Hurrah! It's another PMCOTT post, and a chance for me to divide my almost non-existent readership still further. More uninformed opinions from one of Scotland's bog-standard competitive players, because goodness knows we don't have enough of that.
I'm a Scottish Bridge News Subscriber. (Honest!) It's good value for what it is, and in today's society is probably the only institution I know of that both has the word "News" in it and hasn't been labelled "fake" by somebody. In the latest issue, they introduced a new feature: The Opinions Page. (Popcorn at the ready...) Personally, I hope that this is a mini misnomer and we will see a full-blown Opinions Section from here on out. The more constructive dialogue, the better. I don't think you can fit everything that needs talked about onto just one page.
The inaugural Opinions Page was devoted to a response from one Dougie Munroe to an invitation to enter the Scottish Cup, which is still officially Scotland's Premier Event. I'm naming him because:
(a) He deserves credit for his piece, and
(b) I can hardly hide his identity; anyone who reads SBN will know who I'm talking about, and
(c) I have a MUCH lower readership than Scottish Bridge News!
He opens:
"Why would I want to enter a competition where the Conditions of Contest are set to reduce my chances of Progressing in it?"
He follows with an article outlining a strong opinion that the Scottish Cup should be a completely open draw; that there should be no Seeded teams at all. It is a compelling, and not unjustified point of view, and it led me to question my own view on the subject. As a result of that miniature soul-search, here is my tuppence' worth.
I am not offering this piece as a rebuttal, per se. Munroe's argument was reasonable, and food for thought. But on balance I find myself inclined to disagree, albeit in pretty loose terms. As my starting point I shall consider the following statement:
Why should whether a competition is Seeded or not affect whether or not I enter it?
I am trying to establish myself as a regular attendee at the bigger events on the Scottish Bridge Calendar. It is not possible for me to attend everything, but if I have my way I will consistently be playing in the Scottish Cup, National League, Winter Fours etc from here on out. Each of these events I cited are currently (by some definition) Seeded, and I would still play in them if they weren't. I've seen minor tweaks, and not-so-minor tweaks to each, a number of which I disagree with, and I still play in them. Any one of them would have to undergo massive rule/format changes for the worse before I would consider discontinuing my participation. Maybe this is just me, but I personally feel that whether the Scottish Cup is Seeded or not is not in itself a big enough issue to affect whether I play or not.
Then again, I am an ambitious player. I want to learn. The prospect of a long match against quality opposition does not deter me. I like playing in events where I will be punished for my mistakes, because that is how I learn. You have to beat the best if you want to be the best.
I would perhaps support the removal of Seeding from the Scottish Cup - if it could be satisfactorily proven to me that this would induce a big upsurge in entries. But honestly, I don't think this is the issue. Poll everyone that doesn't play in the Scottish Cup and ask them why not, and you will get a variety of different answers, many of which will translate as: "Can't be bothered" or "I'm not a competitive player".
Okay, so let's look at what the Seeding system actually is.
The Conditions of Contest state that the amount of seeds will be limited to 4. A more recent (and possibly unwritten) stipulation is that those four seeds should be the four Semi-Finalist teams from the previous season (which presumably carries some sort of team continuity requirement). This is as good a way of doing it as you can possibly get. I would be sceptical of Scottish Cup Seeding if there were more than four. The more I think about this system, the more I think it is the fairest.
Why do we want the stronger teams to have an easier route?
A just question. As Dougie Munroe points out in his article:
"They might all meet in the early rounds while a weaker team, or the only strong team, progresses from the other half of the draw. True, but eventually the best team wins the Cup. If there's an upset, especially in the longer matches in the later stages or final, hurray for the underdog! That's what cup competitions are all about."
He also argues:
"Seeding has a place in big-money, multi-national spectator sports like tennis or football where maximising viewing figures for the later stages maximises revenue; none of these adjectives apply to the Scottish Cup. Some notable knock-out competitions do not seed and this adds to their romance, interest and participation: e.g. the Scottish and English FA Cups."
There is a difference, however, between the Scottish Cups in football and Bridge. In football, whether the match is the first round or Final, the match is 90 minutes long. Not so with Bridge. As a team draws nearer to the Final, the matches get longer. It is preferable that when the Seeds meet, the match is longer. Of course you want the romance of the cup where big teams can be knocked out early. Everyone loves an underdog. But for the integrity of the competition, clashes between Seeds should be in matches where the element of luck is reduced. Believe it or not, you are increasing the chances of everyone progressing - not just the Seeds. I shall explore this theme a bit more later.
There are some superficial, but worthy, answers to the question.
Firstly, as previously stated, everyone loves an Underdog. But there is a flip side. The underdog may be completely swept aside. It is intended that the Scottish Cup Final is broadcast on BBO VuGraph. Does anyone really want to make it to the final of a competition untested, and then have their mistakes exposed for the world to see? It is probably to the benefit of the so-called "weaker" teams that they earn their place in the final by knocking out a couple of Seeds, or at least by knocking out the teams that knocked the Seeds out.
Secondly, Knock-on effect. The National League is "seeded". By which I mean, the teams that earned a right to play in Division 1 last season have first refusal on taking up their place this season. But if not all teams take up their place, the SBU have to figure out how to rate team players, and one of the things they look at is the Scottish Cup. It's a remote chance, but surely we do not want the composition of the National League to be affected by "luck of the draw" in the Scottish Cup, which in turn may affect which players we send to represent Scotland?
Equality of Opportunity
It is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that an open draw gives everyone an equal chance. In a sense it does - in terms of equal chance of getting a favourable draw. But let's have a look at the issue in more detail.
Taking this year's Cup as a case study, there were 30 entries (not including the Highland District, as the earlier rounds are regionalised to save on travel). For those that have to play a First Round match, they would not have to play a Seed in their first match, For those unseeded teams progressing to, or entering in, the Second Round, there was only a 25% chance of them meeting a Seed at this stage. Progressing to the Last 16 incurs a 50% chance, which means you have a 50% chance of having the opportunity to progress to the Quarter Final before you meet a Seed. That seems reasonable to me.
Assume, for sake of argument, that you are a strong Unseeded team, and you would be strong favourites against any other Unseeded team. Only the Seeds stand in your way. Either:
(a) You meet a Seed in the Quarter Final, and you are effectively playing for that Seeding. Should you win, you will progress to the Semi Final, and become a Seed for the next season.
Or
(b) You play a Seed in a 32 board match, which you technically have more chance of winning. If you win, you will not meet another Seed until the Semi Finals.
You see? The shorter the match, the greater the chance of the underdog winning. For example, my team had a disappointing run in the District Teams of 4 last year, where some underdogs beat us in a 14 board match. That can happen - but if those were only the first 14 boards of a match, and we had 34 boards still to play, I'd be reasonably confident of turning that around. I've played in more than one Scottish Cup match where we were trailing at half time only to turn it round in the second half - on one occasion overturning a deficit of about 30 IMPs to win the second half by about 68 IMPs (memory does not give me the exact figures now). So, if you are an Underdog, it is to your tactical advantage to meet a Seed before the Quarter Final, because there's an arithmetical case that your chances of winning are increased by 33% compared to playing the Seed in the Quarter Final. Meanwhile, the Seeds meet in longer matches, where the element of luck is reduced, and may the best Seed win.
Beat a Seed to become a Seed
Not to harp on about the points I made above, but this is the implication. Munroe argues:
"There are various inconsequential arguments in defence of seeding... The main arguments of substance appear to have two, contradictory themes: Firstly, seeding is fairer to the weaker teams. If a weaker team beats a seed, the weaker team won't meet a seed in the next round. This rather depends on the number of seeds. However, at some point, if seeding serves its purpose, the weaker team (or its next opponent) will inevitably meet another Seed. So, at best, meeting another seed is only delayed by a round or two."
Or three.
"Without seeding, it is argued that a weaker team, on beating a strong team, might well meet another strong team in the next round. They might or might not but surely if one enters a cup competition and beats a good team, one savours the victory and prepares to meet stiff(er) opposition in the next round?"
Yes, one always savours the victory. But one might also argue that knocking out a seed should bring some kind of reward, other than getting knocked out one round later than expected. The opportunity to progress at least as far as the Semi Final brings that. Which brings me to...
The Standard of Competition in the Scottish Cup
Pretty much every match in the Scottish Cup is guaranteed to be a tough test. There are no weak players (unless you count me). So Seeding is kind-of a moot point anyway. You might prefer to play against a Seed compared to some of the Unseeded opposition. Yes, some teams are weaker than others, but there are no outright weak teams. Gone are the days of all and sundry entering, and big teams racking up wins in excess of a couple of hundred IMPs. In fact, I would reckon it's a good bet that when my team of youngsters entered in 2010, and were soundly beaten in our opening match by Brian Short's team, that was the last time a Scottish Cup match was lost by over a hundred IMPs - anyone care to correct me on this? (Cue the messages of: "We also beat you by over a hundred IMPs"). But just to reiterate the point about shorter matches - had Board 1 of that match been the only one to count, we'd have won. Seeded or not, anyone can get an unfavourable draw. Which brings me to...
The Scottish Cup Plate
This is a free-entry competition for teams that are knocked out of the Scottish Cup in the first round that they play. So, if you get a really unfavourable first round draw, you parachute here (sort of like getting Knocked Out of the Champion's League into the Europa League). This competition specifically exists to cater for those who are unlucky in their opening match. It's a selling point of the Scottish Cup that you are not limited to one match - every team is guaranteed a minimum of two matches. No Seeded teams here (assuming all Seeds won their opening match), so the competition is open.
A Note on the Highland District Regionalisation
I am not against regionalising the Highland District's part of the Scottish Cup. It's a big area, often difficult to travel through, and it prevents teams from having to travel obscene distances in the early rounds. However, there have been some suggestions in the past that some non-Highland teams have entered the Highland Draw in order to gain an easier route to the Last 16. While my evidence for this remains anecdotal only, it is a logical point that theoretically at least, with no Seeds from the Highland District, that is an advantage of entering that route. It is interesting that Dougie Munroe is registered in the Highland District. I can't really buy his claim that the Conditions of Contest are set to scupper HIS chances of progressing, since the Conditions of Contest if anything favour his chances of making it to the Last 16. I'm not saying that he didn't make valid points; I found his piece very interesting and I do not wish to demean his viewpoint. But taking this into consideration, it comes across as excuse-mongering.
Besides which, is it all about the winning? Can't people just enter for the love of the game any more?
No comments:
Post a Comment