|
|
Post by NigelS on Sept 13, 2021 11:02:06 GMT
Hi all, below is the Bournemouth draw for next month. Going to try something a little different this year. We are going to stick with groups but have 8 groups of 6 (1 group has a bye). but this will be single legs (I am going to have a think about how the breaks will work) The group games will take place on the Saturday. Top 2 will progress to the main the remainder will play in the plate. So everyone will play on the Sunday with the Main and Plate knockout stages being played. I am sure that a guaranteed game on the Sunday will not stop the excess partying on the Saturday night  | Group 1 |
|---|
| Simon Coleman & Jason Neal | | John Miller & Kim Giles | | Kevin Stoner & Bella Stoner | | Richard Hawes & Cliff Slade | | Phil Collins & Leon Beer | | Curt Driver & Mark Brewster | | Group 2 | | Jeff Bridges & Matt Webb | | Bill Trinder & William Trinder | | Zara Oakley & Zoe Stoner | | Phil Oakley & Barry Holt | | Mark Trafford & Sid Ponting | | Lewis Stratford & Vinnie Brown | | Group 3 | | Trevor Fitzwilliam & Jacqui Fitzwilliam | | Pete Sainsbury & Paul Sainsbury | | Steve Allard & Sue Allard | | Pete Phillips & Steven Sheard | | Matt Knight & Jack Baden | | Andy Burns & Tony Walsh | | Group 4 | | Jim Greenstead & Stephen Coleman | | Dawn Jordan & Sue Atkins | | Brett Parker & Dave Lillie | | Phil Osbourne & Bob Hall | | Kyle Ingram & Dave Ingram | | Bye | | Group 5 | | Martin Kemsley & Paula Kemsley | | Jon Tyson & Leanne Tyson | | Martin Cole & Kevin Tunstall | | Dave Constable & Tony Cross | | Johnny Hamblin & Steph Bellhouse | | Ashley Harrison & Ellis Candy | | Group 6 | | Damian Coates & Mel Stanbridge | | Tony Jenner & Rick Cunnigham | | Dino Clark & Syl Murphy | | Pauline Withey & Keith Sheard | | Tim Cole & Kay Cole | | Gary Powell & Colin Robbins | | Group 7 | | Michelle Baden & Doug Dawson | | Darren Isard & Terry Isard | | Allan Oliver & Ian Moss | | Jim Millward & Joe Oakley | | Jenny Noel & Emma Noel | | Dennis Atkins & Geoff Jukes | | Group 8 | | Phil Griffin & Allan Lacey | | Janet Burns & Jon Scoones | | Brian Richards & Chris Richards | | Phil Hawkins & Matt Jones | | Stuart Mepham & Ernie Jordan | | Nigel Senior & Marcus Chipman |
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Sept 14, 2021 12:58:15 GMT
Hi all,
I have had a small rethink and have decided the following just to keep you all in the loop...
1) With the group games breaks will be shared between each pair. So first 4 games, 1 player has first go in one game with the break and one game against the break, and vice versa for player 2. Player 1 and player 2 will be drawn out before the competition for each pair
2) for the final group game, each pair can choose their break player and the final game will be equal break, equal time. So each pair has 3 breaks minimum, so will have an opportunity in at least 3 games.
3) Top 3 will go through each group not top 2. Then 2nd and 3rd place pairs in each group will go into round 1 in the main, and those round 1 winners will join the 8 group winners in round 2. I think this is fairer, you are not guaranteed a top 2 spot by winning 3 games but you would be unlucky not to be in the top 3.
4) Plate will work the same way for the 4th, 5th, 6th placed pairs in each group
5) Knockout stage on sunday back to the traditional choosing player to take break in each match.
Think that covers it any questions let me know. At least now everyone is guaranteed at least one shot on the Saturday....whether you like it or not!
|
|
|
|
Post by bigtj on Sept 14, 2021 14:51:30 GMT
Sounds good Nigel and makes it a true pairs competition rather than the same players taking the break in all games. Also looks as though everyone will get plenty of games and therefor great value for money. Whatever you do it there will always be those who do not like it but great to get plenty of game time.
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 13, 2021 9:28:42 GMT
Hi Nigel, Can you advise the order for the group games and which partner will take the breaks in which games please? Although I fully understand the purpose of your proposal, I must admit that I do have concerns of the impact this will have especially on the many pairs that have 1 regular player and 1 "social" player - many of whom probably only play once a year in this competition at Bournemouth. For me, that is one of the things that make this competition special and I think it is great that some people choose to come along and play in this, even though a lot of them do not enter any other competitions. The change to groups a couple of years ago already made it less likely that we would have shock results in the early rounds, although that is definitely offset by the fact that we all play more games which I certainly like. But this change will certainly favour the pairings that have 2 top players and will significantly reduce the chances for other pairs in the competition in my opinion - which I am sure is not your intention?  I would be sad if this change meant that more "super pairings" would be put together to take part in this event in the future as I feel that the result of that would probably be a reduction of entries as some players could be put off taking part at all.  On a final note, I do feel that perhaps it would have been best to advise people of the change to this format before they entered and I am personally not entirely sure that a change like this should have been approved as a Rule Change at the AEBBA AGM before being implemented in the tournament...??  |
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 13, 2021 10:36:46 GMT
Hi Nigel, Can you advise the order for the group games and which partner will take the breaks in which games please? Although I fully understand the purpose of your proposal, I must admit that I do have concerns of the impact this will have especially on the many pairs that have 1 regular player and 1 "social" player - many of whom probably only play once a year in this competition at Bournemouth. For me, that is one of the things that make this competition special and I think it is great that some people choose to come along and play in this, even though a lot of them do not enter any other competitions. The change to groups a couple of years ago already made it less likely that we would have shock results in the early rounds, although that is definitely offset by the fact that we all play more games which I certainly like. But this change will certainly favour the pairings that have 2 top players and will significantly reduce the chances for other pairs in the competition in my opinion - which I am sure is not your intention? I would be sad if this change meant that more "super pairings" would be put together to take part in this event in the future as I feel that the result of that would probably be a reduction of entries as some players could be put off taking part at all. On a final note, I do feel that perhaps it would have been best to advise people of the change to this format before they entered and I am personally not entirely sure that a change like this should have been approved as a Rule Change at the AEBBA AGM before being implemented in the tournament...?? Hi Dave The order for the group games will be advised at the venue. The breaks are predetermined so I cant see any pair benefitting from having prior knowledge of who has what break and when. This year the group stages are single legs and with the random element of who takes the break in each leg I think that will throw up some surprise results. With 3 main draw qualifying spots available from each group I am sure there will be 'lesser' pairs progressing through but we shall see. And I would expect with any format the stronger pairs to progress into the later stages but cant see how they have been helped by this format. Once back into the knockout stages the competition reverts back to normal where the pair chooses who breaks all the way to the finals so as long as you make it through your group I cant see any difference to chances of lesser pairs winning than it would have been in the past. I would however prefer it to be alternate break for the pairs all the way through - but that would possibly be a step too far for some...... I look at it on the other side. In some pairs in the past the lesser player has not had a shot until the semi finals. The format has always boosted a pair with one very strong player that can dominate rather than a strong pair winning through and it is a pairs competition after all At the end of the day some will like the format some will not, some will not like not being able to play one game and go off into town for the day. The idea of the groups is to give people more games, the idea of the breaks being split between the pair is that everybody is guaranteed to have one shot and therefore particpate on the Saturday, even if that shot goes straight through the peg. I will also be corrected if I am wrong here, but I didnt believe I needed an AGM rule change to implement this. This is a formatting decision made by the tournament director. That decision and any decision made whilst I am running these tournaments will only be to attempt to make the tournament better and fairer for the players involved. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 13, 2021 10:39:10 GMT
My feelings are with you on 'super pairs' for this one Dave,
However Nigel is correct, unlike the four pin rules debates over AEBBA changing existing rules without AGM sanction, this is not covered in the rule book so AEBBA have the power to set a new format covering groups and breaks as far as I can see. What does need correcting is rule 56A for two leg pairs games which is incomplete.
The player who plays second (first for his pair against the break) in the first leg is prevented from taking the opening break in the second leg. The reverse is not covered, there is nothing stopping the player who takes the opening break in leg one from taking first go for his pairing in leg two against the break! Break order in two leg games should be specified to be the same as the first two legs in a four leg game A B C D / D C B A. One proposal for the A.G.M. |
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 13, 2021 10:58:15 GMT
As I have said Sav the format reverts back to normal once the knockout stage begins on the Sunday. A super pairing as you say will always have a better chance of winning any pairs tournament - whatever the format. Would top players suddenly start holding x- factor style auditions to get a super partner just because of groups stages and dump their existing partner to the scrap heap. I dont think so but maybe I am just being naive  |
|
|
|
Post by bigtj on Oct 13, 2021 11:04:46 GMT
Rick says he will put up with the lesser partner no matter what!!
On a serious note I was concerned when I saw the format and like Dave worried about those who come for the social side but have since decided I applaud trying something new and not sure that we will see wholesale dumping of partners.
Maybe give it a chance this year and get feedback from those taking part
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 13, 2021 11:08:19 GMT
As I have said Sav the format reverts back to normal once the knockout stage begins on the Sunday. I can see that but 'normal' may be how we play it, but rule 56A does not enforce that.
You as Tournament Director can extend rule 56A to enforce what it does not cover, that the opening break player in leg one cannot also play first for his side in leg two.
|
|
|
|
Post by milko on Oct 13, 2021 11:17:31 GMT
My feelings are with you on 'super pairs' for this one Dave,
However Nigel is correct, unlike the four pin rules debates over AEBBA changing existing rules without AGM sanction, this is not covered in the rule book so AEBBA have the power to set a new format covering groups and breaks as far as I can see. What does need correcting is rule 56A for two leg pairs games which is incomplete.
The player who plays second (first for his pair against the break) in the first leg is prevented from taking the opening break in the second leg. The reverse is not covered, there is nothing stopping the player who takes the opening break in leg one from taking first go for his pairing in leg two against the break! Break order in two leg games should be specified to be the same as the first two legs in a four leg game A B C D / D C B A. One proposal for the A.G.M. It just needs the word "next" changed to "other" to make it work. |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 13, 2021 11:33:13 GMT
As I have said Sav the format reverts back to normal once the knockout stage begins on the Sunday. A super pairing as you say will always have a better chance of winning any pairs tournament - whatever the format. Would top players suddenly start holding x- factor style auditions to get a super partner just because of groups stages and dump their existing partner to the scrap heap. I dont think so but maybe I am just being naive Yes, of course a super pairing always has a better chance of winning a pairs tournament, especially when it reaches the latter stages and becomes 4 legs, but I think that the format you are suggesting will turn some groups into something of a lottery depending on which player has the break in certain games.... personally, I don't think that is fair to the normal pairings which mostly consist of 1 good player and one average (or social) player. That is especially relevant when you consider that the pairing that win the group (and the pair that finish 4th) will then receive a bye in the first knock-out rounds of both the main and the Plate competitions. Obviously, the only real way to determine which is the "best pair" in any competition would be for all 4 players to have the break in one leg, but that is clearly impractical for both timescale and would almost certainly mean some players would not want to enter. Maybe a compromise would be to say that each pair can decide which player takes the break but then limit that to a maximum of 3 first breaks (in groups of 6) or 2 first breaks in the group of 5? At least that way, the pairs themselves can choose which player takes the break in each game rather than simply relying on the luck of the draw.... |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 13, 2021 11:53:49 GMT
The order for the group games will be advised at the venue. The breaks are predetermined so I cant see any pair benefitting from having prior knowledge of who has what break and when. This year the group stages are single legs and with the random element of who takes the break in each leg I think that will throw up some surprise results. With 3 main draw qualifying spots available from each group I am sure there will be 'lesser' pairs progressing through but we shall see. And I would expect with any format the stronger pairs to progress into the later stages but cant see how they have been helped by this format. Single legs..... oh dear, that makes the situation worse as far as I can see.  so, effectively the stronger player in a "normal" pair may not have a single meaningful shot in the group stages if their opponents go off with enough with their first visit in the games that they have the first break for their pair but are against the break in that game and then not get a shot at all in the other leg....????? Certainly, at least 1 player (probably 2) will not have a chance to make a meaningful contribution in nearly all of the group games so, please, how is that fairer????  I appreciate that the timing of the tournament means that only single legs are probably possible to fit into the time available, which now leads me to question why it was decided to have groups of 6 with single legs rather than groups of 4 with double legs? I am all for being fairer and giving all players more games and better opportunities, but I truly don't think that this achieves this.  |
|
curtd
Distinguished Member
Posts: 631
|
Post by curtd on Oct 13, 2021 12:00:33 GMT
I certainly agree we can always debate about changes and the way forward. This has to be a healthy way of doing things. The schedule and format has been set and published for a few weeks now ( I think) Can we not go with what has been put in place for this year and talk about how it went after ? Rather than guessing how the groups will go and assuming how players feel about the new format for this year. I’m sure it makes more sense to talk about how it went rather than how it may go , and with an AGM around the corner this gives a great platform to discuss as well as on here. Thanks Looking forward to a great weekend  Curt |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 13, 2021 12:03:37 GMT
It just needs the word "next" changed to "other" to make it work. Yup that works, I'll copy and propose it in the rules section |
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 13, 2021 12:36:33 GMT
The order for the group games will be advised at the venue. The breaks are predetermined so I cant see any pair benefitting from having prior knowledge of who has what break and when. This year the group stages are single legs and with the random element of who takes the break in each leg I think that will throw up some surprise results. With 3 main draw qualifying spots available from each group I am sure there will be 'lesser' pairs progressing through but we shall see. And I would expect with any format the stronger pairs to progress into the later stages but cant see how they have been helped by this format. Single legs..... oh dear, that makes the situation worse as far as I can see. so, effectively the stronger player in a "normal" pair may not have a single meaningful shot in the group stages if their opponents go off with enough with their first visit in the games that they have the first break for their pair but are against the break in that game and then not get a shot at all in the other leg....????? Certainly, at least 1 player (probably 2) will not have a chance to make a meaningful contribution in nearly all of the group games so, please, how is that fairer???? I appreciate that the timing of the tournament means that only single legs are probably possible to fit into the time available, which now leads me to question why it was decided to have groups of 6 with single legs rather than groups of 4 with double legs? I am all for being fairer and giving all players more games and better opportunities, but I truly don't think that this achieves this. How can you say a player may not make a meaning contribution in nearly all of the group games? Admittedly your group has got the bye, but in the group of 6. You get one break, you choose the break in game 5 guaranteeing your star player two breaks. So guaranteed opportunities to win 2 games. 2 wins then you need one more win to practically guarantee qualifying is a pretty big contribution. Then your partner (presumably the social player) gets one break so may have to contribute to get you over the line. Then in the knockout stages you can choose whoever you want to break. So you may need your partner to contribute in the group games- what is wrong with that? - it is a pairs competition. I am repeating myself here but in the past a player has been able to get themselves to the semi finals without even playing a shot. These rules change this slightly. I think your concern Dave, is not about super pairs but with the pairs who have one strong player and one weak (social) player who in the past could get very far in the competition without needing a partner to contribute. I oppose that and think that to win a pairs competition both player should contribute Groups of 4 - a bit messy with 12 groups, yes 24 could go through but as you know I have rewarded the 8 group winners in this format with a bye to round 2 which I couldnt do doing groups of 4. So I went with the 8 group option. |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 13, 2021 13:18:30 GMT
How can you say a player may not make a meaning contribution in nearly all of the group games? Admittedly your group has got the bye, but in the group of 6. You get one break, you choose the break in game 5 guaranteeing your star player two breaks. So guaranteed opportunities to win 2 games. Nigel, you have actually pretty much confirmed exactly what I said with your reply here....!!  As you have pointed out here, I am in the group of 4 so I assume that each player in all of the pairs will have one first break each, one first shot (with the break) in a game where their opponents have the opening break (I think that all legs will be equal break, but not equal opportunity?) and will then go third once and fourth once in the other 2 games - is that correct? If so, then a player in our group is only GUARANTEED to have a meaningful opportunity to make a contribution in 1 game out of 4, so in 75% of the games they may not have an opportunity at all. I think 75% is a high enough percentage for me to call it "nearly all"? In the groups of 5, one "star man" (to use your phrase) will have the other confirmed opportunity in 40% of the games while the other 3 players will only have a 20% confirmed opportunity to make a meaningful contribution. Perhaps you think that is better than the current situation where one player can certainly take a pair through to the semi-finals without their partner playing a shot.... although as that has been the rules since the tournament started and nearly all players have been happy with that it seems strange to change it now. I hope the format does work for the sake of the competition and that it does not put players off from entering in future years, as others have said let us judge it after the competition has ended.  |
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 13, 2021 13:50:19 GMT
How can you say a player may not make a meaning contribution in nearly all of the group games? Admittedly your group has got the bye, but in the group of 6. You get one break, you choose the break in game 5 guaranteeing your star player two breaks. So guaranteed opportunities to win 2 games. Nigel, you have actually pretty much confirmed exactly what I said with your reply here....!! As you have pointed out here, I am in the group of 4 so I assume that each player in all of the pairs will have one first break each, one first shot (with the break) in a game where their opponents have the opening break (I think that all legs will be equal break, but not equal opportunity?) and will then go third once and fourth once in the other 2 games - is that correct? If so, then a player in our group is only GUARANTEED to have a meaningful opportunity to make a contribution in 1 game out of 4, so in 75% of the games they may not have an opportunity at all. I think 75% is a high enough percentage for me to call it "nearly all"? In the groups of 5, one "star man" (to use your phrase) will have the other confirmed opportunity in 40% of the games while the other 3 players will only have a 20% confirmed opportunity to make a meaningful contribution. Perhaps you think that is better than the current situation where one player can certainly take a pair through to the semi-finals without their partner playing a shot.... although as that has been the rules since the tournament started and nearly all players have been happy with that it seems strange to change it now. I hope the format does work for the sake of the competition and that it does not put players off from entering in future years, as others have said let us judge it after the competition has ended. Well you are in a group of 5 Dave, the other groups are of 6. You are focussed on it being fair for individuals, I am focussed on it being fair for pairs So even taking your group for example where there is 5 teams. you get one break, Kyle gets one break. Enough to win two games. If you both do not miss in your break games I would be amazed if you do not go through as a pair. So the PAIR is guaranteed enough opportunity to progress. As an individual yes you are relying on Kyle to do some of the work. So as an INDIVIDUAL you are not guaranteed enough table time to progress, I agree with you saying that although I dont agree that it is wrong. In the group of 6 pairs are guaranteed 3 break game opportunities winning them all with good scores almost certainly being enough to qualify Yes I think better than the current (well former) situation, playing a main comp game at 10am, then a plate game at 1pm and then having no more bar billiards for the rest of the weekend wasnt ideal but perhaps accepted as there were 80+ pairs. Chelle and Sami have done a hell of a job in these times to get 47 pairs, and the number gives us the chance to do something a bit different than a straight knockout as in the past. Everyone will be involved on the Sunday which hopefully is a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 13, 2021 15:06:48 GMT
Hi Nigel, My comments were never specific about my pair, or even my group. They were more aimed at the pairs which have one purely "social" player, often partnering a regular (or good) player who would probably have had a much better chance of progressing had the old system been retained. Since I can see about 18/20 pairs that could apply to, it is almost 50% of the entries. Yes, it is a pairs competition, not individual so I do understand your reasons for wanting to make this change. My only point is that this change would appear to make it even easier for the best pairs to progress and reduces the chance of a shock or for a player to progress if he does have a "social" partner, which has always been one of the good things about Bournemouth weekend. If the format stays this way for next season, I can personally see more "super pairs" entering and less "social" entries, which would almost certainly mean less overall entries.... I agree totally that Chelle and Sami have done a brilliant job organising the event this year and hope that the competition retains its popularity for next year.  |
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 13, 2021 15:31:40 GMT
Hi Nigel, My comments were never specific about my pair, or even my group. They were more aimed at the pairs which have one purely "social" player, often partnering a regular (or good) player who would probably have had a much better chance of progressing had the old system been retained. Since I can see about 18/20 pairs that could apply to, it is almost 50% of the entries. Yes, it is a pairs competition, not individual so I do understand your reasons for wanting to make this change. My only point is that this change would appear to make it even easier for the best pairs to progress and reduces the chance of a shock or for a player to progress if he does have a "social" partner, which has always been one of the good things about Bournemouth weekend. If the format stays this way for next season, I can personally see more "super pairs" entering and less "social" entries, which would almost certainly mean less overall entries.... I agree totally that Chelle and Sami have done a brilliant job organising the event this year and hope that the competition retains its popularity for next year. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I cant see that many that i would call 1 regular player + 1 social player pairs in the draw. I can see 3 super pairs though. So I am sure many of the 18/20 pairs you have picked out will progress to the last 24 knockout stage. Once there they will have as much chance of progressing as before. See you at the weekend Dave |
|
|
|
Post by daveuk1 on Oct 14, 2021 8:08:32 GMT
Well Dave, you certainly have one game in your group you wont have to worry about as you're playing a couple of four pinners. Brett has never played a game of three pin and I've played 6 legs and never even come close to winning any of them.
There are six of us 4 pinners coming down, if things go well and we have a good weekend I'm sure next year we can get a few more to join us, although some players are a little worried about paying for travel, hotels etc and then may only get a couple of shots all weekend, at least for Brett and myself this can only be a good thing as it wont get in the way of drinking.
Are there any tables around Bournemouth where we can go off and have a couple of games before we get humiliated in the tournament?
All being well we will see you for a fun weekend
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Oct 14, 2021 10:31:15 GMT
For everyone start time is 10am Saturday.
If players can arrive for 9.45am I will briefly explain the format etc. Even if you are not playing in series 1 we will of course need scorers :)
|
|
|
|
Post by little legs on Oct 14, 2021 12:50:06 GMT
Looking forward to a great weekend of billiards and catching up with people we haven't seen for 18 months In my view the so called social players have previously and am sure now are going for a social weekend so really can't see them being put off from coming next year . Looking at the pairs most seem to played together for quite a few years and if people are not going to play with their partner or mate that's pretty sad .
Let's make it a great weekend we can all enjoy .
|
|
JOZIL
Full Forum Member
Posts: 349 
|
Post by JOZIL on Oct 14, 2021 14:07:25 GMT
I say we do scotch doubles (alternate shots) makes it interesting why people are spreading their "opinion" before a tournament starts baffles me? I say give it a go and case "opinions" in the AGM and stop clogging up the feed #GETOVERIT |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 14, 2021 14:51:30 GMT
I say we do scotch doubles (alternate shots) makes it interesting why people are spreading their "opinion" before a tournament starts baffles me? I say give it a go and case "opinions" in the AGM and stop clogging up the feed #GETOVERIT Because that is exactly what this forum is for - communication and friendly debate. |
|
|
|
Post by bigtj on Oct 14, 2021 15:02:56 GMT
As Sav says friendly debate, everyone is entitled to their opinion if it is kept civil. We will never all agree about formats but lets see how it goes and just have a great weekend as normal. Do not knock those that are trying something different remember most just sit back and let others do it without ever offering to contribute so lets support those who try to do the best for our game.
Lets also not forget those that will be working hard making sure the tables are there, set up in good condition for us all to play, the magic fairy does not just wave their wand and it happens
Have a great weekend everyone as that what Bournemouth is all about
|
|
|
|
Post by "Silent" on Oct 14, 2021 15:16:33 GMT
As Sav says friendly debate, everyone is entitled to their opinion if it is kept civil. We will never all agree about formats but lets see how it goes and just have a great weekend as normal. Do not knock those that are trying something different remember most just sit back and let others do it without ever offering to contribute so lets support those who try to do the best for our game. Lets also not forget those that will be working hard making sure the tables are there, set up in good condition for us all to play, the magic fairy does not just wave their wand and it happens Have a great weekend everyone as that what Bournemouth is all aboutGreat post TJ, yes many of those things you mention are forgotten about, it is a shame there is not a bit more concern about setting up and taking down of the tables at the events currently. I suppose those of us that are there at the beginning and stay until the end of pretty much every event currently could post about it but despite this forum being about "communication" and "friendly debate" it would get very boring |
|
|
|
Post by bigtj on Oct 14, 2021 15:52:44 GMT
Personally I have grave concerns going forward about the AEBBA tables and transporting them for events. We now know how much Dave Alder did and are going to realise we will not find anyone to replace the amount of work he did. It is going to mean that we all have to pull together to ensure national events continue. We are seeing companies that supplied tables are folding or selling out so that avenue for hiring tables is disappearing or should I say has disappeared. We need to remember the average age base of our playing members is on the aged side so lugging tables about etc. is a no no for many. At the moment I know a lot of work is going on to try and find somewhere in the southern area that would let us store the tables so that we have 6 months in the southern part and 6 months in the northern part but this will still need people to drive the van, unload and set up tables and volunteers are not exactly falling over themselves. Local leagues may need to hire AEBBA tables as well as there is no local source (some leagues are lucky and have private people that will loan their tables, but still need transport). Something for all to think about if the game is to survive on a national level.
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 14, 2021 16:19:37 GMT
why people are spreading their "opinion" before a tournament starts baffles me? I say give it a go and case "opinions" in the AGM and stop clogging up the feed #GETOVERIT As others have said, "opinions" and healthy debate are part of what this forum is here for. Having run many tournaments for both Sussex County and the AEBBA in the past, I try to look at a bigger picture than many other players who just turn up and play, drink and enjoy themselves. I do fully understand why the tournament director (Nigel) wants to make this change and I agree with many of the reasons that he wants to make these changes, but I don't think that national tournaments should be single leg games (in groups or knock-out) especially in a pairs competition as that would seem to reduce the opportunities for all players - not increase them. But that is just my "opinion" and I am happy to "debate" that with anyone and can give a very long list of reasons why I think I am right.  #TOTALLYOVERIT |
|
beefy
Distinguished Member
T
Posts: 754
|
Post by beefy on Oct 15, 2021 12:57:51 GMT
In 2019 Mark and I won the Guernsey pairs and this is raw proof of what Nigel is saying. Mark pretty much won every round before I got to the table bar one. Leaving me with very little table time to make a telling contribution in any of the games. Having said that, in one round Mark couldn't play the table at all and I scored over 9K of our 11K and won the match, it was a nightmare to be fair - his comments at the time were "about time you won us a round, laughing....". The better player will always want the break, only a pairing of equal ability will say otherwise. I think this make it quite interesting but its still a lottery with drawn player 1 and 2 being done random.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Oct 15, 2021 17:26:32 GMT
Just heard from Dave L. far more important is there's no real ale at the hotel only fizzy rubbish.
Scrubbing around the idea of a boozy day out tomorrow with the Suffolk crew!
|
|
