Navigation

User Activity Log

· Guests Online: 201

· Members Online: 0

· Total Members: 283
· Newest Member: Patsy
Last Seen Users
paddySull... 03:35:53
Mufasa1 04:20:33
publican 05:26:15
duffman 06:13:17
sparky 06:20:16
chicco 07:06:03
TamAitchison 07:09:42
daz 07:21:48
me 07:32:49
Eckyy 07:37:18

  More Users 

Classic Drover

Forum Threads

Games

Captains Meeting

The next MDPL Meeting is the Team Registration meeting and will be held on Wednesday the 22nd of August @ 8pm in the TJs Pool Hall.

Login

Username

Password



Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.

Events

<< March 2018 >>
Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Venues (click for details)

Welcome

Welcome to the Website for Motherwell & District Pool League, Sponsored by The Ballroom Bellshill Please login/ register for full site and forum access

View Thread

 Print Thread
New Poll
Colin Stewart
#21 Print Post
Posted on 14 December 2009 12:15
User Avatar

Newbie


Posts: 9
Joined: 27.10.09

JB wrote:
Think the Joker only holds about 80 people or so.....
The Joker holds 140 seated plus there is parking at the rear.
 
JB
#22 Print Post
Posted on 14 December 2009 12:33
Super Admin


Posts: 3484
Joined: 17.04.09

Colin Stewart wrote:
JB wrote:
Think the Joker only holds about 80 people or so.....
The Joker holds 140 seated plus there is parking at the rear.

I know.... this is an old post and I have since spoken to Sam. The Joker is being considered. All comes down to cost/ buffet costs drink prices etc,
 
www.premiercasinohire.com
JB
#23 Print Post
Posted on 15 January 2010 11:15
Super Admin


Posts: 3484
Joined: 17.04.09

Would appreciate your input on the new poll. If you have any further thoughts/ opinions, please post them on here.
Cheers
 
www.premiercasinohire.com
mrcool
#24 Print Post
Posted on 15 January 2010 16:04
Member


Posts: 116
Joined: 22.04.09

i voted dont care.....................basically i just wanna go into tourneys and try to win no matter if they r ranked or not
 
jas
#25 Print Post
Posted on 15 January 2010 16:22
Senior Member


Posts: 412
Joined: 19.07.09

Scottish should be ranked and seeded IMO. Realistically though, people wouldn't go for that.
 
JB
#26 Print Post
Posted on 15 January 2010 16:36
Super Admin


Posts: 3484
Joined: 17.04.09

They are also talking about making IM5 open to all (ie including top16 etc)
 
www.premiercasinohire.com
jas
#27 Print Post
Posted on 15 January 2010 16:41
Senior Member


Posts: 412
Joined: 19.07.09

Because the new category C tournament/s will take the place of that? Seems fair enough. It's just like adding an extra IM - making the rankings more accurate.
Edited by jas on 15 January 2010 16:42
 
jas
#28 Print Post
Posted on 15 January 2010 17:00
Senior Member


Posts: 412
Joined: 19.07.09

jas wrote:
Scottish should be ranked and seeded IMO. Realistically though, people wouldn't go for that.


See, people always say the Scottish should be an open draw, and I wonder....why should it? Why shouldn't it be seeded and award more ranking points than an IM?

I look at it from a spectacle point of view:- If there were two players better than the rest of the field then would you rather they play in the first round or the final? I'd rather have a 8-7 final than have a guy beat his biggest competitor 6-5 in the first round and then win the rest of the games, hardly dropping a frame. Comparing it to snooker, I'd rather see O'Sullivan against Higgins in the final rather than in the first round.

From a player's point of view :- You aren't going to do anything in the tournament anyway unless you are playing very well. It's not as if you are going to get lucky draws all the way through - you will need to beat top players at some point. So if, as an unranked player, it means you come up against a Holtz or Ross or Gillespie straight away then you can still win that game and take their place in the draw. So you can still progress as a lesser player if you deserve to.

Another thing is that unseeded draws give the lesser player a chance of a terrible draw just as it does a good draw. You could draw the top 4 players in one section of the draw, just as you could land a section with no-one who has ever played in a tournament before.
Edited by jas on 15 January 2010 17:05
 
Pat Holtz
#29 Print Post
Posted on 16 January 2010 23:13
Member


Posts: 78
Joined: 22.04.09

This suggestion suits Glasgow - hence the reason it was suggested by Renzie.

Having Bossman and Antz in their Scottish qualifying has made it more difficult for them - simple.

They want their cake and eat it...............making their Super 11s & 15s team stronger whilst at the same time protecting their IM ranking by suggestion the Scottish is non ranking.

If this goes through then the Super 11s & 15s will get silly with even more super teams made up as effectively the Top 16 players could all play under the one IM area.....ie no qualification needed.

Jas, the open draws suits the lesser players, you only have to compare the MJ Hire events vs the IM to see this.

The Scottish gives all entrants an equal chance, it's the luck of the draw.

I have already qualifed for this years event being the defending champion and thus I have already earned ranking points whereas all others have not. So this suggestion would put me at a disadvantage but I guess that would not bother anyone bar me.

Every rep and league member needs to see the bigger picture here......they are trying to dangle the carrot of IM5 being ranked in exchange for the Scottish being excluded..........all to make it simple for them to increase the number of top players through their area.

Why do you think the Scottish entry is so much higher than the IM........cause the ordinary guy has a better chance to qualify and go further at the finals.

Jas - I do agree that the Scottish should be ranked and have more points than an IM but the others won't agree to this due to harder qualifying areas.........hence the reason for this suggestion.

Jas - what do you think it should be?

Let's make one thing very clear here......the IM rankings are never going to be accurate due to the hard / easy qualifying areas........and as you recently found out......the rankings mean jack anyway.......so why such a fuss?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
Edited by Pat Holtz on 16 January 2010 23:42
 
jas
#30 Print Post
Posted on 17 January 2010 07:23
Senior Member


Posts: 412
Joined: 19.07.09

Pat Holtz wrote:

Jas - I do agree that the Scottish should be ranked and have more points than an IM but the others won't agree to this due to harder qualifying areas.........hence the reason for this suggestion.

Jas - what do you think it should be?


I'd seed and rank every IM Pat. I'd also seed and rank the Scottish and award 50% more ranking points. It's our premier event and I think that any ranking should take account of that. I think snooker is a decent ranking model, to be honest, and the Scottish Singles should be our "World Championship".

That's just what I think is fairest. It wouldn't particularly benefit me and, like I said, whether it's seeded or open, a lesser player like myself isn't going to do anything in the tournament without playing a top player at some point. So, personally, it makes no odds. I don't care about my ranking and I doubt I ever would unless I was top 32. As a spectacle I want to see the top seeds kept apart until the latter rounds, that's all.Don't think we'll ever get round the problem of harder/easier qualifying areas without having all qualifiers centralised (and that just isn't feasible).

My short answer to the poll would be yes, to the first question, and no, to the second. It's a badly posed question as they are both mutually excusive, but I answered "no" regardless, assuming it was a case of both changing or things remaining as they are. (Bit long-winded but you know what I mean....)
Edited by jas on 18 January 2010 16:12
 
Pat Holtz
#31 Print Post
Posted on 17 January 2010 22:43
Member


Posts: 78
Joined: 22.04.09

Any more views on the new poll?

I would be particilarly interested to hear from the 4 who voted "yes" to the change.......
 
Drover
#32 Print Post
Posted on 17 January 2010 23:35
User Avatar

Senior Member


Posts: 310
Joined: 22.04.09

i miss read the question when i never had my contacts in and voted for yes but with my contacts in i voted for no on the Uddy sitesmblush
" Lets all do the Twitchy "
 
Cannonball
#33 Print Post
Posted on 18 January 2010 14:07
Member


Posts: 72
Joined: 12.06.09

Pat Holtz wrote:
Any more views on the new poll?

I would be particilarly interested to hear from the 4 who voted "yes" to the change.......


Who were the 4 ?
 
dosser
#34 Print Post
Posted on 18 January 2010 14:19
User Avatar

Fusioneer


Posts: 2601
Joined: 18.04.09

My reasoning for voting yes was pretty straight forward actually..
to provide a national rank we have the IM (all 5 ranked IMO) the Scottish I feel should be a seperate entity, its the most, or should be the most prestigious event on the calander and I think having it ranked just takes away from the glory and spectacle of it. the IM is becoming a debate and embroiled in too many arguments, our premier singles event should not be involved in such politics

Play the IM for ranking points and prize money.

Play the Scottish for the glory and the title.

smscared
Live the Dream.
 
jas
#35 Print Post
Posted on 18 January 2010 15:27
Senior Member


Posts: 412
Joined: 19.07.09

Then you could have a Scottish champion who isn't even ranked amongst the best players in Scotland. Don't think I was in the top hundred when I made the final.

I think results in the premier tournament should be reflected in the rankings. Especially if international teams are to be picked from that (seperate argument there - I think they should, without prejudice).
 
dosser
#36 Print Post
Posted on 18 January 2010 15:42
User Avatar

Fusioneer


Posts: 2601
Joined: 18.04.09

isnt that the romance of the scottish singles? the 100/1 outsider? the underdog upsetting all the odds?

the premier ranking tourament is still the IM, where national teams can be picked from... a case can still be made for allowing the scottish winner an international place, dont mean it has to be ranked though.

it should be a unranked totally open draw, then the winner can truley call themselves the countries champion, won without the aid or a high rank or seed.

afterall, to be the best you have to beat the best!
Edited by dosser on 18 January 2010 15:43
Live the Dream.
 
jas
#37 Print Post
Posted on 18 January 2010 15:44
Senior Member


Posts: 412
Joined: 19.07.09

But then you'd have the next IM after the Scottish and the Scottish Champion wouldn't even be seeded in the draw when he would be one of the favourites in the tournament on current form.

I think it should be a ranked and seeded draw, then the winner can truly call themselves the country's champion:- won without the aid of a lucky draw (not facing one of the country's top players).

After all, to be the best you have to beat the best. Wink
Edited by jas on 18 January 2010 16:10
 
dosser
#38 Print Post
Posted on 18 January 2010 15:51
User Avatar

Fusioneer


Posts: 2601
Joined: 18.04.09

Wink
Live the Dream.
 
Bash
#39 Print Post
Posted on 18 January 2010 15:52
Veteran Member


Posts: 855
Joined: 29.04.09

No Stevie the romance of the Scottish Singles in recent years has been that you can lose in a local qualifier and still win the whole event......

Class that, eh?
Serve no master but your own ambition.
 
dosser
#40 Print Post
Posted on 18 January 2010 15:55
User Avatar

Fusioneer


Posts: 2601
Joined: 18.04.09

wheres my chair again......

ahhh..smscared
Live the Dream.
 
Jump to Forum:
Render time: 0.22 seconds
24,587,573 unique visits