Bec, how many more tourneys have you bowled than the people below 14th spot on the rankings? Do you really want to go down this path?
How about you go back and read my post a bit slower and then comment on what I actually wrote.
The problem is, the OP of this topic was asking about identifying other avenues of achieving a fairer rankings system, something you have not contributed to at all in this entire thread, I haven't really either, because I don't know if it can be done, because there are a variety of formats that all have some merit to them, yet combining all of those positives will not make a good system either.
BUT, as I stated earlier, your reason for the rankings as not being fair, equal, relevant, worthwhile etc etc, all of the above is that there are some bowlers in this country who choose not to compete in nationally ranked events, even though they may possess the skills to do so. And that also because you can bowl in a certain amount of tournaments, then the more you bowl the better you will fare in rankings as opposed to someone who only competes in 2-3 tournaments for the year. I don't think I am missing anything in summing this up, but please correct me if so.
Firstly, if a bowler who has the potential to compete but chooses not to, for whatever reason, financial, motivation, family, they want to be a legend in their own centre etc, cannot solely use an average rankings system as demotivation to not compete in national events. This is just nonsense, as this has no correlation to whatever rankings system that may be in place. Earning rankings points is a side effect of competing in national events. So if you want to compete in national events solely to bowl, compete against other top bowlers, then so be it, but guess what, you will also earn rankings points.
Secondly, based on this years rankings, there are 6 tournaments for the year plus masters for the guys of which you can obtain points for, of these 6 you can use your best 4, but, as Bec has stated, you still need to compete to a high level to earn your points for each event. Just because you can bowl more events, doesn't mean you are entitled to receive free points and the other competitors will bow down before you. I could understand your point if there were a large amount of national ranked events and you could use say you best 10 events out of 20 or whatever, because that would lend itself to the problem you keep harking on about. Aside from Arafura, all tournament entries have been reasonably close in entry numbers with no significant poor numbers and as I have stated a few times already, I think this will continue next year with a better spread of tournaments both timeframe wise and location wise.
You mention the top 14 above and below that point, if you recall a previous post, I mentioned that this number for the women and probably double or triple this for the guys, will always be a core group of bowlers who enjoy and wish to travel to as many national events as possible, so therefore, by circumstance, they are likely to receive more rankings points than those who don't. It wouldn't matter what system of ranking we have in place, somewhere along the line, bowlers will need to compete in a certain amount of events to be eligible and earn points. It is how rankings systems work.
