Ladies Singles Draw

[Josie]

Herewith the ladies singles draw. All matches to be played by 11th April 2007.

CAROLINE JONES V DENISE WILLS @ REIGATE EX

GENETTE NICHOLLS V CHERRY DINSMORE @ BRICKS

SHARRON BALCOMBE V KAREN BACCHUS @ SCUD

JOSIE PITT V JAN TAYLOR @ OLD OAK

ANITA BLACKMAN V LINDA TIDY @ SHIP

SHEILA KING V TRISH WADSWORTH @ MVC

REBECCA GREENWAY V SHO NICHOLLS @ CON CLUB

ANGIE TURNER V ALISON NORMAN @ SHIP

Seeing as I'm the only one on here - I can say GOOD LUCK JOSIE!!!!! ;D

[glow=red,2,300]Good luck Josie !!!!![/glow]

And thanks for posting all the competition draws.

Believe they are all highest aggregate over two legs (which is partly the reason why I never enter ! Maybe next year.)

[Chunky Monkey]

Good luck josie :-* :-*

[Josie]

Thanks guys. You are both great. :-*

Tommo - you're right. They are best aggregate over 2 legs. I love that - much fairer than a single leg. Usually the best person on the night wins over 2 legs - but over 1 it's a bit hit and miss!!!!!

josie said:

They are best aggregate over 2 legs. I love that - much fairer than a single leg. Usually the best person on the night wins over 2 legs - but over 1 it's a bit hit and miss!!!!!

Ooh I can see a conflict of opinion there ! Agreed that one leg only would be ridiculous - hardly worth getting out of my comfortable armchair for.

But Redhill is the only league I know which does a highest aggregate over 2 legs instead of a best of three.

Horsham did switch to that system for one year but it didn't prove a popular measure. I came unstuck myself, playing Richard Deadman and not realising the rule change: thought I'd hauled myself back into the match at 1-1 only for him to shake my hand and say "unlucky - there was only about 100 in it there at the end".

It was my own fault of course, but I did feel a bit cheated at the absence of a "decider".

Agree with you that the best player will more often or not get through because he/she should go off with something decent on their break game, but for that very reason I find the format dull.

[Josie]

tommo said:

Agree with you that the best player will more often or not get through because he/she should go off with something decent on their break game, but for that very reason I find the format dull.

Hey - Tommo. It's not all a conflict of opinion. You do agree with something I've said! ;D

For the very reason stated above, that's why I don't bother entering the open singles and pairs etc. It's just my luck to draw somebody who's going to go off with thousands and I would have driven a long way to watch them play. I've got more hope in the ladies - so I've dipped my toe in the water again on that one this year. Next year, who knows!

I've never played best of three - hadn't heard of it until recently when BBR was talking about one of his matches. In theory, three legs would really separate the men from the boys (or the ladies from the girls - to be fair!) but not sure I'd like it. I like the adding up towards the end of the second match to make sure you've got enough (or not!) and knowing what target you've got to get etc. etc. If your doing each leg it doesn't really matter if you knock the black over in the first leg, because you've got another 2 to make up for it. Just seems to take something away from the game to me. (Sorry Sussex!!!! 8-))

josie said:

[ I like the adding up towards the end of the second match to make sure you've got enough (or not!) and knowing what target you've got to get etc. etc. If your doing each leg it doesn't really matter if you knock the black over in the first leg, because you've got another 2 to make up for it. Just seems to take something away from the game to me. (Sorry Sussex!!!! 8-))

Okay Josie, you say you're not familiar with it, but have a read of this recent Brighton Singles write-up and then tell me if it was not exciting :

richard said:

I played Nigel Senior last night at the Dyke in the singles quarter finals,
I won 2-1 in a very close game

First game , Nigel missed early but left a ball right in front on the white
peg, we spent a few minutes at the back of the table, Nigel got the balls
back and made 10k and touched.

Second game I went off with 9600 which was enough to make it 1-1.

Third game Nigel won the toss and went first , he was going well but hit a
split thin and came off and 4950 was put on the scoreboard. Even breaks, on
9600 I missed a split and Nigel flew to the table and played really quick ,
with the bar gone and 6 whites left he asked for a count up. Doug who was
scoring said he was on 10,200, Nigel disagreed, turns out he went off with
3950 not 4950, Nigel was the only one of us that realised the error, so the
score was corrected to 9200. He just needed to clear the whites to win , he
sunk three of them with one up and split, but the next one up span out
leaving me two whites on the table and one in the tray, I cleared them up
and won 9800 to 9400.

A very tight game and a Very honest Nigel.

If it had been over just the two frames, all that drama in the third game would never have happened. Instead, it was a match that will be talked about for years.

[Josie]

I do know what you're saying Tommo - and I can even understand it! But (oh isn't there always a but!) to my mind that third leg should never have taken place. Nigel is more than capable of scoring more than 10,000 - so why touch up? I don't know what Richard's capable of, but 9,600 isn't a bad start (I wish ::)) - it was only 1-1 because Nigel touched up!!!! Surely you should be pushed to your limit. Therefore, if Nigel had got 15,000 or more - what would Richard have done then?

Do you see what I'm saying? This great game of ours should push us to our limits - not do enough to win a leg and touch up. (No disrespect meant to Nigel!)

There are times to touch up - a league match for example when the win is crucial. But when there is still a leg (or two!) to go - no. You should be scoring as much as possible - and it should all count!

josie said:

Nigel is more than capable of scoring more than 10,000 - so why touch up? I don't know what Richard's capable of, but 9,600 isn't a bad start (I wish ::)) - it was only 1-1 because Nigel touched up!!!! Surely you should be pushed to your limit. Therefore, if Nigel had got 15,000 or more - what would Richard have done then?

Do you see what I'm saying? This great game of ours should push us to our limits - not do enough to win a leg and touch up. (No disrespect meant to Nigel!)

You should be scoring as much as possible - and it should all count!

Yeh, I know Josie.
That's the trouble with those Brighton boys. ::)
No bottle. ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Herr von Puebik]

kev said:

Good luck josie :-* :-*

That looks like BBF flirting again :-* ::)

[Chunky Monkey]

H/V/P not necessary, at the end of the day the lovely josie is a team mate and always want team mates to do well in what ever the are entering :p