|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 24, 2011 15:50:06 GMT 8
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. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 10, 2011 10:41:36 GMT 8
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 13, 2011 23:27:46 GMT 8
After I suggested the line ups for tonight's game at Sports Planet: I feel this looks very much like last week's, may I suggest: .... For the game at Sports Planet Thursday before last: Rai, Kelvin Au, as all the players are known to the two of you, can you pick your teams (Rai white, Kelvin red)? .... .... Guess not.  .... For tomorrow's game at Khalsa: Fai and Rainer have been doing the reports for the Wednesday night games. Would they like to agree on the line ups? Only proviso is that they cannot be on the same team. They're also familiar with all the other players .... If the two of you are doing the line ups, would one of you post it on this thread at least 6 hours before the game (ie, by 3 pm tomorrow). will be offered where: * The places are filled up at least 9 to 24 hours before the game. * There are two registered players who regularly play in that game. * They are familiar with the other players. It will be offered to players who contribute significantly on the message board, including doing reports. They will be invited to post the proposed line ups at least 6 hours before the game. If they don't do so by then, I will suggest the line ups as usual. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 22, 2011 22:41:34 GMT 8
We have a few pairs of brothers. And then there are of course Fai, Ruy, Stanley C and Shawn K, who are cousins. And several pairs of friends who put their names down together. Or as a group of three. Or who ask to be put on the same team. .... Last Sunday, Arijit suggested that we try Raminder and Nawal in separate teams. Maybe next time. .... I tried it once, the following week, but that was a rather makeshift game, where we had a couple of new players, and we ended up swapping Nawal back to the same team as Raminder. I'd rather the initiative to be on separate teams came from the players themselves. .... As much as I enjoy playing with my brother (because we understand each other's play well), I do not mind being in seperate teams once in a while. .... Tonight, I put the brothers Daniel T and Edmund T on separate teams, but I checked with them first. Sometimes, it takes time. .... Once a rapport builds up between regular players, do the team of 7 really need to stick together as one team? Maybe a bit more time for a group of 2 or 3 friends/relatives - because it's easier to keep them on the same team, it's also harder to 'force" them to be in separate teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 14, 2011 13:56:04 GMT 8
.... 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. .... 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. |
|
|
|
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 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 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 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 Jan 4, 2012 7:52:03 GMT 8
We have a few pairs of brothers. .... .... .... Last Sunday, Arijit suggested that we try Raminder and Nawal in separate teams. Maybe next time. .... I tried it once, the following week, but that was a rather makeshift game, where we had a couple of new players, and we ended up swapping Nawal back to the same team as Raminder. I'd rather the initiative to be on separate teams came from the players themselves. .... As much as I enjoy playing with my brother (because we understand each other's play well), I do not mind being in seperate teams once in a while. .... Tonight, I put the brothers Daniel T and Edmund T on separate teams, but I checked with them first. Sometimes, it takes time. .... Daniel T1 and Edmund T have been on opposing sides a few times now. The rule now is: .... ..., 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. .... As for brothers, we've had brothers on opposing sides a couple of times recently. At Turf City on 24 December 2011, we had Raminder and Nawal on opposing sides: Last night at East Coast, we finally had Kelvin Au and Melvin Au on opposing sides. Both were good, close games. It helped that everyone playing was a regular. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on May 30, 2012 11:19:10 GMT 8
Team selectors agreeing on the line ups continues to work well. Only the Monday night game at Kallang, the Thursday night game at Khalsa and the Sunday game at Turf City haven't had team selectors. After having no votes for much of April and the first week of May, even the Wednesday night game at Khalsa has been having elected team selectors. In fact, for last Wednesday: .... 8 voters, 16 votes. That's the highest proportion of players voting so far! The Saturday game at Turf City and the Tuesday game at East Coast had regularly had players voting, but have not had more than half the players voting before. We had two players with 3 votes each for last Thursday at Khalsa, but it ended up as Singaporeans v The Rest - actually, David T & friends + me against the rest. We've had such line ups before. For the Sunday game at Turf City, we've had a high turnover of players, and with 2 games on 6 May 2012 and again on 20 May 2012, even when we've had at least 2 players with at least 2 votes each, they've been spread out across 2 games, so not feasible to have team selectors. Where there have been enough players for two games, I have put all the players in one poll, but allow each player 4 votes instead of just 2. Where players have votes, but not enough for team selectors, or for any other reason, there are no team selectors, the players with votes are team captains. For the Monday night game at Kallang, the regulars don't use the message board enough. I have been leaving out of the poll guests, and I often leave out players who don't use the message board or usually rely on others to put their name down for them or to withdraw, and those who haven't played a particular game before or for some time. I will stick with that going forward. I have been adding the reserves in the poll, but state that there is no point voting for them unless they get a place. If a player doesn't want to be considered as team selector, please indicate against your name when you put your name down, or well before the poll closes. Opting out after the poll closes spoils the process. The reason that a minimum of 2 votes each is required for team selectors is that there should be sufficient confidence in team selectors. It also requires more players to vote. .... By June or July 2012, I will stop suggesting line ups. If there are no team selectors elected before the game, or the team selectors are not able to agree on line ups before the game, the teams can be settled at the venue itself, before the game starts. It will therefore be even more crucial that players arrive 10 to 15 minutes early. As always, bring both colours. If for whatever reason we don't have 2 team selectors for a game: * I will not suggest the line ups if I think the players are familiar enough with each other, and were capable of voting 2 team selectors, or agreeing on line ups between themselves. If no one suggests line ups before the game, then everyone turn up early and try to agree on line ups before the game starts. * If I think the players are not familiar enough with each other, I will suggest line ups. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 23, 2012 9:11:33 GMT 8
Some discussion of player swaps on the report thread for the Saturday game: .... I am just coming from the perspective of the players being swapped, that's all. Given the friendships and bonhomie of the Saturday game, the results don't really matter once the first post-game beer has been downed. I know how it feels like because for the first six games or so when I played at Giffa, I was swapped on a couple of occasions and was once swapped and swapped back because the "captains" thought I was a liability to their respective teams. It's not a nice feeling. So I would say that from my personal point of view (and experiences), please try not to swap players just before the game starts. Maybe I am a bit more sensitive than most but everyone has feelings and some personal pride. Peace. There are a variety of reasons that team selectors may agree to swap players, especially if there are new players playing. In the past, where there were new players, I would suggest the line ups, but nowadays, unless there are several new players, and I know most of them, I still leave it to team selectors. Sometimes, during the kick about before the game, it becomes apparent that a new player is much stronger or weaker than anticipated. Or there is a late change in personnel that affects the balance. Or a regular may turn up with some illness or injury that means he won't be performing at his usual level. Or sometimes the two team selectors may turn up at the game and agree on changes to get a better balance either within their respective teams or between the teams. I acknowledge that older, slower players (and that includes myself!) are more likely to get swapped. On the other hand, older players tend to have better ball control and add experience to the team. Personally, I think it's better to split up the older players between the two sides. However, it can be interesting to once in a while have younger players against older players, especially if their are several strong players on both sides. Ultimately, "stronger" or "weaker" is relative for each game. A strong player is weaker if there are a lot of even stronger players playing in that game. A weaker player is stronger if there are a lot of even weaker players playing in that game. Ultimately, even strong players should accept that if you put your name down for a game in which there are a lot of stronger players playing, then you might end up being regarded as a weaker player for that game. In the end, it doesn't matter. Everyone goes into the pot, and the team selectors have to agree on how to split the pot up. .... ... being a team selector is ... challenging, as you have to make the best of the pool of players available, taking into account their idiosyncrasies and inter-personal dynamics. .... Inter-personal dynamics include requests to be on the same side as another player. Such requests are best made on the schedule thread itself, when putting your name down, or at least before the poll is closed. Of course, the team selectors are not obliged to accommodate such requests, but I'm sure they will if they can. I don't think we need to speculate why a player is swapped. Just leave it to the good judgment of the selectors. If anyone is dissatisfied with a team selector, the simple solution is not to vote for the player next time! The team selectors must feel that there is mutual benefit in the swap. Newer players are also more likely to be swapped as their abilities and contribution to the team may be less well known. On this front, it is about newer players growing into our games, and shouldn't be seen as a reflection of his overall abilities. Growing into our games includes growing a thicker skin. My view is that swaps remain available until at least two-thirds of the way through the game, although this has very rarely been used. I think team selectors/captains find that once the game starts, it is hard to make changes. Fair enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 18, 2012 15:18:24 GMT 8
With two team selectors elected by the other players: .... .... * I will provide the team selectors with each other's contact, so that they can discuss and agree on line ups and team colours. If they are not familiar with particular players, they can ask me about the player. The two team selectors cannot be on the same team. .... .... The method that the team selectors use to decide on the line ups is up to them. When I used to do almost all the line ups, this thread was mainly about methods of dividing up the players into two teams. We've discussed various methods on this thread, some of which are still relevant with two team selectors, including: * Each taking a turn to pick a player (alternating or 1, 2, 2, ...., 1, first proposed by Tom V in October 2008). * The "cake method", equivalent to dividing a cake between the two, with one selector dividing the players (excluding themselves) into two, and the other getting first choice as to which set is his team, first proposed by Foo Cheong in December 2011. Desmond tried out the "cake method" a couple of weeks ago - it didn't work out to well. Fortunately, the selectors were sensible and swapped players halfway through. With team selectors, and with "tactical voting", we've ended up with David T's friends against the rest a couple of times on Thursday night at Khalsa: * On 15 November 2012. * 6 December 2012. For the latter game: .... I asked a couple of players on White how the game went. One, who shall remain unnamed, had this to say: .... An old issue, previously discussed at length, on the "Team selectors & line ups" thread. .... "Tactical voting" is when you vote for one team selector whose side you want to be on and who will have you on his side, and the other team selector is the player most likely to accept what the former proposes. Voting for 2 team selectors should really be about voting for the two players who you trust to get balanced sides, and either of whose team you are prepared to end up on. Earlier on this thread: .... 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. .... Good understanding does not develop overnight. .... There is a difference between players who just want to play, and those who want to play as a team. ..... .... 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. And more recently, on the "Skill sets & playing positions" thread: .... The ability to develop understanding with different players is also a skill. The more instinctive understanding with players you play with regularly comes more easily, and is comfortable. For a group of friends who have been playing together for a long time, it can sometimes be difficult to come out of that comfort zone. Again, it is about adaptability. .... Anyway, those who play regularly learn to adapt. Last Thursday, we didn't get round to voting team selectors, and we only had one game at Khalsa, so I suggest a broader "Those who prefer Khalsa against Those who prefer East Coast". It just about turned out alright. We've had such unusual line ups before. Where for one reason or another, line ups end up with me, I''ll be looking out for such unusual angles. Makes a change from the routine. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 6, 2014 22:07:46 GMT 8
.... ..., I've broken the GIFFA System post up into sections. .... .... The version as at 5 December 2012 is set out on the "GIFFA-defined & other men's games" thread. There had been some modifications since then, but this is the first major revision since then. Reference to the team selector poll was added earlier, but I have now greatly expanded upon that. The section on "Team selectors/captains & line ups" now reads: Team selectors/captains & line ups36 hours or less before the game, after the places are filled or at least the minimum number required is reached, I will usually put up a poll for team selectors. I will include in the poll all approved players who have played a minimum number of games in total (records since January 2009), or in the current 6 month period, and who have not expressly opted out as team selector in the schedule thread. Opting out is usually expressed by placing as "NAATS" (not available as team selector) after your name on the schedule thread. The minimum number of games will vary between 15 and 40, depending on the range of experience of the players down for the game. The poll will usually close 4.5 hours before the game but may be extended if other circumstances cause delay. The two players with the most number of votes (subject to a minimum of 2 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. The two team selectors must be on separate teams, and agree on how the remaining players are to be divided between the two teams so as to have two evenly-matched teams. They also agree on which team will be White, and which will be Red. If the players for the game include a lot of newer or less regular players, or players who haven't played together before much or at all, instead of a team selector poll, I may put up a team captain poll. All approved players who have played the minimum number of games in total will be included in the team captain poll, even if they had opted out as team selectors, unless they expressly opt out as team captain as well. With team captains, I will suggest line ups after the poll closes, with the two players with the most votes being captain of each of the two teams. There is no minimum number of votes for team captains. Team captains can agree on changes, and on team colours (white or red). In the event that there is no poll or insufficient votes in a poll, unless there is a reason to choose two other players, the two players with the most number of games in the current 6 month period, or in total, will be captain. Several of the other players in the game having been brought in by a player or other players he introduced is one such reason. Where there are a lot of new or newer players, and there are two such players, I may suggest them as team selectors instead of just team captains. Line ups and team colours are posted on the schedule thread before the game. One team is white and the other red. Players should bring both colours. Team selectors/captains can agree on changes at any time, up to and even during the game. Team selectors/captains earn credits, as set out below. Each team selector/captain represents the other players on his team, and is entrusted to exercise objective judgment in assessing and deciding on line ups. Players should vote wisely in the team selector/captain poll, as each player will end up on the team of one of the two team selectors/captains. There is a separate thread setting out "Guidelines On Team Selection, Team Organization & Game Play" for team selectors/captains. The first two parts of the separate thread are as follows: Team selectionThe factors to be taken into account in deciding line ups is discussed in detail on the "Team selectors/captains & line ups" thread. 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. 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 also more important to know if a player prefers to be on the left, right or down the middle.
- 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!
- 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 minimum 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.
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. If there are changes in personnel before the game commences, for example, due to a late replacement, or two additional players joining the game to take us from the minimum number to the maximum number, team selectors need to consider whether to make any changes in the line ups. It is therefore essential that all players bring both colours. I will cover the third part of the thread under "Team organization, formations & tactics". I've inserted "/captains" in the name of this thread so that it matches the corresponding section of the GIFFA System thread. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
... so game on...