Will the rules kill off interleague?

[Ros]

Two years ago Q tried to put through two rule changes at the Sussex AGM.

One was to change the way interleague matches are scored to one point for each game won and an additional point for winning the match.

We have just learnt that Horsham have withdrawn from interleague competitions because they cannot guarantee 7 players every game and going out with 5 will give an unfair advantage to that opposing team and skew the results too much.

If the alternative way of scoring were adopted, there would be far less impact on having to go out "short" on the odd match and far more incentive for that team to salvage what points they could.

But then we also have to examine why a big league with good players like Horsham cannot find 7 players?

Here I have to quote tommo in his post in interleague week 3:

Yes it's unfortunate that the rules allow for it to be decided for you beforehand by your captain that you're not going to have a single go, and Jukesy (himself capable of 20k) suffered the same fate in the last game.

Time to return to the fairer way of a pre-match draw of players names out of a hat, to give more credence to the averages ?

I don't suppose tommo's captain enjoyed having to make that choice either.

This is such a disincentive to anyone to start playing interleague, nobody enjoys playing cannon fodder, but most people would accept it more readily if it were down to chance whether they got the break or not, and which player they were up against.

This was Q's other proposed rule change, it was lost on the chairman's casting vote :(
As a result, Q resigned as Mid-Sussex B captain as he no longer wished to have to make those decisions every match.

The "top players" apparently don't like the idea - but perhaps with the loss of Horsham they might reconsider?

[Richard]

There is nothing wrong withthe current rules.

There is no guarantee that certain players will go off with enough each time.

If you were to draw it out at the beginning you dont even need a captain, it is part of the game picking the players for the right leg.

I am sure tommo and geoff will do the same to us at there place to use our game as an example.

Interleague is for the top players in each league to play against each other and not one of them should mind being "cannon fodder" every so often.

I would rather someone kicked off with enough against me than to lose by a few hundred at least I would know i did not have a chance.

It is really important to note that interleague is for the top players and therefore you should expect not to have a competetive shot in some games. Even if you dd draw it out it would still happen.

Interleague is not about all having a fair go it is about winning for your league, yes of course you need to enjoy it but you should not be playing interleague unless you are prepared to get beat without getting a shot.

Horsham pulling out is a real shame, however John is completely right to pull out, turning up with 5 players one week and 7 the next is not fair on the other teams, imagine if there were two games left and the two games horsham had left were against teams 1 & 2 in the league table, if they only had 5 for one game and 7 for the other, the chances in the team playing against them when they only have 5 five winning is much higher than the other team beating them when they have 7, which could therefore effect who finishes top of the table at the end. ( hope that makes sense ) :)

No rule change would affect this and I think John has made the correct decision even though it has upset him to do it as he really did try to get a team together.

[davejones]

charlady said:

This is such a disincentive to anyone to start playing interleague, nobody enjoys playing cannon fodder, but most people would accept it more readily if it were down to chance whether they got the break or not, and which player they were up against.

Worthing D have 4 new players this season. Adam Squires playing is his third season in bar billiards and first inter league season undefeated so far in inter league.
Chris Cox first inter league season still to find his feet but will.
Helen Brewster first picked up a cue in the summer played 1 inter league match and won and Andy Cleveland playing the same amount of time as Helen.

You don't need to be 20k+ players to play our game as long as you enjoy the experience and are willing to learn from it.

[NigelS]

Ros, as you know I argued the case against Q's rule changes 2 years ago and i feel no differently now then I did then.

Horsham have sadly had to drop out due to lack of interest. This would have happened regardless of what the rules are - it is a huge shame that a league with such a proud history cannot field 7 players. Lets hope this changes next year and we see them back.

I think it is a bit misleading to say that Tommo's captain 'chose' that he wasn't going getting to get a shot. You make it sound like members of my team never miss! If only that were the case! We all miss and offer chances to the opposition more often than we kick off with a big score. Indeed last weekend only 2 of the 7 games were killed in one visit, and I would say that is about normal for a top inter league game. So anyone playing in the top division has to accept that they will get a couple of games a year when they don't get a chance, but if you can't accept that then you really should not play at that level. Remember interleague is supposed to be for the very best in each league, it is not for beginners to learn and play the game - that should be done at local level.

Having said that with the B and C sides making up most of the other divisions, everyone who really wants to play interleague now can. But you can't seriously tell me that anyone who plays in these lower divisions can become 'cannon fodder' because the leagues are just not strong enough. even if you were against the break 10 times in division 2, I would be surprised if you would have more than 2 match winning breaks put past you from the opening break.

Would it be fairer if we draw it out of a hat? Yes the averages may have a little more credence, as Tommo puts it, but playing for a team is not about averages, it is about winning matches. You don't change the rules for the sake of the averages. More importantly to me, if we draw out of a hat we would lose any influence the captain has over a match which i think would be a real shame. For example, I captain my Worthing league team, and we have won 6 out of 6 matches and i feel that my captaincy has had an influence. Yes I have 2 weaker players who do tend to get the tough matches, but also they sometimes get the 'easier' ones depending on the match situation. But we have worked together and won every match so far and I would like to think the whole team is happy that team is winning primarily regardless of individual performances.

And point per leg? You lose all the tension from close matches. Winner takes all has to be the best way. Tupps won the decider aginst Worthing at 3-3, it was a big game and exciting to watch (as Tupps usually does put us through it). Had the game been for just one more point it would not have nearly been as tense. Also teams would have to put their best players out all the time, and reserves would not get a look in.

Sorry if it sound like I am poo-pooing your ideas, Ros, I do see your point. But the inter league rules are fine as they are, the idea is for lesser players to try and become better players and move through the teams till they play in their leagues A side. the demise of Horsham is just another case of another league struggling for players and teams and hopefully Horsham can do something within their league. It is not beause of a problem with the inter league rules or structure and any changes really wouldn't help Horsham or any other league to make a comeback.

[JB]

OOPS I was that deciding vote but i 100% still stand by that decision.

If your playing in the top division in interleague you have to expect to play against players who are going to go off with enough to win the game and to play the table out. There are only a handfull of players that can do this regularly.

Surely a captain is there to play his/her team to their strengths. Doesnt this happen in most sports?

If names were drawn out all your doing is favouring teams that have 7 good players. Not every league can find 7 great players who are keen enough to turn out each match. If you have 4 or 5 good players and 2 or 3 weaker ones then the Captain is there to try to win the match by playing their team correctly after all winning the match is what every team is trying to do. If the names were drawn and they came out wrong for that team they would almost know that without a lot of luck the match is lost before its even started. Cup games in Worthing we find really hard because they are drawn and with completely different standards of players if the draw doesnt come out right for us we dont stand a hope of winning.

If you award a point a game again you are favouring teams that have strength in depth. You also would have to play your strongest players all the time and any reserves wouldnt get a game.

Cannon fodder! Unfortunately weve all been there and you have to accept thats its all part of learning the game. Interleague is not the place to play if your unhappy about playing and being thrown against the top players.

Perhaps Sussex made the mistake of introducing B C & D teams to the interleague to try to give more players the chance to play. If it was only A teams then you should have the best from each town and they would know what to expect and the rest of us wouldnt be playing.

Keep Captains as Captains. Someone who organises the matches and then play their players in the order they need to to try and win the match.

Personally i think too much emphasis is put on averages and ranking points at the end of the day who cares apart from the player who topped them. Its more important to win your game whether its with 2000 or 20000.


Rant over ::)

Much rhetoric in support of existing rules.

But there's no getting away from the fact that it's not a level playing field.

No other county does it this way, Oxon were shocked when they knew that the captain plays 'God' and decides who goes on when, against whom, and whether or not they have the break.

I look at the Interleague averages at the end of the season and see Barry Holt or Phil Oakley at the top - fine players, yes - but then there's a little column that reveals that they had the break every time. You know this, and Phil is probably excluded from consideration for the County 'A' side for that very reason.

Geoff Jukes and myself suffered by our captain persevering with a younger player to build his confidence by giving him the break, but such considerations should not come into it, neither Geoff nor myself would complain if it had been a random draw at the start and we had been against the break - you accept that.

It's the third time now that it's happened to me, captain drawing me against the break and me not getting a go - Steve Mariner, KT last year, and now FeedtheGoat. Doesn't do much for my confidence. You lot don't want to change the rules as to keep it thus diminishes your chances of getting a good hiding from the likes of me. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[JB]

I cant understand the level playing field bit really.

Surely the only way to do this would be to have one table that all teams played on. Tables can make a big difference when it comes to averages. You would have to play best of two games so you each got the break. Probably have to start Sunday afternoon.

Also if you think a point a game should be awarded can someone please explain how this is a better system.
How can team A who perhaps win every match 4-3 lose the league to a team who were lucky enough to have 7 strong players and have a couple of 6-1 or 7-0 but lose a match on the way to team A.

Tommo
Would like to know how this young player did. If he won his games perhaps your Captain made the right decision. If he lost then thats the wrong decision. Interleague is not the place to learn the game this should be done in your local league.

If names were drawn out and Phil or Barry were lucky to be drawn with the break each time and another player against would you think that the averages were any fairer. Averages are never going to reflect the true situation so why dont we forget them after all we all know who the top players are.

It used to be that if you were chosen to play inter-league you felt it was an achievment and were proud to be asked. Now it almost seems a case of who wants to play. Perhaps its the lack of enthusiasm from individual players thinking its a chore to play on a Sunday rather than the rules that are going to kill inter-league. We have already had a game postponed beacuse a team couldnt get enough players and they were playing at home.

[NigelS]

I think you know we will never agree on this one Tommo. ;)

It is not that I don’t see your point, I do, but on balance I prefer the system as it is. I think we have to be careful on how important we consider the averages to be. Don’t forget there is no trophy handed out for topping the averages at the end of the day, it is the team that gets the trophy for topping the league. I have always maintained that, although it is of course nice to come top as an individual, it really means nothing because some people get a large percentage of breaks compared to others. Yes, the list is used to help pick the Sussex team, but it is used as a guide rather than gospel because as you say we would have had to pick Phil Oakley this year for the A side. The one day interleague stats are much fairer to compare players, and performances in opens, Sussex singles etc are also used.

I don’t think it has to be a level playing field for the players, it has to be a level playing field for the teams. The bottom line is that each team plays each other twice, once home once away, and each time you are away you nominate second. Each team gets the same amount of breaks per season. What breaks the individuals get in those teams is not really relevant.

Despite Horsham’s demise, I do think inter league is still going strong, and any change in the rules will not ma ke any difference with regards to getting more or less players to play.

Several points here, Jean.

1. The level playing field.
There’s no escaping the fact that it can’t be morally right for the Captains to have such power as to hand out 3 or 4 “precious rods” (use it well, Grasshopper !”) and 3 or 4 "shitty sticks" at the start of the match.

When we visit Tunbridge Wells in the new year we know there will be three huge scores from the home side (and hopefully four away) because the Imperial is such an easy table.

Last year it was Horsham 3 Redhill 4 on the easy Roffey table: All games went with the break, three huge Horsham scores, four from Redhill. Good for us, but it was so predictable and quite frankly the most boring match I’ve ever witnessed.

My point is that the top players should be good enough not to expect to be cocooned in the comfort zone of being allowed the break whenever they want it: it could be argued that their results are being artificially exaggerated because of this.

You say that averages are not important, but I do not need to remind you that Sussex have their own system of ranking points which go towards qualification for the Masters competition, and the Interleague competitions provide the lion's share of the points for this - from both wins and fractions of RPs earned from each 3k in score above 5k. I managed to scrape in at the lower end of the Masters last year, but it was more from my exploits in the OneDay Interleague - which IS on a 'level playing field' as everyone taking part has equal number of first breaks.

2. The only way to do this........
Your analogy of double-games and start in the afternoon is a good one and very amusing. But there are other options which may not have been considered, like allowing even breaks all the way through, or - shock horror - all 7 away breaks.

All that we proposed two years ago was a much gentler option: namely, a return to the random draw - we have not asked for anyone to be bound or gagged or handicapped. Okay, it's then less onus on the captains and some captains (usually of the best teams) revel in the responsibility but others do not. I certainly wouldn't like to be saddled with the burden of 'favouritism'.

3. Blooding a new player.
Okay he's not that new, he started with us last year and did okay, about 50/50. But our captain feels bound to give him the break each time to keep his confidence going. Jukesey's game was sacrificed on Sunday with that in mind and we finished up losing both the last two games so that was down to the captain and in retrospect could be said was the wrong decision.

Finally,
4. A point-a-game system vs two points for team winning system.
There are points for and against either system and it's a question of what suits the competition better. Personally, I favour the 2pts for a won match system as it is after all a team event.
But we used to have this argument all the time in local leagues, and at one stage in Horsham and Billingshurst it went back and forth like a yo-yo at each AGM. The main argument against a point-a-frame was that it took all the excitement away from a 2-all situation with the match in the balance.
A compromise solution was eventually found : a point a game PLUS a bonus point for whichever team won the match (we use this in Mid Sussex). It combines the best of both systems. Think about it.... the end (Total Points) column is arrived at by adding both columns together of matches won and frames won. It's perfect - but far too fair for Interleague !

I echo the sentiment of your last paragraph, by the way, Jean, and agree that the problem is too deep-rooted to be cured by a simple change of rules.


PS I didn't read your latest before compiling this, Nigel, and I know that you are with Jean on this one. All your points are fair comment, but I stand by all of mine as well ! ;D

[JB]

Wouldnt it be fun if when Man U played Liverpool the players were drawn out to decide which position they played in. Although Liverpool might have an advantage if Peter Crouch was pulled out as goalkeeper.

Sorry just a really stupid thought occurring to me. Must be a blond moment.

Actually perhaps England should try it sometimes - it might help!! ;D ;D

[NigelS]

I think we will have to end up agreeing to disagree in the end Tommo, as there are no doubt strong cases for both arguments.

However can I get clarification on one point you make about your new player getting the break and Jukesy being ‘sacrificed’ last weekend. Surely had you gone 3-2 up DC would have put Jukesey on 6th to try and win the crucial leg. I have no doubt I would have been put on 6th had we gone 3-2 down and put against the break, I would have been very surprised if you would have put Paul on then to try and take the 6th leg instead of Geoff..

At 3-2 down the only way you could really win the match was to put Paul on 6th and Geoff on 7th. I assumed it was tactical, not for the sake to build one players confidence.

I'm sure you're right about what might have happened in such a circumstance, Nigel. But I think it's a bit nasty that one player's record can be tainted by another player in the same side's ineptitude.
This is where the game gets a bit nasty. We all expected Lloydy to get 20k as well but it was just one of those nights when he seemed to be using a cue made of rubber. He was of course bailed out by Tupps in the next game but would have gone home with a very nasty feeling indeed had you lost the match because of it.
Jean - we're talking bar billiards here and not professional football. Once we start signing expensive foreign imports and putting the prices to spectate up to £60 a ticket, time for us all to give up and go home. ;)

[little legs]

Surely the captain is elected either at the AGM or by the committee and knows the responsibility they are taking on,if you are not happy with your own captain its your leagues job to get this sorted.Anyone could be captain and just names out.I captain our Lewes team and do this,see I said anyone could do it. ;D

I am with DC as our captain, after all he captained us to the title last season. But he is a nice guy and you can see him agonising over some of the tough decisions he is obliged to make.

I would have thought that Sussex might have learned its lesson last year when all three divisions were won by teams from outside its borders: Your quirky rules have been used to good effect against you ! ;D

[JB]

Sorry Tommo that last reply has just totally pi**ed me off.

I was one of the people who fought to allow Redhill and Tunbridge Wells into the interleague as long as it wasnt at the expense of local teams entering.

If you dont like our rules then i will now be quite happy at the next AGM to put forward a rule that no teams from outside Sussex should be allowed to enter.

One minute your saying our quirky rules are wrong and the next your laughing at Sussex because yourselves and Tunbridge Wells won all the divisions which meant our quirky rules suited you.

Unfortunately then quirky rules didnt suit you as you got 20000 grand put past you by your captain putting you on against the break but the quirky rules obviously suited Redhill last year as they won the league

[Chunky Monkey]

I for one don't see a problem with the rules as they are, i admit it must be hard for the captain to pick n chose who plays next. I represent Mid Sussex in inter laegue and have a tendency to be put against the break on home matches because it is my home top, and with the break on away matches. if there was 20k put past me because of it then so be it, cant be helped if the balls are running his or her way. (but watch out cause i will break your legs) ;D
The mighty D.C is a fantastic guy and am sure he makes alot of hard decisions when it comes to deciding who plays next, the same as any captain has, but i have to side with Jean its not the rules that is the problem.

All right Jean,
Calm down dear !


I do not really have too much of an axe to grind on the current rules which as you say we have reaped the benefit of, and I have only weighed in with my comments because the debate was restored: If you notice, Mid Sussex did not attempt to rock the boat at last year's AGM by re-proposing the change back, and it suits Redhill as they are anyway.

And for the record I fully expect Brighton A to right the wrong of last year and return the Home/Away interleague trophy to its rightful home.

Perhaps I should reveal that I do have a hidden agenda here, and it's on a higher plane.

In the last year or two there was much discussion on the Forum on National Rankings and what competitions should qualify to earn points for them. I have a vision that one day every player could have a ranking (and a realistic one at that !) and that counties would not need their own separate ones because it would be all in one.

The only way forward I can see which would achieve this would be to incorporate both the Inter Area Competition (which is for Cambs, Northants, Oxon, Bucks, Berks and Hants and is very competitive) and our own Interleague (which started off as just Sussex and now includes Redhill (=Surrey) and Tun Wells from Kent).

As in the chess world you could then have a rankings officer for Northern Counties, one for Southern Counties, and a combined list.

So - quite the opposite from banning Redhill and Tunny Wells - we have a chance here of restoring the Southern Counties but on a bigger and more meaningful scale. Let's not be introspective, we'll finish up with nothing if we do and the game will die.

But the rankings wouldn't work unless there was an element of standardisation across the two competitions, and I believe that Inter Area has a random draw and they have no plans to change it otherwise.

That's all really......... And just to add, rankings are of an interest not just to the top players but to aspiring players as well. You only have to read back through the various threads of discussion on here to discover that.

[doug]

As an Interleague captain I feel that I must make a contribution here. I feel very priviledged to be the Captain of Brighton 'B'. I have a strong team this season but the most important thing is that the whole team enjoys a Sunday night out playing at a venue that we would not normally enjoy. I would take issue with Tommo on a couple of points. Our Team I beleive were the only ones to win at the Imperial last season and we did it by playing well. I won the first game against the break by putting together a good score against a home player who regularly scores lots. To imagine that all games are pretty much decided before hand is unreallistic.

A point per game won is also unneccesary. If two teams are tied on points at the end of the season then it is decided on game difference anyway and as others have suggested, weaker players would not get chance to play as every point would be crucial. We lost out to eastbourne a couple of years ago after tying on points and games won. It was finally decied on aggregate score where we lost out by 2k over the whole season!!!!

I was lucky enough to be able to drop myself on Sunday night but even so I feel that I played every shot that was made by my team.

The rules are fine as they are. Every now and again we will get a good hiding on the table. I try and take the attitude that I will
try and thrash my opponent every time I play and I know that they want to do the same as me. Whoever comes out on top usually deserves to win and the apponent should be graceful in their defeat.

Doug

doug said:

I would take issue with Tommo on a couple of points. Doug

I don't find much to disagree with you on there, Doug, apart from possibly a veiled reference that I was ungracious in defeat.
Anyone there on the night would, I hope, confirm that this is not the case. I shook Reevesy warmly by the hand and bought him a drink, scoring 24k was a great achievement.

My view that the captain should not be called on to play 'God' is my own personal one and does not necessarily reflect the views of my team: Although it's the third time now that I've travelled a 50 mile round journey not to have a go that does not concern me at all, my best Interleague days were twenty-plus years ago, playing for Horsham when they were a good side, in the same heyday as when Tupper, Race etc were starting out. Competitive days, and the rules were, IMHO, somehow fairer and no arguments raged.

Your performance at Tun Wells is to be applauded, and I too have managed to win a few against the break (including one last year at Littlehampton when I played out of my skin and came back against Barry Holt from 6.8k down).

From all the captains that are speaking up now, I can only assume that you relish the responsibility and the extra edge it gives to being a captain. I have a bit of that to cope with myself in the Mid Sussex league on a Wednesday night, like for last night which 5 to pick out of 7 players all of whom had won their last game ! And for our charity league - which combination of singles and doubles to pick ? (I usually finish up giving everyone a go).

So all you captains, keep up the good work and I'll try not to rattle your cages too much in future. But please remember, this is an amateur sport and I often wonder if you all take yourselves too seriously.

[JB]

Firstly i am calm.

Secondly your right its an amateur pub sport. Because it is each league should be able to have there own rules which are approved by the members at an Agm. Each County should be able to have theres and the All England theres. Why should members of a league who have voted for their particular way of playing matches at the AGM have to conform to someone elses rules. (Amateur pub sport not a professional body running it)

(I played darts a few years ago and within Brighton there were about 10 different leagues each of whom had there own way of playing matches. Some drawn some chosen. )

As for people taking it too serious. I think serious is the wrong word. I think passionate would be a more apt name.And thank God for them. Most of these are the ones who will actually stand up at an AGM and take on a job. Most leagues are run by few people who are willing to put the time and effort into the game but for some reason seem to take the most stick. (Another reason perhaps that shows whats killing the game. No-one willing to do any work but quick to moan about those who do)

Doug. Your a great Captain and play every game and shot. You also worry about your players. When we were home to Littlehampton you asked me how pi**ed i was going to get and would i still be able to play the 7th game. (Quote of the year for me). Just shows what a thoughtful captain you are. ;) ;)

And that will be my last comment on this post. (Well maybe!)

[FeedTheGoat]

Inter-league is a team game, nothing to do with individuals (I realise this sounds strange after I ran it out for 24k, but I would try this whatever the rules were).

I can understand that it is frustrating travelling a long way not to even get a shot, but inter-league is only once every 4 weeks. I would imagine that Tommo will get a go in every other inter-league game this season even if against the break, he just so happened to play me on a night where I played well.

I think that a lot of the arguments raised would have a lot more credibility if they were in relation to local leagues.

The averages are a nice feature on the side for players to keep an eye on, but as with most sports they will never be accurate because of variables (such as breaks in bar billiards). Everyone is aware of this, and aware of who the top players are.

My first season in inter-league was difficult - I was against the break nearly every game, and I had to prove that I was good enough to earn the break games.

Regarding Tommo's comment about preferring inter-league 20 years ago.....I have learnt that the game was very different then, the standard was not what it is today, and that players hardly ever played tables out. You cannot really compare this.

I think most people will agree that Sussex inter-league is a great league that produces great matches. Don't try and fix something that ain't broke! :)

Chris

[doug]

I must apologise to you Tommo, I never intended that as a veiled
slur on your fine character. I was making a generalisation.

Sorry again.

Doug

Thanks for that last comment Doug.
I seem to have touched a raw nerve with all the captains and have now got the message now that Interleague is Sussex business, always will be, is run to the satisfaction of the majority, and we shouldn't try to change it. I can live with that.

FeedtheGoat - fair comment about the ever-improving standards, it may surprise you to know though that, regarding the One-Day Competition, I enjoy that one in this day and age, far more than ever before in the days when it was played up to the Final, and then - believe it or not - the Final was played on a completely separate day :o, usually with a total lack of atmosphere.

Jean, I do agree with your point about people complaining but no-one wanting to take jobs on at the AGM: I hope that wasn't pitched at me, though, as I have served my time on the County, being Vice-Chairman for a while under both John Turner and Peter McCallum, and was later made a Life Vice-President and have ever since tried to be active in my support of bar billiards: Whereas many others have given up the game or gone into semi-retirement, I'm still turning out to play two or three times a week as well as attending Finals Nights, AGMs and the occasional Open.