National Club Championships 11-12 April 2015

[MartinCarpenter]

It isn't, but you can hardly write a rule to ban teams with big catchment areas from playing The same with all of the other differences Needs to be a verifiable, vaguely simple rule which doesn't ban a bunch of 'genuine' clubs.

You could reasonably sensibly say you only want teams playing in a weekday leagues, but maybe there are some small scale weekend based leagues out there....

Actually could be worth considering slightly changing the nature of the competition and inviting all the winners (runners up?) of various pre specified evening leagues to come and play. That'd give it a bit of focus/positive differentiation from the 4NCL at least. Small scale version of that working well in Yorkshire the past couple of years.

[Guy Greenland]

Entries update :

For your information these are the updates that will be going on the ECF web-site soon:

New Clubs entered since the last ECF web-site update 27.03.2015 :
Warley Quinborne (1 team Inter), Leamington (1 team Inter), Wanstead & Woodford (1 team Major, 1 team Inter)

Clubs withdrawn : Barnstaple (1 team Major).

This makes in total so far :
13 Clubs / 22 Teams
Solihull are hoping to enter a team I understand.

Hope that helps.

[David Robertson]

January 8, 2014

Did anyone offer an answer to the original question - "National Club Championship - what is the point?" I was pleased to see it was Alex who posed the question but have the impression that he is proceeding without any answer.

I probably am indeed proceeding without any answer. I suppose I came to the conclusion that if we keep doing the National Club the same way every year, we're going to get the same result: Fewer teams entering every year. So why not try something different?

I'll give Alex one kind of answer. He's trying to breathe life into a dead sheep by blowing through a straw up its ar$e. It won't work.

April 4, 2015

At least the current director has shown initiative by revamping the tournament and running it
over a weekend which does suggest he's willing to try change

In this context, the change amounts to another way of trying to pump oxygen through a corpse.

Nothing changes. Not even the metaphors

I'll pop back in 2016

[IM Jack Rudd]

As it happens, I play my local league matches at weekends. But the Devon League is a bit unusual in that regard.

[Mike Truran]

Sorry Jack, don't understand that one. Have Barnstaple withdrawn because you can't play? Apologies if I'm being obtuse.

[MartinCarpenter]

It means you couldn't ban teams playing on weekends from the competition without also unfairly banning the Devon league

Fairly sure the only plausible way to restrict things to 'real' clubs would be white listing which would be a big effort of course.

[Nick Grey]

I was looking at playing this w/e. My clubs were unable to get a team out. Unable to join a new one with mates.
Calling it a national team championship may get more interest. Be nice for ECF to offer something for its members - as well as thank those sponsors/supporters as on these postings. But yes little interest for a long time now.

Anyway as my football team won last week with 12 players I'm coming out of retirement at fifty two so I can get a competitive game (or part).

[David Gilbert]

Yellow Car! More new entries since Guy Greenland's post on Friday. West Bromwich in the Open, and Drunken Knights and Solihull on the Major list. 23 teams to date. Brilliant and Wow.

[IM Jack Rudd]

A club event with no definition of club where carloads of 4 people could constitute a club, might be more popular but wouldn't be a club event. ...

That's all fine and I can see why the format works at lower levels. But as I've been saying consistently, there is no appetite for this traditional club format at the higher (Open) level and it is a mystery why the ECF does not acknowledge it. I was serious, I expect they will readvertise the Open next year even if there remains just the one entrant this year!

The thing is, there's no reason not to at least offer it. If there are enough teams to run an Open section, it goes ahead. If not, there is no Open section, but the other sections go ahead as before.

[Jonathan Rogers]

but normally supply follows demand. Here, by advertising an event where there is little or no demand among stronger players, the best "surprise" you are likely to get is two teams of 160 strength playing each other four times over a weekend and one of them becoming "Open" Champion.

[MSoszynski]

but normally supply follows demand. Here, by advertising an event where there is little or no demand among stronger players, the best "surprise" you are likely to get is two teams of 160 strength playing each other four times over a weekend and one of them becoming "Open" Champion.

Then "you" will have gotten a greater surprise; I trust you are pleased. For if either current Open entrant had a team of "160 strength" then surely they would have entered the Major (average not more than 175).

[Jonathan Rogers]

but normally supply follows demand. Here, by advertising an event where there is little or no demand among stronger players, the best "surprise" you are likely to get is two teams of 160 strength playing each other four times over a weekend and one of them becoming "Open" Champion.

Then "you" will have gotten a greater surprise; I trust you are pleased. For if either current Open entrant had a team of "160 strength" then surely they would have entered the Major (average not more than 175).

Well, I assume that they could enter the Open if they wanted, and that was my point - they would be the only ones sufficiently interested. The Open does not serve any significant demand among stronger players.

[Richard Bates]

To be fair the current situation is such that one cannot be totally certain that there is not demand. The problem is that nobody, for obvious reasons, wants to risk being obliged to turn up for a non-event. Entering produces a certain commitment which it is then difficult to back out of. And being able to enter until right the last moment actually works against the tournament. It's a catch-22. Clubs will only enter if they can be certain of a reasonable level and number of opposition. But the latter can't be guaranteed without the former.

[MSoszynski]

but normally supply follows demand. Here, by advertising an event where there is little or no demand among stronger players, the best "surprise" you are likely to get is two teams of 160 strength playing each other four times over a weekend and one of them becoming "Open" Champion.

Then "you" will have gotten a greater surprise; I trust you are pleased. For if either current Open entrant had a team of "160 strength" then surely they would have entered the Major (average not more than 175).

Well, I assume that they could enter the Open if they wanted, and that was my point - they would be the only ones sufficiently interested. The Open does not serve any significant demand among stronger players.

I hope you're not saying that in your opinion the entrants in the Open are insignificant or weak. The entrants in the Open exceed the limits for the Major. Your point that Major-strength teams can actually enter the Open is obscure because none have - why would they do so when they have their own section?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Guess what - I am saying that two entries are insignificant!!!! (and the only way to get a meaningful number would be for major teams to enter as well).