David.G
Distinguished Member
Posts: 550
|
Post by David.G on Oct 8, 2013 19:08:58 GMT
BERKS - Caversham Working Mens Club
Paul Sainsbury - Terry Vallis - Dave Alder - Phil Hawkins - Adam Cox
BUCKS - Totteridge Community Centre
Ernie Jordan - Steve Allard - Cliff Slade - John Kitson - Richard Hawes - Norman Morton
HANTS - Langstone Harbour Fishermans Club
Barry Radford - Lee Radford - Tony Woolvin - Daniel Woolvin - Fred Large - Dick House - Barry Saunders
NORTHANTS - The Fox
Stephen Coleman - Simon Coleman - Ian Coleman - Damian Coates - Jason Neal
SUSSEX - Ye Old Black Horse
Gareth Lloyd - Nigel Senior - Marcus Chipman - Ian Lelliott - Richard Wooton - Martin Smith
KENT - Toad Rock
Neale Chaimberlain - Doug Phillips - Ian Wright - Dave Warren - Richard Corbould
OXON - Kennington Club
Pauline Withey - Steven Sheard - Kevin Godfrey - Ian Gordon - Mark Trafford - Keith Sheard
SURREY - South Park Conservative Club
Dave Constable - Laurie Roberts - Vernon Sparkes - Tracy Guy - Andy Finn - John Slee
|
|
|
|
Post by peetee on Oct 9, 2013 22:51:32 GMT
Oxon
Kennington Club
P Withey S Sheard K Godfrey I Gordon M Trafford K Sheard.
|
|
magners
Full Forum Member
Posts: 325
|
Post by magners on Oct 10, 2013 8:49:33 GMT
Surrey entry (if invited? - not on list!!) is South Park Conservative Club.
Dave Constable, Laurie Roberts, Vernon Sparkes, Tracy Guy, Andy Finn & John Slee
|
|
|
|
Post by bigtj on Oct 10, 2013 17:15:06 GMT
ye Old Black Horse
Gareth Lloyd
Nigel Senior
Marcus Chipman
Ian Lelliott
Richard Wooton
Martin Smith
Chris Tupper
|
|
jordans
Distinguished Member
Posts: 687
|
Post by jordans on Oct 17, 2013 7:25:48 GMT
Hi Dave,
We have two people from the Bucks team who have had to drop out. Could you please remove Norman Morton and John Kitson, and add Doug Carswell.
Thanks,
Dawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigtj on Oct 19, 2013 13:48:24 GMT
Good luck to Ye Old Black Horse representing Sussex tomorrow in the team championship.
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 20, 2013 20:52:18 GMT
Good luck to Ye Old Black Horse representing Sussex tomorrow in the team championship. Congratulations to Ye Olde Black Horse on their victory at the Team Champs competition in Reading today, beating Kennington Social Club by 1 point to clinch the title in the last series of matches. Sadly we lost the teams from Kent and Berks (the defending champions.... Puzzled) before the competition even started so it was decided that it would be played on a round robin basis to ensure that all of the players got more games on the day, although that meant that a new schedule had to be drawn up. The final positions were.... 1. Ye Olde Black Horse (Sussex) - 18 points 2. Kennington Club (Oxon) - 17 3. The Fox (Northants) - 11 4. Totteridge Community Centre (Bucks) - 11 5. South Park Conservative Club (Surrey) - 10 6. Langstone Harbour Club (Hants) - 8 |
|
|
|
Post by milko on Oct 21, 2013 5:19:17 GMT
Well done to the Sussex boys on winning this title and a great effort from Kennington to only lose it by one point. I was told that Kennington won ALL their matches so needed just one more point to have won it themselves! Thumbs up to both of you  |
|
dipper
Distinguished Member
Posts: 842
|
Post by dipper on Oct 23, 2013 17:02:36 GMT
Got to be wrong, if you win all your matches surely you should win, needs a rule change.
|
|
colinm
Full Forum Member
Posts: 423
|
Post by colinm on Oct 24, 2013 12:52:06 GMT
Got to be wrong, if you win all your matches surely you should win, needs a rule change. I have to disagree, it would be conceivable that a team with 3 strong and 2 weaker players could then win with a lower points tally than a team which performs well as a whole, good point to debate though and see what the consensus is.  |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 24, 2013 14:57:43 GMT
Got to be wrong, if you win all your matches surely you should win, needs a rule change. I have to disagree, it would be conceivable that a team with 3 strong and 2 weaker players could then win with a lower points tally than a team which performs well as a whole, good point to debate though and see what the consensus is. I think that the same rule applies in the County Championships and it is only if 2 teams finish level on points that the number of matches won comes into the equation.... but it is certainly something worth discussing as there is clearly a good case for both viewpoints above.  My own personal viewpoint is that because this is a TEAM competition the team winning is more important than an individual winning and it does seem strange that a team can win all of their matches and not be the champions....  Perhaps the teams should be given a "bonus" point (or 2?) for winning each match in addition to the point for each leg being awarded as this may help that situation to be avoided in the future....?  |
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 24, 2013 15:18:37 GMT
I think the current rules are right and am not sure it is as simple as saying a team winning all their matches must win. I think it is important to remember that in each match one team has an extra break and therefore an advantage. You would be more hard done by if you lost 1 match (or more) 3-2 ( or 4-3 in county) due to not getting a chance in any break games and then having won the most legs on the day. Also I think it is more important that the team performs rather than possibly 3 (or 4 in county) individuals, legs won takes more into account the team performance. If this changes for the team champs you would have to change the counties too and I don't believe five 4-3 wins is better than say a 3-4 loss followed by four 7-0 wins.
It is very different to individuals playing group games where matches won is taken into account over legs won. This is because an individual has a chance in every match but not every leg, so it is wrong to have an individual lose a competition when they have won all their matches. In the team comps we play best of ones so although you may not get a chance in every leg you play I think it better to take performance over the whole day than potentially just one match. In fact Sunday is a good example, we lost a game on the 100 hole to Oxon losing 3-2, under rules of matches won our day would have been effectively over there and then. Dave says that a bonus point maybe should be awarded but the tiebreaker is matches won when legs are equal so I think that is advantage enough to the team that wins all their matches.
I am not saying this because we won by the way ;) it was a good battle with the Oxon team and wither team would have deserved the title. Definitely a point worth debating, but you can never have a perfect system when best of ones are played....
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 16:18:03 GMT
Got to be wrong, if you win all your matches surely you should win, needs a rule change. I'm old school, same as Roger, and share that view. My own personal viewpoint is that because this is a TEAM competition the team winning is more important than an individual winning and it does seem strange that a team can win all of their matches and not be the champions.... Perhaps the teams should be given a "bonus" point (or 2?) for winning each match in addition to the point for each leg being awarded as this may help that situation to be avoided in the future....? Dave makes a good backup point and even proffers a possible solution which takes the best from each of the "matches won" and "frames won" systems and forms a compromise. But my appearances in this competition are now only a distant memory, so in the words of Ms Tate "I ain't bovvered"  |
|
dipper
Distinguished Member
Posts: 842
|
Post by dipper on Oct 24, 2013 16:58:49 GMT
What about five games with even breaks and equal opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 19:07:37 GMT
Okay Nigel,
What would happen in this scenario ?
Team A wins 3-2,3-2,3-2 (against team B), 3-2 and 3-2.
Team B's results are 3-2,3-2,2-3 (against team A), 3-2 and get a 5-0 walkover as one team got fed up and left early.
Under the current set-up team A despite having won every match would lose out as Team B have 16pts and they would only have 15pts.
How could that be fair ?
Well done to YO Black Horse by the way, tremendous achievement winning it for Sussex which I hope I am not seen to be decrying.....just arguing a point of principle.
cheers,
tommo
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 19:24:46 GMT
Tommo - whilst that scenario is indeed possible. To me it is never a great way to argue a point of principle I.e. using one of the least likely scenarios in order to fit the point.
For clarity - how many teams have left early due to being fed up? Lots?
Surely the answer to this debate will come from those scenarios that are most likely to happen.
Just sticking my oar in for a change instead of the usual childish jokes!
|
|
David.G
Distinguished Member
Posts: 550
|
Post by David.G on Oct 24, 2013 21:13:49 GMT
What about five games with even breaks and equal opportunity. Currently ALL 5 games are EQUAL Break. As for Equal Opportunity I guess you mean Equal time on the table, Unfortunately any schedule to allow this would become so inconsistent, unpredictable and time consuming, we probably wouldn't get the competition finished in one day, and to be honest I wouldn't want to be packing away the tables at midnight on a Sunday. Many formats have been tried, tested and failed in the past, The format we use now is what I beleive to be the fairest in terms of TEAM ACHIEVEMENT. Yes it is an achievement to win five out of five with each game finishing 3-2. However it is more of an achievement to win 22 legs out of 25 (losing 3 legs) losing one match 3-2. better that than 15 out of 25 (losing 10 legs) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 9:56:36 GMT
The format we use now is what I beleive to be the fairest in terms of TEAM ACHIEVEMENT. Yes it is an achievement to win five out of five with each game finishing 3-2. However it is more of an achievement to win 22 legs out of 25 (losing 3 legs) losing one match 3-2. better that than 15 out of 25 (losing 10 legs) I would challenge that statement (so would Dipper) on the basis of five wins out of five (beating all the other TEAMS) is the perfect TEAM record. It should not matter whether you happened to beat one of the other (weaker) teams 4-1 or 5-0 as it could be a fortuitous situation in which they gained the solitary point: strongest player with the break and he played the table out against you whereas he was against the break when playing your rivals. It should not matter what happened in the 'incidental' games, if one TEAM is good enough to beat all the other TEAMS then they should win the competition. Name me one other sport in which this is not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Oct 25, 2013 10:39:41 GMT
The format we use now is what I beleive to be the fairest in terms of TEAM ACHIEVEMENT. Yes it is an achievement to win five out of five with each game finishing 3-2. However it is more of an achievement to win 22 legs out of 25 (losing 3 legs) losing one match 3-2. better that than 15 out of 25 (losing 10 legs) I would challenge that statement (so would Dipper) on the basis of five wins out of five (beating all the other TEAMS) is the perfect TEAM record. It should not matter whether you happened to beat one of the other (weaker) teams 4-1 or 5-0 as it could be a fortuitous situation in which they gained the solitary point: strongest player with the break and he played the table out against you whereas he was against the break when playing your rivals. It should not matter what happened in the 'incidental' games, if one TEAM is good enough to beat all the other TEAMS then they should win the competition. Name me one other sport in which this is not the case. That last comment is the exact point. In this competition, this is the second year in a row that we have won all of our games, but not won. I will be putting a proposal in to change it and if it stays the same i will not participate in the competition again as i am not prepared to spend a day out, winning ALL games as a TEAM, but not win! |
|
|
|
Post by milko on Oct 25, 2013 12:01:14 GMT
That last comment is the exact point. In this competition, this is the second year in a row that we have won all of our games, but not won. I will be putting a proposal in to change it and if it stays the same i will not participate in the competition again as i am not prepared to spend a day out, winning ALL games as a TEAM, but not win! Not quite right, Mark, as you lost to Rochester SC last year but you did win all your matches the year before! By the way I can see both sides of the argument but would say that the current rule of total legs won is the best in my opinion because it means the team which is the strongest in depth will probably win and not one with three KT'S + two lesser strength players. As has been said, if a proposal did get passed to change this to team wins then the Counties would have to be the same and I don't like that idea. PS (my keyboard will not let me type numbers in now, so can some bright spark please let me know why in a PM ?  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 25, 2013 12:31:31 GMT
PS (my keyboard will not let me type numbers in now, so can some bright spark please let me know why in a PM ? ) Try pressing the 'numlock' key on top left of numeric keypad. Sav |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 25, 2013 12:38:26 GMT
Just for once we agree on something Mark A team winning is the most important criteria in my view, legs won (AKA goal difference) is the secondary consideration. We had long drawn out discussions over the comparable situation in the AEBBA singles. Sav |
|
|
|
Post by milko on Oct 25, 2013 12:40:01 GMT
PS (my keyboard will not let me type numbers in now, so can some bright spark please let me know why in a PM ? ) Try pressing the 'numlock' key on top left of numeric keypad. Sav 123456789.......I'm so happy....I'm so happy....la la la, la la la, la la...   |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 12:48:41 GMT
As has been said, if a proposal did get passed to change this to team wins then the Counties would have to be the same and I don't like that idea. Why would the Counties have to be the same ? The Counties is a ranked event and the Team Championship doesn't carry ranking points. Oh and while we're at it............ the team which is the strongest in depth will probably win and not one with three KT'S + two lesser strength players. ......there is and always will be only one KT ! LOL  |
|
|
|
Post by milko on Oct 25, 2013 14:30:24 GMT
As has been said, if a proposal did get passed to change this to team wins then the Counties would have to be the same and I don't like that idea. Why would the Counties have to be the same ? The Counties is a ranked event and the Team Championship doesn't carry ranking points. But they are both All England Team events, so I don't think you should have one different than the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 15:03:58 GMT
I actually agree with you Keith. And I think maybe it's time to reconsider whether the Team event should once more be ranked so as they aren't 'different'.
Mark mentioned 'spending a day out' to take part. What about those who have longer journeys, representing their county, pitting their skills against the best in the country? Not even a miserable RP for their efforts.
The arguments against when I was on the ranking committee was that it 'was not an Open competition'. Whereas in many respects it is, with qualifying rounds at local level and entry being by choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 17:37:29 GMT
Ranking points should only work if all teams that take part are genuine. What about those not fortunate enough to win the qualification at local level!
Ranking points issued to team players not affiliated to the county PUB team would be unfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 25, 2013 17:52:41 GMT
I can see both sides to the argument but I am not convinced that changing the rules makes it fairer and that any injustice was done last weekend. I maintain that the current rules favour the stronger team in depth as it requires all players to perform in the team, you can't get away with weak perfomances. I don't see how you can take matches won as primary criteria when each match has an uneven number of break games in them therefore each match is not a fair contest strictly speaking. So would I change my mind if it was equal breaks all the way through, well no - in that case each team last sunday would have had a equal chance of winning 25 points, and surely it is better to judge a team effort out of 25 legs than the 5 legs that is being suggested above. Individual competitions are totally different, the AEBBA singles rules was changed to guarantee an individual winning every match to win their group, because these matches are played best of two and there is an opportunity for a player to win every match he/she plays. At the end of the team champs each team has won/lost legs and if you take it over the whole day there were chances enough for every team that they could have won.
If you change the team champs you have to change the counties also, it would be a total contradiction to have different scoring rules for both. As for ranking points the team champs to me is inappropriate to attract ranking points. Some players have played in it every year for the last 10 years because it is easier to qualify from that county, some players will only appear in it a couple of times a decade. This is not the fault of the individual player - who plays in a team with 1) their mates (regardless of ability in many cases) and 2) their home county (which has varying difficulty to qualify from). County champs is different, although I wasnt happy with big points awarded for a tournament where only best of ones are played and again selection depends on location as well as ability, it is a better fit for ranking points as the bigger counties can enter two teams and players are picked purely on merit. The argument that players travel a long way to play top players for no ranking points does not sway me, players travel to play in all sorts of tournaments playing googd players but it is not a reason to give out ranking points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 17:55:20 GMT
Johnny - I would be interested to know if you are just speaking on behalf of Cambs/ Northants, or are including other counties (who may have their own rules for qualification) in that sweeping statement.
I have no particular axe to grind on this other than to attempt to air something I considered to be an injustice when I was on a Committee which made the ruling.
The National Team competition is one that is dear to my heart: it gave me my first-ever chance to compete at County level and I did okay. Until then I had considered myself unworthy to share a stage with these players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 18:16:18 GMT
It wasn't so much a sweeping statement Tommo, more to do with fairness for all players.
I have never experienced CAMBS fielding a team with false players, now it's just a case they don't enter anymore.
I think that the system as it is works, if it was a KO tournament (FA Cup style) but over 2 legs which would drag on for ages.
It does seem unfair that a team could not win, by winning all their games. Team Championships are based on teams winning to get to the competition in the first place!
This is a very interesting topic to follow as I too Tommo first played at this level in this Competition.
|
|
)
