Slitherine

timmy1 wrote:Phil

I think Bob's comment was general rather than being linked specifically to this thread...

That's OK then

Rankings up to the end of October should be available on the BHGS website any time soon. This includes Derby Teams, Bayfog and Oxford Doubles.

If I've missed any tournaments, please let me know.

Top 20 are here:

3 tournaments changed, erm, 1 or 2 places in the whole top 15...? wow !

Its because people only count their best 4, so if you have a couple of nightmares it doesn't matter. I play lots and get lucky in 2 or 3.

In reality it's The Challenge and Britcon that go a long way to staying in the top 10 - as long as you do well at both of those tournaments you will be there or thereabouts.

As Dave says everyone above me (9th) has a score over 80. As you only get 80 for winning a tournament except The Challenge and Britcon these are key. Maybe I should start playing the Challenge.

As you only get 80 for winning a tournament except The Challenge and Britcon these are key.

Not really an option for many Scottish based players. As players in the south of England have commented elsewhere the distances to be travelled to some tournaments are too great. Over the whole of 2013 here have been just 10 entries to English tournaments amongst all Scottish based players in the Scottish rankings, and only 13 entries by English based players in Scottish tournaments. This indicates the difficulty of attending tournaments either way across Hadrians Wall.

As a result, whilst the BHGS rankings are of interest they don't represent Scottish tournament players well. Hopefully the new Scottish rankings will act as a supplement to the BHGS rankings and fill this gap.

Scottish rankings:
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=46611

AlanCutner wrote:Not really an option for many Scottish based players. As players in the south of England have commented elsewhere the distances to be travelled to some tournaments are too great. Over the whole of 2013 here have been just 10 entries to English tournaments amongst all Scottish based players in the Scottish rankings, and only 13 entries by English based players in Scottish tournaments. This indicates the difficulty of attending tournaments either way across Hadrians Wall.
As a result, whilst the BHGS rankings are of interest they don't represent Scottish tournament players well. Hopefully the new Scottish rankings will act as a supplement to the BHGS rankings and fill this gap.

I am not sure about the point being made here! If you look at the Scottish rankings only 15 players have played more than twice and 10 of those came down to England. Of the 38 players in the Scottish rankings 10 are English. So the 'long distances' being a deterrent seems to be rubbish.

I thought the main reason for Scottish players not appearing in the UK rankings was the lack of results sent to the compiler.

I thought the main reason for Scottish players not appearing in the UK rankings was the lack of results sent to the compiler.

That doesn't help either! But even if they were it wouldn't change much.

Does in FoGR!

It was possible to play up to 20 competitive games of FoG-AM in Scottish tournaments this year. Playing all of them would could as 3 minor tournaments in the rankings. To get a fourth tournament would be a round trip of several hundred miles. So theres no way the BHGS rankings can represent Scottish players adequately.

I am not sure about the point being made here! If you look at the Scottish rankings only 15 players have played more than twice and 10 of those came down to England. Of the 38 players in the Scottish rankings 10 are English. So the 'long distances' being a deterrent seems to be rubbish.

I agree the pool of players is small but they are active within the Scottish circuit. If you think the distance is not a deterrent explain why so few players travel north to play competitions - either across the border or just to the north of England (and I don't mean just as far as Manchester!).

The BHGS rankings are absolutely fine. But the point has been made by others that a decent ranking requires four tournaments, probably including Britcon and the Challenge. Thats not a suitable system for comparison of players in Scotland.

It would be handy Dave if the method of calculating the rankings were published on the BHGS website. Do we still have the notion of Grand Slam tournaments and all that stuff or is it simply all count the same now? I've a vague notion that somehow the Britcon, Challenge and Roll Call results weigh more heavily but may be out of date.

I also can't work out why you can play 20 games in Scotland and it only counts as 3 competitions. Is it that there's a league that only counts as one, like the flat cap 'n' ferret league?

Ooo look. Sevenoaks to Manchester is futher than Edinburgh or Glasgow to manchester. Can we have a Kent league?

grahambriggs wrote:Can we have a Kent league?

Is that the place or a misspelling?

I also can't work out why you can play 20 games in Scotland and it only counts as 3 competitions. Is it that there's a league that only counts as one, like the flat cap 'n' ferret league?

Yes. The Scottish League includes 4 rounds each of 3 games. The entire League counts as a single minor tournament.

Ooo look. Sevenoaks to Manchester is futher than Edinburgh or Glasgow to manchester. Can we have a Kent league?

I think you're missising the point.
1. I'm guessing Manchester is probably the furthest you travel to a UK tournament. For me it would be one of the nearest outside Scotland. And not much difference in distance - unless you consider those travelling from the barbaric territories north of the central belt.

2. Yes, you can have a Kent league. The purpose of any ranking system is to compare people within a given set of parameters. The BHGS rankings are absolutely OK for most of their given purposes. Scottish rankings run alongside them to compare people who play in Scottish competitions. Kentish rankings could be devised to compare Kentish players wherever they play, or anyone who plays Kentish tournaments.

There doesn't appear to be a massive point though - it'll still basically be the same finishing positions of the UK rankings or the Scottish League. I'm failing to see why the Scottish players _need_ their own league.

To clarify the rules for the UK rankings.

You get one point for finishing last and then a set number of points for winning. The rest of the points are divided equally dependent upon how many players there are.

The Challenge and Britcon are 120 points. Everything else is 80 points.

You take your best four scores and divide by four.

That is your ranking.

AlanCutner wrote:I think you're missising the point.

Which is Alan wants to advertise his wondefful new Scottish rankings.

Well lets face it after 2014 they wont be in the UK rankings.

Can we remove them now just as a precaution...?

timmy1 wrote:Can we remove them now just as a precaution...?

The Scots or the Rankings?

Either? Both?