split happens
Member
Well done to both the Werribee teams, just what you have been chasing, a clean sweep.
Emerson Shield 2006
- Thread starter Carmers
- Start date
Gatsby
a.k.a Bary Glack
Lisa,
I knew that one of them was wrong as Werribee womens games only totalled 89 instead of 90 -- just did not know which one was missing - thanks for that
Woza
Active Member
And the announcement was
Assassin_300
CountryCupx3 Emersonx2 SeniorShieldx1
Ray Hodge Said at the managers meeting that next year would be
3 Zones
Top 2 from each zone roll off into final
Remaining teams from all zones to again roll off and the top 4 of that into final ,10 teams and no automatic entry for previous years winners
Kevin
3 Zones
Top 2 from each zone roll off into final
Remaining teams from all zones to again roll off and the top 4 of that into final ,10 teams and no automatic entry for previous years winners
Kevin
rychenroller
Active Member
Yep Kev, their will be a repechage round.
I quite like the idea, means a team like say Geelong, who missed out this year and were better than at least 4 teams on the weekend, have another opportunity to make it to the state finals...It sorta makes sure that the better teams (deservedly) make it there.
I quite like the idea, means a team like say Geelong, who missed out this year and were better than at least 4 teams on the weekend, have another opportunity to make it to the state finals...It sorta makes sure that the better teams (deservedly) make it there.
wheelbarrow
Member
And I was enjoying our Zone too.
We will have to bowl a little better next year and get in the top 2.
We will have to bowl a little better next year and get in the top 2.
wheelbarrow
Member
I'm first.
We'll take you. We still have you listed as Bendigo anyway, from last years Country Cup.
We'll take you. We still have you listed as Bendigo anyway, from last years Country Cup.
Gatsby
a.k.a Bary Glack
I would be surprised if the draft is persisted with next year. I don't know of a single team that used it - everyone seemed to prefer to use vacancy scores if they were short of numbers.
I also think the new format next year is a good idea. Only having two teams from each zone will certainly make the zones more competitive. I know that a couple of teams had pretty cruisy paths through to the finals this year (in both men and womens divisions) while some former winners -- Ed Fleming and Geelong - missed out.
1) I don't think everything has been bedded down yet as far as how the repecharge will be handled, but i do have a couple of queries.
2) If you don't bowl in the zone final, can you still nominate for the repecharge?
3) If all non automatic qualifiers nominate for the repecharge that is potentially 14 teams in each division. I would assume that would mean one round of 13 games - probably over two days. Unless you use 28 lane centres, you are probably going to have have Men and women at different centres or on different weekends (i realise it is unlikley that all 14 teams would nominate but the contingency needs to be in place). What if only 8 nominate -- would that still mean one round or would you go for two rounds and therefore 14 games? (personally i think it should be one full round regardless of numbers)
4) What if only 4 teams nominate -- will the repecharge still be held?
5) What if only 3 teams nominate - will the final go ahead one short?? (unlikely that at least 4 teams would not nominate - but you never know)
Just some food for thought - i certainly think the new format is a step in the right direction - be interesting to find out which "free" weekend will be used for the repecharge in an already very busy tournament schedule.
I'd be interested to hear what other peoples thoughts are now that we have had a couple of days to digest the changes
E
edfleminglanes
I think you will find that the Goldpin Tournament Committee will digest all the suggestions and cover all points. I would also suggest that if a centre did not bowl in the Zone final they would not be allowed to bowl in the repecharge. This new format was to allow teams a second chance as some Zone are very strong and other Zones a bit weaker. This will at least assure teams who just miss out a second chance to redeem themselves. Watching as a Manager/Coach this year I was very impressed with the talent that the teams provided this year. And even thou both Werribee teams won (not very often fav's win) the other teams made them work hard and it all came down to the last game, which is what the Tournament needs to make it enjoyable and exciting.
Yes I think next year will be very exciting and interesting to see who makes it thru the Zones.
Congrats to both Werribee team impressive performance all weekend. It shows how much you guys missed Craig C.
Yes I think next year will be very exciting and interesting to see who makes it thru the Zones.
Congrats to both Werribee team impressive performance all weekend. It shows how much you guys missed Craig C.
Gatsby
a.k.a Bary Glack
Joe
This is the main reason why i am putting some of these things on here. I think that some of these things need to be thought of and decided on before the whole system gets bedded down fully. I would agree that if a team does not bowl zone then they should not be able to bowl repecharge.
I know with our zone that we are probably a better chance of finishing top 4 in a repecharge than consistently finishing top 2 in a zone that contain 3 of the past 4 Men's Emerson shield winners and the current Men's country cup champions. In theory, it would be cheaper for us to just go through to the repecharge and try our luck there. In practice though we would always fancy our chances of getting top 2 and therefore would always complete in the zone anyway. I figured that if i thought of it, someone even smarter than me would also think of it and therefore it needs to be spelled out in black and white before the rules are completed (along with some of the suggestions that i made)
This is the main reason why i am putting some of these things on here. I think that some of these things need to be thought of and decided on before the whole system gets bedded down fully. I would agree that if a team does not bowl zone then they should not be able to bowl repecharge.
I know with our zone that we are probably a better chance of finishing top 4 in a repecharge than consistently finishing top 2 in a zone that contain 3 of the past 4 Men's Emerson shield winners and the current Men's country cup champions. In theory, it would be cheaper for us to just go through to the repecharge and try our luck there. In practice though we would always fancy our chances of getting top 2 and therefore would always complete in the zone anyway. I figured that if i thought of it, someone even smarter than me would also think of it and therefore it needs to be spelled out in black and white before the rules are completed (along with some of the suggestions that i made)
Well to have the best field in the final, what about;
(after the top 2 in each zone have made it through)
- the third place from each zone, automatically qualify for the repechage
- then the next three highest on pinfall across all other zones are invited to repechage (sure some zones may score higher - but these teams would have no change in the previous format)
This makes 6 teams who play two rounds top 4 make it into the final.
I reckon that if the mix of teams in the final is stronger, the result will actually be a lot closer.
Another consideration may be to limit the maximum number of games someone bowls. Only a few bowled all 18 at Werribee, but if the maximum was 16 or even 15, the depth of a team (and this IS a team competition) comes more into play. Most teams this year did this anyway, but it stops having one stronger bowler just pulling the team along by assisting in team wins every game.
More thoughts to be considered I suppose.
VB
(after the top 2 in each zone have made it through)
- the third place from each zone, automatically qualify for the repechage
- then the next three highest on pinfall across all other zones are invited to repechage (sure some zones may score higher - but these teams would have no change in the previous format)
This makes 6 teams who play two rounds top 4 make it into the final.
I reckon that if the mix of teams in the final is stronger, the result will actually be a lot closer.
Another consideration may be to limit the maximum number of games someone bowls. Only a few bowled all 18 at Werribee, but if the maximum was 16 or even 15, the depth of a team (and this IS a team competition) comes more into play. Most teams this year did this anyway, but it stops having one stronger bowler just pulling the team along by assisting in team wins every game.
More thoughts to be considered I suppose.
VB
bowlrig
Just A Bowler
Congratulations to both teams from Werribee, awsome effort and some great bowling (especially on 13 & 14).
Well done to those that made All Stars. Big effort from Dean "Fudge" McKinnon to top average.
Great job by Edi, Dorianna and staff on a well run Tournament.
I think the new concept for next year will make the finals a tougher affair, I just hope that the teams that struggle for bowlers and scores still commit teams to contest the Zone finals and repecharge.
And Steevie, you were alot quieter this year, Hoggy had more to chat about.
Anyway, a great weekend of bowling, well done to my team on a great chase and just falling short, and our ladies fine job on finishing higher than thier goal.
Kev, thanks for the challenge but Farky got closer
Rob.
PS.... Where is the final next year?
Well done to those that made All Stars. Big effort from Dean "Fudge" McKinnon to top average.
Great job by Edi, Dorianna and staff on a well run Tournament.
I think the new concept for next year will make the finals a tougher affair, I just hope that the teams that struggle for bowlers and scores still commit teams to contest the Zone finals and repecharge.
And Steevie, you were alot quieter this year, Hoggy had more to chat about.
Anyway, a great weekend of bowling, well done to my team on a great chase and just falling short, and our ladies fine job on finishing higher than thier goal.
Kev, thanks for the challenge but Farky got closer
Rob.
PS.... Where is the final next year?
bowlrig
Just A Bowler
Hard enough to manage all to bowl 9 games at times.
It is all good and well to make it harder when we get there, but those teams that are without the depth of others may want to see thier Centre about changing they way thier teams are selected.
I don't know how other Centres qualified but we had an 8 week qualifying period, as many attempts during league as you wanted to bowl, at $5 per attempt. Top 7 bowlers over thier best 6 ~ 3 game series (entry fee to be paid prior to each attempt) made the team. All $5 entries went towards team costs.
Just my thoughts.
Rob
Steevie
:-)
Sorry. No Craig, No Krusty. lolAnd Steevie, you were alot quieter this year, Hoggy had more to chat about.
Gatsby
a.k.a Bary Glack
I agree with Rob re no maximum number of games - i think it is hard enough to manage to get 9 games out of everyone without the extra pressure of ensuring you don't bowl your best bowler "out" with the last two important games to follow.
It is also worth pointing out that some teams that are without depth are simply centres that are without depth - this is not always a problem with qualifying set up. Some centres (eg Colac, Sale) only have small numbers of people to pick - not all centres are the size of Geelong or Werribee etc. We only have about 100 male bowlers in total and other than two bowlers that chose Senior Shield over Emerson shield we probably had our top 10 bowlers in the team.
It is also worth pointing out that some teams that are without depth are simply centres that are without depth - this is not always a problem with qualifying set up. Some centres (eg Colac, Sale) only have small numbers of people to pick - not all centres are the size of Geelong or Werribee etc. We only have about 100 male bowlers in total and other than two bowlers that chose Senior Shield over Emerson shield we probably had our top 10 bowlers in the team.
Werribee's qualifing was 3 game entries , as many as you wanted to do by a certain date and your top 10 were taken .It raised very good money but im not sure if that was the best way to go . Top qualifier was just short of 7000 and 7th place was a bit over 6600 , too big for me.
The new format sounds good but my only worry is the cost if you dont get through at the first stage , raising the money to cover linage is hard enough and im sure that there is centres out there who have less bowlers trying out than we do .
The new format sounds good but my only worry is the cost if you dont get through at the first stage , raising the money to cover linage is hard enough and im sure that there is centres out there who have less bowlers trying out than we do .
