Open Championships - preliminary analysis of player survey

[<<] [>>] by Nigel Graves
4th September 2002 (CqE Official News)

Players were asked to respond to statements on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).
At the time the analysis was made, 51 responses had been received, 25 from players who took part in this year's tournament, and 26 from others.

Entry Profile

Those who played this year had, on average, played in 4 of the last 5 years and 7 of the last 10 years. By contrast, those who did not play this year had, on average, played in scarcely 1 of the last 5 years and barely more than 2 of the last 10 years.

Of those who did not play, 12 cited work, family or other commitments as the reason; 6 cited the venue, all giving Cheltenham as their preferred choice; 2 cited the format, but then gave their preferred format as blocks followed by best of n knockout; 2 indicated that the Opens were no longer a priority for them, and 2 found the dates inconvenient; 1 gave no reason, and 1 had too low a grade.

Venue

The average response to the statement 'I would probably enter no matter where the event is held' was 1.8 (strongly positive) for those who played this year, and 3.4 (slightly negative) for those who didn't.

The statement 'I would be more likely to enter the event if it were held outside London' elicited an average response of 3.3 from this year's participants, and 3.1 from the rest. Of those who expressed a preference for an alternative venue, 31 opted for Cheltenham, 14 for Southwick and 2 for Budleigh Salterton.

Calendar

4 respondents expressed no preference, 3 were happy with any time, 36 opted for July (9 early, 9 mid, 5 mid/late, 4 any time), and 8 for August (3 mid, 1 mid/late, 2 late, 2 any time).

Format

The average response to the statement 'I would probably enter no matter what format were used' was1.9 for this year's participants, 2.8 for others. 13 respondents preferred best-of-n knockout throughout (including 8 of this year's players, one of whom would like to see Draw and Process, and another XYZ), but the overwhelming majority (38) opted for block play qualifying for best-of-n knockout. 32 wanted a fixed number of qualifiers per block, 9 wanted a fixed number of wins to qualify, and 9 expressed no preference.

Of those who expressed a preference for the format of the Plate, 12 opted for Draw and Process, 10 for a straight Swiss or Egyptian, 19 for a Swiss or Egyptian qualifying for a single life knockout, and 5 found either of the last two formats acceptable.

The average response for double banking in block games was 2.0, and for double banking throughout 3.6.

Cost

There were no significant differences between the responses of this year's players and the others to the statements in this section. The average responses were:

'Within reason, I would probably enter no matter what the cost.' 2.6

'Travel, subsistence and accommodation costs matter to me.' 2.7

'Entry Fee cost matter to me.' 3.0

'It is important to me that the tournament provides value for money in terms of a reasonable guaranteed number of games per day (say 3)' 2.3

Comments

More games for the Plate.

It's now over 20 years since I first played in the Opens, and my time for playing is currently quite limited, so the Opens is not a priority these days. You should be striving to get as many of the top players to the tournament as possible - quality, not quantity. In this regard strong overseas entries are invaluable and should be encouraged. (How about free entry and accommodation with a local for overseas players in the top 50/100)

The Opens is the premier event of the calendar. Whilst trying to encourage additional players, we need to take care that it does not become 'just another tournament'.

I have not entered in the past as I did not consider myself good enough versus the time/expense involved. If I continue to play well I may enter occasionally but am unlikely to do so regularly. Whereas I might be more likely to play outside London, I think it would be a lesser event away from Hurlingham.

I liked the format this year, though I believe that the blocks should be a minimum of 8 people, and 16 should proceed to the knockout (not 3-27 as could have been the case this year). However, the problem for me as always holidays. For the 5 days needed for the Opens I could enter all the Regionals and say the Surrey Championship. Looking ahead, entering these instead of the Opens could become reality. (Several people I know do not enter the Opens due to needing to take 5 days holiday.)

July is holiday month - you couldn't find a more inconvenient month if you tried. October would be much better!

Value for money is top of my list.

Seeding for the main event should be determined at least in part by block play.

Double banking throughout would be preferable to refusing suitable entrants because of limitation of lawn space.

Schedule: players had little idea what would happen when. Turning up to play on Thursday to be told you won't be required until Saturday is unacceptable (and yet common). Doubles waiting for singles to finish means 6 people waiting around for hours. If people and lawns are available then why not play matches? On 3 days I spent most of the day waiting, and then had to play in the evening.

Double banking should not be used in the main event, including block play. This is our No. 1 event and there is no need for double banking. I am happy for double banking in the Plate. I will not enter next year if double banking is used in the main event. I think we should choose dates when lawns are available on Friday. This would reduce the need for double banking and allow more Plate games.

What about splitting singles and doubles. Doubles played Fri/Sat/Sun, singles Wed-Sun, separate weekends.

I stopped playing in the Opens because I did not get enough play for taking so much time off work. I would play if it were within daily commuting distance and didn't coincide with the Cheltenham Music Festival.

If the event were held in London I would enter whatever the format; if elsewhere it would depend on how many games I might play and how the games would be spaced out over the tournament, e.g. I don't want to sit around for 2 days and have to pay 2 nights B & B for nothing.

5 days is a lot of time to take off work for croquet, especially if players have to hang around for anything up to 2 days without a game (as happened this year). I would like to see the tournament shortened (e.g. similar to the Men's, with singles over 5 days), and for the Plate format to be changed to provide as many games as players want. This year there seemed often to be lawns free with several players waiting for a game.

The crux of the matter is what is the objective of the Opens. Is it to find the best player - if so we could limit entry to 32 - or is it to be a 'Festival of Croquet'