Priory League Div 1 - PAR 11 Survey

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Creek on August 19, 2009 at 9:45am

Tim - Well done for taking up the reins. Len apparently has a new job, so won't be writing so much. And, as I said in the other thread, it is probably up to the teams in the Priory to organise a vote if they don't want to use PAR to 11 - since the Priory rules as they stand appear to reflect the WSF position i.e PAR to 11 as the principal scoring system unless an alternative is selected.

You should probably let the Priory Committee know, though - as I am not sure they read this Forum.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ray Bushell on August 19, 2009 at 10:16am

Everybody had a chance to vote at the AGM when these decisions are made so there's no point bleating about it later.
As I mentioned to you when we spoke about this Tim,my take on par 11 is this.
Par 11 was brought in for the proffessional circuit to make the sport more attractive for television which included bringing match times down.As far as I'm aware the Priory league is not yet gracing the TV sporting airwaves but my god if it did the veiwing figures would go up 100 fold ! (but probably on the soap channels)
I can fully understand Tim's want for Par 11 but with all due respect Tim your not exactly playing at the level of the rank and file where hand in hand out can have a big influence on the outcome.
I also believe at club player level par 11 would negate the need for a high level of fitness which I'm sure many of us would say hooray but surely squash was always intended as a sport which required a reasonable degree of fitness.
All the greats of the game ie; Jahanger/Hunt/Nicol built their careers on their fitness levels and I think it would have been a totally different picture had par 11 been in place from the outset.
Could go on about this for ages but I won't bore you any further.

ps; didn't put Jansher or Power in my greats list as they were both cheats!!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Phill Crane on August 19, 2009 at 10:19am

Personally I'm all for it at all levels of the game but in this instance is it the teams that want PAR or the team captains?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Creek on August 19, 2009 at 11:42am

Ray Bushell said:

Everybody had a chance to vote at the AGM when these decisions are made !

Which Div 1 team will you be captain of next winter, Ray;)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Creek on August 19, 2009 at 11:43am

Phill Crane said:

Personally I'm all for it at all levels of the game but in this instance is it the teams that want PAR or the team captains?

Same question as above to this contestant;) Luckily we have a democracy (whatever that is) - unlike that other league in Kent.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Phill Crane on August 19, 2009 at 12:01pm

Didn't realise that you had to be a team captain to comment on this. Thought that it was a FORUM where issues were discussed.


John Creek said:

Phill Crane said:

Personally I'm all for it at all levels of the game but in this instance is it the teams that want PAR or the team captains?

Same question as above to this contestant;) Luckily we have a democracy (whatever that is) - unlike that other league in Kent.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Creek on August 19, 2009 at 12:11pm

Sorry, Phil - only teasing. The only issue, though, seems to be whether this issue is being driven by downward pressure from the highest levels or a groundswell of enthusiasm from the bottom. Personally, I'm a bottom man.

Phill Crane said:

Didn't realise that you had to be a team captain to comment on this. Thought that it was a FORUM where issues were discussed.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Phill Crane on August 19, 2009 at 12:29pm

The problem is how to 'garner' (if you'll pardon the pun) the opinions of people who are playing team Squash throughout the Kent Leagues.
With 90+ members on this site you would think there would be more than the odd voice.
Que sera, sera.
C'est la vie.
etc, etc


John Creek said:

Sorry, Phil - only teasing. The only issue, though, seems to be whether this issue is being driven by downward pressure from the highest levels or a groundswell of enthusiasm from the bottom. Personally, I'm a bottom man.

Phill Crane said:

Didn't realise that you had to be a team captain to comment on this. Thought that it was a FORUM where issues were discussed.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Creek on August 19, 2009 at 12:42pm

Phill, I'm sure that your voice is not odd. But it reminds me of other changes like Tennis (tie-break); Football (penalty shoot-outs); Cricket (bowl-offs) - all designed to save time or for TV - all imposed from the top - all eventually reaching the lower levels. And do we remember what it was like before they changed?

Phill Crane said:

The problem is how to 'garner' (if you'll pardon the pun) the opinions of people who are playing team Squash throughout the Kent Leagues.
With 90+ members you would think there would be more than the odd voice

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ray Bushell on August 19, 2009 at 12:48pm

No idea what your on about John,what's that got to do with par 11 scoring?

John Creek said:

Ray Bushell said:

Everybody had a chance to vote at the AGM when these decisions are made !

Which Div 1 team will you be captain of next winter, Ray;)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Creek on August 19, 2009 at 1:41pm

World Squash (WSF) has made PAR to 11 the main scoring system – other systems are ‘alternatives’.

England Squash (ES) ‘suggests that counties consider the adoption of PAR11 for county closed and county leagues for the 2009/10 season onwards. A number of counties have looked at this in a different ways. Some have adopted PAR11 for premier divisions, others across the board. Some have decided that, for now, they do not want to change. Furthermore, we (ES) do believe that scoring systems at recreational and club level should be entirely discretionary, and are not proposing mandatory change in this area.’

Kent (KS) – I don’t know. Do they have any specific rules ?

Outer Kent (OK) apparently ‘adopt most of the ES rules’.

Priory play under WSF rules – Priory Rule 5. (although they don’t specify which, if any, of the alternative scoring systems are to be used).

Priory have voted at two AGMs. The resolutions may have been flawed – certainly the voting system was a bit dodgy. Maybe, before the next AGM, someone should draft a proposal:

1) To amend Rule 5. to say that all WSF rules will apply apart from the scoring system.
2) To adopt the WSF ‘principal’ scoring system – for Div 1. Only
3) To adopt the WSF ‘principal’ scoring system - for all Divisions
4) To apply an alternative scoring system (e.g. HIHO to 9)

It may be that, to save time, a postal ballot of Div.1 (or all clubs/teams) could be taken by the Priory Committee. Maybe it could be included with the entry forms for the Winter.

Otherwise the rules will be wrong as they stand and it will be at least next summer before they can be corrected.


Ray Bushell said:

No idea what your on about John,what's that got to do with par 11 scoring?

John Creek said:

Ray Bushell said:

Everybody had a chance to vote at the AGM when these decisions are made !

Which Div 1 team will you be captain of next winter, Ray;)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by HS on August 19, 2009 at 2:56pm

In fairness I am sure that Tim has gained the clubs view via the captain of the team, which is correct, otherwise he could potentially be ringing around 50 odd people (not odd as in wierd but odd as in round number!!!).

As far as Rodmersham are concerned he has the yes vote from the majority

Phill Crane said:

Didn't realise that you had to be a team captain to comment on this. Thought that it was a FORUM where issues were discussed.


John Creek said:

Phill Crane said:

Personally I'm all for it at all levels of the game but in this instance is it the teams that want PAR or the team captains?

Same question as above to this contestant;) Luckily we have a democracy (whatever that is) - unlike that other league in Kent.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page