Wood Green

[Jonathan Rogers]

Well, fair enough - if one player playing exactly the same player twice really is the main problem, then probably some compromise can be found. I think the previous page or so has been fuelled by my experience that others who have proposed such rules have different agendas, and would stop the same player playing against the same team period, regardless whom he actually played on each occasion. Can you clarify that it is playing exactly the same player which mainly troubles you?

[MartinCarpenter]

Doesn't the +- 80 elo rule already place quite strong restrictions on people micro optimising their line ups? It certainly looks like that is the basic intention. It might, I suppose, end up a little bit too generous in practice. I have no idea

Although even this rule has a dark side of a sort. Given the strength difference between board 1 and 8 in a division surely it makes sense to allow (say) boards 1/2 in the second team to be stronger than 7/8 in the first? That's certainly how the top division Yorkshire league second teams tend to end up running and its probably better for the league in terms of interesting games. I can see how it might require some extra safeguards vs abuse though.

Second teams strengthening due to the squad expanding/all turning out just doesn't seem possible to sort fully happily. The Yorkshire league has a modest example of the same sort of thing with York/Sheffield playing each other (although no one getting bussed in ) and the rules there basically mean that players 9-12 in the first team squads have to either sit those weekends out entirely or go and play in another division.

I have no idea what's ideal overall.

[Simon Ansell]

Well, fair enough - if one player playing exactly the same player twice really is the main problem, then probably some compromise can be found. I think the previous page or so has been fuelled by my experience that others who have proposed such rules have different agendas, and would stop the same player playing against the same team period, regardless whom he actually played on each occasion. Can you clarify that it is playing exactly the same player which mainly troubles you?

Playing exactly the same player twice is the most specific problem. For example, if you have two female board 8 players of similar strength, one of them has a good record against our lone female board 8 player and one of them a bad record, what do you do?

But I think the same player playing against the same team twice can also be considered a problem - as I mentioned above, players of similar rating are not equal! Some will be in-form and possess the other variances I mentioned above. You can choose the in-form players to play in the critical matches. It's the general flexibility that is the advantage.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It's the general flexibility that is the advantage.

If the single-team clubs want more flexibility, or the same sort of flexibility as clubs that operate multiple teams, why not have more wild cards available to fill out teams (money might rear its head here), or does that move away from the 'team ethos'? It should also be pointed out that the first team of multiple-team squads usually doesn't benefit from any flexibility at all. It is the second teams that accrue most (all?) of the benefits. The whole concept of having a second team and what that means exactly is what seems to be an issue with some.

[Roger de Coverly]

? It should also be pointed out that the first team of multiple-team squads usually doesn't benefit from any flexibility at all. .

That's not always the case. Depending on the opposition, it would be possible to strengthen the second team as much as possible so as to attempt to nobble your nearest rivals. The parallel pool system has reduced the possibilities of this to some extent. So if Wood Green 2 beat Barbican 1 in first half of the season, that only matters if both reach the promotion pool.

In an evening league with matches played on separate nights, that's always possible.

[Simon Ansell]

? It should also be pointed out that the first team of multiple-team squads usually doesn't benefit from any flexibility at all. .

That's not always the case. Depending on the opposition, it would be possible to strengthen the second team as much as possible so as to attempt to nobble your nearest rivals. The parallel pool system has reduced the possibilities of this to some extent. So if Wood Green 2 beat Barbican 1 in first half of the season, that only matters if both reach the promotion pool.

The most drastic case of this happened in 03/04 and has been mentioned in this thread.

[MartinCarpenter]

It can't be easy though as first you've got to stack your first team with wild cards to keep it legal. Not trivial. Of course even harder to keep everyone happy while doing so!

There is quite a big direct benefit for first teams from the flexibility though - it must make keeping a large squad of strong, regular, players together much easier. You can guarantee all the strongest players a game should they wish to play etc.

Really it isn't the flexiblity so much which is the problem as the ability of a couple of the squads to suddenly expand at will with very strong wild cards. That has some obvious pluses but also annoying side effects for some other teams. I don't know overall

[Paul Dargan]

The recent registrations seem to have been largely removed from the 4NCL site - unless for some reason I'm viewing an out-of-date cached page?

Paul

[Neil Graham]

The recent registrations seem to have been largely removed from the 4NCL site - unless for some reason I'm viewing an out-of-date cached page?

Paul

Correct. I trust that Wood Green will be charged £65 for the 13 registrations that have been removed.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The recent registrations seem to have been largely removed from the 4NCL site - unless for some reason I'm viewing an out-of-date cached page?

Paul

Correct. I trust that Wood Green will be charged £65 for the 13 registrations that have been removed.

Or maybe someone can do a whip-round and register them for other teams?

[David Williams]

Ten pages in, and I confess I'm still as staggered as ever that an individual can play for more than one team in the premier club competition in the country. A club with two teams has potential advantages over other clubs. The rules should aim to make the playing field as level as possible, and not permitting any interchanges is simple and obvious. It's the same rule as applies to all the one team clubs. But if you have this rule, you don't need any rules restricting who plays for which team. Play your top eight in one team if you wish. Run two equal teams if you wish. Anyone who plays for one team cannot play for the other.

[Simon Ansell]

Let's say that next season, assuming we stay up, that Blackthorne Russia suddenly decide to merge with Jutes of Kent - Jutes of Blackthorne, we'll call ourselves I don't know if such a merger would be allowed within the rules, but why shouldn't it?

It should be obvious how the two combined teams will be a much stronger force than two seperate teams.

If the 4N does have ambitions to be a more professional league, then the rules need to be fair in a sporting sense. You can't have it both ways.

[Jonathan Rogers]

It almost certainly would be allowed, at least if past practice is any guide. In 2000, the Board allowed Invicta Home House (a team that had already merged) to merge with BCM, thus giving them two first division teams. There was sponsorship too, and under the name Beeson Gregory, its first team immediately won the first division in 2000/1, defended its title the following year and promptly dissolved before Wood Green became too strong for it. Also a merger was allowed between Wood Green and Hilsmark - two mid-table teams in 2007/8 - and the merged team, again backed by sponsorship, won the title immediately in 2008/9 and defended it again the following year. It is that merger which spawned the present Wood Green 2.

So in fact this appears to be a recipe for instant success! That's some incentive for you for Saturday!

[Simon Ansell]

And why wouldn't it be allowed? Because it would give Jutes of Blackthorne an unfair advantage? That's my point

I am now retiring from this thread!

edit: I see you said it WOULD be allowed. I should have retired earlier

[Chris Rice]

It almost certainly would be allowed, at least if past practice is any guide. In 2000, the Board allowed Invicta Home House (a team that had already merged) to merge with BCM, thus giving them two first division teams. There was sponsorship too, and under the name Beeson Gregory, its first team immediately won the first division in 2000/1, defended its title the following year and promptly dissolved before Wood Green became too strong for it. Also a merger was allowed between Wood Green and Hilsmark - two mid-table teams in 2007/8 - and the merged team, again backed by sponsorship, won the title immediately in 2008/9 and defended it again the following year. It is that merger which spawned the present Wood Green 2.

So in fact this appears to be a recipe for instant success! That's some incentive for you for Saturday!

Of course its a recipe for instant success because its completely unfair. I agree with every word David Williams says above. How can you play for two teams in the same division with the same players playing for both and say that's right? I think Simon Ansell's taking playing the same guy twice quite well, I'd be livid although well aware that there's nothing to be done about it, chess leagues have been doing this for donkeys years. The justification seems to be that Wood Green, Guildford and Barbican might have defaults so they get this unfair advantage given to them that the same player can play for both teams. The result shock, horror Wood Green, Guildford and Barbican are normally always competing for the title.

So you suggest Jon if we can't beat you we join you so we can get an unfair advantage for ourselves? Well you never know it may happen, if there were two teams I'd consider Blackthorne Russia or Sambuca Sharks would be the two I'd choose. However, even if that did happen we, like yourselves, still couldn't compete with Wood Green who basically buy the title with their vast resources (I can't believe they all do the same in the London League to stop the Drunken Knights winning it, how sad is that?). Now they are even resorting to dirty tricks to win by registering the top players in the world when it appears there was no chance they would play (if it's a joke why is it funny?). Looks like they've been told by the good people at the 4ncl that if there was never going to be a chance of those players playing then they had better remove them from the register. However, I note not one word of explanation has come from either the 4ncl or Wood Green as to what the point was and I'm sure we'd all like to draw a line under this. Perhaps if I can separate Brian Smith from his little clipboard at the weekend I'll ask him.