|
Post by joefoxon on Apr 13, 2024 22:25:26 GMT
Well as the WBBA appears to have gone radio silent, it may fall to us after all to try and come up with some sort of balanced event. We're having some pretty productive behind the scenes discussion on the matter, so watch the relevant space!
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Dec 30, 2023 16:57:46 GMT
I spoke with the owner yesterday before coming back down south, he's currently got an old Rileys snooker table timer mounted on the wall, which raises and drops the bar, but has kept the original clockwork in there so it can be reverted. Seems like a lot of computer geekery going on, I approve!
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Dec 29, 2023 22:38:48 GMT
Fretwells in Hull has a table now, and are looking at starting a local league.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Dec 1, 2023 13:44:50 GMT
Fair enough! Short discussion point then!
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Dec 1, 2023 12:50:27 GMT
Is it possible to confirm what rule proposals have been submitted please? I know I won't get to vote but I'm still interested to see what's up for discussion.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Oct 24, 2023 23:10:39 GMT
Certainly some new ideas there from Joe, on first viewing it looked a bit complicated but having read it again, it would probably be fairly easy to actually put into effect. My only real reservation about it would be about the ranking and Grand Prix points that the Open competitions get, the further you go the more points you gain which is obviously the right thing to do. However, if the top ranked players automatically get a free route through the early rounds before then meeting a "qualifier" in the last 32, would that not mean they immediately get extra points just by entering a competition? My concern about that is that it could then make it even harder for players who are below the top 16 to break into those places, potentially leading to an almost "closed shop" for those currently at the top of the rankings, grand prix qualification and England team? Obviously, having "seeded" players and teams in many sports is common, but personally I have always liked the random draws in Bar Billiards as it often leads to some big games in the first round and also sometimes offers "non-elite" players the opportunity to progress further if they are drawn in a weaker section of the draw. But, we do need to consider different options if we do want to attract more people to participate and I would certainly enter a Nottingham Open if either of the formats suggested by Joe was to be used.
My idea with the GP points would be that they'd only apply in the "Elite tier" (possibly with a wildcard spot or two for those outside), with a "relegation" system whereby the lowest players in the points get replaced by the previous season's Open winners for the following season (with Opens being non-Elite and Champions League events being held alongside the Opens). If it was a top 24 Elite pool, then potentially a third of that could be replaced by new players the following year, unless those that lose in the early Elite rounds go on to win the Open.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Oct 24, 2023 14:02:30 GMT
True, although my understanding is that you do need to be affiliated to have use of the competition tables, but I may be mistaken?
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Oct 24, 2023 13:58:12 GMT
Joe have you considered running a Notts open? You could use your ideas and formats. If it was successful and got an increase in entry numbers (not just local) and shown the formats worked, it may give organisers of other opens food for thought. I have, and I'd love to be able to do so, but sadly the committee not continuing to support our AEBBA membership means it's unlikely such an event would get off the ground.
If there'd still be a possibility to do so as an Associate member rather than a fully affiliated County, then it's certainly something I'd look at again. We're due a WBBA event in Nottingham some time next year, which I imagine will be confirmed around Christmas so people can prepare, so could either suggest such a format to Lorin, or look at holding an additional separate competition.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Oct 24, 2023 12:08:10 GMT
If it was an Open and time didn't allow a group stage, how about something like the FA Cup, where the Premier League and Championship teams qualify for the third round directly? First three rounds of losers drop to the plate, and anyone that gets to the fourth round is Cup only? If I am still considered an elite player.....I would be quite happy to have a walkthrough past the first couple of rounds of every open....... I think being 4th in the current rankings would certainly put you in the Elite category!
It might not always work out as being possible to go straight to Round 3, but it could mean at least skipping the first round. With 50 players, if the 14 highest ranked players got straight to round 2, then it'd leave 36 players competing for the remaining 18 places. The four lowest-scoring losers play in Round 1 of the plate, then 16 round 1 losers remain plus 16 round 2 losers.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Oct 24, 2023 8:57:10 GMT
For me, it's not even about wanting to go and win the whole thing, it's just about having the opportunity to play a few competitive games, not just lose 40k-0 and 20k-0 and go home at 11:45. It just goes to show how elitist the mindset is when people assume the lower players are just crying because they don't get something shiny, and is exactly why the NBBA didn't see the value in continuing our membership (as well as the sheer distance to most competitions).
I'd perhaps like to see something resembling a group stage whereby the higher seeded players all play in the same group but are just playing for later round seeding, while the lower seeded players get to play against each other, but with elimination in play if they don't finish highly enough. The higher seeded players get more practice against each other, the lower seeded players get more chances to play close games and they still get the "reward" of playing a higher seeded player if they win their group. It would effectively exclude higher seeded players from Plates, as they'd be guaranteed to reach the later stages (but maybe as 10th seed and have to play against the 7th seed if 16 went through for example).
Such a format would look a bit like this:
Seeded Groups 1-4 All four players advance to last 32
Unseeded Groups 5-12 (assuming 48 players) Top two players advance to last 32, bottom two players to Plate (16 players)
Last 32 - Losers to Plate with 16 unseeded 3rd and 4th place
If more than 16 Elite players enter, then the format can be changed to allow maybe 36 players to advance.
If it was an Open and time didn't allow a group stage, how about something like the FA Cup, where the Premier League and Championship teams qualify for the third round directly? First three rounds of losers drop to the plate, and anyone that gets to the fourth round is Cup only?
What about a "Super League" or "Champions League"-style competition, where the Elite players still attend every event as usual, but compete amongst themselves over a full season instead of just playing for one off prizes (they'd still be available, but also further prizes for those outside the elite tier)? Elite players eliminated in the first round could then enter a later round in the normal Cup so it doesn't take away the chances of non-Elite players to meet them. Players that finish low-ranked in the season would "drop out" and the previous season's Open winners would qualify for the following year. It wouldn't force Elite players to attend every event, as it could just use something like the Grand Prix rankings to sort out the top 32. The non-Elite players would compete amongst themselves for a chance to make the top table the following year, or failing that, have a few good runs at competitions, maybe a last 16, a semi-final, then a quarter-final. A fantastic season for someone at my level.
Let's remember, if nobody ever changes anything, then nothing will ever change.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Oct 22, 2023 18:53:50 GMT
I never thought I would see the day where a very respected long-standing player and forum member would be suggesting that certain players should be excluded from taking part in a competition to which they are fully eligible to enter.... simply because they are good players! That sounds like saying that Manchester City should not be allowed to play in the Premier League or that Novak Djokovic should not be allowed to play tennis! It seems like the world is going crazy, although possibly it is simply a matter of similar thinking to people that decided that children at school should not play competitive sport to avoid anyone feeling like a loser.... But, is the answer really to exclude the best players from taking part in some competitions? Will that help to make our game "better" and encourage more participation in national competitions? What next...?? Do we then change the rules and make it so the LOSER of each game progresses in the Main Competition, with the winners consigned to the Plate? I suppose it would be an interesting twist to have a future World Champion crowned for being the biggest loser of the competition.... that black peg would certainly take a hammering over the weekend! A completely straw man argument. Nobody is saying that competitions should be designed for people to lose. They're saying that there should be a better selection of competitions tailored towards the different ability levels in the game.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Sept 21, 2023 10:32:57 GMT
As it happens, I'll have to sadly withdraw from this regardless of the decision made as I now have another event that I can't miss that weekend. Sad to miss my last chance to compete in this.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Sept 18, 2023 17:31:09 GMT
I'm only down the road now, so I may as well have a go!
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Sept 1, 2023 12:46:34 GMT
Sadly, due to the Notts committee choosing not to affiliate, I assume I'll have to withdraw from the competition.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Sept 1, 2023 12:34:30 GMT
As I say, it was despite my best efforts. My post was just sharing the opinions of the committee, rather than levelling any personal criticisms. I do hope we'll reconsider at some stage.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Sept 1, 2023 10:40:35 GMT
Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, the Nottingham Bar Billiards Association have voted by majority to allow our membership to lapse. The general feeling was that the competitions didn't offer enough to players at our level, especially with the travel times to and from events. A large factor in voting to leave was the AGM vote last year that retained the status quo in terms of counties with multiple leagues having all the voting power. The cancellation of the Challenger event was also a detrimental part of the decision.
Thanks for having us, and I sincerely hope we'll be back one day, but I fear we might need to see the league's first 10k+ break before that happens.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Aug 31, 2023 9:55:19 GMT
I still see the Challenger Championship for 2023 is TBD on the calendar. Am I to assume this has been cancelled?
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on May 14, 2023 0:01:23 GMT
I'm definitely in (for the last time )
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Mar 20, 2023 22:04:48 GMT
Tonight, the Cambridge and District Bar Billiards League took a decision to wind up, marking the death of another league. There are plans to continue play informally, and the 4 pin is still going from strength to strength, so there's still bar billiards in some form.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Feb 23, 2023 11:08:50 GMT
Regarding the specific points listed above:
- Big scores At the moment, to use a snooker analogy, the Opens are like sending a player who's highest break is 7 from potting the last black to play against Ronnie O'Sullivan. That 7 break player isn't actually going to learn much from the experience, because they're so far behind on the actual fundamentals of the game, that they'd be trying to run before they can even stand up on their own.
- Publicity I agree, there's nothing stopping league secretaries from offering up the link to this site, but there's also nothing forcing players to come and look at it. At least with something like a Facebook page, you only have to click "follow" once, and then it's pretty passive from there on in, but you still hear about all the opportunities to play. It's much more likely for a player to do that, and the resistance to it seems to stem from this idea that everything on Facebook is malicious, which plainly isn't true, and the admins can curate an environment that's welcoming to all.
- Open formats I've always been of the impression that to be allowed to host anything at all, it HAD to be an Open, which wouldn't really do anything to solve the problem. Now that the idea of having a "minnows" (for want of a better name) has been floated, I think that if we were to host anything, that'd be the direction we'd go, but with the chance of playing some of the higher-ranked players later on in the competition (3rd in the Champions League dropping to Europa-style). Yes, it means that chances are, the player that was originally in the Open draw will probably win the "minnows", but that's not really much different to the current plates. It's certainly something that I'd be willing to test as a format, and tweak as we go along to make it as successful as possible.
- WBBA The prize money was generous, however, for the players at the lower end of the food chain, that wasn't really a factor. The chance at taking away a trophy was much more valuable to players who would previously turn up to an Open hoping for a decent run in the Plate, or with the hope of picking up 2 or 3 ranking points. This event did a lot of things that I don't think would ever see the light of day at other competitions, such as the live streams, the professional photography, payments for scorers etc. There's also been some comments that the elite players weren't advertised to, but 9 of the top 16 players in the rankings were there. What they did well was advertising to the leagues that *wouldn't* usually bother to send anyone, or would usually only send one or two players. That helps massively, because people are more likely to go if more of their friends are going.
- Finances This will always be the main sticking point for any hobby that requires travelling around the country. £10-15 entry fees for an Open might seem like good value for money if you're only an hour's drive away, but for our second closest Open, Oxon (230 mile round trip), that suddenly becomes £60-65. For our third closts, Bucks (250 miles), it's £65-70, which is just not feasible to do 10 times a year. The only way to make it work, would be to have full cars, and that'll only happen if people are either going to have a chance at winning a game or two, or don't care about losing because they're only going for the drinking.
I know it seems like I'm just complaining about everything the AEBBA holds dear, and I understand the resistance to changing anything because the people that already come to competitions like it the way it is, but it means that the game will only be preserved for as long as those people are still playing it, when what I'd love to see is for the game to thrive, with Opens having to turn people away because they've got 100+ people queuing up. Nothing can grow if nobody plants a seed first!
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Feb 22, 2023 10:15:31 GMT
The equivalent “level below county” for the remaining leagues would be the Inter-Area competition which is administered at present by Stephen Coleman of Northants. This has several sections for different standards (I know for example there is a ‘C’ teams shield.) This should be ideal for Notts and I would query “have you considered this ?”. Along with the WBBA; Oxon, Bucks and Northants Opens; AEBBA’s age restricted tourneys (including an Under30’s); Alternative Rules and of course the Challenger event you guys north of the Thames are also spoilt for choice ! I have been keeping a keen eye on this thread and will add my comments in due course. but i just wanted to point out that Notts have been invited to the Inter-Area one day event in the past and have not been able to field a team (5 players). Also, with Portsmouth in the KOe format, it would be a bit of a trek if they were to play Notts! This is correct, we were invited to the event a few years back, but sadly had to drop out due to the extreme weather on the day causing a tree to fall on one of our players' cars! It's a real shame, but we'd be keen to try again!
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Feb 20, 2023 14:06:17 GMT
I appreciate that the information can be found by those that want it, but if the question is "is there any more we could be doing?", then having an easy and cost-free way to start is useful. Perhaps a list of league secretaries rather than of players in general could be the way to go, letting the information filter down that way?
Curt, I didn't think your reply was aggressive or anything of the like at all, so apologies if my reply gave that impression!
I do usually seek out the year's calendar to share in our league's Whatsapp group, but understandably, once league results start coming in, it gets pushed further and further out of people's memories. I normally give a reminder prompt for competitions that I'm available for myself as well.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Feb 19, 2023 23:04:47 GMT
Even ignoring my prior suggestions, one thing that would help take up would be "actually being contacted about it". The WBBA was very heavily advertised to Nottingham and continues to be for the follow up event. We've never once been asked by the organisers of a 3-pin open whether we'd like to take part. I realise that as an Open, we can still enter anyway, but why should we have to seek these out ourselves if they're the ones that want the numbers? Or are "minor" leagues not the target audience, so we HAVE to do it off our own backs?
I specifically say 3-pin as well, because we have been invited very kindly to numerous 4-pin events but have sadly had to decline as it's not a game enough of us are familiar with, but nonetheless, the effort was made.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Feb 16, 2023 9:48:55 GMT
While we have such opposition to giving newer players a few easier games to ease their way in, then unfortunately the answer to the original question will always remain "yes, we can offer more". The reason the WBBA event worked so well is because you were matched up to players of roughly similar level, but had the opportunity to progress to more difficult opponents.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Feb 14, 2023 15:44:53 GMT
Of the suggestions given so far, I'd offer the following from my own point of view, and throw a couple of other ideas into the mix:
1) Publicity is very important, but that has to be led by the AEBBA committee. The website is good for statistics of past events, but the calendar of tournaments is only accessible from one link on the menu bar. Maybe something a bit more prominent would be good? At the WBBA event, I ran live streams of some of the games, the AEBBA hasn't really attempted this before to the best of my knowledge. The online presence isn't great, there isn't even a Facebook page for the organisation.
2) A third competition might be good, however it's a little harsh on the lower-ranked players to not get a chance at a run in the plate, and immediately be relegated to the "shield". I have an alternative suggestion that I'll go into more detail on.
3) Saturdays would be hugely preferable to me. I previously mentioned that the length of trip for some Opens is a discouraging factor, but this would be an awful lot more palatable if players didn't have work the following day.
4) I'd enjoy something with a group stage format as a way of balancing the groups a bit more fairly.
5) Allow knocked-out players use of empty tables. A great feature of the first Challenger event in Nottingham was the addition of the "coaching table". Curt was very kindly on hand for the day to give hints and tips to players, and at Opens, we have even more elite players there that could offer their expertise, as well as the simple fact of giving newer tables more table time. The quality of tables at national competitions compared to some local leagues is often night and day, and it'd be a fantastic way to build confidence with players knowing they can commit to shots and trust in the table to send the balls where they're supposed to go.
6) Qualifying rounds. Give the top 16 entrants a bye to the last 32, while the lower ranked players face off against each other in the first round, thereby meaning that those knocked out will at least play two matches against players of similar standard before there's even a chance of the top 16 dropping into the plate. Ensure that everyone knocked out in the qualifiers and last 32 gets a chance to drop into the plate, even if they win their first match. Two players of 2k/game standard meeting in the first round shouldn't mean losing by 20k points in the second round and being sent home.
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Feb 10, 2023 16:14:01 GMT
Quite a big draw of these competitions, other than giving lower-ranked and unranked players a shot is that for the newer leagues among us, the events are being held the "right side" of London for us to be able to travel to. I appreciate that the large majority of the elite players are based in and around the south coast, but if you're serious about wanting the lower ranked players to take part, then why not save them the four hour one way trip to get a 20k break put past them before they even get a shot? I started playing billiards and I learnt alot more by having people hit 20k past me on multiple occasions as I watched how they played and looked to see what I was doing wrong the more you play the better you will get. You are not going to get better playing against players that cannot hit a straight 50 You're only going to learn anything from that if you actually get the opportunity to play the shots yourself. An eight hour round trip isn't really worth the effort just to watch someone else play bar billiards for 34 minutes. Your reward for turning up then becomes a single-leg plate match where if you're lucky, you're not against the loser of "England player v England player".
Nottingham Open would be a fantastic idea, if we could get the support for it!
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Feb 10, 2023 15:55:06 GMT
Quite a big draw of these competitions, other than giving lower-ranked and unranked players a shot is that for the newer leagues among us, the events are being held the "right side" of London for us to be able to travel to. I appreciate that the large majority of the elite players are based in and around the south coast, but if you're serious about wanting the lower ranked players to take part, then why not save them the four hour one way trip to get a 20k break put past them before they even get a shot?
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Nov 28, 2022 15:22:38 GMT
Ok, thanks for confirming, I'll feed that back to our committee! :)
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Nov 28, 2022 12:31:03 GMT
Potential feelers for a Nottingham-based competition for next year or 2024. Does the table hire cost include delivery and installation? It'd be understandable if not, but it's handy to know so we can plan accordingly :)
|
|
|
Post by joefoxon on Nov 23, 2022 20:27:25 GMT
As it is all that is required, I submitted a proposal that voting should go back to be being by county. This has yet to be seconded as far as I have heard but the proposal is in as required.
Decision on the AEBBA AGM being quorate is not by the number of voters present which is how it should be.
AEBBA cannot possibly know which leagues (not counties) have physically paid an affiliation fee to their counties as is required to vote. How many single leagues even have a county association? Even a defunct league voted last year and had they paid as is required?
Far simpler, the old system of votes by counties that are affiliated to AEBBA.
Seconder?
There should also be an early item on the agenda to ratify decisions made at last year's AGM which was not quorate.
If not too late, I'll second that
|
|