Hi Ian,
I have just read your rant on the blog and am really quite annoyed. There may be a little merit in what you have said but sadly very little.
Your heading "Tournament Disgrace" is a disgrace in itself. Some people have given freely of the time to try and organise an event for others to enjoy. How do you expect them to react. Without volunteers and players the event does not happen.
If the first instance you could have voluntered your expertise and perhaps even entered. At the very least had a chat with those you thought had got it wrong to learn both sides and then considered carefully how it could be improved.
Entries for the tournament were very good not dismal and there was nothing sent out saying that. There were increases in almost all events and we said so. I sent out reminders to encourage as many as possible to take part. In view of the size of entry we had to reschedule. Having received the entries a draw is made. All groups had at least 3 players. There is limited time available and matches start as soon as possible. There were some people who had entered but did not arrive and I do not think we had prior notice in all instances. It is very difficult to revamp the event once matches have started and still finish in time. Also very possible that such a decision would not have met with favour from all quarters. For a 4 man group it takes 6 matches the same number of matches as 2 groups of 3. A decision had to be taken on the spot and a revamp was not considered as the best option. Of course every decision has consequences and we do not always like them and yes sometimes they will appear wrong, to some. Some credit is surely due to those who volunteer to be in that position. No rant I hear about those who did not show up and thus created the dilemma
The entry form clearly stated that 3 match qualification applied to 5 of the 12 events. This has been so for many years. Those who made it that way did so, as always, with best intentions. Clearly you think Roland too strong a player. Not wishing to be rude to Roland but it is 2 1/2 years since he played in the Premier Div. Time has taken its toll. Last season he played in Div 3 of Harrow & Wembley league and managed 66%. This season his team only recently withdrew from that league. I have no idea of the reason but wishing to continue playing and he has returned to play in Watford. Yes only one match so far in December. He beat one player who had 11% and lost to another who has 33%. Hardly the form of a ringer !. On the contary he was playing competitively in a standard to which he was suited and I hope will continue to do so. If we did find our openness being abused then I think the committee would consider reacting to it. Many seasons have passed without such action. Incidently Roland lost 3-0 in the knock out stage.
There may be some merit in some of your suggestions but I can see a lot of difficulties as well. My suggestion would be to "put some meat on your proposals" perhaps try to get involved by voluntering to run or assist in running a event. Perhaps become a committee member so at least you would be able to hear both sides of a problem and then assist in reaching a solution.
I have enjoyed some of your match reports and welcome them. If on this occasion you feel were playing devils advocate then I think you have got it badly wrong.
I have copied in Geof Bax, as Tournament Secretary, because I think you should have at least spoken to him first and perhaps then you would have tempered your comments and been more constructive rather than so negative.
Stuart Seaholme
I have just read your rant on the blog and am really quite annoyed. There may be a little merit in what you have said but sadly very little.
Your heading "Tournament Disgrace" is a disgrace in itself. Some people have given freely of the time to try and organise an event for others to enjoy. How do you expect them to react. Without volunteers and players the event does not happen.
If the first instance you could have voluntered your expertise and perhaps even entered. At the very least had a chat with those you thought had got it wrong to learn both sides and then considered carefully how it could be improved.
Entries for the tournament were very good not dismal and there was nothing sent out saying that. There were increases in almost all events and we said so. I sent out reminders to encourage as many as possible to take part. In view of the size of entry we had to reschedule. Having received the entries a draw is made. All groups had at least 3 players. There is limited time available and matches start as soon as possible. There were some people who had entered but did not arrive and I do not think we had prior notice in all instances. It is very difficult to revamp the event once matches have started and still finish in time. Also very possible that such a decision would not have met with favour from all quarters. For a 4 man group it takes 6 matches the same number of matches as 2 groups of 3. A decision had to be taken on the spot and a revamp was not considered as the best option. Of course every decision has consequences and we do not always like them and yes sometimes they will appear wrong, to some. Some credit is surely due to those who volunteer to be in that position. No rant I hear about those who did not show up and thus created the dilemma
The entry form clearly stated that 3 match qualification applied to 5 of the 12 events. This has been so for many years. Those who made it that way did so, as always, with best intentions. Clearly you think Roland too strong a player. Not wishing to be rude to Roland but it is 2 1/2 years since he played in the Premier Div. Time has taken its toll. Last season he played in Div 3 of Harrow & Wembley league and managed 66%. This season his team only recently withdrew from that league. I have no idea of the reason but wishing to continue playing and he has returned to play in Watford. Yes only one match so far in December. He beat one player who had 11% and lost to another who has 33%. Hardly the form of a ringer !. On the contary he was playing competitively in a standard to which he was suited and I hope will continue to do so. If we did find our openness being abused then I think the committee would consider reacting to it. Many seasons have passed without such action. Incidently Roland lost 3-0 in the knock out stage.
There may be some merit in some of your suggestions but I can see a lot of difficulties as well. My suggestion would be to "put some meat on your proposals" perhaps try to get involved by voluntering to run or assist in running a event. Perhaps become a committee member so at least you would be able to hear both sides of a problem and then assist in reaching a solution.
I have enjoyed some of your match reports and welcome them. If on this occasion you feel were playing devils advocate then I think you have got it badly wrong.
I have copied in Geof Bax, as Tournament Secretary, because I think you should have at least spoken to him first and perhaps then you would have tempered your comments and been more constructive rather than so negative.
Stuart Seaholme
stuart, thank you for this email which i requested be put in the blog so that anybody interested can enjoy the debate.
I would say that i think it a bit presumptious to think that this attempt to belittle myself would in fact 'hurt' me. I, unlike some folk,am able to take criticism and then enter into debate if applicable.
Basically you seem to be saying that volunteers should be above criticism. We all know about the great work of volunteers and the time they put in but,and i repeat myself here, that does not in any way excuse the decision to allow a group of two which was a disgrace and an insult to the two players and it just should never have happened. Members should be made aware so hopefully a genius can emerge with ideas to prevent any chance of a repeat next year. You stuart are arguably the best player ( with respect to close contenders)but try to imagine you are a 50% div 1,2 or 3 player who enters in the hope that with luck he may do well.You give up your evening, play ONE game,lose and go home. Well worthwhile?? By the way i have already praised geoff bax somewhere in the Blog.
Incidentally, was the caretaker approached and asked for a time constraint concession as a favour to the tournament?? I know the man and he does not deserve the reputation he appears to have and is fact a nice reasonable person.
YES, i could have spoken to Geoff first but why should I? We are allowed freedom of speech and what is the point of the Blog if i hide behind phone calls and emails? I am no devils advocate but if i were trying to be so, then it seems i got it very right.
YOU state that i should be more constructive and less negative. Well by definition to criticise is to find fault so if i am criticising i dont understand how you can call me negative. If any good comes from this debate then my criticism will have been proved constructive. YOU ask how i expect people i may criticise to react? i dont expect them to sulk but to be blunt i dont care how they react. And if they do not reply in the Blog then i never will know .
More constructive?? Is not my suggestion of having a tuesday tournament trying to be constuctive? PLEASE DONT just say there is little merit in my ideas. SAY WHY in your opinion there is little merit or else just saying there is little merit in itself has little merit. Indeed, none at all!
You say you see "lots" of difficulties in my ideas and want "meat" on them? Surely a suggestion is made and then the "meat" is discussed so please itemise the difficulties you foresee and i may respond. If there is an insurmountable difficulty then i will confess that particular idea was unworkable. Of course myself, or some other worthy person may see a way around the difficulties.
I think you need to look up the definition of "rant"! It may be an appropriate word to direct at those who did not show at the tournament but maybe we should ask them first why they did not show before we rant at them.
YES,i could have entered but i dont fancy playing on finals night in front of a gathering. no point in playing to lose?
VOLUNTEER my expertise? A very good point and i have no answer. I suppose i just never gave it any thought.What use would my expertise have been put to had i volunteered.
THE title of the Blog was deliberately chosen to be eye catching to those site visitors who normally just look at averages and tables. It referred to the group of two only and nothing else.
The tournament entry was good and nothing was sent out to say it was dismal? Maybe, but it was none other than Sally Bax,two days before the closing date for entries when asked by myself on the entries told me that it was dismal again and Geoff was very perturbed as poor soul he puts in such a lot of hard work!
I wasnt calling Roland a 'ringer' What a stupid thing to suggest! how can a tournament have a ringer? My point was that after half a season Roland had only played one match and it was not an unreasionable assumption to make that maybe he wouldnt play much more if at all. Merely raising a point to discuss and which Dave Edwards seemed to agree. Also it gave the opportunity to say that even a group of three is not good enough.
Roland ONLY had 66% in Harrow Div 3? Might seem rubbish to you i suppose.
The only reason i said good luck Roland i hope you win is because i know that he is a very nice friendly policeman. AT least he was when he arrested me.
Thank you for the invitation to become a committee member. Iam giving this serious consideration and may accept.
Posted by: ian banfield | 01/09/2010 at 06:01 PM