I have stated before that i do not agree with Double rankings so it is pretty obvious what i think of Triple. The best example i can give which highlights that it just doesnt make sense:
Lets just say Joe Bloggs wins Australian Open, NSW Open and Brunswick Cup, all "major" events in the eyes of Australian bowlers and all attract fairly good numbers to the events. Joe recieves 300 points for a awesome display of bowling throughout the year and a pretty dominant performance, winning three majors.
Then John Smith bowls the Nationals, bowls really well during the masters and gets few lucky breaks with the format (remember the format is elimination, meaning you do need to gets some breaks!) John earns just as many points as Joe who has won 3 majors!!!! It is crazy and doesnt make any sense. I know Nationals is meant to be the biggest event in Australia..but Triple points is just not the answer and doesnt give it any more value.
Something needs to be done with rankings..double and triple points are not the answer and results in the points not been true reflection of results.
My recommendation is points are allocated on how many bowlers u get, then the more bowlers = equals bigger tournament= more points distrubuted.
Sorry but no offence to Glen, but 200 points for Arafura with 30 bowlers!! I say no more.