|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2006 10:51:43 GMT
Various points Nigel and Alan have made on this thread crave a response... Alan, you have the impression that I am always harking back to the old days when things were better. Maybe, and I make no attempts to hide this: Sussex once had a set of competitions (ah ! they included Ladies Doubles, and the dear old Landlords Cup which Denny used to win each year !) which were well supported and worth entering and worth coming down to a special Finals Night to witness and root for any team-mates who had somehow managed to make the finals. But interest dwindled, ask yourselves why. Coastal dominance. Wifey and I used to enter a lot, but whomever we drew, we always had to journey down to the coast. The Home/away Interleague was on a level playing field : sorry Mark/Nigel to bring this up again but your analogy of a football or cricket team having a favoured specialist with a role to play like a striker or opening bat – very amusing but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Under the present bar billiards set up, the first away player is sacrificed, led like a lamb to the slaughter, so it’s akin to starting the football game with a free penalty opportunity, or sending the opening batsman out with a bat a foot wide ! ;D Then of course we have mentioned the Champion-of-Champions, which Nigel admits he enjoyed taking part in, and wouldn’t mind if it were resurrected. The reasons for its discontinuance – basically apathy – were probably valid at the time, but that was four years ago, there has been a resurgence of interest in bar billiards in Sussex since (unless you disagree with Glenn) and the same reasons may not necessarily apply now. Don’t you think Barney Bear deserves a go ? or Kevin Stoner ? For Mid Sussex, Graham Daniels has won the singles for three years out of the last four – all since 2002 when the competition ended. So he’s a triple "misser-outer". He’s hanging up his cue for a year, so don’t bust a gut on his behalf, but this year’s runner-up Peter Burchell is a septuagenarian: What a wonderful experience it would be for him to play in it !
Sussex Divide Don't worry, Q, it's Alan's attempt at humour no doubt. Actually dividing Sussex diagonally North-East and South-West could be a serious option if ever you wanted to cater for the weaker leagues at any time – but I doubt it. The motive is more likely to be to concentrate the power base around Brighton and Worthing even more. The only serious way to divide Sussex is into East and West exactly how it exists geographically as separate counties. This would of course cause a complication in the County Championships as they are only likely to allow one team into the First Division. But as there are now three divisions they may allow, say, East Sussex into the first and West Sussex into the second as a concession. The league known as West Sussex could perhaps rename itself Western Sussex to accommodate the change and avoid confusion. As regards who would play in which team, let the players selected sort it out amongst themselves, it's not rocket science.
Sussex Team You’re both wrong about the “Cambridge situation” by the way (ie that with the extra competition from strong B teams they’d get fed up and soon disband). You may be surprised to know that with no Bucks team last year, the 2nd div would have been down to just three teams. Northants expressed their disapproval at the prospect of only playing two other teams and threatened that if that was to be the case it wasn’t much of a competition and not worth turning out for. Who can blame them ? Reading would be a long way for them to go not to get a decent crack of the whip… So, at their behest, B teams were allowed to take part for the very first time, to save the mens competition. Which padded the competition out and made for a great day, especially for Northants whose A team won promotion to the top flight. It made for a better competition for Cambridge also, and far from being to the detriment of other counties, an extra team from Sussex could even serve to cement the competition’s future.
I’ll now pick the extra Sussex team for you. I’ve gone by the unofficial Fazza points, as Nigel admits the Sussex RPs are only used as a guide for Masters qualification. At least Fazza points take account of past performances at County level and Opens – a requisite according to Nigel for justifying appearance at the highest levels.
1 Glenn Chubb, 2 Dave France, 3 Rik Dewdney, 4 Dave Hampton, 5 Neil Higgins, 6 Ian Street, 7 Gareth Lloyd. Reserve for either team : Chris Tupper.
Where am I coming from ? No Mid Sussex players in the side? Well, I’ve had my days both as a player and as serving on committees in Sussex, and should really have no axe to grind. But Glenn allows open discussion on this Forum: I am not indulging in personal attacks on anyone, in fact I agree with Alan on his personal achievements which include bringing about a One-day Interleague format which is fair to all and virtually cannot be improved upon. I also compliment Nigel in running a tight ship on whatever he is involved in, whether it be on a County or on a National Competition organisational level. You are both current unsung heroes of the game.
But you could do with lightening up, rather than being so fiercely defensive all the time. Consider allowing the odd change which might be for the better. This has to happen at the AGM, I know, but many people, myself included, are daunted by the possibility of turning up to support innocuous proposals and then being shouted down. Improvements can be made without bringing down the whole fabric of Sussex Bar Billiards if you allow them to.
My own motives are not about self-glorification or breaking into the Sussex team myself – I would be lucky to make the third team. But am I bothered ? I get my chance anyway with Surrey. The reason I keep on is just for the sake of other people reading this who might think : “That guy’s got a point, you know.”
Oh and Nigel – I’ll thank you not to insult the newly-formed Surrey B. This is not just a team of jobbers got up at random. We have undergone ‘trials’ to form our team from the most interested and able players available – a democratic way of doing things – and we fully expect to give the other B teams at least a run for their money.
(Postsript - Hi to RW by the way, glad you've offered your comments, quite a mellow offering this time from your goodself for a change !)
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Jul 27, 2006 11:39:19 GMT
Tommo, obviously we are coming from different angles here but I will respond to a couple of points on your last post
I do not mean to insult the newly formed Surrey B and I am sorry if it came accross this way. I was merely stating I do not expect them to be strong. Kent B and Northants B were the 2 weakest sides last year and given Surrey's 'A' placing last year I would fully expect Surrey B to be on a par with those aforementioned B sides. I am sure you will and have picked the next best 7 from Surrey but I from what I have said above I believe that county bar billiards is only for the very best in each county and is not the place for the blooding of new players - this is what local competitions are for.
I will correct you on the reason why B teams were allowed. It was a proposal from Kevin Tunstall at the 2004 AGM that B teams should be allowed. So it was an Oxford proposal, it got voted on and accepted. I voted against obviously but I accept that those are the new rules and thats ok. Bucks dropped out of the 2005 champs about a week before the actual championships and so the proposal was nothing to do with ensuring Northants and Cambs a full set of games. In fact I could have let them play each twice each with the drop out giving them 4 rather than 3 games because of the drop out. The County Champs has survived with the 9 counties for 15 years and there are still 9 counties so why now bring in B teams? Also as I pointed out before what if everyone sends in a B team? If Northants can do it so can pretty much every county (with the exception of Cambridge). Already Surrey, Kent, Northants, Oxford will enter making 13 teams, but we could have as many as 17. How am I going to accomodate all those teams, I have no doubt we will have to use an extra Sunday this year to play the whole championship.
In summary, I do accept change, but only if it is for the better of the game. I will listen to any proposals at the AGM this year, and vote and I will accept the majority decision. If Sussex want a B team and it gets voted on and accepted I have no problem with that at all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2006 11:50:52 GMT
Ok Nigel, I don't mind being corrected on inaccuracies, and can only say what I heard based on rumour. But as they say there's no smoke without fire, and I would imagine that the lopsidedness of the competition one year may have caused a basis for discussion, much the same way as in Sussex the B C and D teams evolved to bolster the line-up of the Interleague competitions.
I agree with you that 17 teams would be too many, but the way things stand I can't see B teams being provided from Bucks, Berks and Hants. Ideally you want an even number of teams to be able to tailor the competition, 8 or 12 or 16 being the most convenient. But then as organiser you will know that.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Messer on Jul 27, 2006 14:03:01 GMT
Hi Tommo
You were right it was a light hearted look at dividing Sussex up.
There would however be very real problems with making Sussex into two separate entities. These are not insurmountable but would be a serious cause for concern.
Currently we have the smallest committee ever - Jean, Mark, Richard and myself. You would need at least a similar number to come forward to make up a second steering committee.
The funding of the new counties: I suppose could be done by dividing the assets of the SCBBA equally, but this would probably only be half of the funding necessary to run the equivalent number of competitions. Trophy budgets would be nearly doubled. The annual Trophies themselves would need replacing or renaming and which county would get what?.
New constitutions would have to be agreed for each new county. I am not trying to put anyone off making this happen I am just alerting everyone to the massive task which two sets of individuals would have to take on. in an earlier post I did say that i would be in favour of spitting Sussex- it is just too geographically big. I still go along with that. On a personal level I am fortunate enough to live in the centre of the coastal strip of the current Sussex. It is the largest population centre of Sussex and therefore has the best chance of having a lot of players living there - thats all I can really say about the Worthing Brighton powerbase.
I hope I'm not sounding defensive Tommo, I welcome people's views and would never ever shout anyone down in a meeting. I look forward to your proposals for the AGM.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2006 14:42:09 GMT
I think that's a very fair and candid assessment of the situation, Alan.
I suspected dividing officially in two would produce a logistical nightmare, but I have never advocated more that one Sussex County Bar Billiards Association. I think that the member teams would rather everything was together playing-wise - why we have even embraced Leagues from outside our borders (Redhill; T Wells) to play in our Interleague competition. I suppose it is a question of whether the AEBBA would recognise two sub-divisions of the county under the auspices of the SCBBA. It would seem to be a lot of trouble to go to otherwise just to send along an extra team of equal status to play in the Nationals.
When I made my selections for Sussex B (how cheeky ;D) I seem to have left out the ice-cream man. Sorry, Ian ! And Chris's dad. Sorry, Dave ! (There should be a place in there for them with a little bit of juggling).
|
|
barneybear
Full Forum Member
Paul Barnett
Posts: 296
|
Post by barneybear on Aug 11, 2006 7:46:26 GMT
Then of course we have mentioned the Champion-of-Champions, which Nigel admits he enjoyed taking part in, and wouldn’t mind if it were resurrected. The reasons for its discontinuance – basically apathy – were probably valid at the time, but that was four years ago, there has been a resurgence of interest in bar billiards in Sussex since (unless you disagree with Glenn) and the same reasons may not necessarily apply now. Don’t you think Barney Bear deserves a go ? [/i] [/quote] Tommo, as an infrequent bar billiards player I was actually unaware that the champion of champions was now defunct and was wondering when my invite to play would turn up! Of course had I attended Sussex AGMs I would have known, but the problem with turning up to an AGM that not many people attend is that you tend to end up with an unwanted job ;D In another post you referred to Ian the ice-cream man. Now that does date you! Many moons have passed since he became Ian the barman and he is now Ian the do not a lot at all ;D
|
|
|
Post by Hammy on Sept 8, 2006 7:29:20 GMT
Just to put my two pence in here, what is wrong with entering B sides??! Yes Northants B finished bottom last year but they really enjoyed the day and said that they gained a lot of experience from playing better players. Bar Billiards is elitist enough at the moment and the sport is dying. Shouldn't we be encouraging the so called 'lesser' players (which really they are not) to play in these kind of tournaments?? >:(
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2006 9:23:51 GMT
It's okay Jason, The Sussex committee, who were previously violently opposed to B teams, bowed to pressure at the recent AGM and have now sanctioned the creation of one. This will compensate for the lack of a Kent B team (could still happen but seems unlikely). Not sure where that leaves Northants, though. Will they still go if they end up in the third div. and have to play on the separate day ?
|
|
|
Post by Hammy on Sept 8, 2006 13:35:40 GMT
I am not too sure what they will do. Si, do you know what Jason's thoughts are on this!! :)
|
|
|
Post by Colemanator on Sept 8, 2006 15:18:10 GMT
If kent B don't field a side then Northants B should be in the 2nd division, The place for Sussex B would then be division 3, correct me if i'm wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2006 18:44:52 GMT
Ian, Nigel the organiser has clarified this point on the County Championship Date ? thread on the General Discussion board.
Here is his quote :
Nigel Senior wrote : "Ok, thanks for letting me know as I was told Northants B were not playing.
Lolly, if Kent B drop out, Northants B will be promoted to Div 2. If Kent B do attend obviously Northants B would be a Division 3 team. I will update this thread when I get news from Sav re Kent B."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2011 12:49:56 GMT
A tournament where you can lose without hitting a ball was quite frankly silly. To me, any format would be an improvement, and I think the tournament organizers have done a great thing here, so the idea of change gets 2 thumbs up from me. On a side note, you would be surprised how many people I used to know who didn't go to Jersey simply because of the old format where you could get knocked out without doing anything wrong, so I would not be surprised if your numbers increased this year. Of course, all the time 1 leg Bar Billiards exists, there is always going to be problems, and things that happen that are unfair. If it was up to me, 1 leg Bar Billiards would not exsist.... anywhere, not even at league level. But that's the way it is. But i do think it would be a mistake to prioritize someones score over there ability to win. I'm not one for the "magic" of seeing someone go out first round without hitting a ball. To me that's just unfair, and a waste of someones hard earned money. So like I said a big 2 thumbs up from me. And you never know, maybe the time has come...... Anyway, this has been fun. Good old forum this place. kind of reminds me of one I used to run myself! Was a load of hassle though, wouldn't like to be the person/people who take care of this place :) Yours love always, An Old Friend Hi Glenn, 100% in agreement with you, and you have articulated perfectly the case in favour of 'fairness' - and which in their wisdom the JBBL are adopting for this year - and hopefully beyond. I would be interested to have your opinion on the SCBBA Home and Away format..........talk about an unfair competition, the captain decides for you beforehand who you are going to play, and whether or not you are going to have the break. I have had three 'wasted journeys' to Brighton now, 24k put past me by Mario, 20k by FeedTheGoat - and more recently 19k by BB Warrior. Each time I was 'beaten' before having a single shot, all away from home. And this competition is the prime contributionary factor towards earning Sussex ranking points which in turn allow qualification to the annual Masters event. I know that this is a drum which I have been beating, ever since this corrupt system was introduced in the 1990s, but it is such a contrast to the One-Day Interleague where everyone gets the same number of break games, and thus a fair crack of the whip. What it boils down to is I believe in the principle of equal opportunity, and what is the world coming to when I get envious of certain teammates who get given the break on every occasion, whether home or away ? Welcome back, we've been without the 'champion of fair play' for too long.......it's the Sussex AGM tonight, but obviously too late to do anything about it for this year, and I gave up trying to change things several years ago as there are too many good players happy in their own little comfort zone!
|
|
|
Post by milko on Aug 8, 2011 13:34:56 GMT
I would be interested to have your opinion on the SCBBA Home and Away format..........talk about an unfair competition, the captain decides for you beforehand who you are going to play, and whether or not you are going to have the break. I have had three 'wasted journeys' to Brighton now, 24k put past me by Mario, 20k by FeedTheGoat - and more recently 19k by BB Warrior. Each time I was 'beaten' before having a single shot, all away from home. And this competition is the prime contributionary factor towards earning Sussex ranking points which in turn allow qualification to the annual Masters event. That's totally wrong to have that format and very unfair in my book. Keith :o Sorry this is off topic now!!
|
|
|
Post by JB on Aug 8, 2011 15:24:08 GMT
Think this part of the discussion should be moved elsewhere as its nothing to do with the world championships.
- Agreed, Jean, moving as suggested.
Just a couple of points Tommo in some of the one day competitions some players have more breaks than others. I assume this is unfair.
Double games impossible unless you want to start the match Sunday afternoon
Captains pick. - Totally agree this is why we have a captain to be able to try and win a match. If its drawn then just helps the really strong teams who have 7 strong players. If you have a team that hasnt got 7 strong players then the captains decision of who plays where is vital. If its drawn out and the draw comes out wrong for the weaker teams they have no chance of winning the match.
And why play in a competition that you think is unfair?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2011 16:21:16 GMT
Just a couple of points Tommo in some of the one day competitions some players have more breaks than others. I assume this is unfair. A variance of +1 or -1 can't be helped sometimes and I have no problem with that. Double games impossible unless you want to start the match Sunday afternoon I've never advocated 'Double games throughout' - although maybe a game could be a double-leg frame if someone played more than half the table time with their opening break - but only if coupled with "all 7 breaks to the away team" !!! Captains pick. - Totally agree this is why we have a captain to be able to try and win a match. If its drawn then just helps the really strong teams who have 7 strong players. If you have a team that hasnt got 7 strong players then the captains decision of who plays where is vital. If its drawn out and the draw comes out wrong for the weaker teams they have no chance of winning the match. Well aware of your views Jean and that you don't want it to change. We did put forward a motion at the County AGM a few years back, and there were an equal number of votes for either side, but we lost it on your casting vote as Chairman. ;D And why play in a competition that you think is unfair? Well, some times we try to pit ourselves 'against the odds' - nothing wrong in that. Tommo ('champion of the underdog')
|
|
|
Post by bobhall on Aug 8, 2011 23:09:11 GMT
interleague you cannot say is unfair as is home and away and never say you are beaten till the bar has gone the balls have been trapped then your beaten as in a few cases i have seen the black pegged knocked over and that takes away there score this game is meant as fun banter and enjoyment but right now it is worse than what is happening in london
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 8:31:37 GMT
I genuinely want Mid Sussex to do well at the top level, Bob, after your record-breaking promotion season. I have sensed in the last couple of years that it has become increasingly cut-throat in Div.1 and if you don't bury the game on your first visit you sometimes don't get a second chance. The Hurst however could prove to be a leveller. ;)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 8:36:42 GMT
That's totally wrong to have that format and very unfair in my book. Keith :o Thanks Keith. The equivalent competition for you boys "North of the Thames plus Pompey" would be the Inter-Area: I don't know, but would imagine this is played under the traditional lines of a random draw for the players. tommo
|
|
|
Post by milko on Aug 10, 2011 3:33:17 GMT
That's totally wrong to have that format and very unfair in my book. Keith :o Thanks Keith. The equivalent competition for you boys "North of the Thames plus Pompey" would be the Inter-Area: I don't know, but would imagine this is played under the traditional lines of a random draw for the players. tommo Yes Clive, it is, I've always thought that a random draw is the fairest way.
|
|
|
Post by Q on Aug 10, 2011 12:30:41 GMT
It is obvious from your comments & thoughts that you have improved your game Dave and are now thinking like the 'elite few' :)
When I say that the method of playing home & away interleague is unfair I actually mean that it is unfair on the individual players.
As ex-captain of Mid Sussex 'B' (previously Horsham 'B') I had the problem of choosing the team, most times I couldn't choose the team I wanted because some of the top players would be unavailable (or unwilling) to play, Mid Sussex at the time had only a few 'top grade' players and I made a point of encouraging 'up & coming' players and anyone else who had a desire to play.
The problem with the current format is that if your opposing captain decides to play their best player (with or without the break) who do you put against them? You have to try & win the match so it would be foolish to pit your best player (bear in mind that none of my players at the time were 'play the table out' players) so in the interests of a result you have to sacrifice a lesser player and hold back your better players for an easier draw, it then becomes clear that the sacrificed player would be one of those that you are trying to nurture which invariably makes them despondant and unwilling to suffer the same fate again, had the draws been random then at least they would hope to get a better draw next time.
So all it was doing was putting off the very people that I wanted to encourage, yes I suppose I could have given my new players the break and put all my better players against the break, and I could have played my best players against my opponents best players but from a teams point of view that would have been suicide.
So it was me who suggested the change, we gathered as many like minded players and attended the AGM and we lost to the casting vote, I think we all came away feeling that we had been 'done over' by the 'elite few' and that there was no point in trying again.
This was the same year where I instigated the Sussex 'B' team (that you are so proud of), that too was a very close affair, we very narrowly won the vote (despite strong opposition from the 'elite few')
I am no longer involved with Mid Sussex but had I still lived in the area I would STILL be pushing for a system that is fairer on the PLAYERS, especially those from the lesser leagues.
This post is in no way meant as a slur to any Sussex players, past or present, my comment of 'elite few' is purely to emphasise that there are those in Sussex who dont want change, but those are generally the very same players who are good enough for change not to matter.
Rant over
Bernie
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2011 14:33:50 GMT
I feel that having it played as Lucky Draw would only benefit the teams with 7 strong players, which would make the "shock results" far more unlikely and would not benefit the teams with only 3 or 4 strong players and the rest "up and coming". I do not subscribe to that claim at all. In fact I would offer the opposite viewpoint, that certain strong players are being 'protected' by being given the break each time. This is then helping them towards an artificially high average and win rate. "The rich getting richer, etc". This is understandable under this system when the Captain is allowed to 'play God' - as Bernie has intimated, there are certain strong players who will be chosen with the break on their home table each time as 'bankers' as they are capable of winning the frame with the first visit to the table. How gutted these players look on the rare occasions that they fail to deliver the goods, as it usually turns out to be fatal to the team's result. The Home/Away has IMHO become far too cut-throat in recent years and for some (myself included) has ceased to become pleasurable. The 'lap of the gods' draw before-hand was much fairer, and you took the rough with the smooth if you had a bad draw or were picked against the break a few times. Because you knew that over a period of time the luck would even itself out. I believe that captains should have a "bigger role" at the highest level than just making sure that their layers are available, turning name cards over in a "lucky draw" and then writing down the scores. I call that being an "administrator", not a captain! :P So, those two separate three-year stints I did as Horsham A captain, I was nothing more than an administrator ! :o I can assure you (and I'm sure Bernie will agree as a past captain) that there's far more to being a captain than deciding what team to put down on paper: for starters, there's getting a team together in the first place; booking the venue for a series of home games; communication with the opposing captains; preparing the match table/ensuring it's playable; arranging transport for the away games; managing reserve players; motivating the team on the night; and communicating with the Interleague Secretary including getting the match result in on time - as well as lesser duties such as whose turn it is to score, when the sandwiches will come out, etc etc.........a little more than simple administration, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by JB on Aug 10, 2011 14:49:36 GMT
Wouldnt it be fun if in football, rugby, cricket etc they had to put all the players in a hat and draw out who was going to play and in what position. Fun yes but at the end of it would it be the best team who won the league or the team that had the luck of the draw?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2011 14:59:31 GMT
Yes, it would be fun. Jean. But the system of "who plays who" isn't copied from those sports, it's copied from Darts and Pool, and many of us don't like that fact.
I could empathise more if we copied Chess, where the best players play each other on the top board, and then 2nd best plays 2nd best, down to the weakest playing each other on bottom board. But it wouldn't be workable with bar billiards as players are better than others in certain aspects of the game and weaker in others.
|
|
|
Post by Ros on Aug 10, 2011 15:54:59 GMT
I'll tell you what isn't fun. It's not fun being that 'sacrificial lamb'.
Yes, you do it for the team. You go against the break every time and you usually play the opposition's strongest player.
But you turn up each time knowing that you probably won't get to the table until you are 5k or more down, knowing that you probably won't win unless your opponent trips over his (or her) bootlaces. Perhaps even more confidence sapping is the knowledge that your captain thinks you are expendable.
Many's the time in the past that I considered giving up playing interleague, but you just have to tell yourself that you are there so that if and when that 'elite player' does trip up, that you are good enough to make it count for your team and take that precious 'against the break' point.
And of course, the opposing teams know your role too after a while.
You also know that if you stop playing interleague, that it would be incredibly hard to motivate yourself to start again, that's if you got another chance.
Having finally clawed my way up to a point where I have been trusted with the break a few times, I have been able to prove that I have as much right to my team place as anyone. All I know, is that I would have got there a lot sooner if the games had been drawn.
As for captains being administrators - it doesn't bother me in the least to take on that role in Mid Sussex, but as tommo says there is a bit more to it than that. Instead I wonder why in an interleague 'team' we need to have one member who plays 'god'?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2011 17:32:49 GMT
I wonder why in an interleague 'team' we need to have one member who plays 'god'? I could not have put that better myself, Ros. :)
|
|
|
Post by JB on Aug 10, 2011 18:04:21 GMT
Just one point who are the "elite" players. To me they play div 1. Most of us mortals play in the other 2 divisions where it is unlikely that if your against the break your not going to get a chance. Yes I know it can happen but in the years i have been playing div 2 i can only think of about 2 games that i had no chance in. If your teams good enough to be in div 1 then you surely should expect to see top bar billiards played. We all started as lambs to the slaughter knowing you were going to be thrown against the break against the best players. What an achievment when you actually won one of these games. Then eventually by watching whilst being slaughtered and trying things out and getting help we improve and become that player that is no longer the sacrificial lamb. I will keep quiet now lol
|
|
DA-DM
Distinguished Member
Posts: 837
|
Post by DA-DM on Aug 10, 2011 20:28:15 GMT
i would like to give my opinion too please.....
there are far too many points being argued for me to understand what is going on and what answers people are looking for, BUT :-
looking at the very first post of this thread - is it fair..... to have the break every time...... a lot has changed in five years and the people who maybe had the break every time either don't need to any more, ( or they are too scared to play without having the break or even will not play unless they do have it) or they are consistent at winning with it, so therefore yes it is fair if it gets a win ?
I am confused as to whether this argument/discussion is based on league or interleague ?
Interleague is 'when two leagues or more intersect and play each other' - so surely this should/would be the best players from each league and they would be good enough or the 'elite' few to play against or with ? and the captain(knowing his players strengths and weaknesses) to battle wits against wits with the opposing captain as to who plays who !?
again things change in five years - people won't or don't want to play interleague any more (whether it is financial or they don't like the captain or felt unable to compete at that level), therefore it is left to 'lesser'or non-elite players to make the teams.
I play interleague - I am happy to go first away from home - yes, a lamb to slaughter maybe, but I am a willing one. I like to 'show' the TEAM how the table is playing (whether it's me or the slaughterer that is playing), to give the team a better chance of winning as they can prepare themselves for their game knowing (hopefully) how to play the table. I am also a willing lamb as I like to go first - someone has to !! and it relieves the pressure on the rest of the team. We are lucky enough to have a very good first at home player -he goes 1st every home game and yes he has the break every time because he knows the table and gives us a better chance of a win. I also like to go first away because there is always an element of luck to every game and sometimes (rarely !) I might win that 1st game away and the team get a bonus and an uplift, as well as a slight release in pressure that they don't have to carry me as a weaker player, tho I like to think that our team don't think like that and they would be pleased for me.
different teams and captains do things different ways whether for the benefit of their team or themselves.
I fail to see why people get so uppity and political about it all when we are supposed to be participating in a social event that should be enjoyable by all - if you don't or can't enjoy it - then don't blooming play !!!!!!!!!!!
LIFE IS NOT FAIR and bar billiards is JUST A GAME.
i will crawl back in my box now x
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2011 22:34:35 GMT
I don't see too much to disagree with in the last two posts, and can endorse Colleen's view that life is not always fair - I'd even go further and say that "$hit happens"!
All I was picking up on was Glenn's IMHO noble message that bar billiards should be fair if at all possible, and that means avoiding instances where you can journey a long way and 'without having had a chance' lose 'without having put a foot wrong'. He was of course referring to World Championship, and I will be intrigued to know if he extends this noble ideal into the team interleague game.
I am always willing to accept whatever bad deal that fate throws me like losing a toss or being drawn against the break when the chances started as even, but I fail to see the fairness of a situation where the odds are stacked against me from the start by someone else's choice.
And the little digs aimed like 'why still play?' sound just like a former boss's favourite retort "If you don't like it, tough ! There's the door !" I think I've heard enough of that particular one, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Aug 10, 2011 22:35:31 GMT
Hi BB Fans,
Just thought I'd add my thoughts to the pot from a league and inter-league captains viewpoint, i have no intention to criticize anyone as i believe captains are entitled to structure the playing policy of their team as they see fit to maximize their chances of success. Matches would be boring if everyone played games the same way. So lets welcome diversity of thought from our captains!
Some captains will always play who they consider their best players with the break to have a better chance of getting 3 games on the board leaving the rest of the team to get 1 of the remaining to gain victory with the happy byproduct of obtaining a respectively higher team player average which is an important consideration in the inter-league format. It is up to the opposing captain to decide weather to play his players in the same fashion or not. In reality you probably have to, to minimize exposure to a bad outcome.
As we are in the fortuitous position of having a team all of a generally similar standard it doesn't matter which position i place either player, which allows me to give all players and equal opportunity with and against the break, the byproduct here allows me to keep all players satisfied with the selections given to them. At the end of the day, its not fair to expect a player to turn out for the team regularly and always be sacrificed to the oppositions best player but it is understandable as a means to an end in a league format. If i had a team with substantial skill differentials i would have to change my strategy to suit.
We used to run the league with "captains prerogative" as the inter-league is now. The consequences have already been stated elsewhere and does effect player averages to the detriment of all in the league. Players who liked to play early could play and then disappear for the rest of the night and weaker players were often sacrificed for the betterment of the team. The league decided to change to all drawn games which by definition is much fairer to all players.
Surely the fairest way is the best way in a league where the aim is to promote bar billiards and develop new players in a constructive environment.
Should this policy be echoed in inter-league...probably not...the captain should make all efforts to win the match with the resources available and within the current rules. The sacrificial weaker player should continue to be developed within the league structure and also learn shots and technique, which is generally achieved by playing better players in the inter league circuit. Might be interesting to change to all away breaks though.
If the rules are changed to all drawn matches then all visiting players need to be available all night which has its own drawbacks.
Inter league matches will never be "fair" under captains prerogative rules, but hay...get over it and enjoy the experience of playing a representative match for your league as one of its best players.
Soap Box now demolished.
|
|
BFG
Distinguished Member
Posts: 591
|
Post by BFG on Aug 10, 2011 23:29:35 GMT
Maybe we should just start with each others average score.... ;)
After our last couple of seasons in interleague we like the format but maybe that is because it's just seven of our players doing as well as we can..... $hit happens!
Most of our best players have been there and done it all before and now don't really fancy a 120 mile round trip on a winter Sunday night
The captain's job does get easier with the enthusiasm and support of the team and can in fact be a pleasure even without success however that is measured!
I do know that watching 15k get put past me is a bit boring when 6 will do!
As a team though one exceptional performance from a team mate is generally enough to make it a good night out and sometimes even an opponent! Genette!
Maybe we will get better through these experiences and maybe we won't
|
|