Division Two 2016-17

Venues, fixtures, teams and related matters.
Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9022
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Alex Holowczak » Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:30 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:However, the normal rationale for that in sporting leagues is so that clubs field youth/development teams lower down the league, and I guess that's not really something many chess clubs do.
Not in the same league surely. In the Football League, reserve players are loaned to clubs in lower divisions, but there isn't an Arsenal 2, Chelsea 2 etc in the Championship, League One or League Two.

Allowing the lending of players could be a better way of handling the reserve strength issue. It would avoid 80 point rule difficulties as well. Not allowing transfers of players is something where chess leagues are more stringent than sports leagues. In its earliest years, the 4NCL didn't have any formalised rules on eligibility. Players started to object when they found themselves facing the some opponent more than once.
Arsenal B, Chelsea B might not be in the same league - despite recent proposals to the contrary - but they do exist and play in a reserves competition. There were objections because the Football League clubs felt that it would solidify the positions of the really strong clubs. But B teams playing in the main league is very common in Spain; Real Madrid Castilla and Barcelona B are usually in the 2nd or 3rd tier of the Spanish League. In fact, Castilla won the Copa del Rey before, but B teams can't play in that now.

Amateur cricket in England has rules like this. You can't play in the top division of the Warwickshire League unless you have a 2nd team and a 3rd team, no matter how good the 1st team is. I think the Worcestershire League has the same rule. The difference between the two is that in Warwickshire, there is one linear league with 2nd, 3rd etc. teams intertwined. In Worcestershire, there is a separate competition for 2nd teams. I'd be surprised if there were any Saturday leagues that didn't have rules of this nature. It's done so that ambitious clubs work to develop players and provide competitive opportunities to younger players.

Last year, there was no Wood Green 2, and they defaulted a few boards in one match because they didn't have enough available players. Now they've merged with Midland Monarchs with several other teams in the league, they're unlikely to default because they can't name enough available players. But we saw at weekend 1, Kings Head defaulted a board in Division 1. If they had a 2nd team somewhere, they could have drafted a player up from that team - they'd have a bigger squad, so despite logistic difficulties, there'd still be more chance of them solving the problem.

So actually, I'd argue that such rules benefit and encourage chess, but I expect I might be in a minority of 1.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18212
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:43 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: Now they've merged with Midland Monarchs with several other teams in the league, they're unlikely to default because they can't name enough available players.
They cannot field any male players under 2261 without evicting Lawrence from his board 1 slot in the Division 3 team. They might still then default if the Division 3 team retains good promotion prospects.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3065
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:31 pm

"Requiring 1st teams to have a 2nd team in a lower division does encourage chess; Division 1 teams have to field additional teams, if they don't have them. So you have more people playing. It also brings more people in, which is good."

No it doesn't.

Players will not be able to play in division 1 so they will join a bigger club and the smaller clubs will fold. Trust me - I have some experience of league chess. Hard working club officials are trying to raise teams and the more inane and pointless rules are put in front of them, the more likely they are to give up.

Incidentally, Chelsea etc U21 have been playing lower league clubs in what I think used to be called the Sherpa Van Trophy.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9022
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Alex Holowczak » Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:53 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:"Requiring 1st teams to have a 2nd team in a lower division does encourage chess; Division 1 teams have to field additional teams, if they don't have them. So you have more people playing. It also brings more people in, which is good."

No it doesn't.

Players will not be able to play in division 1 so they will join a bigger club and the smaller clubs will fold. Trust me - I have some experience of league chess. Hard working club officials are trying to raise teams and the more inane and pointless rules are put in front of them, the more likely they are to give up.

Incidentally, Chelsea etc U21 have been playing lower league clubs in what I think used to be called the Sherpa Van Trophy.
If smaller 4NCL squads merge into bigger 4NCL squads, then I don't see that as a bad thing at all. I don't understand why, for example, there's a Hounds and Bears team made up of mostly Warwickshire-based players, when there was already a Warwickshire Select team. Hounds and Bears have ended up playing in Division 3 North because that's the quicker route to Division 2. It would have made more sense to me for the two pools of players to merge, and then enter a Warwickshire Select 3rd team - called Hounds and Bears if you like - in Division 3 North. Working together with big squads just seems right to me.

Putting Under 21s in that trophy was a bad idea, because it don't achieve either side's aims. The lower league clubs like the competition to not have to worry about the higher league clubs. The higher league clubs want meaningful competition against non-reserve sides. The Trophy change achieved neither of these things, so both camps end up unhappy. It was probably an attempt at a compromise.

Neil Graham
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Neil Graham » Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:00 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:"Requiring 1st teams to have a 2nd team in a lower division does encourage chess; Division 1 teams have to field additional teams, if they don't have them. So you have more people playing. It also brings more people in, which is good."

No it doesn't.

Players will not be able to play in division 1 so they will join a bigger club and the smaller clubs will fold. Trust me - I have some experience of league chess. Hard working club officials are trying to raise teams and the more inane and pointless rules are put in front of them, the more likely they are to give up.

Incidentally, Chelsea etc U21 have been playing lower league clubs in what I think used to be called the Sherpa Van Trophy.
The event has been the Johnstone's Paint Trophy for a number of years but I'll gloss over that because as from this year the event is the Checkatrade Trophy.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9022
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Alex Holowczak » Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:02 pm

Neil Graham wrote:The event has been the Johnstone's Paint Trophy for a number of years but I'll gloss over that
Painful :cry:

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2454
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by MartinCarpenter » Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:09 pm

Alex's basic point seems very sensible to me, but I guess pride or just plain organisation can get in the way of such things. Forcing it might probably not be a good idea.

There's something vaguely similar with the Yorkshire teams in Div3(N) and White Rose 1/2. Bradford A are obviously a different exercise and shouldn't link, but judged strictly logically it'd make more sense to have one of the B/C teams formally denoted as WR3 instead.

It'd also mean that the 2nd and 3rd teams could split their strength a bit better - the squad rules are not hugely kind to 3rd/4th teams from the same club.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7623
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Mick Norris » Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:10 pm

Neil Graham wrote:The event has been the Johnstone's Paint Trophy for a number of years but I'll gloss over that because as from this year the event is the Checkatrade Trophy.
Mansfield doing ok in this I think?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Neil Graham
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Neil Graham » Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:56 am

Mick Norris wrote:
Neil Graham wrote:The event has been the Johnstone's Paint Trophy for a number of years but I'll gloss over that because as from this year the event is the Checkatrade Trophy.
Mansfield doing ok in this I think?
Having lost to Carlisle 5-2 at the weekend, Mansfield have to play them in this. Carlisle are managed by Keith Curle who used to manage the Stags.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7623
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:05 pm

Neil Graham wrote:
Mick Norris wrote:
Neil Graham wrote:The event has been the Johnstone's Paint Trophy for a number of years but I'll gloss over that because as from this year the event is the Checkatrade Trophy.
Mansfield doing ok in this I think?
Having lost to Carlisle 5-2 at the weekend, Mansfield have to play them in this. Carlisle are managed by Keith Curle who used to manage the Stags.
I see you beat Carlisle, and are at home to Walsall or Oldham in the last 16
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Nick Grey
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Nick Grey » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:25 pm

What are the chances of snow & or transport disruptions on Saturday morning?

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5759
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Carl Hibbard » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:58 am

Nick Grey wrote:What are the chances of snow & or transport disruptions on Saturday morning?
I could make different guesses in all what 4 threads did we need that many?
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5105
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by LawrenceCooper » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:04 am

Carl Hibbard wrote:
Nick Grey wrote:What are the chances of snow & or transport disruptions on Saturday morning?
I could make different guesses in all what 4 threads did we need that many?
At least we don't have threads for each pool otherwise it could have been eight (rising to fourteen in March) :shock:

Rhys Cumming
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:31 am

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Rhys Cumming » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:05 pm

Apologies in advance for the inevitable rehashing of pool vs. all play all league structure debate that will likely follow, but the precarious situation of The ADs in pool A is interesting, since they have beaten most of the 'good teams' and lost to the 'bad teams'.

In Round 7 they play Downend & Fishponds while Barbican Youth play Warwickshire Select 2. The ADs will be in the top pool unless they lose and Barbican win (by any score).

If The ADs go into the top pool, they will take with them 5/6 matchpoints and presumably have a very good chance of going up. If they lose however (and Barbican win), they will take a massive 0 points through to the demotion pool and may have to win all 4 remaining games (including against Guildford 3) in order to survive. So it seems that round 7 might decide whether The ADs are playing in Div 1 or Div 3S next year.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1249
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Division Two 2016-17

Post by Alan Walton » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:16 pm

Rhys Cumming wrote:Apologies in advance for the inevitable rehashing of pool vs. all play all league structure debate that will likely follow, but the precarious situation of The ADs in pool A is interesting, since they have beaten most of the 'good teams' and lost to the 'bad teams'.

In Round 7 they play Downend & Fishponds while Barbican Youth play Warwickshire Select 2. The ADs will be in the top pool unless they lose and Barbican win (by any score).

If The ADs go into the top pool, they will take with them 5/6 matchpoints and presumably have a very good chance of going up. If they lose however (and Barbican win), they will take a massive 0 points through to the demotion pool and may have to win all 4 remaining games (including against Guildford 3) in order to survive. So it seems that round 7 might decide whether The ADs are playing in Div 1 or Div 3S next year.
I noticed this one, as well; something else I have noticed this season in Div 1 is that 15 out of 48 matches have been won with 6.5 match points or greater, to me this is showing that the gulf between promoted Div 2 and Top Div 1 teams is greater than ever (historically in the APA system there were alot more 4.5-3.5 results), with the matches between these teams now becoming dead rubbers for the promoted teams (something which the pool system wanted to get rid off)

Post Reply