50th Nationals Interesting Figures.

[Michael Little]

Just for the record...has anyone posted congratulations to the winners on the nationals? And I'm not talking about the Australian Masters event. Come to think of it..do any of you know who finished on top of men's and women's open singles, doubles, team, as well as mixed doubles. It's a prety safe bet that most of you don't know, but will have to look it up on the TBA website. It appears that the "nationals' really isn't that big of a deal..just a qualifying for the 100,000 Masters event.

Whilst this is a fair point, I can probably guarantee you that noone could really tell you any year since day dot who won what event, unless there was something remarkable and someone won everything at some point. Our Nationals format has multiple entries available for each event and is not like a world championships format where everyone remembers who won each event, because you only get one chance at the prize.

And the reality is that the Masters tournament is the showpiece of the Nationals at present. Hence why either the daily schedule or possible qualifying format changes might be valid if at some stage we wanted to raise the importance of winnings seperate events during the Nationals itself, ie only allowing one go at each event and having seperate qualifying attempts etc.

 

[Jase]

Maybe your FIRST attempt is your All Events, Singles, Doubles scores and then the Re-Entry is your Masters scores would make that work mick...Problem is the RE-ENTRY numbers would be way down i believe...I cant see them ever going that way and reducing the linage...

So it really does take the gloss off the winners of the grades in which they entered...Take nothing away from the winners and there efforts, but how many of them are won on their first attempts?

 

[gwhiting]

Maybe your FIRST attempt is your All Events, Singles, Doubles scores and then the Re-Entry is your Masters scores would make that work mick...Problem is the RE-ENTRY numbers would be way down i believe...I cant see them ever going that way and reducing the linage...

So it really does take the gloss off the winners of the grades in which they entered...Take nothing away from the winners and there efforts, but how many of them are won on their first attempts?

I always thought that your first attempt at singles, doubles and teams was what counted as the all events entry.

Then all squads after that are generally attempts at masters. After Michael said the masters is the prize that most bowlers are after.

 

[amagill]

I always thought that your first attempt at singles, doubles and teams was what counted as the all events entry.

Then all squads after that are generally attempts at masters. After Michael said the masters is the prize that most bowlers are after.

That's the way I understood it to be.

 

[becka_girl]

I always thought that your first attempt at singles, doubles and teams was what counted as the all events entry.

Then all squads after that are generally attempts at masters. After Michael said the masters is the prize that most bowlers are after.

At a state level it is, but national you can just keep improving

 

[CHIN]

I hate to say it but "back in the old days" your 1st attempt was what counted. Not sure when it changed, but I think it was changed to entice people to have more entries to improve there all events etc.

 

[Michael Little]

I hate to say it but "back in the old days" your 1st attempt was what counted. Not sure when it changed, but I think it was changed to entice people to have more entries to improve there all events etc.

You will be walking around with a walking stick soon with comments like that Robbie lol.

You are right, I am postive when I first competed in the Nationals, it was your first attempt in each event, and I think it eventually progressed to multiple entries but your first in each counted towards the all events score, and now I think you can just continually improve your score. TBH, I would be happy to have only the first attempt counted in each event, but that is my personal preference as with the focus being the Masters events the last two years, bowling a doubles and a teams is just a means to an end to meet the criteria to be eligible to bowl the Masters.

Having said that however, in its current format where event scores can be improved, winning the singles would be like winning a small tournament in itself with the amount of re entries completed for Masters qualifying.

 

[Craig Ryan]

I'd be all for having only your first entry count towards winning events at Nationals and having any subsequent attempts go towards Masters. I doubt it this will assist in making the winner any more "memorable" than previous winners, but it does give everyone ONE chance at winning the event - hence making it a little more prestigious.

I think it's fantastic that people like Cara are trying the best they can to get this sport back to where it belongs. Hopefully those meetings in relation to the Commonwealth Games have been very helpful in raising the profile of Tenpin Bowling in this country. Unfortunately (as it is with most sports), there will always be people who would like to take shots at those who are trying to help the sport grow without volunteering any solutions or willing to step up into a role themselves. I know that Cara would love to hear any ideas that bowlers have. Afterall, the idea may not be implemented, but it may lead to an idea that helps our sport flourish.

I would encourage every bowler who likes tournament play to look at the 2012 calendar and enter a couple of events. Next years calendar provides a good opportunity for bowlers to show the governing body that the tournament scene is still strong in each state.

Reality is there is no overnight solution, people need to be patient and willing to support TBA. Without a unified front, the sport as we know it is destined for failure.

CR

 

[STKFC1]

Whilst this is a fair point, I can probably guarantee you that noone could really tell you any year since day dot who won what event, unless there was something remarkable and someone won everything at some point. Our Nationals format has multiple entries available for each event and is not like a world championships format where everyone remembers who won each event, because you only get one chance at the prize.

And the reality is that the Masters tournament is the showpiece of the Nationals at present. Hence why either the daily schedule or possible qualifying format changes might be valid if at some stage we wanted to raise the importance of winnings seperate events during the Nationals itself, ie only allowing one go at each event and having seperate qualifying attempts etc.

I remember who won the "A " grade men's team at Cross Roads Bowl in the 1999 Nationals......


LOL>>>>>>
Cheers
Mick

 

[CHIN]

I can remember who won the Open doubles at the 1988 Nationals at Moorabin.

Not much chance of getting corrected i suppose as everyone from those days have either retired or passed on.

 

[jimcross]

I think I can remember who came second in the Open Mens Doubles at Rushcutter in 1962. So there!! Ha-De-Ha-Ha!!

 

[CHIN]

Ok Jim,

you win.

 

[dockers]

Won the B Grade Singles, Doubles, All Events first Nationals Rushcutter 1962.. Improved next year to Open Grade. Dockers

 

[CHIN]

im sure you won a few more than that Dockers.

 

[jimcross]

Won the B Grade Singles, Doubles, All Events first Nationals Rushcutter 1962.. Improved next year to Open Grade. Dockers

How on earth do you remember all that?
Like I said, I think I can remember, etc. For the life of me I can't remember anything at all about the rest of those first Nats. I think the only reason I remember what I do is that we only lost, by a very few pins, and my partner, who I always considered better than me, had a fit of 'big occasion ' nerves and got progressively worse every game.