I understand how this is worked out (first date played and then last date played) which is the most easiest way to work this out.
My question is whether it is possible to calculate the season they haven't played and get it removed from their overall "Longest Serving Report"?
Examples of what I mean is as follows:
Player 1 - plays 1 game per season 2010 through to 2020 and is rewarded with 10 years of serving.
Player 2 - plays 11 games in 2010 and no games but plays 1 game in 2020 - this player should be getting a longest serving report of 2 years rather than 10 years.
Understand it may be difficult but believe the years served should reflect the seasons played?
Just a thought.
I see there are two reports, or has Mark just added one. Longest in years, and longest in seasons. I reckon these are both excellent. With Longest in years, the top player on our list is Col Hoy Valley Dist Cricket Club - Longest Serving by Duration (cricketstatz.com) However he took 12 years out in the middle and took up umpiring when he officiated in all Tests of the "Tied Test" series v West Indies in 1960 Valley Dist Cricket Club - Longest Serving by Season Count (cricketstatz.com). So I am happy with showing 47 years on one report, and 35 seasons on the other.
That is a lot better than years - looked at a few (still loading data) and it looks a lot better. Shows the clubs players information better than by years thanks.
Is this something you need to implement or is it already built in?
Try this - v2 just counts seasons:
Not sure if it is more useful or not. (Substitute your club id in the URL)
Thank Mark for your prompt reply.
I am still in the process of loading my data from your V3 program as it has been a gem.
From my opinion if a player plays at least 1 game in a season then they should be credited for the season but if they have not played within a season (or more) then they shouldn't.
Just my thoughts/suggestion :)
I take your point but the challenge is working out what constitutes a break in their serving. Is it no games in a year? Is it 1 game in a year? Is it no games every two years? I suspect everyone will have a different opinion.
Rather than trying to please everyone it might be easier to leave it as it is.
I would encourage you to use the Most Matches report which "should" give you a closer outcome of the results you are looking for. The players that play the most games consistently over a long period of time will definitely bubble to the top.
Interested in the opinions of others too.