The Squopsman, number 1

THE SQUOPSMAN

No.1. June 1993 • PDF

TOMBSTONE MARKS ScotTwA’S RETURN FROM THE GRAVE

By Bruce Turnbull
Sat 17th April 1993

THE GREEK LEAGUE

Eleven o’clock approached. No more than the clicks of agitated squidgers and the rustle of beards filled the library with no books and the reading room with no readers(?). Winkers eyed up their opposition, “the hard one first,” said Mapley. A small wrinkly old biddy standing on a box in Indianapolis croaked, “Gentlemen, start your cars…/index2.html” and the Greek League of the Scottish National Pairs was off!

A gentle first round with a full house of 4-3’s ensued before Jon & Charles, Nick & Tony, and Geoff & Julian eased into the first of many 6-1 wins. It was not until round 3 that Goeff & Julian brought home the first of only three Greek pot outs – a 7-0 against StATS pair Jeremy Money and Darren Higgins.

This first round after lunch at the Wine Bar also revealed that Patrick Barrie’s volume control had stuck on maximum; the shot by shot commentary was clearly audible as far as Auchtermuchty. As the wins moved to 6’s and 5.5’s, it became evident that the gentle start was nothing to do with adapting to the sea air and indeed nothing that a few pints of 80/ could not solve. The other pot outs were in round 4; a 7-0 for Charles and Jon against Bruce & Graham (Turnbull)2, with a close final wink battle for 2nd place, Jon repeatedly suffering from St Rules Tower Syndrome – reaching the top and jumping off. The other was Nick and Tony’s 6-1 put down against Patrick and John Stevens who were seriously starting to look like 2nd day contenders.

Round 5 saw James Cullingham and Ed Wynn start to pick up their ppg after their harder matches earlier in the day, but it was to prove too late in the day for the 5th seeds to see their way into Sunday’s play.

In the final round (Turnbull)2 abandoned their usual tactics of an erratic bring in, and then drawing their opponents winks in to become squopped up in rounds. The new tactic of not becoming squopped up in rounds pulled off a final flourish of a 4-3 win against Alasdair Grant and Ray Schöne.

Nick Inglis and Tony Heading came home first for the day without a lose, followed by Charles and Jon, 0.5 behind. Also through to Sunday were two StATS players John Stevens and Julian Cole, paired with Patrick Barrie and Goeff Myers, respectively.

THE ROMAN LEAGUE

(This bit by Ben Soares)

I’ve been told to write something about the Roman League. It’s bad enough with finals and everything but there we are. I had a lovely one in Functional Analysis the other day, but you won’t really want to know about that. I can’t really say that I can remember that much unless I lie dreadfully. So here goes.

Our top two pairs were Richard Moore & Julian Wiseman (who went on to do quite well) and Matthew Rose and Stew Sage. Due to a miscalculation by Ben (that’s me folks!) we had the top two seeds in each league playing each other first. Richard and Julian came out on top with 6 points. Meanwhile, down on table 3, Ben was successfully freeing Julian Porter’s last remaining unpotted wink to pave the way for a 7-0 pot-out to Elizabeth & Julian. Still, I don’t play this game to win (just as well, really).

Stew & Matthew went on to get four pot-outs, although in Ben & Jo’s game against them in round 5, there were (more or less) 24 free winks flat on the mat after a few minutes, but an unspoken mutual decision seemed to suggest someone should try and squop something.

Andy & Tim were having lots of fun with only 4 points in 3 games (bettered only by Jo & Ben with 2 points in 3 games), but managed to squeeze into quarter-finals with a 7-0 in the last round, whilst Julian & Elizabeth lost 0-7 to Matthew and Stew (a 2 would have put them equal with Tim & Andy).

Julian & Richard were playing consistently. Against Jo & Ben they had a very well engineered 7-0 pot-out (“they might have squopped us up or potted out … or both”). It was almost like being a patient on an operating table!

Chris & Rupert were also doing well. During their last game news came to them that they had a chance to get into the quarter finals. However, I don’t think this changed the result, 6 points to them, and into Sunday.

David & Sarah valiantly battled through the day, but despite three 0s enjoyed themselves and even turned up to watch the final. (Might I point out that noone would dare beat Sarah 7-0 in a StATS meeting without fear of being tickled to death).

I didn’t really see much of Elizabeth & Julian during their matches, but I’d better say they almost got through or something like that. They lost a 7 to Stew & Matthew in the last game (one of Stew & Matthew’s three 7s).

Nick (who may be coming to St Andrews next year [I hope we didn’t put him off]) and our youngest competitor Nigel did very well, winning the majority of their games, and hopefully giving a bit of tiddlywinking enthusiasm to a younger generation in Scotland.

So there we are. That was the Roman league. I’ll leave you with a quotation from my Graph Theory lecturer, which is really quite deep: “If you slightly inflate a cube, you get a slightly inflated cube.” Back to Bruce.

Day 2: It’s a Knockout!

The second day began (for more winkers than expected in 7 Fife Park) to the dulcet tones of Steeleye Span before winkers and hangovers were once more trundled down the road to the Union Building.

The second round had been declared a two game match seeded knockout with Greeks playing Romans in the quarter finals. The top four seeds went through with relative ease, though Nick and Tony were held to a 4-3 win by Andy and Tim in the first game, before becoming squopped up twice in the second.

With Stew and Matthew 5-2 ahead going into their second game, John and Patrick fought back in a very tight game going down 4.5-2.5 in a well organised finish by Sage and Rose.

Richard, Julian W, Charles and Jon knocked up the same, more comfortable wins of 5-2 and 6-1 over Goeff & Julian C and Chris & Rupert respectively to move through and meet in the semis.

The Semi-finals

Nick and Tony won their first game giving Matthew and Stew much to do to catch up before lunch. However, with rounds underway, there were two main piles on the mat; one largely yellow on red and the other green on blue, with blue (Stew) squopped up. Yellow and green defended their squops as red put a wink into the pot from 18″ leaving only one free to bomb the pile of sqopped blues. Dislodging only a green, Nick and Tony had nothing left to do to win 6-1 and take their place in the final after lunch.

Richard and Julian led at lunch with a close 4-3 with the most striking match of the tournament to follow return from the Wine Bar. Winks were brought out into four separate territories and with nobody attempting a squop (the nearest being a good 7″),a race for the pot became inevitable. Jon (blue) made the decision to bring in his 6th wink for the counter pot, assuming that Richard would miss his 15″ shot. Richard (green) however, managed the 7th turn pot out with ease, the long one going down on the second shot. The tie could no longer be saved, even with Charles second and Jon third, leaving only one wink on the mat. The number one seeds were out and the Roman League winners were through to the final.

The Final

Game 1

Nick won the squidge off playing red, Tony blue, Julian yellow and Richard green

After their stunning semi-final win, Julian and Richard were perhaps over eager to go for the quick potout in the first half of the final. They must have been encouraged by the repeated squop misses by red as 5 yellows were sunk in the pot. With both blue and red taking the final yellow, green started to play some spectacular long distance bombing attempts to free his partner, but to no avail.

As the battle grew around the final yellow, red and blue clearly had a great advantage, sucking in green after green to achieve a 6 free turn squop up. This was closely followed by a further 7 free turns, during which blue took charge of the squops and red manoeuvred for the pot out. Blue freed early before red once more squopped up again, this time for 8 free turns, during which he potted 5 and missed the 6th at the end of normal time. Blue freed green to enter rounds leaving red to pot out on his next shot. the inevitable yellow pot out followed, leaving 6 greens and 6 blues. Green then potted out with 5 blues left on the mat to give Nick and Tony a 5-2 lead worthy (if anything ever can become worthy!) of the way they turned the game round after a desperate start.

Game 2

corners change but colours stay constant, yellow squidges off

From the start Tony was unsure about his bringing in and with his second blue landing within a centimetre of two yellows, sucking in a red to form the first pile, comments such as “…a very sad position…/index2.html”, and “…the first death of the positional game…/index2.html”, started to fly between the Scots pair. With all winks brought in, the game suddenly became tighter with a 14 wink pile up forming, blue becoming squopped up and only one red and one yellow completely free. Despite choruses (chori?) of “Shot!” from the other players, red’s admirable attempts to take charge of the pile were all in vain.

In a momentary lack of judgement, red sent one off the table, allowing green and yellow the breathing space to work on the smaller piles and open up the main group thus releasing yellow to strengthen their position.

As red once more started to attack, green unintentionally played the most remarkable shot of the tournament, just inside time; his wink clipped a large yellow, raising it to a near vertical position, flanked by two blues, though supported by only one; the top edge was deemed to be the one distant to the pot. As the crowd grew, Patrick, knowledgeably, declared it the first “tombstone” to be seen in a national competition.

In round one, blue, trying to play his small wink, not squopped by the tombstone, accidentally clipped the large yellow, flattening it. The umpiring decision was that it had to be replaced as it constituted a separate pile from the little blue. The combined efforts of the world pairs champions failed to resurrect the wink so Nick pushed his way through the crowd to deftly prop it up, daring anyone to challenge its new angle.

As the tension mounted umpires were called to judge almost every shot, the players (bar one) taking their opportunities to “bugger off to Cleethorpes for a waz”. As all four concentrated on taking control of the large pile, blue managed “only” the doubleton of yellows on top, leaving yellow only one tiddly ahead of blue and red (green being in the commanding position in round 5).

Green passed in round 5 leaving red an 8″ pot to draw the final. Another St Rule’s shot meant that yellow could pass to end the game with no potted winks; blue 1, green 6, red 1, yellow 2. The 6-1 win snatched the Scottish Pairs for Julian and Richard by just one point in a thrilling final.

Saturday 17 April.

ROMAN LEAGUE
------------

Team	Pair			A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   Total p.p.g. Position


 A	R.Moore			\   6   6*  7*  4.5 7*  5   6*  41.5  5.929	1
	J.Wiseman

 B	S.Sage			1   \   6*  5   6   7*  7*  7*  39    5.571	2
	M.Rose

 C	A.Purvis		1*  1*  \   6   6   7*  2   2   25    3.571	4
	T.Butterworth

 D	B.Soares		0*  2   1   \   1   5   0*  2   11    1.571	7
	J.Mitchell

 E	C.Rudd			2.5 1   1   6   \   5   5   5*  25.5  3.643	3
	R.Wilson

 F	D.Jackson		0*  0*  0*  2   2   \   3   1.5  8.5  1.214	8
	S.Watson

 G	E.Whalley		2   0*  5   7*  2   4   \   3   23    3.286	5
	J.Porter

 H	N.Reid			1*  0*  5   5   2*  5.5 4   \   22.5  3.214	6
	N.Money



GREEK LEAGUE 
------------

Team	Pair			a   b   g   d   e   z   h   t  Total p.p.g. Position


 a	J.Mapley		\   3   6   6   7*  6   5.5 6   39.5  5.643    2
	C.Relle

 b	N.Inglis		4   \   6   6   6   6   6   6*  40    5.714    1
	A.Heading

 g	J.Cullingham		1   1   \   5.5 6   4   1   3   21.5  3.071    5
	 E.Wynn

 d	A.Grant			1   1   1.5 \   3   6   4   3   19.5  2.786    6
	R.Schoene

 e	B.Turnbull		0*  1   1   4   \   3   1   1   11    1.571    7
	G.Turnbull

 z	D.Higgins		1   1   3   1   4   \   0*  1   11    1.571    7
	J.Money

 h	G.Myers			1.5 1   6   3   6   7*  \   1   25.5  3.643    4
	J.Cole

 t	J.Stevens		1   1*  4   4   6   6   6   \   28    4.000    3
	P.Barrie

Sunday 18 April.

QUARTER-FINALS			SEMI-FINALS				FINAL
--------------			-----------				-----

Moore		5:6   -
Wiseman	       	       |
  v		        -	Moore		4:5*	      -
Myers		2:1    |	Wiseman		       	       |
Cole		      -				       	       |
							       |
				  v			        -	Moore	2*:6
Mapley		5:6   -			  	       	       |	Wiseman
Relle		       |				       |
  v		        -	Mapley		3:2*	       |
Rudd		2:1    |	Relle			      -
Wilson		      -		
				
									  V
Inglis		4:6   -		
Heading	               |	
  v		        -	Inglis		5:6	      -
Purvis		3:1    |	Heading		       	       |
Butterworth	      -				       	       |
							       |
				  v			        -	Inglis	5*:1
Sage		5:4.5 -				       	       |	Heading
Rose		       |				       |
  v		        -	Sage			2:1    |
Stevens	2:2.5  	       |	Rose			      -
Barrie		      -		


FROM THE CHAIRMAN’S BIN

by the Chairman’s Binman.

I was going to call this column “from the chairman’s toilet”, but decided that you can occasionally find something of value in a bin.

ScotTwA Pairs – The Thankyou’s

Thankyou to all who came and supported the Pairs, especially Jo Mitchell who masterminded the whole caboodle. Thanks also to the St Andrews Students’ Association for the rooms and rocky tables (we’ve suggested that they buy new 6′ x 3′ ones). Thankyou to Ben Soares who prepared the leagues, and for designing the ‘wipe clean’ membership cards. Thankyou to Julian Wiseman and Richard Moore, and Nick Inglis and Tony Heading for a thrilling final, and being the ScotTwA Pairs champions, and Scottish Champions respectively. Good luck to all involved in the future World Title challenges.

ScotTwA Pairs – The Format

At the start of the tournament, we had only a vague idea of how long games would actually take, or exactly how many pairs would attend. The safest decision was therefore to begin with two All-Plays-All pools, then play the second round by ear. The knockout format seemed the most flexible option, getting the maximum number of players (at least initially) into the second round.

Although IFTwA and ETwA seemed to take charge of the format from the knockout in, it was all more or less as I had envisaged. Top players from the Greek League played lowest qualifiers from the Roman League and vice versa. This gave top pairs best chance into the semis and final – in the end no great upsets happened and the result almost ran to the initial seedings.

The two games per round gave a sense of urgency to the games. A good win would place considerable pressure on the opposing pair for the second half of the tie.

In recent weeks there’s been a number of articles on USENET alt.games.tiddlywinks about formats (I have tried to submit an article or two (honest) but my computing incompetence seems to be no match for the system). I’ve decided to use this space to draw together some of the ideas, and give a few thoughts of my own.

The two games per round knockout format, by its structure, requires a different approach to matches. Certainly in the second half of a tie, there’s no point salvaging a few points -you must do better than your opponents. A 7-0 (or even a 6-1) in the first half of a tie as good as seals the result. It’s thought that this must lead to a large number of pot-outs. However there were only two successful attempts in the whole second day. In any league you’re just as likely to find numerous pot-outs; it’s the number of 6’s and 7’s that separate the top few pairs. The only way to reduce pot-outs (if that’s what you want) would be to count wins, losses and draws, and then use points as a secondary rank. Of course this is pointless (no pun intended) in winks, unlike football, rugby etc., where the share of seven points can distinguish a decisive result from a close match.

The knockout format has the disadvantage of a ragged end. Discarding players at the end of each round is awkward to fit in with a losers’ final, which would need to be some kind of random pairs. Such a plate competition didn’t happen this year, largely due to a lack of availability of StATS players. If players are coming from hundreds of miles away – and do please come again! – they should get to play as many games as we can fit in. A possible solution to these is to have play-offs for the lower ranks. But this idea was not popular this year when neither of the semi-final losers would allow the other the satisfaction of coming third…

I don’t think that a knockout, following first round leagues, is a poorly balanced format. The top ranking pairs after the first round were ensured an ‘easier’ draw to the final. Each pair in the final had played, and beaten, five of the top eight pairs to get there. In most other sports, such a tournament would consist of pools matches followed by a knockout. So the Pairs was using an established sporting format.

I agree that it was nice to have a final this year. A sizeable audience was able to enjoy the considerable tension of attempted, then counter-, pot-outs, never mind the re-erection of a tombstone. The two halves of the tie were certainly worthy of being a final. But the closing rounds of a league can produce just as much excitement, even if not in the battle for the trophy. The Open Golf, for instance, doesn’t need to be match play coming up the 18th to the R&A for a tense finish. If the top pairs aren’t drawn against each other until the end, you can still have the same ‘second half’ of the final. Personally, I’d like to see league matches on both days of next year’s ScotTwA pairs, but ultimately that’s a decision for the membership.

ScotTwA Pairs -The After Effects

The Pairs has, without doubt, been an immense learning experience for the StATS players. For instance, middle or long term tactics were an unknown quantity. By the end of the first day even the all-StATS pairs were beginning to think ahead, and concentrate on positioning. Now in club matches, pot-squop has all but disappeared, though ‘choosing the right shot’ had somewhat eclipsed the need for pace. Only Tim Butterworth refrains from using tactics – as a matter of principle…

In terms of technique, everyone was inspired by the consistency in potting and squopping, never mind the variety of pile shots (at last we find out exactly what the John Lennon Memorial Shot is!). In the following fortnight, we had the most intensive winks sessions as yet seen in St Andrews. This was damped down only by the oncoming flood of exams, but I still see a more eager attitude to practising! With the prospect of Nick Reid coming to St Andrews next year, the chances are excellent for improving standards.

So the Pairs has had a very positive effect on StATS – the only downside is that we get frustrated when not playing to the standard we feel we should be at. Could there be some confusion as to who it was that was playing so many good shots during the tournament?


REFLECTIONS IN TIDDLYWINKS

by Bruce Turnbull.

“Ce sont au fond toujours les même systemes, qui, à différent époques, se présentent à l’ésprit, revêtus seulement de form différentes; puis, confondant la forme avec le fond, on porte sur le tout un jugement défavourable…/index2.html”

F. Hoefer, Histoire de la Chimie

The systems which confront intelligence remain basically unchanged through the ages, although they assume different forms; thus, through mistaking form for basis, one conceives an unfavourable opinion of the sequence.

This observation rings true through all areas of nature and life; man’s inability to comprehend fully, erects barriers of approximations over which a fellow thinker must first hurdle to approach true comprehension. In what I hope will be the first in a series of articles, I intend to suggest a new hurdling technique so that the reader may come one step closer to the “Theory of Everything”.

In order that one may approach any give situation from the appropriate angle, one must first consider and postulate on the nature of this “Theory of Everything”.

As humans, we may probably best approach this from an egocentric point of view. So what is it that touches every corner of our lives, that is the concern of our every breathing moment, that plays on our subconscious as we sleep? What is it that troubles both great World leaders and humble undergraduates alike?

It is not a question of how we style our facial hair, nor one of whether the chiropodist will find time to fit in a quick file and polish before the next tournament. No it is something more fundamental than that. Indeed, is it not that most noble and worthy sport of tiddlywinks itself, to which I refer? I would propose that it is Winks that is our key to the “Theory of Everything”.

But I hear you cry that I witter rashly and that such declarations can not be made without evidence in support. I ask you to look around you and see the wood despite the trees, for Tiddlywinks is reflected everywhere you may turn.

As but an illustration, I should outline the undisputed (at least until now) links between:

Tiddlywinks and 16th Century Anglo – Scots Border Relations

These were Sir Walter Scott’s “Days of Romance”; a time when nobleman and farm labourer would ride, side by side, daring forays across the Border, with only the light of the moon and generations of knowledge to guide them swiftly across moorland and marsh.

But as we know today, “there is no such thing as a friendly game.” The times were hard. Deadly feud between families was rife; many a small holder would meet his end on the point of a lance or perish as his house was rased to the ground. Lawlessness was the norm, with increased lawlessness in the frequent times of war.

Even for the period in general, the Border was rough. The Borderers’ way of life was widely misunderstood and at best ignored, in much the same way that todays winkers battle on against the derision of such morons as those who run the Aberdeen Athletics Union.

Nevertheless, the central governments at the time felt it necessary to discipline the people on the unruly perimeters of their fields of play. So a group of six respected men were selected, an IFTwA rules committee to oversee the six respective Border “Marches” and to bridge the laws of Scotland and England.

Their job was never destined to be an easy one; rarely were troubles simply Scot against Englishman, for allegiances were clan based and therefore local rather than national, often crossing the Border. It was more a case of opposite corners playing together, tactically looking after each other on their appropriate sides of the pot. Even once the red Grahams had been separated from the blue Grahams, there was much work still to be done.

Though the Borderers cannot claim to have invented the protection racket, they, nevertheless, gave the world the terms “blackmail” and to be caught “red-hand”. Whether the terms “squop” and “boondock” will still be used 450 years hence, is not mine to say, but the unquenchable desire to express oneself through ballad and lament lives on.

With the unique situation across the Borderland, a unique set of laws had to be created. Perhaps the most striking of these was the form of self-policing known as the “trod”. Following a raid, the party whose property had been captured had the legal right to go in pursuit across the Border and retake the pile. Essentially the recapture of a squop in colour order was known as a “hot trod”, whereas a “cold trod” was one after a time delay of, let us say, no more than a round. With disputes over who was the original owners of the property, trod and retrod could continue ad infinitum (or perhaps ad nauseam?) unless a more decisive ambush, from good grouping, could be arranged. It was not unknown for an attempted squop-up to be completely reversed for want of taking that one free rider who could muster an attack sufficient to smash a whole pile.

Obviously, kidnapping during a raid would reduce the risk of a successful trod, prisoners being held in the high walled fortresses, the “peel towers” – even the lunge was known in those far off days.

As the 16th century drew to and close, the central governments at last took control with a policy of docking the Border Reivers far into exile, to continue their battles in Ireland and as mercenaries on the Continent.

I could continue, but perhaps that is for another occasion and another era. Obviously the winkers’ history is chronologically insignificant, but the essence of the game that is Tiddlywinks is a highly evolved reflection of both human nature and Nature herself. It may not be the “basis” which we seek, but the form is getting ever closer.


THE SEARCH FOR WINKERS

by Jo Mitchell.

It is over twenty years since the last known Scottish winks club had its meagre funds seized by the S.R.C. but some still believed we could make contact with winking life between St. Andrews’ city walls and Watford Gap. Spurred on by the possibility of a Marchant Trophy win for St. Andrews ScotTwA set out to try every academic establishment in this bonny land…

We had high hopes for Aberdeen Uni (there had been rumours) but a “no” accompanied by the customary giggle was returned. Most other tries gave frighteningly similar results! At last, in early December Bruce received a promising letter from Glasgow Uni indicating the possibility that, if an interested party were to inquire, the S.R.C. might be able to forward a message to the current president of UGTwAT!!! (This apparently stands for University of Glasgow Tiddlywinks Association Team.) We wrote back by return post but in spite of numerous ‘phone calls we are still waiting. We are hopeful.

Thanks to Charles Relle passing on my address, I was actually contacted by an ex-Secretary-General of the old Sco(t)TwA. Adrian Grant from Freuchie is now a regular at StATS meetings and is busily catching up with twenty year’s worth of rules improvements(?) Unfortunately Adrian has not seem or heard of another winker in many years. The search continues.

Our latest strategy idea was to take the winks to Scotland. Nigel Money has returned from the National Pairs armed with mat and winks with which to convert his school friends before they get to university. Ben’s friend from home has taken winks to St. Andrews college, Glasgow and the postgraduate prospectuses to all Scottish universities are on my bookcase!

Bruce is also attempting to contact old(er) Scottish winkers through the Alumni offices at likely universities. This may prove our biggest lead yet.


THE RATINGS

by Nick Inglis’ computer.

Ratings after ETwA Pairs

Past Year Current Tournament

New R Old R Diff RG Pl ppg RG Pl TotSc PerfR

Larry Kahn 2620 2620 0 49 61 4.861 0 0 0 ----

Geoff Myers 2567 2601 -33 79 98 4.296 16 16 62\ 2489

Andy Purvis 2564 2539 25 69 90 4.506 16 16 73\ 2582

Patrick Barrie 2501 2450 51 79 108 4.654 16 16 92 2597

*Mike Surridge 2484 2444 40 27 27 5.444 16 16 85\ 2477

Richard Moore 2476 2422 54 74 81 4.827 16 16 92 2569

Jon Mapley 2465 2450 15 66 77 4.641 16 16 85\ 2463

Dave Lockwood 2443 2443 0 62 62 4.411 0 0 0 ----

*Arye Gittelman 2410 2410 0 12 12 5.458 0 0 0 ----

*Tony Brennan 2400 2400 0 4 4 4.250 0 0 0 ----

*Chris Andrew 2390 2390 0 12 13 4.577 0 0 0 ----

*Bob Henninge 2365 2365 0 26 26 4.115 0 0 0 ----

Charles Relle 2342 2410 -68 71 79 4.462 16 16 63\ 2205

Matthew Rose 2341 2365 -24 72 83 4.620 16 16 67\ 2275

Nick Inglis 2338 2318 20 89 103 3.945 16 16 67\ 2366

Brad Schaefer 2295 2295 0 44 44 3.602 0 0 0 ----

Alan Dean 2270 2352 -81 56 56 4.277 16 16 63\ 2146

*Charles Frankston 2258 2258 0 9 9 3.611 0 0 0 ----

Phil Scarrott 2255 2240 14 68 69 4.217 16 16 64\ 2265

Geoff Thorpe 2240 2157 82 66 67 3.502 16 16 64\ 2358

Simon Gandy 2222 2251 -29 57 71 4.014 16 16 67\ 2160

*Don Fox 2206 2206 0 12 12 3.125 0 0 0 ----

Alan Boyce 2201 2204 -4 41 50 3.950 16 16 55\ 2195

Julian Wiseman 2177 2186 -9 62 76 4.138 16 16 58\ 2155

*Sunshine 2176 2176 0 12 12 3.417 0 0 0 ----

Rick Tucker 2166 2166 0 46 46 3.674 0 0 0 ----

*Jim Marlin 2128 2128 0 24 24 3.312 0 0 0 ----

*Joe Sachs 2119 2119 0 14 23 3.000 0 0 0 ----

*Jenny Hall 2115 2115 0 2 2 5.750 0 0 0 ----

Rob Cartwright 2113 2086 26 44 44 4.170 16 16 64\ 2124

Anthony Heading 2093 2100 -8 76 78 3.878 16 16 58\ 2069

Stu Collins 2089 2073 16 48 50 3.590 16 16 49 2111

Alasdair Grant 2069 2088 -19 43 50 3.510 10 10 35 2033

*Jon Marchant 2068 2068 0 25 35 3.371 0 0 0 ----

Ed Wynn 2064 2064 0 49 49 3.622 0 0 0 ----

*Dave Salter 2044 2044 0 4 4 3.875 0 0 0 ----

*John Breeze 2039 2039 0 7 7 3.857 0 0 0 ----

Ian Gameson 2036 1970 66 31 41 3.463 16 16 67\ 2052

Jason Westley 2018 2051 -33 31 31 3.435 10 10 35 1978

*Bill Renke 2011 2011 0 9 9 2.722 0 0 0 ----

Ben Deane 2008 1974 34 63 64 3.341 10 10 34\ 2097

*Heather Dean 1999 1999 0 3 3 2.333 0 0 0 ----

Stew Sage 1996 1996 0 61 70 3.100 0 0 0 ----

*Cyril Edwards 1994 1994 0 24 36 3.236 0 0 0 ----

*Jim Carrington 1992 2106 -114 16 16 3.469 16 16 55\ 1993

Tim Jeffreys 1988 1988 0 32 32 3.516 0 0 0 ----

*Rupert Wilson 1982 1982 0 11 20 3.200 0 0 0 ----

*Paul Woodman 1976 1901 75 27 27 3.704 16 16 73\ 1982

Chris Wilson 1966 1865 101 58 58 3.259 16 16 64\ 2065

David Clarkson 1963 2041 -77 39 50 3.710 16 16 62\ 1889

*David Gamez 1941 1941 0 14 14 4.679 0 0 0 ----

*Tim Hedger 1940 1940 0 6 6 3.417 0 0 0 ----

Phil Carmody 1940 1974 -34 56 56 3.598 10 10 26 1879

*Christopher Rudd 1921 1921 0 9 9 3.167 0 0 0 ----

*Phil Clark 1914 1903 11 21 21 3.000 10 10 20 1958

Jon Carlaw 1912 1912 0 38 38 3.368 0 0 0 ----

Gavin Keyte 1903 1930 -27 58 62 2.742 10 10 17 1867

Rupert Thompson 1900 1852 48 47 58 2.845 10 10 34\ 1975

Steve Phillips 1898 1987 -89 38 38 2.724 10 10 16 1780

*Robin Smale 1890 1890 0 13 13 3.115 0 0 0 ----

Nick Reid 1890 1930 -40 49 57 3.430 10 10 26 1834

*Darren Higgins 1890 1890 0 7 7 1.571 0 0 0 ----

*Jeremy Money 1890 1890 0 7 7 1.571 0 0 0 ----

*Steve Harbron 1886 1886 0 16 18 3.333 0 0 0 ----

*Raymond Schoene 1869 1869 0 7 7 2.786 0 0 0 ----

James Cullingham 1867 1856 11 90 90 2.967 16 16 49 1894

*Elizabeth Whalley 1842 1842 0 27 27 2.815 0 0 0 ----

*James Orwell 1842 1842 0 26 26 3.038 0 0 0 ----

*John Stevens 1830 1830 0 9 9 3.611 0 0 0 ----

Simon Julier 1812 1812 0 31 33 3.167 0 0 0 ----

*Dave Rickard 1798 1798 0 15 15 2.867 0 0 0 ----

*Marg Calhoun 1791 1791 0 12 12 2.125 0 0 0 ----

*Tim Batham 1778 1778 0 14 14 3.393 0 0 0 ----

*Nigel Money 1774 1774 0 7 7 3.214 0 0 0 ----

*Graham Turnbull 1759 1759 0 7 7 1.571 0 0 0 ----

Andy Milligan 1756 1807 -52 57 57 2.728 10 10 18 1681

*Poss Ellis 1737 1737 0 25 25 2.560 0 0 0 ----

*Julian Cole 1725 1720 4 19 19 2.237 10 10 14 1769

*Ben Soares 1721 1721 0 14 14 2.619 0 0 0 ----

*Bruce Turnbull 1714 1759 -45 17 17 1.500 10 10 14\ 1726

Jon Williams 1697 1755 -57 52 52 3.202 10 10 18 1629

Dave Carslake 1694 1633 61 38 39 2.346 10 10 23 1797

*Andrew Busby 1667 1667 0 9 9 1.833 0 0 0 ----

Andrew Dominey 1652 1610 42 47 48 2.656 10 10 23 1743

*Barnaby Hoyal 1635 1635 0 14 14 2.357 0 0 0 ----

Chris Goddard 1623 1623 0 42 42 2.758 0 0 0 ----

Paul Roberts 1616 1702 -85 40 40 2.475 10 10 16 1538

*Paul Lewis 1604 1604 0 14 14 2.250 0 0 0 ----

*Naveed Chaudhri 1594 1594 0 21 21 2.048 0 0 0 ----

*MP Rouse 1576 1576 0 5 5 0.800 0 0 0 ----

*Tom Allen 1574 1574 0 14 14 3.071 0 0 0 ----

*Han Kim 1556 1556 0 2 2 3.500 0 0 0 ----

*David Jackson 1542 1542 0 7 7 1.214 0 0 0 ----

*Sarah Watson 1542 1542 0 7 7 1.214 0 0 0 ----

Kate Woolfitt 1533 1598 -65 32 32 2.490 10 10 17 1504

*Chris Strong 1519 1519 0 3 3 0.333 0 0 0 ----

*Sophie Agrell 1518 1518 0 10 10 1.700 0 0 0 ----

*Tim Butterworth 1498 1543 -45 19 19 2.289 10 10 14\ 1510

*Ed Porter 1486 1486 0 23 24 1.854 0 0 0 ----

Julian Porter 1480 1480 0 49 49 2.612 0 0 0 ----

*Kevin Hall 1475 1475 0 14 14 2.679 0 0 0 ----

*Helen Emes 1458 1458 0 15 15 3.233 0 0 0 ----

Simon Dean 1424 1418 6 46 46 1.989 10 10 20 1467

Andrew Garrard 1422 1422 0 31 31 2.548 0 0 0 ----

*Andy Strong 1422 1422 0 4 4 0.000 0 0 0 ----

*Jo Mitchell 1382 1378 4 23 23 1.652 10 10 14 1427

*Andrew Young 1382 1382 0 26 26 1.865 0 0 0 ----

*Joseph Goodman 1359 1359 0 5 5 2.600 0 0 0 ----

*Brian Yamasaki 1353 1353 0 7 7 2.643 0 0 0 ----

*Christine Hall 1115 1115 0 3 3 1.667 0 0 0 ----