|
Post by H on Oct 24, 2008 17:04:04 GMT
To make a point about people who say its unfair to sit there and lose before you've played your first shot - that in essence is something you have to accept when you choose to play bar billiards - what has it to do with the split shot? Someone can still play out a table without once playing a split, it is simply a quick and efficient way of getting the balls back after the one up - banning it would just slightly hinder scoring, it would not stop people staying on the table, and would solve nothing!
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on Oct 24, 2008 17:49:31 GMT
People please re read the original post we're straying off the point here 8-)
|
|
|
Post by H on Oct 24, 2008 18:19:09 GMT
I was replying to a couple of the recent posts there just so you know
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 24, 2008 18:37:46 GMT
I agree with H entirely...he said it better than me...
I have just read the original post...
Our games and styles are what they are, whomever we are... we all play I hope to win, and undreneath just totally enjoy the game.... accept the good and bad times and strive to improve...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 20:29:31 GMT
Rather than straying off topic I think that H has missed the point completely here: I am not decrying the split, I love it, practice it at home (just the break down once, and split) and have a practise PB of 18710. I do not mind being at the wrong end of a thrashing - even not getting a go - when there has been a fair 'lap of the gods' draw before the game. What I think is wrong - and have been saying so for years - is that in Sussex Interleague - which awards the lion's share of points towards Masters qualification - certain players are protected/sanitised by being given the 'break' by their captains each time which gives a slightly artificial reflection on their ability. And likewise, if your captain rates you amongst the worst three in the team, you are likely never to be trusted with the break. So equal opportunity it ain't !
|
|
BFG
Distinguished Member
Posts: 591
|
Post by BFG on Oct 24, 2008 20:49:18 GMT
Just thinking outside the box...... ::)
What about if the value of the pockets were changed!!! :o
|
|
|
Post by H on Oct 24, 2008 20:59:56 GMT
Tommo. I was really responding to your post earlier. However, I completely see where you are coming from. I haven't really made my mind up whether I prefer a draw or nominate system, although both have their merits. While I understand your comments about certain players in interleague, I think the "nominate" system gives the captains a chance to have a lot more input in how the match goes, as they should. I feel, as captain of a "drawn" match, I am contributing very little other than playing my game (and of course trying to encourage the rest of my team!).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 21:09:27 GMT
Well, yes, that's an extra dimension to the game - captains' skill and man-management of the resources at his disposal. You will love the Mid Sussex's Charity League where those qualities are paramount.
But as a former Interleague captain myself, I feel that too much emphasis is put on that, it should be more of a case of a game involving the participation of 14 players on an even playing field rather than a battle of wits between two captains.
But I realise that in this day and age of dog eat dog my viewpoint is in the minority, and I would not like to be an Interleague Captain nowadays with such a burden of choice.
|
|
|
Post by H on Oct 24, 2008 21:27:52 GMT
I see both sides of the argument. Everything you have said makes perfect sense to me Clive. It's a tricky situation, and I do feel for those players who are "left out" each week, so to speak. The only real remedy, which would satisfy people who take both sides, would be to play a competition style 2-leg game. Sadly with 7-aside this is completely impractical unless everyone is happy to start at 3 in the afternoon!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 21:48:11 GMT
Well I've grown to accept the situation up to a point, as they tipped the scales back slightly for the ranking aspect by allowing extra points for say, winning away from home against the break (more than for winning at home with the break.) So you could say that you have a role developed for you and you learn to fit into that role.
But - back to topic - I think that maybe we should have a POLL on the subject matter, to settle the argument once and for all, and my bet is that most of us would be averse to changing our game away from its current endearing format.
I will now prevail on the person who started this thread to incorporate the Poll (only the initiator can do this): Over to you, Colemanator. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on Oct 24, 2008 23:05:38 GMT
Thanks my mate Clive, why should one person have an ADVANTAGE, that's not a SPORT, and that's why WE are not a sport, I advocate that getting to the 'break position' should be earnt, triangle behind the 100 hole with the red the ball behind the hole............. need i go on 8-)
This game NEEDS to be made fairer to those that play and to gain more interest (that means TV) for it to survive, I regard MY rules as being THE thing that NEEDS to happen WITHOUT any COMPRIMISE, can any league bite the bullet and trial it in a summer league situation?????????????
|
|
|
Post by H on Oct 24, 2008 23:31:49 GMT
Well Colemanator I respect your mettle for standing up and saying that. Perhaps you are right. Will be interesting to see what people think on this matter...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 9:32:47 GMT
Wow, Colemanator's views are stronger than I thought, and it seems we are not ready for a poll yet as the matter has not been sufficiently discussed .........
Okay, let's assume the game has reached the point where it is so simple for the best players who have a complete mastery, that a slight tweak of rules is absolutely necessary:
Remember that when the leagues started back in the 1940s/50s players were allowed to break as many times as they liked in succession, and then the "three times only" rule was introduced as players were getting scores of 20k ! It could be argued that we have reached that point again !
So what would we advocate (individually) ?
Colemanator suggests each player should 'earn' the break back from a starting position similar to the concept of 'Triangles'.
Me personally ? I say we should bite the bullet and adopt C.I. Rules, ie. play all games off-the-spot. Pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on Oct 25, 2008 9:43:36 GMT
Wow, Colemanator's views are stronger than I thought, I'd just got in from a night out 8-)
|
|
|
Post by milko on Oct 25, 2008 14:44:25 GMT
Me personally ? I say we should bite the bullet and adopt C.I. Rules, ie. play all games off-the-spot. Pure and simple. I totally agree Clive, It's about time we changed to playing "Off The Spot", I know it still doesn't make it equal for both players, but their is more chance for the player with the break to get into trouble and lose his break or come off, giving the 2nd player a chance to win, especially if he/she decides to use the split shot. It also makes for a more interesting game, having to use more side on a ball and more cushion shots. I also don't like the idea of Captains being able to put their players where they want in the draw, as it is very unfair for those players who hardly ever get the break. I like the random draw where you may or may not have the break depending on the draw, as long as you watch out for cheating when the opposing Captains have the cards in their hands, I've seen it done by one or two. So that's one proposal for the A.G.M in December, two if Ian puts his forward. Keith (a splitter and Off The Spot World Record holder, with a competitive break of 25,950)......I'm such a BIG HEAD :D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 14:48:43 GMT
Wow, Colemanator's views are stronger than I thought, and it seems we are not ready for a poll yet as the matter has not been sufficiently discussed ......... Okay, let's assume the game has reached the point where it is so simple for the best players who have a complete mastery, that a slight tweak of rules is absolutely necessary: Remember that when the leagues started back in the 1940s/50s players were allowed to break as many times as they liked in succession, and then the "three times only" rule was introduced as players were getting scores of 20k ! It could be argued that we have reached that point again !So what would we advocate (individually) ? Colemanator suggests each player should 'earn' the break back from a starting position similar to the concept of 'Triangles'. Me personally ? I say we should bite the bullet and adopt C.I. Rules, ie. play all games off-the-spot. Pure and simple. Hi Tommo, The bigger picture is this: How many people in the league will ever stuff you to the point that when you got on you lost? I can bet the answer is 2-3 a season out of 20ish games. How many people in the world apart from the top 30 can play off the spot well? I bet that this would actually help the top players beat the lesser players as they have experience with Off the Spot. Look at the player statistics in your league and actually single out how many get a constant 7K or above, you will find it's probably varied over the country, however in most league you might have 10 out of 100. Can't people see that these "Rule Changes" and moans are aimed at roughly 10% (if That) of the Bar Billiard community. How do top players feel when the losers keep banging on about changing rules to make it fairer? It's almost like they worked soo hard to get their only for people to knock them down again. Seriously it's a sad state this!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 15:35:14 GMT
Well Johnny,
You've homed in like a rocket on an innocent suggestion of mine which was said in good heart as a sort of compromise. :o
The suggestion was only on the basis of "What if ?..........we were forced to make some sort of change." ::)
Do you always see everything in black and white only ? ;D
I'm quite happy with the playing rules exactly as they are, in case I have failed to get that message across.
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on Oct 25, 2008 15:48:16 GMT
I'm quite happy with the playing rules exactly as they are, in case I have failed to get that message across. If Sky tv said 'if you change the rules to this to make it fairer we'll show some tournaments' the AEBBA would say 'sorry no thanks'? No i don't think so either, lets face it the rules may never change,BUT, it would be interesting to adopt, as an experiment what I suggested and see just what people thought? 8-)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 15:59:12 GMT
Well Johnny, You've homed in like a rocket on an innocent suggestion of mine which was said in good heart as a sort of compromise. :o The suggestion was only on the basis of "What if ?..........we were forced to make some sort of change." ::) Do you always see everything in black and white only ? ;D I'm quite happy with the playing rules exactly as they are, in case I have failed to get that message across. ;) Tommo I do apoligise if I have come across too strong. I wasn't attacking your idea, just thought this statement had to be said. Johnny 8-) ;)
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 25, 2008 16:06:22 GMT
Interesting discussion this, it is ok to change the rules if the game has become too easy, but not ok to change the rules to level up the playing field. Alternative rules, whilst a fun event once a year, relies too much on luck, despite generally a top player usally winning through.
I love playing off the spot tournaments, but would think it a shame to have all tournamnets, league matches played this way. There is a real art to using the D effectively, and you can often see someone missing not because they played a bad shot as such, but because they had placed it in the wrong place on the D in the first place. But there is a real place for one off the spot open, played on our tables - would Surrey be interested in doing this as it is their first open? would we then get more/less interested?
The other thing to consider is that the game is a lot harder to learn off the spot, would this discourage new players learning the game.
I don't think the game has become to easy, in opens we have best of 2 legs anyway which gives players an equal chance anyway. In league games, yes each individual legs can be unfair if someone kicks off with a big score, but the difference is that it is a team game, where the individual matters less, so if you have sat there and not got a go then you still have done your bit for the team.
There is a bit of a myth here Tommo in that all the good players get all the breaks all the time, I play a lot of games against the break when my team needs me to, and also there is a bit of pressure when you get the break, but you must win with it or the team does not win.
The only way I can see it being fairer for league games is that you split each game into two equal time segments, and give each player an equal break. Putting the balls in a triangle at the back just makes it a bit of a lottery as to who gets the balls back first. We have all played a game where we clear the balls but leave one up only to see our opponent get them back after all your hard work.
I am not sure a rule change is needed, the good players will always be good players and if the game has become too easy we would see everyone knocking in 20k scores every game. Looking at scores across the league this is simply not the case. It is important though as I stated at the start of this thread not to change the rules just to give more players a chance of winning things. As in any game/sport the only way to improve is to practice and play and watch better players
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 16:36:48 GMT
I can't see anything to disagree with what Nigel has said there, and he has even come up with a good answer to Colemanator's suggestion of an essential compromise rule change to adapt the game to TV.
Imagine a game on TV where one player played the table out and the other didn't get a go: people would be complaining and writing up to Points of View, there would be a public outcry.
So the answer is as Nigel says, two segments of equal time, no more than a timed 10 mins for the first player.
(Note this suggestion for TV coverage only, before Johnny gets hot under the collar. ;)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 16:47:28 GMT
I can't see anything to disagree with what Nigel has said there, and he has even come up with a good answer to Colemanator's suggestion of an essential compromise rule change to adapt the game to TV. Imagine a game on TV where one player played the table out and the other didn't get a go: people would be complaining and writing up to Points of View, there would be a public outcry. So the answer is as Nigel says, two segments of equal time, no more than a timed 10 mins for the first player. ( Note this suggestion for TV coverage only, before Johnny gets hot under the collar. ;) Nigel fully agree, you have hit the nail on the head. Tommo - The game isn't on TV in the first place and probably never will in the future. PoV is a far cry from keeping 10 league teams in a county. It sounds like you are trying to fix a problem that isn't their. I'm not hot under the collar, went past that ages ago ;D ;D ;D ;)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 17:03:31 GMT
Tommo - The game isn't on TV in the first place and probably never will in the future. PoV is a far cry from keeping 10 league teams in a county. It sounds like you are trying to fix a problem that isn't their. Maybe not a problem, but the Colemanator sees it as such. The game HAS been on TV :P 30 years ago, I have the DVD, and Chris Toner is featured in it. And it was also on Channel Islands TV last year. And there's no reason why it couldn't be in the future if the quest for new sports to cover continues. Sports go in and out of vogue - for instance I used to enjoy watching Crown Green Bowls, which had its own set of 'superstars' - but we don't seem to see much of it nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by H on Oct 25, 2008 17:05:45 GMT
Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break Break One-up Split Break Break One-up Touch Up!
There's a 20k break right there. How does it compare to a 147 in snooker and what makes that more tv-friendly? I think variety is the key, thing is, its not going to happen. The size of a bar billiards table and the layout does not allow a huge amount of variety when break building, even when you don't play the split...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 17:25:44 GMT
Well, as we're still speculating on TV coverage, I am optimistic that bar billiards, with the right approach, could be made attractive to the viewer - more so than snooker.
What has been described so far is purely the mechanics of getting up to a big score, with or without use of the split. But another thing to consider is that at the very top level, you've not only got to get all the shots in, but you've got to do it quicker than your opponent.
So imagine a game on TV where, say, Sheardo has run up 14k in 10 minutes, and Phil Collins or Leon or someone is going hell-for-leather trying to catch it. Doesn't that sound as if it could be exciting ?
Unfortunately on Indoor League all those years ago there was the 'wrong' sort of coverage - timed break of a couple of minutes or something ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on Oct 25, 2008 18:19:01 GMT
LOL The standard of play on indoor league was poor, even Johnny would've won a game ;)
Re Tv we would need names for shots so that people could relate to them, Also, There's a massive skittles interest in this region with dozens of teams, but I've never seen it on the telly ???
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 18:32:30 GMT
Yeah, Northants have got their skittles, shmittles............... What about Crawley and its noble and mighty sport of MARBLES, World Championships staged each Easter at the Greyhound Pub. Even has TV coverage: www.blinkx.com/video/world-marble-championships/WCL4NsMwtwfIjRicSWnbVg ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Note - apologies if this link doesn't work like it should, it's a bit erratic, sometimes an advert cuts in.
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on Oct 25, 2008 18:41:22 GMT
We have the conker worlds as well ;D they turn up in their farsunds to watch and participate, in a poky little place like Ashton.
Who was the last person to try and get this game on the telly seriously?
I tried with the snooker worlds to nil response, shall we try a bit harder?
tell them we are willing to change the game / rules to suit a TV audience. 8-)
What we need is to be told what WE NEED to do to make it better to an outsider by an outsider.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 18:45:37 GMT
Okay, you've got the motivation - and you've got the motive/incentive.
Northants plan another Eight Counties Tour. Get a film crew to follow you around and make a documentary.
|
|
|
Post by H on Oct 25, 2008 19:03:00 GMT
Yeah, Northants have got their skittles, shmittles............... Ah Northamptonshire skittles...takes me back to my childhood (family is from Northampton originally!)
|
|