League Matches Between Teams Of Same Club

[MartinCarpenter]

Suffolk league really Classy As would that top division of the Thames league have been....

Do people often drag people in from outside a squad? York A have ~8 200+ players in the squad, typically filling 4 slots/match but more for the really big matches. Then something like 180,180,180,170 or so. There is a 200 on the B team - and a few 180's - but I think we'd only drag them over for a match if we had a huge crisis.

Our mid/bottom boards are all very capable players so I'm genuinely not sure if the loss to team cohesion would be worth the moderate objective strength boost in even the short term, let alone the medium/long. Sheffield A actually clearly made the same sort of decision.

[carstenpedersen]

The vital rule has to be that an individual cannot play for more than one team in the same division. For me that is necessary, and sufficient.

You won't like me very much then, I managed to play for all 3 Drunken Knights teams this season.

Next season when the 3rd team will be in Div 2 this may well happen again, assuming I'm not nominated for either of the first 2 teams. is that OK with you, if so why does it make a difference that the teams are not in the same division?

[Roger de Coverly]

if so why does it make a difference that the teams are not in the same division?

Personally I think it does, as you can end up playing against almost the same team twice in the same League. Outside of the London League with its central venues, you may find players who are delicate souls, unable to travel. So the away team whether B substituting for A or C substituting for B are the hardier creatures who are able and willing to travel to away matches.

If you removed Wood Green so as to restore competition, then Drunken Knights has a potentially unfair advantage against Hackney, Cavendish and others, that by strategic nominations and player usage, it can field half a first team when playing as DK2 and a whole first team when playing as DK1.

[JustinHorton]

Well, a major reason to be at least cautious about having multiple teams from the same club in the same division is that you have a problem when those teams play one another, especially if it is late in the season and there is something at stake. There was quite a serious kerfuffle in the Oxford and District League a couple of decades ago when towards the end of the season, with the title still undecided, the games remaining in the fixture list were University I v University II and University II v University I.

Obviously that situation should never have been allowed to occur, but the more multiple teams there are, the harder it is to avoid it, or something like it, happening.

[Matt Fletcher]

Even if you want to play fair there are issues of how things look from outside - for example a couple of players became unavailable for our 2nd team at very short notice when playing our 1st team, we agonised for a while as to whether it was better to forfeit, play with defaults, or postpone (where postponing would mean pushing the game to fairly late in the season).

In the event we postponed and managed to get it played in reasonable time, with a 'sensible' scoreline ensuing (1st team winning by the odd point) which I don't think caused anyone any concerns. But if the 2nd team had won and saved themselves from relegation, or if the 1st team had taken a 5-0 walkover (which a team from another club would have been well within their rights to do) and pushed closer to promotion, I could have seen questions being asked.

I think in general, particularly where there's nothing much at stake, one just has to assume that people will do things sensibly and let them get on with it - better to have more chess played than less

[Nevil Chan]

If you removed Wood Green so as to restore competition, then Drunken Knights has a potentially unfair advantage against Hackney, Cavendish and others, that by strategic nominations and player usage, it can field half a first team when playing as DK2 and a whole first team when playing as DK1.

I can disclose the complex formulae used in DK nomination strategy:

DK1 = ∑ rating rank (1 -12)
DK2 = ∑ rating rank (13 - 24)

[Richard Bates]

If you removed Wood Green so as to restore competition, then Drunken Knights has a potentially unfair advantage against Hackney, Cavendish and others, that by strategic nominations and player usage, it can field half a first team when playing as DK2 and a whole first team when playing as DK1.

I can disclose the complex formulae used in DK nomination strategy:

DK1 = ∑ rating rank (1 -12)
DK2 = ∑ rating rank (13 - 24)

In recent years we (Hackney) have often had far more difficulty in disposing of (un-fiddled) DK3 teams than the other two...

[Reg Clucas]

It's a difficult question. By having multiple teams it means more chess is played, and more people who want to play get the chance to do so. But if A & B teams can use the same players (or some of the same players) then it gives the A team an advantage over the rest of the teams in the League, since the other teams are likely to face a much stronger B team than that which plays against the A team.

[MartinCarpenter]

Or they might field their strongest team of the season against you while defaulting multiple boards against your title rivals in a season where you lose the title on game points.....

In general, I really can't see derby matches as an advantage. Even when they look like they should be easy on paper they fairly often turn entirely uncomfortable with all the players knowing each other so well.

[IanCalvert]

In general, I really can't see derby matches as an advantage. Even when they look like they should be easy on paper they fairly often turn entirely uncomfortable with all the players knowing each other so well.

I agree both complacency and knowing people can be real difficulties.

The reason I initially asked about team size was (not because I will have to play the Drunken Knights 3 giants next season but) because I was concerned that 10% + probability random effects, like weaker side drawing match, might be or have been misinterpreted as Machiavellian.

In the interests of being constructive:

(I) I am thus clear why matches between teams of the same club perhaps should be played at the start of the season , as the London League requires.

(Ii) IF clubs and their League want differentiated teams then I think not only should there be some form of nomination approach like London League and I guess most others but also a requirement that there be an average rating difference of , (say?) 20 rating points, in the actual teams that play: or some appropriate penalty will be imposed by the League.

(iii) Good luck to Wirral!

[Greg Breed]

If you removed Wood Green so as to restore competition, then Drunken Knights has a potentially unfair advantage against Hackney, Cavendish and others, that by strategic nominations and player usage, it can field half a first team when playing as DK2 and a whole first team when playing as DK1.

I can disclose the complex formulae used in DK nomination strategy:

DK1 = ∑ rating rank (1 -12)
DK2 = ∑ rating rank (13 - 24)

In recent years we (Hackney) have often had far more difficulty in disposing of (un-fiddled) DK3 teams than the other two...

Aha that's because the formula for DK3 is:
DK3 = ∑ drinking rank (12 -1)

[David Williams]

The vital rule has to be that an individual cannot play for more than one team in the same division. For me that is necessary, and sufficient.

You won't like me very much then, I managed to play for all 3 Drunken Knights teams this season.

Next season when the 3rd team will be in Div 2 this may well happen again, assuming I'm not nominated for either of the first 2 teams. is that OK with you, if so why does it make a difference that the teams are not in the same division?

Liverpool, Everton and Tranmere merge and become Liverpool 1, 2 and 3. To me it is quite unacceptable for the two Premiership teams to both be stronger than they would be as separate entities. For both to be able to play Tranmere players, or for their reserves to play in a lower division, less so.

The other downside of your situation is that presumably all the really keen players want to play for Drunken Knights because they can play lots of games, which makes all the smaller clubs a little less viable, and ultimately reduces the competitive nature of the league.

[John McKenna]

The vital rule has to be that an individual cannot play for more than one team in the same division. For me that is necessary, and sufficient.

You won't like me very much then, I managed to play for all 3 Drunken Knights teams this season.

Next season when the 3rd team will be in Div 2 this may well happen again, assuming I'm not nominated for either of the first 2 teams. is that OK with you, if so why does it make a difference that the teams are not in the same division?

Liverpool, Everton and Tranmere merge and become Liverpool 1, 2 and 3. To me it is quite unacceptable for the two Premiership teams to both be stronger than they would be as separate entities. For both to be able to play Tranmere players, or for their reserves to play in a lower division, less so.

The other downside of your situation is that presumably all the really keen players want to play for Drunken Knights because they can play lots of games, which makes all the smaller clubs a little less viable, and ultimately reduces the competitive nature of the league.

The upside is left to the keen drinkers of DK I/\ -

Aha that's because the formula for DK3 is:
DK3 = ∑ drinking rank (12 -1)

Greg forgot to give the units of the rank (12-1) - it's pints, of course.

[Richard Thursby]

When I started playing for Guildford about 20 years ago we had FOUR teams in division 1 of the Border League so I hereby claim the record on hehalf of Guildford.

A similar time ago Bourne End had four teams in division 1 (of 2) of the Buckinghamshire League. The following year the league was extended to three divisions.

There was a strong possibility a few years ago that division 2 of the Thames Valley League would have had three Wimbledon and three Hounslow teams. In the end, various teams managed to avoid promotion/relegation so it didn't happen. Only two of the fifty-six matches played would have involved neither club.