|
Post by hon Vice President on Mar 22, 2007 19:17:08 GMT
Look. This is an embarrassing thing for a league chair to have to admit, but What's consistency all about then?
I'll chuck this out for a bit of a pondering - debate if you so desire, but I'm confused. Anonymised, the top four players in my league appear like this: (Played, won, average score, ranking points - which include bonuses for scores over 3, 5 or10k in a game, the whole thing relating to singles games only.) To this point in the season, 23 games played is the max.
1/ 23, 21, 4,704, 47.8
2/ 22, 20, 5,258, 46.8
3/ 23, 19, 5,218, 44.6
4/ 18, 18, 7,235, 43
There's only one player in the league with a 100% record. His average score is higher than anyone elses. Despite playing fewer games, he has scored more points away from home than any other player (This is recognised too)
This 'ere confused owd bugger wants to know why he 'aint top :-/ ??? :-[
Oh. It's NOT me.
Just in case you were wondering. Should you ever have had the joy of playing me, this you'll know ;)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2007 21:03:21 GMT
You have an ally, Honchair.
Many years ago in the Horsham League Rod Tarratt went through the season undefeated with Played 20 Won 20 Lost 0, but missed out on the Best Performance Cup to John Thayre who had played 24, Won 21 and Lost 3. The rule was, it was awarded to the player having won the most games.
The Rule was changed the following year so that it went to "the player with the highest percentage of wins to losses" - but with the stipulation of having to have played a minimum number of games to qualify (80 per cent I believe was agreed on). This way you couldn't expect to win having played only 10 games for instance.
This seemed quite a fair and simple way to do it. All this other thing about earning points and more if you won away from home is too complicated in my honest opinion.
Incidentally going back to the first bit, Tarratt could have played - and lost - 2 more games and still won under the new system as he would have had 20:2 = 10 as opposed to 21:3 = 7.
So I agree with you about the unfairness of it all. ;)
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Mar 23, 2007 1:21:16 GMT
To be honest I don't think performance trophies are really ever fair. If nominations are used to decide playing order then you may have a player who monopolises the breaks. Barry Holt has won the Worthing won alot. If the playing order is drawn it may even things up a bit but still the top 'performer' can often be the one that has had the best draws. Also what if games are missed because the opposition does not turn up with a full side.
I have always believed that a singles competition is the proper way of finding a true champion of any league
|
|
|
Post by hon Vice President on Mar 23, 2007 8:57:07 GMT
All fair points chaps.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that our system is far more complex than it needs to be.
(By the way Tommo, the points scored away from home are totted up and count toward a separate trophy). The introduction of bonus points awarded for scores achieved every week were to try and counter the problem of the trophy being shared. Having TWO most consistent players is a right bother!
The issue of teams turning up short has also been addressed now - the player dipping out is awarded a win and a score equivalent to his / her average for the season to date.
Blind draws, luck, whatever - getting through a season without losing a game is a rare feat; quite literally! Alan Shaw has done it twice, and is, incidentally this season's open champ too - so by some reckoning would be recognised as being the top dog.
He's not top of the rankings either!
AND I've beaten him this season... 8-)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2007 9:29:42 GMT
I have always believed that a singles competition is the proper way of finding a true champion of any league I agree with most of what Nigel has said and even with the bit in quotes although I would not be as dismissive of such a long-established competition, widespread throughout Leagues. As Honchair says, you are battling away week in, week out and it is a feat to come through completely unscathed. By contrast, you can have a lucky draw to a Singles Final, and in our leagues anyway you get a lot less players enter - nowhere near the hundred-plus that took part when I got to the Billingshurst Final in 1977........... I agree that the player's record should not be spoiled when he wins thanks to a walkover. But if two players tied, Horsham League were not as tight as you lot and awarded joint winners trophies ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Mar 23, 2007 14:50:40 GMT
Tommo, I think players put far too much emphasis on player of the year competitions. It is the singles comps that matter - all games are best of 3 (or 2) so you always have a fair chance, yes you may have a 'lucky' draw, but if you get to the final you will be playing the guy who has beaten everyone else.
Also league games are best of one, someone may go unbeaten, but then someonelse may have lost two games against the break without having a chance because his opponents kicked off with 10k. The trophy would go to the unbeaten guy - but who has done better?
|
|
|
Post by bigtj on Mar 23, 2007 19:10:01 GMT
I agree with Nigel on the point of playing against the break regularly and on a number of occassions you will either watch the table played out or be chasing a score that is not attainable in the time left. Know in Brighton and Worthing the captains decide order of play, and elsewhere this is negated by playing as drawn. In Brighton especially the premier teams give all breaks to first division teams meaning that it all the better achivement to be the player who has the best win ratio. Whatever system you use it will not necessarily give you the best player as the player of the year. In the singles you can obviously get the luck of the draw but in most leagues you would have to beat somebody of note to reach the final and play the final on merit as you still have to win the games on the way. Again with the singles it is up to the individual whether they enter or not so potentially you could have a number of top players abstaining, so again you could say even that will not produce the best player for the season.
Think what I`m trying to conclude all systems will have flaws so it goes down to individual leagues to device their ideal way of coming up with a top player.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2007 22:57:03 GMT
Nigel that's not a good argument just an opinion. ;) TJ is nearer the mark as he weighs up the pro's and cons.
Both competitions have a place in the b-b world. Both can lay valid claim to have found the best player that season. But each is right in their own way.
I can look back to when I played at the Railway (Billingshurst) some 20 years ago. There was a very accomplished player called John Harvey, who won the best performance and two years later the singles. As for me, I did it the other way round in the same years as he. We were both chuffed at our own achievements and neither of us would have puported to be better than the other.
Likewise, three years ago in Mid Sussex, Graham Daniels went through the season unbeaten in the League, in the year that I won the singles. Last year the situation was exactly reversed. Were there to be a Mid Sussex Masters (there isn't) I would expect both competitions to qualify for ranking points towards it.
Taking the argument further, to its conclusion, how are Sussex Ranking points earned ? The Cup Competitions earn you points, as does the Interleague - which is the County equivalent to an ordinary league's league programme. It's the same thing !
Both have an influence in their own way in the greater scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Mar 23, 2007 23:44:48 GMT
If we are talking rankings Tommo, then I agree both competitions should count towards them. That is meaning that league wins and singles wins go towards the rankings. This applies in Brighton and Sussex and most (not all) other leagues.
I would make the point that I think we remember who won the sussex singles but probably not who finished top of the inerleague standings (which was me last year!), we also remember who won the Brighton singles and Worthing singles, but again few remember who won the most league games.
So Tommo, out of interest, if the Sussex champion of champions was brought back, who should qualify- the singles champion, the performance winner, or the person (who may have won neither) who finishes as number 1 in rankings are based on the both the previous 2 things.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2007 12:14:32 GMT
Horses for courses, Nigel - of course if the Champion-of-champions competition were to be brought back it would be the League's Singles champions who should take part in it. It's a natural progression to winning the title.
You have a fair point also as to the observation that it's the Singles Champions who are remembered.
I do however think that league best performance/player of the year table doesn't have to be unfair: in some leagues it is, because there isn't a level playing field because players get awarded the break at their captain's discretion. This is a form of discrimination. And I have found an answer to Honchair's original question on the rights and the wrongs of the points tally system (which we run too in Redhill incidentally). I much prefer the idea of the award going to the player who has lost fewest games - so long as he/she has played sufficient to qualify of course.
As an addition, I would like to see official National Rankings eventually cascading down further to grass roots (normal league) level. But not until the current system has been established for a couple of years. As computer systems and communication links advance, it should be possible to go below where the current line is drawn - games where you are representing your county - and include Inter-league and Individual League performance rankings.
There's a whole future ahead !
|
|
yorkshireterrier
Full Forum Member
I'm from Gods country you know - Yorkshire
Posts: 90
|
Post by yorkshireterrier on Mar 31, 2007 9:11:03 GMT
In the West Sussex league we actually have 4 ways to determine the top player of the season 1. The present "Most Consistent" which is based solely on number of games won 2. The league rankings table which takes into account scores plus games won and serves only to determine the top 16 who are entered into the next seasons masters competition 3. The Masters Competiton which is a knockout comprising the top 16 ranked players from the previous season 4. The Individual Knockout Competition
As it happens I think I am correct in saying that at this moment I hold all four of the above (for at least a couple more weeks anyway) and therefore have a vested interest in how we select the winners of our individual trophies, so here's my idea -
Why don't we get rid of the term "Most Consistent" after all what does it mean, Most Consistent Winner?, Most Consistent Loser? or Most Consistent Plonker? ;) Instead, why don't we simply have a "Player of the Year" for each division and base it on the ranking tables, however, in producing the ranking tables include knockout games as well as league games? You could allocate points for say the last 16 of the Individual Knockout, points for the Masters, points for the Team Knockout etc and whoever emerges top would really be the best all round "Player of the Year" How about it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2007 9:42:56 GMT
You Shaw sound like a good player. ;) ;D
Your suggestion for Player of the Year terminology sums up the arrangement which most domestic leagues that compile their own rankings lists already have.
But as far as universal exposure goes, any such data is sadly off the radar: We now have the National Rankings list going down to player 200 - qualification being Team Events played at county level, and Opens where you represent your county, and of course the higher International events for the chosen few.
Then, one layer down, there are individual County rankings. Sussex compile one and update it every few months and this draws from County Cup Competitions and the Inter-League events, also some points added on (I believe) for playing in the Sussex team. Other Counties may or may not have their own rankings, but if they do they keep it to themselves - we never get to see them !
And there the line is drawn.
Which is a pity.
Because I believe that with a bit of imagination a South of England Ranking Officer could be appointed. At the end of the season he/she could have all the individual leagues' performance lists submitted (include Dover/Deal, Medway, Tun Wells, Redhill and Pompey and well as Sussex) and then could collate them all together and produce a list of anything up to 1,000 bar billiards players ! 8-)
No I'm not offering ! :-X
|
|