Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Leinster leagues format discussion

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ sodacat11


    YAWNNNNNNNNNNN. Gonzaga "A" still have to play all the weakest teams in the league so will probably end up winning it , yet again, by more than twenty points and it is only a matter of time before Gonzaga "B" become the second strongest team. The whole thing has become completely uncompetitive and a bit of a borefest. I am sure that even Gonzaga themselves would prefer more of a challenge.
    One solution would be the awarding of bonus points a bit like what happens in rugby. Any player drawing with someone 150 points or more higher rated gets a bonus point for their team and any player beating someone 150 points or more higher gets two points.
    Gonzaga would still be clear favourites but it sure would tighten things up a bit. Perhaps one of the anoraks among you could draw up how the league table would look had this system been used this season? For a start Dublin Uni would have beaten Gonzaga "A" 9-4 instead of it being a 4-4 draw.


«1

Comments



  • You'd imagine such a system would probably benefit Gonzaga with a number of young players coming through, particularly if they gain lots of rating points during the year but are still down for leagues purposes with their Sept rating.

    The way forward is for other clubs to strengthen, not to try hold Gonzaga back though.




  • cdeb wrote: »
    You'd imagine such a system would probably benefit Gonzaga with a number of young players coming through, particularly if they gain lots of rating points during the year but are still down for leagues purposes with their Sept rating.

    The way forward is for other clubs to strengthen, not to try hold Gonzaga back though.

    It would not benefit Gonzaga at all, in fact it would have the opposite effect as they invariably outrate everyone they play. Clubs like Blanchardstown would be the biggest beneficiaries.
    The league needs to be freshened up.




  • cdeb wrote: »
    You'd imagine such a system would probably benefit Gonzaga with a number of young players coming through, particularly if they gain lots of rating points during the year but are still down for leagues purposes with their Sept rating.

    The way forward is for other clubs to strengthen, not to try hold Gonzaga back though.

    First you said that my system benefits Gonzaga then you inferred that it would "hold them back". Maybe you are just disagreeing for the sake of it?




  • No, you're trying to hold them back. That doesn't help things.

    I'll admit a quick review does confirm that the system would benefit Gonzaga less than I thought - though there's plenty of decent juniors on the B team who, as I suggested, could benefit from such a system. So that should at least sort out the apparent contradiction.

    Your system could also encourage sandbagging ahead of a new season, and could discourage players from playing foreign tournaments and gaining points against foreign players, who tend to be too high-rated by Irish standards.

    The Premiership is an uncompetitive league - if someone outside the usual top four wins these days, it's a 5,000-1 miracle - but you don't see suggestions being made that Brighton get a bonus point if they lose 4-1 to Man City but score from 50% or more of their shots, or save 60% or more of Man City's shots. But that's effectively what you're suggesting here.

    So I think clubs need to look to themselves more. Like, why do Rathmines lose so many of their good junior players to other clubs? It seems to be a thing that when Rathmines Juniors players graduate, they're more likely to join St Benildus rather than Rathmines. That'll benefit us in the coming few years. I think that's the issue for Rathmines to address, not trying to score bonus points off clubs who are doing things better than them.




  • cdeb wrote: »
    No, you're trying to hold them back. That doesn't help things.

    I'll admit a quick review does confirm that the system would benefit Gonzaga less than I thought - though there's plenty of decent juniors on the B team who, as I suggested, could benefit from such a system. So that should at least sort out the apparent contradiction.

    Your system could also encourage sandbagging ahead of a new season, and could discourage players from playing foreign tournaments and gaining points against foreign players, who tend to be too high-rated by Irish standards.

    The Premiership is an uncompetitive league - if someone outside the usual top four wins these days, it's a 5,000-1 miracle - but you don't see suggestions being made that Brighton get a bonus point if they lose 4-1 to Man City but score from 50% or more of their shots, or save 60% or more of Man City's shots. But that's effectively what you're suggesting here.

    So I think clubs need to look to themselves more. Like, why do Rathmines lose so many of their good junior players to other clubs? It seems to be a thing that when Rathmines Juniors players graduate, they're more likely to join St Benildus rather than Rathmines. That'll benefit us in the coming few years. I think that's the issue for Rathmines to address, not trying to score bonus points off clubs who are doing things better than them.

    As we are probably going to be in the Heidenfeld next season I wasn't looking at the problem from a Rathmines point of view at all and if such a system was used in the Heidenfeld it would probably work against us as we would be the highest rated team.
    As for the top division of the English football league I've seen it won by Leeds, Derby, Notts Forest, Everton. Man C,Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea,Leicester and Blackburn and as far as the present is concerned I don't see any of the top six running away with it by huge margins year after year the way that Gonzaga do in the Armstrong.
    Horses and golfers are handicapped to make races more competitive and it works perfectly well. I don't understand your objection to having a more competitive league.
    I think your notion about players "sandbagging" and avoiding foreign tournaments in ludicrous.


  • Advertisement


  • You mustn't have been watching the Premiership last season!

    OK, there's six teams who run away with it by huge margins year after year - but it's still a boring and predictable league. Leeds, Derby, etc, is a thing of the past and not comparable to now. The corollary argument is that I've seen the Armstrong won by Kilkenny, Trinity, Elm Mount, Dublin, and so there's no problems now. And one team does run away with other leagues regularly - Juve and Celtic to name two - with no such suggestions to "fix" it.

    I think you're being slightly naive to dismiss the sandbagging; there's certainly players who have deliberately kept their ratings below a certain level to try, say, enter and win an U1600 section for money. Wouldn't be a huge issue by any means, but it'd be a possibility.

    While I appreciate you're trying to take a league-wide view of the matter, I think charity starts at home as they say, so if you're a Rathmines member, the main area you can influence is Rathmines. Gonzaga are where they are because (among other reasons) they have a tremendous support network where top players help improve junior players. Yes, this has made the leagues uncompetitive, but on the flip side it has made weekenders more competitive.

    But Rathmines aren't doing this - in fact, they're losing players to other clubs. While you're entitled to look at matters from a league-wide view, I think it would be more productive to address this matter instead. Long-term, this makes more sense than to try hold Gonzaga back




  • cdeb wrote: »
    You mustn't have been watching the Premiership last season!

    OK, there's six teams who run away with it by huge margins year after year - but it's still a boring and predictable league. Leeds, Derby, etc, is a thing of the past and not comparable to now. The corollary argument is that I've seen the Armstrong won by Kilkenny, Trinity, Elm Mount, Dublin, and so there's no problems now. And one team does run away with other leagues regularly - Juve and Celtic to name two - with no such suggestions to "fix" it.

    I think you're being slightly naive to dismiss the sandbagging; there's certainly players who have deliberately kept their ratings below a certain level to try, say, enter and win an U1600 section for money. Wouldn't be a huge issue by any means, but it'd be a possibility.

    While I appreciate you're trying to take a league-wide view of the matter, I think charity starts at home as they say, so if you're a Rathmines member, the main area you can influence is Rathmines. Gonzaga are where they are because (among other reasons) they have a tremendous support network where top players help improve junior players. Yes, this has made the leagues uncompetitive, but on the flip side it has made weekenders more competitive.

    But Rathmines aren't doing this - in fact, they're losing players to other clubs. While you're entitled to look at matters from a league-wide view, I think it would be more productive to address this matter instead. Long-term, this makes more sense than to try hold Gonzaga back
    Gonzaga would still probably win the Armstrong but it would be a lot less predictable. My proposal would in no way "hold back" Gonzaga or have any influence whatsoever on the competitiveness of weekenders, it would just give more incentive to weaker teams and lower rated players and help to balance things a bit. In American football the top teams each year lose their best players to the weakest teams for the following season,it might be a bit artificial but at least the sentiment behind it is honourable. I don't know how many times Gonzaga have won the Armstrong in a row but even they must be getting a bit bored by now. There is little merit in having a team packed with highly rated players and just stomping all over the little guys.




  • I'm curious as to how you continually ignore my questions regarding your own club?

    (And I'm not picking on Rathmines here; if Tim were making the point, I'd be throwing back the same argument about Trinity)

    I always thought it was funny that American sports go down the communist route with their squads.




  • cdeb wrote: »
    I'm curious as to how you continually ignore my questions regarding your own club?

    (And I'm not picking on Rathmines here; if Tim were making the point, I'd be throwing back the same argument about Trinity)

    I always thought it was funny that American sports go down the communist route with their squads.
    I am ignoring your Rathmines questions because they are totally irrelevant to my proposal to improve the Armstrong and because I have nothing whatsoever to do with youth development or recruitment in the club.




  • American sports are funny like that. The F1 considered that for a few years - each team swap drivers throughout the season and see does well with each engine and setup. Fell down for obvious reasons; why would the top teams sign up to this, why would the top drivers give up the best engines.

    I guess if sodacat is advocating for the American system - the only equivalent system in chess would be a “rating cap”. Because the best teams only lose those players because they can’t keep their wages under the cap and so after contracts run out, the worst team can offer the most money.

    Rating caps (unlike the other interesting suggestion) are used in chess - most noteably perhaps in the pro chess league. Or at least they were, not sure about now.


  • Advertisement


  • American sports are funny like that. The F1 considered that for a few years - each team swap drivers throughout the season and see does well with each engine and setup. Fell down for obvious reasons; why would the top teams sign up to this, why would the top drivers give up the best engines.

    I guess if sodacat is advocating for the American system - the only equivalent system in chess would be a “rating cap”. Because the best teams only lose those players because they can’t keep their wages under the cap and so after contracts run out, the worst team can offer the most money.

    Rating caps (unlike the other interesting suggestion) are used in chess - most noteably perhaps in the pro chess league. Or at least they were, not sure about now.
    No, I am not in favour of anything American,a rating cap or players swapping clubs. I like my idea of bonus points as I outlined earlier. Something needs to be done to freshen things up.




  • To steal from one of your Irish championship argumnts: but why can’t these 1800s wait until they are the proper strength required to win the league... Armstrong participation medals next with last place getting bigger medals than first ;)




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    I am ignoring your Rathmines questions because they are totally irrelevant to my proposal to improve the Armstrong and because I have nothing whatsoever to do with youth development or recruitment in the club.
    Well that's fair enough - but if you're not part of the solution, then...




  • To steal from one of your Irish championship argumnts: but why can’t these 1800s wait until they are the proper strength required to win the league... Armstrong participation medals next with last place getting bigger medals than first ;)

    Completely different issue.




  • cdeb wrote: »
    Well that's fair enough - but if you're not part of the solution, then...

    I have offered a solution, one that would make the leagues much more interesting.
    If nothing changes then you may as well give Gonzaga their winners medals for the next five years now.




  • I've also offered a solution. Gonzaga as a club have put in a lot of work to get where they are now. What have other clubs done to deserve a hands-up?

    I always thought it was unfair how better clubs kept beating us in the European Cup the last couple of years. I think your new rule could be trialled there.




  • cdeb wrote: »
    I've also offered a solution. Gonzaga as a club have put in a lot of work to get where they are now. What have other clubs done to deserve a hands-up?

    I always thought it was unfair how better clubs kept beating us in the European Cup the last couple of years. I think your new rule could be trialled there.

    In rugby they allow Ireland to enter provinces instead of clubs.In soccer they have tried to implement financial fair play to even things up.Trying to make leagues fairer is not a new concept.




  • Neither change is so fundamentally against sporting principles (ie unfair) though

    Rugby was because the AIL wasn't remotely capable of supporting the fully-pro game which had just emerged. FFP was to stop clubs bankrupting themselves keeping up with clubs who were bankrupting themselves

    Not comparable to here




  • cdeb wrote: »
    Neither change is so fundamentally against sporting principles (ie unfair) though

    Rugby was because the AIL wasn't remotely capable of supporting the fully-pro game which had just emerged. FFP was to stop clubs bankrupting themselves keeping up with clubs who were bankrupting themselves

    Not comparable to here

    What about golfers having handicaps?
    By your reasoning, the survival of the fittest,then there should be no chess ratings or elite tournaments. We should just all play in big opens with no grading, junior, senior or women's prizes and give all the prize money to whoever wins.
    This argument has become as boring as the top of the Armstrong. I rest my case.




  • I've no problem giving out a grading prize in the leagues. We could give it to any player who scores 75% or more in their games.

    But you don't get to be Bunratty senior champion just because you're 1950 and put in a 2100 performance.

    Or maybe that is what you're arguing for?


  • Advertisement


  • I think you can only admire how strong Gonzaga have become. They do have a somewhat unique advantage with the link to the school and two of their strongest players involved developing their players. Fair play to them for utilising that strength though.

    St Benildus are the only other club I am aware of with direct link to a school and benefit heavily from it. Perhaps that is a model other clubs should follow and form links with local schools and offer coaching along with it.




  • Thing is, they're not actually all that strong either. One IM and one FM? Compare that to teams from smaller countries in the Europeans and it's nothing.

    But we should hold the game back because some 1900s think they should have some right to challenge for a national title?




  • sodacat11 wrote: »
    The league needs to be freshened up.
    I remember this was suggested recently, but the person who suggested it(moi) this was told there was no problem, and there was no need for change!Thnigs have hardly changed that much in a month?




  • Would reducing the Armstrong from 8 boards to 6 boards make the league more competitive? I would be against making any changes though to a league structure that has worked very well. The level of success for one team may be unprecedented but other clubs need to perhaps look at what they're doing right and try to emulate that as best they can. It could also be that the player pool Gonzaga have at the moment is particularly strong and in 5 years time the same level of dominance won't be there.




  • Doubtful. Teams are generally better balanced on the bottom boards. I did a brief analysis of that a while back on this thread




  • cdeb wrote: »
    No, you're trying to hold them back. That doesn't help things.

    I'll admit a quick review does confirm that the system would benefit Gonzaga less than I thought - though there's plenty of decent juniors on the B team who, as I suggested, could benefit from such a system. So that should at least sort out the apparent contradiction.

    Your system could also encourage sandbagging ahead of a new season, and could discourage players from playing foreign tournaments and gaining points against foreign players, who tend to be too high-rated by Irish standards.

    The Premiership is an uncompetitive league - if someone outside the usual top four wins these days, it's a 5,000-1 miracle - but you don't see suggestions being made that Brighton get a bonus point if they lose 4-1 to Man City but score from 50% or more of their shots, or save 60% or more of Man City's shots. But that's effectively what you're suggesting here.

    So I think clubs need to look to themselves more. Like, why do Rathmines lose so many of their good junior players to other clubs? It seems to be a thing that when Rathmines Juniors players graduate, they're more likely to join St Benildus rather than Rathmines. That'll benefit us in the coming few years. I think that's the issue for Rathmines to address, not trying to score bonus points off clubs who are doing things better than them.
    Cdeb,

    Players will always move between clubs, and at the moment St Benildus are doing well with their juniors. I would feel however that Rathmines have consistently lost more top players to Gonzaga. Just looking at this years Armstrong squads, 4 of Gonzaga’s Armstrong players, started out on Wednesday nights at Rathmines Juniors (and that’s without counting Killian).

    The lure of playing with your classmates and also potentially winning the Armstrong is very hard compete with, and will continue to be the case- it will be interesting to see how this impacts Benildus in the coming years as some of your top juniors filter into Gonzaga secondary school.

    Rathmines are not the only club to lose top players to their school club, as Bray and Blanch have also been impacted, whilst these players do also benefit from very good coaching within the Gonzaga system.

    Gonzaga are not the only Armstrong club to benefit from picking up strong juniors from elsewhere- Trinity have had secondary school players on their team the last two seasons.

    Another pertinent point (maybe not for this thread) is how to keep top joint prospects in the game- if you look at the list of Stokes (u12) players over the last 10 years, there are a very high number who have stopped playing competitive chess.




  • I think the most fantastic suggestion so far was that more clubs partner up with local schools. Honestly, had never crossed my mind before - ingenious way to invest in the future of your club and area. Have sent a few emails about this already now today to see what can be done to help clubs link up with schools like this. Many thanks dmandmythdledge




  • I think you can only admire how strong Gonzaga have become. They do have a somewhat unique advantage with the link to the school and two of their strongest players involved developing their players. Fair play to them for utilising that strength though.

    St Benildus are the only other club I am aware of with direct link to a school and benefit heavily from it. Perhaps that is a model other clubs should follow and form links with local schools and offer coaching along with it.
    Whilst Gonzaga do benefit from a very strong school feeder, St Benildus are no longer producing schools players the way they did six or seven years ago- they have an excellent player in sixth year, but very little thereafter- their second best schools player plays with a different club, whilst they have probably slipped to fourth or fifth in the schools leagues.
    Perhaps this will change again with strong players starting to come through from the likes of St Laurence’s Kilmacud, if they stay local for secondary school.




  • I think the most fantastic suggestion so far was that more clubs partner up with local schools. Honestly, had never crossed my mind before - ingenious way to invest in the future of your club and area. Have sent a few emails about this already now today to see what can be done to help clubs link up with schools like this. Many thanks dmandmythdledge
    Easier said that done, as the challenge is getting the primary school players into rated games - we had players feed through from Soil Bhride Ranelagh, St Mary’s Harrington Road and St Mary’s Donnybrook to name three examples, but getting the players jump to rated games is a big challenge.
    Aprile consistently has good players coming through Donore Ave, so perhaps that’s a link we should try build on again.


  • Advertisement


  • I hadn't planned on commenting further on this matter but someone went to the trouble of working out how the Armstrong would look after every team playing seven games if my bonus point system was used so the least I can do is publish the interesting results.
    Blanchardstown 45
    Dublin Uni 43
    Gonzaga "A" 41.5
    Gonzaga "B" 35.5
    Bray 32
    Elm Mount 30
    Benildus 30
    Kilkenny 29
    Balbriggan 29
    Dublin 24
    Rathmines22
    Dun Laoghaire 21

    A Much more exciting situation than what we have now. Gonzaga "A" would have much the easier final four games than Dublin U and Blanchardstown so would still probably win the league but it would go down to the very last game. Gonzaga (or anyone else) aren't being penalised or "held back" as some suggest, all that is happening is that giant killing is being rewarded by bonus points. It seems perfectly fair to me.


Advertisement