|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jan 30, 2012 15:50:16 GMT 8
I think we need to go back to the purpose of our games. For those looking for regular, good, competitive games, which are enjoyable, and conveniently available, we have our regular games for adult males who meet the minimum standard. For everyone else, we have our all-comers' game. Our games are not for any other purpose. The "warm and fuzzy feeling" of a good, competitive, enjoyable game is within that purpose. The difference between the regular games and the allcomers games is about gender, age and abilities, not about competitiveness or enjoyment. If you're looking for something else from our games, you might be in the wrong place.  If you're looking to test yourself in the face of adversity, try extreme sport. Changing line ups when the score line is too one sided is not about easing off on the losing side. It is about acknowledging, as adults, that the line ups for that game are not working out, ending that game, and starting a new game with new line ups. The two games can be treated as two legs, with the aggregate score determining the overall winner. It keeps the game competitive, from beginning to end. I would limit it to the following situation though: * At least half the game has been played. * The scoreline is very one-sided. * The losing team has run out of ideas. In the circumstances, it would be very rare. As for rotating positions generally (not merely to ease up on the opposing team), my views are set out under the "Skill sets & playing positions" thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Jan 30, 2012 17:04:21 GMT 8
This being said I don't like to swap players before the game or during the game b/c it's like ranking one above the other, so better get it right from the start. Am also not in favour of swapping before or during the game. It is horse-trading without dignity. The two captains certainly rank players when they choose the line-ups but at least that is kept privy between the two captains. Swapping a player during the game is openly declaring that the player is the weakest link. If this player is a regular, he will most likely always be swapped whenever his team is losing. Walk a mile in his shoes. How do you feel to be chucked to the other team everytime? The feeling is like being the smallest kid who always gets picked last. It is a team game and the team wins or loses together. If it is seen as a game of two halves, as advocated by Rajiv, then it should not be a case of swapping just one player. Captains should pick the line-ups again, and a few players can be swapped. Then the problem of whether everyone brings two sets of jerseys arises. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jan 30, 2012 17:43:28 GMT 8
.... If it is seen as a game of two halves, as advocated by Rajiv, then it should not be a case of swapping just one player. Captains should pick the line-ups again, and a few players can be swapped. Then the problem of whether everyone brings two sets of jerseys arises. That's why the system requires that everyone bring both colours.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 23, 2012 8:48:36 GMT 8
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Feb 23, 2012 18:20:51 GMT 8
I played in that game & was guilty of missing many glit-edge chances then! |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 27, 2012 10:29:28 GMT 8
.... Two regulars voted as selectors by the other players, and then selecting their respective teams, is the way forward. .... It should be the norm by the second half of this year. Once it becomes more regular, I may start tabulating the wins, draws and losses for team selectors. I may also start giving a small discount to the two team selectors, perhaps $2 each. This may be reduced to $1 if the scoreline is too one-sided or other issues arise during the game for which the team selectors should be responsible. We'll try it out from next month onwards: * If by 48 to 36 hours before the game, the minimum number is reached, I'll put up a poll to the schedule thread to vote for team selectors. Only approved regulars will be included in the poll. * All approved players down for the game (including reserves) can vote (2 votes each). * I will lock the poll 7 to 5 hours before the game. The two regulars with the most votes will be team selectors (minimum 2 votes each). In the event there is a tie for places, the player with more games over the current 6 months will be elected. The two team selectors then agree on the line ups, and post it on the message board. The two selectors cannot be on the same team. If they can't agree before the game is due to start, then get to the pitch early and sort it out there. * A player can decline to be team selector by indicating it against his name when he puts his name down (in which case, I will not include him in the poll), or anytime after up to 3 hours before the game, by posting on the schedule thread (in which case the next in line steps in - again, minimum 2 votes). If we don't get two selectors, either because players don't get enough votes, or players decline to be selectors, I will suggest line ups as I do now. However, the line ups may be delayed to less than 3 hours before the game. The responsibilities of the team selectors: * Agreeing on balanced line ups, and making the necessary adjustments for late withdrawals, no shows or players unable to continue during the game. * Having the final say on team organization, formation and tactics for their team. * Ensuring that for their team, goalkeeping duties are rotated. * Reminding players, especially those on their team, to play to the rules, especially not to slide or commit other bad tackles. * Playing in the right spirit, and reminding their team mates to do the same. For taking on additional responsibilities, the two team selectors will be given $2 credit each. I know it's token, but it's better than nothing.  If the scoreline is too one-sided, the credit for both selectors will be reduced by $1 as they didn't balance the teams well enough. If other issues arise during the game resulting from a team selector failing in his other responsibilities, the credit for that selector may also be reduced by $1. If a selector feels that a player on his team repeatedly ignores his exhortations to play by the rules or in the right spirit, he can provide me with the details and I will remind the player concerned. If there was any reduction in credit for that selector in this regard, it may be reversed. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 3, 2012 11:04:14 GMT 8
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 21, 2012 18:48:16 GMT 8
Two one-sided results over the past week: * 7-1 at Turf City on Sunday, 15 April 2012 (with team selectors, and after a very late withdrawal and replacement). * 14-4 at Khalsa on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 (without team selectors, but with 1 player arriving late). Those on the losing side probably don't enjoy it much, but I do wonder if even those on the winning side enjoy such one-sided games. The option of swapping players or re-doing the line ups halfway through, and treating it as two legs or two games has been raised many times before on this thread, but it has become very rare these days. For games with team selectors, it's really up to the team selectors whether to make any changes. .... Changes to the line ups during the game are not about players' skills or abilities. When one team has run out of ideas, and the game is sliding towards a very one-sided outcome, if there is more than 10 minutes to play, changing the line ups just freshens up the game. And everyone is required to bring both colours - it is actually part of the system. .... Ultimately, keeping score and the competitive edge are more about keeping our games enjoyable, than about competition. .... |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on May 23, 2012 11:31:10 GMT 8
Since the two games on Sunday 6 May 2012, even if there are insufficient votes for team selectors (minimum of 2 players with at least 2 votes each), I have been appointing two players with votes as team captains. The two team captains can agree on changes to the line ups, and have the other responsibilities of team selectors. However, as they are spared having to agree on line ups, their credit is $1 instead of $2. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 24, 2012 13:01:31 GMT 8
Two uneven games in the past week. * Sunday, 20 June 2012, at Turf City: .... Whites started strongly, with Reds struggling to keep them at bay. Once the breakthrough came, Whites went 2-0. Reds created a few good chances, but Whites were dominant and went 5-0, then 8-1 ahead. Reds showed good spirit to pull it back to 10-4. .... Yeah definitely a good work out and and enjoyable game! I think the line ups were unbalanced but who cares. It gave the game that added edge! I think Reds had some good team spirit and never give up attitude going. .... * Wednesday, 23 June 2012, at Khalsa: .... I felt that the teams were too lopsided in the first half. Red raced into like a 5-0 lead within 15 mins. .... I think it was after the 5th or 6th goal when I swapped .... Martin, in good sportsmanship reset the score to nil all. I think only Stan didn't hear that I think the game was a bit more balanced thereafter. And score was very close, with Whites edging out Red by a goal? (I stand corrected!) .... .... It was good to switch and ultimately a game most people enjoyed. .... .... As set out in this thread, swaps or other changes to the line ups are always available. .... .... It's up to those playing. It's fine if players aren't too bothered by scorelines. .... . Often, even those on the winning side don't enjoy the game. If the losing side show good spirit and make a fight of it, it usually works out ok. However, that is easier when there are several experienced players on the losing side who can galvanise the team. When there are several players on the losing side who are new to that particular game, it might be better to make changes and start afresh. .... .... We can treat the two halves as two legs - adding to the fun aspect of our game rather than the competitive aspect. For the player(s) that swap from the winning side to the losing side, there is the added challenge of whether they can make a difference to the losing side. Our games were almost meant to be first and foremost fun. .... . |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 24, 2012 11:40:39 GMT 8
I've decided to keep a table of team selectors. Team selectors work as follows: * The players vote for two team selectors. * The two players with the most votes are team selectors (minimum 2 votes each). In the event of a tie, the player who has played more games over the past 6 months gets in ahead. * The two team selectors agree on the two teams, with each team selector on one team, and being in charge of that team. If the result is posted on the reports thread, points will be awarded as follows: * 3 points for a win by 1 to 3 goals. * 2 points for a win by 4 or more goals. * 2 points for a draw. * 1 point for a loss by 1 to 3 goals. * 0 points for a loss by 4 or more goals. The reason why wins or losses by 4 or more goals gets fewer points than wins or losses by 1 to 3 goals is that the primary aim of team selectors is to get balanced sides, so I assume a win or loss by 4 or more goals is an indication that they didn't fulfil their primary purpose well enough. As the number of games per selector will vary, the table will be based on a modified average - Total Points/(Number of Games +2) x 100. In the event of a tie, one selector will be placed ahead of another in order of the following criteria: 1. Greater number of games played. 2. Better goal difference. 3. Greater goal average. 4. Better results of games between the selectors who are tied. 5. Toss of a coin. I was thinking of running the table over 6 month periods, starting from January 2013, but that means each "season" ends in either June or December, which may not be for the best, so I'll start from October 2012, with each "season" ending in March or September. Provided there are at least 4 team selectors in the table having played at least 3 games each, the winner at the end of each "season" will win $50 credit. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 23, 2012 11:14:57 GMT 8
.... For a game to qualify for inclusion in the table: * All the players in that game must have played in that game (that is, same day and location) at least once over the last 6 months. * The two team selectors must have been elected by those playing in the game, and have had prior experience of being team selectors. * The result must be posted on the report board. .... So far, I haven't included any results yet. All the games since the start of October have had at least one new player, or had a player who hasn't played in that game over the preceding 6 months, or has involved first-time team selectors. The good thing is that more players are getting experience as team selectors. Once we have a large pool of players with experience, I will relax the requirements relating to new players or those who haven't played in that game before or for 6 months or more. Team selectors should by then be better able to apply their experience to deal with new/newer players or those who haven't played for a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 30, 2012 20:27:29 GMT 8
To start with, I am looking at experienced team selectors choosing their teams from players they are familiar with. I was thinking of pushing the start back to November 2012, but the game last Saturday comprised entirely of regulars. The two team selectors were Desmond and Chen Hong. Desmond has experience both for Saturdays and weeknights. While I don't think Chen Hong has been a team selector on Saturday before, he has a lot of experience of being one of the team selectors for games at East Coast. So I've decided to include the result, and kick off the table. |
|
|
|
Post by Jessen on Oct 31, 2012 21:37:56 GMT 8
Hey Rajiv, How about starting it from October 2012?  |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 31, 2012 22:13:12 GMT 8
That was the intention Jessen. But to be fair, I'm looking at allowing more players to get experience as team selectors, and with players they are familiar with, before I start including their results. It continues until March 2012, so lots of opportunities to get results included.
I think it will get easier. Players are more willing to cross over to other venues, so everyone is becoming more familiar with the overall pool of players. The newer players coming in are above average or average, so they don't skew the line ups much.
I might relax the requirements in the new year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 15, 2012 11:08:35 GMT 8
Final score of 15-3 at Khalsa on Wednesday, 3 October 2012. Since then, we've had a lot of close games - draws or one or two goals difference, especially at Turf City and East Coast. Even a couple at Khalsa. On the other hand, the 6-1 at Turf City at Saturday is the biggest margin we've had at Turf City for some time, especially for a Saturday game. We tend to have bigger margins at Khalsa and Kallang. The bigger goals at Khalsa make the game a bit more of a lottery - a lot more long range goals. Also, when a team falls behind and tries to push forward to get back, the bigger goals make them more vulnerable to the counter-attack. As for the 5-a-sides at Kallang, because there is less emphasis on formation and tactics, I find that teams tend to push forward more, with less regard for defence. .... ... i have always enjoyed a low scoring game. .... Apart from cases of a lot of poor finishing during a game, low scoring games are very much about formation and organization. Roughly, the goals per game for the different venues is usually within the following range: * Turf City - 3 to 9 goals per game for 8-a-side (5 to 13 for 7-a-side). * Khalsa - 5 to 18 goals per game. * East Coast - 6 to 20 goals per game (but they usually play 15 to 30 minutes extra). * Kallang - 15 to 27 goals per game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 16, 2012 23:03:06 GMT 8
Previously, on the subject of team selectors table: .... ..., I'm looking at allowing more players to get experience as team selectors, and with players they are familiar with, before I start including their results. It continues until March 2012, so lots of opportunities to get results included. I think it will get easier. Players are more willing to cross over to other venues, so everyone is becoming more familiar with the overall pool of players. The newer players coming in are above average or average, so they don't skew the line ups much. I might relax the requirements in the new year. .... If the result is posted on the reports thread, points will be awarded as follows: * 3 points for a win by 1 to 3 goals. * 2 points for a win by 4 or more goals. * 2 points for a draw. * 1 point for a loss by 1 to 3 goals. * 0 points for a loss by 4 or more goals. The reason why wins or losses by 4 or more goals gets fewer points than wins or losses by 1 to 3 goals is that the primary aim of team selectors is to get balanced sides, so I assume a win or loss by 4 or more goals is an indication that they didn't fulfil their primary purpose well enough. .... For last Saturday's game: The team selectors were Brendan and Babs, who have a fair bit of experience as team selectors, including against each other on previous occasions. From the report thread: .... The final score was actually 6-1 and Babs has asked me to request you update the team selector table asap Rajiv, thanks! Rajiv, I don't think the scoring grid is appropriate. I think on paper the two teams were quite balanced, so why reward a win by 4 or more goals with the same number of points as a draw? .... I wouldn't want the team selector table to detract from the primary aim of two evenly-matched teams playing a balanced and fair game. I suppose of greater importance is that the team selectors are experienced and familiar with the players for that game. In that event, the difference in points between a big win and a small win isn't all that significant. I could do away with it, but keep the difference in points between a big loss and a small loss, so that the teams on the losing side still have an incentive not to lose big. We'd end up with: * 3 points for a win. * 2 points for a draw. * 1 point for a loss by 1 to 3 goals. * 0 points for a loss by 4 or more goals. For the rest of this year, I'll only include results where the team selectors are experienced and familiar with the players down for the game. Hopefully, more players will gain experience and become more familiar with our global pool of players over the remainder of the year. However, to increase the likelihood that the team selectors are familiar with the players down for the game, I may need to increase the restrictions on new players in the new year - for example, new players will not be put down for a game in the first 60 hours after the schedule thread is put up. There are several games a week that do not fill up in the first 60 hours, so new players can still get to play. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 18, 2012 14:35:39 GMT 8
Players switching sides during a game has been very rare, but has arisen twice so far this month. * For the game at Khalsa on Wednesday, 5 December 2012, Desmond, as one of the team selectors, tried out the "cake" method for deciding line ups, that is, he divided the players other than himself and the other team selector into two teams, and let the other team selector (Stan D Man) choose which team he wanted. It didn't work out well, with Stan's team (Whites) taking a 7 or 8-1 lead after half an hour. Fortunately, the team selectors were sensible enough to swap players, and the second half hour was much closer, with Whites coming back from 0-2 down to win 3-2. Although Whites won comfortably on aggregate, the players had a much better second half hour than if there had been no swap. * At Turf City on Saturday, 8 December 2012, a Whites player was injured early on, and Whites continued a player short. Even with Reds restricted to scoring from within the penalty spot, they took a 3-0 lead. The player responsible for the injury swapped sides (presumably with the restriction swapping over as well), and the game ended 5-4 to Reds. This covers the 2 scenarios where I envisage swaps or players switching sides: * The game is very one-sided. * One team is, for whatever reason, one player short for the remainder of the game, and struggling to cope. I have previously set out what I consider one-sided scorelines, but now with team selectors, it is up to them whether, and if so, when to swap or switch players, and whom to swap or switch. Like I said before:
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 20, 2012 13:01:38 GMT 8
From the report on last Saturday's game at Turf City: .... What a Game i must say. Tight game for sure and you dont get to a 1-0 scoreline for 90 mins game very often . .... Good Game overall and playing 90 mins with scoreline 1-0 - one can imagine how interesting and tiring it was. .... . The lowest scoring game at Khalsa is 3-1, on Wednesday, 22 February 2012. I haven't been monitoring the lowest scoring 5-a-side game, whether at Kallang, or when we have played 5-a-side at East Coast. 5-a-side games are generally higher scoring. In recent times, 5-4 at Kallang on Monday, 16 July 2012, might be the lowest. Low scoring games are not uncommon at our weekend Turf City games. The day after the 1-0 scoreline, the Sunday game finished 3-1. That the goals are relatively small compared to the size of the pitch may be one factor. However, it probably has more to do with the fact that teams for the weekend games are better organized. The third lowest score, 2-0, was on at Turf City on Sunday, 15 July 2012. The fourth lowest is probably 2-1, also at Turf City on Sunday (11 November 2012). Low scoring games are more challenging. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 26, 2012 10:22:48 GMT 8
|
|
If you're looking to test yourself in the face of adversity, try extreme sport. 
