The silent majority

Press, 18 August 1979, Page 18

The silent majority

By

KEVIN McMENAMIN

Silence, followed by a unanimous vote, told it all when the Christchurch Bowling Centre this week rid itself of section play for its major singles and pairs tournaments.

The silence reigned when discussion was called for on a recommendation that there be a return to the old two-life system. The vote, a minute later, showed that noone was of a mind to object. Introduced two years ago as something new and exciting, the section idea never found favour with the majority of players. There were some glaring anomalies for a start, although these were largely corrected last year when joint section winners became automatic qualifiers.

This eliminated the one big groan about countbacks of points scored being totally unfair in deciding which of two players with an equal number of wins would have the right to continue. The section system did have its advantages, the most obvious being that it made tournaments easier to run. To within half a dozen, officials knew how many qualifiers they were going to get and they could plan the post-section rounds with every confidence of finishing at an appointed time. It was also a benefit to players in. that they were guaranteed three games before elimination. Under the two life system they can be heading home after just two games. But the majority of bowlers, through long experience, know and understand the two-life system. Beaten twice and you’re out, it is as simple as that. The section method presented all sorts of possibilities for survival and most discouraging of all was that a player was not always the author of his own demise. It could come about through a player he had already beaten winning his other two section games. The New Zealand Bowling Association will also revert — in Auckland next year — to the two-

life system for the national singles and pairs and •it has been trying to perfect the section method for three years. At both national and centre levels the desire of the players has obviously won through, which is as

it should be. The section system, as used in Christchurch last summer seemed to be well enough accepted, but when a firm decision had to be taken the clubs obviously opted for the basic principle of continual wins being the best and fairest way of finding a champion.

The Christchurch centre found no favour, either, with a recommendation that for major fours and triples tournaments only five and six game winners qualify. The elimination of teams with four wins (from the six rounds)

would have cut the qualifying list dramatically. The feeling was that “average” teams would soon be out of the race and that country entries, which travel long distances to compete, would be especially harshly treated.