The Pool Sucks

[Joey Stewart]

There has got to be a better system then this 'promotion/relegation' pool nonsense - teams up at the top half have been docked wins, while others have had losses removed, and the ones fighting against relegation are given a huge disadvantage if they have beaten top end teams and had these wins discounted.

It has got to be changed - nobody can have any possible arguement in its favour (and even those that do are just wrong) - and next year they should do the groupings based on ALL results gained on the way to the finals, not just a few which messes things up.

Who is with me?

[Sean Hewitt]

There has got to be a better system then this 'promotion/relegation' pool nonsense - teams up at the top half have been docked wins, while others have had losses removed, and the ones fighting against relegation are given a huge disadvantage if they have beaten top end teams and had these wins discounted.

It has got to be changed - nobody can have any possible arguement in its favour (and even those that do are just wrong) - and next year they should do the groupings based on ALL results gained on the way to the finals, not just a few which messes things up.

Who is with me?

Certainly not me.

To count games against a team in a league which another team has not played is just plain nonsense. If one of the original pools proved to be significantly stronger or weaker than the other this would be a huge disadvantage / advantage and totally unfair.

The only viable alternative in my opinion would be divisions of 12 teams, which I would not be in favour of either.

[Joey Stewart]

So why is it any less unfair that none of the teams that came top of their pools have come first in the promotion stage, and have been punished with reduced scores?
Each half of the draw has the chance to turn the tables on their opposing contenders in the final stages, so neither is being disadvantaged by teams feeding off lower sides.

I think the most viable solution is to keep the pools as they are, but to start afresh, with no points carried forward.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think the most viable solution is to keep the pools as they are, but to start afresh, with no points carried forward.

You would have 8 teams with currently only 4 rounds of play scheduled. So what do you do? You could run a 4 round Swiss, not sure that's any better. You could annex the end May Bank Holiday weekend as well to add back the extra three rounds, but you are just repeating matches already played, as well as cutting into an established weekend for Congresses.

The more radical solution would be to go back to three divisions of 8 board teams, which means 36 teams instead of the current 32. If I remember the reasoning for adopting the pool structure, it was that there was a shortage of female and junior players and also that it made it quicker for a new team to get from the 6-board division to division one.

The first reason is still valid and you would have to abandon or seriously modify the female/junior rule to get more viable 8 board teams. As far as the second is concerned, make it clear that a new team would be expected to take over/buy out the slot of an existing team if it expected fast track promotion.

[LozCooper]

I think the most viable solution is to keep the pools as they are, but to start afresh, with no points carried forward.

You would have 8 teams with currently only 4 rounds of play scheduled. So what do you do? You could run a 4 round Swiss, not sure that's any better. You could annex the end May Bank Holiday weekend as well to add back the extra three rounds, but you are just repeating matches already played, as well as cutting into an established weekend for Congresses.

The more radical solution would be to go back to three divisions of 8 board teams, which means 36 teams instead of the current 32. If I remember the reasoning for adopting the pool structure, it was that there was a shortage of female and junior players and also that it made it quicker for a new team to get from the 6-board division to division one.

The first reason is still valid and you would have to abandon or seriously modify the female/junior rule to get more viable 8 board teams. As far as the second is concerned, make it clear that a new team would be expected to take over/buy out the slot of an existing team if it expected fast track promotion.

I thought the reason for the change was to speed up new teams getting into Division One hence the reduction from four divisions to three whilst increasing the number of teams in the top two divisions. I notice the French have now abandoned the system which we changed to

I suspect it's harder to get teams to agree to revert to divisions of 12 as a lot of the teams voting are teams whose main aim is to stay up and losing four teams would jeopardise at least half the division.

[Alex Holowczak]

I'm with Sean on this. The format is fine, and all of Joey's suggestions are inferior.

There's no point in starting afresh, as you suggest.

Pool A/B - 8 teams, 7 games APA
Pool C/D - 8 teams, 7 games APA

To save the teams in A playing the teams in A they've already played, the results just get carried forward, meaning three of the matches don't need to be replayed. It makes perfect sense to me.

[Joey Stewart]

It makes No sense whatsoever. In division 2 Anglian avengers started at the top of the pool, despite going into it with less points then bristol, jutes of kent, barbican youth and poisoned pawns 1 - it makes the competition a complete farce when that sort of thing can happen - you cannot give any rational reason why a team who performed less well should be allowed to come out on top and the others see all their hard work fall by the wayside.

It strikes me that the supporters of this system are using the "its my way, so that is the right way" approach.

[Richard Bates]

It makes No sense whatsoever. In division 2 Anglian avengers started at the top of the pool, despite going into it with less points then bristol, jutes of kent, barbican youth and poisoned pawns 1 - it makes the competition a complete farce when that sort of thing can happen - you cannot give any rational reason why a team who performed less well should be allowed to come out on top and the others see all their hard work fall by the wayside.

It strikes me that the supporters of this system are using the "its my way, so that is the right way" approach.

It's not a question of "supporting the system". If you have a split promotion/relegation format, then the system of carrying forward points against relevant opponents is entirely logical and fair. The purpose of the first 7 games is to determine whether you get into the promotion or relegation pool. Clearly once the promotion and relegation pools have been formed, determining the best/worst teams can only be done on the basis of matches between those teams.

Fair enough, complain about the split format if you don't like the consequences. But any suggestion of maintaining the split format but carrying forward irrelevant games or "starting from scratch" would be a nonsense.

And the simple solution if you think it's unfair - win all your games!

[Joey Stewart]

Yeah, yeah try telling that to the teams now threatened with relegation who have lost the few wins they did get, due to the system screwing them.

It is obviously open to things going wrong, and yet people seem to be taking a very blinkered view about it.

[Richard Bates]

Yeah, yeah try telling that to the teams now threatened with relegation who have lost the few wins they did get, due to the system screwing them.

It is obviously open to things going wrong, and yet people seem to be taking a very blinkered view about it.

Teams "threatened with relegation" are so for one reason and one reason only - they didn't get enough points in the first seven rounds. That's why it's called the "relegation pool"!

Sure beyond that the permutations can mean that some teams are a bit 'unlucky' and some a bit 'lucky' but that doesn't make it unfair. It is probably a golden rule in any competitive sport/game that the first priority is to beat (or certainly not lose to) the competitors closest to your own strength. Manchester United's chances of winning the title is affected more by their results against Chelsea/Arsenal than by their results against Wigan. Similarly Wigan's chances of survival are affected more by their results against fellow relegation strugglers than against Manchester United. This is the concept of the "six-pointer".

So if a team is carrying no points into a relegation pool then they have only themselves to blame for not accurately identifying their likely relegation competitors, and raising their game against them accordingly.

And anyway, at the point of the split no teams chances are terminal, unless they were always going to be relegated anyway. 4 matches are plenty of time to catch up lost ground.

[Adam Ashton]

I'm not a fan of the 'pool' system either. I don't think Wigan would calmly accept it if you removed a win over Man Utd from their results and told them they should have beat West Ham! There is no justification for completely disregarding earlier results in the same division/season.

If 12 teams isn't possible can it not run as a swiss?

[Alan Burke]

With the right circumstances, there is a possiblility under the current system that, after Round 7, "Team A" could finish 4th in their group with a total of 8 points, having beaten the four teams below them (and thus go into the Championship Pool) whilst "Team B", in the other group, finish 5th with a total of 10 points, having beaten the three lower sides but also having drawn against the four above them (thus entering the Demotion Pool).

"Team B" would also then only carry forward 6 points into the Demotion Pool (ie: having had 4 points deleted); this being exactly the same as the team who finished 5th in the other group, who had themselves been able to carry forward all their previous points (ie NO deductions), having beaten the three teams below them.

Another consideration is a possibility that "Team A" in the Championship Pool could then lose all their remaining games, safe in the knowledge that they would still be in the top division the following year, having throughout the season won 4, lost 7; whilst a team in the Demotion Pool could be relegated having achieved a better overall season record of 4 wins; 1 draw; 6 losses. Therefore, the current system also seems a bit unfair on those teams who 'come good' in the latter end of the season, but who then have no means of making better progress than those who started well and then maybe just 'sit on their laurels'.

In a different scenario, the current system also allows for the possibility of 'dead matches' being played in at least Round 7, as follows:

Due to their previous results, "Team C" are already guaranteed a place in the Championship Pool, whilst "Team D" are certain to go into the Demotion Pool. The two sides meet in Round 7, although the result of the match is irrelevant as points won by either team will be immediately deleted before the next stage of the event.

To try and prevent these situations, perhaps the current system up to and including Round 7 could be retained as well as the system for deciding the fixtures for the last four rounds (ie Top 4 v Top 4; Bottom 4 v Bottom 4).

However, ALL previous points could then be retained, whilst just ONE division shown for league placings (ie "Team A" would begin with 8 points and "Team B" with 10 points). Each team would then play their remaining four games and be placed accordingly in the division dependant upon points gained.

At the end of the season each team will have played EXACTLY the same 11 opponents in their division as if under the current system, but the final league table would then reflect the standings of teams thoughtout the entire season with EVERY game having counted towards the Championship/Promotion/Relegation (ie no 'dead' matches and no deleted points.)

[Alex Holowczak]

I think people are failing to understand the point of the points carried forward.

When you enter pools C and D, you have to play an 8-team APA, therefore needing 7 rounds. However, each team has already played 3 of those teams already. E.g. if you were in Pool A, you've already played the other three teams who qualified.

So the reasons for carrying forward those three results are:
(1) It stops those teams playing each other again
(2) It ends the event after 11 rounds, not 14

I honestly thought the concept was simple, and is obviously a fair way of doing it. I'm surprised that it's being discussed and improvements are being suggested. The only alternative is an APA with 12 teams, with 3 up 3 down to retain 25% of teams being promoted and relegated.

[Roger de Coverly]

I honestly thought the concept was simple, and is obviously a fair way of doing it. I'm surprised that it's being discussed and improvements are being suggested. The only alternative is an APA with 12 teams, with 3 up 3 down to retain 25% of teams being promoted and relegated.

There was a consolidation not so long ago from 36 teams of 8 boards to 32 teams of 8 boards.

It would be possible to go back to 36 teams. You might have to reform the women and junior rule though. My suggestion would be that you introduce a third special case - namely players eligible to play in the British Senior Championships.

The other problem is it takes longer for a new team to reach the top division with 4 divisions. You could just bite the bullet and tell complaining teams that it's tough at the top. Some system whereby you transfer the "franchise" to a new team could be workable.

[Alan Burke]

Alex .. The concept of retaining points isn't being misunderstood; it is the seeming injustice of previously well-earned points being deleted. It is for that reason why I suggested retaining ALL previous points but within a system that is still completed in 11 rounds.