How about having 16 players sign up for 7-a-side? Advantages:
1. I prefer the larger space in 7-a-side but don't have the legs for it, and welcome the extra body in 8-a-side.
2. The game will not be affected by 1 or 2 absentees.
3. Each team will field 7 at any one time, with one reserve. As 7-a-side is played at a faster pace and is more tiring, each team will rotate the 8 players.
4. The reserve rotation is better than taking turns to play in goal. Firstly not all can, and wants to, play in goal. Secondly, because of incidents (broken shoes, injury), the affected player becomes the goalkeeper for the whole game and the others do not have a chance to take a rest.
Of course, a badly managed rotation system will give rise to complaints of unequal playing time, biasedness etc. The team manager will have to be fair and even-handed. Maybe a strict rotation system whereby every player is automatically substituted in running order may work best.
Foo Cheong, I've moved your post to this new thread.
Getting everyone to take turns in goal has been hard enough. If we have 7 plus 1 sub per team, making sure every player has the same amount of time on the pitch will be even harder. I think you'll inevitably end up with weaker players spending much less time on the pitch than the stronger players. Further, it doesn't help the goalkeeping issue if a player can avoid going in goal by being substituted. Why should another player who is also going to have to be substituted at some stage go in goal, and have even less time playing in an outfield position?
Late withdrawals and no shows don't occur often, and will be further addressed by prepayment. The available place can be offered to anyone at the venue (for example, a player from an earlier game) for free. With prepayment, the other players don't have to bear the additional cost.
Further, the aim of our games is to play one hour, flat out. As we only play one hour, you're going to find a lot of players reluctant to come off, and the substitute keen to get on. You will also then have several players finding one hour is not enough for them.
I think the better way to deal with differing fitness levels and the contingencies that might arise in a game is to pace yourself.
Rajiv, I suggested the idea seeing how the Saturday game regulars prefer 7-a-side. I think it would be more appropriate to try it out on the Saturday game rather than the Sunday game. I think the Sunday regulars are quite happy with 8-a-side.
Last Edit: May 17, 2011 11:05:41 GMT 8 by Foo Cheong
Looking at the line ups , i think we only have handful of runners and we did had fun playing 8 aside with some familiar names. Just my 2 cents , we could probably go for 8 aside this sat . Any thoughts guys so we can scrap the poll and discuss here .
We have been playing 6 aside on the small pitch and it has never been crowded plus its been really competitive . For 8 aside is basically having 1 keeper and 7 players and i dont see how crowded it can be.
There's no point discussing the matter here, since this thread only relates to this one game this Saturday, while the longer term future of the Saturday game is being decided on another thread - here. It's better to have the discussion on that thread.
Rather than adding a poll for this game, I can follow the state of the poll on that other thread from this Saturday onwards. For this game, I will apply the state of the poll at 9 am on Saturday morning.
I will also introduce prepayment for the Saturday game a week earlier, from 28 May 2011.
From next week onwards, I will look at the state of the poll on Monday morning, and apply it to the thread for the game on the coming Saturday.
As stated above, the poll will be locked at the end of June.
Both games worked out well. 6-a-side at Khalsa played to the lines is fine. The remaining question is whether for 7-a-side, we should play to the side lines or the side netting. That is the subject matter of the poll at the top of this thread. So far, all our 7-a-side games at Khalsa have also been played to the lines.
The schedule thread for the Saturday and Sunday games at the Premier Pitch @ Turf City now both provide that:
The maximum number is 16. However, the game will go ahead even with 14. Once the maximum number is reached, anyone after that can only be in reserve, coming in as a replacement should there be any withdrawals.
In view of the previous issue about whether to play 7 or 8-a-side at Turf City, once numbers reach 14, I let it be. If it gets to 16, that's fine, but I don't make any effort to get it to 16.
However, with 14, the game is vulnerable to withdrawals on the day of the game itself.
For today's game, there were two withdrawals today itself. We managed to get 1 replacement, but not 2, so I was forced to play.
Tan Wee had an accident near Adam Road, so he didn't make it for today's game. No injuries, but he had to wait for the tow truck.
.... Just bad luck all round as far as numbers for the game is concerned. We managed to get a couple of players from an earlier game to take turns for Reds, but the game was one-sided in favour of Whites, so Rajseran volunteered to swap with the spare player after about 25 minutes.
Coincidentally, it was just over a year ago (on 3 July 2010) that a Saturday game at Turf City was badly affected by an accident. On that occasion:
There were massive traffic jams in the vicinity of Turf City yesterday afternoon as a result of Sixth Avenue and part of Bukit Timah Road being closed due to the danger of an overhead bridge collapsing after it had been hit by a crane lorry.
For the weeknight games at The Cage, Sports Planet and the Premier Pitch @ Khalsa, I make effort to get to the maximum number.
I think I have to do the same for the weekend games at Turf City.
I've re-arranged my schedule to play. We've been stuck at 13 almost every Saturday in July. Very frustrating. If the situation doesn't improve in the next week or so, I'll have to consider alternatives.