|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 20, 2014 22:56:55 GMT 8
In deciding which players to include in the team selector poll, I have been considering the following: - Number of games played in the current 6 month period.
- Number of games played in total. Up to now, I have used the numbers dating back to January 2009.
- How regular the player is for that particular game, or at least that particular venue.
I had earlier left out the third criteria. I have re-introduced it in the "Team selectors/captains & line ups" section of the "GIFFA System" thread. The aim is to have more experienced players as team selectors. With records now going back more than 5 years, there are players who played a lot in the early years but not so much in recent years. As our games are always evolving, and new players are constantly coming in, not playing so much in recent years devalues the amount of experience a player has of our games. Therefore, from the next game onwards, instead of the total number of games dating back to January 2009, I will look at the number of games over the preceding 12 quarters, plus the current quarter - so in effect, 3 years inclusive of or plus the current quarter. The minimum threshold for number of games played has been 15 to 40, depending on the players down for the game. Where there are a lot of experienced players, I use a higher figure, so that only more experienced players are included in the poll. Where there are not so many longstanding players, I use a lower figure, so that we have sufficient players for the poll. As I am now using a more current period for total number of games, and players should be familiar with our games after about 10 games, I will reduce the minimum threshold to 10 to 40 games. It is after all just used to decide whether a player should be included in a poll, and a wider range gives me more options. The other significant factor is how regular a player is for that particular game or that particular venue. The team selector poll is included if I think the players down for that game are sufficiently familiar with each other for 2 of them to decide on line ups. If there are several new, newer or less regular players, or players who haven't played together before much or at all, I will suggest line ups, and limit the poll to a team captain poll. I am more lax with the criteria for including players in the team captain poll, and I will include as many players as possible. As in such games, there will be several new, newer or less regular players, the bigger constraint may be that not many players meet the minimum threshold. As they decide on line ups, team selectors do need to have the confidence of other players. From the next game onwards, the minimum number of votes for team selectors will be increased from 2 to 3. If no two players receive at least 3 votes, the two with the highest number of votes will still be team captains. If a significant number of players included in the poll withdraw from the game, I may replace the poll with a new one. If I feel that based on changes in personnel, the two players voted as team selectors are not sufficiently familiar with the rest of the players to decide on line ups, they will be designated as team captains instead, and I will suggest the line ups. Likewise, if I feel that the two players voted as team captain are sufficiently familiar with the rest of the players, and they each have at least 3 votes, I will designate them as team selectors and leave it to them to decide on line ups, provided I will not re-designate a player who has opted out as team selector. I have included this in the the "Team selectors/captains & line ups" section of the "GIFFA System" thread. On a separate note, from the report thread for the game on Wednesday (19 March 2014) at Balestier Road: ... with 7v7, I thought we were in for a balanced and competitive game. But barely 5 mins in, I twisted my ankle badly and was confined to being the keeper for the rest of the game. Whites did well to equalize through Sean. From there on, Reds dominated the game with a flurry of goals mostly because of me being an immobile and shitty keeper. The score was 6-3 at one point with Jeremiah pulling 2 goals back for the Whites, but I let in a series of silly goals which should have been easily saved. .... Apologies for making the game alot less enjoyable for u guys. .... .... Don't force yourself to continue if you can't. From the "GIFFA System" thread: .... .... The final decision whether an injured player can continue in goal or has to leave the pitch is that of the player concerned. .... From the "Guidelines ON Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread: .... .... If one team is dominating the game and take a big lead in the first half of the game which appears unassailable, or one team is a player short due ..., an injury to a player, ..., team selectors/captains need to consider what changes to line ups and formations are necessary to keep the game competitive. .... And from the "Playing Rules & Principles" thread: .... * If one team is a player short due to ..., injury, ..., we try to find a replacement at the venue itself. If a replacement cannot be found, we continue with one team a player short. The team with the extra player is restricted in its scoring to within an imaginary line running through the penalty spot for the opposing goal. The same if one team is short due to a player being late. If the team that is a player short is losing badly in the second half of the game, a player from the side with the extra player should switch to the team with a player short. The scoring restriction is also switched..... Final say is always with the team selectors/captains. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 22, 2014 13:09:39 GMT 8
I suggested line ups and captains for the 7-a-side game on Sunday, 11 May 2014, at The Grandstand. From the report thread for the game: I understand [the team captains] agreed to swap ... before the start of the game. Reds then took a 6-2 lead. As the captains had agreed to swap back if the lead reached 4 goals, they did so, and re-set the score to 0-0, but Whites were exhausted by then, and Reds again led, this time 3-0. "Last goal wins" was called, and Whites scored. That swap meant that Reds had 4 regulars ..., plus [another], who plays occasionally, while Whites had only one regular, .... Also, had said on the WhatsApp group chat that he hadn't played for 5 years. The balance of regulars makes a lot of difference, especially in a 7-a-side. Regulars know the game at that venue better, have a better understanding between themselves, and, as they play regularly, have a better level of match fitness. It is disappointing, as I mentioned the balance of regulars to [the Reds captain] before the game. The Whites players I asked all thought the original line ups would have been balanced.
I think [the Reds captain] was unduly concerned by the report on Humza's first game, on Saturday, 15 March 2014, where Lynz described him as man-of-the-match. I pointed out the report to [the two captains] before the game, so they'd know a bit about the player. They probably read too much into it. One player doesn't make a team. You do need a balance between the two teams, including a balance of regulars. As for concerns about any one player on the opposing side, that can be addressed by formation and tactics, such as man-marking. Reds had good markers ... capable of making the original line ups competitive. .... Apologies to white team. Hope I didn't spoil the enjoyment of your game today. It really wasn't my intention to unbalance the teams. Complete opposite. Sorry Kien. I owe you one Aquarius. Everything just seemed to click for reds today. Despite my lack of judgment for swapping players before the game, I have to give credit to reds for our great teamwork. We just played really well together, whether with Jon or Clarence in our team. I hope today's game will not deter the new players from playing in future Sunday games at turf city. We need all of you back! Before the two posts, I had the following WhatsApp discussion with Gerard (the Reds captain) that night: - Me: "Don't make the swap until you've tried it out first, especially when there are players you're not familiar with. .... It's the number of regulars thing, which I discussed with you earlier. Before the swap, it was already 4:2. After the swap, it was 5:1. .... Regulars just give a team that extra edge. .... You shouldn't look to ensuring your team has all positions covered. It's about ensuring the 2 teams are balanced. It's a mistake a lot of the players make. If you have 2 defenders, 2 midfielders and 10 attackers in the 14, no point saying I need 2 defenders and 2 midfielders so I'll take the 4 of them and 3 attackers, and the other team can have the remaining 7 attackers. It's a matter of splitting the 2 defenders, splitting the 2 midfielders and then looking at how the remaining 10 attackers can be split to balance it off."
- Gerard: "That was my intention. The huzma match report made it look like he was really really good. Not saying he s not a good player. He is. So was talking to Damien n he too thought our team weaker. Then kien agreed to try it out"
- Me: "One player can't carry the team. .... Games at the different venues are different. Players need time to adapt. ...."
After my post, we continued as follows: - Gerard: ".... I just read yr points here on team selection n will take note of your advice next time. I really didn't mean to unbalance the teams. So the rule of your games is captains can only swap before game if we are team selectors? If we are just captains, we stick to the teams?"
- Me: "No, but exercise more care when you're not as familiar with the players as I am.
 .... That's the reason I make the distinction between selectors and captains. Selectors are more familiar with the players than I am. If I'm more familiar, they're only captains. .... Although I've raised it many times before in particular threads, I should add it to the Guidelines."
I only suggest line ups if I am more familiar with the players than those playing (in which case, any poll is limited to team captains), or there are insufficient votes for team selectors. Where I suggest line ups, I do give thought to a lot of factors. Selectors have absolute discretion to agree on line ups before the game. Captains should exercise more care in making changes before the game to the line ups I suggest, and if they do, they should do it in discussion with me, via WhatsApp.
After the game starts, team captains are free to agree on changes to ensure the game remains competitive to the end, taking into account any clear imbalance that becomes evident after the game starts. I am not present at the game, so I am not in a position to give any input at that stage.
Team selectors continue to have absolute discretion to agree on line ups and any changes to the line ups, both before the game and after it starts, as they are ultimately responsible for the line ups.
I have added the following to the "Team selection" section of the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread. ....
- As previous experience of our games can make a lot of difference, it is also very useful to split the regulars and newer players fairly evenly between the 2 teams.
.... As I only suggest line ups if I think I am more familiar with the players than those playing, where I suggest line ups, team captains should not make changes to the line ups before the game without discussing the change with me, as I remain ultimately responsible for the line ups before the game starts. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 30, 2014 8:33:51 GMT 8
A lot of regulars are opting out as team selectors or even captains from the weekend games at The Grandstand. This despite my having increased the credit for team selectors for these games from $2 to $3 since March 2013. For the more popular games which fill up within a day or two, the better incentive to be team selectors might be that I reserve places for the previous week's team selectors in the following week's game. From next month onwards, I will reserve 2 places in the following week's game for 48 hours for the two team selectors (captains not included) from the previous game. The players must confirm on the schedule thread within 48 hours that they are in, either by themselves or through another GIFFA Player on their behalf. If either of them does not confirm his place within 48 hours, the place will be released to others. From next month onwards, I will reduce the team selector credit for the weekend games to $2, in line with the games at Balestier Road and East Coast. The "Team selectors/captains & line ups" section of the GIFFA System thread currently provides as follows: .... .... The two players with the most number of votes [in the team selector poll], subject to a minimum of 3 votes each, will be team selectors. In the event of a tie, the player who has played more games in the current 6 month period will be elected. .... .... ..., if I feel that the two players voted as team captain are sufficiently familiar with the rest of the players, and they each have at least 3 votes, I will designate them as team selectors and leave it to them to decide on line ups, provided I will not re-designate a player who has opted out as team selector. .... Where one or both of the two players with the most number of votes in a team selector poll has only 2 votes, they have still been team selectors if I think they are more familiar with the players than I am. I have therefore changed the first of the two passages above as follows: Also, where so many of the regulars opt out that there are only two regulars left, the two will be team selectors by default, as was the case with the game on Sunday, 15 June 2014, at The Grandstand. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 28, 2014 10:27:18 GMT 8
From the report thread for the game on Monday night (25 August 2014) at MacPherson: .... Three players, including two on Reds, were concerned that Red are much stronger, but the two team selectors were confident that the teams were balanced, so after some discussion of possible changes, it was decided to leave it. However, I have told the team selectors that if it appears early in the game that the sides are not even, to make changes early on. .... .... I'm not sure what the fuss was all about before the game. Reds looked marginally better on paper and Whites could spring a surprise  ... so game on... .... I thought Reds looked much stronger, but I kept my views to myself, as line ups are the responsibility of elected team selectors, and I try not to say anything to influence team selectors before the game. When Marko first suggested the line ups, Niel asked for a swap to have Gilbert on his team, but Marko didn't agree, saying he needed a big-sized defender (that is, Gilbert) on his team, so Niel accepted Marko's suggestion without change. What was even clearer was Reds had most of the regulars while Whites had the new player and several players coming back after long lay offs. Team selectors do need to familiarise themselves with the Guidelines. As stated above, 2 players from Reds, and 1 from Whites, raised concerns. When the two selectors expressed confidence that their selections were even, I suggested swapping Gilbert (whom Niel had asked for earlier) with the player on Whites who had raised concerns, as that was more a swap of like-for-like, and there was no point having a player on Whites who was concerned that his team was much weaker. Both team selectors agreed, but the Whites player said his concern was that Reds were much stronger, and that swapping like-for-like wouldn't address that, so he declined the swap. So line ups remained unchanged. I have also previously raised concerns about "tactical" voting: In following the voting, I think there was some amount of tactical voting for the game yesterday. The way to dilute tactical voting is for more players to vote. If everyone votes, and most vote responsibly, then tactical voting is less likely to determine or influence the choice of team selectors. The Guidelines To Selectors On Team Selection currently provide as follows: .... I have summarized the considerations here:
- The aim is to have two evenly matched teams, with each team selector in charge of one team.
- It is useful to know the players, including their strengths, weaknesses, and idiosyncrasies, including which players combine well together, or don't play well together, or what circumstances bring out the best (or the worst) of a player. The information for new or newer players will necessarily be limited. I will provide what information I can, including links to reports on games that the player in question has previously played in, and referring the team selector to that player's introducer, or other players who have played with that player before. Players are encouraged to disclose any relevant factors about themselves, especially any factors, such as previous or recurring injuries, earlier physical exertions, or loss of fitness, which may affect their form on the day.
- It is more important for both teams to have a similar balance of stronger and weaker players, then for each team to have a similar balance of attacking and defensive players. Players need to be adaptable. We are not highly trained professionals, who can only play in one position. Even highly paid professionals can be required to to play in unfamiliar positions. "Stronger" and "weaker" is relative to the pool of players for a particular game. A stronger player in one game may be a weaker player in another game.
- It is useful to keep new or newer players with their introducer unless either expressly states it is not necessary. As I expect new and newer players will feel more comfortable being on the same team as their introducer, it is about being welcoming of new and newer players, and being accommodating. Matching the two teams can usually be achieved by how the remaining players are divided. Some players may feel they are new only for their first one or two games. Others may not want to be separated from their introducer until they have played 50 or more games!
- As previous experience of our games can make a lot of difference, it is also very useful to split the regulars and newer players fairly evenly between the 2 teams.
- In practice, it is impossible to have perfectly even teams. One team may well be perceived as weaker or stronger. Ultimately, the aim is to keep the difference as marginal as possible or to reduce the difference as much as possible, so as not to detract from a closely contested or competitive game. Our games have players of mixed abilities. Provided players meet our basic standards, the players in each game may have a wide range of skills and abilities. Evenness is best achieved by both teams having a similar blend of stronger and weaker players.
- If one or both teams are built around a group of friends, the remaining players should be split between the two teams in such a way as to make the teams as evenly matched as possible. It should be borne in mind that a team with players who are very familiar with each other or complement each other is likely to have a strength over and above their individual strengths. If is not possible to make the two teams fairly even, then it is advisable not to use such groups of friends as the basis for the two teams (unless the group agrees to play with a handicap, such as the other team having an extra player from the waitlist, or, if there are no players on waitlist, the players being split in such a way so that the other team has 2 players extra).
It has become a common practice for one team selector to suggest the line ups, and for the other to either agree or suggest changes. The aim is to reach a consensus. If the team selectors find themselves unable to agree, they should take turns to pick players, in the following order: - Selector A picks 1.
- Selector B picks 2 and 3.
- Selector A picks 4 and 5.
- Selector B picks 6 and 7.
- [continue until all players have been picked]
The team selectors can then try to agree on any changes. If they can't agree on any changes, then they stick with their selections. One team selector should not merely concede to the other team selector's requests merely to cut the process short or to avoid disagreement. Each team selector represents the other players on his team, and is entrusted to exercise objective judgment in assessing and deciding on line ups. I will not express any views on the proposed line ups if I think the two team selectors are sufficiently familiar with the bulk of the players. If I accept that either or both team selectors are not sufficiently familiar with several of the players, I may suggest line ups to the two team selectors, and they can either accept my suggestion or make changes. The whole process should not take more than half an hour. If the two team selectors find themselves unable to agree after more than half an hour of discussions, I suggest they each put their last proposal to me, and I will say which of the two appears fairer to me. When the line ups are finalized, the team selectors should also agree on colours, one team is red and the other is white. .... I will also add "Players coming back after long lay offs or injuries should also be split between the teams.". It looks like a lot to remember, but with experience, and as the pool of regulars for each game settles down, it becomes almost second nature. Voting responsibly also needs to be highlighted. Newer or less regular players may not be familiar enough with the regulars know who to vote for, but regulars should vote, and vote responsibly. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 6, 2014 12:30:22 GMT 8
From above: .... For the more popular games which fill up within a day or two, the better incentive to be team selectors might be that I reserve places for the previous week's team selectors in the following week's game. From next month onwards, I will reserve 2 places in the following week's game for 48 hours for the two team selectors (captains not included) from the previous game. The players must confirm on the schedule thread within 48 hours that they are in, either by themselves or through another GIFFA Player on their behalf. If either of them does not confirm his place within 48 hours, the place will be released to others. .... The few times it was implemented after that, there was no issue, as the previous week's team selectors got a place anyway. Then we had a longish period when games were not filling up as fast, so everyone seems to have forgotten about this. However, it came into issue again for this Saturday's game, so I implemented it. Babs appealed strongly that there should be a one week grace period so that players are reminded of this, so ok, I've reversed it for this week, and will implement it from next week onwards. The two popular games where it is likely to apply will be the Saturday game at The Grandstand and the Wednesday game at Khalsa. From the "Keeping score & the competitive edge" thread: .... The result that best reflects the aim of competitive games and responsible selection and captaining is a draw. However, even when a game is heading for a draw, players do like to play on for a last goal, which is not necessarily inconsistent with the stated aims. The points system should promote the stated aims. For the new season (October 2014 to March 2015), the points will be modified as follows: - 2 points for a draw.
- 3 points for a close win.
- 2 points for a close loss.
- 2 points for other wins.
- 1 point for other losses.
A close result is where the winning margin is 2 or less, or where the winning team does not score more than 1.5 times the number of goals scored by the losing team. Other results will only be included where line ups were decided by elected selectors, or elected captains who voluntarily do the selection. For draws and close results, results will be included even if line ups were suggested my me.
Other results may be excluded even if the line ups were decided by elected selectors if there were unforeseen events or occurrences which significantly affected the result. This is a more limited exclusionary rule than the one that applied before. And from the report thread for the game on Sunday, 19 October 2014: .... .... If selectors are not familiar enough with the players, I will suggest line ups, especially if they had insufficient votes in the poll. Generally: - If there are sufficient players who have not opted out from the team selector poll who (in my view) are sufficiently familiar with the players down for the game, I will add a team selector poll.
- If there are several players who are not regular or are new, whether overall or for that game, I will suggest line ups, and add a team captain poll instead.
- Team selectors need to get at least 3 votes, indicating sufficient support from the other players. There is nothing to stop a player from voting for himself. If either or both players in the team selector poll with the most votes gets less than 3 votes, then if I think they are more familiar with the other players than I am, I will ask them to do the line ups, otherwise, I will suggest line ups, and they will be team captains.
- If team selectors say they are not sufficiently familiar with the players to be able to agree on line ups, I will suggest line ups, and they remain team captains.
In deciding whether to include a player in the poll, I consider whether he is (i) regular for that game, or (ii) regular across our games and has played in that game at least a few times recently. I don't have exact details for this, so I use the following criteria as a cut-off: - Number of games played in the current 6 month period (minimum of 8 to 20, depending on the players down for that game).
- Number of games played over the past 3 years (minimum of 15 to 40, again, depending on the players down for that game).
I aim to put up the poll at least 24 hours before the game (but not more than 30 hours before the game). However, if the places have not filled up yet, it may be as late as 8 hours before the game, or omitted altogether, in which case, I will just go with the two players with the most games, either in the current 6 month period or the past 3 years. The criteria I use should produce two team selectors or captains who are (i) regulars for that game, or (ii) regulars across our games and have played in that game at least a few times recently. This modifies and summarises the discussion earlier in this thread on this subject. Increasingly, team selectors are only posting line ups on the WhatsApp group chat and not on the schedule thread. In such cases, when putting up the report thread, I quote the line ups directly from the WhatsApp group chat, rather than posting the line ups on the schedule thread first. Accordingly, I have revised the "Team selectors/captains & line ups" section of the GIFFA System thread as follows, by adding the words shown underlined: |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 24, 2015 11:48:05 GMT 8
Further to the post above, the line ups for most games are now decided by team selectors. Even when there are new, newer or less regular players for a particular game, I often don't know a lot of the regulars even, so it's better to leave the line ups to the regulars. And experience counts for a lot. From the report thread for the game on Sunday (22 February 2015) at The Grandstand: .... I have learnt that lineups on paper are very unreliable (from the POV of assessing the end result of the game) at least for Giffa games! We had in the past experienced so many see-saws and unexpected performances that its always v hard to gauge. Of course there are some more influential players that can turn the tide for any side but that again varies and depends on the overall chemistry of the team...now I understand why chemistry is sooo impt in Fifa 15 (game)! You might have a team full of individually skilled players but somehow they can be totally upset by a solid team of not so skilled players but all playing in their preferred positions and who are used to each other .... I also provide guidelines to help team selectors/captains along. These are set out under "Guidelines To Selectors On Team Selection" in the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread. They are just guidelines, so team selectors/captains are not bound by them, but it is useful for them to read over them, as many issues are addressed. From the report thread for the game at The Grandstand on Saturday, 3 January 2015: $2 credit to Rainer for a first report. $2 credit to each of Rainer and Christian as team selectors. .... on another note - is nt there a rule in GIFFA where teams are supposed to swap players if a 4-goal lead opens up? in any case, i particularly enjoyed the frustrating situation of being down that scoreline and having to find a way to get back into the game and suggest to scrap that paragraph from the GIFFA system! No. The Guidelines On Team Organization and Game Play provides as follows: .... Flexibility and accommodation extends to making changes during the game. If one team is dominating the game and take a big lead in the first half of the game which appears unassailable, or one team is a player short due to uneven numbers, a no show, a late withdrawal, an injury to a player, a player having to leave early, or a temperamental player walking out of the game, or a team is significantly weakened by an injured player who continues to play in a limited capacity, team selectors/captains need to consider what changes to line ups and formations are necessary to keep the game competitive. The onus is greater when the scoreline is or approaches one that is grossly one-sided, as defined in the Appendix below. .... .... I should reverse your team selector credit for not being familiar with the Guidelines  . I was joking about reversing the team selector credit, but serious about being familiar with the Guidelines.  For the game at Macpherson on 5 January 2015, one of the team selectors stated on the WhatsApp group chat that the two team selectors had taken turns to pick players, and then listed the players on each team. Presumably because he thought that the order of listing of the players reflected which players were more in demand, which players were less in demand, Marko messaged me immediately afterwards to say: My view is that it is up to team selectors to decide how much information they want to convey to the other players. As long as they are not rude or overly abrasive, they can be forthright or blunt in their assessments of other players. A high degree of honesty gives rise to fairer assessments and can be helpful to everyone. Players can work on their weaknesses. And everyone needs to appreciate that individual opinions about strengths and weaknesses of players are relative and subjective. The quality of a game depends a lot of team selectors/captains. Fair line ups and good team organisation give rise to better quality games. And players do need to vote for team selectors/captains who are reliable and can do the job. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 19, 2015 9:52:48 GMT 8
Some unusual occurrences since February 2015: I only include regulars in the team selector or captain poll. A reminder that if a regular does not wish to be considered for the role of team selector or captain for a particular game, indicate NAATS (not available as team selector) or NAATSC (not available as team selector/captain) against his name on the list of players for that game before the poll is put up for that game. The poll is put up any time within 30 hours before the game. It is simple enough. Looking forward, if a front-runner in the team selector poll withdraws from the game shortly before the poll closes, he can be a non-playing selector. A non-playing selector can appoint a playing captain for his team, with the $2 credit shared between the two of them. As for the team selector/captain table, the result will only be recorded for the playing captain, and not the non-playing selector. I am open to introducing this for the next season (April to September 2015). |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jul 18, 2016 19:33:22 GMT 8
The "Guidelines To Selectors On Team Selection" section of the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" post provided as follows: .... It has become a common practice for one team selector to suggest the line ups, and for the other to either agree or suggest changes. The aim is to reach a consensus. If the team selectors find themselves unable to agree, they can take turns to pick players, in the following order: Selector A picks 1. Selector B picks 2 and 3. Selector A picks 4 and 5. Selector B picks 6 and 7. [continue until all players have been picked] The team selectors can then try to agree on any changes. If they can't agree on any changes, then they stick with their selections. .... A couple of months ago, CH messaged me with the view that at least for the Saturday game, the preferred method should be one team selector splitting the remaining players (excluding the two team selectors) into two teams, and the other team selector choosing one of the two teams. The first team selector is then left with the other team. I am reluctant to dictate a selection method to the team selectors. Team selectors may have their own preferred approach. Taking turns to choose works well if the abilities of those playing lie within a regular range. The method preferred by CH works well if both selectors have similar abilities. If one selector is a significantly stronger player, or has significantly different abilities, this method can result in that selector having a significant advantage. The discussion method works best where the abilities of the players vary a lot, and the selectors are sensible. Anyway, I have modified the above passage as follows: .... The aim is to reach a consensus on two evenly matched teams. There are various methods that the selectors can consider. These are set out in the Annex below. .... and added an Annex to the thread as follows: ANNEX Possible methods for dividing the players into two teams: A. Discussion methodOne selector suggests line ups, and other suggests any changes. They discuss until agreement is reached. B. Divide and chooseOne selector divides the remaining players (excluding the two team selectors) into two evenly matched teams. The other selector chooses one team. The first selector then takes the other team. C. Taking turns to chooseThe selectors take turns to pick players, in the following order: Selector A picks 1. Selector B picks 2 and 3. Selector A picks 4 and 5. Selector B picks 6 and 7. [continue until all players have been picked] The aim remains to have two evenly-matched teams, so both selectors should approach the task sensibly. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 3, 2016 14:51:54 GMT 8
Some observations: - Players should refrain from presuming how team selectors reach agreement on line ups. From time to time, players accuse the opposing selector of taking unfair advantage of the selector for their team, for example, pushing through a one-sided line up based on their selector's ignorance about certain players. Such accusations are usually unfounded, and are disrespectful of not only the selectors, but of the system, if not outright rude.
- Certain players who opt out as team selectors seem to have sufficient time after the event to analyse the line ups and criticise the selectors. It would save everyone a lot of time if such players did not opt out as team selectors, so that if elected, they could use that time to work on line ups, also sparing the selector who is criticised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 12, 2017 9:37:51 GMT 8
From the report thread for the game on Saturday (10 June 2017) at the Grandstand: Raj, I understand you were "on strike" for the first 10 minutes. I didn't expect you to follow through into the game on your following messages on the group chat before the game:  I assumed you were more mature than that. .... Everyone should show more respect to the team selectors. It appears to be a particular problem with the weekend games, especially Saturday. As Elvin once said: .... ... you should respect his decision when the lineup is set. What is the big deal anyway? The most you lose a game.....so what? And how many times have we seen the so called weaker side actually beats the stronger one?? Alot i can tell u. .... I think an apology is due, at least to your team selector. It depends how you read it It wasn't a strike - I mentioned line up was totally not balance - but also said enjoy the game . .... "On strike" is my summary of what was conveyed. The actual words were "spent first 10 mins with his arms folded and didn't move". Same thing to me. You said "enjoy your game", not "enjoy the game". Different. .... Rajiv I don't use my arms to play so if folded or not - that doesn't matter . We have players who rest their hands on their waist - is that Strike too . And I didn't move for 10 mins - don't you think my team would have said something / or probably down by 10-0 . #nonsense .... Parts of the quote from Elvin were quoted earlier in this thread. At that time, I was doing the line ups, but it is just as applicable to everyone who is team selector. Over the years, players who respond to the line ups by sweepingly stating they are unbalanced or one-sided have been proven to be wrong 70 to 80% of the time. It's worse when a player with such a strong view conducts himself in a way that is more likely to make his view true, for example, by not making sufficient effort, or otherwise undermining the morale of the team he is on. Two reminders from the principles, values and rules: .... .... Everyone should make a reasonable effort and contribute to the best of their ability to the team they are playing for. .... .... To the examples given, I have added "Not making sufficient effort due to dissatisfaction with the line ups or any other matter conflicting with, or without sufficient regard for, the system and the rules." .... Everyone who plays by the Core Values and Game Rules is welcome. The converse is that anyone who does not play by the rules and core values is not welcome. I rely on information provided to me. To this end: - Information from a team selector/captain relating to a particular player on that player's team carries the greatest weight.
....
Possible sanctions include being excluded from the whole of, or aspects of, our games or system for a period or time, or indefinitely, or being required to post on the forum giving a commitment as to his future conduct. At least, an apology was due from Raj to his team selector. Instead, Raj descended into nonsense. The only conclusion I can draw is he does not fully appreciate the responsibilities of being team selector. In the circumstances, Raj will be excluded from all team selector/captain polls until further notice. It is not that players can't comment on line ups. The best way is to message the selector/captain and express their concerns, preferably in a constructive manner. However, often, players base their opinions on which team a handful of regular or highly-rated are on, without much or any knowledge about several other less regular players, and without regard for the overall balance of the teams. If a selector is not familiar with certain players, I provide the selector with information about that player, so that he can make a more informed decision. The selectors are definitely more informed than any other player expressing sweeping opinions on limited information. And having been elected as team selectors, they have been entrusted by the other players to make that decision. |
|
PRG Player
|
Post by Raj Singh on Jun 12, 2017 11:32:31 GMT 8
To the examples given, I have added "Not making sufficient effort due to dissatisfaction with the line ups or any other matter conflicting with, or without sufficient regard for, the system and the rules." Were you there to watch the match or you heard from someone who was watching me more then playing . I assisted both goals for the whites - made couple of clearance and for the team to play even we were down by 6-2 till the last goal . I shall agree on the above sentence if you were there to watch the match . But you have saved my time over the weekend now by not being a team selector and that I appreciate and big thank you to you . And yes I still stand firm that there was no necessity of apologising . Just checked with some players who played and they didn't see that . Folding my arms or having my hands on the waist is called Style Go ask Arijit - he has his hands on the waist most of the time - does that means he went on strike Go ask babs - he scratches his balls at times - is that a strike ? Hillarioua and comical post here but is entertaining on a Monday for sure . |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 12, 2017 13:31:48 GMT 8
In reply to Raj's post above, the reason was the following: .... Over the years, players who respond to the line ups by sweepingly stating they one-sided have been proven to be wrong 70 to 80% of the time. It's worse when a player with such a strong view conducts himself in a way that is more likely to make his view true, for example, by not making sufficient effort, or otherwise undermining the morale of the team he is on. .... Not him in particular. Raj also WhatsApped me as follows at 1.45 pm: Also from above: .... It is not that players can't comment on line ups. The best way is to message the selector/captain and express their concerns, preferably in a constructive manner. However, often, players base their opinions on which team a handful of regular or highly-rated are on, without much or any knowledge about several other less regular players, and without regard for the overall balance of the teams. If a selector is not familiar with certain players, I provide the selector with information about that player, so that he can make a more informed decision. The selectors are definitely more informed than any other player expressing sweeping opinions on limited information. And having been elected as team selectors, they have been entrusted by the other players to make that decision. Ultimately, every GIFFA Player has an indirect say in the line ups through his vote. That is why it is important to vote, and vote wisely. Everyone wants team selectors who will carry out the responsibilities of being team selector conscientiously. If a team selector has confidence in his choice of players, players on his team should not undermine him or that team by criticising the line ups with sweeping statements made in the group chat. Further, players who opt out from the team selector poll should exercise even more restraint, as they themselves are not prepared to take on those responsibilities. Also, for some time now, most of the Saturday regulars opt out as team selectors, leaving us with just 2 or 3 available players, so that sometimes, the selectors are decided by default. I am prepared to consider a non-playing selector for such games, a regular, who is not playing that week decides line ups, and appoints a captain for each team. The non-playing selector will receive a $2 credit, and the two captains $1 each. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jul 20, 2019 8:10:12 GMT 8
The selector/captain system (as discussed on this thread) is now well established. PRG players who put their names down for a game elect two selectors or captains from amongst themselves by way of a poll which I add to the schedule thread less than 24 hours before the game. The poll closes 5 hours before the game. Selectors agree on line ups and colours (red or white) between themselves. Captains are in charge of the game. For a player to be added to the poll, he must be a PRG player, and have played a minimum number of games in the current 6 months and/or the past 3 years. Going forward, to be added to the selector poll for the 7 or 8-a-side games, a PRG player must have played a minimum of:
- 15 games in the current 6 month period and 50 games over the past 3 years.
- 20 games in the current 6 month period or 60 games over the past 3 years (subject to having played a minimum of 10 games in current 6 month period).
For the 5 or 6-a-side games, the above figures are reduced by 20%. Where there are less than 2 players who meet the above criteria, or there are several new or less regular players playing, I restrict the poll to the election of captains, in which case I (or, as set out below, any non-playing regular) will suggest line ups. Captains decide on colours, and can raise any concerns about the balance of the teams with me. Going forward, for a PRG player to be added to the captain poll, the minimum number of games are the above figures reduced by 20%. Where due to players indicating NAAS or NAASC (not available as selector or captain), there are only two players who qualify for the poll, then they are the default selectors or captains, and there is no need for the poll. If the game fills up late, and there is no time for a poll, the two players with the most number of games (either in the current 6 month period or over the past 3 years), or selectors/captains from a previous game, are appointed selectors or captains. Again, there would be no poll. Continuing from the post above, Gerard was a non-playing selector for the game on Wednesday, 17 Jan 2018. And from the report thread for the game on 21 October 2017: From the schedule thread: Of the Saturday regulars who have not opted out, only Raj qualifies as team selector (minimum 15 games in the current 6 month period and 50 games over the past 3 years). He can suggest line ups, and the person on the opposing team with the most number of games in the current 6 month period can be team captain of that team. The two of them can then agree on swaps. Raj suggested as follows on the WhatsApp group chat at 12.11 pm: .... The player on Whites with the most number of games in the current 6 month period, and who has not specifically opted out as captain, can be captain. That would be Paul, with 26 games. .... .... Another variation, for the game at Grandstand (small pitch) on Tuesday, 8 May 2018: Gerard suggested line ups all his colleagues other than himself on one team. As he and Stuart ended up on the same team, he suggested Khalid and Stuart as captains. Khalid and Stuart agreed to the line ups. .... As I am increasingly unfamiliar with players, instead of my suggesting line ups, I am increasingly open to a non-playing selector (for example, a regular player who has had to withdraw from the game), or where due to too many regular players NAASing, having only one selector. Where the non-playing selector suggests or decides both teams, he can or should also appoint or propose captains for each teams. If the non-playing selector agrees to line ups with a playing selector, he is representing the team opposing the playing selector's team, and must appoint a captain for the team he represents. If one playing selectors suggests or decides both teams, he can or should also appoint a captain for the opposing team. Captains can be players who have NAASed, but cannot be players who have NAASCed. Where a captain is appointed by a non-playing selector, he is at liberty to propose changes to the line ups. The proposed changes should be discussed with both the selectors. Although there is a minimum requirement for each selector to have at least 3 votes, even if one or both of the two players with the most number of votes have less than 3 votes (1 or 2 votes), I allow them to be selectors if they are experienced and are sufficiently familiar with those playing in that game. Going forward, I am going to apply the minimum 3 vote requirement strictly. If either or both players have less than 3 votes, either the player(s) with the most number of games in the current 6 month period or over the past 3 years, or a selector/captain from a previous game, will be appointed instead. Where both selectors are sufficiently experienced, I have not been creating the separate "Line ups" WhatsApp group chat for them, as I do not need to be involved in their discussions, deliberations and decisions. They can either message each other directly, or just speak to each other over the phone. If they want me to be involved, either of them can create the "Line ups" group chat. If I have any information about a new, newer or less regular player, I will provide the information to both selectors. Going forward, I will post the link to the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread on the WhatsApp group chat after the selectors/captains are announced. I have not been doing so, but I think everyone, in particular the selectors/captains, need to be reminded of the Guidelines for every game. The Annex to the Guidelines currently sets out three methods for the selectors to decide on line ups. These methods are just suggestions, but the selectors can decide by any method that they agree on. One method that is used from time to time is for one selector to pair the remaining players by similar positions or abilities, and either the other selector picks one of each pair, or they take turns to pick one from each pair. This works best if the selectors themselves play in similar positions and/or have similar abilities. I will add this method to the Annex. The third method currently listed provides for selectors to take turns in picking from the list of players (without the players being paired) so that each selector has a turn to go first. This may seem the fairest method but it may be skewed by having an exceptionally strong or exceptionally weak player playing. Where there is such an exceptional player, the method should be modified such that the selectors agree to one of them taking the exceptional player. If the player is exceptionally weak, the selectors continue picking one at a time, with the selector with the exceptionally weak player always going first, and the other selector having the last 2 players. If the player is exceptionally strong, the selector who takes him always goes second. The other selector picks two players before the selector who takes the exceptionally strong player picks another player. Then they take turns to pick, with the other selector always going first. I have modified the Annex accordingly. As stated in the post above, after line ups are decided, certain players express strong views on the WhatsApp group chat on the balance between the two teams. This unnecessarily winds up other players, and/or may adversely affect the attitude or performance of players. For the game on Saturday, 13 July 2019, one of the players had a go at the opposing selector, without appreciating that his own selector had suggested the line ups. If a player is dissatisfied with the line ups, he should message his own selector first. If the selector does not agree, he can then canvass the views of other players on the WhatsApp group chat. Having a go at the selectors before the game, especially the opposing selector, for the line ups, is not acceptable, and I am minded to introduce a $1 penalty for doing so. From the "Individual skills, attributes & positions" thread: I was under a lot of pressure in April and May 2019 from certain players not to allow Anthony Goh to play the Saturday evening game at the Grandstand on the basis that he was not up to standard for that game. As far as I am concerned, if a player meets the basic standard, there is no reason for me to prevent him from playing a particular game because that game is perceived as being of a higher standard. The pressure reached a high point for the game on 25 May 2019, when some of these players asked me to take Anthony out from the game. From the schedule thread: Some strong views on the WhatsApp group chat for the Saturday game, and in messages to me, that Anthony is not up to standard. I am not going to make a special rule for a particular game or a particular player. My simple response is that going forward, after the selector poll closes, if the selectors feel strongly enough, selectors can between them agree to replace any player with the next player on waitlist, either because the player does not meet the minimum standard, or because of the player's poor attitude. This will apply to ALL games going forward, not just the Saturday game. If the selectors do so, they should inform me of the reason, and check with the next player on waitlist if he is still available. Anthony played, and had a good game. From the report thread: .... Line ups as posted by Nick on the WhatsApp group chat at 12.37 pm: .... Whites won 5-3 .... Anthony did well and played to his position. .... .... Where there are players on waitlist, and the selectors confirm that the next player on waitlist is available, they can replace any player with a confirmed place if the selectors agree that that player does not meet the basic standard, or has a poor attitude. However, they have to inform me of the reason before doing so. This has not happened yet, and will be very exceptional, but it is an option going forward. I rely on captains to take charge of the games, and to keep me informed of material issues and developments in the game, including relevant information on particular players. In principle, a selector can appoint another player on his team as captain, but this has not happened before (except in the case of the non-playing selector). |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 23, 2019 13:20:47 GMT 8
From the "Filling places & choices" thread: On 20 Jul 2019, I re-set the criteria for inclusion in the selector/captain poll. The reason I have a minimum threshold (based on number of games played) is to limit the position of selector/captain to PRG players who have sufficient experience of our games, and have been playing regularly enough to be sufficiently familiar with the current players. As each PRG player has two votes (for two selectors/captains) The threshold for the selector poll in particular has from early on been set somewhat higher than it needs to be in order to try to prevent "tactical" voting, basically where a player votes for one player whose team he wants to be on, and another who is vastly less experienced, and/or is likely to agree to significantly less than optimal line ups merely out of lack of experience, indifference or deference to the other selector. This was a greater risk when I went with the vote even where there were less than the minimum required. However, I also changed this on 20 Jul 2019. .... As I update the number of games played in the current 6 month period some time during the month, dropping the numbers from the game 7 months ago, the figure can change significantly. As Ben hadn't played any games between May and July 2019 due to a hamstring injury, when I dropped his games for February 2019 towards the end of August 2019, his number of games fell below the threshold. Nothing to do with his performance as selector. I was thinking that I actually don't need such a high threshold. I will lower it going forward. For 7 or 8-a-side games, any of the following will suffice: - 18 games in the current 6 month period and 40 games over the past 3 years.
- 15 games in the current 6 month period and 45 games over the past 3 years.
- 12 games in the current 6 month period and 50 games over the past 3 years.
- 10 games in the current 6 month period and 55 games over the past 3 years.
- 8 games in the current 6 month period and 60 games over the past 3 years.
For 5 or 6-a-side games: - 15 games in the current 6 month period and 35 games over the past 3 years.
- 12 games in the current 6 month period and 40 games over the past 3 years.
- 10 games in the current 6 month period and 45 games over the past 3 years.
- 8 games in the current 6 month period and 50 games over the past 3 years.
If more players vote in the poll, I can reduce the threshold even further, giving the players more choice.
.... I will look to lower the thresholds further over time. From the schedule thread for the game on Monday, 9 Sep 2019, at Macpherson: No one has the minimum 3 votes. The selectors from last week were Sean and Naz, who were the default selectors, having been the selectors the week before. The two players with the most number of games in the current 6 month period are Naz (49 games) and Sean (48 games). The default selectors are Naz and Sean. Line ups to follow. .... And from the schedule thread for the game yesterday (22 Sep 2019) at Grandstand: I have been applying the minimum 3 votes requirement strictly. However, even with 3 voters, as we have today, depending on the spread of votes, the minimum 3 votes per player may still not be met, as is the case today. With immediate effect, I will apply a minimum 3 voters requirement. .... On the other hand, players should use both their votes. As set out earlier on this thread: Therefore, continuing from the post above, instead of requiring a minimum of 3 voters (for 7 or 8-a-side games), I will require a minimum of 6 votes. For 5 or 6-a-side games, this is reduced to a minimum of 4 votes. Going forward, if there are insufficient votes in the poll, the poll is void. From the report thread for the game on Saturday (21 Sep 2019) at Grandstand: .... As I add every player to the WhatsApp group chat, the identity of a player can be verified from the list of participants in the group info (either the mobile number of the player or his profile photo). Or just ask me! If there is any doubt, selectors should verify the identities of players. Players wrongfully assuming the identity of other players is sometimes the reason for mistaken views about the balance of the teams. Selectors should avoid making similar mistakes. In any event, this mistake should have been recognised when the players turned up at the pitch. Such a serious or obvious mistake should have been rectified immediately, by adjusting line ups, instead of waiting until the score was 1-4. Players are required to bring both a red top and a white top, and it is easy enough to make changes in the 10 minutes before the game which is reserved for such purposes. Going forward, if a player is unable to change teams either before or during a game because he does not have the other colour, and this is referred to in the report thread and verified by his captain, I will impose a $1 penalty on that player. If selectors, having realised they made a serious or obvious mistake in the identify of one or more players, do not rectify the mistake before the game starts, I may withhold the $1 credit for being selectors, and they may lose their priority for the following week's game. And from the "Keeping score & the competitive edge" thread: .... Where, for whatever reason, one team is a player short, a simple solution is for one player from the team with excess players to swap over to the side a player short halfway through the remainder of the game. If an injured player continues in a limited capacity, that player can (and should) be swapped at the half point. With effect from the game on 31 Aug 2019, if the final score is grossly one-sided (as described in the Annex to the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread), both captains will lose the $1 credit for being captain. The $1 credit for selectors will not be affected. I will also consider depriving the captains of priority for the following week's game, but I won't implement this for now. .... The requirement to bring both colours (white and red) is mandatory, and if it is reported and verified that a regular player who signed up early for a fast-filled game failed to bring both colours, the $1 admin fee will be automatic. If players can make the effort to sign up early for a fast-filled game, they should also make the effort to bring both colours. I will look at the following on a case-by-case basis: - $1 admin fee for non-regular players not bringing both colours, or players not bringing both colours for a slow-filling game.
- Withholding the selector credit or the priority for the following week's game where selectors fail to correct obvious or serious mistakes in the line ups, or make adequate changes to the line ups when it is obviously needed.
I know being selector is a responsibility, but the players elected or appointed should carry out the task diligently. Players can opt out. However, if too many players opt out, the game suffers, as those voting have less choice. On the other hand, there are benefits, the biggest of which is first priority in the first 24 hours for the following week's game. This is quite a big incentive for fast-filled games. The game at Grandstand for this Saturday (28 Sep 2019) filled up within an hour of the schedule thread being put up! (Still not as fast as the game tonight at Macpherson, which filled up within 45 minutes of the schedule thread going up last Wednesday, 18 Sep 2019.) Players can opt out as selector when they put their names down for a game. They can opt out any time before the poll goes up, even on the WhatsApp group chat. Sometimes, players opt out even after the poll goes up! On the other hand, players who had earlier opted out can make themselves available for the poll any time before the poll goes up. I think this has only happened once or twice before. Continuing from the post above, if the poll for any game is void, or there is insufficient time for a poll, I will use the poll result from the previous game. If the game the week before was cancelled or converted to a challenge match, I will go to the week before that. If the poll in the previous game was void or there was insufficient time for a poll, or selectors from that game are not playing in the game, then the default will be the player(s) with the most number of games in the current 6 month period. As I am now putting up the poll earlier, players have ample time to vote. Starting from the game to be scheduled for 1 October 2019 onwards, if the selector poll for any game is void due to insufficient votes, I will add a $1 admin fee to the price per player for the GIFFA players who did not vote in the poll for that game. This will not apply to captain polls. From the "Team organization, formations & tactics" thread: .... Our primary routine games start 10 minutes before the hour not only to ensure punctuality, but to allow captains time to brief their teams on positions, formation and organisation. Of course, formation and organisation needs to be adaptable, and may need to be changed over the course of the game. It benefits our games if there is proper briefing, discussion and feedback on positions, formation and organisation by or to captains, apart from or in addition to any discussion or feedback relating to the attitude or abilities of particular players. Players do need to make reasonable effort to contribute positively to the team effort. And captains do need to organise and direct players adequately. .... Captains should inform me if they find that a player on their team is not co-operative. I will address the matter with the player. may be helpful.  |
|
... with 7v7, I thought we were in for a balanced and competitive game. But barely 5 mins in, I twisted my ankle badly and was confined to being the keeper for the rest of the game. Whites did well to equalize through Sean. From there on, Reds dominated the game with a flurry of goals mostly because of me being an immobile and shitty keeper. The score was 6-3 at one point with Jeremiah pulling 2 goals back for the Whites, but I let in a series of silly goals which should have been easily saved. 
.... That's the reason I make the distinction between selectors and captains. Selectors are more familiar with the players than I am. If I'm more familiar, they're only captains. .... Although I've raised it many times before in particular threads, I should add it to the Guidelines."
... so game on...
. 
