Major 2011-2012 a proposal

Regarding Majors i would like to make a proposal and I'd love to hear your views. I want to create a circuit from the Super 10 season 2011-2012. Ten tournaments with high standards organizations that serve to convey the image of our sport outside of our world. Tie the event to a major sponsor (through the work of Piero responsible for Marketing department) and a television network (Eurosport for example).

The ten tournaments should be these:

MONS (BELGIUM)
AMSTERDAM (NETHERLANDS)
BOLOGNA (ITALY)
MATTERSBURG (AUSTRIA)
PARIS (FRANCE)
LONDON (ENGLAND)
MADRID (SPAIN)
ATHENS (GREECE)
WASHINGTON (USA) *
BUENOS AIRES (ARGENTINA)

The inclusion of two non-European tournaments should serve to create the desire for many European players to go play in these countries. In addition to these ten major tournaments should be added the World Cup and the Champions League. The season was therefore an event for each month. Let me know your opinions.

* The location in the U.S. is only indicative.

Do you really think that a higher number of europeans is going to do a long trip to Buenos Aires or Washington, if they can play 8 of 10 tournaments in Europe?
Should those 10 tournaments be the only tournaments on the FISTF tour then?
If the answer is no!
How do you think the other tournaments should continue existing if you raise the number of high priority events from 4 to 8 in Europe?
The organization of tournaments is in some countries also a financial factor for the clubs.

You can't copy the italian system to the whole community, 10 tournaments in 1 country organized by 10 clubs is easier to handle than having 200 clubs from different countries organizing 10 tournaments.

Heinz

De Francesco wrote:Regarding Majors i would like to make a proposal and I'd love to hear your views. I want to create a circuit from the Super 10 season 2011-2012. Ten tournaments with high standards organizations that serve to convey the image of our sport outside of our world. Tie the event to a major sponsor (through the work of Piero responsible for Marketing department) and a television network (Eurosport for example).

The ten tournaments should be these:

MONS (BELGIUM)
AMSTERDAM (NETHERLANDS)
BOLOGNA (ITALY)
MATTERSBURG (AUSTRIA)
PARIS (FRANCE)
LONDON (ENGLAND)
MADRID (SPAIN)
ATHENS (GREECE)
WASHINGTON (USA) *
BUENOS AIRES (ARGENTINA)

The inclusion of two non-European tournaments should serve to create the desire for many European players to go play in these countries. In addition to these ten major tournaments should be added the World Cup and the Champions League. The season was therefore an event for each month. Let me know your opinions.

* The location in the U.S. is only indicative.

I believe extending the number of Major would be a huge mistake for many reasons.

First of all there is an historic points about the number of 4 Majors. In the past, the limit was put to 4 because FISTF wanted to make something similar to the tennis "Grand Slam". The number of 4 was perfect because besides the World Cup and the Europa Cup, it was great to let a chance to any player to take part in something big (just like any tennis player could have the chance to play the US Open, which is a bit similar because at the US Open, there are regional selections giving some wild cards to amateur players to qualify for the final table).

Well, if we extend the number to 8 or 10 tournaments, there will be much less prestige to win a Major and also it will decrease the importance of the Grand prix. I really believe having one Grand Prix per country should be the achievement to reach for FISTF but I also believe that national associations must do some efforts to deserve a "Grand Prix". That's the reason why only member nations can actually have a Grand Prix.

In Stefano's proposal, I'm a bit unhappy because I believe some tournaments shopuld in no case get the Major status. For instance, it's not acceptable for the moment that the USA host a Major for many reasons:
- they refuse to be FISTF members;
- they didn't even organise an International Open this season;
- the America Cup attracted only players from the East Coast.

About Argentina, I think it's a priority first to make sure that:
- the equipment to run a tournament there becomes better (at least astropiches or similar pitches);
- a better hall;
- a bigger base of local players;
- an historical background for the local events and possible more international appearance (I don't believe that giving the status of Major will suddenly make happen that many Europeans will travel there).

About the other tournaments in the list, I don't know but I have a problem with many "new" events:
- Madrid: not enough experience. Who would be the "professional" competition manager to run it? Can Madrid have a Major whent he Satellites in december were for the "sports part", not for the "marketing part") a disaster? (despite the absence of many players, there was no new draw and there were many groups of 2. There was only one category). Madrid should better be a Grand Prix for one or 2 years and then see if they are able to become a Major.
- Issy/Paris: looks OK for me but are they ready to move to a bigger hall if they have to expect 200 players?
- Athens: by history, the number of foreign players in greek events has been very low over the years. Probably because the events were not very attractive (it does NOT mean they are badly organized). probably something is missing in term of communication.
- London: I don't think any tournament in England is reaching the standards of organisation of any International Open in Italy or Belgium (even if I admit that this year's Open in Temploux was not very good). The 2 best events in the UK in general are the GP of Scotland (but are they ready to have 150 players?) and Cardiff at the Millenium stadium (2 years ago).

There is also a need to rethink some points in the current Majors.

For instance, the entry fee is really a joke. In Amsterdam the open players paid 10 Euros to play. What a joke! When you travel hundreds of kilometers to play 2 games, why should you pay 10 Euros? If Majors are supposed to be "professional" tournaments, why don't we expect fromt he organizers to find sponsors so that players can play for free (or let say maximum 4 Euros)? That you play 2 games in a Future or in a Major is exactly the same. You just play 2 games, referee 2 times and get back home. And at least in a Future, the organizer will most of the time try to organize a consolation tournament or let you play in 2 categories if possible, which is not possible in Majors.

Another point about the Majors is that some events, in particular Bologna and Mons, are becoming "too big". An idea for the Open categorey would be to have an exclusive category of 32 players (8 groups of 4) with the best 24 registered players (see world ranking) and 8 wild cards from the organizer. The other players would play another tournament for just the same number of points as an International Open.

Another issue about the Major is the communication. For instance in Bologna, the website is superb but communication by e-mail (in particular when it's not in italian) is terrible. Also, after the tournament, it always takes weeks before the results are available and never in the right format (at least an "acceptable format"). This is not acceptable for a Major, in particular when every year you tell the organizer he's wrong and never improves things.

Finally, in a Major, the sports management must be perfect. In Amsterdam there was a delay of 40 minutes for the first games and almost 90 minutes delay when the barrages had to start. Some categories started very late and some players had played only one game after 5 rows. This is totally unacceptable.

The last thing is that by history there could only be a Major is besides the Major, there is also a Grand Prix. This was a big issue whent he Netherlands were give the Major in Amsterdam. They also had to host a Grand Prix in another city.

Well, these are my ideas. I'm against the increase of the number of Majors. I beleive tournaments like Mons and Mattersburg are very good as Majors, Amsterdam has things to improve and Bologna is probably the best italian tournament. As for the others, I don't think people are ready to reach the "next level".

That the Majors need to be improved is probably true but I believe the existing 4 Majors didn't come by surprise. They just deserved it.

Ι like the idea with one big tournament every month in different country.
I agreed that is not possible to travel all the players to all tournaments but maybe this is advantage if we afraid for terrible number of participations. And in these big tournaments the players can select only one category (no both veterans and open for example). And probably in 2 divisions in open category.

I think that it will be better if EVERY country organise a big tournament. Malta Finland Portugal Scotland Wales Denmark Germany etc are out of list. Why? We can organise 22 tournaments plus 2 ( W.C. and E.C.). 2 PER MONTH FOR WORLD RANKING. And the rest 2 weekends per month for national tournaments.

I wrote this idea again before one year. And i hope more persons to understand in future that we must gave the same opportunities to all federations. We don't need satellites futures challengers and many international open and grand prix sometimes two and three in the same weekend.

Do you know why the greek tournaments had not foreign players? because they must use airoplane and this is more expensive. They prefer a close trip with car. Greece has the same problem (but smaller) with USA Argentina and other countries outside of Europe.

Kostas,

I think FISTF needs several categories of tournament.

1) World Cup (but not every year)
2) One Team Championship for clubs every year
3) A Top Players Series (for promotion, sponsors, television, development)
4) Majors & GP´s for everyone
5) Tournaments only for players who are not high in ranking

Not more, not less.

Just my opinion of course

Hello kechris
The problem with Greece is certainly the situation in Greece. Before the European Cup was always time to plan to come to the GP in Greece. But what has happened in Europe Cupin Athens has kept me there before. Flying is not the problem but good and cheap accommodation. It would be better even if the tournament were on vacation.


I am of the opinion
Every two years World Cup and continental championships every two years.
4 Major should remain so
GP 1, 2 io and 2 satellite tournament in each country but also the future and Chall tense are unnecessary
Master Series for advertising might lead one when there is a sponsor of the funded

Sorry for my English

kechris wrote:Ι like the idea with one big tournament every month in different country.
I agreed that is not possible to travel all the players to all tournaments but maybe this is advantage if we afraid for terrible number of participations. And in these big tournaments the players can select only one category (no both veterans and open for example). And probably in 2 divisions in open category.

I think that it will be better if EVERY country organise a big tournament. Malta Finland Portugal Scotland Wales Denmark Germany etc are out of list. Why? We can organise 22 tournaments plus 2 ( W.C. and E.C.). 2 PER MONTH FOR WORLD RANKING. And the rest 2 weekends per month for national tournaments.

I wrote this idea again before one year. And i hope more persons to understand in future that we must gave the same opportunities to all federations. We don't need satellites futures challengers and many international open and grand prix sometimes two and three in the same weekend.

Do you know why the greek tournaments had not foreign players? because they must use airoplane and this is more expensive. They prefer a close trip with car. Greece has the same problem (but smaller) with USA Argentina and other countries outside of Europe.

I think De Francesco's views are not realism at the moment. Maybe when the game reaches more people in more countries and gets more sponsors it could be done.

I think that a Masters series of 16 top players, as someone suggested, would be the answer to promotion and possible tv (or live net) coverage. If tv is involved the atmosphere of the competition has to be something like Snooker and other billiards. It has to look professional, not 50 tables and a lot of chaotic noise and people wandering around. The coverage of the WC final of 1990 was quite good in this way.

Kostas is also not realistic. In many countries, including Finland, it's not possible to organize a Major. We already had to think hard when Mattersburg asked about a team competition in Helsinki GP. It could have meant that more tems would come and then our resources wouldn't be enough. Without big entry fees a bigger tournament than GP is not possible. ALso if we would get 100 players we would have to have about 70 tables for one competition a year. As at the moment we need usually about 8-10 in Helsinki area tournaments. We don't have the money nor the storage for this kind of volume.

Thossa wrote:
1) World Cup (but not every year)
2) One Team Championship for clubs every year
3) A Top Players Series (for promotion, sponsors, television, development)
4) Majors & GP´s for everyone
5) Tournaments only for players who are not high in ranking

This is about the way to do it at the moment, in my opinion, too. It should be WC and continental championships on every other year. This would mean more prestige.

Thanks for the answers, Von and Thomas.

But i wrote for a calendar with one tournament per country(maybe two in big countries like Italy Germany, Spain) and maximum two per month. Because then the players will travel to more countries. Now for example a Belgian player will take part in 2 or 3 tournaments in France in 2 or 3 in Nederlands and 2 or 3 in West Germany, North Italy and London because all these places are close to Belgium.
Then he will take part in 10 tournaments but he will spend half money than using aeroplane to travel in Wienna, Athens, Helsinski, Rome, Edinburg, Porto and other places. And these tournaments have problems to survive.

I have a system in my mind like WRC in cars. A calendar with 24 weekends all over the world. Probably more (about 20) in Europe but this is fair for ALL subbuteo players in the world.
I didn't speak for Majors or Masters or G.P or for I.O. I wrote for the same type and named tournament. More paricipations more points. I love simple and clear solutions. So a tournament in Bologna or in Mons with more participations it will be prefered from the top class players.

All tournaments with the same system and time programm. If the organiser has 32 tables can accept about 32 teams 128 players in open and 32 veterans 16 u19, 16 u15 ,16 u12 ,16 ladies. If the organiser has 16 or 24 or 48 tables then will change the number of participations. Until a week before the tournament take place, 50% of the participations are available for local players and the rest 50% for foreign players. The last week everybody can full the rest positions in participation list.

The organiser MUST propose hotels with max 30e per night close to sport hall. Maybe the airports would not more away than 1 hour from the tournament city. A clever and good organiser can find free sport hall by municipality, the national federation can offer at least 16 tables.

I thought that new BoD would have new ideas but they have not any ideas. The members of last BoD insist to old ideas but they lost their chairs for these ideas. We need new ideas. No ideas good enough only for our federation (that is for you Stefano) or to close the eyes in good ideas because we have bad relations with special persons (that is for you Vincent).

thanks for your time

Hello kechris
The Ideea is not bad. Then we could build.

Ok, I didn't understand correctly at first. There are good points, for example the one that there should not be too many competitions in one country. It's very positive to bring into discussion different ideas solutions.

But I also think that what Thossa said about different levels is true. And it would be very difficult for newer nations to have a tournament. The first finnish GP was extremely important for our development in playing the game, because even those who don't have the chance to travel could see international players (it didn't matter there were only about 6 foreigners) and their style of playing. We wouldn't have had a possibility to arrange an event with even 16 tables and 30 foreigners then. And also to organize cheap hotels etc.

von K. wrote:
But I also think that what Thossa said about different levels is true. And it would be very difficult for newer nations to have a tournament.

In Greece we use a phrase: for everything, there is once the first time. I hope to understand the meaning. If you cann't, ask my teammate George. He played with you last week in Finnish tournament.

Maybe is difficult for a new country to organise a good tournament for first time but after many years and efforts all will be proud for the result. Do you think that Mons or Bologna were good tournaments before ten years? Do you think that Verhagen and Flores were good players before ten years?

We must help all new federations if we want more people to "find" our hobby. We need acts no words.

exactly

Finally, in a Major, the sports management must be perfect. In Amsterdam there was a delay of 40 minutes for the first games and almost 90 minutes delay when the barrages had to start. Some categories started very late and some players had played only one game after 5 rows. This is totally unacceptable.

How did it come that we start at 9.40 and not at 9.00 ? If there are more than 20 players missing its difficult to begin. Its not the fault from the organisation of the Major of Amsterdam but the fault of the players they come to late !!!

And between the groupfase and the barrage we have a delay from 30 minutes I think. It will be more easyer if players look of they must play and referee than we must the players pick up out the bar.

But that's not only in Amsterdam but everywhere.

And finaly there was no player who are playing 1 game in a row af 5 !!!

Robbert wrote:Finally, in a Major, the sports management must be perfect. In Amsterdam there was a delay of 40 minutes for the first games and almost 90 minutes delay when the barrages had to start. Some categories started very late and some players had played only one game after 5 rows. This is totally unacceptable.

How did it come that we start at 9.40 and not at 9.00 ? If there are more than 20 players missing its difficult to begin. Its not the fault from the organisation of the Major of Amsterdam but the fault of the players they come to late !!!

I think Robbert is right. It's not the organizers who are late. If FISTF would sanction harder punishments for players who are late, it would be easier, and the players also would be on time.

It was the same in the Rotterdam World Cup. The start of every round was delayed, but the board did nothing. The organizers tried to make announcements, but nothing helped. Part of the problem was the U-12 and U-15 (and their parents that didn't take care of them) in the same hall as the adults, which is a huge mistake. Also I remember two top maltese players meeting in the first play-off round and one of them was not ready, because of excessive polishing, when the games were supposed to start despite the referee telling him to hurry up. And in the end of the game this same player had the nerve to complain about the ref for not giving extra time (which the ref had said in the beginning, and both players accepting it). But when FISTF president came next to the table in the end, he was only blaming the ref for not giving extra time, and not the player who had disrespected the other player and the ref.

This sort of behaviour (being late) is very unprofessional and disrespectful of other players (as for the children it's their parents fault, and what U-12 is even doing in a World Cup venue I'll never know). The behaviour should be punished. In football, for example, a team who comes to the field late from the half time break is fined heavily. Or if a player is late without good reason, it should be like giving up the game.

The organizers have no tools to tackle this problem and thus can't be blamed. It's FISTF's job give the tools to the organizers.

Sorry but the lack of discipline is from everyone.

If the tournaments starts at 9.00 in the schedule, you must announce the first row at 8.50 and start the game at 9.00. If players are not there, either they can start the game a bit later if they start less then 5 minutes late or the absent player must lose his game on forfait.

When the half-time is reached, you must just give 2 minutes and then announce on the microphone "1 minute", "30 seconds", "15", and then "5.4.3.2.1 play". When players see the organizer is in hurry after 3 games players will respect the organizer.

I just got an SMS from a friend telling at 9.30 pm that the final of the veterans at the Malta Open was starting but this kind of delay is absolutely ridiculous!

In Belgium, for national tournaments, we always try to finish at the latest at 6.00 pm, even when there are 80 players taking part.

In FISTF events, it's always more complicated.

At the Major of Mons is was the same problem with time delay. Here we had an other problem. The individual categories (except of Open) play in the afternoon parallel to the knock-outs of the team-tournament. And you know how tough a draw in a team-tournament can be. Damned nasty for the individuel players.

Last weekend we played in Berlin the German Championships (individuel) and Marcus Tilgner as organizer presented his new Time clock program on his computer system.

It is very simple but simply genius.

You can follow the clock on a beamer.

Start of round 1 = beep - the clock runs down 15 minutes till half-time - beep
Half-time of round 1= the clock has now a red background an three minutes for the changeover runs down - beep 2nd half of round 1 = the clock runs down 15 minutes till the end - beep

Now the screen splits. You can see announcements of round 2 and the clock has a green background, is a bit smaller and the transitional period of (lets say) 15 minutes is running down.

The second round starts automaticly... and so on and so on and so on.

All players learn to respect the computer guideline very quick - guaranteed

Admin wrote:
If the tournaments starts at 9.00 in the schedule, you must announce the first row at 8.50 and start the game at 9.00. If players are not there, either they can start the game a bit later if they start less then 5 minutes late or the absent player must lose his game on forfait.

Yes, but this is not done even in the World Cup. And in the World Cup, if the organizers don't do it, then the BoD must take action, but at least in Rotterdam it didn't. So how could it be done in other tournaments?

All I'm saying is that this seems to be a peoblem also in other places than Amsterdam.

The clock thing sounds good.

Thossa wrote:At the Major of Mons is was the same problem with time delay. Here we had an other problem. The individual categories (except of Open) play in the afternoon parallel to the knock-outs of the team-tournament. And you know how tough a draw in a team-tournament can be. Damned nasty for the individuel players.

Last weekend we played in Berlin the German Championships (individuel) and Marcus Tilgner as organizer presented his new Time clock program on his computer system.

It is very simple but simply genius.

You can follow the clock on a beamer.

Start of round 1 = beep - the clock runs down 15 minutes till half-time - beep
Half-time of round 1= the clock has now a red background an three minutes for the changeover runs down - beep 2nd half of round 1 = the clock runs down 15 minutes till the end - beep

Now the screen splits. You can see announcements of round 2 and the clock has a green background, is a bit smaller and the transitional period of (lets say) 15 minutes is running down.

The second round starts automaticly... and so on and so on and so on.

All players learn to respect the computer guideline very quick - guaranteed

Is the software available for download?

No. Marcus is still working on it and he tested it at the championships in Berlin last weekend. It is almost perfect. Maybe some small coreections has to be done. I think he will use it at the World Cup in Rain in September. Maybe then a voice via computer will announce the games and referees, too, like it is already practised at the GP of Berlin since a couple of years.

Oh, he's creating/making it by himself? I had another clock software in use some time ago and that saved match results as html file. With that kinda option it would be easy to update result to web.

The program saved/updated the html file after the match was over, but if it would had done that each time there's goal, it would made live score updating on the web (by automated ftp-transfer for html -file each time it changes).

Tbh, i've been thinking the ways to be able to have live score feature in our tournaments (international atleast) and possibility of live web-stream (from final game atleast). Still havent found good solution how to get the camera on the pitch so it doesn't create any limitations for the players and cheap equipment to provide stream that aint just big bunch of blurry pixels.

Marcus and you should get in touch each other

Hello, i think the organizer is responsible for the time management, and it is also up to the organizer to report players who are late.
There is everything prepared for the organizer to send a report and FISTF can sanction players. If the organizer isn't doing it, because he is scared that players won't come the following year again, I think it is not FISTF's fault.
Like Vincent wrote in the next post, if the organizer makes pressure and wouldn't care for those players who are not ready, things would run well after the 2nd or 3rd round.
The World Cup in Vienna was not perfect, but I think we showed how it could work. The big timer in the venue showed the length of the break and when the break was over there was the kick-off 30 seconds later. In the beginning there were troubles of course, but it worked after the 2nd round and players were ready.
The only thing which has to work is the announcement of the rounds that players have a chance to get ready. I'm not a friend of announcing everything via microphone, there should be at least a beamer showing all the coming games on a screen, then there isn't any excuse for a player not to be ready.

Heinz

von K. wrote:

Robbert wrote:Finally, in a Major, the sports management must be perfect. In Amsterdam there was a delay of 40 minutes for the first games and almost 90 minutes delay when the barrages had to start. Some categories started very late and some players had played only one game after 5 rows. This is totally unacceptable.

How did it come that we start at 9.40 and not at 9.00 ? If there are more than 20 players missing its difficult to begin. Its not the fault from the organisation of the Major of Amsterdam but the fault of the players they come to late !!!

I think Robbert is right. It's not the organizers who are late. If FISTF would sanction harder punishments for players who are late, it would be easier, and the players also would be on time.

It was the same in the Rotterdam World Cup. The start of every round was delayed, but the board did nothing. The organizers tried to make announcements, but nothing helped. Part of the problem was the U-12 and U-15 (and their parents that didn't take care of them) in the same hall as the adults, which is a huge mistake. Also I remember two top maltese players meeting in the first play-off round and one of them was not ready, because of excessive polishing, when the games were supposed to start despite the referee telling him to hurry up. And in the end of the game this same player had the nerve to complain about the ref for not giving extra time (which the ref had said in the beginning, and both players accepting it). But when FISTF president came next to the table in the end, he was only blaming the ref for not giving extra time, and not the player who had disrespected the other player and the ref.

This sort of behaviour (being late) is very unprofessional and disrespectful of other players (as for the children it's their parents fault, and what U-12 is even doing in a World Cup venue I'll never know). The behaviour should be punished. In football, for example, a team who comes to the field late from the half time break is fined heavily. Or if a player is late without good reason, it should be like giving up the game.

The organizers have no tools to tackle this problem and thus can't be blamed. It's FISTF's job give the tools to the organizers.

Sure, in Vienna it was absolutely perfect!

Hello again,
I read the full thread now, especially to Kostas comments I would like to add something.
First of all the old board hadn't old ideas, we did changes in the calender, but if we think the current system is ok, why should we make changes in your favour, we didn't work to satisfy personal interests. We didn't get official letters or papers from our members that they think different, maybe that was the reason for changing people, that people didn't want us to make changes in favour of our members. Another wrong opinion in your mind is that you (or some other players) decided about the change in the board.
Let us dream and take Kostas or Stefanos idea. In your view more players will attend the bigger events because of higher importance.
Did you ever think about the consequences? Organizers of events with 150-250 players already have problems with the organization and the equipement, and you want to bring them more players with your idea? Where are the steps and ideas to make it possible to organize tournaments with 350 or 400 players? Starting a discussion needs the knowledge of the actual situation. Only to use a PC at a tournaments doesn't mean that the organization is automated, so a tournament software would be needed first. If you have about 300 players you need about 60 tables to run that event, another discussion is if such an event is good for promotion and TV. How many associations do have 60 tables?
Looking on the actual calender shows, that there aren't more than 2 big events in the same month except of may already.

September 2009:
no Grand Prix
October 2009:
no Grand Prix
November 2009:
Grand Prix of Germany
December 2009:
Grand Prix of Austria
January 2010:
Grand Prix of Belgium
Grand Prix of France
February 2010:
Grand Prix of Netherlands
March 2010:
Major of Belgium
Grand Prix of Scotland
April 2010:
Major of Netherlands
Grand Prix of Malta
May 2010:
Grand Prix of England
Grand Prix of Argentina
Grand Prix of Finland
Major of Italy
June 2010:
Grand Prix of Greece
Grand Prix of Italy
July 2010:
Grand Prix of Spain
August 2010:
Major of Austria

A practical example, there were the Satellites of Madrid in december too. Do you think the players who travelled or played there, would travel to another tournament, if the Satellites wouldn't exist? Most international Open have between 5% and 10% foreign players, which means between 3 and 10 players, do you think cancelling international open will motivate more people to travel to tournaments more far away? We have only a special situation in the area between Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and France where many tournaments are close to each other, but players are playing exactly because of that reason, less tournaments wouldn't bring a single player to any other tournament outside that region.
I think these facts have to be seen first before changing something only to have something new.

Heinz

Belgian GP will play in May, next year.