County Champs - Oxon A again!

Sept 22, 2008 18:22:46 GMT NigelS said:

Can it be changed, well proposal can be put forward at the AGM. I think we have gone too far down this road, now and shifting the goalposts would be a bit of a kick in the teeth for Sussex B who have worked their way up for the last two years.

Fair comment about the "I told you so's" (cf Alan Messer's post also), but I don't accept that the situation is irretrievable.

Was speaking to Ian Lelliott tonight, and he is a county player over over thirty years' standing so has seen a lot of change over the years. He liked my idea of a Div 1 of 6 teams and a Div 2 of two groups of 4 for next year, and even elaborated on the idea: He said why not have the two groups of four plus Final in the First Division, with the section of 6 as the Second ?

Sussex B would not be penalised, as the Divisions would be thus:
Div 1: Oxon A, Sussex A, Berks A, Hants, Sussex B, Oxon B (not relegated) Northants and Kent A (both promoted) in two groups of four drawn at random.
Div 2: Surrey A, Berks B, Kent B, Surrey B, Cambs and Bucks, all play all.

Only drawback in Ian's suggestion is that it would make going back to a third division very difficult as it would mean relegation of more than two teams to achieve this. So maybe my idea of a 6-team First Division, with just the extra promotion for Northants, is the better option. ;)

[NigelS]

Sept 22, 2008 22:34:40 GMT tommo III said:

Sussex B would not be penalised, as the Divisions would be thus:
Div 1: Oxon A, Sussex A, Berks A, Hants, Sussex B, Oxon B (not relegated) Northants and Kent A (both promoted) in two groups of four drawn at random.
Div 2: Surrey A, Berks B, Kent B, Surrey B, Cambs and Bucks, all play all.

There is some merit in this suggestion Clive, in that 8 teams play on the first weekend and the 6 play in the second. But all 6 teams apart from the finalists would only get 3 games in division 1 as I understand your proposal. So although it keeps more counties in div 1 I don't like the idea of more teams getting less games, although the incentive is to win your games and make the final.

What about 7 teams in 2 divisions all play all on the two weekends? But again there you may only have 4 counties involved in division 1 but you do get 6 games each!! 147 games on each weekend takes just over 7.5hrs - doable I think. Also if it was changed to this on this years finishing position noone really gets penalised. But not sure when you could play the AEBBA Ladies f you get the full 7 teams for division 2 (or more)

It is not easy to find a solution but there is no doubt it must be discussed at the next AGM, we need to get to the bottom of the absence of Cambs and Bucks and the probablitly of their future involvement.

[milko]

Sept 22, 2008 21:03:27 GMT peetee said:

Congratulations Oxon on winning the Div 1 title again.
Brilliant :) :) (Who needs Milko unchanged next year ;D)

Pete, as you were one of the selectors for the Oxon teams and knowing my reason for not playing I find your comment in bad taste.

Perhaps if you or someone else on the Selection Committee had asked an obvious question before going, then maybe I wouldn’t have pulled myself out.

It was nice that one of the Committee had the decency to send me a kind message to admit that they made a mistake in not knowing who was Captain last year.

You may not need to change the team for next year, as I feel bitter about it all and may decide not to play for the County anymore.


Keith.

p.s. I would also like to congratulate Dennis on leading Oxon A to yet another County Division One title, it shows the talent we have to pick from when someone can come straight in and win 4 out of 4, well played Tony Martin.

[Chris_Sav]

Sept 23, 2008 7:52:33 GMT milko said:

Sept 22, 2008 21:03:27 GMT peetee said:

Congratulations Oxon on winning the Div 1 title again.
Brilliant :) :) (Who needs Milko unchanged next year ;D)

Pete, as you were one of the selectors for the Oxon teams and knowing my reason for not playing I find your comment in bad taste.

Perhaps if you or someone else on the Selection Committee had asked an obvious question before going, then maybe I wouldn’t have pulled myself out.

It was nice that one of the Committee had the decency to send me a kind message to admit that they made a mistake in not knowing who was Captain last year.

You may not need to change the team for next year, as I feel bitter about it all and may decide not to play for the County anymore.


Keith.

p.s. I would also like to congratulate Dennis on leading Oxon A to yet another County Division One title, it shows the talent we have to pick from when someone can come straight in and win 4 out of 4, well played Tony Martin.

Fair comment Keith!!

Sav.

Thanks for your willingness to review this (I presume also involving Dave Alder), Nigel.

What I had in mind was not Two Divs/Separate Weekends/All-play-all, but rather Two Divs/Same Day/One Div all-play-all and other Div in two four-team groups plus a Final to decide outcome.

For instance, say Div One had the 8 teams, divided into two groups of four. That would mean 12 x 7game matches plus the Final.
Div Two could be all-play-all which would mean 15 x 7game matches.

That would add up to (28 x 7 =) 196 frames of bar billiards.

Keeping it at the 10 tables which were used at Reading, this would mean between 8 and 9 hours of play, so you would need to start at 11am to allow an 8.30 finish.

Depending on how people like/cope with it, you could keep the same format or revert back to 3 divs the following year.

The 8 teams in Div 1, 6 teams in Div 2 is Ian Lelliot's suggestion, mine was the 6 in Div 1 and 8 in Div 2. But you could let the 1st Div have a vote on which way round they preferred it !

This is a rare chance to sort it out, things may not fall into place as well if it's left another year.

And yes, you'd be left with a free date on the calendar, which could be used for a super-duper 'British Open' - sponsored, of course !

[NigelS]

It can only really change at the AGM Tommo, and the alternatives are going to have to be carefully thought outwith future implications also considered.

Remember there is only 8 tables used at Reading currently. So 196 games would take at least 10 hours, so it is likely that teams will not fancy that long a day. I am also concerned that your suggestions gives many teams only 3 games - the source of many gripes this year. To be honest you won't have many happy people if they have to get there at 11am and leave after 8.30pm

I think you have to live with the fact a county champs with B teams has to be on two seperate weekends. How it is best arranged with that in mind is what needs to be considered. Remember also there is an All England Ladies to be fitted round that as well. So there you go - 2 weekends, 16 hours play, is there a better way than how we do it now?

Agreed that on face value the existing format is more ideal.

I have only suggested a mechanism whereby you can gain Cambs and Bucks into the fold - as a one-off only if necessary.

I got dragged into this thread by a) yourself suggesting we had gone too far down a particular road and implying it was irretrievable (with the 'I told you so's'); and b) by a counter proposition by someone else of something I thought was completely unworkable.

Yes I know people don't like a long day, and yes I know people don't like only three games (I'm one of them). But this method provisions for a Final for the two group winners.

I am not trying to revolutionarise bar billiards, I am one of the old school ! ;D I believe that three divisions of 5 is absolutely ideal - provided that all the teams commit themselves to playing. I agree wholeheartedly that it's better than the one tabled.

The suggestion is only relevant if you have a depleted third division of 2 or 3 teams one year.

A third party has offered the viewpoint that it would be better to swap the days round and play the 3rd Division first, thus seeing the commitment. Not sure on that one, myself, but that is the only improvement I can think of to the present format.

Please view my own suggestions as a case of 'desperate times calling for desperate remedies'. But then again, if you want to bin them, I'm not too fussed as after my performance on Sunday it's unlikely I'll get a call up for Surrey again anyway ! :-[

[Colemanator]

Sept 23, 2008 19:20:27 GMT tommo III said:

I'm not too fussed as after my performance on Sunday it's unlikely I'll get a call up for Surrey again anyway ! :-[

Depends how desperate they get 8-) ;D

Sept 23, 2008 19:37:09 GMT Colemanator said:

Depends how desperate they get 8-) ;D

Yes, thank you Colemanator. ::)
At least I made the effort and put bar billiards before golf - unlike some I could mention. ;)

[fazza]

All this, and no comments from Fazza! How about that?

[Colemanator]

Sept 23, 2008 19:48:00 GMT tommo III said:

At least I made the effort and put bar billiards before golf - unlike some I could mention. ;)

I've had to scrub my name from a match when i was at the golf club earlier this evening, this match clashes with the Team Championships on Oct 19 ::) which means that I'm having to forsake fresh air and exercise with being stuck in that bomb hole in Reading, needless to say dropping out has gone down as well as an old girlfriend of mine used to ::)

i'm now upstairs in the doghouse :'(

Well it must be nice to be in demand: Nothing worse than when the phone never rings. ::)
Annoying though when you have to spread yourself thin.

Was this girlfriend one of the Belgrano sisters, btw ? ;D

Sept 23, 2008 20:25:24 GMT @fazza said:

All this, and no comments from Fazza! How about that?

Chuckling from the sidelines, no doubt ! ;)

[fazza]

Only chuckling as I wonder if anyone has been threatened with a ban!

And wondering why the "Belgrano sister" did not put a smile on my mate Ian's face for once!

[milhouse]

Just a thought, but how about reducing the sections to 4 teams and having double games rather than single legs ?

With due respect, that amounts to 'tinkering' rather than providing an answer to the Cambs/Bucks 'problem'.
It would involve an unfair and unwarranted relegation of a team.

Double games sounds nice, but as has been said drags the day out too long.

[milhouse]

Sept 24, 2008 8:37:07 GMT tommo III said:

With due respect, that amounts to 'tinkering' rather than providing an answer to the Cambs/Bucks 'problem'.
It would involve an unfair and unwarranted relegation of a team.

Double games sounds nice, but as has been said drags the day out too long.

Thats why i suggested having 4 in a league instead of 5, so it does not drag on too long. It should also mean that players should get a few games rather than 2 or 3 legs ?
At the moment, it looks as though there are going to be 11 or 12 teams between the 3 divisions, so splitting them into 3 sections of 4 with double games would give everyone plenty of action.
Like i said, just a thought.....

So your line-up, Milhouse, would presumably be :
Div 1. Oxon A, Sussex A, Berks, Hants;
Div 2. Sussex B, Northants, Kent A, Surrey A;
Div 3. Oxon B; Berks B; Kent B, Surrey B.

I can see some flaws:
1. Sussex B not being promoted having earned it.
2. A double relegation for Oxon B (as it was announced beforehand that NO team would be relegated this year from Div Two)
3. And presumably Cambs and Bucks can go swivel ??

Nay, nay and thrice nay ! ;D

Sept 24, 2008 11:56:53 GMT tommo III said:

I can see some flaws:
1. Sussex B not being promoted having earned it.
2. A double relegation for Oxon B (as it was announced beforehand that NO team would be relegated this year from Div Two)
3. And presumably Cambs and Bucks can go swivel ??

Nay, nay and thrice nay ! ;D

Is it confirmed that Cambs aren't going again then?

I actually feel ashamed to represent the county of Cambs this Sunday after this, shame that to be honest. I can't alter my county though which is a shame :( ;)

No, read the thread again, Johnny. - As far as we know, Cambs are attending this year. It's the National Team championships thing (White Swan) they're not doing.


On this thread I put forward an idea as to how Cambs could be magicked back into Div 2 and not relegated EVER AGAIN, and Nigel pooh-poohed it, and Milhouse further muddied the waters. ;D

I blame BB Warrior for doing his favourite trick of lighting the blue touchpaper and retiring ! Bet as a schoolkid he used to start a fight and then suddenly vanish ! ;D ;D ;D

[keithmacdonald]

It must be so nice to be right all the time. Those counties where people are falling over themselves to play in county matches and can't see any further than the next trophy.

To get it right yes Cambridgeshire CANNOT field a side again and its not because no-one wants to play county any more its just some people have other priorities and we only have a small number on players willing to make the trip to pick from - shame on people who have weddings to go to, shame on people who have to work, shame on people who would rather be with their families and shame on people who throw teddy out of the pram.

I have lost seven people from my original selection and that has left me with five so I have had no little or no aternative but to withdraw the team. It's hard enough trying to keep the game going without getting slagged off by everyone including people who should know better.

I hope Johnny does himself justice on Sunday but I am too concerned about our league to get over concerned about whether or not B sides get promoted.

Those who know me know I have been involved in Bar-Billiards for a great number of years both here and in Hampshire and feel for the attitude of some people. This has finally driven me to the decision to resign both as county secretary and Chairmen. I can no longer take all the hassle especially from people who have little knowledge about what it is like to keep a struggling county going.

keith

to hear, Keith.

We've never spoken, but you've always come across as someone who has tried to keep interest going in your county, but has sadly been fighting a losing battle. Now frustration appears to have turned into despair, with you throwing the towel in as an administrator.

I do hope Cambridge fall on better times, the bar billiards world is small enough without losing long-established counties.

[BB Warrior]

Sept 24, 2008 17:21:46 GMT tommo III said:

I blame BB Warrior for doing his favourite trick of lighting the blue touchpaper and retiring ! Bet as a schoolkid he used to start a fight and then suddenly vanish ! ;D ;D ;D

Not Guilty Tommo...... I was the one who was always caught by the teachers after finishing the fight off! >:(

All I did was put forward an alternative to the (apparent) belief that the County Championships have become the Oxford & Sussex Roadshow. ::)

I did say at the time that my idea would be too revolutionary to ever work........ but at least it has provoked a debate with maybe some good ideas coming out of it! 8-)

Yes indeed Warrior, that's what the Forum's for, to encourage healthy debate.
I hope my teasing isn't seen as 'flaming' - I try to put sufficient smileys in. ;D ::) :-X :P :-*
Please carry on being controversial. ;)