ِامشى ثرثقغلاخيغ

شس غخع ؤشى سثث فاهس هس ضعهفث ش يهببهؤعمف مشىلعشلث فخ قشي

oh sorry for leaving the keyboard on Arabic but you get my drift, right?

Indeed.

What I meant was.....

if player Simon Aardvark has won 6/7 frames and player Gary Zebra 6/6 then Gary Zebra should be listed as 1st, not joint first as is currently the case. On the basis that his win% is greater than that of Mr Aardvark who currently gets equal merit purely on the basis that his name begins with a letter that we perceive to be earlier in the alphabet than his compadre.

ps the names have been changed to protect the innocent

pps this could be an important distinction to be made when claryfying qualification for "Master" bater events

ppps going now

pppps bye

ppppps love you

Started earlier than normal on the old vino tonight have we Mr Aleksy?!

What I meant was.....

if player Simon Aardvark has won 6/7 frames and player Gary Zebra 6/6 then Gary Zebra should be listed as 1st, not joint first as is currently the case. On the basis that his win% is greater than that of Mr Aardvark who currently gets equal merit purely on the basis that his name begins with a letter that we perceive to be earlier in the alphabet than his compadre.

--- smacktheeffers 

You make a valid point but the Aggregate standings are done purely based on wins (without taking account of losses) because otherwise you can get a situation whereby player A has a record of 34/4 and player B has a record of 32/6 going into the final week's matches - now player B can still finish joint top and force a play-off if he wins both his and player A loses both BUT if we went by your suggestion, player A can guarantee the title (or Masters placing if lower down the list) by simply not playing the final week so their record would be 34/4 as opposed to player B whose record would be 34/6 at best. Who's to say that player A would've won his final 2 frames if he played them so why should he get treated as such? In the event of anyone finishing with the same amount of wins in a position of importance (ie winner, runner-up or 16th position) then a play-off is used to decide. This is done so everyone has the same chance and the rules can't be used for personal gain - i know it's unlikely to happen but such a thing happened in a league i played in a few years ago whereby a bloke won the aggregate because he didn't play his last game (same scenario as above). Also a slightly similar occurence happened during the county season last year.

Anyway just to say that Simon Aardvark is on 7/8 anyway, one win ahead of all the other animals so is top no matter what way you want to work it out..

ok then