Premier B

[Markymark]

So, it's the final weekend this weekend. Up to four teams will go down, and up to two teams will go up. Anyone have any thoughts?

I hope G&NS win the league - they have a good shot of doing some damage in Premier A. I also hope Buckinghamshire get into the top 2 - just so that two teams come down from Premier A. It's all getting a bit too cosy for the teams at the top. But I fear that Yorkshire 2 will hang on and only one team will move.

Any ideas of who is playing?

[Markymark]

And if anyone has any results - please post them cos I can't make it up this weekend.

I hear G&NS have gone all out of the ladies' side. Just can't see them slipping from the top.

[nasigoreng]

Congratulations to Glasgow who won the Premier B today, they also play their badminton with a smile on their faces and with enjoyment. Leicestershire a surprise runners-up. Well Done to them too.
Derbyshire, Kent, Berkshire and Avon 2 relegated. Anyone of 3 possible for the drop right up to the last 2 ties. Cheshire winning last tie of the day against Kent, condeming Derbyshire and Kent for the drop and saving themselves. Avon 2 & Berkshire having been relegated day before.
Amazingly, 7 points seperating 8th placed Kent and 3rd place Yorkshire 2.
Final Table:
1. Glasgow 66 points
2. Leicestershire 56 points
3. Yorkshire 2 53 points
4. Buckinghamshire 52 points
5. Dorset 50 points
6. Cheshire 47 points
7. Derbyshire 46 points
8. Kent 46 points
9. Berkshire 18 points
10. Avon 2 18 points

[Markymark]

Wow - well done Glasgow! Quite easy in the end. Very surprised at Leicestershire. Do you have the individual match scores KC?

The bottoms 4 are not relegated yet cos they only go down if the team that wins the 4 division 1s is eligible. If Hampshire 2 win and Hampshire 1st get relegated from Premier A, then only 3 will go down.

[nasigoreng]

Sorry Mark, I don't have the individual scores.

[Markymark]

I think they will have a good shot at Premier A. Probably asking too much for them to win it, but if they can be consistent at getting their big guns out every weekend next year, who knows??!

[Back on]

Mark, what results did you want? I have them all, or they are on the BE website.

[Markymark]

Yeah seen them all now.

Lancashire County normally put up the individual game scores so hopefully they will be up soon.

[Back on]

I have them all if you need them.

[gjsims]

A look at the final scores in Premier B demonstrates just how poorly thought out the four-down rule is. Avon II and Berkshire I have spent the season getting spanked while Derbyshire I and Kent I have been very competitive. Even so they all go down into their respective Division One's and in most cases cause a significant knock-on effect on their other teams with the usual collection of artificial, and in most cases underserved, promotions and relegations.

Had a two-down rule been in place last season Sussex I and Nottinghamshire I would have remained in Premier B with G&NS I and Buckhinghamshire I probably coming up. This would have produced a highly competitive division with something to play for throughout the season, rather than teams knowing they're down with a whole weekends fixtures still left to play. Three of the teams relegated last season, i.e. Nottinghamshire I, Middlesex I and Sussex I, are winning their respective divisions and are likely to return to Premier B.

I am generally a supporter of an inclusive approach and I understand the frustration that some counties felt when they used to win their division only to lose in the play-offs and fail to get into Premier B. However, if they were good enough they would have won their play-off match. The example provided by Avon II and Berkshire I clearly demonstrates the result of promoting teams not good enough to compete.

A straight play-off system between the four champion counties, or even a composite system involving some of the relegated counties, is a sensible measure against this level of discrepancy continuing to occur in Premier B.

[Markymark]

I think Avon 2 and Berkshire were a bit on an anomaly this year. It looks like the four teams going up this year are Nottingham, Sussex, Middlesex and Lanarkshire and all will be very competitive in Premier B - Lanarkshire in particular have a very strong men's team although their ladies may hold them back from going straight up to Premier A as Glasgow have done.

Thankfully, two teams will be relegated from Premier A which is a good thing.

I understand the point about false relegations/promotions, but to be honest, if counties used a completely seperate team for their second and third teams, then they would not be doing as well. I think the rules need to be tightened further to prevent players from higher teams playing at all for lower teams.

[rhombus]

This has always happened, I remember playing Middlesex 2nd team early 1 season , filled with 1st team men(Armstrong/Parker/Swift/Davis/Gibbs). This was due to the match being early season which allowed them to play.
The problem at the moment is that for some counties there are not enough players to cover 3 seperate teams.

[Markymark]

So they shouldn't enter 3 seperate teams!

IMO, Yorkshire are the only county who can justify having so many teams, but even they are guilty of pushing the rules to the limit and having many players playing for the 2nd and 1st teams.

[rhombus]

The thinking behind having 3 teams is historical, in that there were so many players 20 years ago that counties could have 3 third teams and still have players left over. If you get rid of the third teams then the jump from non county standard to 2nd team is too much and those players will find the gulf too much to bridge. There were so many opportunities for local play through league tournaments that the graduation through the standards was alot easier... in many cases these tournaments no longer exist. Once you were winning local tournaments then you entered county tournaments and then open tournaments in other counties, where you would come up against many of the elite England players.
I do not know what the answer is, but what we need is more players. Both my kids go to different schools, one of the things they have in common is that neither offer Badminton as an option. I remember playing for Kelsey Park school against Langley Park school where a certain Nick Yates was there number 1. Also as said before in other threads, if you do get in the top 10 in the country, can you support yourself financially and if you can't then what incentive does that gives to athletes who want to travel the world and be financially independently from their parents. Again by not offering badminton at grass roots you limit yourself to the number of athletes you pick from. I notice from some of the junior ranks that the names of Beckman/Sankey/Travers are to the fore, are they related to Karen/Sara/Dan i.e. former players.

[Markymark]

Backman and Sankey yes. Not so sure about Travers. Of could Billy Gilliland's niece and nephew are juniors in Scotland.

I have no problems with counties having 8 teams. But you need to have the players out and stop artificially having a stronger 2nd team which is actually strengthened by 1st team players.

[Markymark]

And I also think they should allow more than one team from the same county be in the same league. That would get rid of a lot of what I'm compliaining about.

[gjsims]

But inevitably leads to further problems. If a particular county's teams are permitted to play in the same division the rule invariably enforced is that they must play each other twice before playing anyone else. While this does reduce the possibilities for playing the nominations game it results, almost without fail, in the higher ranked team thrashing the lower team. This then gives the winning team a highly artificial lead that other counties have to work harder to match.

Also, I don't see how the regulations regarding player nominations can be tightened further. A county side may consist of a minimum of four men and four women. Requiring more players to be nominated could result in a player having to be present for a fixture but not getting a game. If I were in the position of team selector I would be tempted to nominate someone unlikely to play rather than waste a useful player. Don't forget Premier team face three fixtures per weekend. To arrive with a bare minimum of players wouldn't be wise. I don't have an issue with teams starting strong then weakening as players become tied - why should a county be penalised for having more top level players than their opposition?

If anything the fault lies with BE for being too lenient with counties who fail to produce their nominated first team players. The regulations should maybe state that all nominated team players should represent their team (or a higher team) at a minimum percentage of fixtures (e.g. 66%). Failure to do so will not only produce the current wrist-slap, but also result in the automatic concession of all games that would have involved each player up to that minimum. That would force selectors to consider the likely content of each team over the course of the season, rather than simply who will contest the opening fixture. Another measure could involve ensuring that at least one Premier weekend is completed prior to the first regional fixtures.

[Markymark]

I don't quite take the point on an artificial lead. Yorkshire 1 should be beating Yorkshire 2, 10-0 for example. That would be the whole point. Indeed, I would imagine that a lot of the teams in Premier A would beat Yorkshire 2, 10-0. (Glasgow beat them 9-1 in Premier B).

I agree that having a Premier weekend before a regional weekend would help, but there are so many regional weekends to take place that the Premier weekend would need to be at the very beginning of the season. Not sure if this would be a problem.

[gjsims]

I agree that a 10-0 scoreline should be the case but I am sure neither of us is sufficiently naive to believe that the best eight players are innevitably picked for the first team, the next best for the second team, etc. Throughout the county and club system the selections are based on far more criteria than mere ability. Who is available, who is reliable, who people want to play with, whether people are willing to just play singles, whether your parents are part of the selection committee, whose more attractive, etc. I myself am the team selector for all my clubs and get selected for the first mens team and first mixed team every season. Coincidence?

[nasigoreng]

are you also the most attractive?

[gjsims]

Most attractive, most talented, most intelligent and most well endowed.

Yours Sincerely

Narcissus

[Markymark]

I agree that a 10-0 scoreline should be the case but I am sure neither of us is sufficiently naive to believe that the best eight players are innevitably picked for the first team, the next best for the second team, etc. Throughout the county and club system the selections are based on far more criteria than mere ability. Who is available, who is reliable, who people want to play with, whether people are willing to just play singles, whether your parents are part of the selection committee, whose more attractive, etc. I myself am the team selector for all my clubs and get selected for the first mens team and first mixed team every season. Coincidence?

No, but I think it only really makes a difference in Yorkshire. Other counties simply don't have the players and there are gaps in the levels between the teams which are fairly obvious.

It's also now confirmed that 4 teams will be relegated from Premier B with Lanarkshire, Nottinghamshire, Sussex and Middlesex being promoted to Premier B. A Scottish team in Premier A and Premier B next season!!