Does anybody disagree with the view that it is an unacceptable disgrace and an insult to pay your fee to enter the tournament and arrive to find a group of TWO? Is the loser expected to cheerfully lose and drive 30 minutes to go home?
Was it impossible to put the two players one each into another group? ie convert a group of three into four?
Is it also somewhat demoralising to arrive and to find a group of only three with one of the players until a season or two ago ( if I am not mistaken ) a regular and worthy player in the premier division? ( good luck Roland I hope you win it ) but if he only plays one game in the league this season what a strange divisional one winner !!
Well this is what happened to my two team members. Will they be spurred on by events and be more determined to win next year? NO! of course not..... they just won't enter!!
So why each year do we hear a day or two before the tournament of what a dismal entry again? excepting this years Mens, Veterans and Doubles for some mysterious reason.
I suggest scrapping the tournament in its present format to be replaced as follows in order to avoid the above scenarios and make it more attractive when players muse on their entry, or not.
I havn't yet given thought to the exact logistics of it but it seems fairly simple to me once entries are known
After 4/5 weeks of the season any player who has played a league match may enter OR enter everybody and then let them un-enter if applicable. Start the tournament evenings maybe a month later.
Play the events on some of the Tuesday club nights as an ongoing issue. there would more than enough tuesdays especially if the league paid for the extra hall. Have only two groups in the event thus ensuring several matches per entrant with top two into semi's. This system would also provide a more worthy winner due to more opponents he has beaten.
I also suggest playing the handicap cup on the Tuesday club night. this would provide an extra 5 or 6 weeks for league matches, thus making it feasible to postpone matches if neccesary. Despite what some may think ,there are occasions where a match has genuine reasons to be postponed. There are those among us however who would postpone a game with innaproppriate excuses... like the best player isn't available... well this could be legislated against by a proposal that states : 'if a team postpones a game then if they have a player of an average of more than 70% on the night the match is to be played, then that player shall not be eligible to play in the re-arranged fixture'
Does anybody agree? if so I may put this in the AGM to be voted on! If nobody cares and apathy rules ok then leave things as they are or are some people just scared of a change?
Blog Post Submitted by : Ian Banfield
A lot of ground covered in this post Ian. Clearly it is not acceptable for a group of 2 and a tournament entrant having such a small amount of competitive play in return for their entry fee... perhaps the powers that be need to look at the way this is dealt with in the future.
What I would say is that it is easy to criticise those that do their best to organise on our behalf the league and the annual tournament... often the entrants for the tournament are very late and difficult circumstances need to be accommodated. This is not an excuse just a comment.
It would be really good if a new generation of Table Tennis enthusiasts willing to participate and help with the league and its organisation would come forward its never been easier with the new developments such as this blog in the past year ... many hands make light work and just a few dedicated individuals have been carrying the Admin. burden for far too many years.
I am really positive and happy to hear someone coming forward with new suggestions on how things could be improved and really welcome this kind of interaction...
Let's hope that this years AGM is attended by people willing to take a much more active role in the Watford League rather than sit back and pass blame without any positive contribution whatsoever...
I will probably make a few recommendations myself this year for change and encourage numbers to turn up to help push through the vote... so if you don't like change you'll have to turn up and vote to prevent it !!!
Posted by: Chris Ogle | 01/05/2010 at 11:36 PM
I think it is unfortunate rather than "an unacceptable disgrace and an insult" that there was a group of two on Monday. The bad weather was also partly to blame. Unfortunately, this happens all over the country and is usually the fault of the absent person rather than the organisation. It is difficult enough arranging a schedule for three different competitions within 3 hours. Variations can take place if there is sufficient notice but not usually on the night. Sometimes, it is also unfair for the people who have attended to be forced to play an additional match as well as subsequent knockout matches.
However, most tournaments have groups of four wherever possible but they don't have the time constraints that we have at Queen's.
I must admit I was also surprised that someone who has only played one league game was eligible to enter. Maybe something we should look at. For the record, Paul Phillips beat Roland in the semi-final.
Playing the handicap competition on several Tuesdays has some merit, except that I would not like to see the junior coaching cancelled as a result. This would mean even less play, if play didn't commence until 8.15pm.
I have never agreed with postponing matches, except in extreme circumstances. This does nothing to enhance the sport of table tennis in my opinion. This does not happen in other sports. In pool, if you are not there on time, you forfeit your match. No questions asked or excuses allowed.
However, everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is why we have an AGM each year.
Finally, I agree with Chris that I would also like to see more people get involved with the running of the League. I am sure there are many people who have some great ideas to further enhance table tennis in the Watford League.
Posted by: David Edwards | 01/06/2010 at 11:12 AM
chris. i hope my comments do not come across as nothing but a whingeing criticism If its criticism then its meant to be constructive.
Perhaps i should have included a mention of the estimable Geoff Bax whose 'work' for us all, not just tournament but score cards, cannot be understated. Even if truth be known he probably enjoys his 'hobby'.
with regard to postponement legislation.....
May i add that of course if a team has more than one player averaged above 70% then the ban only applies to the highest averaged player.
Posted by: iAN bANFIELD | 01/06/2010 at 03:37 PM
I play Sunday League football and each team is allowed one (and only one) weekend per season where they can postpone a fixture. They have to give at least a weeks notice to the league. This acknowledges the fact that there is the occasional time when you really really can't get a team up but stops teams abusing postponments.
Personally I'd rather have the current system (i.e. no postponements) rather than the old situations where some teams postponed maybe 5 or 6 times a season (often as Ian says because they didn't want to call up weaker players rather than because they genuinely couldn't field a team) but a limit of say 1 postponment per season per team (with reasonable notice given) could be an option?
Posted by: Dave Soloway | 01/06/2010 at 04:46 PM
Just my opinion about the tournament format: the problem with playing a tournament over multiple evenings is that it restricts the number of entrants even more as unless someone can make every evening then they can't play at all (unless we allow postponments!). How about keeping the tournament on a single day but moving it to a different time of year e.g. October or March to avoid weather problems.
Posted by: Dave Soloway | 01/06/2010 at 04:52 PM
Dave, please explain! I think the tournament now is played over multiple evenings, is it not? Yes it is. So how does playing for example this years monday events on a tuesday followed by for example this years wednesday events on the following tuesday potentially restrict the number of entrants?
Posted by: ib | 01/06/2010 at 06:04 PM
Okay, no postponements.
A hypothetical situation..
Team A needs to beat Team B to come top but its two best players are ill yet they can call on much weaker reserves and field 3 players ,which they do and lose.
How has that enhanced anything? Seems to me all that would do is make the league table meaningless!
So lets scrap league tables and play all games as friendlies. Seriously!
Posted by: ib | 01/06/2010 at 06:11 PM
Dave Ed. lets not be polite and beat about the bush! To have a group of two IS most certainly an unacceptable disgrace and an insult.
"unfortunate"? Too right it was unfortunate, especially for the loser.Somewhat of an understatement to call it unfortunate?
To be against variations on the night and have no contingency plans for non arrivals will kill the tournament or see the same people enter each year because players who play for a bit of fun or just for something to do, who know they will lose and are therefore good sporting losers will not enter if there is the possibility of giving up an evening, travelling and only getting one game or even two games!
I agree that junior coaching should not be cancelled to accomodate any changes on a tuesday. I assumed that it could either start earlier or with another hall available that surely something could be organised? I know that means money but if funds are in the kitty then i would think that a good way to use them.
Dave Ed. ,with all due respect, if postponements are so obnoxious to you ,then why have you asked me to postpone our last two cup meetings and dont forget Abdul postponed a league game with your team last season as well.
What has how Pool is run got to do with table tennis in the Watford league? Who says their way is right or best? We must do what is best for table tennis in watford.
Yes we have an AGM but we know ,do we not? that the majority of players will moan about this and that but will not feel strongly enough about it to give an evening to the AGM and vote things better.Or perhaps it is just laziness.
Posted by: ib | 01/06/2010 at 06:55 PM
Ian
I did ask for a postponement but in the same week (2 days later) and it was a Cup final, not a League match. We did agree to play with a weakened team and in the end, all th Finals on that day were postponed by the League.
As you said, last season Abdul asked for a postponement, not me. I didn't know about it until after the event.
The point about Pool was only to highlight having rules and sticking to them.
By the way, it's good that you have provoked some reaction and healthy debate from people visiting the site.
Posted by: David Edwards | 01/06/2010 at 08:16 PM
"Dave, please explain! I think the tournament now is played over multiple evenings, is it not? Yes it is. So how does playing for example this years monday events on a tuesday followed by for example this years wednesday events on the following tuesday potentially restrict the number of entrants? "
Sorry, I read it as you suggesting that one individual event (e.g. the handicap singles) would take place over multiple nights. If not then ignore my comment :-)
Posted by: Dave Soloway | 01/06/2010 at 09:15 PM
"Okay, no postponements.
A hypothetical situation..
Team A needs to beat Team B to come top but its two best players are ill yet they can call on much weaker reserves and field 3 players ,which they do and lose.
How has that enhanced anything? Seems to me all that would do is make the league table meaningless!
So lets scrap league tables and play all games as friendlies. Seriously! "
----
I disagree that it makes it meaningless - It's the same in any other league. If arsenal have their 3 best players injured they can't just postpone a game, they field reserves. It doesn't make the premier league meaningless it's just part of the game. Arguably the league table is essentially meanigless for most people anyway as 3/4 of the players in the league play purely for enjoyment and don't really care where they finish so playing matches with a weakened team isn't a problem for them.
Posted by: Dave Soloway | 01/06/2010 at 09:20 PM
David
Sorry, I think I got confused between two paragraphs of Ian's original blog.
One paragraph refers to events (tournament) being played on Tuesdays as "an ongoing issue" (presumably over several weeks) and the second paragraph referred to the Handicap Cup (league competition) also being played on Tuesday nights.
I hope this interpretation is correct.
Posted by: David Edwards | 01/06/2010 at 09:33 PM
First comment would be to congratulate Chris Ogle on the web site and the blog. Havent seen Chris this season to say well done - his team 'postponed' when we were due to play :) I think Chris was unavailable ha ha - Good site Mr O!
It certainly seems to create some healthy debates.
I just got back from practice and , whilst sipping a cup of hot chocolate, was browsing the site and was drawn to make comment by IB's initial email .... 'an unacceptable disgrace and an insult'. A blatant attempt to sensationalise a story to win Watford league Blogger of the year :)
It seems there are two main issues - the closed tournament and postponments.
Re Postponments, why dont you take a leaf out of the best run league around - Wembley. Cut out the grey areas that are exploited. No Postponements allowed except in exceptional circumstances (weather, Venue burnt down etc), points deducted for not fielding a team and teams fined for turning up late or with less than a full team. The result; practically no postponements, teams of three for most if not all matches and a league that runs like clockwork. Everyone respects the rules! Fixture lists are made available at the start of the season and it is the reponsibility of the teams to turn up on the date specified....not anybody elses. Players unavailable is just bad luck. If you commit to a team at the start of the season then you see it though. Black and White with no shades of grey!
Re the tournament, David Edwards, probably using his years of tournament experience at local and national level, makes informed comment when he mentions that it is the players who do not turn up that cause problems, not the organisers or the format. The Watford tournament format is ok and group stages to qualify for knockouts is a tried and tested format used at table tennis tournaments from local league level to national and international level. Just because a couple of people were let down by absent player(s) doesnt mean the format is wrong. I would suggest that four players per group would give better value for money but you need good entry level and each event would need its own night due to time constraints at Queens so logistically difficult. DE also mentioned (because he knows), you simply cannot swap and change things on the night. A group of four players is six games compared to a group of three which has three games so it would take twice as long - in fact not far short of the length of a league match. Having planned three competitions in one night based on the entries, the organisers would have been aware of rough times taken to complete groups and rounds within the time constraints of Queens. I have driven to national tournaments hundreds of miles away to play in a group of four to find that two of my opponents were no shows. It happens. It is not the way the tournament is run, the format or the organisers....is is just unfortunate. IB and his team mates were unlucky this time - know one knows if everyone is going to turn up.
Re qualification for the tournament - players really should play a minimum of four league/cup matches to qualify (or whatever the league decides is reasonable) so that the Leagues Tournament is won by players who are committed to supporting the league on a regular basis.
Tournament organisers should be praised, helped and thanked......it is us players that disrupt their well laid plans by being late, not turning up etc
Re IB's change of format for tournament, personally I think a tournament is about the moment not about a series of events over months to a finals night. Turning the closed tournament into a Tennis style league Ladder event for a match that might only last 10 minutes would be rubbish and you will find people will constantly not turn up, re-arrange or forfeit - especially if they are not doing too well in the large group they are in.
On a side issue It was also interesting to read the comments 'will they be more determined to win next year'....well lets hope so - isn't trying to win one of the main reason anybody plays? Isn't trying to beat someone who beat you last time the challenge and doesnt it make you want come back and to be better? They should come back and try again next year - perhaps beat the guys that sent them packing. If they are not that competitive perhaps they shouldnt enter anyway - train spotting is less competitive I think?
Oh and Roly has 50% in 1st division and lost in the semi finals. That shouldnt demoralise IB who played premier division much more recently than Roly...Roly's got a funny bat and he sort of knows how to use it :) They should have a separate division for players with funny rubbers - am I the only person who thinks that? :)
Oh and dont take away practice night on Tuesdays by organsing handicap matches cant think of anything worse! When will you get the chance to practice to get better?
My Hot Chocolate is cold now so I'm off.
Posted by: Glen | 01/07/2010 at 01:57 AM
Excellent blog Glen. I have also seen groups of four at tournaments turn into two with two players from the same club playing each other having travelled 200 miles to be there! Not ideal but these things happen. Maybe they should fine the people who do not attend without notification! Imagine that in Watford!
Posted by: David Edwards | 01/07/2010 at 09:39 AM
I think what Glen has said here in summary form, is that it is the Players not the Organisers that are responsible for messing up tournaments.
It is the players' failure to take responsibility for their actions and turn up or notify the organisers if they can't play that causes people to feel let down.
Actually not turning up demonstrates a complete lack of respect for fellow players (of course there are unavoidable exceptions). It is to these people that we should channel our energy and who deserve to be chastised, not the organisers who have a tough enough job (all voluntary) without these kind of problems thrown in at the last minute.
Posted by: Chris Ogle | 01/07/2010 at 10:09 AM
The adverse weather of the last couple of days has no doubt affected us all. Could an announcement as to whether the events on Thursday night and finals on Sunday are still going ahead as planned be communicated around as soon as possible please in order to save wasted and, in some cases, dangerous journeys? Ta very much. Kev.
Posted by: Kevin Williams | 01/07/2010 at 10:23 AM
Wow!! The power of technology!! No sooner had I written the blog above than I received an email from Stuart advising that the Thursdays events and Sunday finals are OFF. Please call anyone who you think may not have email access to advise them.
PS - How am I ever going to lose those extra pounds put on over Xmas now??!!
Posted by: Kevin Williams | 01/07/2010 at 10:27 AM
I also find myself agreeing with almost everything that Glen said in his 'Hot Chocolate' post - sorry it was cold by the end of your post. Well, apart from the qualification of FOUR matches to play in the Closed, as I had only played three myself (yet no-one complained about me entering, that I know of, probably because I lost)!?
As an organiser of the Hemel League's Closed for far more years than I care to remember, my most heartfelt thanks to all of the event organisers - especially Geof and Stuart, whose contribution to table tennis in Watford is enormous. As others have said, the real problem is players who have entered not turning up, having NOT let someone know; maybe this is something that could be looked at? Ending up with a group of two is, in my view, 'unfortunate', and whilst personally I have always tried to ensure that every entrant gets AT LEAST two matches (and three is ideal if time were to allow), time constraints can make this extrememly difficult. As it was, the eventual number of entrants in the Division 1 Singles was 11 players (I believe), with three groups of three, and the single group of two. Eleven happens to be a very awkward entry - possible alternatives (and bear in mind I have had time to think about it, on top of experience, and this is knowing it's eleven players *before* any play starts), would be (1) two groups of 4 and one of three, but that makes 5 extra matches, plus the difficultly of deciding a "best" runner up, or, (2) the same groups as happened, but with the top two in each group going on to the last eight (quarter-finals), which means four extra matches. Perhaps in this exceptional case, the one unlucky player who only got one match could be offered free entry in to the Handicap Singles??
Regarding Postponements, I would actually favour the NO postponements rule (exceptional weather and Hall unavailability being the only valid reasons) - at least everyone knows where they stand. Hemel has traditionally been relatively relaxed about having strictly administered rules, but even they have moved towards this in recent seasons, in that they have a Rule that a team can postpone no more than twice, and any postponement with less than seven days' notice will result in a four point penalty, irrespective of the eventual result of the replayed match - to avoid the situation that Ian describes.
Anyway, interesting watching the "debate" unfold, and my personal vote for a Rule change would be to reverse the change made a few years ago, to restore the unique League format we used to have, whereby every player got four matches in an evening!
Posted by: Martin Johnson | 01/07/2010 at 10:49 AM
Martin
Another excellent post.
I would love to return to 10 matches in an evening but that would mean a 7pm start or a strict start time of 7.15 or 7.30, but people don't seem to want to enforce rules for latecomers. I understand the problem for people working in London but it could be accommodated with the latecomer playing the second or third game.
Although I would prefer no postponements at all, I like the proposal by yourself and David Soloway about one or two postponements, especially yours for penalties for less than a week notice. I would probably like two or three days notice for a postponement with less of a penalty for more than a week's notice. The only problem would be trying to re-arrange all the postponed matches!
Anyway, another good topic for debate.
Posted by: David Edwards | 01/07/2010 at 11:57 AM
Now that the tournament has been postponed to another date, can I have another crack at the Div1 Singles. By then I,ll have played a few more games with my funny bat.
Roley.
Posted by: Roley Stanbridge | 01/07/2010 at 06:15 PM
No, Roley - you and I will both be barred due to having played too few League games, so we will have to have our own, separate "Not the Division 1 Singles" event! :-)
Posted by: Martin Johnson | 01/07/2010 at 06:59 PM
Martin and Roley
Stuart was right in his blog when he said that the entry form only stipulated certain events for which the criteria was three league matches. They were the Mens, Womens, and Veterans singles and the Mens and Mixed Doubles.
Therefore, you were both legal and welcome!
Posted by: David Edwards | 01/07/2010 at 07:53 PM
If there is no entry criteria then maybe you should enter the division 3 singles instead and have a better chance of winning :-)
Posted by: Dave Soloway | 01/08/2010 at 11:44 AM
I think you can only play in the division for which you are registered.
Posted by: David Edwards | 01/08/2010 at 12:55 PM
dear glen,
When I woke up this morning
And crawled out of bed
I couldnt stop yawning
Then a thought entered my head
That I say I drank a coffee
And then ate my bacon fried
But if Id claimed I was a rock star
Might you have replied???
"a blatant attempt to sensationalise a story to win Watford Blogger of the year"
Really? You I am afraid cannot see past the end of your nose.
Nice to see a few comments and even a bit of humour. I nominate Dave Solaway as blogger of the year!
What ever the starchy technical comments NOTHING can defend a group of two. The attitude that allowed it to go ahead reeks of stagnation. I read that players 'make ' the tournament. Was it impossble to ask any player involved if they could return if an alternative plan ran out of time? If they all said no then fair enough but at least they would have been asked.
How is the league to encourage existing players to stay and play and attract new players and expand and progress, into a league to match the Harrow league for example. It wont! Not if people take easy options rather think of the players.
If the harrow league has overcome the difficulty of postponements by strictly enforcing rules then i would ask why can the Watford League not overcome the time constraint problem by strictly enforcing start time rules? If a set was claimed each ten minutes from 7.30 from a late team then i think No match would go overtime.
As somebody wrote somewhere.. would it really matter if the playing order was changed to accomodate for example a person who works in London and who had arrived late?
PS! Glen. IB is Ian banfield.. that is me!
Posted by: IB | 01/10/2010 at 08:31 AM