Points !!!!!!!!

[ginster]

Hi,
I can see why you would not be happy about hte way things have worked out for you this year... but I think you just have to accept that you are looking at it from one of the top teams point of view... If for example, it was 13 points each, and there were two teams fighting for relegation, then you would get exactly the same problem as you have near the top of the division, but reversed.... i.e. someone saying, we have won exactly the same amount of games as our rivals, but they have had more called off, so have gained more points from those that they would probably lose.

I'm not sure that there is ever an easy answer ( living in Manchester now, you just need to ask Lancastrians about rain - one of the reasons they rarely win the championship is that they lose more time to rain than any other county). Maybe we just have to live with a bit of unfairness in our lives!!

cheers,

Andy

[ginster]

WAhey another new points system suggestion! :-D

Allan,
Not sure if you've looked back this far, but there has already been a big thread of discussion on this, which you might find interesting.

New POints systems.... (http://www.hecl.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=index&action=viewtopic&topic=7&19)

there are A LOT of conflicting views on this, so you may find you're kicking up an anthill!!

cheers,

Ginster

[bearski]

Thomas
I agree with you on the Bengeo score, they don't seem to have much luck with abandoned games! I don't know if this argument has come up before but with the weather this year being a damn sight worse than last it is certainly having a effect. In division 3 we are one of 5 teams vying for the two promotion slots, we had our first 2 games rained off whereas Ilford Catholics played both their games, losing one and winning one gaining 30 odd points whilst we were stuck with, what i am saying is that you are a win and a half away from parity just for being in the wrong area!! Buntingford,Westmill and us are probably the furthest north and we have to travel to Ilford. I read on the web that there were electrical storms and monsoon like conditions all over London but they didn't get a drop at the Oval, so the argument from the geographical sense(ie the weather would more or less effect everyone as we don't play that far apart) is not a sound one. All in all though, 4 points is far too few, at the very least 8 points i think.

[thomaswp]

I think that the main issue is the cost of having a game rained off. We have had two games called off this year, and having lost as many as our main rivals in the league we are much handicapped by only getting 8 points for those two games. (If they had happened we would have probably won one and lost one for ~ 30 points).

I must be being simple :-? because I cannot think why it is not 13 points - ie splitting the 26. In that scenario we would have had 26 for the two cancelled games and would be much closer to our rivals.

Why is the points for an abandoned game at such a lowly 4 points? Is it because of the fear that teams in danger of relegation will call off a game for "bad weather" in order to get the points? How often would that happen?

Perrhaps it is 4 points if only one (or two? or more?) games in the whole league is called off that day, but 13 points if more than one is (which suggests inclement weather over our region?)

[thomaswp]

Yes, of course I am biassed by our position in the league, but I stilll think that 4 points is way too low. If you lose three games you can pretty much wave goodbye to promotion in a competitive league.

Would the effect on the losing teams be as big?

If they miss two games they would have lost and got 5 bonus points in each match then they are up 16 points if 13 points for an abandonment. Under the current system they are down 2 points!

BUT

If a team would have WON both games they are down 44 points :-O on the current system, and would be down only 26 under a 13 point system.

I just think that the 4 points is disproportionately unfair on the teams that are fighting for promotion. I think that Bengeo suffered from this a couple of seasons ago when they had three or four games abandoned, had a good side and should have gone up. They are suffering again this year with two abandoned and two cancelled.

[Bob]

Just for your information...............

When the league was formed, in 1993, the points system was;-

16 Points for a win + bonus points, awarded as now.
Losing team bonus points only.
Additionally if a team batting first were out for less than 100 and hence
depriving the side batting 2nd of possible bonus batting points, they could
gain extra as follows;-
99-90 =1 point, 89-80=2 points, 79-70=3 points. 69-60= 4 points, 59-50= 5 points.

This was changed for the 1997 season, because of two main reasons;-
1. If a side batting first were out cheaply and beaten comfortably, but
scoring over 100 they were depriving sides of possible points. Teams with
strong bowling sides were batting first, not because they wanted to but in
an effort to ensure maximum points.( this back fired more than once :lol: )
2. It was not unknown for teams to gift their opponents runs in the first innings
in order to ensure extra points.(Another dangerous ploy).

There were other factors, but these were strong reasons for change.

N.B. At this stage a tied/drawn game applied to runs only. the amount of
wickets lost were not taken into account. this changed for the 2000 season.

The points debate will know doubt continue and as the league grows it will
also bring new ideas and also prove more difficult to keep all parties happy.

As the current fixture secretary I would ask just one thing of any suggestions
put forward, keep it simple (because I am!!!!!).

Regards
Bob

[Allan]

I think that there will always be debate about points systems - depending on the circumstances one team will feel aggrieved while the other could be happy with the outcome. I think the original question was about the win bonus rather than rained off matches.

4 points does seem a bit low compared with 26 for a win, but looking at the current tables raising it to 8 would I think affect only one promotional / relegation place in the whole league - Aspenden could jump to second position. You need to have a balance - if team plays and scores 200 but still loses a close game and gets say only 8 points, is it fair that another team gets the same for not playing.

I think a bigger inconsistency is the automatic 26 points for a win. I know the argument that you bowl a team out cheaply and then deprive yourself of batting points but how often does this happen ? What about these two situations - bat first and score 100 but still win - you had the chance for batting points but still get 26. Or bowl opposition out for 100 and struggle to make 101 for 9 in 44 overs -still get 26 points.

There is also the cases where matches are reduced in overs but still have a result. Here the difference between winning (26 points) and losing bonus points is even greater, although the game could have been as close as 1 run or 1 wicket. Having said that do I have the perfect solution without usining Duckworth / Lewis level calculations ? Afraid not but what about:

Keep the bonus points as they are now for losing sides.
For winning side if you bat first 10 (or 15) points for the win plus batting and bowling points - would encourage bowling out opposition rather than containment.
For winning side if you bat second as above as above, but if you bowl the opposition out (take all ten wickets, or less if they are short) you get extra points based on what they scored, e.g. if the losing team only get 2 batting points, then winning team gets the extra three; if losing team gets no batting points, winning team gets the extra 5.

If that's not too complicated, you could another factor that if the team winning the toss decides to field then they have forfeited their opportunity to possibly get maximum batting points and there do not get the extra points.