|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 16, 2011 10:59:42 GMT 8
More issues about suggesting changes to line ups arising from yesterday's game. * If a player views the team he is on negatively (too weak, too defensive, too slow etc), I will swap him with a player at least as strong on the opposing side. * If two players from opposing teams view their respective teams negatively, I will swap the two players. * If two players from the same team view their team negatively, they can re-do the line ups by selecting their respective teams, using the method set out above. All comments must be on the same schedule thread as the suggested line ups. I will ignore SMSes about line ups. However, if a player is for whatever reason unable to post on the message board and SMSes me instead, I will reproduce the SMS for him on the message board verbatim. Only SMSes asking not to be on the same side as a particular player will be treated as confidential: * If 3 or more regulars playing a certain game ask not to be on the same side as a particular player, I may ask that player not to play in that game any more. The player is still free to play in our other games. * If a player asks not to be on the same side as different players on different occasions, I will only pay heed to the latest request, and the earlier ones may be ignored. * If a player asks not to be on the same side as 2 or more players in a particular game, I may suggest to the player making the request drop out instead. ... . When I SMS some players conserving the line up And ask on their opinions they somehow thought it was imbalance . .... . About half the players for each game don't care about the line ups before hand, and most of the rest probably think the sides are unbalanced. If a player is satisfied with the line ups before hand, it's probably because his side is stronger. The art of balancing line ups might well be in keeping everyone equally unhappy with the line ups before the game. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 20, 2011 16:22:36 GMT 8
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 21, 2011 17:49:45 GMT 8
Despite this lengthy thread, there are still several misapprehensions about line ups. The purpose of suggesting line ups on the message board several hours before the game is two-fold: * To save time at the game. We don't need to spend the first 5 to 15 minutes trying to decide on teams, and can play one hour flat out. * To try to get balanced sides, so that the games are more competitive and fun. To be balanced, both team should have a similar mix of stronger and weaker players. In a perfect world, we would list the players from strongest to weakest (say 1st to 16th for an 8-a-side game), and them divide them into two teams as follows: Whites: 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 13th, 16th Reds: 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th In this scenario, the weakest player is on the same side as the strongest player. In the real world, listing players from strongest to weakest would be highly subjective and subject to debate in any event. There are also other variables (described below). In practice, I do not list the players in any order at all ( although under the old points system, I used to list players by their points). Further, as our regular 7/8-a-side games are more tactical and require more organization than our regular 5-a-side games, it is more important that each team has: * a similar blend of attacking and defensive players. * sufficient experience and leadership. On the other hand, as our games are social and our players diverse, I try to make sure both teams have a similar mix of ages, ethnicities and nationalities. However, if there are 2 or 3 friends/relatives putting their names down together, I try to keep them on the same team, at least until they are regulars, and are more familiar with the other players who regularly play a particular game. As, ultimately, we are playing for enjoyment: * If a player cannot get on with another, and, before the line ups are suggested, asks that he not be on the same team, I will oblige. However, if a player has an issue with several players in a particular game, I may instead suggest that he not play in that game. If he has issues with several players across our various games, I may go so far as to suggest that he not play at all, at least for a period of time. * If after the suggested line ups are posted, a player posts on the message board that he feels his team is significantly weaker, I will swap him with a player at least as strong as him on the other team. By swapping him with a player who is at least as strong, the balance of the teams should not be affected, and by swapping him to the side he thinks is stronger, he no longer has any reason to feel any grievance over the line ups. However, if I feel that a player is repeatedly raising such issues in order to avoid having on his team a player he perceives to be a weak link, I may instead suggest that he drop out of the game. Impressions about the relative strengths of the two sides are sometimes wrong. We have a large pool of players - about 500 have playes since January 2009, and about 220 in the past 6 months. There will usually be a few names down for a game that even regulars are not familiar with: * With new players joining us (although this may be less of a factor with the new rules on new players). * Regular players trying out games other than the one(s) they play regularly. * With several players playing some but not all weeks, even a couple of regulars may never have played together before. To exacerbate matters, there are many players who don't know the names of other players they've played with before. For example, from 28 April 2009 - "Melvin didn’t play on Saturday Rajseran. You’ll need to start remembering names. " And more recently, from last Saturday's game: And the only swap we had was Lynz and arjit with Dave and uday from the original line up. .... .... Actually, there were three players swapped from each side, and no Dave playing. .... .... , and sometimes go to the games to collect payment, I believe I am more familiar with the entire pool than anyone else. Unless at least two of the players in a game are familiar with all the players, I end up suggesting the line ups, not because there is any "credit" for me in doing so, but because the line ups need to be done. Some regulars look out for the players they are familiar with and end up believing that the stronger players are on the opposing side and the weaker players are on their side. They may overlook that this is balanced by the players they don't know so well - weaker ones on the opposing side and stronger ones on their side. .... About half the players for each game don't care about the line ups before hand, and most of the rest probably think the sides are unbalanced. If a player is satisfied with the line ups before hand, it's probably because his side is stronger. The art of balancing line ups might well be in keeping everyone equally unhappy with the line ups before the game. If the player addresses his concerns as a comment on the message board, the simplest solution, as set out above, would be to swap him with a player who is at least as strong from the other side. More generally: .... * If a player views the team he is on negatively (too weak, too defensive, too slow etc), I will swap him with a player at least as strong on the opposing side. * If two players from opposing teams view their respective teams negatively, I will swap the two players. * If two players from the same team view their team negatively, they can re-do the line ups by selecting their respective teams, using the method set out above. .... More reasoned or analytical comments may result in other changes to the line ups. On the other hand, getting obsessed over line ups doesn't help. Line-up Anxiety Disorder (LAD)? Better than Line-up Anxiety Stress Syndrome (LASS) I guess. As I've said several times in this thread, suggesting line ups is not a perfect science, and I have gotten it wrong from time to time. I have looked at one-sided result after a game and thought that perhaps one or two swaps would have balanced the sides. And of course, there are other factors that affect outcomes: * Team formation and organization. * Fitness and form of individual players. * The desire to win. * Good fortune. Player switches are available during the game, but increasingly, unused. .... What Jiv is doing is not an easy job, week in week out with so many games going on. I wouldnt want to be in his position, working out teams so that they are balanced on every front. And 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. .... It helps when players see line ups for what they are, and play our games in the right spirit. However, I must reiterate that I only suggest line ups, not decide them, and changes can be made, either by me (as described above) or by the players themselves at the game (although agreement may be hard to reach). For changes to be made, comments need to be transparent and constructive. If there are no changes, then of course, the suggested line ups become the de facto line ups. Looking ahead, if all the players in a game are regulars and familiar with each other, we can have two of the players selecting their respective teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Oct 22, 2011 8:52:58 GMT 8
This is better than playing fantasy football isn't it? You pick line-ups for at least 7 games a week. That is about 100 players. In this aspect, I reckon you are the most influential manager in the soccer world, whether social or competitive. Agree? Just playing the devil's advocate: If there are withdrawls after both players have selected their teams, it would upset the arrangement and there could be some horse-trading. E.g. player ranked #4 pull out, and the replacement is, say #15. So the captain who lose #4 will want #5 to re-balance the team but the other captain may not see it that way. Alternatively, the other captain will trade #5 only if he gets #6 etc... It virtually means choosing the line-ups all over again. It would be more expedient if you decide. It would also be less strenuous on relationships. I think the best is for all to accept the line-ups that you suggest. Instead of responding to feedback that one side is stronger than the other by re-arranging the line-ups, perhaps your first response to such requests is: "Can the team then organise tactically to overcome this perceived weakness?" This will shift the emphasis from players' abilities to tactics (formations, players' positions). The 'weaker' team can decide whether to play defensively in the first 20 minutes; they can become more defensive should they score the first goal; or they may decide to slow the game down and keep possession to frustrate the other fitter and speedier team. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 22, 2011 11:44:30 GMT 8
Thanks for your responses Foo Cheong. I've merged your three posts between 8.16 and 8.52 am into one. .... This is better than playing fantasy football isn't it? You pick line-ups for at least 7 games a week. That is about 100 players. In this aspect, I reckon you are the most influential manager in the soccer world, whether social or competitive. Agree? .... "Fantasy"? It can be a nightmare sometimes - especially when players get worked up over line ups. As for withdrawals after the selection method is used, we can have general rules as to what should happen. "Horse-trading" may be interesting, but as you say, it may not be good for relationships. With the selection method, more of the regulars can share in the "fantasy". .... Instead of responding to feedback that one side is stronger than the other by re-arranging the line-ups, perhaps your first response to such requests is: "Can the team then organise tactically to overcome this perceived weakness?" This will shift the emphasis from players' abilities to tactics (formations, players' positions). The 'weaker' team can decide whether to play defensively in the first 20 minutes; they can become more defensive should they score the first goal; or they may decide to slow the game down and keep possession to frustrate the other fitter and speedier team. That's fine, but that in any event requires regulars to get more involved, which has to be the way going foward. I might still swap a player who expresses negative views about his team, as there is no benefit to that team in having a player on it who is unhappy about the team - it would just undermine the team's efforts to overcome the perception of weakness. The team still has to work on its tactics and organization to overcome the perception of weakness, but can do so without the additional handicap of an unhappy player. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 23, 2011 11:15:04 GMT 8
Are drawn games an indication of even teams? .... However, the fact that a game swings one way and then the other is probably an indication that it is more about tactics, the desire to win (or not to lose) or luck, than about balanced sides. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 27, 2011 14:30:01 GMT 8
.... As for the line ups themselves, when the places fill up as late at 6.30 pm, my focus is more on getting the line ups out, rather than trying to get the best possible balance. .... .... Likewise, when we have late replacements, it may skew the balance of the sides. lI can see now how the balance might have been affected by having more regulars with Whites than with Reds. .... I suppose when we talk of regulars, we're talking of regulars for that particular game. I sometimes miss that because I'm routinely looking at all the games, and don't see that a regular for another game may not be a regular for that particular game. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 18, 2011 8:47:59 GMT 8
For last night's game at Khalsa: hey rajiv, could you team david, mark, wilson, kelvin, lester and sean together? and was wondering if it could be white tops..so that i can tell the guys to bring a white top really soon? I am ok with that as a matter of line ups, as player for player, I think the other team is at least as strong. Song Chuan was introduced by Wilson, so I'll switch him over to make 7, .... .... Although I believe all the players with Reds have played with each other at some time or other, most of them would not have played together much, therefore, team formation and positional discipline will be important. .... After the game: .... ... [we have] a large pool of players and each time it's different players so it's hard to gel against a team who knows each others playing style and have been playing together for years. .... Their understanding and bonding were evident and they came up winners by 4 or 5 goals. Reds were all over the place and sometimes everyone tend to drift away from their positions.... .... The thing about challenge matches is our opponents are usually organized and a team that has played with each other a long time with better apprehend and grasp of the game. .... Previously: That is why, as repeated several times in this thread, I have been reluctant to have a group of friends play as one team in our regular games. .... Perhaps it's not helpful to call them challenge matches. I'll rename the Challenge Matches board as "Team Matches". .... .... The differences between a team match and a group of friends playing together on the same team in a regular game as a matter of line ups are, for the latter: * Both teams are limited to those who put their name down for the game. * It is the exception, where player for player, the other team is at least as strong. * The line ups can be changed, and player swaps are readily available. I accept that there are two major problems with a group of friends playing on the same team in a regular game: * Even if the players on the other team are stronger individually, the understanding between the group of friends can be an overriding factor. * Unlike for a team match, the other team doesn't have a choice of players (for example, to ensure all positions are covered), which risks the game being even more one-sided. As set out earlier in this thread, I have had repeated requests from Fai and David T for their group of friends/relatives to play in the same team in regular games. For a long time, I was the only one expressing any reservations. However, I did have a sense that: .... .... If the better players who would otherwise play that game feel that week in, week out, they will be left to struggle in a weaker team against [David T and his friends], they will stop playing, as it's no fun for them. You end up with increasingly one-sided games, in which other players don't want to play. After a while, the game will regularly be short of players, and end up being cancelled. It's happened before. .... However, as the requests were made repeatedly, on the message board, and there were no objections, I started allowing it in the limited circumstances described above. Yaseen is the first player to express his objections. Feedback, especially when provided on the message board, is important. .... .... Today my team mates agree on that point. Anyone else from reds please feel free to comment and make your opinion known. .... In the circumstances, I am less likely to accede to requests in the future for a group of friends/relatives to play as one team. As set out earlier in this thread, David T and his friends playing in one team in our regular games has often ended up in one-sided games. On the other hand, Fai and his friends/relatives playing as one team in our regular games did result in fairly even games, perhaps because their understanding is not as strong as David T and his friends. Good understanding does not develop overnight. When there are players who want to play a particular regular game, but it is slow to fill up, my priority sometimes is to ensure that the places are filled up and the game goes ahead. I may accede to a request for a group of friends to play in one team as a matter of line ups if it looks ok to me, there are no objections from the other players, and it helps ensure the game goes ahead. There is a difference between players who just want to play, and those who want to play as a team. Our regular games are for the former, team matches for the latter. The bigger issue for me is should I allow the latter in our regular games to ensure the game goes ahead? Perhaps it might be better that the game gets cancelled instead. Fai and his friends/relatives haven't played for a while. David T and his friends were playing again for the first time in a while. The Thursday night game at Khalsa had been cancelled the previous two weeks. The counter-arguments: * Those who want to play as a team may get used to playing with the rest of us, and be less insistent on playing as a team in our regular games. * The familiarity and understanding of those on the other team will develop over time. Although our pool is very big, those who play particular games is smaller, as many players are not inclined to switch games. As I have previously stated: .... Trying to keep friends/relatives or players who are familiar with each other on the same team can distort the balance. Hopefully, as players get to know each other better, these factors will be less relevant. .... I hope that the more regularly players play, the less the need to stick together as a group of friends/relatives. .... Once a rapport builds up between regular players, do the team of 7 really need to stick together as one team? More feedback helps. |
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Nov 18, 2011 9:13:40 GMT 8
Can I suggest that "Friends" who want to play together, please state upfront when signing up. Then the "Others" can decide whether or not to sign up.
If the Others do, it means they implicitly have agreed. A few issues to this stance:
- Unless the Others are playing regularly at that venue, they are not likely to know how strong (or weak) the Friends are, so it is difficult to make an informed decision.
- It is relative. If all the Others who signed up are collectively stronger than the Friends, then the line-ups also is unbalanced. To be fair, if the Friends still want to play together, then they could be the ones on the losing side and hence there should be no complaints.
If the Others do not agree, they can either don't sign up, or sign up and state their reservations/objections.
If not enough Others sign up, it could simply be due to poor response, or a feedback that the Others don't like the arrangement.
It is not fair to request for Friends to play together at the last-minute. If it is unbalanced, the Others who sign up will not enjoy their game and this is not something they bargained for. They pay money to have fun, not to be the whipping boys for the enjoyment of a group of Friends. This is ambush to the unsuspecting Others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 18, 2011 9:30:49 GMT 8
.... .... If it is unbalanced, the Others who sign up will not enjoy their game and this is not something they bargained for. They pay money to have fun, not to be the whipping boys for the enjoyment of a group of Friends. This is ambush. (On the other hand, I notice that it is usually the losers who complained. Same as for Turf City Saturdays.  If it's you with four or more friends on the same team on a Saturday, you're more likely to end up on the losing side. Age is also a factor.  .... Can I suggest that "Friends" who want to play together, please state upfront when sigining up. Then the "Others" can decide whether or not to sign up. .... It is not fair to request for Friends to play together at the last-minute. .... Often, the names of friends are put down over a period of time. There are restrictions on putting down names for others in the first couple of days. For last night's game, the limit on non-registered players was exceeded. However, as we didn't have anyone else, the players exceeding the limit would in any event have come in as reserves. I suppose the request should be made as soon as there are four or more friends down for the game. .... If the Others do not agree, they can either don't sign up, or sign up and state their reservations/objections. .... Of course, it also depends on the others reading through to know the request has been made. Often they don't, just looking at the line ups before the game. For yesterday's game, even though the request and the factors was set out in the same post as the line ups (which is always the case, no matter how early or late the request is made): .... .... All I saw was that I'm on red so I came. .... .... - Unless the Others are playing regularly at that venue, they are not likely to know how strong (or weak) the Friends are, so it is difficult to make an informed decision. .... For last night, only Lester 2 was new. Everyone else other than Song Chuan has played several times on Thursday nights at Khalsa, so there shouldn't have been any surprises. .... - It is relative. If all the Others who signed up are collectively stronger than the Friends, then the line-ups also is unbalanced. To be fair, if the Friends still want to play together, then they could be the ones on the losing side and hence there should be no complaints. .... I have pointed out that: That is because the group of 7 who want to play together are gaining no significant advantage other than the fun of being a group of friends/relatives playing on the same team. In fact, if the other team is signficantly stronger, they are willingly taking on the disadvantage of facing a stronger team. However, even when the others are stronger players individually, as stated above, the understanding between a team of friends can be an overriding factor. |
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Nov 18, 2011 9:35:53 GMT 8
Quote: "If it's you with four or more friends on the same team on a Saturday, you're more likely to end up on the losing side. Age is also a factor. " This is why it is fine with me (and wise of me) not to play with friends. ;D I was introduced by Look Liew, and I also introduced friends who are also on the wrong side of 40. It would be suicidal for us all to be on the same team. Please take note when you suggest line-ups tomorrow (19 Nov Sat Turf City). No Country For Old Men!? |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 20, 2011 22:22:03 GMT 8
Earlier, arising from the Thursday game at Khalsa: .... This was blatanly a challenge match. I didn't notice the line ups and David's proposal and all. All I saw was that I'm on red so I came. I have made it clear to Rajiv that when it comes to challenge matches, I'm out simply because Fiofafi has a large pool of players and each time it's different players so it's hard to gel against a team who knows each others playing style and have been playing together for years. .... Their understanding and bonding were evident and they came up winners by 4 or 5 goals. Reds were all over the place and sometimes everyone tend to drift away from their positions.... .... As set out earlier in this thread, David T and his friends playing in one team in our regular games has often ended up in one-sided games. On the other hand, Fai and his friends/relatives playing as one team in our regular games did result in fairly even games, perhaps because their understanding is not as strong as David T and his friends. Good understanding does not develop overnight. .... David T's response on Thursday's game: hmm I somehow disagree with Yaseen.. For whites, only 4 of us continuously play together, so its not really a challenge team. in fact, i was just getting friend's friends to fill in the thursday slots .... and .... .... whites were moving a lot more to want the ball in scoring positions, and to attack. Reds i feel dabbled on the ball a little longer which does allow whites to always reorganize to our defensive duties and that i feel made the major difference. whites don't tend to dribble/hold the ball much except me and always run even if they wont receive the ball whereas reds players hold the ball a little longer which allows 2 whites players to quickly close the reds player down, and thats where the reds attacks breaks down. in the end the reds were resorting to long balls which would be lost as the pitch was wet which made the ball skid off the surface and harder to control. summary..quicker passing, running around like a monkey, not trying too much fancy footwork, should probably win any team the game..of course some defensive mistakes by any opponents help a lot. However: .... We have a wide variety of players, playing in different styles. Many of our younger players tend to run more with the ball or hold the ball longer, while many of our older players tend to prefer a passing game. Younger players are keen and want the ball more, and have more energy to burn in running with the ball. Many of our older players can't run as much, and also know through experience that a good passing game is more effective in the longer run. Not that a good passing game doesn't involve a lot of running, as players need to be moving off the ball into space. And to be really effective, you need to be closing down the opposition when they have possession. I think it's just a more efficient way to use your energy, and when you're older, you don't have too much to spare. .... For our regular games, each team should reflect a similar blend of playing styles out of the players down for that game. If all the players on one team play a good passing game, while the other team is a mishmash of playing styles, than the former will have an advantage, over and above the stengths and weaknesses of the individual players in each team. If your friends, and your friends' friends, are all on the same page when it comes to playing style, you will have an advantage in asking to play as one team. Being on the same page, an understanding can develop much faster, especially when there is a core of 4 or 5 friends who play together regularly. I do try to blend playing styles in each team when I suggest line ups for our regular games. Sometimes the blend works, sometimes it doesn't, but then ordinarily, no one player is able to influence the blend in his favour. By asking for more than one particular player to be on your team (or conversely, not be on your team), you do influence the blend, and the more players you seek to have on your side (or not on your side), the greater the influence. I do try to accommodate requests, but when you start examining the issues in greater detail, it does get harder and harder for me to do so, especially if it is a request to have more than half of a team comprising of your friends. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 30, 2011 8:07:47 GMT 8
.... As, ultimately, we are playing for enjoyment: * If a player cannot get on with another, and, before the line ups are suggested, asks that he not be on the same team, I will oblige. However, if a player has an issue with several players in a particular game, I may instead suggest that he not play in that game. If he has issues with several players across our various games, I may go so far as to suggest that he not play at all, at least for a period of time. * If after the suggested line ups are posted, a player posts on the message board that he feels his team is significantly weaker, I will swap him with a player at least as strong as him on the other team. By swapping him with a player who is at least as strong, the balance of the teams should not be affected, and by swapping him to the side he thinks is stronger, he no longer has any reason to feel any grievance over the line ups. .... I hope that anyone who has issues or potential issues with the line ups: * raises them with me before I put up the line ups, or * if it's after the line ups are put up, posts them on the same thread, so other players can add their views. .... I try not to spend too much time on line ups, but I do give due consideration to the various factors, and more broadly that: * each team has a similar mix of stronger and weaker players. * each team has sufficient experience and leadership. Each game is different, and I don't expect everyone to agree on what amounts to balanced sides. I do invite comments after I suggest line ups, .... .... .... The solution factored into the system is player swaps, but there is a reluctance to swap players, especially in more competitive games. . After the line ups are posted, I may not have time to consider how any player swap affects the balance, so there is a risk that it may make the sides less balanced (or more unbalanced), so further swaps may be required. The solution may be to appoint two regulars as captains, one of each side, to consider further swaps. .... I'm not keen on appointing captains. The players on each team should choose a captain from amongst themselves before the game starts. Players who are late don't get a say. .... However, if there is a swap posted on the message board after the line ups are posted, and before the game, I may appoint a captain for each team. The main factor at that stage is that the two captains get on with each other, are sensible, and are able to agree on sensible swaps. |
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Nov 30, 2011 9:07:00 GMT 8
It is utopia to expect all line-ups to be balanced. And what is the measure of a balanced line-ups: a draw, or a narrow victory?
The score may also not be the best indication. A stronger team may dominate play but may fail to put away their chances. The weaker team may defend well and sneak a victory. In doing so, the weaker team has shown itself to be stronger tactically for playing to its strengths; so which actually is the stronger team?
It is always wise ex-post (after the event) to say that the line-ups is unbalanced. And, understandbly, it is usually those on the losing team who spoke up.
There is a silent majority who would rather not voice their opinions on the lineups (before or after the game). Those are also the stoic ones who will accept the line-ups without complaints; it being the roll of the dice.
Just wondering if everyone would be so wise ex-ante (before the game).
It would be interesting to put up a poll when the line-ups are announced. It may be a simple 2-choice (Balanced, Unbalanced) poll or it may be a more complicated poll on prediction of outcome (Draw, Narrow win (Whites), Big win (Whites)).
The poll allows everyone to express an opinion while preserving anonymity for those who wish to avoid a debate on a relatively petty issue (compared with the more important things in life). Rajiv can see each individual's vote and can take the collective or individual voting as feedback to revise the line-ups if necessary. This works only if enough voted early so that revisions can be made early. Of course, there may be some who will game the system.
The poll is useful feedback: we can find out whether there is predictive value (aka wisdom) ex-ante, collectively or individually. If there is none, then debating the line-ups beforehand is moot. And for those who are able to consistently predict correctly, a lucrative career in sports betting beckon$. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Rainer on Nov 30, 2011 11:06:16 GMT 8
i like the suggestion of a 'balanced' / 'unbalanced' poll before the game but think it should be solely for informational purpose. i.e. no change in line-ups for that particular game due to the poll outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 30, 2011 11:58:47 GMT 8
It is utopia to expect all line-ups to be balanced. .... .... Unfortunately, there are more issues raised with me than just balanced line ups.  Sometimes, it is about personalities.  .... .... .... Rajiv can see each individual's vote and can take the collective or individual voting as feedback to revise the line-ups if necessary. .... .... Or two regulars can volunteer either: * to be captains of the respective teams, and agree on swaps; or * re-do the line ups by taking turns to select their respective teams. Like I've indicated before, I'm not prepared to spend more time on line ups than I already do.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rainer on Nov 30, 2011 13:08:08 GMT 8
as i have suggested in the past - you might want to consider spending less time on line ups by ignoring special wishes communicated via sms. if somebody does nt want to play with a certain individual he has 2 choices:
a) man up n sort out the issue with that individual
b) don't sign up for that game
as for foo cheng's suggestion - i think it is good for informational value and an effective way for you to gather info for future line ups. as mentioned above, i am not proposing changing the line-up that gets voted 'unbalanced' prior to the match by a majority but you may consider that in future line ups if the post match report confirms the vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Nov 30, 2011 13:24:20 GMT 8
Hi Rajiv,
Anyone who has managed a team will understand your challenges. I understand your wish not to spend more time on line-ups. Like Rainer suggested, one way is to avoid micro-managing the personalities issues, the gamesmanship etc. Take it or leave it.
Maybe the poll should not be used to revise line-ups but it will be useful for the information value.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 30, 2011 14:31:43 GMT 8
as i have suggested in the past - if somebody does nt want to play with a certain individual he has 2 choices: a) man up n sort out the issue with that individual b) don't sign up for that game .... Yup, you said it in a post that I moved to the "Social aspect" thread, and my response at the time: .... Even though we should all try to get on, there are going to be instances when two players just can't get on. We're all just human. Rather than just ignoring such matters, or worse, allowing them to fester and blow up during a game, I'm prepared to take them into account to a reasonable (limited) extent and take any pre-emptive action necessary. It doesn't happen much. It's about managing conflict, rather than ignoring it. Further, if I don't address issues that are raised with me, what I might end up with are withdrawals on the day of the game, or players not playing that game in the future, which leaves us with a shortage of players, or odd numbers, for that game, or future games, which in the longer run, is a bigger headache for me. Personality issues are relatively easy for me to deal with, if raised with me before I put up the line ups. Players who used to play a particular game regularly but cease playing that game, leaving that game regularly short of players, is a bigger headache, especially when they appeared to enjoy that game at one stage, but no reason is given to me for why they have ceased playing that game. .... .... I understand your wish not to spend more time on line-ups. .... .... , which as far as line ups are concerned, is discussed and described fully in this thread. It is when particular players try to circumvent the system to their own benefit that I end up spending more time. Not often, but it has happened from time to time. .... as for foo cheng's suggestion - i think it is good for informational value and an effective way for you to gather info for future line ups. as mentioned above, i am not proposing changing the line-up that gets voted 'unbalanced' prior to the match by a majority but you may consider that in future line ups if the post match report confirms the vote. would suffice if more players took the effort to add their comments. If not to revise the line ups, what does a pre-game vote add, other than extra work for me? For example, does the fact that Reds win comfortably, and the poll shows that most thought that Reds would win comfortably, mean that the line ups were unbalanced in favour of Reds, or that Whites were so discouraged by the pre-conceptions about the line ups, that they under-performed on the day? I'm prepared to add a pre-game poll, if, should the poll show that a significant number are unhappy with the suggested line ups, any two regulars are prepared to "man up" and take turns to select their respective teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 3, 2011 8:52:24 GMT 8
I proposed Foo Cheong and Rainer as team selectors for the game today. ..... I am usually out mornings with family with no internet access so will not be able to see withdrawals. It could be quite tedious: those withdrawing inform you, you call up the reserves, then you inform the captains, and the two captains talk again to revise the line-ups. And on those occassions where we fall short (15 or 13 players), the captains need you to find a replacement before horse-trading again. .... Withdrawals will disrupt any line-ups selected beforehand. With you picking the line-ups, there are sometimes quite a few changes. What more with two captains horse-trading, there is likely to be more revisions or impasse. You can leave the selectiing to as late as 1 pm for the Saturday game. If there are any withdrawals after team selections, I will notify the selectors. Over time, I may ask the player withdrawing to inform his team selector as well. .... If there are any later withdrawals, they can discuss whether any swaps are necessary. If they can't agree, then I'll suggest any changes if necessary. .... If either selector is not available to deal with withdrawals, you can let me know, and I will suggest changes. Whichever way it is, it means I spend less time on line ups. Further, in the longer run, it might act as an additional deterrent to late withdrawals. ..... The captains do not have knowledge of personalities issues, if any. .... I won't propose the team selection method when there are serious personality issues. Anyway, they are still fairly rare, and as far as I know, there are none for today's game, even including the reserves. .... It is better for a third-person (with no vested interest in the line-ups) to suggest the line-ups. This has work well so far. .... Actually, it hasn't worked well for me, as I spend far too much time on line ups, 6 days a week. And just look through this thread! The issue that arises repeatedly is balance. Those playing do need to more involved in settling the line ups, especially when all the players are regulars, known to each other. If it is to be a third person, it could either be a regular who is not playing that week, or who is still in reserve. Just think of it as fantasy football. .... This is better than playing fantasy football isn't it? You pick line-ups for at least 7 games a week. That is about 100 players. .... .... Or "nightmare" football. .... "Fantasy"? It can be a nightmare sometimes - especially when players get worked up over line ups. .... With the selection method, more of the regulars can share in the "fantasy". .... . .... In the event the line-ups are unbalanced, I think there is a reluctance to swap. A better way may be for the winning team to indirectly ease off by rotating players. Goalscorers can go into goal, defenders get a chance to attack etc. This is an option whoever does the line ups, me, another third person or two team selectors. However, I don't think it would be a popular option, as those playing in our popular games play to win. I prefer the term "team selector" to "team captain" as the selector can still appoint another player in his team as captain. The selector chooses the team. The captain has a bigger say on in-game matters, such as formation and tactics. If the selector does not choose a captain, then by default, the selector is the captain. Responsibilities can be spread. The team selector can also leave swaps to a team captain appointed by him.
|
|
... . When I SMS some players conserving the line up
Sometimes, it is about personalities. 
