|
Post by SirKT on Sept 24, 2006 21:01:33 GMT
The mighty Oxford County side have done it again. After losing the Trophy to a strong Sussex side last year, the Oxon side consisting of KT (capt), Milko, Steve Sheard, Mark Turner, Pete Farrelly, Den Atkins & Jon Bamsey regained the Cup today in Reading. Wins against Berks 5-2, Northants 6-1, Kent 5-2 and Sussex 4-3 secured victory. An excellent team performance, Steven & Jon both winning 4/4 and KT,Mark,Keith & Dennis all 3/4. Somebody usually has an off day with no luck at all, and today it was Peters`, just winning the one match. I`d like to thank all my teammates over the years playing for the County sides, i will miss captaining the Oxon side. As for the future, if i get in the Sussex A side, i`m afraid i`ll be trying to get that trophy back down to the south coast.......
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2006 21:58:19 GMT
Congratulations to the Oxon team and well done in particular to captain KT. It must be extremely satisfying to leave Oxford on such a high. 8-)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2006 22:04:29 GMT
Well done Oxford. I knew KT wanted that championship from the passion he showed me at the Berkshire Open. I'm glad KT will no longer help Oxford, as "little Cambs" would like to beat Oxford one day ;) Well done Oxford though, very impressive win ratio!
Any information on how Cambridgeshire did, even though I wasn't in the team :(
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Sept 24, 2006 23:15:45 GMT
Well done to Oxfordshire and captain KT, a comprehensive win in the end. Jon Bamsey was the hero winning all 4 and topping the averages It just showed me how well we played last year to interrupt Oxon domination - I make it 8 titles in 10 years. Unfortunately for Sussex after a promising start we let ourselves down against Berkshire and left ourselves too much to do in the last match against Oxon. Chris Reeves starred for us with 4 wins out of 4. We shall see what happens next year when KT bats for the other side :o And just for Johnny his Cambs team achieved their best overall placing in years finishing runners up in div 2 placing them as the 7th best county above Surrey and Bucks.
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Sept 25, 2006 7:02:21 GMT
Well done Oxford. I knew KT wanted that championship from the passion he showed me at the Berkshire Open. Will he show enough passion to win the Ladies County Championships next week to keep his winning run going though? And will the passion still be there when he leads Sussex out of the tunnel next year? We will see, my friends!!!!!! ;D ;)
|
|
|
Post by milko on Sept 25, 2006 7:26:19 GMT
The mighty Oxford County side have done it again. An excellent team performance, Steven & Jon both winning 4/4 and KT,Mark,Keith & Dennis all 3/4. Somebody usually has an off day with no luck at all, and today it was Peters`, just winning the one match. I`d like to thank all my teammates over the years playing for the County sides, i will miss captaining the Oxon side. As for the future, if i get in the Sussex A side, i`m afraid i`ll be trying to get that trophy back down to the south coast....... Captain, thanks for making my form look better than it was, but i only won 2/4 not 3/4. Bye-Bye Kevin :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
|
|
|
Post by SirKT on Sept 25, 2006 10:22:36 GMT
S`funny Keith, when i counted up the points, i couldn`t work out who i`d given the extra point to ::) ! Didn`t pick my score sheet back up off of the admin desk, to overwhelmed i think, realising i wouldn`t be leading that side any more :'(
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Sept 25, 2006 12:35:07 GMT
Captain, thanks for making my form look better than it was, but i only won 2/4 not 3/4. Bye-Bye Kevin :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( Look on the bright side Keith, you are now Oxford No1 :D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2006 12:35:41 GMT
And just for Johnny his Cambs team achieved their best overall placing in years finishing runners up in div 2 placing them as the 7th best county above Surrey and Bucks. Yes that hadn't gone un-noticed, well done Cambs. And congrats also to Hants for setting about their task well, and regaining their place in the top division for next year.
|
|
|
Post by milko on Oct 4, 2006 5:11:33 GMT
Good luck to the Oxfordshire B team for this Sundays County Championships Div 3. The team will be Ray Sturgess (captain), Kevin Godfrey, Roger Bowen, Tony Willis, Tony Martin, Paul Wood & Leon Beer.
I will be surprised if they do not win.
Keith.
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 4, 2006 10:45:58 GMT
Good luck to the Oxfordshire B team for this Sundays County Championships Div 3. The team will be Ray Sturgess (captain), Kevin Godfrey, Roger Bowen, Tony Willis, Tony Martin, Paul Wood & Leon Beer. I will be surprised if they do not win. A good side for Oxfordshire, Keith, I am sure Sussex B will give them a run for their mony ;)
|
|
|
Post by Ray Sturgess (R.I.P.) on Oct 9, 2006 8:53:00 GMT
i would just like to say the oxfordshire b team repayed the faith shown in it by winning the division three championship with a game to go. i must say though that the winning margin does not show the true level of compition on the day and that the oxford players played really well. i must also congratulate kevin tunstall on retaining the a.e.b.b.a. singles title, many thanks must also go to dave and nigel on running the day smoothly, the only grumble being that we wre ahead of schedule and my player didn't know if they had time for a fag or not
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Oct 9, 2006 9:13:03 GMT
I would just like to say the Oxfordshire b team repaid the faith shown in it by winning the division three championship with a game to go. many thanks must also go to dave and nigel on running the day smoothly, the only grumble being that we were ahead of schedule and my player didn't know if they had time for a fag or not Well said, Ray, and now that you are no longer a (posting) virgin (according to those malicious rumours anyway), we now only have Auntie P to get the full house. But you shouldn't get me going on this "ahead of schedule" lark. If only we were allowing 24 minutes instead of 25, we would OF (as Johnny would say) been bang on target! It is nice to be ahead in some ways, but it can lead to problems if any player "goes for a walk" or orders a dinner thinking they have 30 minutes before their next game, and they only have 15. With Bernie going walkabout yesterday, all other games were held up in case he was under that impression. It is only a matter of time before this causes some ill-feeling. I would also like forum members (and any others) to react to four teams having to play each other twice (with "even break" in both games), necessitating a schedule of well over 8 hours. Apart from lots of people getting home after 10 pm in lots of cases countrywide, it makes it very difficult for the "rankings allotters" and the England Selectors to compare performances in the 3rd Div to performances two weeks earlier. Playing on the same table a second time assists players' averages somewhat, and, if any player draws three "lower performing" opponents, the advantage is magnified even more.
|
|
|
Post by barbelman on Oct 9, 2006 9:50:21 GMT
I would just like to say the Oxfordshire b team repaid the faith shown in it by winning the division three championship with a game to go. many thanks must also go to dave and nigel on running the day smoothly, the only grumble being that we were ahead of schedule and my player didn't know if they had time for a fag or not It is nice to be ahead in some ways, but it can lead to problems if any player "goes for a walk" or orders a dinner thinking they have 30 minutes before their next game, and they only have 15. With Bernie going walkabout yesterday, all other games were held up in case he was under that impression. It is only a matter of time before this causes some ill-feeling. I would also like forum members (and any others) to react to four teams having to play each other twice (with "even break" in both games), necessitating a schedule of well over 8 hours. I'm not worried about the getting ahead of schedule business as most people get a feeling for how far ahead we are and adjust accordingly (apart from Paul Wood and - taking it to the extreme - Bernie McCluskey apparently :) ) I do agree about playing twice and there was a lot of discussion about this yesterday. If there are only three teams in a section then playing twice is fair enough and gives everyone four games. When there are more than three then it becomes statistically unnecessary and makes the day overlong. But...I enjoyed the day and many thanks to all the AEBBA chaps who put a LOT of effort into all these events and receive very little credit for it. We all have our gripes but these should always be tempered with a realisation of the amount of unpaid work that goes into competitions and the fact that on-the-spot decisions HAVE to be made on occasion. Sometimes wrong but mostly right......... Tony (whose avatar and websites have disappeared into the ether - bloody Orange!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2006 9:56:54 GMT
I do agree about playing twice and there was a lot of discussion about this yesterday. If there are only three teams in a section then playing twice is fair enough and gives everyone four games. When there are more than three then it becomes statistically unnecessary and makes the day overlong. I'm inclined to agree - double up only in the case of three teams. But the organiser can't win either way, "Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't" as I think he said himself once. I think we should give him a break on this one - and a bit of credit for making the day run to schedule.
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 9, 2006 10:58:44 GMT
[ It is nice to be ahead in some ways, but it can lead to problems if any player "goes for a walk" or orders a dinner thinking they have 30 minutes before their next game, and they only have 15. With Bernie going walkabout yesterday, all other games were held up in case he was under that impression. It is only a matter of time before this causes some ill-feeling. I would also like forum members (and any others) to react to four teams having to play each other twice (with "even break" in both games), necessitating a schedule of well over 8 hours. Apart from lots of people getting home after 10 pm in lots of cases countrywide, it makes it very difficult for the "rankings allotters" and the England Selectors to compare performances in the 3rd Div to performances two weeks earlier. Playing on the same table a second time assists players' averages somewhat, and, if any player draws three "lower performing" opponents, the advantage is magnified even more. I find it amazing that I am getting a bit of stick for the day running ahead of schedule. I said at the beginning of the day it was a long day and we would be trying to get through the games as quickly as possible. People should keep an eye on what series we are on and work out when and where they are playing accordingly, it's not rocket science. As for Bernie going walkabout - I found that amazing, but I will reserve comment, if and when I get the full story, but I wasn't ewven told he had gone! I could have run exactly to the schedule and we would have all finished 30 minutes later. Is 10pm really that late to get back for most people, I have been to opens and got back later, and they usually start at 10.30am. BTW - I got back at 11.30pm although we were getting a bit lost in Gina's car :). Everyone got 6 games yesterday and yes I could have given them 3 games each instead. But I thought people wanted to play bar billards? I would hope that the majority of players would actually want to play 6 games. It is a long way to go for just 3 games of billards, especially when you only get 1 break possibly. With regards to inflated averages due to playing on the same table, I think the selectors are intelligent enough to decipher which perfomances would make the England side, plus the fact we had only B teams yesterday players present are unlikely to be selected for England due to the fact these players did not make their respective A sides. You could argue that playing three games make the averages less meaningful, when half the players get 2 breaks and half the players get 1.
|
|
|
Post by Q on Oct 9, 2006 11:42:10 GMT
Nigel I for one enjoyed yesterday immensely, OK so I had a cr@p day but Hey ho it happens.
The only way I would have changed the format would have been to: 1. Changed the opponent when playing the 2nd round. or 2. Played the games as pairs, each player having a break.
Yes it was a long day, especially if you got up at 5am to watch the grand prix first ;D
BUT we always have long days when we attend opens - Whats different???
You did a great job, the dig at Glenn was a little unfair ;D but you can get away with that.
All in all a VERY enjoyable and well run event, keep it up. Bernie
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 9, 2006 11:53:29 GMT
Q glad you enjoyed the day.
Changing the opponent would be nice (and I agree better), but makes the schedule much more difficult to plan because, when playing a second player you have to find a table that none of them have played. Keeping them on the same table and same player just makes it easier. With the All England singles and ladies also involved, giving every player 6 games on 6 different tables is a headache I would say. My eyes go funny when doing the current schedule without having A1 v B2, C2 v D3 etc
Pairs is interesting, however, not sure some would like that, dont know how people feel about it, but would be surprised if pairs would ever become part of the county champs. I would prefer not to have pairs but pairs is part of one of the internationals so who knows?
The dig against Glenn was purely in jest (not something I would say to someone I didn't know!), and we are good mates, and we all know he can give as good as he gets.
Glad you enjoyed the day, and well done for captaining the B side.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2006 12:02:31 GMT
I don't think Q was advocating the introduction of Pairs, Nigel, that would complicate your schedule no end.
I think what he meant was when you go round twice, sometimes you play the same opponent again later in the day, but some schedules account for a double frame with the opponent straight away.
Not sure which way round you had it as I wasn't there - but this is what I think he meant, and there are merits in either system !
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 9, 2006 12:47:33 GMT
Tommo, the way it was done was that everyone played the first leg of their double header in the first half of the day, the second leg in the secong half of the day. This way in the first half you play each county once and in the second half you play each county once. I think Q suggests it would be nice to play 2 opponents from each team rather than one, which is ideal in a way but it means every player has to play 6 different tables rather than 3 and that is why it is too complicated (for me anyway). I had thought of this but didn't dare attempt to prepare a playing schedule for this.
Indeed pairs is not simple either, because again you will need to find a table that none of the four players has played. Had I thought of the idea I probably wouldn't have dared to try and prepare a schedule for it!
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Oct 9, 2006 12:58:23 GMT
i would just like to say the oxfordshire b team repayed the faith shown in it by winning the division three championship with a game to go. I must be a lucky mascot for the Oxfordshire side ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Q on Oct 9, 2006 13:20:38 GMT
Tommo was right Nigel, what I meant was to play the 'pair' of games together, as in 2 frames, one break each and then only play each county once.
Why are these things so difficult to explain sometimes, I'll have to ask Johnny the Split to be my interpreter ;)
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 9, 2006 13:38:41 GMT
Sorry Q, did misunderstand you there. You could play the pair of games together, but you would bigger 'gaps' between matches, therefore more waiting around - some players like that, some players don't . As Tommo says there are merits in both ways of doing it, neither makes a whole lot of difference as you still end up playing the same players on the same tables in the end either way.
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Oct 9, 2006 14:13:01 GMT
I find it amazing that I am getting a bit of stick for the day running ahead of schedule. If you think that is "getting stick", wait till you have been in the job for 14 years, my friend. I wasn't handing out stick, I was just expressing my humble opinion that 25 mins is not necessary and may eventually lead to problems. It is much better to run "to time" by allowing 24 mins. Everyone will know where they stand better. From the floor, I detected a fair bit of "Oh, I didn't think I was on yet" which could be alleviated with that very tiny adjustment.
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 9, 2006 15:05:53 GMT
You are probably right Pete, in that 24 minutes may suit better than 25 mins. I will probably go with that in future. Mind you with the ladies the week before I never got ahead of time and I still used 25 minutes per game for that. However people need to be a little more proactive and watch where we are on the playing schedule, as I said before it is not difficult really.
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Oct 9, 2006 15:39:22 GMT
While we are on the subject of the playing schedule for yesterday, i just have one question to ask..... If someone was playing for their team in the county championships and also qualified for the All England Singles, would the playing schedule have accomodated this ?
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Oct 9, 2006 15:40:22 GMT
A good side for Oxfordshire, Keith, I am sure Sussex B will give them a run for their mony ;) Didn't Sussex B finish bottom ? ;)
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 9, 2006 16:30:18 GMT
While we are on the subject of the playing schedule for yesterday, i just have one question to ask..... If someone was playing for their team in the county championships and also qualified for the All England Singles, would the playing schedule have accomodated this ? Milhouse, no it would not have. Although I had considered the possiblity of this happening, no one had made that request to play in both beforehand so I did not factor this in at all. I think if someone had made that request earlier it would be impossible to accomodate them, they would have to choose which competition out of the two they wished to enter. It is the same case with the over 50's and the grand prix being on the same day, players are asked to pick one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 9, 2006 16:35:32 GMT
Didn't Sussex B finish bottom ? ;) Ha, yes indeed we did. Team had the ability to do better,and, no disrespect meant to the players that did play for us, but, we would certainly been stronger, with Dave Reeves, Ian Street and Chris Tupper who were originally picked unable to play. But well played indeed to Oxon B
|
|
|
Post by Q on Oct 9, 2006 18:04:47 GMT
I would like to say how proud I was of my team (even Glenn) ::), they all gave it their best but on the day luck wasn't with us (and to be truthful our best wasn't enough). BUT WE TRIED, and we learnt a lot from the experience. ROLL ON NEXT YEAR.
A BIG THANK YOU to all the Sussex 'B' team
|
|