2011 World Championship Format

[Secretary J.B.B.L.]

After much thought and consideration by the organising committee, the Jersey Bar Billiards Committee has agreed to the following exciting changes to the format of the 2011 World Championship being held at the Merton Hotel over the 4th, 5th and 6th of November 2011.

The straight knock out format is to be partly replaced with a round robin format to reduce the field from the entry number down to the final 64.

Groups of four players will be drawn together (no seeding as per all previous years) to play each other over a period of approximately 2 hours, giving each player 3 single leg games with the group winner proceeding through to the last 64.
It is anticipated that we will not have the luxury of 256 entries (will be early mornings and late evenings if we do!) so the remaining places of the last 64 will be made up from those players with the highest average from the group stages. It is anticipated that the round robin games will be held between 10:00am and 6:00pm on the Saturday with a live draw for the main and plate competitions taking place around 7:00pm on the Saturday evening with the last 64 of the World Championship being held later that evening, these games being double leg games as has been the norm for the last few years.

All those entries that do not progress through to the last 64 will be entered (should they wish?) into the plate competition which will be single leg games to start.

This new format should give everyone player a minimum of 4 legs of Bar Billiards.

The plate competition shall be played down to the last 32 on the Sunday morning. The format and timings from Sunday lunch onwards is relatively unchanged except that we are aiming to finish earlier.


Let us say we have 172 entries, there will be 43 round robin groups. The last 64 would be made up of the 43 group winners and the 21 best runners up. The runners up would be the 21 players who have the best average leg score from the 43 groups.

The round robin games are played as follows:-

Players A and B play on table 1, players C and/or D referee and mark
Players C and D play on table 1, players A and/or B referee and mark
Players A and C play on table 2, players B and/or D referee and mark
Players B and D play on table 2, players A and/or C referee and mark
Players A and D play on table 3, players B and/or C referee and mark
Players B and C play on table 3, players A and/or D referee and mark

There may be some minor tweaking of the above but we think that it will only be timings. The changes have been made to try to give everyone more games and get back to a full weekend of Bar Billiards.

We welcome any questions, ideas and any comments that you may have, whether for or against, and look forward to seeing you all in November.


Any questions on the above please E-mail me.

Sean
Tournament Director

An honest appraisal from a 13-times entrant:

Well it's certainly different (not sure about the exciting bit!) ;D

When I first read through, I thought "too radical, the old method worked well and if it wasn't broken, why mend it ?"

My next reaction was that much thought and discussion must have gone into this, and who better equipped to pass judgement than those who actually have to run the competition?

The more times I read it through the more I am warming to it.  At the moment I can see two advantages that stick out:
1. Everybody gets a fair crack of the whip in the eliminator round; and
2. The likelihood of fewer 'bandits' in the Plate.

I urge others giving their reactions to go in with an open mind.

A thumbs up from me. 8-)

So we are all gauranteed 3 days of bar billiards?

[Secretary J.B.B.L.]

Hi Lewis,

That depends,

If you enter the Pairs on Friday (not changed) and you also enter the Singles on Saturday.

However to guarantee three days of Bar Billiards you need to enter the Pairs and Singles and also make it too the last 64 of the main competition and then win your Saturday evening game

or finish outside of the top 64 and then automatically play in the plate on the Sunday morning.

Sean
Tournament Director

[NigelS]

The idea gets a thumbs up from me.....

i don't agree that the old format wasn't broke, too many people were getting knocked out without getting a meaningful shot when their opponent would break off with enough after winning the toss, which for me is not acceptable for players who travel all that way, and not acceptable for a tournament calling itself the World Championships.

I am glad that group winners go through plus players with the best averages. At least this way players unbeaten will progress and if you get one break out of 3 and you lose two games against the break without getting a chance you can at least try and get through by scoring well in all three games. The format should create excitement with groups pivoting on final games and it should encourage attacking play as players may find themselves needing big scores to progress. I hope that breaks are not determined by toss of a coin but are rather predetermined so at least everyone gets one break and no more than two.

I would have preferred best of two all the way through as there are disadvantages with round robin formats, especially if people do not show and a group of four becomes a group of two! But having said that the new format seems a good compromise and definitely worth a try.

Will look forward to November........

[BB Warrior]

The new format was mentioned as a "strong possibility" at the Guernsey Open last month...... glad to hear that it is going ahead. 8-)

Thumbs up from us..... looking forward to November. ;)

Only one question...... I assume that the last 64 in the main competition and the players in the Plate will then be put in a draw after the round robin has been completed?

Jun 10, 2011 22:23:01 GMT BB Warrior said:

Only one question...... I assume that the last 64 in the main competition and the players in the Plate will then be put in a draw after the round robin has been completed?

Yes, Dave, Sean said thus :

Jun 10, 2011 17:25:50 GMT Secretary J.B.B.L. said:

...... with a live draw for the main and plate competitions taking place around 7:00pm on the Saturday evening.......

Sean
Tournament Director

[milko]

Well, I'm warming to the new format......BUT

Does it go on games won in the round robin groups?

Or, are you saying that someone could lose all 3 games but have a higher average than the other players in the group and still qualify?

I would also agree with Nigel about having at least one break game and no more than two in the groups.


Keith  

[BB Warrior]

Jun 10, 2011 23:07:01 GMT tommo III said:

Jun 10, 2011 22:23:01 GMT BB Warrior said:

Only one question...... I assume that the last 64 in the main competition and the players in the Plate will then be put in a draw after the round robin has been completed?

Yes, Dave, Sean said thus :

Jun 10, 2011 17:25:50 GMT Secretary J.B.B.L. said:

...... with a live draw for the main and plate competitions taking place around 7:00pm on the Saturday evening.......

Sean
Tournament Director

So he did...... I knew I should have waited until I was sober before posting that question..... :-[ :o ;D

[bigtj]

Looks very good and well thought out format, but with all these things there may be teething problems that will need ironing out in future years. The biggest problem has already been mentioned and that is drop outs after the draw has been made reducing the number of players in any given group.
Agree with Nigel a long way to travel just to maybe lose on the toss of a coin on the old format, but in years gone by the entry numbers were probably such that this format would not have been feasible.
Also as Keith says surely it must be on games won first then high aggregate, otherwise a loser could progress ahead of a winning player.
Lastly surely if groups of four to be drawn it must mean that you are gauranteed three games in the round robin ( unless your group is reduced to three players ) and an extra couple of games if you enter the doubles so a possibility of all getting five frames at least, unless my maths are wrong!!!!!!!
Well done to those who have worked this out and to being radical enough to try something new, looking forward to the weekend, and seeing how it works.

[NigelS]

In this case I don't agree with games won over aggregate scores determining who qualifies. If you win all your games you win your group so you are through as group winner. But I don't think someone who wins 2 games out of 3 at a low average should progress over someone who has only won won game but at a higher average. This is because the player who has won only one game may have not had a chance in the other two games but played the table out both times when they got their visit. I think we should try and eliminate the chances of going out of the tournament just becuase other players have not given you a chance

[Secretary J.B.B.L.]

Good Afternoon All,

To cease all peoples concerns, you will qualify for the last 64 as follows:

By winning your group (guaranteed progress)

If you don't win you group, you will require a high average (therefore most consistant players for scoring and making all 'form' players in the last 64 and theorectically more difficult to win).

This therefore does bring up the possibility of 3 players progressing from the same group if they have all been significantly high scoring but close games.

You will not qualify from the groups if you finish bottom, you are entered straight into the plate.

If we do have the infamous 256 entrants it will automatically then be the group winners only that progress and likewise, if we have half of this (128) it will automatically be the top two from each group only.

Therefore, as mentioned initially, it does depend on the entrants until we fine tune the exact progression but at the moment, averages is the clear favourite for us.

With regards to breaks, we have a few options.

1. Toss of a coin (very unfair in my and most people eyes)
2. Nearest to bulk line shot
3. Allocated breaks (first name of card). This makes 2 people have two breaks and 2 people have only one. However, you will never break off on the same table and therefore should iron out any potential advantage.

Again, my favourite is number 2, therefore also bringing in a bit of skill to it. (If you hit pegs, pockets and the end of the baise then you lose).

Fingers crossed that clears up a few more outstanding issues but if not let me know.

Cheers
Sean
Tournament Director

[Chris]

In this case I don't agree with games won over aggregate scores determining who qualifies. If you win all your games you win your group so you are through as group winner. But I don't think someone who wins 2 games out of 3 at a low average should progress over someone who has only won won game but at a higher average. This is because the player who has won only one game may have not had a chance in the other two games but played the table out both times when they got their visit. I think we should try and eliminate the chances of going out of the tournament just becuase other players have not given you a chance




Am I reading the above correctly ?
Let's say I get Nigel S, KT and Keith S in my group ...

I win two of the 3 and because 1 of the other 3 has run a table out with an incredibly massive score I don't go through as their average is higher than mine, even though they only have 1 point ?

How would that be fair >:( especially if such a group result had come about :o   God, I would be over the moon if I had beaten two of the above 3. I might as well not start in the first place.

Surely all group winners should go through on points first and then averages if tied in points, or to make up the remaining 64 from the highest averages.

Think I would agree with tomo's words above

[Chris]

Sorry Sean should have said that both Chris and I think the idea is excellent !!

[NigelS]

Hi Chris, yes I see your point for every argument there is a counter argument isn't there? My point is that if you win all your games you go through as you top your group - which is correct. But say you had played 3 players, and played two games against the break and had been given no chance in either game, then it is impossible that even if you win your 3rd match with the break that you could possibly be a "best runner up" with only one win to your name. You might run the table out in your 3rd match but there would be no point as one win will not get you through.

The trouble with best of 1 games in this case is that you can play faultlessly for 3 matches and only win 1 - which is why I think taking averages into consideration over wins is the best option

There's another way of looking at it Nigel,  say I was in a group with you and two other 'lesser' players:

I might not even get a shot against you, but would like to have some hope left in qualifying by beating the other two.  But say one of the others in our group was a personal friend, a teammate, you might go easier on them than you might have done against me, and they might get through by dint of you having allowed them more table time - even if I had achieved my target of winning the other two games.

I'm not saying you would do this deliberately (would not question your integrity) but have used this as an example as it could apply elsewhere, reducing qualification to a lottery.

I agree with Chrissie: games won within a group first, then finally average/total score as a tiebreaker is the fairest way.  

I absolutely agree with you on this one Tommo. Cannot think of another game where they would prioritise an higher average score in favour of a games won.

I suspect that the argument that players would 'subconsciously' go easier on their friends may indeed be argued down by those that have the ability to select how hard or easy they go. But who wouldn't!

But regardless, we should not introduced the risk of that creeping in. And whilst there is still scope for that with a 'games won' priority, it is greatly reduced.

I will go back in my box now!

Booked my flights this morning!!

[milhouse]

This is something different, but the same thing still applies, you can still go out of the tournament without having a chance and this is just wrong.  The only fair way to do things would be to have double games.
I don't like the fact that if i only have 1 break out of 3 and run the table out, my opponents do the same and i cant go through because i have only scored points in one of my games!
If this format is what it is going to be, a fairer way would be to have 5 in a group so you could then have 2 games with and without the break?
Not sure, will have to think if i really want to continue to spend the amount of money it costs to not have a fair chance of winning a game..... :-/

[Secretary J.B.B.L.]

Evening All,

Many thanks to all for the comments and keep them coming, we are taking them all in and during the final 'clearing up' of the group rules I shall discuss with the other Tournament organisers.

We have stated that some of the finer points may be amended as they are still under consideration, one example being averages or points prioritised. However, unless we have the odd draw the majority of people will finish up with 2 wins (6 points), therefore immediately bringing in the averages per player involved. The only exception to this being if 3 people in the group only win one game each or if we have a group of 3 (god forbid).

Examples like above obviously have to be written in, therefore we do have the option of only allowing the additional players making up the last 64 to come from second place only and then settled on average.

As mentioned above, keep the comments coming, we are looking at them all and please don't let this minor uncertainty put you off as it promises to be the best year yet.

Sean
Tournament Director

[NigelS]

Jun 13, 2011 9:41:30 GMT tommo III said:

There's another way of looking at it Nigel,  say I was in a group with you and two other 'lesser' players:

I might not even get a shot against you, but would like to have some hope left in qualifying by beating the other two.  But say one of the others in our group was a personal friend, a teammate, you might go easier on them than you might have done against me, and they might get through by dint of you having allowed them more table time - even if I had achieved my target of winning the other two games.

I'm not saying you would do this deliberately (would not question your integrity) but have used this as an example as it could apply elsewhere, reducing qualification to a lottery.

I agree with Chrissie: games won within a group first, then finally average/total score as a tiebreaker is the fairest way.  

Surely the following has to be a worse scenario Tommo.....

Game 1, against the break opponent breaks off with a slow 8k you come back 6k

Game 2, your break you run table out with 15k

Game 3  against the break opponent breaks off with a slow 8k you come back 6k

Under the rules of wins over average score you have got absolutely no chance of progressing even though you have not missed a ball and played faultlessly for 3 matches. One win would never be enough as there will be too more than 64 people with 2 wins

At least if you make average score the priority, you can be rewarded even if you have been dealt a bad hand with regards to break games and you have incentive if your opponent decides to touch up when they have a win guaranteed

In response to Lorin's comment re can't think of another sport where average scores are prioritised over wins - well I can't either, but then I can't think of another sport where you can win and your opponent hasn't been allowed to participate! Going by match wins is fine when everyone has played best of two because you are guaranteed an opportunity in all 3 matches but unfair when all the games have been only one leg.

Of course each individual group should be decided by match wins, thus guaranteeing all unbeaten players progress to the next round. However when assessing the best runners up you are comparing all the players left in the tournament so I think it needs to be looked at differently

I think we need to remember that once the player who has topped each group are taken out of the equation, the best runners up can't really be compared on match wins because they have all played different players. 2 wins in one group may have come by a lot easier than 1 win in another group. I conceded that comparing aggregate scores isn't perfect either due to playing tougher opposition and different tables, but it is a hell of a lot fairer in my opinion, because at least this way you can a) go through by winning all your games or b) go through by scoring big when you do get your table time and you still at least have a chance if you are unlucky to have lost 2 games through the opponent breaking off with a winning score....

I would though like to say I applaud the JBBL for giving this a go as it is the brave decision, it would have been a lot easier for them to say just leave it as it is, this format does open can of worms but it has to be a better alternative than the original format whatever the decision is regarding criteria for deciding the runners up...

[milhouse]

Jun 13, 2011 19:22:46 GMT NigelS said:

In response to Lorin's comment re can't think of another sport where average scores are prioritised over wins - well I can't either, but then I can't think of another sport where you can win and your opponent hasn't been allowed to participate! Going by match wins is fine when everyone has played best of two because you are guaranteed an opportunity in all 3 matches but unfair when all the games have been only one leg.

This used to happen in 9-Ball Pool.  In the World Championships you used to lag for break and then the winner of the frame would break the next game. People were attending, losing the lag and then watch as their opponent would run through breaks and dishes in a row until they have won!
because of this, less and less people decided to spend their money going to the tournament as it was not fair.  They have now changed the rules and the players now alternate frames, much fairer!

Does this mean there will be no tipsters for this tournament?
And how will the ranking points work out?
(i think they should have just made it 2 legs all the way through)

Nigel and Mark, you both make a good case for what you believe in, but you are both England players and I rather think you are prioritising your own interests towards a safe passage towards the later stage rather than considering the ideas of fair play of 'lesser humans'.
Nigel's scenario of three or four top players in the same group, all playing out half the time available (this is off-the-spot, remember) would be an extremely rare occurence, and must be classed as '$hit happening' !  You accept it.
Besides, anyone showing that sort of form would be expected to carry it forward with an excellent chance of winning the Plate.

Whilst you're comparing this with what happens in other sports, let's go right to the summit and take an example from World Cup football........Say Spain are in a group with France, Holland and San Marino: It would be grossly unfair if Spain scraped through, after losing to France and Holland, just because they beat San Marino 20-0 and the other teams only beat them, say 6-0.  

Expecting to qualify by winning one 'easy game' well - it's the same thing...........No way, Jose.    

[milhouse]

Jun 13, 2011 20:36:28 GMT tommo III said:

Nigel and Mark, you both make a good case for what you believe in, but you are both England players and I rather think you are prioritising your own interests towards a safe passage towards the later stage rather than considering the ideas of fair play of 'lesser humans'.
Nigel's scenario of three or four top players in the same group, all playing out half the time available (this is off-the-spot, remember) would be an extremely rare occurence, and must be classed as '$hit happening' !  You accept it.
Besides, anyone showing that sort of form would be expected to carry it forward with an excellent chance of winning the Plate.

Whilst you're comparing this with what happens in other sports, let's go right to the summit and take an example from World Cup football........Say Spain are in a group with France, Holland and San Marino: It would be grossly unfair if Spain scraped through, after losing to France and Holland, just because they beat San Marino 20-0 and the other teams only beat them, say 6-0.  

Expecting to qualify by winning one 'easy game' well - it's the same thing...........No way, Jose.    

Not a full member of the England team, otherwise i would have been playing Saturday evening, but thats a different subject! >:(
My points have nothing to do with having an "easy passage through" and (without any menace intented) take a dim view of comments like that.  I couldnt care less if i played someone ranked number 1 or 1001, i don't like the fact that they could beat me just because they have been lucky enough to win the toss and have the break!  If i am spending upwards of £500 for a long weekend away to play in the World Championships, i at least expect to have a fair chance of winning and none of the formats (new or old) do that.

[BB Warrior]

Interesting discussion with lots of good points being put forward..... 8-)

I would tend to believe that "more wins" should be a priority over "highest average" in deciding who would progress..... for the simple reason that winning a game means more than scoring a lot of points and losing.  But, I also agree that having an "equal opportunity" should be the only fair way that can be judged. ;)

We all know that one of the "nicest" things about the World Championships is the opportunity to take a big scalp in the single leg early stages of the competition..... it does add a bit of spice to it, even if it does make it a bit of a lottery based on a toss of a coin..... ::)

Last year there were 164 players in Jersey, so potentially there would have been enough time for double legs to have been played through the whole of the main competition..... as they are in all of the County Opens. :D

But, I like the fact that the World Championships are "different" to the County Opens and I think that it is fantastic that the JBBA are looking at new ways to keep it "unique" and, hopefully, encourage more people to play in the competition. 8-)

So, please keep the idea of the "Groups"...... but how about making all the games in the Group Stages Double legs and timed at 10 minutes each?  The timing could be controlled centrally with everybody starting at the same time and stopping when the time is called as finished to ensure that nobody gains extra time with a slow running stopwatch!! ::)

It would add a bit of extra time for each match, but shouldn't make a huge amount of difference and at least everybody will have an equal opportunity and players with the most wins & highest averages will progress on merit, not on the toss of a coin. :D

[NigelS]

I wouldn't recommend a format that would benefit my interests, but I would always support the a format that benefits the best players, after all it is the best players on the day that should progress through the tournament, fortune will always come in to play, but games should never be determined on the toss of a coin...

I think Dave's idea is great if it could be done even if it is say 7 or 8 minutes each way, I always thought that would be a better way of doing the single leg games under the old format anyway, where both players could be guaranteed a fair go. If that was the case I would agree that match wins should count over aggregates as each player has has an equal opportunity to win 3 matches.

Forgot to mention, I too applaud the principle of the change. And with some minor tweaks it stands a great chance of being a tremendous success.

Jun 13, 2011 23:34:08 GMT BB Warrior said:

We all know that one of the "nicest" things about the World Championships is the opportunity to take a big scalp in the single leg early stages of the competition..... it does add a bit of spice to it, even if it does make it a bit of a lottery based on a toss of a coin..... ::)

Dave has just touched there on one of the factors that makes each World Championship so memorable: I will never forget seeing Neville Edwards (sadly now passed on) kick off with 7k against a certain England player offering him no chance, and nobody felt sorry because quite frankly that player was well known for being brutal and handing out relentless thrashings himself.

The way this thread has been going, you would think that it is commonplace to bag a winning break on your first visit after winning the toss, but this is off-the-spot, remember, and with one exception, every time I've got flying I've eventually run out of position. Some players (eg Terry Race) have been known to play to the bar and then peg it !

Dave then spoils it by suggesting the 'timed break' *concept: very unlikely the Jersey organisers will entertain this, and quite rightly so.

Basically, I would be in favour of the 'double games throughout' as the fairest method for all concerned, but this is simply not possible in the time frame available. What the organisers are now proposing seems to be the next best compromise, and I think we should applaud them for that and give them our backing.


*[self-moderated]

[BB Warrior]

Jun 14, 2011 9:17:05 GMT tommo III said:

Dave then spoils it by suggesting this 'timed break' nonsense: very unlikely the Jersey organisers will entertain this, and quite rightly so.

Basically, I would be in favour of the 'double games throughout' as the fairest method for all concerned, but this is simply not possible in the time frame available. What the organisers are now proposing seems to be the next best compromise, and I think we should applaud them for that and give them our backing.

My proposal was for a timed game, not break...... :P

Have to say that I am disappointed that you firstly dismiss the suggestion as "nonsense"...... >:( .....and then go on to say that you would be in favour of "double games throughout as the fairest method for all concerned"...... :o ...... which is exactly what I had proposed! :P ;D

By using a "shortened format" for each game (whether 10 minutes or an alternative length of time) there should be sufficient time to fit in this type of double games in Group stages which would give everybody an equal opportunity to win (or lose) their games, rather than having to rely on either the toss of a coin or whether they happened to be drawn to break first.  

Tommo rightly says that it isn't always the "big" players that win through, off-the-spot always gives "lesser" players a chance, but we all know that having the first break can be a significant advantage in a one frame match, even if you don't win the frame with your first visit.

In an earlier post, Tommo said...

Jun 10, 2011 19:55:26 GMT tommo III said:

1. Everybody gets a fair crack of the whip in the eliminator round; and
2. The likelihood of fewer 'bandits' in the Plate.

I urge others giving their reactions to go in with an open mind.

I humbly suggest that my proposal does give everybody a fair crack of the whip..... and would ask him to keep an open mind. ;)

[bigjimsilverfox]

I think BB Warrior has a sound suggestion with his timed game, allowing for a two legged basis and thus a fairer way for all ;)

I`m sure there will still be some shock results even under this format but that is the way of Bar Billiards!