|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2007 23:45:34 GMT
Interesting indeed, Dave. The Hurstpierpoint does the advantage at the moment of running 19 minutes. You may expect the Handcross table to pick up from now on: Fed up with it playing like a dog, I went up there early last week and brushed it back to front, sprayed it with BCE Cloth Cleaner, and then laid the nap back down with the block smoother. It certainly seemed to put some life back into it. ;)
|
|
|
Post by Q on Dec 17, 2007 0:14:41 GMT
Apart from the cloth cleaner (which I dont agree with) I used to 'backbrush' the Handcross top on a regular basis, followed by a forward brush and then the block.
I think that the problem is still that the table is getting 'pushed' and that the only way to eliminate it would be to move the table again.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Dec 17, 2007 8:03:07 GMT
Hi Tommo, I know that you look after your table - which is why it has always been one of the best in the League :) .......as I have frequently found out while watching you or Bernie score lots of points against me in the past....!! :( ;D
I'm enjoying playing at the Hurst Club this year, a good top and 19 minute clock have certainly improved my home average ;) and I think that the table there is getting better as there are now 2 teams at the venue so is being used more. ;D ;D
Looking at those statistics though, you also have to take into consideration the relative strengths of the Home Teams at each venue..... the comparisons between the Watermill A & B Teams show that..... so possibly it would be fairer to just look at the average scores for the away teams at each venue, as every team will end up playing during the course of the season? ???
Either way, I can't say that I'm looking forward to playing either my Mid-Sussex League match or Singles this week......... both of them are at the Windmill!! :) :( ???
|
|
|
Post by Ros on Dec 17, 2007 9:59:13 GMT
Some interesting statistics (recently sent round to teams courtesy of the old fella) Can you tell me when please? I don't recall seeing this in my inbox. I would say at this stage they prove very little! At this stage of the season most tables have only seen 5 of a possible 13 games. The figures include a 6th visit of a fairly "high scoring" team to the White Horse which will distort their averages. The Sportsman has only seen 4 home league games: CKRBL, Brewers Bravos, Watermill 'B' and St Francis - not exactly a representative sample of the whole league. Our clock was set (after a great deal of tinkering) to 17 mins for the Sussex Open last year. After discussion with the team, we decided to leave it at that. (Free intelligence for tommo for this Weds! ;) )
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Dec 17, 2007 17:06:35 GMT
Some interesting statistics (recently sent round to teams courtesy of the old fella) Can you tell me when please? I don't recall seeing this in my inbox. Hi Ros My email has 16/12/07 20.20 logged so 8.20pm yesterday is the answer and I have just forwarded you a copy. Meanwhile our BB Warrior is quick off the mark with his 11.31pm post yesterday....and is starting to compete with Tommo ;D 8-) ::)
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Dec 17, 2007 18:13:04 GMT
I tend to view statistics like this as interesting but as only a very general guide, as to fully understand there importance you would need to analyse every game of every match and been present to assess all the variables on the night. Full season figures over a number of years, allowing for venue/top/player changes would be more interesting.
However having said that I am disappointed that as a league we only average 2220 per player/game (any error wouldn't change that much) and that does beg the question as to how much is down to the players abilities and how much the quality of the tables ?
My answer would be that we have both elements at work as compared to Horsham and Billingshurst it is my opinion that we have very few really good players and there is not the gulf between top and bottom that I witness, particularly in Horsham, which is also why our combined Divisions and Charity Handicap systems work as well as they do.
By example, as at 21st November, Horsham had 17 scores above 10K, by 10 different players including one of 21K, and I believe there has only been one 10k score in Mid-Sussex (by a player from Horsham !)
On the other hand we do not have enough experience around the various venues for the tables to be maintained to their best, and even those willing to give up their time and effort can feel aggrieved if they overhear bad comments. Meanwhile others either do not care their table is cr*p or actually want it like that to stop visiting teams from scoring heavily against them. There are even some very good players who cannot set a table up themselves.
Question: would people from the various teams take it as an insult if someone went along and showed them what to do.......but they would still need to give time and effort to continually maintain the tables....so would it work anyway ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2007 19:32:26 GMT
Here's some more statistics which make interesting reading, but from which we may get mixed messages - the Mid Sussex 'Top Twelve' performance record from ten years ago ! Pos Name P W L (High Score) Ave 1 J.Broderick 22 19 3 (11970) 4493 2 B Timson 22 19 3 (9000) 4493 3 I.Graves 22 18 2 (12620) 6376 4 M.Holmwood 21 17 4 (12770) 5883 5 G.Lewis 19 16 3 (11840) 6012 6 J.Turner 19 16 3 (10030) 4282 7 T.Gasson 20 16 4 (8650) 4170 8 R.Deadman 20 16 4 (7330) 3834 9 T.Francis 21 16 5 (8860) 3809 10 C.Ellmers 21 15 6 (10030) 4528 11 C.Thompson 18 15 3 (10800) 4476 12 S.Morris 21 15 6 (8350) 3179
So what conclusions - if any - can be drawn by comparison. Well, there are four Z's in the list, but apart from that the only player mentioned now playing in this league is Shaun Morris. 7 of the 12 had at least one score of 10k-plus. The averages were at least a thousand better in those days. But I don't remember the playing standard being that much different to what it is now. There is the implication that, 10 years down the line, the 'Z's are ten years longer in the tooth. Maybe. But it should also be taken into account that we had a super home table at the Windmill (Crawley) where most of those high scores mentioned were made. And then again, there didn't seem to be the daunting away tables we have now which drag you down and where you consider yourself lucky to have made a thousand. Weighing it in the balance, I'm inclined to endorse the comments made in Sparky's two final paragraphs.
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Dec 17, 2007 20:14:54 GMT
That last lot of stats pretty much confirms my own feelings, that averages and high scores are down, and as you say Tommo we can draw various conclusions from that.
My own reaction is to say that with better tables we would have better averages and higher scores, even without so many worthy 'names' from the past. I know the Greyhound players feel that their success was largely due to having a good top and that pretty much follows my own view that players do not improve on cr*p tables.
|
|
|
Post by Ros on Dec 17, 2007 22:08:52 GMT
Thank you for the forward Graham. :)
I see these figures were sent out to the following:
Trevor Rees, Richard Jeffrey, Graham Sparksman , David Ingram, Clive Thompson
At first I thought this was a list of those that had responded to this thread, but that doesn't hold true, I am a loss to understand why this information was given to such a limited group. ???
The spreadsheet, as sent out by Roy, only shows 4 games for the White Horse, and would have their table almost at the bottom of the leagues.
I find it fascinating that: a) Dave has decided to add in (1 or 2?) additional matches to Roy's figures (including one that has been played in advance of the normal match date) which boosted the Horse's table performance from 12th to 10th out of 14. and b) that one or two games could make such a huge difference - which vindicates my comment that at this stage of the season, with so few league games played on each table, these figures mean very little and should be of interest value only.
Having said all that, I agree, our tables in the league are not good enough, but maybe there are still too few in our league that enter open tournaments/ compete in one day interleague/ go to Jersey etc. to understand that tables can (and should be) different.
Looking at tommo's list, I am reminded that we have lost the lovely Golden Eagle table (where the ladies round robin was always held) and that table, along with the Hurst top, The Fountain (which became Handcross SC) Windmill Crawley and The Green Man defined the standards by which all the tables were judged.
One of the things that has probably changed in 10 years is the pressure on space in pubs. We are all aware that instead of landlords seeing bar billiards as a way of boosting trade on an otherwise slack evening, they are increasingly seeing the table as being in the way of yet another food table which could be making good money in the Thursday - Sunday time window. Those pubs which don't go down the restaurant route will often die and become houses - I know this only too well, it is not for nothing our team are often called the nomads. :(
As a consequence, our tables are often shoved into tight corners, they are moved when they are "in the way" of other activities, and we are loathe to complain if they are subjected to abuse or movement by other users of the space - in case we start to be viewed as a nuisance and more trouble than we are worth. After all, if we lose our venue, where else do we go next?
However, another thing that has changed is that around 10 years ago the Mid Sussex league was struggling and down to 9 teams. Now we have 14 and we could grow from there. As the league grows there is a continuing need for education of new teams in how to care for a table.
The large number of newish players will also have an effect on the overall player average in our leagues.
From Sparky:
Maybe it would be a nice idea to issue some easy guidelines on table care? I can still remember Neville Edwards patiently explaining to us how the simple use of a damp cloth on our balls would improve our table and therefore our playing experience.
I agree with Sparky, players don't improve on cr*p tables. But I think at this stage it is better to rely on the "gut feel" of those who have experienced better tables (whilst always remembering that one man's meat is another's poison ;) ) than statistics that are based at this stage on far too small a sample.
Edited to correct table positions.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2007 22:49:58 GMT
All pretty fair comment, Ros, and I particularly like the 'hygene' tip contained in your penultimate paragraph. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Dec 18, 2007 8:22:19 GMT
Ros, you are correct to say that I did add 1 result to the figures for the White Horse (their re-arranged match against the Droops) which was played on Sunday, with the scores posted here on the Forum by Sparky.
Without that match, they would have been 2 places lower and the White Horse figures would have been as follows:-
Home Average - 1425 Away Average - 1853 Average Game Score - 3278
Although I am a great believer in statistics, the list was never intended as being either definitive (we would certainly need at least a full season - probably more - to compare properly) or as a "name & shame list", however with so much recent discussion here about table conditions, I thought that it would be helpful to have some facts and figures for the current season here which Roy had kindly sent out.
I think that the idea of someone experienced in preparing a table properly showing some teams how to improve their top would be really good... although I suspect that some teams would be more receptive to this suggestion than others!
I was interested to see the "10 years ago" list provided by Tommo, averages & high scores were higher than the equivalent figures today, however he did point out that many of the top scores were made on a table which is no longer there.
From what I have seen in the Lewes League so far this year, the tables in mid-Sussex are no worse than those, although scores in Brighton, Horsham and Worthing would indicate that either they have better tables - or players!
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Dec 18, 2007 8:31:50 GMT
I have just noticed a calculation error on the original spreadsheet which has changed the home scores for St Francis and moved them several places up the list as a result.
Revised list posted above.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2007 9:07:54 GMT
I was interested to see the "10 years ago" list provided by Tommo, averages & high scores were higher than the equivalent figures today, however he did point out that many of the top scores were made on a table which is no longer there. From what I have seen in the Lewes League so far this year, the tables in mid-Sussex are no worse than those, although scores in Brighton, Horsham and Worthing would indicate that either they have better tables - or players! Well, most of the five-figure scores in Horsham have similarly been made on one table (at Roffey SSC). Also, Micky Fairs apart, the top performers there also play in Brighton. Likewise, some Redhill players play on the high-scoring Norfolk table in the Billingshurst League, which bolsters their figures. I have played in all three Leagues, in a championship-winning team in each, and don't consider Mid Sussex to be any weaker by comparison - although obviously we're nowhere near the standard of Brighton or Worthing.
|
|
|
Post by iang on Dec 18, 2007 18:23:32 GMT
Re The high Horsham scores, you will remember that I posted that Chris Reeves scored 14,000 & Richard wooton scored 12,120 on the Handcross top on the 20/11/2007 Also that The Crawley Club also figures highly as well The Norfolk which you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Dec 18, 2007 18:56:04 GMT
Well, most of the five-figure scores in Horsham have similarly been made on one table (at Roffey SSC). Also, Micky Fairs apart, the top performers there also play in Brighton. Likewise, some Redhill players play on the high-scoring Norfolk table in the Billingshurst League, which bolsters their figures. I have played in all three Leagues, in a championship-winning team in each, and don't consider Mid Sussex to be any weaker by comparison - although obviously we're nowhere near the standard of Brighton or Worthing. There are in fact 3 teams playing off 2 tables at the Roffey SC which would greatly increase the likely hood of good scores as so many players know the tables well and so many games being played there, plus the quality of many of those players. I think you have contradicted yourself Tommo as you rightly refer to the top performers playing Brighton too but do not think Mid Sussex weaker. Without wishing to offend anyone I do not see how Mid Sussex compares with Gareth Lloyd, Richard Wootton, Chris Reeves, Micky Fairs, Ricky Dewdney, Peter Gibbs, John Slee, Jason Trott, Trevor Trevett, Johnny Miller, Pete Fisher, Dick Cable, Lee Cable, etc. when I don't need to tell you the pedigree of some of those players.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2007 19:23:04 GMT
Faulty logic there Sparky. The first half of your list you've quoted players who primarily play Brighton league and only indulge in Horsham for a bit of fun. I deliberately mentioned Micky Fairs as being an exception. The latter half of the list I consider would perform averagely (is that a word ?) in the Mid Sussex League. Many of them I know well, former team mates of mine. What I will concede is that the Horsham League is top-heavy and Mid Sussex has a more even spread of abilities.
|
|
|
Post by Ros on Dec 18, 2007 19:52:13 GMT
I have long thought that we suffer in our league from the fact we play on a Wednesday.
Whilst Mid Sussex players may choose to play in Lewes, Horsham, Worthing and other leagues on other nights, the best players from those other leagues will probably choose to play in either Brighton or Billingshurst - probably a shorter journey for most of them too.
Whilst I don't dispute that some of our tables could be better looked after and prepared, the fact remains that the top players could still come and give most of them a hammering.
I still remember Windmill Crawley bringing their "reserve" Gareth Lloyd to play us when we were at Wheatsheaf Albourne, his score of 14.5k was the highest of the season in Mid Sussex, and I believe his opening break of 10k+ was the highest away break too. I'll never forget that Gareth was very gracious in victory, turning down the drink I offered, instead insisting on buying me one :) But he then rushed on down to Brighton to play his game there.
So let's not blame all our ills on the tables, but let's do what we can to improve table standards, asking for basic care such as brushing, clean pockets and balls (I can assure tommo that the necessary hygiene arrangements will be made tomorrow ;D ) and encouraging teams to check their tables are 'near as darn it' level, either themselves or by whingeing at Tarrat.
Sparky's match report from the Droops v White Horse reports that Colin had cleaned the pockets and levelled the table - and the total scores improved by a country mile. :)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2007 20:14:19 GMT
I agree with that, and think that some of the argument has become befuddled by criticisms of normally good-standard tables (like Handcross) which may have had an 'off-night' due to cold conditions or to having been used to rest ar$es on whilst a pool match was taking place. As Ian said, two fantastic scores were got on it recently, and good as they are, I would not expect Richard or Chris to get anything like that on, say, the St Francis - which on our last visit looked as if it hadn't seen a brush or iron for years. And I also agree that a clean set of balls can work wonders. That shower gel is good stuff ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Dec 18, 2007 22:48:34 GMT
To be fair to the White Horse, Colin always tries to level & brush the table and clean the balls and pockets before each home match and Colin & I both did that last year, but it's not easy to maintain the table there as so many people use it and just bash the balls around and bang the table!
The scores by Sparky and Andy F/W were both higher than usual there, but I hit 4.5k plus there a few weeks ago in a League game (and lost another 1.5k break in same match) and Colin regularly scores 3k+ there as well.
The break is tricky there, but that could be said of many other tables - both in Mid-Sussex and elsewhere!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Jock o The Strap on Dec 19, 2007 10:04:42 GMT
Yes this has been discussed at committee level already and the general feeling is one of the same, a point raised by me when I started the Table Conditions Thread. I don't believe that there is any deliberate attempts by any team to sabotage their own table, and I also agree that most of this is just simple neglect coupled with a simple lack of time to do so, not withstanding the fact that some people just don't know what they are doing. For my own part the Brewers Table is no different, with 4 teams playing of it, and it being in the main bar its, surprisingly, heavily played by the general public, its near impossible to keep it playing true.
It has been suggested that a scoring system for the tables be adopted as is used in other leagues such as Horsham, where by the away team 'scores' the table standard on a sliding scale of 1-5, 5 being perfect, 1 being firewood. I intend to propose to the committee at the next AGM that we adopt a similar system but expanding the scale from 1-5 to 1-10, coupled with the average scores this will give a better reflection of the way a table is playing. We could also involve a table of the year trophy and as a committee offer help, advice and assistance to the tables that are not playing well. I believe that penalizing teams for consistently poor tables might help but is ultimately detrimental to the league. I think as a whole we would rather improve tables and therefore our own playing. The glass half full approach.
Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Dec 19, 2007 13:43:25 GMT
I agree with you entirely Jock, much better to encourage teams to improve their tables than just penalize them for having a bad table.
|
|
|
Post by Q on Dec 22, 2007 13:47:03 GMT
Moved from 'Mens singles' thread by Q Ros posted: Re: Men's Singles 2007/8 « Reply #7 on Dec 4, 2007, 12:49am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Timson beat John Lear 2-0 at the rearranged venue of the Sportsman tonight.
____________________________________________________ BB Warrior replied:
« Reply #8 on Dec 4, 2007, 7:53am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why was the venue changed to Sportsman for Barry v John?
____________________________________________________ Tommo then said: « Reply #9 on Dec 4, 2007, 9:50am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possibly the rule invoked whereby if first-named does not contact by the cut-off date, second player by making the contact can have venue changed to his/her own choice ?
I always feel sorry for the original venue in such cases and never invoke it myself though I've had several opportunities in the past.
____________________________________________________
Ros replied: « Reply #10 on Dec 4, 2007, 10:58am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, I was told a couple of weeks ago, but wasn't paying enough attention at the time
I think it started with the missing of the contact date, but then got more complicated after that.
I remember being told it had been agreed by Lorraine.
____________________________________________________ BB Warrior:« Reply #11 on Dec 4, 2007, 12:00pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know that if contact hasn't been made by a certain date by the first named player, then his / her opponent can choose to play the match on their home table, but didn't realise that they could arrange to play the match at another venue.
Although I don't see that this is a problem, I was just curious as to why it had been changed - possibly because neither of them wanted to play the match at the chosen venue...??
However, I will request clarification of this at the next committee meeting as I feel that the whole point of having a draw with neutral venues is to make it equal for ALL players. ____________________________________________________ Tommo: « Reply #12 on Dec 4, 2007, 12:21pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such noble ideals..................
Could have done with you on my side on the earlier 'heated debate' on the Interleague Rules. ____________________________________________________ TIR joined the discussion: « Reply #13 on Dec 4, 2007, 12:22pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would have thought it was obvious why the venue was changed.
I would rather forfeit the match than play on the White horse or St Francis tables and will be playing my match on my opponents home table.
As long as we have tables which are barely fit for play this sort of thing is bound to happen.
Venues that cannot be bothered to keep their tables in decent condition should not have matches.
Playing on a top which renduces the result to a lottery is surely unfair to both players. ____________________________________________________ Tommo: « Reply #14 on Dec 4, 2007, 12:45pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We should take heed of these outspoken - but wise - words from a former landlord. There was always an honest table in the Crown Newick or the Liverpool Arms.
But the committee do take individual complaints seriously, and the Watermill captain admitted recently that he had received a letter about their table, following which they have had it brought up to scratch. ____________________________________________________ BB Warrior: « Reply #15 on Dec 4, 2007, 1:20pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would be fantastic if all of the tables in the League were as good as the Hurst Club or the Greyhound, which always seem to play consistently well...... as you probably know, the table at the White Horse was part of the reason that I left there!
But, this year I have already read comments about many of the tables in the League (Handcross, Watermill, Brewers among others) saying that they are not playing as well as they should be.
I haven't played at St Francis yet this year so I can't comment about how that is playing, but to be fair to the White Horse when we played there a couple of weeks ago it was playing much better than it was last year - or even at the start of this season.
I scored just over 4.5k, after pegging a break of 1k+ as well, the table was pretty level, the break was playable (if you know how to get it there) and the only real criticism I would have was that it was very slow - but then I am now used to playing at the Hurst which is a fast table.
We should be encouraging teams to improve their tables, but not sure how that can be achieved or how "acceptable" standards can be judged since everybody's opinion of a table will mainly be judged on their own / teams performance on the night....?!
A few weeks ago, the Greyhound played the Hurst Club at Handcross...... based on the table there on that night, I would have said that the White Horse table was a better table this year than Handcross......... sorry Tommo, I know that it isn't really!
A formal complaint was made by CKRBL about the Watermill earlier this year, but a few weeks later scores of 5-6k plus were being made by players from both sides on that table.....! (According to the Watermill A Team last week, when Tarratts inspected the table, there was nothing wrong with it....!)
So, how do we judge the tables and then encourage teams to improve on the standards and then maintain these in the future? ____________________________________________________ Tommo: « Reply #16 on Dec 4, 2007, 8:33pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I don't know what the answer is now with Handcross. It just isn't consistent: Thought I'd got it prepared to a reasonable standard, we had a 5-0 to show we liked it, lost 0-5 last Wed to show it was reasonable for the away team, and in between Richard and Chris got 10k plus on it on a Horsham match.
What does concern me is that at the start of the evening the break is easy, like shucking peas, but by the last game no-one can get the break and even the one-up is a struggle.
Most of its life the table spends in a cold corner of the room, But I put the light on over it a half-hour before the league match and it seems to heat it up just about right. But then it deteriorates as the evening goes on. Rainy weather outside seems to have an adverse effect on it too.
I have my own table at home which plays the same day in, day out. But Handcross ? I never know how to expect it to play. ____________________________________________________ TIR: « Reply #17 on Dec 4, 2007, 10:02pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tommo a table like yours is not really the problem - we know you do your best to get it as good as possible but it certainly was more consistent in its old position.
It is the venues where it is unusual for the table to play well that are really frustrating, and we all know there two or three which are poor year in year out.
Another thing to look out for is what happened at the Greyhound last week. We had a nice new white spot placed about 1/8 too far back, we played a couple of games on saturday before realising, after moving it to its correct position I managed to knock up an 11000 plus score - it does not take much to spoil a table.
It is a good idea to check the spot positions if they have been replaced, as it is not always obvious if they a wrong especially the red ball spot. ____________________________________________________ BB Warrior: Clive, I do understand that it's not easy preparing a table and certainly wasn't being critical about the Handcross, I know that the table normally plays very well there.
I was just using that particular evening as an example of how even the best prepared and maintained tables can have "off-nights"...... I guess that we as players are much the same!
I know that the White Horse table isn't the best in the league by any stretch of the imagination, too many "non-players" use it and it gets moved around a bit as well, but I also know that Colin puts in a fair amount of time trying to get it level before each match there so, for his sake, think that it's disappointing that "good" players don't want to play there - when possibly they would be the people who could help him (and the rest of the team there) to get the table playing better.
At the end of last season, we played a Watney Cup there against the Swan in Worthing, Colin and I spent some time preparing the table as a result of which I scored 5,560 beating Phil Oakley (I also beat him in the return match in Worthing! ), Doug Mahy scored 5,340 and Roger Taylor hit 6,610 - so it is possible to score reasonably well there!
All they need is some encouragement and maybe some constructive advice / criticism from people who know more about table preparation to help them. ____________________________________________________ Mama Hall « Reply #19 on Dec 5, 2007, 1:16am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I can confirm that I agreed for the change of venue, when I was asked, the White Horse table was not playing well. In the past we have played the Ladies single round robin played there, which sparky spent a short time leveling the table, and the table played very well. After the match we had complaints from the White Horse team saying to leave the table alone as they like it the way it was. Considering this was after the season had finished I cannot see as this was a problem. But that Say's it all. If tables are not up to scratch I don't see why games should be played on them, as I don't think it fair to both players that whoever wins has won on luck and not skill. ____________________________________________________ (cont)
|
|
|
Post by Q on Dec 22, 2007 14:50:15 GMT
Moved from 'Mens singles' thread by Q (cont)Yes Mum i remember that, sparky did do a fantastic job on the top, had it running true, and it played like a competition top, in my eyes the way all tops should be. of course every home team wants a good home top (surely,possibly). I am not suggesting every top be the same, because its not possible, but surely there should be some sort of standard. you only have to look at averages of our mid sussex players in other leagues ie Tommo (redhill), myself (redhill, lewis, worthing) to see that the standard of our tables are terrible. ____________________________________________sparky spent a short time leveling the table, and the table played very well. After the match we had complaints from the White Horse team saying to leave the table alone as they like it the way it was...... But that Say's it all. I would imagine the comment was made by a certain individual who is in fact now banned from using the pub, and who rounded on margo one night after she was brave enough to pass comment. The other venue coming in for some stick is the St Francis, on which you can only get the break back-to-front: It has been like this for years, and in a way offers a challenge as a good player should be able to adapt to this. But what irks me the most is a slow table, and the St Francis table is doubly challenging because it doesn't seem to have seen an iron since the season before last. ______________________________________________When we played over ther at the begining of last season the table was playing fantastic, the break you could get normal way round, no reversing needed and the split was also on, i had two of my top scores on the table, 9k plus which included a 7k plus break, and a 6k score in the league, which means the table can be set to play well, but it seems to me that its not the table, its the home side making there tables as awkward as possible for a home team advantage. __________________________________________ the table can be set to play well, but it seems to me that its not the table, its the home side making there tables as awkward as possible for a home team advantage. ...either that, or a simple case of neglect ? We went there very early in the season and Shaun was away. I think it was the St Francis's first home fixture and they virtually had to blow the dust and cobwebs off it. I think it had been moved up against a wall for the summer. As I said, hadn't seen an iron for ages. _____________________________________________I would imagine the comment was made by a certain individual who is in fact now banned from using the pub, and who rounded on margo one night after she was brave enough to pass comment. No, it wasn't the player who only plays away matches. It was one of their star players, who is currently mainly working abroad, but (sadly for me recently) still plays sometimes if he's back in the country. I tend to agree with you tommo, it is more a case of neglect rather than deliberate sabotage with most of these tables. :( ________________________________________I agree that it is neglect, as Kev states you only have to look at the players averages to see we do not have the tables that other leagues have. So come on team captains PLEASE try and get your tables up to scratch. Everyone would benefit from it. _______________________________________However, I will request clarification of this at the next committee meeting as I feel that the whole point of having a draw with neutral venues is to make it equal for ALL players. Just to put the matter straight in this regard John tells me that it was the first time either player had played on the 'new' Sportsman venue/top and was therefore as neutral as you can get. Meanwhile John looks in on the forum from time to time and has told me that he is upset at the way this discussion has been brought about as he has done everything correctly. _____________________________________Meanwhile John looks in on the forum from time to time and has told me that he is upset at the way this discussion has been brought about as he has done everything correctly. Well I am upset too and sorry to have been unwittingly the cause of this furore :( ________________________________________Well I am upset too and sorry to have been unwittingly the cause of this furore :( I do not think you have done anything wrong Ros :) I think that John has read Dave's original post Why was the venue changed to Sportsman for Barry v John? as being critical, or something similar, as Dave gave no indication for the reason for this abrupt post, although he has subsequently done so and is an example of how two people can read the same words with different interpretations of the underlying purpose. _____________________________________The words 'teacup' and 'storm in a' come to mind here. 1. The rules provision for a change of venue in certain circumstances. 2. The change was sanctioned by the Competitions Secretary. That's good enough for me. No further discussions necessary. ___________________________________Firstly, if my initial (or subsequent!) messages have caused offence, I apologise unreservedly. I will certainly apologise to John & Barry next time I see them, it was NOT my intention to be critical of either of them! :-( The reason for my initial question was to confirm that the venue had been changed because of the table at the White Horse and had every confidence that this would have been sanctioned properly by the Competitions Secretary prior to the change being made. However, from the number of responses both here and in another section on the Forum about Table Conditions, indicate that there is a wide spread belief from many experienced players in our League that the quality of many of our tables are not up to standard. I believe that this issue should be discussed at the next Committee Meeting, although how we can improve the conditions and then monitor them remains the question. _____________________________________it was my intention to be critical of either of them! :-( I think you missed out a VERY important NOT ;D _____________________________________A thought has just occured to me : We never used to have any of the aggro we've had so far this season in Mid Sussex (Complaints about unregistered players, complaints about A/B Rankings, postponed games, players playing on different venues to that drawn, playing etiquette, and complaints about quality of tables in general)......... ..............UNTIL Q LEFT !!!!!!! ;D So it's all your fault, Q. ;) Come back, all is forgiven. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ___________________________________Firstly, if my initial (or subsequent!) messages have caused offence, I apologise unreservedly. I will certainly apologise to John & Barry next time I see them, it was NOT my intention to be critical of either of them! :-( The reason for my initial question was to confirm that the venue had been changed because of the table at the White Horse and had every confidence that this would have been sanctioned properly by the Competitions Secretary prior to the change being made. However, from the number of responses both here and in another section on the Forum about Table Conditions, indicate that there is a wide spread belief from many experienced players in our League that the quality of many of our tables are not up to standard. I believe that this issue should be discussed at the next Committee Meeting, although how we can improve the conditions and then monitor them remains the question. Yes this has been discussed at committee level already and the general feeling is one of the same, a point raised by me when I started the Table Conditions Thread. I don't believe that there is any deliberate attempts by any team to sabotage their own table, and I also agree that most of this is just simple neglect coupled with a simple lack of time to do so, not withstanding the fact that some people just don't know what they are doing. For my own part the Brewers Table is no different, with 4 teams playing of it, and it being in the main bar its, surprisingly, heavily played by the general public, its near impossible to keep it playing true. It has been suggested that a scoring system for the tables be adopted as is used in other leagues such as Horsham, where by the away team 'scores' the table standard on a sliding scale of 1-5, 5 being perfect, 1 being firewood. I intend to propose to the committee at the next AGM that we adopt a similar system but expanding the scale from 1-5 to 1-10, coupled with the average scores this will give a better reflection of the way a table is playing. We could also involve a table of the year trophy and as a committee offer help, advice and assistance to the tables that are not playing well. I believe that penalizing teams for consistently poor tables might help but is ultimately detrimental to the league. I think as a whole we would rather improve tables and therefore our own playing. The glass half full approach. Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated. __________________________________Having administered the Horsham system of rating the table for the last 3 seasons I can give you the benefit of my experience. 1. It has to be anonymous so that the away Captain/team can rate the table without the pressure of the home team eagerly awaiting the mark, or the fear of giving a bad score, which will mean that you have to have 2 score cards per match resulting in more work for the secretary. 2. I found that some people refuse point blank to award a mark at all so you end up with 1 team having 10 marks & the next team having 7 marks etc so you have to compile it all & come up with an average. 3. Initially it was intended that if a table got consistent bad marks then they would be asked to get it sorted this isn't always as easy as it sounds. 4. I do like the idea of giving the score out of 10 instead of 5 as it gives more scope as where do you go once you have awarded a table 5. 5. we award a table of the year trophy for both divisions this has been worked out on the table rating but it is fairer to use the average away scores for each table. _____________________________________IMHO it might benefit Mid Sussex to adopt the same approach and award Table of the Year. All it needs is a benefactor to sponsor a perpetual trophy in the form of a wooden shield, and then the committee just add onto the annual trophy bill the cost of a small gilt plaque to go on the winning table. I note that the first recipients in Horsham were the Roffey SSC (in 1988/9). Other winners have been the Eight Bells,Cranleigh RBL,Windmill Crawley, Crown Dial Post, Rising Sun (3 years running) and the Crawley Club. I think I spotted one on the Old Oak the other night, so Redhill must do it as well. ____________________________________End of copy, originals will now be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Dec 22, 2007 17:54:15 GMT
Faulty logic there Sparky. The first half of your list you've quoted players who primarily play Brighton league and only indulge in Horsham for a bit of fun. I deliberately mentioned Micky Fairs as being an exception. The latter half of the list I consider would perform averagely (is that a word ?) in the Mid Sussex League. Many of them I know well, former team mates of mine. What I will concede is that the Horsham League is top-heavy and Mid Sussex has a more even spread of abilities. Mmmm don't see how my logic is faulty as all the players are long time Horsham players, except 2 who come from the Brighton League - Richard Wootton who now lives within walking distance & Chris Reeves who is the only recognised Reserve I have quoted. I also do not know where you got the idea of them playing Horsham for a bit of fun as that is not how it appears when playing them and will recount one incident where, without wishing the identify the 'Horsham' player, one of them very recently walked out of the venue without scoring and, that was after winning a game, we received profuse apologises from his team mates and I was asked to score a game so that he would be obliged to score when they come to our venue for the return game. You must be thinking of different players to ones I see as they would all be top ranking players and raise the averages in Mid-Sussex, please remember that the only player to score 10k so far this season is from Horsham. With your ability and experience you can raise your game and compete with such players but you are one of only a few players even capable of doing so within Mid-Sussex. However table quality is the one area that we could affect to improve the standard, averages, and therefore confidence of our existing players but finding out how to achieve that is a real headache.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2007 23:04:03 GMT
Well I suppose there's no arguing with the hard cold facts that, from the stats on the "10k club" provided by Ian, 25 x 10k scores on Horsham tops as opposed to our measly 1 would suggest that Horsham is a stronger standard at the top than Mid Sussex.
But I re-iterate that (Micky Fairs apart) it is down to Brighton Interleague players choosing to play in Horsham on a user-friendly home table. Messrs Reeves, Lloyd and Wooton are 7th, 9th and 11th in the National rankings and are all England Internationals.
And that's where the strength ends and Mid Sussex has the depth. (Micky Fairs apart) Horsham have only one other player, Ricky Dewdney (again a Brighton interleague player) in the top 216 of the recently-updated National Rankings list - whereas Mid Sussex have TEN players (nine if you discount a certain Mr Lar-wence ;D ) Ha ! you might think, but I would assert that it is jolly difficult to get on the first rung of the National Rankings list: These players have earned their spurs by competing in Opens and their performances on the national stage are both consistent and current.
I admit that players with a past International pedigree like John Slee and Peter Gibbs are also still good and difficult to beat, but they are off the national radar at the moment and could be seen as being in semi-retirement. I'd love to see them make a comeback and raise a few eyebrows at Opens.
I can see why you as Chairman would want to talk Horsham (with its glorious past) back up, but its foundations are built on sand compared with Mid Sussex which I consider to be rock solid.
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Dec 23, 2007 11:33:26 GMT
Richard Wootton (ex Mid Sussex from long ago) and Chris Reeves (Reserve) are Brighton players who choose to play Horsham the others are Horsham players who choose to play elsewhere too.
Why have you included Mssr Senior ? as the only Senior I know playing in Horsham is a new player, Matt, from Southwater SC 'B' team.
I disagree with your premise that players on the national ranking are better than those not included as it is simply a matter of whether a player chooses to enter open competitions.
I respect your right to have opinions about things but sometimes you appear to deliberately aggravate discussions and in this instance you have infuriated me with your comment suggesting that my contributions have been influenced by my position as Chairman of Horsham, you obviously do not know me very well as I always try to be impartial and balanced, so my response would also be predictable in the situation when I feel insulted.
Not for the first time I am withdrawing from further comment because of my position as senior Moderator.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2007 12:58:59 GMT
Post now edited to exclude Nigel (Freudian slip, sorry for that !)
And my post was prompted because I was similarly infuriated with the rather pointless comparison of players which you started.
I found it insulting - and I'm sure other players in the Mid Sussex league such as Andy Farmer-Wright, Shaun Morris, Trevor Rees and Graham Daniels would too - for Mid Sussex players to be compared with a random sample of names from Horsham, with the implication that we would not be worthy to chalk their cues !
We all seem to be moving in the same direction towards having an improvement in the standard of tables, so why must we bring individuals into it ? The only radical suggestion I have made is that the two Leagues are different - one, Mid Sussex, with a more constant level of ability throughout, and the other, Horsham, with a wide chasm between top and bottom as it is bolstered by England Internationals. And vive la difference ! Wouldn't life be boring if everything was the same ?
Can we keep this thread dedicated to the subject of table conditions from now on, as Bernie has taken the trouble to do the sorting out and transfers of threads which we requested ?
A Merry Christmas, by the way. ;)
|
|
|
Post by iang on Dec 23, 2007 15:35:17 GMT
This was never about Horsham V Mid Sussex. Yes of course there are differences the same as there are differences between Brighton & Worthing. But as an important member of Horsham for many years & a L.V.P I find it baffling to read your comment
"but it's foundations are built on sand compared to Mid Sussex"
As you know Horsham is coming up to it's Diamond Jubilee & has very solid foundations & hopefully a good future. I do not wish to become involved in a long drawn out discussion on this either & agree that this should remain focused on the condition of Mid Sussex Tables a league that I take great pride & pleasure in playing in & being a part of. So lets all pull in the same direction. To end I wish you all a very merry Christmas. :D :D Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2007 19:11:28 GMT
Okay it sounded bad. But I love Horsham League and my comment was a clumsy way of expressing concern that it doesn't go the way of, say, Andover or Canterbury - although it is healthy at the moment, great scores on one or two tables being something indeed to celebrate.
It is in far better hands now than it was when I retired from being Secretary in 1992. Those who I handed over to then, who I thought could be trusted to keep things going at the same level of activity, systematically reduced operations, discontinuing in turn the Festival Cup, King & Barnes Open Doubles, and Charity Cup. The first two in particular were good money-spinners. And of course need I mention the legacy of the missing years' engraving on the perpetuals - which all credit to you, you are picking up on now.
I do hope what might be called the present revival continues, and the League gains some benefit from its forthcoming Jubilee Celebrations. The loss of its one remaining Interleague team is a disappointment, I am sure there are some who would like to have played in the Redhill Invitation next month, but Brighton B will probably take over the slot instead.
Bar billiards in general faces a rocky future, over the future of table operators and table hire for tournaments. I'm sure that as the smoking ban kicks in, fewer pubs will be able to stay in business without converting to restaurants. And the price of petrol and beer goes up by the week. We'll soon be seeing the four-pound pint. I can see even myself giving the game up then as I try to exist on a pension. I hope the foundations of the leagues do prove to be durable.
Agree, we should be using this thread only to discuss table conditions. Damn ! You and I did this very thing before, so may expect a further admonishment from Sparky for "throwing toys out of the pram" :o :o :o And then poor old Q will have more movements to do - perhaps transferring our last couple to a new thread marked "Futile discussions on relative strengths of leagues and players". ;)
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Dec 23, 2007 21:38:37 GMT
Bar billiards in general faces a rocky future, over the future of table operators Strange you should say that Clive, Bar Billiards Ltd are sending out letters again, nice Xmas present for at least one team in our league. It cost us a site last time around. Sav. (Watching the pot boil ;D)
|
|