---

Mark Halsey has kindly provided us with the data which is now available via the links on the home page. This will be updated each weekend.

Rankings

Div Singles

Div Secs

Thanks Mark :clap:

---

Updated.

---

if i look at the monitor upside down it looks like im doing well :one:

---

Updated

---

Rankings updated.

---

All updated

---

Updated

---

Updated

---

Updated

---

why don't the rankings take account of how good a player is instead of just counting how many games they have played?

Someone that has played 10 games and won 10, will be ranked below someone that has played 30 games and won 11. That doesn't seem right... has anyone noticed this before? Is it likely to ever get changed in the future?

---

to be fair if a player is signed up,you would expect them to play in a lot of frames in a season, unless 1. they don't turn up regularly in which case they are possibly not proper team mates so sod em or 2. they don't get picked much, which means they are probably not that good so I'm sure they won't really mind what their rankings are

---

Yeah I see what you mean, not sure what the answer is really.
I don't think the rankings should be a measure of how comitted someone is to their team, I think it should be a measure of how good they are with a pool cue. On the other hand if it was a straight forward win/loss ratio you'd have the absurd situation of someone who played one game the whole season and won being above someone who played 20 and won 19 which wouldn't seem right either! :juggle:

---

My snooker league does it on percentages, with the proviso that you have to have played a certain number of games, which used to be 15 out of the 22 I think.

---

Other leagues do it as a frame difference.

ie Played 22 won 16 Lost 6 is +10.
Played 10 Won 10 Lost 0 is +10.

My snooker league is the same as Longshnaks but there have been instances when people have said he won 11/12 I am 21/out of 24. He has a better percentage but can you be sure he would have won at least 10 if he played 12 more. Frankly no you cant be sure....

I think all have valid reasons for and against, this leagues does reward both attendance and performance.

If a footballer played half the games brilliantly and was injured or unavailable the next, he wouldn't win player of the year.

---

We've had this before on the old site.

I think the points system for rankings is as followed.

A win for a singles, doubles and league cup games get you 5 points for each win.
In the league a win will get you 4.5 points in the 1st Division, 4.25 in 2nd, 4.00 in 3rd, 3.75 in 4th, 3.5 in 5th.

You get ranking points for winning but its structured to recognise you will be playing better players week in week out the higher the division you are in.

If two players have identical records but play in different divisions, the player in the higher division will be ranked higher then the other.

---

OK I'm in devils advocate mood this evening.
Can't say I think that's a great system.

If you are giving extra points for playing in a higher division, why not give extra points for playing at the front of the squad? Surely it's harder to win 10/10 games if your playing first than it is if your playing last?

---

and by the way.. would I think the system needed revision if I was first on the list? or for that matter, appeared on the first page of the list!
no... probabally not :winking:

---

Rankings etc have been updated . .

---

Looking at the history of previous winners, Terry Doke, Eddie Taylor, Jason Deegan, Steve Field, Rod Altes. I think jacko has won it also.

It doesn't seem to be too far away from being right on the basis of those winners i would say.

Looking at this year, with Rod Altes & Sean Halligan having a couple of question marks against their names to be added & a Doubles final still to play, & also Danny Evans up there & still in the singles, i would say the rankings are not far off the mark this year either.

I know Graham Thompson is top & in the doubles final also, but you would have to say he deserves it if he wins it although he may not have been most peoples prediction at the start of the season.

I personally don't think there is much wrong with it. It rewards consistancy & also rewards commitment through the whole season.

---

Updated

---

Updated

---

Updated

---

Updated

---

Updated

---

Updated

---

So now that Rod's question marks have been given as wins does that mean that there will be a play-off?

---

Was chatting to Rod about this on Saturday. He was told it will be joint winners (assuming of course that the results of the singles and doubles finals don't separate them).

---

I'm not sure that's the case . . I've never known the rankings to be shared . . Halsey will be able to confirm . .

---

On another thread he has said that there's a play-off when there are 3 players level.

---

That's in the Divisional Singles . . Not sure if the same applies to the Rankings . .

---

and so it was going to be until I came across the Play-Of Sheet for last season which Div.2 Winner was contested in a 3 way playoff. Details of this seasons Play-Offs will follow.

---

yeah that's true, mark vincent, longshanks, and roger simpson had a 3 way play off for the Div 2 divisional singles title.

---

I know Scott will not get involved with a 'play-off'. Last week it seemed quite fitting that all 3 of them would share it.....

---

I won't be playing off for it . .

---

I'll bring a bin to Presentation Night. We'll put the trophy in it and who ever decides they want to take it out can be forever known as 'The Garbage Picker'......

---

:laugh:

---

I think its been widely known for sometime it was only a two horse race, and on that basis I understand a gentleman's agreement was reached before the last week regarding any potential play off scenario......?

---

Bottom line is is that I have to be seen as being fair ..... a precedent was set a few seasons ago when 2 joint winners approached the League re joint winners trophies which as you well know is now the norm. At the time that I submitted and stated that the three winners from Div.1 and Div.4 would be awarded joint winners trophies I honestly thought that the previous three way play-off was for a runner-up spot but after coming across the Play-Off sheet in one of my files yesyerday, how can I be seen to treat this seasons 3 winners any different from last season. Im going to go through the motions of submitting the Play-Off details for Tuesday 27th May.

---

No Play-Offs for the Rankings .... never before has there been a tie situation and if such an occurance happens this after both of your relevent finals then you will each be awarded an Individual Trophy and it will be down to yourselves to sort out who will hold the Perpetutal Trophy for wat six months.

---

Fair enough Mark, rules are rules etc but two players do not wish to participate in the play off. I doubt Rod will want to be seen as claiming it on that basis.

---

If it is a tie I'd better keep it as Rod'll only lose it again :laugh:*

* joke

---

So, when I go through the motions of circulating the Play-Offs ... arranging a ref etc etc etc and lets say that Rod does turn up ... my only option there then will be to award it to him ....... have you another option you may wish to be considered that would be acceptable to all three competitors & the League, because if you have and I deem it to be reasonable then another precedent would be made.

---

I understand Mark where you are coming from.

Scott and Danny are happy to share it, thats two from three and I doubt Rod after all this publicity would want to win it by default. On the basis two from three feel a carve up is the gentlemanly thing to do, it seems sensible for them to share it.

---

On that basis, & subject to Rod's approval I would be prepared to award three trophies (which would be smaller) by using the same oncost of 2 awards for 3. You and Danny would need to seek Rod's approval and if this is so then I would offer the same courtesy to the Division 4 contenders. If you could let me know before this coming Saturday then I won't need to send out any Play-Off sheets.

---

Excuse my ignorance but I thought this was a competition? Why is carving up gentlemanly thing to do?

---

:clapping:

---

That question pretty much answers itself doesn't it?

From what I understand Rod agreed to split the Individuals last night . .

---

I think the fact that now all 3 players have agreed to share the honours, we'll put this matter to bed now. ;)

Its a matter of choice, but I think scrapping the Play-Off's is the way forward. You play 22 matches, work hard each week to win and then have a 1 frame shoot out. Its a waste of everyone's time including the league's. So at a time like this when 3 players clearly respect one anothers achievements this season it is a fitting end to play the 'gentleman' card. It just goes to show you that winning a 'competition' is not everything. Even in Division 1.

---

Fair enough if he's happy to share but the tone of your posts made Rod look like the bad guy if he didn't agree to share the trophy and I think it's wrong to do that.

I'm pretty sure it's the rankings that interests him most in any case. Surely that won't be shared?

---

Do you always answer a question with another question?

I don't see your point here.

---

For what its worth my opinion is that it should be shared... At the end of the day if after 4 1/2 miles of the Grand National, if its a dead heat, its a dead heat.... They dont do an extra 100m sprint the next day to decide it.

---

I think Deutch said on the previous page that the rankings will be shared, it's never been a tie before, and each player will get their own trophy.

---

I think Shaggy's right but last year in Div 2 we didn't get a choice about sharing it, we were told it was a three man play-off.

---

:laugh:

---

It will be . . It was mentioned earlier in this thread I think . .

---

Are you Rod's number one fan or something??!! :lovedup:

I think I said Rod would not want to win it by 'default'. At no time has Rod stated, as far as I am aware, that he wanted a play-off?

Two players were able to come on here to voice their approval to share the title before speaking to Rod which maybe was regrettable because it would put Rod in a no win position. As Mark Halsey said, if Rod wanted to turn up then it was his to win. Fairplay to Rod for agreeing that was of no interest to him and for the sake of the competition was not the best thing to do.

---

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

You have to stick that one in the Random Quotes Box!

---

I think this should be awarded to the best player, not best players. There should only be one best player! And what ever means are needed to get there then that's what should happen.

Although when all three players decide they don't want to play anymore, I can see that my little philosophy falters. :wall:

Although haveing thought about it a bit more I guess you could argue that the league has technically finished, so they are all the best players in the league...

I can see both sides of the argument having valid points :lol:

---

You're arguing with yourself Jake.

---

No I'm presenting a balanced argument, there is an almost polar difference.

Funny thing longshanks. I was out yesterday and a friend remarked that every time I post you seem to post immediatly after, as if you're waiting on my every word. I hadn't noticed it at the time. But now with this latest post I couldn't help but laugh to myself as his point in hand seems to have been proved.

Thanks for the obvious interest in me darling :kiss:

But you really should be saving your energies for our match...

---

No I'd raise this if someone did this to anyone. Nice attempt at sidestepping the issue.



Well he doesn't use the site so he's hardly likely to on here!! I spoke to Rod on Saturday about the Rankings and he said he thought it was mad that they could be tied and a shared trophy awarded. I would assume his thoughts would be the same of the Divisional Singles. He may not have wanted to win it by default by virtue of the fact the other 2 saying they wouldn't play he didn't exactly get a choice!



That is all you needed to say. It just looks to an outsider that 2 of players have got together and stated that they won't play off so the 3rd player is forced to agree.

I don't agree with carving up titles. Carving up money is fine - but the title should always be played for. The 2005 Croydon Open was carved up (Breen & Altes) but the match was played for the title.

---

Because you always post things that I feel are worth comenting on. That isn't a compliment.

---

Wow that took you 6 minutes you're slipping!

OMG CLASSIC. :rofl:

---

Is there a possibility that the rankings could be tied this year?

---

I cannot recall you approaching me last season as I have been this season by the players involved. The whole issue of Joint Trophies will need to be discussed at the AGM for clarification purposes cos what happens if 5, 6, 7 etc etc etc winners become apparent at some stage.

---

Yep . . If I win the Singles Final the Rankings is a tie . . I'll melt up against Mark anyway so this whole concersation is a bit pointless anyway :laugh:

I'm not sure why everyone is getting so heat up about it anyway . .

. . the only reason I would want to share it is because I can wind Rod up about it . .

. . and before people start getting excited and running back to him with that little pearler, he already knows this so no need for a boner.

---

I dont agree with Sass on this one.. The difference is that the Croydon Openis an individual Knock out tournament, and therefore needs to be played to determine the champion.

The Divisional Singles is a competition to see who wins the most games over 22 matches.... (and not necessarily 23 if theres a tie).

And the Rankings is a competition over a fixed distance involving a series of events. As you are of the opinion that a unprecidented play off should occur, I am sure Danny would have just as much right to make up a rule that. 'If the Ranking List is level the person that went the furthest in the singles would prevail' (and of course Rod could say that about the doubles).

The bottom line is people are entitled to their opinion, but ultimately the decision about what should occur, should be made by Mark/Commitee/Constituation.

As soon as you start asking players there opinion selfishness always raises its head.

And anyway, Dany still needs to win the singles final or all this is compltely irrelevant.

---

I could piss and whinge about the fact that I didn't play in 4 ranking point eligible events this year (more than the others concerned) gives me a better win percentage for my points than the others but that's hardly in the spirit of the game is it ;)

---

They did, thats maybe the point I forgot to mention.

A gentlemans agreement was made after week 21 by Danny and Scott that in the event of the draw they would share it. At that point, Rod had two ?? unaccounted for and correct me if I'm wrong but those two ?? remained unaccounted for at the close of the competition giving Rod less wins than the winners. At that point, someone from the Hot Shots thought it would be worthwhile after 6 months had elapsed to mention to Mark that those ?? were indeed wins for Rod.

So at that juncture, Mark agreed to accept those wins and it became a three way tie.

Two players had all ready agreed to split it as they had for a long while quite rightly thought it was only ever a two horse race between them both. So you see, the carve up agreement and scenario happened long before Rod dropped into the equation and certainly isn't being used to make Rod look bad or to force him into a position where he would have to accept it as a carve up.

All things considered, a carve up is fitting closure to the matter.

---

The rankings system is a fairly complicated scoring system that includes every competition. For it to finish level is pretty unusual and I can't see much justification for having a play-off. It should be shared.

---

:movingon:

Didn't you get dropped for those 4 games by Sir Tony Nuttman!

---

He didnt turn up for one game, and we won it 7-0, so he missed the next. Wouldn't imagine Daniel would expect any less. Thats why he isn't pissing and whinging. :lol:

---

Should get kicked out of the running for lack of committment then :wrong:

---

I have a 20p of Daz Ultra Family pack voucher.

Will cost you 10p ono contact berty via pm if interested.

Am I on the correct thread?

---

lets face it ffs

i know it

u know it

we all know it

rod would slap em both up anyway

so its best they share

scott can retire from croydon pool league with a shaggy dead heat

:one::two::three:

:lol:

---

I'm we waited nearly a month for such a well constructed and thought out post from you Cliff :roll:

---

Welcome back Cliffy :laugh:

---

I think most of this argument is my fault! If I hadn't of missed a straight black against Rod in the final league game, then there would only be two players tied!!

Sorry everyone!! :cry:

---

as usual cliff don't 'alf come out with some ol' pony...
how can you slap someone up in a best of 1 framer???... moby...!!!

shaggy and the power (grrr) hit the nail on the head... if it's a dead heat it's a dead heat...
they'll all finished top and should get rewarded for that, not spend 22+ weeks of hard graft to lose it over 1 frame
if anything there should be a deciding factor, i.e. head to head result or singles points then doubles or who got the points first etc... but never a playoff.

as for the idea of different points per playing position... ridiculous as it totally depends on other factors like the current score and situation etc
some say playing 1 or 2 is the toughest... not so when your frame is to win or lose...

personally i don't see why doubles is included... the k.o. cup isn't and they're both team games...

---

I see that Scott,Danny and Rod have been declared joint winners of the divisional singles. I wonder which one will be the happiest with the joint !! :mouthshut:

---

Give the bloke a break people.

---

last time i played him he had lots of breaks...!!!

---

:snigger: