Southampton League

Division 2 2001/2002 Analysis

Summary

Final Table

Average Grade of Teams

Southern Water A

Eastleigh BR 

Andover

University A

Ordnance Survey A

Ringwood

Summary

I think this is probably the first time in quite a while that all the teams in Division Two were A teams, rather than some being A and some being B teams. This made for interesting matches, as all the club's best players were involved.

Division Two was similar to Division One, in that two teams were dominant although not in the same way as Eastleigh Unity A and Southampton A in Division One. Both Southern Water and Eastleigh BR were chasing for the promotion spot but they did lose games to other teams along the way. The relegation battle was also close, and Ringwood can count themselves unlucky to be relegated when scoring 6 points.

On balance Southern Water deserved promotion, as when they had their best team out, they had a formidable division two team. Eastleigh BR did very well, considering their team was graded almost 20 points below Southern Water, but they had an ungraded player (Nick Burton) who will probably be graded quite high next season (based on his results in the league, county matches and Hampshire Individual Championship). 

Southern Water will have a good chance to survive in Division One next season, if they can keep their team together as averaging 147 should make the strong enough to compete.

Final Table

Team P W D L GS Pts
Southern Water A 10 7 1 2 31½ 15
Eastleigh BR A 10 7 0 3 29½ 14
Andover  A 10 3 3 4 23½ 9
University A 10 2 4 4 23 8
Ordnance Survey A 10 3 2 5 22 8
Ringwood 10 2 2 6 18½ 6

 

 

Average Grade of Teams

Team

Average Grade

Southern Water A 147.2
Andover A 133.6
Eastleigh BR A 128.6
Ordnance Survey A 125.3
Ringwood 115.1
University A 108.3

 

Southern Water A

Name Grade Played Won Drawn Lost Points  % Grading Perf
B.Jenks 162 8 6 1 1 6.5 81.3 177.8
R.Short 135 8 6 0 2 6.0 75.0 138.1
P.Barber 147 8 3 4 1 5.0 62.5 140.1
B.J.Knight 142 8 3 4 1 5.0 62.5 129.8
N.Dicker 150 8 2 4 2 4.0 50.0 133.6
Total   40 20 13 7 26.5    

 

Southern Water only played 8 matches, defaulting one and winning another by default. They used the same five players for all matches, which I think always helps a team have continuity. The reason that Southern Water is back in Division One is probably the fact that Bruce Jenks playing all the games this season, rather than the four he played in season 2000/2001 and that the team was quite a bit stronger than the other teams.

Bruce Jenks has the best performance this season and his wins included one against M.Clancy of Ringwood and the double against Chris Barber of Ordnance Survey, It was only Stuart Knox of Andover that could stop him, which is where Bruce dropped his one and a half points. Apart from R.Short the other players actually performed worse than their grades, but this was still enough for Southern Water to get the promotion spot.

 

Eastleigh BR A

Name Grade Played Won Drawn Lost Points  % Grading Perf
D.Balfour 160 8 5 1 2 5.5 68.8 162.1
M.C.Clarke 129 9 2 6 1 5.0 55.6 127.4
I.Willis 124 7 2 4 1 4.0 57.1 133.7
D.Clark 123 4 2 1 1 2.5 62.5 112.8
G.Payne 104 6 1 3 2 2.5 41.7 105.2
J.Nevalainen 165 2 2 0 0 2.0 100.0 194.5
N.Burton u 3 1 2 0 2.0 66.7 174.5
J.Kooner 98 3 0 2 1 1.0 33.3 97.3
E.Tregeris 89 1 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 55.0
Total   42 15 19 8 25    

Where as Southern Water only used five players in the season, Eastleigh BR used nine players, as not everyone was available on match nights. That said, Southern Water were giving a real run for their money this year and Eastleigh BR performed really well, especially when they had their strongest team available.

Eastleigh BR's strongest player J.Nevalainen is Finnish and is only available when he is in the country. This was only for two matches this year, but he did win both of them. Apart from him David Balfour, I.Willis and Nick Burton had good seasons. Nick Burton was a real asset for the team, but unfortunately only played the three matches.

I am sure that Eastleigh BR A were pleased with their season, but there is uncertainty over next season, as they will not have all of their players available. 

 

Andover

Name Grade Played Won Drawn Lost Points  % Grading Perf
S.Knox 166 8 3 5 0 5.5 68.8 168.8
T.Gray 152 8 4 2 2 5.0 62.5 140.1
H.Shelley 134 10 3 4 3 5.0 50.0 118.8
K.Steele 94 9 4 0 5 4.0 44.4 81.4
K.Gadd 136 7 2 2 3 3.0 42.9 120.2
S.Cartridge 149 3 2 1 0 2.5 83.3 147.0
M.Hemming 67 2 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 57.0
Total   47 18 14 15 25    

 

Andover always seem to be a team that play within themselves. It seems to me that they are quite happy being in Division Two as some of their players would struggle in Division One. This may be unfair and it is only my opinion, but they don't always get their strongest team out for the important matches. 

I would say that Andover are a true chess club though, as they have made radical decisions in the past. One of these is that only players that come along to the club on normal club nights play in the league matches (at least this was the rule a couple of years ago). When this rule was introduced, a number of the strong players that were playing for Andover, were no longer able to play. Not many clubs are willing to make this sort of sacrifice.

Stuart Knox had his normal strong season, he is certainly a difficult player to beat and his victims included M.Clancy of Ringwood and Bruce Jenks of Southern Water.

 

University A

Name Grade Played Won Drawn Lost Points  % Grading Perf
P.Lawson 83 9 4 2 3 5.0 55.6 115.0
J.Foster u 7 3 3 1 4.5 64.3 148.0
N.Missoulis 115 8 2 3 3 3.5 43.8 126.9
A.Syed 109 9 2 3 4 3.5 38.9 118.7
S.Gonem 127 9 2 1 6 2.5 27.8 131.5
G.Burgess u 2 1 1 0 1.5 75.0 150.5
N.Thomas u 3 1 1 1 1.5 50.0 100.7
J.Goto u 1 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Total   48 15 14 19 22    

 

University asked to be relegated from Division One last season, as they were losing a lot of players. The option to request this this has now been inserted into the Southampton League Rules. As University finished 4th in Division Two, this seems a sensible decision, as they would have been in real trouble in Division One, which would not have allowed their players a lot of fun.

This said, a number of players had a good season and all graded players performed above their grade. J.Foster stands out as having the best result, as his victims included Richard Short of Southern Water and Brian Gale of Ordnance Survey. He also drew against two other strong players, Bernhard Knight of Southern Water and Nick Burton of Eastleigh BR.

The University team does depend on the influx of pupils, so it is difficult to predict how they are going to do next year, but if they keep the nucleus of the team together and gain one or two players I would not be surprised to see an improvement on this year's final position. 

 

Ordnance Survey A

Name Grade Played Won Drawn Lost Points  % Grading Perf
D.Rogers 120 10 3 4 3 5.0 50.0 130.3
R.Compton 133 10 2 5 3 4.5 45.0 119.9
C.Barber 150 10 3 2 5 4.0 40.0 143.6
B.Gale 114 8 3 2 3 4.0 50.0 114.4
D.Drew 105 8 1 3 4 2.5 31.3 100.0
P.Johnson 120 3 1 1 1 1.5 50.0 109.0
Total   49 13 17 19 21.5    

 

Ordnance Survey had a problem with their room this year, as it was not available. For this reason quite a few of their matches had to be re-arranged. D.Rogers had a good season and his wins included one against Nigel Dicker, who is graded 30 points higher.  Chris Barber continued to play board one, which always a difficult task and his season would have been a bit better if he did not have to play Bruce Jenks and David Balfour (as this was four of his five losses). 

Ordnance Survey have lost the services of J.Vickers this season, which is a shame, as he seemed to be a good asset to the team last season. 

 

Ringwood

Name Grade Played Won Drawn Lost Points  % Grading Perf
R.Davenport 104 9 4 3 2 5.5 61.1 136.3
M.Clancy 162 8 5 0 3 5.0 62.5 163.0
G.Head u 7 1 5 1 3.5 50.0 110.7
C.Madge 93 9 2 2 5 3.0 33.3 92.1
N.Zachariades 105 9 1 1 7 1.5 16.7 93.4
T.A.Wykes 144 1 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0
P.Fowler 101 1 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 74.0
Total   44 13 11 20 19    

 

I mentioned in last year's Division Three's Analysis that it would be interesting to see how Ringwood would do in Division Two and although they have gone straight back down, they have done better than I thought they would. In all their matches this season they only had one player graded over 110 and this does mean that they were going to struggle on the middle boards, as they were heavily outgraded in most matches..

But they fought to the end and it was only in the last match of the season, which they defaulted that they were actually relegated. On an individual level, Martin Clancy did not do as well as last year (when he scored 8 out of 8) but he showed real fighting spirit in not drawing any of his games. He also performed slightly better than his grade and he defeated strong players like Chris Barber, David Balfour and Terry Gray.

Of all Ringwood players I would say that R.Davenport had the best season, performing over 30 points better than his grade and defeating K.Gadd, I.Willis and and Ron Compton in his wins (all players graded in the 130's).  Graham Head was another excellent addition to the team and played very solidly on board four. T.A.Wykes only played the one game, at the end of the season, but he has played in the Portsmouth League recently and getting a player of his strength will help Ringwood tremendously next season.

 

Top of page