Challengers etc in the UK....

I have heard that the entry standard this year at Cornwall is low. The seeds are mostly Devon players, I think top seeds MD Corby/Corby, MS M Trebble, with most of the entries being south west players (not Bath players).
 
In fact here's the full seedings for Cornwall

Duchy of Cornwall Open seedings. Men's singles: 1 Mark Trebble (Devon). 2 George Bevan (Avon). 3/4: Matthew Bate (Berks), Andy Watson (Hants), Reaz Vawda (Middx), Kevin Le Moigne (Guernsey), Tim Willis (Devon), Jack Webb (Hants).

Ladies' singles: 1 Betty Blair (Devon), 2 Caroline Simpson (Glos).

Ladies' doubles: 1 Caroline Taylor & Hazel Prince (Hants). 2 Lynne Hunt & Karen Major (Devon).

Men's doubles: 1 Matt & Daniel Corby (Devon), 2 Tim Willis & Matt Hemsley. 3/4: Chris Evans & Simon Gennery (Hants), George Bevan & Danny Hendry (Hants).

Mixed doubles: 1 Matt Corby & Betty Blair (Devon). 2 Tim Willis (Devon) & Caroline Taylor (Glos). 3 / 4: Mark Trebble & Karen Major (Devon), Chris Evans & Sarah Burgess (Hants).


The standard is really low, probably lower than the Devon restricted normally is......
 
I always look for a pleasantly low standard in the tournaments I play in. Too late for the Cornwall though. It was definately better playing there than Harrogate as the standard there will be excellent. I think that calling the standard low at Cornwall is not doing some of the seeded players that much justice. I can't really get near the Corby's. Trebble is a different matter as he is a confidence player. If possible try to bore him and he will lose.

Uni trials really are open to a lot of bias, but I do not think this is any more pronounced than at club or county selection. Let your racquet do the talking. Also get yourself along to the Railway Institue when you get to York, you won't find any better badminton there. I am thinking of playing the Yorkshire Open there later this season.

The reason I mentioned Jersey is to enquire whether you felt like making the court-time verses expense ratio a little more frugal by playing doubles. I will probably go to Guernsey as well. Oxfordshire is a possibility but is very well supported even in the doubles events. I expect that in the singles you would have to play a couple of rounds just to get any real points. I will try to play Wessex, Hampshire, Jersey, Guernsey, Yorkshire, Middlesex, either Devon or Cambridge, and maybe Hull or Lancashire or even Essex. It is really about getting into the winning habit in tournaments, once that is achieved I am confident of getting through at least one round in doubles and probably two or three in the mixed.
 
Currently there are 3 levels of uk tournament, but sometimes an open is very low standard (Cornwall) , sometimes you find Anthony Clark at a challenger!

Should there be restrictions on who can play each event? Should the number of ranking points available depend on the quality of the field not just the level of the tournament?

I can think of players who have won over 30 opens and yet continue to enter those events and not challengers.
 
There actually is some sort of restriction already. I think that it says in the handbook that if too many entries are received that the decisions for who misses out is based on ranking points. This does happen at Challengers as I know of several people who have been placed on reserve and not made it into the draw. As for those people who enjoy playing and winning in the Satellite Opens I am all for them playing as without them there would probably be no Satellite events by now. A lot of people live in areas where the club standard is low and rely on county games and tournaments for their good badminton, they should definitely be allowed into the draw. To stop this occurring may well mean that all tournaments end up with the draw starting at the quarter finals.

What I believe should be stopped are not the people that play the winning game but the people that play the points game. These people play in Satellites for perhaps one season then use those points to get into the Challegers and even the Grand Slams and Nationals. Losing in the first round of the Nationals carries roughly the equivalent points as winning a Satellite event. Anyone could do that in the Nationals, the Grand Slams and the Challengers and end up well inside the top twenty. These people show little interest in supporting badminton at all, yet get to play at all the best events, albeit just for one game.

You make the call dlp, which is worse?
 
Well Cornwall went ok, despite the stomach bug this morning. Possibly due to my tournament prep there, but very difficult to do properly when you spend 7 hours travelling the day before.

Lost in the 2nd round to one of the 3/4 seeds 15-11. 15-11. The game reached 11-11 in both the first and second games but ended up with me putting three or 4 smashes in the net in a silly attempt to try and finish it off quick :rolleyes: So I was pretty close to getting into the quarters, which I would have liked, but can't complain with my performance given that this is the first tournament I've played in a few years.

That game lasted just under one hour with long rallies, so it was bloody draining!. I need to work on the fitness! And my tournament prep! But certainly didn't feel outmatched by any of the players there. So all in all a good day :)
 
Last edited:
I did. Thanks UKP. Well done for Cornwall. It sounds like you were staying with the opposition in the games. Losing at the end like that is nothing to do with your quality of badminton - just lack of tournament play and patience and maybe a little confidence in your own game. :)
 
Cornwall open results (unofficial) I've heard

Corbys won doubles without dropping game, Nicola Cavill beat Betty Blair to win WS, Matt Corby/Blair won MXD, Mark Sewell? won MS beat Trebble easily. WD umm...whatever ......forgot to ask...whoever turned up:)

Slanter, I know that only the top players get into the challengers, I think this is necessary, however that only works if it is genuinely the top players and as you say not just players who get first round loser points.

I know this is a big problem. Especially in womens events where there are few doing the circuit. I know of some top 20 women who have literally won 1 match out of 10+ tournaments and yet retain their place through consistently playing challengers/grand slams. The ranking needs to be averaged over a number of events but few play the 8 or so required for good ranking. Less 1st round loser points? Bonus points for beating players above you? Opens offering variable points depending on strength of the entry?

For instance Cornwall yesterday the winner, no disrespect, would probably be outside the top 25 on merit, Devon earlier this year, same points, Honey played Kidd in the final , both would just be in the top 10.
 
Or there could be grades like in junior events. For instance Cornwall could run C and D grades on the same day, a challenger would be B and C etc. Winning a D would upgrade you, or certain number points over season in D etc.
 
But essentially there are already grades. Grand Slams being A, Challengers being B and Satellites being C. If you win a C you can get into a B. If you accumilate C points you can get into a B. Are there enough players to split the field up on the day?
 
The points game is played all over isn't it? Some of our English badminton players play it on the World stage. Tim Henman plays it!
 
Yes there are grades of tournament but not grades of player. In many countries players are graded. For instance if you travelled to Cornwall and played Kidd or Honey first round (quite possible) you'd be dissappointed. They could win the tournament without trying and pick up the prize money and points, possibly you would have won that tournament if they hadn't been there. Instead you're out first round. If a "D" player is guaranteed not to play a top 50 player maybe they will be more inclined to play the tournaments.

Conversely if you're an upcoming player or junior or haven't played the right touraments you may fail to get into a challenger when many blatently worse players are in. As you play around the circuit you will see some players who turn up to every G slam and Chal just to pick up their 1st round losers points!

There a big problem for top under 17s, they want to be g slams within a couple years but initially must play a lot of opens (where they'll be unseeded) just to get into challengers.

I just think the rankings should reflect the actual merit of the players more....:mad:
 
Looking at the chal / sat circuit finals this year 2 of the top four in both MS and WS were the same. So you have Kidd beating Clarkson to win the sat circuit then playing him again onthe same day in the Chal semis! There were also players in both sat / chal doubles events.

This proves that the intention of different levels of tournament is not working!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top