|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 19, 2013 9:02:25 GMT
I had not planned to comment any further on this thread as I thought that I had probably said everything that I had wanted to and (as Tommo pointed out earlier) I do have a habit of repeating some of the same things when it is a subject that I feel " passionate" about.... :-[ But then I read this post.... What I am upset about though is that when someone takes there time in this day and age to support a competition by paying the entrance fee, travelling (normally a considerable way) to the venue at there own expense, paying money to the venue on the day in the form of drinks and food, further supporting the competition with raffle tickets/prizes, that a person who does that but decides to leave when they are knocked for whatever reason..... To think of that as “Bad Form” or “disrespectful” I would humbly suggest to anyone that holds that opinion that you are being just a little bit unfair. .... which made me realise all of the things that people do and I started to feel very unhappy that I had been critical of them for leaving early.... :o By the time that I read the next sentence, the violins were playing loudly in the background and I was groping around blindly for the box of Kleenex Man-Sized.... :'( Don’t get me wrong, I respect your opinions, and indeed can understand them and I’ll go as far as to even sharing some of them, and I’ve done all I can to try and help remedy this situation, but again I stress to you, think of all that person has done to support the competition just by turning up alone. Would it have been better if they had just stayed at home? .... I thought more about everything that the person (the one that had left early) had done to support the competition and for all of the effort they had put into just getting there, surely that person should not be criticised for that? :o But then I stopped and thought about it a bit more.... the violin music stopped so suddenly in the background that it probably scratched the record.... and the box of Kleenex were no longer required. ;D I do not doubt that EVERYBODY that enters the Open Competitions do a lot to support the game and I fully appreciate they effort we all make to attend these events and I do not doubt that we all spend money on entry fees, fuel, food, drink and buy raffle tickets even if we don't ever win anything.... ::) .... but the reason that we do that is because we ALL WANT TO PLAY THE GAME! 8-) We don't go to the Opens to sit around for hours doing nothing waiting for our next match.... spending MORE money on food and drink than we had planned for and ending up going home several hours later than we needed to.... as a result of an "opponent" that had left early and presumably was already at home and probably either mowing their lawn or kicking their cat in frustration at having lost their first game....! :o :P Please forgive me for saying this.... but hasn't the person that stayed behind to play in the Plate actually done a lot more to support the event than the person that went home...?? Is it really "unfair" therefore for those people to be critical of the people that went home early...? :P >:( Glenn, I don't if you have ever had the experience of your first opponent in a competition failing to turn up for your match against them? Having made all of the effort to get there in time for your game, you suddenly find that you could have actually had a couple of extra hours in bed and enjoyed a more relaxing drive up to the venue.... ::) It's happened to me a couple of times now, once when my opponent was ill on the day (unfortunate for me but fully understandable) and the other time when he had "totally forgotten" that the competition was due to be played.... :o .... I'm sure that most people would agree that was "bad form" and very "disrespectful" and I was certainly very unimpressed at the time! >:( I'm not sure if that is worse than the player that leaves early.... after all, they are actually there on the day of the competition so their (potential) opponent knows that they should be playing them.... :-/ I was interested to read your "thoughts" on the Plate Competitions after our quick chat on the same subject at our match the other night.... it's probably best if I don't give any further view on that as I know that many things are said purely in jest during some friendly banter during the course of an entertaining evening. :-X ;D ;D ;D After much thought on this topic, I do start to wonder whether perhaps if the idea of the playing the First Round in Groups would be a better solution for the future.... I know that contradicts things that I have said previously.... as it would mean that all of the players would be guaranteed more games (albeit single leg matches only in the early stages) and we could use the same format as Jersey for players scoring their own Groups which would help to resolve another common problem. :D I haven't had the chance to look in any great detail at it yet but, assuming that there were 10 tables at the competition you could probably accommodate a maximum of 120 entries in Groups of 4 and play them as single leg games in 3 series in about 6 hours, with 8 tables you would be restricted to a maximum of 96 players in the same length of time. The winner of each group would go through to the knock-out stage of the Main Competition together with the "best runners-up" to make the number up to 32 for the Main Competition.... with the next best 32 players going into the "Plate". Obviously, if some players did not want to play in the "Plate" at that stage, then players lower down the groups could be added instead so you should end up with no "byes" in the latter stages. 8-) Obviously whether you decided to have a "live draw" (as per Jersey) for the knock-out stages or you simply progressed it so the winner of Group A played the winner of Group B (or some other format of who plays who) would be for the organisers of each tournament to decide.... but I don't think that this format would make the day any longer and would probably mean that more players would actually stay at the venue longer as they wouldn't know if they had qualified for the latter stages of either competition until all of the group games had finished.... :P ;D I know that this was not the purpose that this thread was started for.... ::) .... but I would be interested to hear the thoughts of other players about this subject either here, or on another thread? :D
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 19, 2013 9:22:20 GMT
Personally I dont like the group idea. No shows on the day could cause problems but even worse is a player leaving without completing their group games because they had no chance of progressing. This could affect the outcome of that group and Im convinced it would happen as we had it in the Sussex Masters one year and your only talking of 24 players not 100+.
Its not nice when you are on the receiving end of no-shows and byes but to change everything because of this im not sure is the right thing to do. Opens I think are great as they are and everyone knows what to expect.
How many times has this happened to an individual. You are unlucky if this happens every time. In the last ????? (too many to count) years I have enterd opens this has happened to me once a few years ago This put me off entering but not because of the wait but the fact that I travelled all the way to Bucks for a 10am game only to find my opponent was a no-show. I then lost my next (first) game and got told I couldn't enter the plate as in theory I had won a game against a no-show. To say I was fuming was an underestimate and would have left if my driver hadn't progressed through quite a few rounds. This is the reason the plate starts reasonably late so that everyone has the chance to be in it allowing for no-shows and byes.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 19, 2013 10:38:37 GMT
Personally I dont like the group idea. No shows on the day could cause problems but even worse is a player leaving without completing their group games because they had no chance of progressing. This could affect the outcome of that group and Im convinced it would happen as we had it in the Sussex Masters one year and your only talking of 24 players not 100+. I don't think it has happened over in Jersey in the 2 years that they have run the competition using the Groups.... although obviously many of the players that are there are a "captive audience" as they are there for the whole weekend regardless of whether they win or lose.... but whatever method that you use there will always be problems and there is no easy answer to solve those. ::) A "no-show" in the current format means that a single player has a longer wait for their first (next) game. in a Group the players would still have their other games without the delay... they would simply have one game less and would be given a "win" in the match that their opponent failed to arrive for and receive their "average score" for that game based on the other matches in their Group so it shouldn't actually have an effect on Group positions. :D Having said that.... and I am contradicting myself here again.... I do agree with this comment entirely.... Its not nice when you are on the receiving end of no-shows and byes but to change everything because of this im not sure is the right thing to do. Opens I think are great as they are and everyone knows what to expect. .... and obviously the same players are not affected by withdrawals or people leaving early in every competition, but it does seem to be happening more often recently and you know from your own experience.... In the last ????? (too many to count) years I have enterd opens this has happened to me once a few years ago This put me off entering but not because of the wait but the fact that I travelled all the way to Bucks for a 10am game only to find my opponent was a no-show. I then lost my next (first) game and got told I couldn't enter the plate as in theory I had won a game against a no-show. To say I was fuming was an underestimate and would have left if my driver hadn't progressed through quite a few rounds. .... exactly how disappointing and frustrating that experience can be - even if it only happens to you once! :'( From the posts on here and some of the conversations that I have had with various players, there appear to be some different views on the Opens.... some players are only really interested in playing in the "main" competition while others are keen to play as many games as possible regardless of whether they are in the main or the Plate. The two things that everybody seems to agree on is that we all want the competitions to continue in the future and we would all like to see even more players taking part. 8-) Personally, I love playing in the Opens and enjoy the current format and there is obviously much merit in the old saying "don't fix something that isn't broken"..... I also enjoy the new format at Jersey with the Group stages although perhaps it would be fair to say that the "jury is still out" as to whether that is better than the old format that they used to have.... :-/ But we do need to look to the future of the Open Competitions and try to see if there is a way that we can make them better than they are and encourage more people to take part.... perhaps AEBBA (or somebody) should carry out a survey of players to get feedback on what the players want and then take these suggestions forward? Obviously it is something that can be discussed on here.... one of the great things about the Forum is that it gives people the opportunity to express their opinions.... however these discussions often become very restricted in the number of people that actually get involved, sometimes because people are perhaps worried that they will upset others if they disagree with them or, more often, when one or two individuals "take over" the thread expressing just their opinions about it. :o As one of the main people who is certainly "guilty" of the latter of these two things.... ::) :-[ ....now would be a very good time for me to shut up and listen to the thoughts of other people so I will try to restrain myself from further posts - for a while anyway! :o ;D ;D ;D
|
|
jordans
Distinguished Member
Posts: 657
|
Post by jordans on Apr 19, 2013 10:45:05 GMT
As most of you know, Ernie and I only took over running the Bucks Open last year. It was a massive learning curve, and major hard work, but worth it to keep it going.
I am with Jean with not changing it to groups. It was bad enough with no shows in a normal draw, and think it would be worse to sort out with groups.
What was so embarrassing last year was that most of the no shows were from Bucks!! I ended up feeling personally responsible for these people not being there. If I remember rightly, poor Ron Sheridan played his first round at 10am, lost, and then didn't play again until 4.50pm as his first round plate opponent was a no show! Although the Golf Club is a beautiful venue, there is not exactly much else around to do!
We too have been going to opens for many, years (although not so many recently), and it has happened a couple of times, but can't really see what you can do about it, apart from re-drawing the plate. Perhaps it would help the organisers if we knew that people were not intending to stay for the plate, say put it on the entry form as a tick box. At least that way their opponent would know up front??
Apologies to Jean about your experience with the Bucks, but we now run it that if you have only played one game and lose, you definitely play in the plate (perhaps we could entice you back this year Jean :))
If it helps in any way we don't mind being the guinea pigs at the Bucks to give the plate re-draw a go, but we would need help, and a lot of patience on the day if it should go wrong!! :-/
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 19, 2013 11:12:11 GMT
No apology needed it was before your time and who knows I might be there this year. I would still be very wary of trying to do a re-draw of the plate on the day. Even if you know who wouldn't stay beforehand you would still have to have that table and time ready in case they win and their opponent goes in the plate.
I can only see it as being an absolute nightmare for the organisers. Dont forget they are usually there 2 hours before and approx 1 hour after everyone else. Its a long enough and stressful enough day for them as it is.
I still think numbers in the plate could cause a problem. If the entry was 96 and everyone turned up and played then say four didnt enter the plate that would be 44 players. This would mean 12 prelim games. 10 tables would mean there would be 2 games left to play. Trying to fit these 2 games in could be a nightmare as most tables would be used for the main competition at that time. The way this is done with the format all ready done and tables sorted is to mix main and plate games. Trying to do this on the day would def give me an even worse headache.
|
|
|
Post by Ros on Apr 19, 2013 11:35:36 GMT
I was not intending to reply again either. But I would like to reply to Glenn, I also want to answer Dave's question about groups and want to reply to Jean. This one hurts a little bit I must say, so I’ll explain myself a little better. Sorry it seems this way, but I can assure you I am not elitist, and I would be mortified if anyone truly thought that of me. I hope all I’ve done for the game in the past and up until today my recent efforts proves that. I should have just been more honest and been frank about the only two 2 times in my 6-7 years actively playing (once in Oxford, and once in Sussex many years ago) that I have actually not played in the plate. On both occasions I was beholden on another person for a lift. I don’t drive, so transport is always a problem for me when travelling to different counties. I actually stay around to play the plate in part because I don't want to leave people up in the air and disrupt the days organisation if I can possibly help it. Firstly - the intention was not to be hurtful and if it was, then I apologise. :-* The intention was to try to wake people up to the way it looks when they decline to play in Plates. Secondly - you seem to have argued for both sides here! You have argued for the right to leave early, but, in reality, you have done what many of us are campaigning for - you stayed to play in the Plate, unless circumstances (your transport arrangements) made it impossible. 8-) What I am upset about though is that when someone takes there time in this day and age to support a competition by paying the entrance fee, travelling (normally a considerable way) to the venue at there own expense, paying money to the venue on the day in the form of drinks and food, further supporting the competition with raffle tickets/prizes, that a person who does that but decides to leave when they are knocked for whatever reason..... To think of that as “Bad Form” or “disrespectful” I would humbly suggest to anyone that holds that opinion that you are being just a little bit unfair. I believe that I do my bit, not only by entering and turning up (and a look over some of the draws I've had in opens might have deterred some from bothering) but also by staying to play in the Plate if I've lost the first, scoring plenty of games and (mostly) staying until the end to cheer the prize winners. Why am I being unfair if I criticise someone for not even staying for the Plate? I am ashamed to say that I have been a 'no show' - I got lost on the way to an Open. I freely admit that it was both “Bad Form” and “disrespectful” and when I got to the venue, I apologised both to the organisers and to my opponent. But me personally, I’m withdrawing from this topic now. I don;t think that this is an issue that will be resolved, because whoever makes any kind of change in the future is going to be appluded in some corners, but booed with equal force in other. I don't want that person to be me. If what I see as the ideal solution (persuading people to stay and play) doesn't happen, then making a redraw possible is a very good compromise and certainly not one that I would boo! It might also help with the no shows too - I have heard people say that they didn't turn up for an Open because they did not think that they could progress in either the main competition or the Plate. What worries me about doing a redraw is that it might make it seem even more acceptable not to play in the Plate to the point that only a few will bother and it could ultimately be lost. I suggest that if we lose the Plate competitions, we could be in danger of losing the Opens altogether. I hope that is food for thought for some. With regard to groups, I've said that I don't like them, but perhaps I should explain why, with a view from the bottom of the food chain: I go to Opens to play the game, but with a view to progressing as far as possible. It is good to pit yourself against the best and great if you can cause an 'upset'. The chances of being able to cause an 'upset' become much slimmer with a group situation - it is almost a form of seeding in that it favours the 'better' players, who could lose a game and still progress on aggregate. I agree with Jean: that the 'no shows' would cause even greater problems in a group situation and I think there would be more of them if there was just a group stage with no Plate. Final reason for not liking groups: I lost out in Jersey two years ago. I came second in my group, but wasn't in the last 64 on aggregate. I lost my opening break in a game and I was playing someone who had hardly played before. Balls ended up all over the table and I had to scrap to win with a very low score. Finally in answer to Jean's points: I can only see it as being an absolute nightmare for the organisers. Dont forget they are usually there 2 hours before and approx 1 hour after everyone else. Its a long enough and stressful enough day for them as it is. I hope that Glenn won't give up on trying to produce software to make a redraw method possible that wouldn't be a nightmare. Its not nice when you are on the receiving end of no-shows and byes but to change everything because of this im not sure is the right thing to do. Opens I think are great as they are and everyone knows what to expect. How many times has this happened to an individual. You are unlucky if this happens every time. It's happened quite a few times to me, both 'no shows 1st round' and 'not there for the Plate'. But I think we were all shocked to see 7 empty tables at Surrey, when there were people waiting patiently to play games. Quick summary of all the above ;) : Ideally persuade (or shame) everyone into playing their games, both in the first round and in the Plate. Failing that, have a redraw for the Plate (if technically possible) but don't allow it to become 'fashionable' to not play in the Plate! Don't touch the main competition - it ain't broke, apart from a few 'no shows'.
|
|
|
Post by Q on Apr 20, 2013 17:05:42 GMT
I seem to remember playing in a group stage tournament a few years back where one (very well known & high ranking) player, having lost his first 2 matches just left, which meant his would be opponent had no chance of winning the group. (the win/average score scenario wasn't enough, he needed to win BIG). Bad form?? I think so.
So for that reason alone I would be very much against the group idea.
I think a redrawn plate is very feasible and with a little tinkering of the formulas used so far I'm sure it would work, if organisers are concerned about the extra workload I'm sure that another person could be put in charge of the redraw freeing up the organisers to carry on with their sterling work.
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 20, 2013 18:22:46 GMT
Don't think a little tinkering of formulas is quite the right expression. Times, table allocation etc. as an organiser it's not the extra workload involved its the whole logistics of it. Every open is different each year with the number of people who don't play in the plate. Last year or the year before (can't remember without looking it up) I think we had one person not play. That meant unfortunately one person had a long wait. Fortunately they didn't moan about it as they understood that this does happen. Imagine if that had been redrawn I am convinced more players would moan that in a single leg game they were going second to a player who had already played that table and didn't have a chance.
There seems to be a number of people who have said that a redraw is possible and the fairest way. I am quite happy for you to come along to the Sussex Open and run a pretend competition doing redraws, table allocations etc. we could then see what happens and look at any problems that may arise.
I await volunteers
|
|
Dave J
Full Forum Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Dave J on Apr 22, 2013 10:54:26 GMT
Hi All,
For those that don’t know me, I’m the miserable looking fella (I’m only miserable on the outside) that sits on the desk organising the surrey comps.
From an organisation point of view no-shows are more disruptive than players who choose not to play in the plate. Last weekend we had 8 no-shows of which we managed to fill 7 with reserves, and then 9 players that went early from the plate.
Even with the 9 leaving early a redraw would not make much difference in the length of the day and would only add to the work load of the organisers. Yes it may reduce the time a couple of players have between matches, but trying to organise an unformatted competition with times and tables would be stressful. You talk about losing players from opens; I think you may lose organisers first.
In the pool league we always run the plate as an additional competition which you enter and draw on the day. The difference being that pool players don’t tend to complain about playing the same table twice or if the opposition has played it already. You could never do this with bar billiards.
A redraw sound good but unless you could automate table allocation and times, all mixed in while the main is running, then for me it is a no go. And to produce a program is beyond me and I expect many. Random draw is one thing, table allocation is entirely different. Especially if you have no-shows in the main competition, as a player may have already played two tables before they get into the plate. (By way of practicing on the table when they had a bye and then playing their first match on a second table) This did happen to someone last weekend. He got a no show in the main, and then lost his first match, unfortunately only to get a bye in the plate.
I looked at whether more plate rounds could be played after each other so there is less waiting, but you would end up with delays while you wait for results to come in between each round and also the main would be delayed. The current timings seem a good compromise to me.
I also did a dummy run of a re-drawn plate using the players in the plate last weekend. I did a random redraw using random.org and worked out if they could be fitted into the set schedule using the already allocated tables and times.
The simple answer is yes it could be done, but, would I want to do it on the day while running the comp...... NO. And just because it could be done this time does not mean it could be done every time with every permutation of players, and the tables they already played.
The only benefits were that the day may finish 25mins earlier and the quarters of the plate could be double games (I know other opens already are). The disadvantage in this scenario was that the final of the plate would have to be played on a table both players had already played. Also, it takes a lot of time to sort out tables on the fly. It’s not a case of throwing the tables numbers in and hoping it all works out. There is some logic to it but no guarantees it will work ever time. You can’t sort out the next round until you know who’s won the previous. The 25mins gained on paper would probably be lost, along with more.
Please consider that the organisers may also be playing in the comp so may not have time to make it up as they go along. There is no guaranteed benefit in the time someone may wait before their first round match of the plate, and in some cases it could be worse. E.g. If you lost in the main at 10am you could then be randomly drawn and put in the position where you played in the last of the first round plate matches at 4.50pm. Whereas in the set draw it could have been 3.15pm (unless your opponent did not turn up)
Other alternative, double eliminator (no plate); would probably have to limit the event to 64 and not sure (without spending time) if table allocation and times would work (we use it for pool)
Group rounds, as previously mentioned, favor the better players, and let’s face it, an upset generates interest and discussion in every sport. No-shows cause more problems. Even with average points and wins awarded for byes, you could end up with unfair situations which would be even worse if 2 or more no-shows happened in a group.
Hopefully this makes some sort of sense.
Dave Jones
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Apr 22, 2013 11:12:29 GMT
Excellent points and very well made.... welcome to the Forum Dave. 8-)
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 22, 2013 11:48:36 GMT
Well said Dave exactly what ive been trying to say in previous posts. You would definately lose organisers I for one would not run the Sussex Open if a redraw was made. I dont think people realise the work that is done during these days. Im sure some people think you just sit at the desk and twiddle your thumbs whilst people are playing.
|
|
Pete S
Distinguished Member
Posts: 714
|
Post by Pete S on Apr 26, 2013 12:02:52 GMT
All
I have been following this with interest and did consider a different format for the off the spot competition but decided against it.
It would have meant that anyone in the plate would have had to wait no longer than a couple of hours. The format would have worked like this:-
With 64 entrants play 16 groups of 4 in the same format as the world championships
Groups 1-8 play 10.00, 10.45 & 11.30
Groups 9-16 play 12.15, 1.00 & 1.45
Last 32 plate 2.30
Last 32 main 3.15 and 4.00
Last 16 plate 4.45
Last 16 main 5.30
Q Finals both 6.15
S Final both 7.00
Final both 7.45
Perhaps we should limit the entries in opens to 64 but increase the entry fee to £16 to keep the revenue about the same and satisfy people in the plate.
What do you think ?
|
|
|
Post by milko on Apr 26, 2013 13:25:19 GMT
No to both suggestions!! ???
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 26, 2013 13:50:56 GMT
No from me!! I certainly wouldn't want to turn away and tell 40+ people they couldn't enter the Sussex Open.
|
|
Pete S
Distinguished Member
Posts: 714
|
Post by Pete S on Apr 26, 2013 14:31:35 GMT
Perhaps I should have added some of these ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Do you think I was serious ??
It was done with tongue in cheek.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2013 15:08:31 GMT
So the point you're making, Pete, is that finding an ideal scenario for a Plate could be detrimental to the Main ?
My thoughts are that what might work for one county might not work for another. Tampering with a longer-established Open with a lineup well in excess of 64 would be ill-advised, as over the years it would have been honed to perfection.
On the other hand, an Open with 64 entrants or less offers a bit more scope for experimentation.
|
|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Apr 26, 2013 18:22:35 GMT
Perhaps I should have added some of these ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Do you think I was serious ?? It was done with tongue in cheek. think this has run its course, the opens are for all to get the best out of each day possible, the weaker players are an important part of making the event financially viable and its also a great challenge for them ( i include myself in this) i have learnt a great deal from watching the best play on the best tables, the plate adds to the fun giving half of the entrants a second chance to get another bite of the cherry, but if some wish to go after their loss thats up to them and i'm fine with it, Fiddling around with the fixtures means people have to stay on site all day, i for one quite like to know where and when at the start then i can do some sight seeing if i have a long wait. This is the one occasion when i say "leave it as it is."......do i get a silly old fart award? ::)
|
|
yorkie
Forum Beginner
Posts: 7
|
Post by yorkie on Jun 8, 2013 18:33:33 GMT
hi, from a player who is still relatively new to the opens i would like to offer my views. i hope none offends and is only my opinion. in my first couple of competitions i had a bad draw as people would say in the main, then to sit around for many hours was hard, and i did think if it was worth the travel and me personally was thinking no, just stick to my league The problem also for me being a "lesser" player was i did not get much table time if any to learn and enjoy the game. then in the plate, to lose the toss and have the same done was tough.
Spudguns comment earlier in the thread was of great interest and i liked the idea.
When it comes to the plate a re-draw has been mentioned many times and i can see the benefits.
As a lesser player in the plate could you scrap the toss completely and give the break to the lower ranked player meaning more of a shock and a chance of good table time (well Hopefully)
I come to the opens as i love the game, i want to play as much as possible and i thought having a plate comp and the chance for another game was what anyone would want!!
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 9, 2013 18:08:24 GMT
hi, from a player who is still relatively new to the opens i would like to offer my views. i hope none offends and is only my opinion. in my first couple of competitions i had a bad draw as people would say in the main, then to sit around for many hours was hard, and i did think if it was worth the travel and me personally was thinking no, just stick to my league The problem also for me being a "lesser" player was i did not get much table time if any to learn and enjoy the game. then in the plate, to lose the toss and have the same done was tough. Spudguns comment earlier in the thread was of great interest and i liked the idea. When it comes to the plate a re-draw has been mentioned many times and i can see the benefits. As a lesser player in the plate could you scrap the toss completely and give the break to the lower ranked player meaning more of a shock and a chance of good table time (well Hopefully) I come to the opens as i love the game, i want to play as much as possible and i thought having a plate comp and the chance for another game was what anyone would want!! I like your comments yorkie and i agree about a re draw for the plate, what i dont agree with is scrapping the toss in favour of giving the lower ranked player the break for a couple of reasons. 1. A lot of top class local players will only enter their local open each year and no others. What i mean here is that if one of these players gets knocked out of the main in the first round you could end up facing them. Because they dont enter the other opens compared to yourself (for arguments sake) then they wont (in theory) collect as many ranking points compared to the open regular, therefore ranking them below you. Then youre faced with them potentially running the table out. 2. A player ranked lower than you in ability and as far as the rankings themselves are concerned could have one of those sporadic moments of glory and go in big leaving you up against it again. 3. Youre essentially doing away with the fairest method of deciding who gets the break, unbiased and 50/50. I do like what youre saying though ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Jun 9, 2013 21:19:27 GMT
Great to see that ALL 54 players that lost their first game take part in the Plate Competition at the Sussex Open today.... and congratulations to Nigel Senior who beat Phil Collins in a high quality Plate Final. 8-)
|
|