|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 4, 2011 11:09:55 GMT 8
Even with two late withdrawals, the selection method worked out well for the game yesterday (Saturday), with Rainer and Fred the two selectors. The selection method will be made available where all the players are regular, to two of the more regular players for that game, who are on Approved List A, and contribute significantly on the message board. The two selectors can agree on an alternative method of selecting their teams. Yesterday, Foo Cheong proposed another method, but it was not favoured by Rainer. As Foo Cheong was out for the rest of the morning, Fred took over as selector. ... I'll call the method proposed by Foo Cheong the "cake method" - equivalent to dividing a cake equally into two, with one person cutting the cake into two halves, and the other getting first choice of which half.  .... Rainer's initial response: here are my preferences: 1) let's go with rajiv doing the line ups - works well in 9 out of 10 games 2) let's pick another captain for foo cheong and do the 1st - 2nd n 3rd - 4th n 5th... method - captains get exposure to tactics 3) let's go with cockstar's choice - i like the blend of both teams i.e. willing to play as it is or switch with the player that is most similar to my style (=fred) 4) cake method - last choice as i think neither team will have much structure. 9 out of 10? So high?  As I take responsibility for the line ups when there are players who haven't played together much, and may not be so familiar with each other, it's much harder to get balanced sides, so "9 out of 10", if correct, would be quite remarkable. Anyway, moving forward, as more games are filled by regulars, we'll use the selection method (or a fair equivalent) to decide line ups. I don't think Rainer objected to the cake method in principle, just in the internal balance of each team in the way Foo Cheong split the teams. The other alternative discussed above is a third party - for example, a non-playing regular. |
|
|
|
Post by Rainer on Dec 4, 2011 17:55:02 GMT 8
correct - i did nt oppose the 'cake method' per se. i think it is a usable method.
i just felt there were 3 alternatives that will lead to more 'structured' teams. one reason i did nt like FC's suggestion was that i felt reds had too much creativity with ram/nawal/sivaraj and i also felt that white's defense might needed one more 100 % defender like arijit with ch, reza and dave h playing more like attacking defenders. that is obviosly only my personal impression but i felt like there were too many options left to get to another line up.
i can only recommend for 2 regulars to try out selecting the teams. it forces the captains to think about how they want to line up the players and how to play tactically and so adds an additional competition for the 2 captains.
late withdrawals are an extra challenge. i obviously intended to play much more attacking with the initial line up but had to change tactics as the 'creative-offensive axis' withdrew. the reserves turned out to have a very different skillset than raminder/nawal and so i switched to a different tactic. as i say - great experience that others should try out also!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Guo on Dec 6, 2011 22:47:54 GMT 8
Hi all. Greetings from NYC. May not be back for a while - maybe December next year, but always enjoyo following the discussions. Read this thread with particular interest. Maybe you can try this system that I used here for a pick up league. We assign points to players after each game, and then for next game, assign players to ensure equal points on both sides. Effectively, players who lose more will be placed with players who win more, ensuring some equalization. We used a simple +1 for wins, -1 for loss and 0 for ties. You can tweak the system by adding points for goals, but we decided against it since that would reward selfish play. Alternatively, you could award extra points to the whole team for goal differentials. Bewarned though - the points system does raise the level of competitiveness significantly as people start dreading to lose. Might be worth a try for fun. If you do, enjoy!
Cheers
Eddie
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 7, 2011 9:07:05 GMT 8
Thanks Eddie. We did have a points table based primarily on results from September 2008 to October 2010. Until July 2009, the line ups were based on the points table. However, the line ups often seemed unbalanced, so this method was abandoned. For some time now: .... My preference is for any two regulars to contact each other and take turns to pick their teams from the pool of players who have put their names down. Then either of them can post the line ups on the message board. .... |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 7, 2011 11:15:43 GMT 8
There is also the "fill in the rest" method used on Monday. Apart from assigning new players to the same team as their introducers, the "fill in the rest" method could be used to fill key positions on both teams, and then have the two teams take turns to pick the rest of their teams. Whatever method you use, there's no guarantee of balanced line ups or close results. What it does mean is that those playing take greater responsibility for the line ups (including facing any complaints about uneven sides should the score-line be one sided ). Foo Cheong's suggestion for Saturday had an element of "fill in the rest" as he assigned one player to each of himself and Rainer, with the "cake" method used to fill in the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 9, 2011 11:57:43 GMT 8
Shall we have Rainer and Fred picking their teams again? Worked out well last week, and in the longer term, all our games will be moving that way (especially where everyone is a regular). Best to leave it until 6 hours before the game or later, so that any withdrawals can be taken into account. Of course, withdrawals less than 4 hours before the game are beyond anyone's control. Beyond this Saturday, we can have others who regularly play a particular game picking their teams. Volunteers would be good, but they should be: * regulars who play that particular game regularly. * familiar with all or almost all the other players down for that game * familiar with the range of issues relating to our games as discussed on this board, and on this thread in particular. If there are no volunteers, I'll invite players to do so. The weekend games can move that way first. Weeknight games might be a bit harder, as players are usually at work until at least 5.30 or 6 pm if not later, so they may find it difficult to fit in team selection. If there are volunteers, then of course, no problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 12, 2011 11:45:20 GMT 8
Where all the players for a game are regulars, the more experienced players can pick the line ups. I prefer the selection method, with 2 players taking turns to pick their teams from the pool of players. This is because there is a player responsible for each team, and each of the two have an equivalent say in the line ups. There is also a greater element of a contested game in such circumstances, down to the selection method. Players needn't worry about a particular player being picked last. When posting the line ups, just randomise the order of the names, so no one else need know. Other two player methods, such as the "cake" method, or the "fill-in-the-rest" method don't have as clear or strong a contested game element. Of course, one of the players suggesting the line ups is also available, but as the player will be on one of the teams, there is no representative to speak on behalf of the other team. Of course, it is always open to everyone playing to comment on the line ups, but as we have seen, there are hardly any comments about line ups before the game - they usually come up after the game. Where there are new or newer players, or players who have not played together before: .... Impressions about the relative strengths of the two sides are often 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 always 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 regular. * 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. .... As I try to play at all the venues and on various days, 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. .... A neutral non-playing regular can also suggest the line ups. Apart from me, Rajseran has tried it a couple of times, recently, while out injured, and on an earlier occasion, while still in reserve. No other non-playing regular has come forward to give it a go. All of our games have the potential to build up a core of regulars. If everyone playing in a game are regulars, those playing should take responsibility for the line ups. Any of the methods will do. |
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Dec 12, 2011 13:05:13 GMT 8
|
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Guo on Dec 14, 2011 1:22:37 GMT 8
Am sick at home and time on hands, so I thought I'd continue the discussion. Thanks Rajiv for pointing out that you did have a points system up to Sept 2010. I took a look at the system, and note that it seems to be rather skewed towards attendance in games, rather than towards wins. If the idea is to have teams with even skills, the point system will have to be predominantly driven by success in the games; i.e. points for wins and maybe for goals. Attendance only indicates enthusiasm and commitment, but not playing ability. Again, a simple 1 point for a win, 0 for a tie, and -1 for a loss could be an interesting approach, for individual record keeping and ego-boosting purposes if not for team assignments. ; ) Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 14, 2011 7:55:16 GMT 8
The points system started off as a win/loss ratio Eddie. A ratio or average was used is because players play vastly differing number of games. For our games, the points system primarily served to randomise the line ups, without necessarily giving us even sides. Some of the reasons are set out below: * Players play in different games, so it is very rare that the same set of players will play again the following week. In fact, the players playing on a particular day of the week usually varies quite drastically from week to week. * With multiple games each week, players move up and down the table very rapidly. You could have weaker players near the top and stronger players near the bottom. You could end up with most of the stronger players on one team, and most of the weaker players on the other team, with very one-sided results. This is exacerbated by the fact that the standard of our players can vary quite a lot. I started factoring in the number of games played to try to stabilise the table. However, as the points table was always an average, it didn't benefit those who played more games all that much. In the end, it was far more work than it was worth. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 15, 2011 23:18:16 GMT 8
Next year, I'll increasingly leave it to the regular players for each game to decide on line ups. Various methods are described above. .... .... Any of the methods will do. If there is disagreement, the fall back is the selection method, where two regulars take turns to pick players from the pool of players for the game. .... ... there is a player responsible for each team, and each of the two have an equivalent say in the line ups. There is also a greater element of a contested game in such circumstances, down to the selection method. Players needn't worry about a particular player being picked last. When posting the line ups, just randomise the order of the names, so no one else need know. .... .... ... Selector A picks first, Selector B picks two, Selector A picks another two, and so on until Selector A is left with the last player - first suggested by Tom in October 2008. After the selection process is completed, the two selectors can agree to swap players. Once the teams are finalised, either selector can post it on schedule thread. No one else need know the order in which the players were picked. Line ups can be decided by other criteria as well, for example: * Asia v Europe, on 12 February 2011* Singapore/India v England, on Monday (12 December 2011). Both times, it was Dave H that suggested Europe v The Rest Of The World. We've also had "Monday [Turf City] Boys versus the Rest" on 21 August 2011. Before the first Barcelona v Manchester United UEFA Champions League Final in 2009, we had a mini-tournament where players picked their own teams, based on who they were supporting in the final. One day, we'll have line ups based on Manchester United fans v Liverpool fans. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 16, 2011 13:25:22 GMT 8
.... Line ups can be decided by other criteria as well, ....: .... This does not extend to a group of friends playing as one team in our regular games. The issue came up again before yesterday's game at East Coast: With quite a bit of fuss about captains, can i submit my name to be captain and choose 7 players for my team? which obviously will be players 7-13..subject to the other captain's approval as well as the other players.. .... Personally, I think it would be a one-sided game. All the players are decent players, and if you have a good mix on both sides, you'll have a great game, but [7-13] in one team would be way too strong. The issues have been discussed several times under the "Line Ups" thread. .... In the end: David T called. He put their names down for this game as their regular game from 7 to 9 pm at Khalsa wasn't going to go on. That game now looks like it will be going on after all, so he called to ask if our game from 9 to 10 pm can be switched to Khalsa. I don't know if the pitch is still available at Khalsa as I cancelled the booking yesterday, and I think there are at least a couple of players who wouldn't be keen on a switch. I'll take David T and his friends out for now, and try to get at least 5 more players. .... We managed to get 7 more, and our game went ahead at East Coast. Despite my expressing my own reservations several times in this thread, up to now, only Yaseen has expressed his objections to David T and his friends playing as one team in our regular games on this message board. In fact, no one else has had anything to say to me, whether in person, over the telephone or by SMS, until I received the following SMS yesterday from a East Coast regular, even though he wasn't playing last night: From now on, unless the selection method is used, the maximum number of old friends we can ordinarily have on one team is 3. In exceptional cases, we can go up to 4. This was the original position. .... If 2 or 3 friends put their names down together, I try to keep them on the same side. However, if 4 or more friends put their names down together, I may well split them up, so that at least 2 are on the same team. However, I will keep new players on the same team as their friends. .... .... .... Feedback, especially when provided on the message board, is important. .... More feedback helps. |
|
|
|
Post by Rainer on Dec 18, 2011 15:57:36 GMT 8
think line-ups should be done as follows:
- 2 captains volunteer, do the line-ups and are in charge of tactics
- rajiv does the line ups
i am not a fan of any other way like one player (other than rajiv) suggesting the line-ups of both teams. the reason for that is that nobody is in charge of the weak team, and one guy has to take all the blame if the line-ups turn out to be unbalanced.
if 2 captains do not have the time to do the line-ups via phone then the 'cake method' (subject to copyright approval by Foo Cheong) is a good compromise. this method ensures that there are 2 players in charge and even the player that does nt suggest the line-ups has a choice to pick between the 2 teams so he will not be able to complain about the line-ups having been unbalanced after the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 18, 2011 23:12:48 GMT 8
First some background: and yeah, i missed the last part as i made my way to turf city. however, i think it worth looking how the line-ups came about: just looking at the previous page i counted 4 players having been involved in the line-ups (ch, raminder, rockstar, rajiv). the discussion went on until after 4pm and were spread across the message board and sms. only one player (ch) suggested the line-ups with the others involved in horse trading. i have always been a fan of rajiv doing the line-ups unless we have 2 (=two, not one, not four) volunteers to avoid this kind of chaos. Also: .... The line-up process was sub-sat-standard. more general on that in the 'discussion' thread [Rainer's post above] and more specific on that in the [schedule] thread [passages quoted above]. .... Two things to note about suggesting line ups on the message board: First, I started suggesting line ups before the game for two reasons: Secondly, the reason I've been doing the line ups for a long time is: However, if everyone playing is a regular, then the players should be familiar enough with each other to decide on the line ups themselves. Next year, I'll increasingly leave it to the regular players for each game to decide on line ups. .... .... This has been my view from early on. Going back to the start of this thread: .... My preference is for any two regulars to contact each other and take turns to pick their teams from the pool of players who have put their names down. Then either of them can post the line ups on the message board. .... It is important to have one player responsible for each team. When I invite two players to agree on the line ups, it is on the condition that each of the two is on separate teams. If one of the two thinks that by going ahead and unilaterally suggesting the line ups, the other player is faced with a fait accompli, he is mistaken. .... If there is disagreement, the fall back is the selection method, where two regulars take turns to pick players from the pool of players for the game. .... . Jye suggested line ups with himself and Arijit on the same team. I proceeded to invite CH to be the representative for the other team. This week, I invited CH and Ade to agree on the line ups. Ade subsequently withdrew, and CH proceeded to suggest the line ups himself. Rajseran spoke up for the other team, so he became their de facto representative. Some might call it horse trading. I call it discussion. If discussion is not allowed, why have a message board? The reason the discussion went on beyond 4 pm is that the last player was not finalised until 3.40 pm. In all, the discussion was fairly brief. .... ... and one guy has to take all the blame if the line-ups turn out to be unbalanced. .... Up to now, that has mainly been me. I expect it to be increasingly less so over the course of next year. As for those who proceed to suggest line ups unilaterally when the invitation is made to two players, they will not be invited again, at least not for some time. |
|
|
|
Post by Rainer on Dec 19, 2011 8:42:05 GMT 8
i think the players who are ready to do the line-ups should sign up with a (*) when they put down their name. then you pick 2 players who signed up with a (*) as captains. if one drops out he has find a new captain. next step down could be the new captain only has to select the pre-cut cake from the other captain that has not dropped out. if only one regular puts his name down with (*) then rajiv should do the line-ups.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 19, 2011 9:12:09 GMT 8
.... i remain of the opinion - the line-up process was sub-sat-standard no matter how you twist it. .... So which of the following Saturday games since June 2011 do you think were "standard" Rainer: * 4 June 2011 - Final score 8-2. * 11 June 2011 - Look Liew and his 4 friends on one team. This is no longer an option. * 2 July 2011 - final score 5-2 or 6-2. * 9 July 2011 - Tan Wee got in an accident on his way to the game and couldn't make it, we picked up a player at Turf City, but it affected the balance, so he was swapped to the other team. * 16 July 2011 - Sean M didn't turn up. We managed to pick up a player at Turf City. Finished 7-3 to the side that defended better. * 23 July 2011 - We struggled to get to 16. Finally, we picked up a player at Turf City. Finished 9-2. * 30 July 2011 - One side pulled away 8-3. There was a player swap. Finished 8-7. * 20 August 2011 - Finished 5-0 or 6-0. * 27 August 2011 - Finished 9-2. * 10 September 2011 - Finished 5-2. * 17 September 2011 - Finished 4-1. * 24 September 2011 - We picked up a player at Turf City to replace Ganesh who was injured playing from 4 to 5 pm. * 15 October 2011 - Finished 8-2. * 29 October 2011 - One side went 7-2 up before injuries forced changes to the line ups. Finished 10-5. * 5 November 2011 - Finished 7-4. * 12 November 2011 - Line ups were adjusted after 3 pm to take into account changes in personnel and players coming back from injury. * 19 November 2011 - Finished 9-4. * 3 December 2011 - Changes to the line ups close to 4 pm due to two late withdrawals. For the closer score-lines (3 or 4 goal margin), look at what those on the losing side have to say. The above are the majority of games since June 2011. Even in several of the other games not mentioned above, one team took a big lead (3 or 4 goals) before the other side came back to close the gap, level or even win. I don't need to twist anything. Facts are facts. I would say that only in a few of the games was line ups really an issue. Usually, it is formation or tactics that determine the result and scoreline. If line ups have an influence, it is often indirect. If key players, perceiving the line ups as unbalanced, are distracted from playing their usual game and underperform, the result is likely to be that their team suffers and loses, sometimes badly. Players blaming the line up process after the game for an underpar performance doesn't help. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 19, 2011 9:30:54 GMT 8
i think the players who are ready to do the line-ups should sign up with a (*) when they put down their name. then you pick 2 players who signed up with a (*) as captains. if one drops out he has find a new captain. next step down could be the new captain only has to select the pre-cut cake from the other captain that has not dropped out. if only one regular puts his name down with (*) then rajiv should do the line-ups. What if no one puts an asterisk against there name? My position remains that if everyone playing is a regular, the regulars should do the line ups. Perhaps the fall back position for the Saturday game at Turf City is that if there are no volunteers, Rainer will do the line ups. |
|
|
|
Post by Rainer on Dec 19, 2011 13:41:48 GMT 8
re your question "So which of the following Saturday games since June 2011 do you think were "standard" Rainer?" - i wrote (think twice) the l i n e - u p p r o c e s s was sub-sat-standard and that is what i meant. did you read anywhere that i described the game as sub-sat-standard? i am afraid, you did nt. facts remain facts. the game itself was standard which i also indicated on the post game comment. with the line-up process being sub-sat-standard i specifically mean: 4 players involved in the line-up process i/o of either you alone or two captains, sms and message board involved in the line-up process, line-ups were not ready by 4pm, and only one player suggested the line-ups which ended up with no clear captain for the other team. do you seen what i mean, now? as for the asterik - i wrote that if only one regular puts his name down with (*) then rajiv should do the line-ups. that applies also if none of the regulars put their name down with (*). you gonna ask me now "but what happens if one regular and one irregular put their name with asterik down?" i have never suggested to do the line-ups myself. always been consistent in suggesting 2 captains or rajiv and i ll stick to that. from what i gather from the regulars it seems that some are more keen to do the line-ups than others. the process will never work if you 'force' 2 guys to be volunteers. it will only work if they volunteer. with the asterik that problem could be avoided don't you think so? |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 19, 2011 14:19:39 GMT 8
So it's ok to "force" me to do the line ups even when all the players are regular and are fully capable of deciding on the line ups themselves, but not ok to "force" you or anyone else even though they are regulars?  I think you should re-read this whole thread. My point was that the process (and the outcome of the process) were within the parameters that have been in existence for some time. Trying to draw a distinction between a sub-standard "process" on this occasion and general unhappiness over line ups on previous occasions seems like just an excuse to force the responsibility on me even when the examples I have provided show that there is no real difference. For you, the process is two volunteers do it or I do it. For me, the process is any method that is fair and transparent, and allows as many regulars to participate and contribute as possible. Why should your view prevail over mine, especially when your view entails my being forced to retain a responsibility that should pass to the regulars who play? I'm not stopping any player from volunteering but I will still invite two, whether there are less than two volunteers or more. And even though various methods are suggested, how the two actually reach agreement is entirely up to them. My role was always intended to be facilitative. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 30, 2011 10:31:00 GMT 8
We've had players doing the line ups several times this month: * Rainer and Fred, on Saturday, 3 December 2011. * Andy N and Reza, on Monday, 5 December 2011. * Jye, on Saturday, 10 December 2011. * Murray and Andy N, on Monday, 12 December 2011 (although it ended up as England v Singapore/India). * CH, on Saturday, 17 December 2011. * Rai and Kelvin Au, on Tuesday, 27 December 2011. It's not by accident the games are the Saturday, Monday and Tuesday games, which have had the biggest pool of regulars playing. Players doing the line ups only makes sense when everyone is a regular, or has at least played in that game before. However, as each game develops its own pool of regulars, it will be applied to other games as well. Next year, I'll increasingly leave it to the regular players for each game to decide on line ups. .... ... . |
|
...
here are my preferences:
