Apart from the faulty arithmetic It is actually 25 games for premier and 24 for div 1 and 2
Only 5 home games and 20 aways would be unacceptable to most Premier teams and their landlords.
If it aint broke dont fix it.
Other than on this forum there were actually very few objections to the current format.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 16, 2009 23:17:28 GMT
I would agree that Trevor has made a very valid comment about that.... and admit that it was not something that I had fully considered when putting my proposal forward..... the venues that only have 1 team that are in the Premier Division, beyond thinking that these venues could be given "priority" for "neutral" League games and Cup Matches.
On current League positions, the Greyhound, Handcross Club and CKRBL would all have considerably less home games than at present..... although Hurst Club, Brewers and Watermill would not be affected as they also have teams in lower divisions.
So, my original proposal / idea would certainly need fine tuning if we try to even that out..... the obvious alternative would be to remove the "neutral" All-Premier matches and replace these with Home matches for the Premier Teams against Division 1 sides.
However, if we were to do that, the number of fixtures would change to...
Premier Division - 25 matches (10 v Premier, 10 v Div 1, 5 v Div 2) Division 1 - 30 matches (12 v Premier, 8 v Div 1, 10 v Div 2) Division 2 - 24 matches (6 v Premier, 10 v Div 1, 8 v Div 2)
It would therefore leave Division 1 Teams with the some number of fixtures at present and therefore partially defeat the object of changing to this format.
At this stage, the main objective is to put forward a suggestion and then get some ideas from other people.
|
|
|
Post by H on Apr 16, 2009 23:20:59 GMT
Personally I like the all vs all format currently. I don't see a need to change it - and the length of the season is nice - I always find them too short!
I would suggest keeping the current format, but awarding all 5 breaks to div teams when playing premier teams.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 16, 2009 23:23:26 GMT
You can't expect to put up 2 very radical changes to the league structure without comments & views from other poeple !!!!!! TIR has a very good point re the number of home matches V Away matches & the effect it would have on Landlords. Did it need locking so quickly ?? Yes you are correct it is League buisness but that did not stop you putting out there Tommo so don't be surprised when someone replies.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2009 23:32:11 GMT
Personally I like the all vs all format currently. I don't see a need to change it - and the length of the season is nice - I always find them too short! The length of the season with 30 League nights is indeed nice, which brings me nicely on to TIR's comment 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. The part that I see as 'broken' and which needs fixing is that arms had to be twisted to retain the Charity League, and the only way to accommodate it was to have it played on nights of the week other than Wednesdays. Not all teams entered it because of this, and in the end a team missed out on a possible semi-final place due to not being able to play a match within the time-frame set. My team (Zeds) would very much like to play in the competition next season providing that a way forward can be found to accomodate it in the framework of Wednesday nights (like it always was before before it got 'broke'). Dave and I have just provided the means to make this possible.
|
|
|
Post by bobhall on Apr 16, 2009 23:49:14 GMT
i dont agree with giving away 5 breaks to away players its bad enough us at hurst giving away 3 breaks as the table is so easy if not too easy
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 17, 2009 8:36:13 GMT
i dont agree with giving away 5 breaks to away players its bad enough us at hurst giving away 3 breaks as the table is so easy if not too easy IMHO, that would actually give you an advantage...... much better to have a good table that you are able to chase scores down on than one where a 2-3k opener will be enough to win most matches. There are probably only a handful of players in Mid-Sussex who could open with enough to win the game on their first visit to the table.... H being the most obvious..... but they would be conceding the break on their own tables in return. Another benefit of my system would be that the Player of the Year would be competed for on an equal basis, with everybody in each Division having the same number of breaks, rather than the current system which depends on luck of the draw. I would also prefer to see the "draw" for matches being replaced by captains nominating their players.... more involvement for the captains and based on judgement rather than luck.
|
|
|
Post by bobhall on Apr 17, 2009 10:15:54 GMT
yer but would i really want the break on some of the tables in mid sussex no thank you if i had the privalage of having the break on sum of these tables it wouldnt help me as sum are poor and there quite a few that could manage a slow 7k opener to take up most time. thats my opinion on this matter
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2009 10:30:54 GMT
The aforementioned rules governing the breaks apply to Warrior's system. So I'd better give my proposals for the breaks to go with my rival system.
1. Premier v Premier - 2 home breaks, 3 away. 2. Premier v First - a) when away, First Div have all 5 away breaks; b) when home to Premier, 2 home breaks, 3 away. 3. First v First - 2 home breaks, 3 away. 4. First v Second - a) when away, Second Div have all 5 away breaks; b) when home to First, 2 home breaks, 3 away. 5. Second v Second - 2 home breaks, 3 away 6. Premier v Second - doesn't happen (they don't meet).
Random draw in all cases.
And to set TIR's mind at rest, fixtures to be structured so that each team has 11 home games (instead of 15 at present).
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 17, 2009 11:27:41 GMT
Clive, please could you look at the figures for the number of matches for your proposal again....?? Premier Division Total of 22 League Matches.Play other Premier Teams on a Home & Away basis. Total of 10 matches. 10 games in total, played Home & Away so therefore - 6 Teams in Premier Division?Play all Division 1 Teams on a Home & Away basis, with Division 1 Teams having ALL of the breaks in Away games (only). Total of 12 matches. If playing each other Home & Away that also means 6 Teams in Division 1?Division 1 Total of 23 League Matches.Play all Division 2 Teams once only on a Home or Away basis, with Division 2 Teams having ALL of the breaks in Away games (only). Total of 6 matches. Therefore, 6 Teams in Division 2 as well....?Play all Premier Division Teams on a Home & Away basis, with Division 1 Teams having ALL of the breaks in Away games (only). Total of 12 matches. Home & Away = 6 Premier TeamsPlay all other Division 1 Teams once only a Home or Away basis, with normal breaks applicable (2 home, 3 away) Total of 5 matches. Home or Away = 6 Division 1 TeamsDivision 2 Total of 21 League MatchesPlay all Division 1 Teams once only on a Home or Away basis, with Division 2 Teams having ALL of the breaks in Away games (only). Total of 6 matches. = 6 Division 1 Teams.Play all other Division 2 Teams on a Home & Away basis + round once again, with normal breaks applicable. Total of 15 matches. Forgive me if I'm being stupid here...... Is that one home match, one away and one neutral venue? If so, that fits in with 6 Teams in Division 2, if it is playing everybody Home & Away twice (round once again) then shouldn't it be total of 20 matches?This will fit into a 24-match league schedule, with, say, week 18 reserved for a Team Cup Round. 6 Rounds of Charity League could either be sandwiched in between League weeks 12 and 13 - or as 'bookends' either side of the 24-week programme. So there you have it ! Unless I have missed something obvious..... it seems that this is based on 3 Divisions of 6 Teams, so presumably there would be byes on some weeks for teams in 2 Divisions as there are currently 16 teams in the League?
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 17, 2009 11:42:43 GMT
yer but would i really want the break on some of the tables in mid sussex no thank you if i had the privalage of having the break on sum of these tables it wouldnt help me as sum are poor and there quite a few that could manage a slow 7k opener to take up most time. thats my opinion on this matter I can understand what you are saying Rob, but by having the break at other venues it would help to develop your game (and other players) as it would enable you to learn to read the tables and adapt accordingly. 8-) Apart from H (who I doubt has ever hit a slow 7k opener anywhere! ;D) and Mr Reaper (& Guest "Superstars"!), I can't think of anybody who has opened with that sort of break in Mid-Sussex at Hurst Club this year..... and most of the players who are capable of that would be playing in the Premier Division, whereas you would be conceding the breaks to Division 2 players mostly. The current "lucky draw" system we have means that you could end up being drawn against the break (home & away) every week, often against the oppositions best player.... my proposal would stop that and give everybody an equal opportunity over the course of the season. Hopefully, it would mean that everybody would want their table to be playing well to give them a chance to catch up after their opponents opening break.... although I do realise that possibly some team may take the opposite view to that. ::) :-X
|
|
doug
Distinguished Member
If you lose this game I will kill you.
Posts: 767
|
Post by doug on Apr 17, 2009 12:07:18 GMT
The format suggested by Dave has been used in Brighton this season and it appears to have been a great success. The four premier teams have played each other four times, twice at home and twice away. In these matches the away team has three breaks. We have also played the Div 1 teams twice home and away and yes bob we give away all five breaks on both occasions. The Div 2 teams have played against themselves and against the Div 1 teams but not the Premier sides.
I think I can say that all the Premier players and Div 2 players have been happy with the season in it's new format as every team has had a similar number of games to play and there hasn't been the sort of one sided matches (between Premier and Div 2) we have seen in the past.
It is only a suggestion but why not give the new format a try next season? It is always be changed back again the year after.
Doug
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2009 12:17:42 GMT
Dave, Re your queries on my sums, yes I'm absolutely sure of the figures.
The programme does indeed allow for 6 teams in each division, which we haven't quite got at present. So if the teams stayed the same as this season there would be a Bye in both First and Second Divisions. (And there's a good chance we could fill those for the new season.)
And as to how I arrive at 21 games in the Second Division and not 20, they'd play the First Division 6 times (including the Bye) and the other 5 teams in the Second Division going round three times (=15) making 21 in all.
When working out fixture lists you have to deal in even numbers, hence the necessity now and again for Byes if the number of teams in a division is an odd number. Basic stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2009 12:26:15 GMT
The format suggested by Dave has been used in Brighton this season and it appears to have been a great success. The Div 2 teams have played against themselves and against the Div 1 teams but not the Premier sides.I think I can say that all the Premier players and Div 2 players have been happy with the season in it's new format as every team has had a similar number of games to play and there hasn't been the sort of one sided matches (between Premier and Div 2) we have seen in the past. Doug Thanks Doug, But it's only my proposal that echoes that (Div 2 not having to play the Premier) and not Dave's. ;D ;D ;D I admit, my proposal was influenced by the Brighton system, as described to me by Nigel. Agree with your sentiment that we could 'suck it and see'.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 17, 2009 13:47:51 GMT
Dave, Re your queries on my sums, yes I'm absolutely sure of the figures. The programme does indeed allow for 6 teams in each division, which we haven't quite got at present. So if the teams stayed the same as this season there would be a Bye in both First and Second Divisions. (And there's a good chance we could fill those for the new season.) And as to how I arrive at 21 games in the Second Division and not 20, they'd play the First Division 6 times (including the Bye) and the other 5 teams in the Second Division going round three times (=15) making 21 in all. When working out fixture lists you have to deal in even numbers, hence the necessity now and again for Byes if the number of teams in a division is an odd number. Basic stuff. Many thanks for the explanation Tommo...... having 6 teams in each Division confused me, but the bye explains that. I would happily support either your proposal or mine, depending on further feedback that we get. 8-) Many thanks also to Doug for his view on the system that they use in Brighton, interesting to hear that it has been well received in both the Premier & Division 2 there, especially as Doug's team are in Division 1 and therefore play all the teams in the League. West Sussex offer a similar scheme, but with a slight variation. The teams there (in 3 Divisions) all play each other Home & Away, the Away teams have all the breaks except when teams from different Divisions play against each other, at which time the Lower Division side have all the breaks, regardless of whether they are at Home or Away. ;) So, effectively, although either of our proposals would be "new" to Mid-Sussex, similar schemes are already successful elsewhere. 8-)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2009 14:07:01 GMT
Great to have some harmony on this, Dave.
We have Option One, similar to West Sussex scheme, as presented by BB Warrior, And Option Two, similar to Brighton scheme, as presented by tommo.
We can present these to the AGM under a united front.
If Option Two is rejected, I confirm that I am happy to support Option One but with a separate debate on the breaks and draw which I see as a separate issue.
The most important part we agree on, which is that three divisions is the way forward, as it solves two problems at a stroke: 1) Up till now a choice of lesser of two evils, season too short or season too long; 2) Opportunity to bring Charity League back in from the cold.
I am happy to support your original proposal of how these divisions should be constituted, and I quote: Premier Division - 6 Teams. The Top 5 Teams at the end of this season, plus the winners of Division 1. Division 1 - 5 Teams. The remaining 3 existing Premier Teams, plus the teams that finished 2nd and 3rd in existing Division 1. Division 2 - 5 Teams. The remaining 5 teams from existing Division 1.
No doubt there are those who will say this is not possible under the League's constitution and will quote Rule 15 at us, the part that says ".......only the bottom two clubs of each division may be relegated." This may be got round by naming the Divisions thus: Premier (Section A); Premier (Section B) and Division One. Obviously our schemes would have to rename the Divisions accordingly to fall in line.
|
|
|
Post by iang on Apr 17, 2009 16:53:50 GMT
]No doubt there are those who will say this is not possible under the League's constitution and will quote Rule 15 at us, the part that says ".......only the bottom two clubs of each division may be relegated." This may be got round by naming the Divisions thus: Premier (Section A); Premier (Section B) and Division One. Obviously our schemes would have to rename the Divisions accordingly to fall in line. [/i][/quote] I'm not wishing to be negative on this & it all sounds good I have no problem with the break side of things as I'm used to that in Horsham but it is a very thorny subject to change & is frightening for some people I think it works well. But I think you are running before you can walk when you start talking about renaming Divisions What do you propose you do with the perpetual Trophies which are marked up Premier & Division one. We split Horsham into 3 divisions for 1 year for the same reasons & it worked well but then the next year we lost some teams & had to go back to 2.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2009 18:47:05 GMT
There are ways round most things, Ian, and I have always preferred to find solutions to problems rather than stumbling blocks. In the case in hand the AGM could sanction the extra Division with promotions and relegations as put forward, and at the same time authorise the committee to rename the divisions as convenient to the efficient running of the league. As the meerkat in the advert says........"Simples. ;) "
|
|
|
Post by Q on Apr 17, 2009 22:46:27 GMT
These are just ideas at the moment... Ideas from 2 of our regular posters. THEY ARE NOT PROPOSALS FOR RULE CHANGES (yet) and are open for discussion/amendment by ALL interested parties.
The more comments we get here should mean less dis-satisfied players next year.
So I repeat this is Dave & Clives personal opinions on what COULD be used.... IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER SUGGESTION OR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUS SUGGESTIONS THEN PLEASE AIR YOUR VIEWS. THIS FORUM IS FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST DAVE & CLIVE ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2009 23:02:18 GMT
Well said, Q. ;)
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 18, 2009 6:43:01 GMT
Absolutely right, Q. ;D The MORE ideas / suggestions / comments we get from as many DIFFERENT people as possible the better...... we will then be able to start fine tuning an actual proposal to take forward to the Committee and AGM for next season. 8-)
|
|
|
Post by ponytailguy on Apr 18, 2009 9:28:59 GMT
Ok then time for my veiw on this. Every suggestion i have read so far i think would work well but at what cost. Daves idea would work well i think but you would find certian players dominating certian divisions. For example if this format were to be put in place now then my team would be in the lower division but i view myself as a better player (not being big headed) that means whenever anyone plays me i get the break apart from people in my own div at home. I would also have a strong advantage in poy and singles in that div, along with certian other people. All these are minor points but still relevant. There are also a lot of people who like it the way it is allthough the growing number of teams means there will probably need to be a change. I have heard that the famers in scanyes hill and the plough in plumton want to puts in a team/teams next season. We are all british and because of that are adverse to change if it works but i for one like change as it presents new challanges and i would be glad to help figure this out at commitee/agm as i am no good at typing so this will be my last post on this matter(took me 3/4's of an hour to write this ). have fun adam
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 18, 2009 10:17:48 GMT
Many thanks for your thoughts Adam. 8-)
If 2 new teams will be joining the League next year, then there will certainly have to be changes for next season...... an "all plays all" format similar to this year would extend the season to 34 weeks. :o
I personally feel that having 3 Divisions (using either Tommo's, mine, or an alternative proposal) would work much better in the future and we would find there is more to play for in the last few weeks of the season for more teams with promotions & relegations to fight for...... ;D
|
|
spudgun
Full Forum Member
Posts: 322
|
Post by spudgun on Apr 18, 2009 14:54:43 GMT
With great trepidation, i will shyly enter this debate to offer my own (very humble)opinion.
From a social side, the "all plays all format" has been fantastic. It has been great to go to so many different venues and play so many people week in week out. It is one of the main reasons i have got into this game.
However... From a competitive side i am not so sure. Without denigrating any teams performance, it was weird to see that last season, on a straight points count, the best two teams were technically the top two div 1 sides. It also looks like it may well be the case this season, with the Watermill A team having enough points to be heading the Prem by a solid margin (i have taken the bonus points into account, i hasten to add!).
Personally (especially if there may well be two new teams soon) i would prefer a straight seperation between the two divisions and then the lower div teams can battle for the right to play the top teams. This would then allow for an extended charity cup where the draw for the opening pools can be "fixed" so that there is an equal amount of Prem and Div1 teams in each pool. This then allows the lower teams to play the better teams but on a slightly more equal footing (and getting to go to different venues).
Lastly, i really like the random draw element to the league matches. It adds a little spice at the beginning of a match and avoids peolpe feeling obliged to offer themselves up as sacrificial lambs.
Anyway, whilst worried about having just put my head on the block, i would also like to point out strongly that whatever the desicions made, i dont think it will stop myself (and hopefully most others) from enjoying a Wednesday evening playing Billiards. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2009 17:59:06 GMT
It's a good point made firstly by Adam and then by Spud: what if expansion occurs beyond the 18 teams (3 divisions of 6) provisioned for in both Warrior's and tommo's systems ? We've heard of the possibility of the Farmers and the Plough. There's also the possibility of the White Horse Hurstpierpoint.
It would be a happy dilemma to be faced with.
I think in such a circumstance I would agree with Spud that a return to the two segregated divisions would be best, the season just about being long enough - with an enhanced Charity League taking up the 'slack'.
|
|
Matt
Full Forum Member
Posts: 133
|
Post by Matt on Apr 18, 2009 23:07:50 GMT
I play up in the Horsham league and can fully appreciate some of the queries put up.
If you are looking to reduce the number of matches to approx 22-26 and you have 16 teams at present, then there is another option.
Continue with the two divs of 8 sides, each playing each other (within division) twice, home and away with all breaks going to the away side (evens itself out over course of season). This would create 14 matches if not mistaken.
Each Prem team would then also play each Div 1 side once at a neutral venue with breaks in favour of the Div 1 side 3 to 2.
A neutral venue isnt a neccessity. The inter-division matches could be split 4 home and 4 away.
This would create 22 matches, would allow everybody to play everybody but without the "social" sides getting their arses handed to them on a plate all the time.
The away sides having breaks all the time is used in Horsham and seems to work well in almost all instances.
Retaining the two divs, means less hassle for fixture sec but will also allow for expansion as yo wont constantly be re-jigging everything. Dare I say it, it would also allow for teams to drop out without too much detriment as you could easily switch things around.
Good luck anyway in reaching a decision.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 19, 2009 6:42:41 GMT
Thanks for your input Spud..... also thanks to Matt who has given us another (perfectly viable) alternative to consider and told us a bit about how Horsham League play their games. 8-)
I think that it is interesting that several of the other Leagues play their games with either the Away Team and / or Lower Division Teams having all of the breaks..... and from the comments posted here, that seems to be successful. ;)
It seems to me that this is a very logical thing to do - which would mean that everybody would have the same number of breaks in a season, rather than the current system where one player could end up with twice as many breaks as another from the same number of games. ::)
|
|