Slitherine

AlanCutner wrote:Dave can you please please please change my club designation from Essex to GDWS. I still get some adverse comments about it!

As for the rankings without Britcon - very interesting. But ofcourse that leaves me with just 3 minor comps for my ranking. So I have everything to gain.

Now done - the change will be effected at the end of August following Britcon.

Yeah, the problem is that I won last year and you were fourth (out of twenty nine). So I'm not exactly going to finish better than first and it is possible (although frankly, unlikely) that you may submarine your way to a podium place by picking the easy period this year.

Easy period - how? 5 of the 10 ranked UK players are in the later period. Just 4 in the early.

Pete Dalby is favourite, but a good showing by Andy would push him all the way (although I don't know if Andy is going this year?)

I think my money is on Andy.

petedalby wrote:

Yeah, the problem is that I won last year and you were fourth (out of twenty nine). So I'm not exactly going to finish better than first and it is possible (although frankly, unlikely) that you may submarine your way to a podium place by picking the easy period this year.

Easy period - how? 5 of the 10 ranked UK players are in the later period. Just 4 in the early.

Pete Dalby is favourite, but a good showing by Andy would push him all the way (although I don't know if Andy is going this year?)

I think my money is on Andy.

Really !!!!!

petedalby wrote:

Yeah, the problem is that I won last year and you were fourth (out of twenty nine). So I'm not exactly going to finish better than first and it is possible (although frankly, unlikely) that you may submarine your way to a podium place by picking the easy period this year.

Easy period - how? 5 of the 10 ranked UK players are in the later period. Just 4 in the early.

Pete Dalby is favourite, but a good showing by Andy would push him all the way (although I don't know if Andy is going this year?)

I think my money is on Andy.

How do you know? Is there an easy way of getting a list in each period?

I've just had a look and I'm in the medieval period and I was supposed to be in the ancients period.... I'll see if I can't sort that out.

dave_r wrote: I've just had a look and I'm in the medieval period and I was supposed to be in the ancients period.... I'll see if I can't sort that out.

User input error

I'll sort it out...


- correction, you are in the Ancients period. See initial comment...

Stick him in the renaissance period to teach him a lesson Tim. Hey - that'll make us an even number as well, perfect.
HH

madaxeman wrote:

dave_r wrote: I've just had a look and I'm in the medieval period and I was supposed to be in the ancients period.... I'll see if I can't sort that out.

User input error

I'll sort it out...

- correction, you are in the Ancients period. See initial comment...

This is because when I follow the link it takes me to the 2013 entries....... Panic over.... although it would be more useful to be taken to the 2014 entries at first attempt!

It would appear three out of the top five players are in the ancient period. One of the top five is not entering Britcon, leaving only one top five player in the "easy" medieval period

It would appear three out of the top five players are in the ancient period. One of the top five is not entering Britcon, leaving only one top five player in the "easy" medieval period

As the keeper of the records I would have hoped that you could at least read and understand your own list.

Of the current top 3 ranked players - 2 are in Medieval - myself and Andy. None are in Ancients.

And of the top 10 - 5 are in Medieval - 4 are in Ancients.

But I'm sure both periods will be hard fought and neither are likely to be easy.

petedalby wrote:

It would appear three out of the top five players are in the ancient period. One of the top five is not entering Britcon, leaving only one top five player in the "easy" medieval period

As the keeper of the records I would have hoped that you could at least read and understand your own list.

Of the current top 3 ranked players - 2 are in Medieval - myself and Andy. None are in Ancients.

And of the top 10 - 5 are in Medieval - 4 are in Ancients.

But I'm sure both periods will be hard fought and neither are likely to be easy.

You tell him Pete And why were on the subject MR Ruddock get your list in.

ney63 wrote:

petedalby wrote:

It would appear three out of the top five players are in the ancient period. One of the top five is not entering Britcon, leaving only one top five player in the "easy" medieval period

As the keeper of the records I would have hoped that you could at least read and understand your own list.

Of the current top 3 ranked players - 2 are in Medieval - myself and Andy. None are in Ancients.

And of the top 10 - 5 are in Medieval - 4 are in Ancients.

But I'm sure both periods will be hard fought and neither are likely to be easy.

You tell him Pete And why were on the subject MR Ruddock get your list in.

Let's do it for him:

6 units of superior lance sword armoured cavalry or cataphracts.
Some other stuff that's surviveable.

grahambriggs wrote:Let's do it for him:

6 units of superior lance sword armoured cavalry or cataphracts.
Some other stuff that's surviveable.

My list is now in. I can confirm it is nothing like the above - I've very rarely used cataphracts.

Latest rankings are now available on the BHGS website.

I've included Derby Teams, Bayfog and Oxford Doubles.

Methinks Mr F is seriously under ranked given his dominance at Britcon and Koblenz.

Thanks for doing the rankings for us Dave.

Do you send all the results off to Martin Wirt? Our ELO scores look seriously light and only a fraction of our events seem to be recorded there.

petedalby wrote:Methinks Mr F is seriously under ranked given his dominance at Britcon and Koblenz.

Thanks for doing the rankings for us Dave.

Do you send all the results off to Martin Wirt? Our ELO scores look seriously light and only a fraction of our events seem to be recorded there.

Right. Let's clarify the David F thing once and for all. I've had several comments about this Apologies in advance to Mr Fairhurst:

Britcon 1st out of 20
Roll Call 16th out of 22
Warfare 4th out of 12
Derby 4th out of 16
Campaign 6th out of 19
BHGS doubles 1st out of 20

Therefore, the four best scores are:

Britcon -- 120
Doubles -- 80
Derby -- 65
Warfare -- 58

Add them all up and divide by four and we get.... around 81, which is normally good for about 12th

I do send the result to Martin on an irregular basis. I often need a prod..... If you know off hand which ones are missing then let me know and I'll send them on. I can't always send the competition results as you need player, army and individual scores which aren't always available, but I do my best to find them.

If you know off hand which ones are missing then let me know and I'll send them on

Err....most of them. Check out the ELO rankings site. For you, for example - just the ITC is shown for this year.

http://www.slithdata.net/files/fog/rankings.html

In the last 2 years I have just 2 - Britcon - 2013 and the Worlds - 2014.

Right. Let's clarify the David F thing once and for all.

Just trying to pay him a compliment is all.

Thanks Pete, at least no seedings are used any more
Looks like I will have to do better at Roll Call next year and maybe sneak a game at Challenge rather than having to run around looking after you all.
Still a bit to add though ,you havn't got this years Derby yet
I,m just disappointed to probably miss Rome next year
David

davidandlynda wrote:Thanks Pete, at least no seedings are used any more
Looks like I will have to do better at Roll Call next year and maybe sneak a game at Challenge rather than having to run around looking after you all.
Still a bit to add though ,you havn't got this years Derby yet
I,m just disappointed to probably miss Rome next year
David

Nope, I've done Derby so you won't get any more from that I'm afraid - 10th/16 you lot were. Which having looked at the master rankings spreadsheet means I've made a bit of a pigs ear of the Derby results. This has meant I have you finishing 4th out of 16, when you should have finished 10th out of 16. As this was one of your "counting" ranking events this will mean your ranking goes down.

However, on the up-side, I had not credited you with an umpire score for the challenge. So that will _probably_ mean you gain on that score.

I'll re-do the rankings now.

New top 20 is as follows:
Most importantly (for me) I'm two places higher than I was. As for David, on the bad side his ranking has gone down, but on the good side he hasn't dropped any places

Well done to Lee Sanders for being in the top 20 for the first time I think.

Never mind all this talk about Dave Fairhurst showing so badly. After Pete got bummed so hard at Britcon shouldn't he be doing worse?