2013 Final Stage

[Andrew Bak]

After five pages of debate about the rules, the semi-final line-up is almost known. Still one result to come in (bolded below).

Minor: Bedfordshire vs Hampshire and Lincolnshire vs Essex
U100: Essex vs Lancashire and Nottinghamshire vs Surrey
U120: Kent vs Warwickshire and Essex vs Staffordshire
U140: Shropshire vs Hampshire and Kent vs Yorkshire
U160: Lancashire vs Warwickshire and Yorkshire/Essex vs Nottinghamshire
U180: Cambridgeshire vs Middlesex and Lancashire vs Kent
Open: Kent vs Middlesex and Lancashire vs Surrey

Essex beat Yorkshire 10-6.

[David Pardoe]

Yes, you need intermediate band restrictions to stop front loading and ensure that large swathes of players dont become `unselectable`.

The days are long gone when county teams had more eligible players than they could cope with. If we ever did return to such an excess, a better solution would be to weaken eligibility rules so that affected players could bus themselves to play for a neighbour with fewer resources.

Roger,
You`ve missed my point...I think.
If you change the grading bands and widen them by 80%..ie, an 170 - 135 group, what you dont want is a situation where the top teams front load, with say a team of 24 players all graded over say 155.
That would create a situation where your U155 players become excluded (unless you played more boards..say 32..).
To reduce this, I suggest some intermediate banding restrictions to ensure a good spread oof players.

[MartinCarpenter]

I guess the penalty point isn't remotely relevant given the match score but any chance of giving Detlef his proper name back on the electronic score sheet?
(Board 8 for Yorkshire)

[Roger de Coverly]

If you change the grading bands and widen them by 80%..ie, an 170 - 135 group, what you dont want is a situation where the top teams front load, with say a team of 24 players all graded over say 155.

Why not? The counties competition is biased in favour of counties with the most resources, so if you are lucky enough to have 24 players over 155, then you should be able to use them. If you restrict the number of players that are able to play in any one match, the surplus players also are excluded.

But there's inconsistency between the national competitions and the regional ones. The SCCU for example deliberately arranges match dates to be spread over the season. So it's quite accepted and even encouraged that there's doubling up between adjacent teams. The practical effect is that anyone below Open standard can, if they wish, play in more than one team. If the ECF accepted doubling up as standard practice for the national competition, it would also have to stagger the dates. It is prepared to do this for the individual competitions in the British Championship Congress.

[Sean Hewitt]

Registered to play yes, compelled to become individual members of the FA by an annual subscription, I doubt.

Good to know. Who do I write to to get my £20 per year affiliation fee back?

[Roger de Coverly]

Good to know. Who do I write to to get my £20 per year affiliation fee back?

Does that apply to players as well? In other words does the FA demand £ 20 a head off those earning thousands a week?

[Sean Hewitt]

Good to know. Who do I write to to get my £20 per year affiliation fee back?

Does that apply to players as well? In other words does the FA demand £ 20 a head off those earning thousands a week?

Yes. For players, the affiliation fee is collected through the players club. Players don't become members upon payment of this fee, but the club cannot play a match until it is paid.

[Roger de Coverly]

Players don't become members upon payment of this fee, but the club cannot play a match until it is paid.

So basically a Licensing system like the FFE. Is that a model for the ECF wishes to formally adopt and drop the pretence of non-compulsory membership?

[Sean Hewitt]

Players don't become members upon payment of this fee, but the club cannot play a match until it is paid.

So basically a Licensing system like the FFE. Is that a model for the ECF wishes to formally adopt and drop the pretence of non-compulsory membership?

I'm not aware of any plans in this regard.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm not aware of any plans in this regard.

The ECF is however introducing this by the back door, with the long established lack of a "Pay to play" option for FIDE rated events and the recent demands for membership to take part in the Counties Championship, English Schools and other junior events nominally run by the ECF.

[Mick Norris]

After five pages of debate about the rules, the semi-final line-up is almost known. Still one result to come in (bolded below).

Minor: Bedfordshire vs Hampshire and Lincolnshire vs Essex
U100: Essex vs Lancashire and Nottinghamshire vs Surrey
U120: Kent vs Warwickshire and Essex vs Staffordshire
U140: Shropshire vs Hampshire and Kent vs Yorkshire
U160: Lancashire vs Warwickshire and Yorkshire/Essex vs Nottinghamshire
U180: Cambridgeshire vs Middlesex and Lancashire vs Kent
Open: Kent vs Middlesex and Lancashire vs Surrey

Essex beat Yorkshire 10-6.

That's both of last year's U160 finalists out - always seems a very competitive section, good luck to our fellow MCCU teams Notts and Warks in the semi finals

[IM Jack Rudd]

Yes, you need intermediate band restrictions to stop front loading and ensure that large swathes of players dont become `unselectable`.

The days are long gone when county teams had more eligible players than they could cope with. If we ever did return to such an excess, a better solution would be to weaken eligibility rules so that affected players could bus themselves to play for a neighbour with fewer resources.

Roger,
You`ve missed my point...I think.
If you change the grading bands and widen them by 80%..ie, an 170 - 135 group, what you dont want is a situation where the top teams front load, with say a team of 24 players all graded over say 155.
That would create a situation where your U155 players become excluded (unless you played more boards..say 32..).
To reduce this, I suggest some intermediate banding restrictions to ensure a good spread oof players.

The trouble is, as ever, what effect that has on the smaller counties: a small county that had a large number of 155-169 players but few 135-154 players would be hit quite heavily by your proposals.

(This is, by the way, symptomatic of a more general rule with team restrictions: they tend to hit small squads more heavily than large squads, because the small squad has much less ability to deviate from its strongest team without seriously weakening it.)

[Christopher Kreuzer]

This is, by the way, symptomatic of a more general rule with team restrictions: they tend to hit small squads more heavily than large squads, because the small squad has much less ability to deviate from its strongest team without seriously weakening it.

Have restrictions on squad sizes ever helped with evening things up?

[IM Jack Rudd]

This is, by the way, symptomatic of a more general rule with team restrictions: they tend to hit small squads more heavily than large squads, because the small squad has much less ability to deviate from its strongest team without seriously weakening it.

Have restrictions on squad sizes ever helped with evening things up?

Possibly, but while they're fine for compact events like the Olympiad, I don't think they're a serious option for a tournament like the County Championships that sprawls across the length of the season and has a month or so between games; too many players can effectively leave a squad from one game to the next.

[Ihor Lewyk]

I hate to throw this in but I feel I must.
Lancashire's Open team captain is Mike Conroy and I'm certain he isn't on e-mail. Alex did you send him a copy of the e-mail you sent to all captains by snail (sorry Royal) mail? If not it may explain why Lancashire didn't ask for clearance.
If not I hope common sense can allow leniency in their case. (And that's coming from a Yorkshireman!)