Page 3 of 3
super league final
Posted: June 11th, 2008, 6:00 pm
by lloydy
I beat them both and Jean desque when they drew around me in my section last year on the sensas challenge on the stainy Lloydy ;) and i know you won a medal there too mate
..........but thats not my point !
It is brilliant to draw next to and fish against these anglers but for me the cost cannot justify the time and effort these days :(
Perhaps they why team fishing is changing...
It's easier for you to beat Will and Alan then it is for your team to beat Dorking or Barnsley over a ten man side.
The smaller team matches ( pairs, 3 and 5 a side) seem to be getting more popular because ANY team can be beaten by a bad draw so the occasional winners are still in with a shout.
I think you might be right lee, what wories me is that when we went from 12 to ten man teams we didn't get any more teams, and when teams had to cut squads down the anglers that were left out just seemed to disappear off circuit and no more teams were formed. The lesser teams used to have specialist canal, carp and river anglers which helped them compete, when suads were limited it made the best teams stronger and forced anglers that didn't want to go everywhere either get on with it or go there own way.
super league final
Posted: June 11th, 2008, 6:41 pm
by Woodhouse
Lloydy
I think there are a few things that could be tried.
The one that i think is more likely to work is by reducing squad numbers that can be named to a realistic figure, my suggestion would be 150% of the team size ie 8 man teams would have 12 anglers in the squad, 10 would be 15 squad anglers.
This would enable holiday/sickness cover to be in place.
If this was the case then squads like ours would probably put two teams into leagues like the drennan. The main downside would be that it would considerably weaken your chances if you got to to finals unless all the squad could then be treated as one again. In theory this would mean that 66% of our 24 man squad would be fishing every round instead of 33%.
The biggest downside of this though would be that it would require anglers to become all rounders if the league kept 2 canals, 2 pools and 2 rivers and i dont think all anglers would want to get out of their comfort zones.
AT winter league this year we are putting a side in the Warks (if it goes ahead) and the West mids, again this will greatly weaken our side if we get to a semi unless AT changes the rules. this would mean 20 anglers out of our squad would be fishing this competition instead of 10.
super league final
Posted: June 11th, 2008, 7:59 pm
by Dodge
I like some of the points you have made there Lee
especially the 3 & 5 man team events. Lots and lots of individual anglers can beat each other on a regular basis on different circuits so this format for me makes things (team fishing) more competitive and appealing.
Regards 10 man teams i think the top 6 or 8 teams in the country now have it to themselves and the top 3 teams out of them are out of sight with their sponsorship, funding, squad size,international anglers ....... sheer professionalism if you like. How can a Joe Bloggs 16 man squad compete with that
super league final
Posted: June 11th, 2008, 10:24 pm
by endpeg
Why should a team move from a 40 peg league with venues on our doorstep to a 40 peg league where we have to travel 100's of miles?
They dont have to BUT they shouldnt ever expect an invite to fish the Super League Final if they don't! Simple as that! No disrespect to any Div1 teams that have done this but why on earth should they win an All Winners Final and then get invited to fish the more prestigious Super League Final if they dont get promoted as a result?
super league final
Posted: June 11th, 2008, 10:28 pm
by Woodhouse
super league final
Posted: June 11th, 2008, 10:30 pm
by endpeg
And also, if you ever get chance to talk to Steve Sanders you'll quickly appreciate the amount of time, money and effort that is put into the Dorking machine. Believe me, the money from winning doesnt cover what they put in and winning is far more important than any monetary prize to this team. It should never be about the money BUT i still believe more money injected throughout these competitions would encourage a more professional and serious involvement from every single team, not just the top 3 or 4.
super league final
Posted: June 11th, 2008, 10:32 pm
by Woodhouse
And also, if you ever get chance to talk to Steve Sanders you'll quickly appreciate the amount of time, money and effort that is put into the Dorking machine. Believe me, the money from winning doesnt cover what they put in and winning is far more important than any monetary prize to this team. It should never be about the money BUT i still believe more money injected throughout these competitions would encourage a more professional and serious involvement from every single team, not just the top 3 or 4.
I agree Jon...
But where is the money going to come from?
The team sponsors are always getting the best deal.
super league final
Posted: June 11th, 2008, 10:43 pm
by endpeg
But where is the money going to come from?
The team sponsors are always getting the best deal.
Where does the money come from in any sporting team event?
Im not exactly sure what you mean by "the team sponsors are always getting the best deal"
super league final
Posted: June 12th, 2008, 10:23 am
by joffmiester
i can see what your saying lee and jon and bye the way what a topic we need more of this sort of debate to find the answers i'm calling a meeting with my squad as i for one think the lack of time and effect put in bye us doe's not gain anything for our sponsor i did'nt ask for much off the sponsor as interest in the final seamed to be at a all time low i only had 10 anglers that wanted to fish it and out of those ten only 4 could practice because of there work situations
for me as a captain this is a all time low for team fishing and after this meeting i would'nt be surprised if i have a squad left i'd love to say yes we can all practice for a week have all the groundbait you want the bait all paid for by the sponsors its just not going to happen not in this climate of uncertainty
at the end of the day its a hobby time to relax and perhaps its time for me to concentrate more on my business [my bread and butter]Rather than 20 or 30 phone calls a week trying to find anglers who are prepared to fish and travel around the country
if you see a six foot 4in heron hanging from a tree its only me
super league final
Posted: June 12th, 2008, 2:00 pm
by Woodhouse
But where is the money going to come from?
The team sponsors are always getting the best deal.
Where does the money come from in any sporting team event?
Im not exactly sure what you mean by "the team sponsors are always getting the best deal"
I think most major prize money for sports (golf,tennis,snooker..etc etc) comes from major comanies outside of the sport that have an advertising budget, from television rights and from spectator fees.
1. Have any major corporations ever been approached along the lines of sponsoring an angling event?
2. Why would any television company want to televise fishing every week?. To non anglers it must be very very boring and all anglers ever do is moan.
Fisho mania is the prime example of this..Matchroom cover it and put a fair amount of time, effort and finance into it. look at any internet forum and what do they see.
" the draw is fixed, i applied for 25 tickets and i didn't get one"..."End pegs always win"...."the pool aint big enough for 120 anglers"..."why are they pegging the final like that"..get my drift.
3. How often do you see spectators on matches?
I walked the AT semi final this year and i never saw one spectator...anglers like Alan Scotthorne, Tom Pickering, Darran Bickerton....
What happens if a match does get spectators...they come to watch behind a top angler and he tells them to "get Down" "your in my way" "i'm only fishing there mate" "crappity smack off i'm busy"
As for the sponsors comment i think that the tackle companies do very well with the coverage they get for the outlay of their costs.
most team deals these days are tackle/bait at trade prices so in theory the "sponsor" is letting the team have their products at the same cost as a tackle shop..it hasn't cost the "sponsor" a penny, in fact it has possibly upped his sales figures. The occasional freebie will be lost in tax or advertising budgets.
I have been "sponsored" for about 20 years now and i have received more from a local pub for turning out on a thursday for a game of pool in a village league than i have for fishing division 1 nationals, AT semi finals, etc etc etc...
Look at Garbolino Ossett this year, they won the division one National then had to go out to France at the cost of over £1000 an angler.
super league final
Posted: June 12th, 2008, 5:04 pm
by joffmiester
some good points there lee
super league final
Posted: June 12th, 2008, 6:04 pm
by lloydy
Lloydy
I think there are a few things that could be tried.
The one that i think is more likely to work is by reducing squad numbers that can be named to a realistic figure, my suggestion would be 150% of the team size ie 8 man teams would have 12 anglers in the squad, 10 would be 15 squad anglers.
This would enable holiday/sickness cover to be in place.
If this was the case then squads like ours would probably put two teams into leagues like the drennan. The main downside would be that it would considerably weaken your chances if you got to to finals unless all the squad could then be treated as one again. In theory this would mean that 66% of our 24 man squad would be fishing every round instead of 33%.
The biggest downside of this though would be that it would require anglers to become all rounders if the league kept 2 canals, 2 pools and 2 rivers and i dont think all anglers would want to get out of their comfort zones.
AT winter league this year we are putting a side in the Warks (if it goes ahead) and the West mids, again this will greatly weaken our side if we get to a semi unless AT changes the rules. this would mean 20 anglers out of our squad would be fishing this competition instead of 10.
The problem with this lee is that the more you reduce the squads the more the top teams want the best allrounders, squad limits came into place after starlets hadn't qualified for a superleague final two years on the trot, Downsie realised that at that time shaky and tipton could compete with the squads they had got but if the teams were limited then he had more allrounders which made them stronger. Also if you split our sqad into two unless you are in two leagues with different styles of fishing one team will be picked of your best anglers, then the other team cant compete and gets fed up. I think your point of being able to put two teams in two leagues then using full team for semis and final is a good point, i think tipton would have a team in two leagues if that was the case.
