County Champs 2006 results 24th Sept

Thanks Nigel,
Tides us over until BBQ63. A few surprises there, not the least of which was that Mario had an off day by his own excellent standards as I'm sure he won't mind me pointing out.
He did mention he felt very 'hot', hope the poor fellow's okay - heat exhaustion can be a nasty thing. :o

[fazza]

nigels said:

1 B1 Jon Bamsey Oxon 4 4 0 2 46,560 11,640
2 A3 Chris Reeves Sussex 4 4 0 2 38,910 9,728
3 B2 Mark Turner Oxon 4 3 1 2 36,820 9,205
4 B5 Steven Sheard Oxon 4 4 0 2 34,920 8,730
5 B7 Kevin Tunstall Oxon 4 3 1 2 33,760 8,440
6 C4 Tony Walsh Berks 4 4 0 2 33,130 8,283
7 A5 Dave France Sussex 4 2 2 2 32,260 8,065
8 C5 Paul Sainsbury Berks 4 3 1 2 31,070 7,768
9 C1 Bernie McCluskey Berks 4 2 2 2 27,440 6,860
10 D6 Chris Lawman Northants 4 4 0 2 27,200 6,800
11 B4 Keith Sheard Oxon 4 2 2 2 24,970 6,243
12 B3 Dennis Atkins Oxon 4 3 1 2 24,420 6,105
13 E4 Mark Brewster Kent A 4 2 2 2 23,400 5,850
14 A1 Richard Wooton Sussex 4 1 3 2 22,990 5,748
15 A7 Barry Holt Sussex 4 3 1 2 22,860 5,715
16 E2 Kevin Pringle Kent A 4 3 1 2 21,370 5,343
17 C7 Terry Vallis Berks 4 2 2 2 20,790 5,198
18 B6 Pete Farrelly Oxon 4 1 3 2 20,200 5,050

So that means that the "top 18" will get ranking points in future ;D ;) :D ;D ;) :D

The words "AT" , "STRAWS" and "CLUTCHING" come to mind here.
;) ;D

[Chris_Sav]

The results this year are a good example of Fazza point aberrations.

Chris Lawman was undefeated all day (well done m8 8-)) but others who got beat will get oodles more Fazza points because of the bias towards averages and not winning. Mark Turner got beat by KP (probably still in shock ;D) but will get a fistful of ranking points more than Chris. Even Dave France who won two and lost two will fair as well as Lolly.


Not getting at you Pete, but winning is more important than scoring.

Pete,
I have defended your RP system up to the hilt and (as Keegan would say) would just love it if it were declared "official" - but I'm afraid I agree one hundred percent with what Sav has just pointed out.

While not much tinkering would be necessary with points gained from Opens, it's the National County and National Team points which need addressing. Looking back to a year ago, the two players placed at the top of the list - purely on average - received 15.5 and 14.6 RPs but each lost two games on the day. Whereas there were two players who won 4 out of 4 games who each received only 4 RPs.
Likewise, two years ago the top player received 17.5 RPs for top average but lost a game; whereas Bernie McCluskey and Mark James both won four out of four and only received 4.1 RPs.

Four out of four is a perfect record and should be recognised as such. The player has probably played on some of the more difficult of the tables available on the day - and come through !! The high-scoring player probably had the benefit of being on the easier tables, with the break when it mattered, but 'failed' when up against it !

[Mark James]

The example quoted above by tommo, of the County Champs 2005, is an interesting one, because the 2 players who topped the BBQ averages with 2/2 records on that day were Keith Sheard & Paul Sainsbury, while one of the players who won all 4 games was myself.

Bizarrely, Keith, Paul & I were all in the same section on that day (i.e. we all played each other), along with Mark Brewster & Tony Webster.

Someone once said that there are always more than 2 sides to every argument, and as if to illustrate this, here are my observations on the anomalies of that particular day.

Those who insist that wins must take absolute precedence over scoring average, would presumably allocate to me the most RPs of that group of players, instead of the 3rd place within the group which I actually occupied in the BBQ averages.

And indeed, if you'll forgive me blowing my own trumpet momentarily (purely to illustrate a point, you understand), I could not have played any better on that day, in fact I did not miss a shot in all 4 games, winning each one at my first visit, then "touching up".

BUT, and this is a big but, my victory over Keith Sheard was achieved purely because I had first break in that game. I kicked off with a slow (yes, I know it's difficult for you to imagine!) 8k, he responded with a customarily brisk 7k. Had it been his break, I have no doubt whatsoever that the score would have been something like 17k to nil in Keith's favour, as he would likely have run the table out and I wouldn't have had a shot.

So, whilst on the one hand, one could argue that it's unfair that high-averaging player A should be ranked higher than game-winning player B to whom he lost, it's equally inappropriate for player B to be placed at the top when that perfect match-winning record has been achieved solely because of having first go at the table in a single-leg match.

This ongoing debate concerning the minutiae of the rankings is not for me, I'll leave it to those for whom it is clearly a more important issue. Personally, I've always taken the view that if you do the right thing to help your team win, the statistics tend to take care of themselves.

It's not an exact science and, believe it or not, it's not really that vital either.....

[NigelS]

I have said before that I am not keen on ranking points for team events and the above
examples illustrate why. In Open events we play best of 2 matches, at least ensuring us an equal opportunity of winning every match. In County we may not get opportunites to win all our games, and therefore the awarding of rankings points, fairly, is difficult.

Clearly for Mark to be awarded 4 points for a perfect display last year whilst others are receiving 15+ points is unfair. Also the main point of the county champs is to win legs for your team, so to award ranking points based on averages doesn't fit in with the tournament itself.

I am not saying the County Champs is not a prestigious enough tournament to be a ranking event, because without doubt it is. But unless someone can devise a satisfactory ranking system that fits in well with the system used for ranking national open events then I don't support the idea of giving ranking points for county games.

Thank you Mark for an all-too rare input to the debate, but the personal nature of the example has maybe allowed you to cloud the issue somewhat ?

To say that "oh I only won against Keith Sheard because I had the break and if it were his break he may have gone off with 17k" is selling yourself short on the day's performance.
You won, end of story. We are trying to award points for what happened on the day, which is then a means to an end. We are not trying to award merit to who is the better player and should have won. The best player does not always win - several games went begging on Sunday through players a) misjudging when they thought they were safe and b) losing what would have been a winning break.
I agree that high scores and high average scores have a bearing, but in such a prestigious competition as this should only come into it as a "bonus" for extra fractions of a ranking point (exactly as in the Opens) and not as the be-all and end-all.

Nigel - if this event for 70 top players doesn't count, then we may as well all pack up and go home. I bet if a questionnaire had gone round the hall as I had suggested, you would have got over 50 votes (probably a lot more) in favour of it counting.

[milko]

Thanks Mark & well said.

I think it is needed to look at both sides to this debate. I agree that winning more games is more important than average score, (especially for your team) so the ranking points should go down as matches won first & then by average score. But on the other hand it is still unfair when you dont get a chance to win because the player has gone in with enough to win.
With the tables easier on sunday this must have happened quite a few times so the final stat's are a bit misleading. These are just a few examples of players who i know of who couldn't win............... Mark Turner 3/3 (yes Sav he had no chance), Kevin Tunstall 3/3, Dennis Atkins 3/3, Myself 2/3, so that is 4 games we had no chance with, 3 of them on the same table!!!. Others that i know of were Bernie McCluskey 2/2, no chance with 2 games against the break & gave his opponent no chance with his 2 break games (incidentally this is what happened to me last year when i did not miss once all day & still topped the averages !!!), & Paul Sainsbury 3/3 & probably many more.

So i think the only way you can make it completely fair is to time all games with each player getting 8 min's each on their break !!.

[NigelS]

tommo said:

Nigel - if this event for 70 top players doesn't count, then we may as well all pack up and go home. I bet if a questionnaire had gone round the hall as I had suggested, you would have got over 50 votes (probably a lot more) in favour of it counting.

I agree Tommo, because people particiapting in the event will want it to count towards a ranking system - it would not be a fair questionnaire as they have obviously a vested interest and are biased. But what about the players who just miss out Oxford A, Sussex A etc. Players that would make any other county side easily are losing out on ranking points due to being in a strong county.

I think it is important to distinguish between importance of a competition and whether it should contribute to rankings. IMO just because a competition is important it doesn't mean it should automatically receive ranking status. The Grand Prix is a prime example, internationals are another, the pairs another one. The County Champs is also one. As a single leg team event it is impossible to accurately determine the top player on the day as illustrated above.

Look, we're never gonna get the promised reforms out of Fazza if you guys keep clouding the issue.

Which is, as Sav has pointed out, to give someone as much as 17.0 RPs (the equivalent of winning an open - UNDEFEATED !) for a team event in which he has lost two games makes a nonsence of the whole system. Especially when points are added together over three years, so the error can be compounded and take that long to be purged.

[Chris_Sav]

Stats in downloadable form are on the AEBBA site.

Its a big file and will be slow to download.

[NigelS]

tommo said:

Look, we're never gonna get the promised reforms out of Fazza if you guys keep clouding the issue.

Which is, as Sav has pointed out, to give someone as much as 17.0 RPs (the equivalent of winning an open - UNDEFEATED !) for a team event in which he has lost two games makes a nonsence of the whole system. Especially when points are added together over three years, so the error can be compounded and take that long to be purged.

Well, we certainly agree on this part Tommo! :DLets be clear here, the winner of an open gets only 10 points (for winning at least 6 matches I might add), so 17 points is way too much. If county champs were to be kept in the ranking system in needs to be at least fitting in with an open competition so that it is 10 points for top performer, down to about 1 point for 16th best player. Overall the total points allocated for the county champs should be the same as an open, after all it is approximately the same ammount of players that are competing (around 70) in each.

nigels said:

because people particiapting in the event will want it to count towards a ranking system - it would not be a fair questionnaire as they have obviously a vested interest and are biased. But what about the players who just miss out Oxford A, Sussex A etc. Players that would make any other county side easily are losing out on ranking points due to being in a strong county.

It would be a fair questionnaire as those taking part are the very people who should have a say in their own destiny, rather than having just 10 people on this Forum deciding for them.
And the introduction of B teams (which you were against , yes ? ;D) has gone some way towards righting the wrong of an excellent player not getting a crack of the whip for his county.

The single leg v double leg debate keeps getting dragged in to the discussion : this is a red herring as it would not really help a "rookie" trying to get onto the list, but would rather offer more protection to the top players who don't really need it.

[fazza]

I will only enter this debate briefly, just to say that I believe that All-England competitions MUST (in the main) warrant more ranking points than those organised by the various leagues around the country. This is even more important if the ranking system is made official, and therefore "endorsed" by the AEBBA. I have said elsewhere that everyone started playing bar billiards as a team member, and the game basically remains a team game. I will publish the changes to the ranking system in the next BBQ for you all to peruse to your heart's content.

Thank you and goodnight.

[NigelS]

Can anyone name a ranking system for a sport that has team events counting towards its rankings.
I can certainly name a few that don't.

Golf - The Ryder Cup is a massive event in golf but does not in any way count toward the golf rankings

Tennis - The Davis Cup is the big team event but also does not count towards rankings. Doubles matches have their own seperate rankings.

Snooker - In the 80's we had the snooker world team champs but it never counted towards a ranking system.

Darts - A sport that is like bar billiards where all players start as members of a team. However, again no team matches or internationals count towards the rankings.

Obviously every sport is different but it I would suggest across the sporting world it is rare to include team events in any individual ranking systems

[fazza]

Oh, dear lord, we have been here so many times before, you would OF thought that most people would OF moved on by now. These are ALL professional sports and even though darts started in pubs, it is far, far beyond that now. No comparison.

Also, other sports have seeded events where players' rankings have an effect on the draw for the events. We have not, and long may that last!!!!

Let's move on, please.

nigels said:

Can anyone name a ranking system for a sport that has team events counting towards its rankings.

Obviously every sport is different but it I would suggest across the sporting world it is rare to include team events in any individual ranking systems

Err - The Sussex Bar Billiards Ranking system ? ;D

The majority of its points accrue from the Home and Away Interleague which is a team competition. And is not even on a level playing field as the captains can decide who has the break. Someone could have been awarded the break every time, home and away, for the whole season, which to me is like being invited to step up to the dartboard and stick the dart straight in without having to do it from the oche.

Oh what fun and games there will be when the Sussex Ranking list is published at the end of next season and KT isn't top - because he won't quite have earned in one season what others have earned in three (as the columns are added together instead of being divided by the number of years the player has featured).

[milhouse]

I agree with Pete that these events should count in the rankings. But they shouldn't be allocated on averages. In my opinion, points should be allocated as say 2 points for a win with the break and 3 points for a win without the break with the usual score bonus on top. It is more important to win the game than to get 20k, so this should be rewarded in the points.

[NigelS]

tommo said:

Obviously every sport is different but it I would suggest across the sporting world it is rare to include team events in any individual ranking systems


Err - The Sussex Bar Billiards Ranking system ? ;D

Yes I agree Tommo that Sussex is based on team events as is Brighton, but as Sussex only have 2 singles competitions you cannot really have a meaningful system without including inter league etc. Agreed including inter league is not ideal but it is probably the best you can do.

However, when it comes to a national system we have a number of individual tournaments throughout the year plus Jersey, and in a two year system you would have around 14 tournaments counting, which is enough to have a meaningful ranking system.

[fazza]

nigels said:

Div 2
Code Player County P W L Brks Score Ave
1 G5 Barry Radford Hants 4 4 0 2 29,570 5,914
2 F1 Gary Powell Surrey 4 2 2 2 26,130 5,226
3 G4 Alan Chaloner Hants 4 3 1 2 25,370 5,074
4 H6 Keith MacDonald Cambs 4 3 1 2 24,670 4,934
5 F7 Geoff Jukes Surrey 4 2 2 2 23,810 4,762
6 F5 Clive Thompson Surrey 4 3 1 2 23,650 4,730
7 H2 Pete Doherty Cambs 4 4 0 2 22,160 4,432
8 G1 Chris Newson Hants 4 3 1 2 21,840 4,368
9 F6 Colin Robbins Surrey 4 3 1 2 21,400 4,280
10 J2 Dino Clark Bucks 4 2 2 2 21,300 4,260
11 I7 Dave May Kent B 4 3 1 2 20,190 4,038
12 F4 Dave Constable Surrey 4 3 1 2 19,930 3,986
13 F3 Vernon Sparkes Surrey 4 2 2 2 19,740 3,948
14 G6 Tony Woolvin Hants 4 3 1 2 19,480 3,896
15 J6 Andy Godden Bucks 4 1 3 2 19,330 3,866
16 J3 Darren Isard Bucks 4 2 2 2 18,530 3,706
17 H7 Phil Buckle Cambs 4 2 2 2 16,990 3,398
18 H1 Morgan Wright Cambs 4 1 3 2 16,870 3,374
19 I2 Charlie Hallett Kent B 4 2 2 2 16,570 3,314
20 J1 Maurice Izzard Bucks 4 2 2 2 15,650 3,130
21 H5 Nicky Elmer Cambs 4 2 2 2 15,430 3,086
22 J4 Ray Hussey Bucks 4 2 2 2 14,960 2,992
23 I1 Wayne Wells Kent B 4 2 2 2 14,790 2,958
24 G7 Dennis Claydon Hants 4 1 3 2 14,620 2,924
25 J7 Terry Isard Bucks 4 2 2 2 14,060 2,812
26 G2 Tony Webster Hants 4 2 2 2 13,250 2,650
27 H3 Julian Dale Cambs 4 3 1 2 13,240 2,648
28 G3 Fred Large Hants 4 2 2 2 12,800 2,560
29 I6 Mark Foster Kent B 4 0 4 2 12,210 2,442
30 J5 Syl Murphy Bucks 4 1 3 2 10,320 2,064
31 F2 Laurie Roberts Surrey 4 0 4 2 10,280 2,056
32 I5 Gary Newman Kent B 4 0 4 2 9,770 1,954
33 I3 Gerry Goodwin Kent B 4 1 3 2 8,090 1,618
34 H4 Malcolm Wright Cambs 4 1 3 2 7,520 1,504
35 I4 Dan Newman Kent B 4 1 3 2 7,340 1,468

Sorry, all, but I realised late last night that the 2nd division averages posted here did not agree with my calculations from Nigel's scores. It appears that Nigel has divided the aggregates of these players by five instead of four. I am sure he will re-post the correct calculations for you.

Well spotted, Pete, and it seems you were the only one who did !

Only goes to show that after all most of us are not obsessed with rankings and personal performances/glorification as hinted yesterday by Mark ! ;D

[fazza]

Yeah, but, no, but, yeah, but it was only the second division players, so they don't count!!! ;)

Us Div 1 players are much more important, but I will probably be Oxford B next year, so??????? :P



PS As my grandad used to say, "experience counts for a lot, unless it is a bad one." If only I could understand it!

nigels said:

as Sussex only have 2 singles competitions you cannot really have a meaningful system without including inter league etc. Agreed including inter league is not ideal but it is probably the best you can do.

Agreed.

nigels said:

However, when it comes to a national system we have a number of individual tournaments throughout the year plus Jersey, and in a two year system you would have around 14 tournaments counting, which is enough to have a meaningful ranking system.

Agreed, but I would not exclude the team events, and the jury stands at 50/50 on that, with us standing in opposite camps.
I and others like me maintain that bar billiards is primarily a team game and to play with the team in mind often limits the amount of panache with which you can play.
As Milhouse says, it's not all about scoring 20k - unless you're in a team of course where you can all do it and egg each other on to achieve greater heights.
I'm definitely with Pete on that one - in that matchplay is what the game's all about.

[Chris_Sav]

Pete appears correct. I have updated and split up the pages on the AEBBA site.

[fazza]

sav said:

Pete appears correct.

You sound so surprised!!!!







Hope all is well Chris?

[fazza]

OK Fellas, I am very reluctant to do so as I know it will lead to yet another tirade of suggestions as to where I can put my ranking system, but these are the stats and rankings for the County Championship (so far).

You realise that, as Division 3 has not been played yet and there are some VERY good players scheduled to take part, the top 15 in the rankings COULD be demoted, depending on the averages achieved in 2 weeks' time.

It is, of course, difficult to read on the forum format, but you will see extra columns covering the number of wins made WITH, and AGAINST the break, and you may read something into that if your middle made is "RC" or you are named after anyone from a cartoon etc etc.

POS/ Code/ CTY/ RP(if any)/ P/ W/ L/ Agg/ ave/ games won WITH break/ games won AGAINST break
1 B1 Jon Bamsey OXF 19.7 4 4 0 46,560 11,640 2 2
2 A3 Chris Reeves SUS 18.6 4 4 0 38,910 9,728 2 2
3 B2 Mark Turner OXF 15.4 4 3 1 36,820 9,205 2 1
4 B5 Steven Sheard OXF 16.4 4 4 0 34,920 8,730 2 2
5 B7 Kevin Tunstall OXF 13.3 4 3 1 33,760 8,440 2 1
6 C4 Tony Walsh BER 14.4 4 4 0 33,130 8,283 2 2
7 A5 Dave France SUS 9.3 4 2 2 32,260 8,065 0 2
8 C5 Paul Sainsbury BER 10.2 4 3 1 31,070 7,768 2 1
9 G5 Barry Radford HAN 9.2 4 4 0 29,570 7,393 2 2
10 C1 Bernie McCluskey BER 6.3 4 2 2 27,440 6,860 2 0
11 D6 Chris Lawman NOR 9.2 4 4 0 27,200 6,800 2 2
12 F1 Gary Powell SUR 2.1 4 2 2 26,130 6,533 2 0
13 G4 Alan Chaloner HAN 3.1 4 3 1 25,370 6,343 2 1
14 B4 Keith Sheard OXF 2.1 4 2 2 24,970 6,243 2 0
15 H6 Keith MacDonald CAM 2.0 4 3 1 24,670 6,168 1 2
16 B3 Dennis Atkins OXF 2.2 4 3 1 24,420 6,105 2 1
17 F7 Geoff Jukes SUR 0.2 4 2 2 23,810 5,953 2 0
18 F5 Clive Thompson SUR 2.1 4 3 1 23,650 5,913 2 1
19 E4 Mark Brewster KEN A 0.3 4 2 2 23,400 5,850 1 1
20 A1 Richard Wooton SUS 0.2 4 1 3 22,990 5,748 1 0
21 A7 Barry Holt SUS 2.1 4 3 1 22,860 5,715 1 2
22 H2 Pete Doherty CAM 4.0 4 4 0 22,160 5,540 2 2
23 G1 Chris Newson HAN 2.1 4 3 1 21,840 5,460 1 2
24 F6 Colin Robbins SUR 2.0 4 3 1 21,400 5,350 2 1
25 E2 Kevin Pringle KEN A 2.1 4 3 1 21,370 5,343 2 1
26 J2 Dino Clark BUC 0.1 4 2 2 21,300 5,325 1 1
27 C7 Terry Vallis BER 0.1 4 2 2 20,790 5,198 1 1
28 B6 Pete Farrelly OXF 4 1 3 20,200 5,050 0 1
29 I7 Dave May KEN B 2.0 4 3 1 20,190 5,048 2 1
30 A6 Gareth Lloyd SUS 0.2 4 2 2 19,970 4,993 1 1
31 F4 Dave Constable SUR 2.0 4 3 1 19,930 4,983 1 2
32 F3 Vernon Sparkes SUR 0.1 4 2 2 19,740 4,935 0 2
33 G6 Tony Woolvin HAN 2.0 4 3 1 19,480 4,870 2 1
34 J6 Andy Godden BUC 0.1 4 1 3 19,330 4,833 0 1
35 J3 Darren Isard BUC 4 2 2 18,530 4,633 0 2
36 C2 Dave Alder BER 0.1 4 2 2 18,050 4,513 1 1
37 C6 Phil Hawkins BER 0.1 4 2 2 17,090 4,273 2 0
38 H7 Phil Buckle CAM 4 2 2 16,990 4,248 1 1
39 E3 Russell Millford KEN A 4 2 2 16,950 4,238 1 1
40 H1 Morgan Wright CAM 0.1 4 1 3 16,870 4,218 0 1
41 E5 Gerry Fitzjohn KEN A 0.1 4 1 3 16,610 4,153 1 0
42 I2 Charlie Hallett KEN B 4 2 2 16,570 4,143 0 2
43 A4 Nigel Senior SUS 0.2 4 1 3 15,790 3,948 1 0
44 J1 Maurice Izzard BUC 4 2 2 15,650 3,913 1 1
45 H5 Nicky Elmer CAM 4 2 2 15,430 3,858 2 0
46 E1 Pete Sainsbury KEN A 0.1 4 1 3 15,080 3,770 1 0
47 J4 Ray Hussey BUC 4 2 2 14,960 3,740 1 1
48 I1 Wayne Wells KEN B 4 2 2 14,790 3,698 1 1
49 G7 Dennis Claydon HAN 4 1 3 14,620 3,655 1 0
50 D7 Simon Coleman NOR 0.1 4 1 3 14,080 3,520 0 1
51 J7 Terry Isard BUC 4 2 2 14,060 3,515 2 0
52 E6 Vinny Mitchell KEN A 0.1 4 1 3 13,380 3,345 1 0
53 G2 Tony Webster HAN 4 2 2 13,250 3,313 1 1
54 H3 Julian Dale CAM 2.0 4 3 1 13,240 3,310 1 2
55 G3 Fred Large HAN 0.1 4 2 2 12,800 3,200 0 2
56 D1 Matthew Thomson NOR 4 2 2 12,620 3,155 1 1
57 I6 Mark Foster KEN B 4 0 4 12,210 3,053 0 0
58 D2 Damien Coates NOR 4 1 3 12,150 3,038 1 0
59 E7 Alan Farra KEN A 4 1 3 11,220 2,805 1 0
60 J5 Syl Murphy BUC 4 1 3 10,320 2,580 1 0
61 F2 Laurie Roberts SUR 4 0 4 10,280 2,570 0 0
62 I5 Gary Newman KEN B 4 0 4 9,770 2,443 0 0
63 D4 Jason Neal NOR 0.1 4 1 3 9,640 2,410 0 1
64 D3 Ian Coleman NOR 4 1 3 9,070 2,268 0 1
65 A2 Steve Mariner SUS 4 1 3 9,050 2,263 1 0
66 D5 Roo Hare NOR 4 0 4 8,350 2,088 0 0
67 I3 Gerry Goodwin KEN B 4 1 3 8,090 2,023 0 1
68 H4 Malcolm Wright CAM 4 1 3 7,520 1,880 0 1
69 C3 Adam Cox BER 4 0 4 7,450 1,863 0 0
70 I4 Dan Newman KEN B 4 1 3 7,340 1,835 0 1
178.3 280 140 140 1351480 75 65

[milhouse]

fazza said:

POS/ Code/ CTY/ RP(if any)/ P/ W/ L/ Agg/ ave/ games won WITH break/ games won AGAINST break
1 B1 Jon Bamsey OXF 19.7 4 4 0 46,560 11,640 2 2
2 A3 Chris Reeves SUS 18.6 4 4 0 38,910 9,728 2 2
3 B2 Mark Turner OXF 15.4 4 3 1 36,820 9,205 2 1
4 B5 Steven Sheard OXF 16.4 4 4 0 34,920 8,730 2 2

11 D6 Chris Lawman NOR 9.2 4 4 0 27,200 6,800 2 2

This is the only gripe i have about doing the rankings this way. As you can see Mark Turner is going to get (provisionaly) 15.4 RP for winning 3/4, whereas Chris Lawman is only going to get 9.2 for winning all 4 !!
Also, i think there should be different points allocations for each division. It is obviously harder to beat players in section 1 than in section 2 or 3.

nigels said:

the winner of an open gets only 10 points (for winning at least 6 matches I might add), so 17 points is way too much. If county champs were to be kept in the ranking system in needs to be at least fitting in with an open competition so that it is 10 points for top performer, down to about 1 point for 16th best player. Overall the total points allocated for the county champs should be the same as an open, after all it is approximately the same ammount of players that are competing (around 70) in each.

To add weight to Milhouse's argument: For once ;D I agree entirely with Nigel's comments above :o. Come on, Pete, you know you want to make it fairer, yes you do, you know you do ! :P

[fazza]

milhouse said:

Also, i think there should be different points allocations for each division. It is obviously harder to beat players in section 1 than in section 2 or 3.

I know you are a BBQ virgin, but there already is. Two RP are deducted for 2nd Div and 4 for 3rd Div players.

Please be patient, all will be revealed