Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby MartinCarpenter » Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:23 am

If you're comparing the U180 and U175(~U185-190 new money) the real question is how many U180 teams there are which wouldn't be fielded if it was U185. Any? Dunno.
(Honestly I'm not sure if the grades haven't shaken out to leave the closest analogue to 175 old school as 190.).

IanCalvert wrote:Maybe the current U180 (second team) competition should be replaced by a Minor Counties like average under x (say 170) ?


Honestly? If doing something like that you'd surely just combine the U180 and the minor counties (<180 average over 16). Very a priori logical really - massive duplication in the strength of players you'd want and there surely can't(?!) be anyone fielding teams in both.

Can't see it really hurting the smaller counties U180 teams, and it'd let the bigger ones use all the 180-185 players who are keen enough but currently cut out of things. Shrug.

Yorkshire U175 certainly got soundly beaten by several SCCU teams in our time :)

Dragoljub Sudar
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:34 pm

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby Dragoljub Sudar » Sat Oct 31, 2015 4:51 am

Can anyone explain why the rules restrict players to playing for just one county during a season?
Each section is effectively a completely separate competition.
For example, I don't see why I (currently 153) should not be allowed to play for the Notts U160 and the Derbys Open team, if it had one, in the same season.
Derbys struggled for players for its Open team last year but had the rules allowed I would have played for their Open team while still playing for Notts U160 and U180 teams.
This is an area I'd like the home director to look at as a means of increasing participation in county chess.
Not only might it make a positive difference for counties (especially smaller ones), it would also increase choice and opportunity for players.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby Michael Flatt » Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:17 am

Dragoljub Sudar wrote:Can anyone explain why the rules restrict players to playing for just one county during a season?

Many players, if not most, will only meet the eligibility criteria of a single county and don't have any choice other than to play or not to play in that team. Therefore, it doesn't seem unreasonable that a player eligible for more than one county should have to make a choice as to which to play for during a season. The next season, you might choose to play for another county and the season after that you might switch back.

Some counties have strong traditional rivalries and simply wouldn't allow you to play for both even if the rules allowed it.

For county chess I think that you just have to accept the eligibility rules as they are and commit to a single county.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Secret Cunning Plan To beat Yorkshire: CC Implications

Postby MartinCarpenter » Sat Oct 31, 2015 6:55 pm

Think that one is actually one of the more reasonable rules :)

Looking at the 4ncl registrations rather shows the U180/open team gap for Yorkshire. Bradford DCA alone have about ten players who have at least often been >180, iirc only one who's played for the open team the past year or two. Overall maybe about 30(+) players, after maybe 4 slots at the open teams least organised, down to 0 at times.

Not so many perhaps but mostly keen in general. Might even be semi plausible for us to field an U180, U180 and open team all at once.....

Def not tragic this with 4ncl and Yorkshire league to play instead mind :)


Return to “County Championships”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests