Letters Page

I am finding it increasingly hard to publish the N&E magazine on time and the reasons for that is lack of article submissions. That is the reason why there was not an issue out a few weeks ago. I cannot write a magazine if there are no articles to go into it. Another fact that Stan seems to miss is that all the articles are already featured on this website anyway. And I can get articles onto the site literally within minutes of receiving them. Take the article about Milan which is currently on the front page. I only received that about an hour ago. The only thing that appears in the N&E and not the website is the division secretary reports.

Most of the articles on the front page have only just reached me in the past week or so, so they could not have possibly appeared in the N&E which should have come out in late December.

The other big problem is that people think that table tennis is my only focus. I am in a band that gig most weekends, run a paranormal website that is Europe's biggest, run my own business, the CTTA website, write the N&E and weekly newspaper results and also play in the league. That doesn't exactly leave me a lot of leisure time to be honest. So I think I do a pretty good job considering, don't you?

Keep the info on the site - by Ross Greening 27/2/07

Dear Dave,

It is always good to get criticism from others and certainly Stan is entitled to express his views. It will be interesting to see what others will say.

I logged onto the website to see last years averages and tournament winners as its coming to the end of the season. I’ve had a pretty bad season results wise and wanted to check past performance and as I have entered the competitions (first time for approx 25 years) I was interested to see who the previous winner were.

I think the CTTA website is excellent as it is. Easy to read titles, if you don’t want to go into certain sections such as history or international matches then simply avoid them. Surely it only becomes an issue if web space became difficult and then we must not lose valuable history. I personally would like to see more history, when Wimbledon starts the first thing I do is look back at previous results to see who played.

Can’t remember who, but someone was trying to trace back some history of CTTA. History is vital (my opinion anyway), pack as much information as you can into the website, PAST and PRESENT.

Please don’t get disheartened over this, you are doing a great job and finding people like yourself to do jobs such as this is very hard indeed.

Many thanks for a good job

Time To Lay Off The Criticism - by Guy Greening 27/2/07

Dear Editor, I read the letter published on the Web regarding the CTTA website. Quite frankly I was amazed to say the least. I believe that Dave Cosnette does a fantastic job and all of his efforts should be applauded. It is a web site to be proud of and I do not think that Dave should be criticised in any way. All of our services are voluntary and everyone who contributes in whatever way should be applauded and not subject to criticism. The CTTA website would have cost a small fortune if we had to employ someone to build and maintain it and I am sure it would not be as good as what Dave has made it. To lose Dave's services would be a massive loss to the association and I firmly believe that Dave should be rewarded in some way for his efforts. To all the critics of either Dave or the CTTA website, I say BUTT OUT and devote your energy into doing something more useful for the association. Regards, Guy Greening Division One Secretary

I'm In Support - by Dave Harvey 28/2/07

Dear Editor,

I whole heartedly support the views expressed in applauding Dave Cosnette's excellent tenure over a number of years in what I believe is an unequalled Web Site on Table 
Tennis and believe that the coverage is well balanced and that it should indeed cover not only current, but past history and should also provide links as currently set up.

I cannot begin to imagine, the amount of time that has to be devoted in updating the web site and producing Net & Edge (which is an unrivalled publication in many people's 
view around the country).

I for one, have been contacted on numerous occasions by outside T.T. enthusiasts who want more information on club, coaching and practice facilities as a result of the 
links and information contained within our web site and am somewhat surprised at some of the contrary views expressed not to include such information.

No one would argue that Dave has not done an excellent job in this role (as did his predecessor Gill) and if Dave does step down (which I hope he will re-consider but I do 
understand that he has a multitude of other interests vying for his time), it will be a huge blow to not only the CTTA but also other people around the County and outside, who 
have gleaned a lot of information from a site, which I believe is unequalled anywhere else in the country.

Everyone of course has a right to their view and indeed I am often at odds with my own (sometimes) controversial views on T.T. directions with others, but ultimately, we 
must not lose sight of the fact that there are a few people in T.T. who are key to the success of the League. I will not embarrass anyone by naming them, but certainly Dave 
Cosnette for his contributions over the years to the CTTA in producing Net & Edge and an excellent Web Site, would be one of the persons who without doubt, would be 
included in this elite List.

Regards

Dave Harvey

Keep The Website - by Derek Brown 28/2/07

Hi folks,

Any criticism of the CTTA website I find most surprising. (I could have used stronger words!) I believe that Net & Edge has of course played an important part in recent years in keeping people informed, but always ran the risk, in terms of results, of being somewhat out of date by the time it had been circulated.

I suggest that we wave goodbye to this publication and ensure that data, past and present is incorporated in the website. I endorse the positive views already voiced of Dave's work in this context.

Cheers

Derek Brown
Division Three Secretary

View from Another League - by Lee Devany 28/3/07

Hi Dave,
I came across your website and the letters page so just wanted to send a quick note to say what a great website it is - Very visual and informative.

I am also a webmaster for my sins (www.btta.info) and have had the same issues over feedback. I had a feedback page but it was abused and ended up as a forum for moaning. Its amazing how many people have a opinion on something which they have no intention to help with. Basically, when anyone challenges me I now always ask them "are you part of the solution or part of the problem ?" Tee Hee

Volunteers are not appreciated enough these days. So from one webmaster to another - Well done and keep up the great work.

Very Best Wishes

Lee

Secretary - Bournemouth Sports Table Tennis Club

Thanks For The Support - by Dave Cosnette 28/2/07

Well, I have to say that I am both surprised and flattered at the comments sent in from the people above. I thank each and every one of you who have stepped up and supported what I am trying to do with the website. I want to make it clear that I am not giving up as editor of the website and newspaper reports - just the Net and Edge Magazine. I agree with Derek that perhaps it is time to rest the magazine in favour of this website. He is right to say that results can be out of date by the time the magazine is published. I am just about to collect the latest N&E tomorrow from the printers and by the time you all receive it the data will be at least a week out of date. That is the beauty of the internet. Results sent to me can appear within hours of me receiving them.

Whether Stan decided to start this debate to ruffle a few feathers is not clear, but he did say that he wanted controversy, so I guess he got his wish?

Thanks to everybody for their very kind comments, support and encouragement, I appreciate them very much.

Dave Cosnette
CTTA Press Officer and Webmaster.

Our League Structure - Is It Fair? by Simon Lockley (this article first appeared in the February 06 edition of Net and Edge Magazine)

I was initially concerned about the new arrangements for the structure of our league at the beginning of this season (05-06). Whilst personally I have been rather unaffected by the changes, I had reservations about why the re-structuring had taken place and was sure that certain teams and players would be affected. At this stage of the season, I still have the same reservations and below I intend to outline why.

The league structure for this season seems to have kept most teams happy. For example, I know that Division Two has been a closely contested division on the whole. The increase in the number of teams in each division from 8 to 12 has had several benefits. It has balanced up the number of home and away matches, so that each opposing team is played just twice, once home and once away. It has also provided a greater range of opposition throughout the course of the season. However, one of the main reasons for making the change from four divisions of eight teams to three divisions of twelve teams was to try to combat the problem of the same teams getting promoted and relegated season after season. I can see that with increasing the numbers in a division that the competition at both the top and bottom of each division should be greater. However, I believe that there hasn’t been a significant change here. Also, as much as I have enjoyed playing in the re-structured league this year, I know that there have been several teams who have not and who have, in my opinion, been treated rather badly.

Firstly, let me examine the point about the league restructuring combating the ‘yo-yo’ effect of the same teams bouncing up and down from division to division each season. Yes, greater numbers should mean greater competitiveness for those promotion and relegation positions. However, in practice this has not been the case. Take Division One for example. The two teams promoted from Division Two last year, Smiths B and Smiths C are the same two teams struggling against relegation this season, despite the increase in numbers in that division. But surely that is to be expected – those teams who are promoted must definitely start as relegation favourites for the next season! Indeed, the gap between the two Smiths teams and the remainder of the division is quite large. It is likely, unless there are further league structure changes, that these two teams will perform the ‘yo-yo’ that the new structure was designed to eliminate.

The new structure has been particularly unfair on one or two teams. Winchcombe Eagles and Tewkesbury B were both effectively denied the promotion that they earned last season. They finished as the top two teams in the old fourth division. The new structure has meant that they have had to play all the same teams that they were playing last year, just under the title of Division Three. What was the point of them trying to get promoted? Does this mean that all the teams from last year’s division four have got promoted? The current Division Three is made up of beginners and improving junior players on the whole, apart from one or two experienced teams. The only new opponents that they have had to face are CCS B, who finished bottom of the old division three and were so relegated, and unforgivably, Saracens E, who finished sixth in the old division three last year.

Saracens E have been effectively relegated even though their league position had earned them the right to still be competing with Janie Kirby’s Tirley Tigers, Steve Murton’s CCS A and Alan Harvey’s Cheltenham F. I have spoken to members of that Saracens team who have made it very clear to me just how disappointed and despondent they are at the way the re-structuring has affected them. What a way to treat this team! Saracens E, with distinguished players of huge experience. Saracens E who did not deserve to be relegated. Saracens E who were re-structured for the league’s benefit. Try telling that to Sheila Matthews, John Adcock, Roy North, Pete McGeough and Tony Child, who have carried on magnificently this season despite being treated so badly. If I am correct, teams would like to get their just desserts. If you have earned the right to be promoted, surely that’s what you deserve. If you are not good enough over the course of a season, then you will be relegated. If you finish sixth, you expect to be playing at the same standard again the following year, not relegated to be playing some teams that have just taken up the game.

Don’t get me wrong – I am not disrespecting that division. I played in the bottom division of this league for the first 6 or 7 years with the occasional ‘yo-yo’ up to a higher division. It was a necessary requirement for our team to play here while we improved the standard of our game. Yet, it is frustrating when you are denied the opportunity to play against better teams to improve further still due to league re-structuring. This has happened to my team, Tewkesbury, once before. About four seasons ago, after we should have been promoted to the old division three, the league decided to merge old divisions three and four to create a ‘Division Three East’ and ‘Division Three West’. We deserved to be promoted to see how we would get on playing at this higher standard – even if we were to be relegated at the end of the season. However, instead we were forced back down to the old division four without a full season of playing at the standard that we had earned to play at. We were not happy then – why should Tewkesbury B, Saracens E and Winchcombe Eagles be happy now? If the league remains as it is, one of these three teams will not get promoted (they currently occupy the top three positions of Division Three unchallenged) and two seasons of being placed in the wrong division beckons.

It’s all very well me having this opinion, but is there an alternative? Yes, I believe there is. My suggestion for restructuring the league would have been slightly different. I believe that if it did indeed need changing at all then the following could have been considered:

· Maintain four divisions;

· Have two ‘Super Divisions’ with 6 teams in each – one being the First Division and the other being the Fourth Division. Each team should play their opponents four times. Play for one promotion place to Division Three and one relegation place to Division Two;

· Have two larger divisions of eleven or twelve teams each to act as Division Two and Division Three, accommodating the remainder of the teams. Each team plays their opponents twice. Operate one up/two down from Division Two and two up/one down from Division Three.

I believe that this would keep the standard of play extremely high in Division One and would keep it more balanced in Division Four.

Of course, this proposal is far from ideal, but I believe it would increase the competition. The main ‘yo-yo’ effect may occur between Divisions Two and Three, where many would feel happy at playing at either level anyway.

As no one else has so far remarked on this whole process, I felt I should give my opinion. But my opinion is all that it is – I am sure many of you would disagree with it – and I recognise what a difficult job it is for the CTTA management committee to keep players happy, the league fair and to make the right decisions. Thank you for listening to my opinion.

Is our new league structure fair? - a reply by Stan Johnstone

The increase from 8 teams to 12 is it better? Yes only playing each team twice is good instead of playing the same team 3 times. 3 times can be boring.

The problem of the same teams getting promoted and relegated each season?

Several teams have been treated badly. Is this true?

Examine the point about the league restructuring combating the yo yo effect of the same teams bouncing up and down from division to division each season.

No they are not always the same teams. The two teams promoted from Division 2 last year Smiths B and Smiths C are the same two teams struggling against relegation this season. Despite the increase in numbers in that division, they always will.

Trying to dispense the yo yo effect: Do those teams who are promoted definitely start as relegation favourites next season? They are not, they are not, they are not. There may be different teams in Each division. Look for example at one of the first results which I mentioned in the last Net and Edge.

Cheltenham C V Winchcombe Wizards: Cheltenham C last season won the 1st division and Winchcombe Wizards won the 2^nd Division. On paper this would suggest (on paper) that Cheltenham C would slaughter Winchcombe Wizards. The actual result this season was Cheltenham C 1 Winchcombe Wizards 9.

Wow Why the difference? Because Cheltenham C last season had the Shahlaei brothers playing for them but NOT this season. THIS SEASON THEY ARE AN UNKNOWN QUANTITY. While Winchcombe were much the same team and have good backing from players such as Nick Davidson.

The Harvey family are not Cheltenham A this year but Cheltenham B, and for my money will finish up champions of Division 1. Why is this? Because Robert is the unknown factor and as youngsters always come on at a prodigious rate and while he doesn’t feature in last years averages, you can bet your bottom dollar that he WILL in this. Dave and Michael will do the best.

Those teams who are promoted must definitely start as relegation favourites for the next season. Yes or No - No!

Winchcombe Eagles do not get a mention this season so it looks as though they are playing for a different Winchcombe team. Yes I see that their name is now Winchcombe Warriors and last years Eagles seem to be transferred en bloc to the Warriors. (Winchcombe Eagles are the same team they have been for at least the last four years? - Ed)

Now let us have a look at Tewkesbury B who have apparently been unfairly treated.

Simon has got a point when he says that by increasing the number of teams from 8 to 12 Tewkesbury B have been unfairly treated, so lets take a look at Tewkesbury B.

It does make complications when you swap the number of teams in a division i.e. in this case 8 to 12. Yes I Agree that somebody is going to have to play similar teams as there is no way to avoid this. It was always a problem for CTTA Officials to make the competition as competitive as possible. The reason for this goes back a long way and Simon could not possibly know the answer to this one but I promise that in my next article I will give a full explanation. It is worth an article in itself.

We have been here before. The differences on play are so great with the sponge bat replacing the hard bat. The current Division 3 is made up of beginners and improving junior players, apart from one or two experienced teams. Just so, but that is no bad thing because as I said earlier, beginners and junior players have a habit of coming on at a prodigious rate unlike us oldies. If this is doubted we must look at what's Tewkesbury's position in the current Division 2. They are in fact 2^nd bottom. Simon is now saying congratulations to newly promoted Tewkesbury B ….. A tough season lies ahead etc, etc. No signs of unfairness there. They are likely to have to work hard to stay in the 2^nd. But he has reason to be optimistic if Alan Cook can dispatch Graham Chandler and Paul Singh. (poor old devils)

It’s the up and coming stars isn’t it? Wayne Lippett (captain now eh?) and Tom Urbanski! Now there’s a name that rings a bell with me. What I like about Simon is that he shows tremendous interest in each team, not only his own. Keep up the good work!

Answering Simons suggestions for a FAIRER LEAGUE SYSTEM.

Maintain four divisions with 8 teams each

That means playing each team 3 times in a season. Isn’t playing each other twice enough?

Two super divisions of 6 teams each and play each other four times and die of boredom.

Have two super divisions with 6 teams each i.e.

Division One

Cheltenham B, Smiths A, Cheltenham A, Saracens A, Chelsea A, Winchcombe Wizards - to play each other 4 times.

Division Two

Stays as is now and plays each other twice.

Division Three

Stays as is now and plays each other twice.

Division Four

Set up a 4th Division to include: Winchcombe Eagles, Cheltenham J, Cheltenham G, Chelsea G, Cheltenham H, Civil Service B - to play each other 4 times.

Leave things as they are By Nick Mytton 14/1/07

A quick comment on the proposed league structure which seems to be the object of much debate. I played in the Worcester league when it had a so called premier division with 6 teams each playing one another 4 times. This experiment lasted only one year with many players expressing frustration at playing the same people repeatedly – results from the first half of the season were virtually mirrored in the second half of the season and therefore the league table was decided by Xmas .

Therefore my simple solution to the league structure is to leave it as it is. I would rather play against different players of any standard than repeatedly play against the same few players. I also do not buy into the argument that a premier division will keep standards high. In my opinion the best way to improve ones game is to play against different styles and players as possible – this does not happen when you continually play against the same players.

Please note I am not saying this because I do not want to be thrashed by Dave Harvey 4 times a season rather than the 2 receive at the moment!!

Nick Mytton

So who's right? By Dave Cosnette

I personally think that Simon is correct in this argument. Despite the change to the league set up last season, we still have the yo yo effect happening right now.

The current league tables provide interesting reading.

Division One
Smiths B and Smiths C finished bottom last season in Division One. This season it appears that for some reason Smiths B remain in Division One, but are still 2nd from bottom, leading the team below them by 4 points, but having played one extra game. Winchcombe Wizards and Cheltenham D gained promotion from Division Two. Winchcombe Wizards are currently placed fourth from bottom, but have been strengthened by the edition of Choi Sze To who is obviously well capable of playing at the higher standard, having lost only 8 games this season. Cheltenham D are now the C side and are presently at the bottom of Division One.

Division Two
Smiths C were relegated from Division One and are currently second in Division Two. Saracens E were promoted from Division Three last season, together with Tewkesbury B. Both of these teams are currently bottom of Division Two with a difference of at least 24 points from the rest of the pack and also having played one extra game.

Division Three
My own team, Saracens C, were relegated from Division Two, along with Tirley Tigers. At present Saracens have not lost a game and are top of Division Three and Tirley are second.

In summary, other than Winchcombe Wizards, who have strengthened their side with a top player, all the promoted teams are at the bottom and all the relegated teams are at the top. And this scenario on average goes on year in, year out. From my own experiences with Saracens, we usually go up one year and down the next. Every time we gain promotion to Division Two, we return to the lower league the following season.

What is the solution? Well, the easy solution would be to put the bottom 6 of Division One and the top 6 of Division Two together, and the bottom 6 of Division Two together with the top 6 of Division 3. That would even things out pretty much, but then you would have the problem of the top 6 teams in Division One and the bottom 6 teams in Division 3.

My solution would be to have a Premier Division with 6 teams. 12 teams in Division One, 12 teams in Division Two and 6 teams in Division Three. Teams in the top and bottom division would play each other 4 times - that is the only solution that I think would be fair and make the competition more even than it presently is and possibly stop the yo yo effect that I've seen happen for the past 20 years in the Cheltenham league.

The League Structure - a reply by Simon Lockley

Ouch! Stan rather tore my argument to shreds with his response. I think he makes some fair points and expresses his opinion just as I do - clearly and openly. However, he has got a bit muddled with some of the teams and this does counter his argument somewhat! I think Daves response is a great one. I actually agree with him whole-heartedly, whether the same could be said for others, who knows?!! We at Tewkesbury have responded to other suggestions. We have strengthened our squads: in recent seasons with the addition of the brilliant Rob Amphlett (both in attitude, encouragement and playing ability), and this season with the addition of John Teare and Mike Maxwell to our C team.

This recent change of personnel has caused a range of complaints and criticisms - either they're too good and nobody else has a chance, or an attitude of 'what's the point in anyone playing them?' as they can't develop their game when playing them. Of course they can! This game is not */all/* about winning! Even Derek Brown, the Division Three secretary, appears to be unhappy about their involvement (see N&E issue 1 - this season). However, it was he who advised in one edition of last season's N & E to 'strengthen your teams' to avoid the yo-yo effect. You can't win, and as I always say, I only express an opinion! I'm with you Dave - a Premier League of the top six, two larger evenly contested high to mid-standard divisions of 12 teams for Division One and Two, and six teams making up a more competitive Division Three.

Many will disagree, I know, but that is my opinion!

Our Game by Stan Johnstone

They say that Rugby is a hooligans game played by gentlemen and that soccer is a gentleman’s game played by hooligans but what do they say about Table Tennis?

To my certain knowledge I have never seen a Table Tennis player take off his shirt and run around the table after scoring a winning point, not even a point that won him the match. I think it needs some analysis because in the 30’s and 40’s you would never see such behavior at 3^rd division football matches. In fact you would actually see the local crowd applaud any good play by the opposing team.

It reminds me that going to a Cheltenham v Hartlepool match a few years ago I sat in the stand (what a funny expression) when Cheltenham scored the first goal. As one man the whole stand rose up with a thunderous shout of “GOAL.” and here was I, sat there, all on my own like a nit. When Hartlepool equalized I made quite sure that I kept very quiet like the rest in the stand. Now it seems to me that Table Tennis is one of the few games where the sporting side has hardly changed at all in spite of the enormous differences in how the game has progressed in the last 70 years e.g. from hard bat to sponge. That is a plus by today’s standards.

In many ways I feel sorry for the youngsters of today because it seems to me that they just don’t have sufficient things to exercise their minds. Perhaps that is putting it too simply and so I will reverse my comment by saying that they have too many things occupying their minds, because we all know that the pressures put upon them are often enormous, such as their schooling, exams etc. so I will qualify that by adding that they need a break from their studies and to play a game that takes them completely out of themselves. (All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.)

It was not always so and I remember as a boy how many different organizations we had going for us.

Lifebuoys was for the very young followed by the Boys Brigade. Then if you wished you could join the Scouts. You still had your football and cricket. In brief, a balanced way of living for youngsters although we didn’t realize it at the time. Not everybody had a radio, and TV was a distant dream. Table tennis is a game that has to be played to gain the most enjoyment and it has a particular fascination for youngsters. Trying to control that bouncing ball takes the utmost concentration and you are totally absorbed while playing. It takes one completely out of oneself and is good for keeping your weight stable as you are continually stretching and bending and exercising without even realizing it.

Instead of being watchers of games you take part, occasionally becoming the star, and in its own way you are able to express yourself so that as you improve your sense of self esteem grows and you are able to tackle your studies more easily. If you were of a certain age you just never wanted to come off the table. In my day I never had far to go to the local Church Hall to play and most Churches and chapels had teams in the local league.

Our parents knew that they never need worry about where we were, but in modern times we are very dependent on parents bringing and collecting their younger children to our venues. Before the war Table Tennis was played by so many people of all ages that it was called the poor man’s game. Mainly because, if you had a decent venue the equipment for the game was within everybody’s pocket. A good bat with pimples on both sides cost about half a crown. (12.5p). It was not costly. Some of the tables were made by local craftsmen and consequently the ball had a different bounce which was different from your Home table. Talk about fun and games! There were such large numbers who played and it was not uncommon to have quite large audiences attending town matches or even, just to watch a top league match.

I wonder what sort of a monster I might have become if it had not been for Table Tennis?