Tournament ideas

[wchester]

There is a major flaw with a system that does not count pinfall during matchplay. Depending on the luck of the lane draw and order of opponents, it's very highly likely that a bowler could lose a match with a score similiar to 268-257 while at the very same time another bowler wins with a sub par game of 160ish. using the points for winning system as you outlined earlier, the bowler who lost with a high score would be placed behind the bowler who won their match with a rather ordinary game...

As for ranking the bowlers before elimination match play, based on either their qualifying total, or an pre-tournament ranking system..The PBA tried this for a while and have virtually scrapped the idea because too many times, the highest placed bowlers after qualifying, would be eliminated even though they outscored a number of other players. It just didn't work for the b est bowlers in the world. what makes you think it would work here.

If you think we should drop qualifying total then why don't we skip it altogether? By just looking at a list of who's entered, I can almost alaways pick 10-12 guys who'll make the match play segment of the finals even before the tournament begins.

 

[Bigfoot300]

The Benefit for Qualifying is to make it to the next round, that’s it nothing more.

 

[da_cowman]

Why can't we have... multiple formats...

One where an emphasis is more on the pinfall (Brentons kinda tournament), one where the emphasis is more on the actual competition between bowlers (Maxs kinda tournament) If you are in a true matchplay situation, and Wayne you should know this, It's totally irrelevant what everyone else bowls. Your on your pair and as long as you beat the other person standing on the other side of the ball return your job is complete. Regardless of whether you do it at a 120 pace or 260 pace. If the format says win your games, then you win your games. If the format says knock over the most pins, then knock over the most pins.

We have an incredible game here. Why limit it to just one style of play??

Cow

 

[millsn]

What ever happened to double loss elimination format masters? These made bowlers be on every two game block or be gone. It also gave the so called fringe bowlers a chance of bowling a good two game block and knocking out an elite bowler.

There is not enough variation in tournaments anymore its all pinfall pinfall pinfall and we all know that the higher average will triumph over lots of games because their 2 bad games are covered by the next 2 really good games, law of averages.

 

[BELMO]

What ever happened to double loss elimination format masters? These made bowlers be on every two game block or be gone. It also gave the so called fringe bowlers a chance of bowling a good two game block and knocking out an elite bowler.

There is not enough variation in tournaments anymore its all pinfall pinfall pinfall and we all know that the higher average will triumph over lots of games because their 2 bad games are covered by the next 2 really good games, law of averages.

Why are we the only sport that tries to help the lesser skilled or lesser practiced player win?

Any answers for that??

Jason

 

[C.Carney]

i agree with you fully Jason i love double elimination it keep every one on there toes and is exciting to watch.

 

[Wal Brooker]

Jason, respect you and your talents very much mate...but without these 'lesser skilled or lesser practiced bowlers' you cant have a tournament in this country.

Why numbers are so pathetic in Austraian bowling events is because the lower average player gets absoultely nothing out of the tournament. That's something we learnt way back in the sixties and seventies when pushing events like the Sydney Cup!

Without them you 'talented and more practiced' guys dont have a prize fund to split up.

 

[RobbieB]

Why are we the only sport that tries to help the lesser skilled or lesser practiced player win?

Any answers for that??

Jason

Well, the obvious one is that we are NOT.
Any sport with a knockout matchplay format is the same. In the NRL, does the team that has proved itself to be the best throughout the season always get the premiership? No - the ones that finished behind them - even back as far as 8th - get another shot. Seeded players get belted in single elimination matches in tennis tournaments every week.
Many sport have handicap systems, the purpose of which is to help the "lesser skilled or lesser practiced player" win.
As for why sports do it, sudden death matches are exciting. The sports with money are the ones that attract spectators. To have any excitement factor, there has to be an uncertain result. I guess you just have to chalk it up to human nature.

 

[BELMO]

There is no question that without the fringe players there is no prize fund.
My point is, when bowling was at its strongest the traditional format was used.
If we can look past the $$$ and cents for a second and think about the sport!

I have never seen Roger Federer lose a match because his opponent has handicap, nor have I seen Tiger Woods lose a major due to the same reason.
I guess the same comparison for these 2 sports is to make these guys play either 3 games in one set or 3 holes to determine the winner. Ask the tennis and golf federations to change their formats to that and I bet they would laugh at you.
We the public love to watch these guys play because we respect their talents over a long period of time. Anyone can hit a hole in one, but how many can shoot a 63 at St. Andrews?

In footy if the number ranked team loses, its because they didnt play the 80min of footy as well as the other team. The game didnt change, the rules were the same and so was the time spent on the pitch like it was for the full season.
But in bowling we are changing the game, changing the rules to make it easier for the lesser player to win.

I have seen almost all the formats used around the world and the most prestigious tournaments, the events that have the most respect are always the ones with longer formats and tougher patterns. This way, the fringe player cant get lucky to win, skill and concentration determining the winner.

The shorter the formats in bowling the more the odds increase for the weaker player. WE ARE THE ONLY SPORT TO DO IT. (if you can think of one that is like bowling, ill eat my french beret )

What I would like to see happen is find a way to help off set costs for these fringe bowlers and make their experience memorable for the right reasons.
Happy bowlers (fringe or elite) makes for better tournaments.

Jason

 

[JWhitty]

Isn't double elimination really really popular in the UK still? Can anyone from there confirm/deny and maybe explain that?

The "problem" with double elimination can be that the best performing bowler can bow out in two. I remember around 2000 ACT Jnr Masters I think, Scott Robertson (?) bowled a good block (440ish) and narrowly lost to Liams 450ish. I bowled rubbish, 350ish and lost my match. I then faced Scott in the 'losers bracket' and I bowled the 450ish, while he proceeded to bowl another 440ish. Liam lost his second match with a 350ish score. Poor ol Scott came equal last in an event, averaging 220 in the day when juniors shooting the card was a good score. *Names and numbers may have been changed by my blurry memory, but you get the point

 

[Fitzy]

To have any excitement factor, there has to be an uncertain result. I guess you just have to chalk it up to human nature.

Spot on! How boring has cricket been to watch (and bet on) when you saw Australia Vs. [enter another country here] (with Aus at 1.40 odds or lower). Now that Australia has lost a lot of the greats and have a fairly inexperienced team. They are now winning AND losing matches. The matches have also been exciting to watch (look at the one day and T20 series Vs South Africa). Great series to watch (and bet on)!

I am an Aussie and enjoy watching Australia win though to pretty much KNOW they are going to win - not as exciting (I'd probably prefer to watch a Dexter Marathon instead and check the result in the morning on the news)

Just my $0.05.

Cheers,

 

[millsn]

I was just saying there should be a mix of formats.

Different bowlers bowl better in different circumstances. I for one love head to head. I have one from 5th spot in step ladder finals a few times. The problem I have is averaging 220+ for the 10 games to get to the matchplay or step ladder.

 

[da_cowman]

Isn't double elimination really really popular in the UK still? Can anyone from there confirm/deny and maybe explain that?

The "problem" with double elimination can be that the best performing bowler can bow out in two. I remember around 2000 ACT Jnr Masters I think, Scott Robertson (?) bowled a good block (440ish) and narrowly lost to Liams 450ish. I bowled rubbish, 350ish and lost my match. I then faced Scott in the 'losers bracket' and I bowled the 450ish, while he proceeded to bowl another 440ish. Liam lost his second match with a 350ish score. Poor ol Scott came equal last in an event, averaging 220 in the day when juniors shooting the card was a good score. *Names and numbers may have been changed by my blurry memory, but you get the point

But in Double Elimination, Jeff, Average is as relevant as what you had for breakfast, how many girls you've been with or if you read your horoscopes in the morning. They don't change whether you win or lose. You either knocked down more pins in 2 games, or you didn't. Thats the format, it's different and requires a different kind of skill.

I'd love to see the Big events in Australia all being a little different. Double Elimination, 5 game single elimination, matchplay or straight pinfall. Each require a slightly different skill. We play a sport where we are lucky enough to have this option. Shouldn't we take advantage of that?

Cow

 

[Wallbanger1]

Have a look at the Northern NSW open for the ideal format. I seem to remember when the NSW Open was at Mt Druitt a few years ago they did the same thing. 10 games qualifying followed by head to head best of 5 games single elimination right down to the last 2.