Post
by J T Melsom » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:23 pm
Ian, Roger did say the competition worked reasonably well, which is fair comment I think. He didn't comment on the relatively weak sides fielded by some counties - the Bucks success owed much to our maximising playing strength, compared to our rivals. The Jamboree structure is in part intended to remove the tail from some teams.
I agreed at the start of the year to try and get the Bucks team going again. Its not been one of my more successful county posts, but it does afford me the chance to make some more general better informed observations.
I can’t help thinking most of the decline is not down to format but demographics. A smaller number of players will put strain on finding adequate players and volunteers alike. And county chess may not offer the same appeal as it did historically. Moreover, even where a county has modest success (Bucks won the Chiltern League two seasons running) such success can be fleeting. After dropping out of the event for a season due to a lack of match captain, I volunteered this year for the new Jamboree format team (reducing match dates from 6 to 4 and team size as well). I found on reviewing my eligible player list that with players retiring from county chess, moving away from the area for work/retirement/study 20% of the successful squad was unavailable, and the playing pool hasn’t been re-stocked. ( I've actually looked in the archive and found that especially on the top ten boards I've under-stated the changes - Roger was down on board 7/8 for some fixtures].We’ve lost strong juniors and their parents, and people have found other things to do not just other forms of chess. And county captains do need a subtly different skill set to club captains as you are dealing with people you see less regularly, and actually not have met.
Changes to the eligibility rules will not help us re-join the national stages or the SCCU event . There are currently three juniors graded above 130 in the county and just one female. A change in eligibility rules would not be unfair, but would disproportionately impact the smaller counties.
But nor would scrapping the eligibility rules in their entirety, as the team would cease to represent its county, which is a factor in some choosing to participate. Apart from only requiring half a weekend, there doesn’t seem much point in something which would just be a duplicate of the 4NCL.
I suspect Alex’s proposals are too radical, but he should be applauded for trying to do something. Some of the most negative posts have been from representatives of counties within the SCCU. When I last looked only five of nine eligible counties competed in the Open section of the SCCU competition. I cannot recall the last time I was asked as secretary of one of the absent counties why we didn’t play. So as well as criticising Alex, maybe some should consider a more constructive dialogue.
Last edited by J T Melsom on Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.