Did you know that we all have our own unique Bowls ID? Bowls Australia has allocated all bowlers a code when we join the Bowlslink but we can’t see what it is, unless we log in to our bowlslink area. Does anyone know what their log in is? Your ID is called a National ID Number, or NIN for short. I’d like to see the day when we can use that NIN to enter events, such as the Masters, State and National events. It currently gets used for pennants, and you can see your personal results on bowlslink since 2020/21 season, and sporadic other events since.
Why can’t we use the NIN on a more regular basis to attach all results? I find entering state fours so cumbersome, you need to enter (manually) a name and club are mandatory, and then address and emails are optional. And then once that’s done you need to do the same again for the next player and so on. It should be one screen, a box for the skippers NIN, a box for the thirds NIN and so on. One screen to enter, one screen to pay. This way a player can start to build their own record of events played in their own bowlslink screen
But the real reason I want this is not for ease of entry, but rather for data integrity for my own database which I have been keeping for state events and pennants for 20 years. By manually entering a team, you get spelling errors, names such as Mike or Michael or Mick, identical names but different people like Paul Smith and John Carter.
By using a NIN for bowlslink events, I am able to know who is who and how they go. It would be good to keep event results fairly accurate for those future people who might be interested.
For a while I have felt that our entry fee for state events has been low. Compared to our carnivals and masters events, we are quite happy to pay over $35 and in some cases more for entry, so why don’t our state events rise as well? Would some people who enter at $21, not enter if it was $30, or even $35?
I believe we need a overhaul in 3 key areas -
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WIN MONEY
I also feel like we don’t reward our entrants in terms of placegetters. Being a keen online poker player before Pokerstars left our shores, poker generally has a rate of return at about 20%, meaning 20% of people who enter get either money back or better. What was the rate of return for the events that were played last year?
(All state events pay out semi finalists x 2, runner up and winner, 4 places)
While bowls can’t be as high as poker, I do feel 10% would be a fair return though. Is it fair that 1% of the entrants in the mens singles gets money? I’m aware that an increase in the number of people that collect money would increase admin times, but with the electronic payments system these days I’m sure it could be handled quite simply.
PAY CLUBS FOR HOSTING STATE EVENTS
I think the time has come for clubs to be paid to host state events. It may not be relevant in fours but certainly during pairs and singles when events are held in public holidays where bar wages increase, it becomes unfinancial to clubs to host. We see year after year a call from Bowls WA desperately asking clubs to host Day 1 of these events. To help offset charges, some of the entry fee should flow the way of the clubs hosting. Most clubs make money on the day by selling lunches and raffles, but a little extra would certainly help. I am proposing $5 of the entry fee per person flows back to the club where that person is playing.
INCREASE THE ENTRY FEE
I think $21 is unders in this economy and I don’t believe an increase would cause our numbers to drop off. In fact, if we incorporate more people able to win money or at least money back, it may even increase. I would up the entry fee to at least $30 and could mount a good argument for $35, but for the sake of this exercise, increase entry fees to $30. How would that look in distribution?
CONCLUSION
What would our winners get? Below is my table showing what each person would collect based on where they finish –
And based on numbers in 2023/24, below is a table showing how I would distribute prize money –
Not having collected in a state event for a while I don’t know how this compares to this years winners, but I do know the total handed back to competitors would be higher, so I’d be guessing the money made for Bowls WA would be lower, but marginally. The split approximately for the men is, 63% to players, 16% to clubs and 21% to Bowls WA. For the women it’s about the same although the singles returns 77% to players, 16% to clubs and 5% to Bowls WA.
Let me know your thoughts, do you think entries would increase even though entry fee is higher but the rate of return is also higher?
The Bowls Blitz started last week, and it completely washed over me. I don’t read Facebook or the Bowls WA site much these days but I completely forgot it even existed. So I looked at the results and saw there’s only 4 teams of 40 players now (not 8 teams of 64 players) and it’s all state squad bowlers and not being used as a trial for those wanting to be in the squad. I was a bit saddened by that.
I was lucky enough to be involved in the very first blitz and played for the Cyclones. That year, it was created on the premise that your form for this event put you in with a chance to make the state side and be good practice for those players over Winter. To fill positions and give those state squad members a higher grade of competition for practice, an auction was performed for any bowler wishing to play. The auction was a live event in which people could see who was chosen by the managers of the teams. The blitz was then run over a couple of months and the final I think was live streamed. The format was great, it was enjoyable (who could forget the pirates cheer when they were winning), highly competitive and interest was high.
In the current format, only state squad members play. Does anyone really care any more about the results? Prior to the Blitz, the public were never informed about state training goings on (because that’s essentially what the blitz is now) so why do we need to know now. I think it’s a great way for the state people to practice and for selectors to see who is bowling well, and internally results would be key, but externally – I’m not so sure.
What do you think? Did you know it was on? Do you care about the results? Is there a team you follow and want to win? In 2021 when it started, it was proposed that potentiallya club version could come about, has any club run a similar type event? Would your club support it if there was a club v club version put into the calendar)
I think it’s human nature that when we see things that we think are broken then we think of ways to fix it. Driving along our roads we think of ways to change the design to make it more effective, we watch tv and read newspapers and think of better ways to run the country. I think our bowls pennants system is broken so I have thought of ways to fix it. If I had a blank whiteboard and could start our pennants from scratch with no other hindrances, how would it look? It is for the Saturday competition alone, not Tuesdays or Thursdays. This is my take
1. Divisional structure
I would remove the One White division and the structure then becomes like a pyramid. Premier League, 2 x 1st division, and then 4 x 2nd division and below. The winners of each division get automatic promotion, and teams that finish last get automatic demotion. That’s it. No finals series outside of Premier League top 4. The top sides from each division will play off for the flag. No challenge finals, no promotional finals, no situations where a team that finishes 4th can be promoted. The best team goes up, the worst team goes down. Just looking at finals this year shows how complex the system is at the moment, and this should be eradicated. Yes there isn’t much turnover, but I think that’s a good thing. I believe there is too much movement between divisions at the moment.
2. Teams in divisions
I believe our pennants goes for too long and to that end I would reduce the number of teams in each division from 10 to 8, making it a 14 week season. I would also incorporate double headers to make it even shorter. There are enough carnivals, state events, masters events, winter weeklies etc to keep everyone happy playing bowls all year round without a pennant competition that runs for 18 weeks. This year for example, we started on the 28th October and finished 31st March, so actually 23 weeks commitment to bowls. Too long. By reducing the season to 14 weeks, double headers makes it 12, adding public holidays etc means it is likely a 14 or 15 week season. How many of us were a bit over it by mid March?
3. Time of year
Further to above, I believe our season doesn’t align with the weather any more. Its cold in November when we play and lovely in April when we don’t. According to the BOM, the stats say that November and April are very similar, but just from personal feel, April feels like a better month to bowl in. Our weather at the moment is a bit odd and won’t always be this great halfway through May, but April always feels like one of the best months of the year for anything outdoors. It is also less windy this time of the year compared to October/November.
So I would commence my 14 week season the first Saturday after Australia Day holiday weekend, this year the 4th Feb.
• 4 weeks to our first long weekend, include a double header, 5 games done.
• Next section in March, another 4 weeks before Easter, another double header, 10 games done.
• April is 3 weeks, another double header, season over.
• Finals first weekend in May.
Season is 14 weeks long from Round 1 to finals. More compact, same impact, much more tidy. As stated above, it is a blank board theory so things like Internations, Doubleview Masters Pairs, State Triples are impacted but this model creates 8 extra weekends a year to hold these events and others. It also avoids the traditionally hot month of January (although this year Feb did have some stinkers). What it doesn’t avoid is the AFL. I love my footy as much as the next person, but 15 years ago AFL started mid April now it starts mid March. Does the AFL care about any other sports? So we need to play bowls at the best time for us, which I believe is the Feb to April period.
4. Rink Sizes
This was something flagged by Bowls WA a few years ago in reducing our rink sizes from 4 to 3. I agree that we should do this, but not for the potential improvement in quality at the top level. To me we need to do it from a logistical point of view. On a 6 rink green, we can only have 1 team playing (unless you include the 2 rink ladies Saturday but that will be covered below). So for many clubs, 2 rinks are not being used every Saturday. For my club at Bassendean, we have to use our 3 greens for pennants, as covered above, for 23 weeks a year. Major renovations are not able to be done.
If I use Basso as an example, we have 4 mens teams of 4 rinks, 1x 5th div team of 3 rinks and 2 ladies of 2 rinks. We need 3 greens most Saturdays. We change that to 6 open teams of 3 rinks and 2 ladies of 2 rinks, we need 22 rinks still, but it can be achieved on 2 greens, every Saturday. Much more sensible. I understand not all clubs will have this logistical issue, but I would be guessing most clubs have a situation when 2 rinks are not being used across multiple greens.
To me it would also create a great atmosphere as well on the green as 2 two home teams are cheering and supporting their club.
5. Sex of competitors
I don’t really want to buy in on the open gender concept as I don’t feel that strongly about it. What I will say though that if we have an open gender Saturday competition then we shouldn’t have a Ladies comp. I would have preferred to see Saturday become the main day for competitive bowls with a Saturday Mens and Saturday Ladies and abolish both Midweek comps and form an open gender midweek comp. All competitions will be 3 rinks in size as outlined above. 2 rink competitions are mickey mouse in my eyes. Form a strong Ladies Saturday competition that overtakes the Tuesday Ladies in terms of strength and quality and you have a high quality comp on Saturday for the ladies to play in. But I don’t feel that strongly about it and am looking forward to seeing how it is embraced by both male and female bowlers next season. Just do away with Saturday Ladies and make it a true Saturday Open gender competition if this is the path that is being proposed.
So that’s my blank board theory. Do you have one? How would you change pennants or would you keep its current format? Happy for people to have their say, remember I will only print well reasoned arguments without vitriol. I would also like to mention that my ideas are nothing against the current administration at Bowls WA as pennants has been run this way for I’m sure 100 years, but does that mean it can’t be changed? I would be interested to know what our pennant structure would look like if Pieter Harris or Ken Pride also had a blank board to build the competition from.
