Regional Player rankings - An alternative: Comments Received

Note: Comments can be sent to

From: Maurice Manuel-Belz

30 April 2008

Hi Micheal

Overall comment on the alternative ranking list is that yes, it is much better, it rewards consistency of performance rather than regular attendance which is a good thing.

2 comments to improve it IMO are:

  1. As you have now changed it to reflect the National System more closely, I wondered why you just didn't go the whole way and score as per the National System of 22 points for a win etc etc? I would have thought that this way we can compare apples with apples when comparing one's Regional vs their National performance.
  2. At the moment you are recognising people who have had only one appearance. By allowing people who have attended only one tournament to be scored, I think that this achieves the unintended consequence of rewarding non-attendance, especially if that result is a good one - as it takes 2 years to disappear. I therefore think that people should only be scored if they have attended 2 tournaments in the past 2 years in order to better reflect consistent good performance rather than one off "flukes". People with one result could be scored on a seperate table perhaps?

Last comment, because I don't know if you have considered it or not, is that I like how the Nat System gives 2 points even if you don't do well. It would be good if you do something similar (if you are not already doing it). At least it recognises the attendance of keen petanque players.

Cheers mate, I like what I say.


From: Maurice Manuel-Belz

30 April 2008

Hi Micheal, had a closer look at the scoring and saw that you do give a point for teams/indivs that don't do well. Some people will think that you shouldn't reward non performance but I think a point or 2 to recognise attendance outweighs non performance but that one can be debated until the cows come home, but I think it is no fun having people's name on a list with no point against their name as you have no idea then as to which tourney they attended unless you allocate zero's (stink!).



Response From: Michael Rocks

2 May 2008

Hi Maurice

There were three main reasons for not using the same numbering scale as the PNZ for the rankings.

  1. The two systems are measuring different events. PNZ looks at the last two years of national championships, WPA looks at the last two years of Wellington regional championships;
  2. the numbers taking part in regional events are typically less than the corresponding national event; and,
  3. the two player groups are not the same.

All players receive points for taking part in an event. One advantage to this approach, is that it makes it easier to work out the average points, since a blank entry in the ranking table indicates a player did not take part.

By awarding points to everyone who takes part, rather than just the top performers, the ranking system allows everyone to compare themselves with the other active competitive players. It may also provide a spur to all players to improve their ranking.

The list shows everyone who has scored points. It also shows rankings based on total points, average points, and average points earnt in two or more events. An average score of 12 or greater indicates a player who is consistently either in the Top 8 or in the final of the Plate.

The issue about "flukes" is perhaps more related to what use the ranking list is put to, e.g., selecting the Regional representative team. Like any system that measures historical performance, this list does not guarantee future performance.

Thanks for your comments