|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jan 11, 2013 19:14:07 GMT 8
.... 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. .... .... 3 difficulties that team selectors face getting evenly-matched teams: * Not being familiar with all the players. * Players being below par due to impediments such as illness or injury. * Lack of experience on the part of either or both team selectors. The first two issues will be addressed by tightening the rules on putting names down for games. The third is addressed by more players gaining experience over time. I have not been including results in the team selector table. I will re-start the table in February, after the new rules are implemented. The first season will have an extended run from February to September 2013. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 2, 2013 19:59:41 GMT 8
Earlier discussion on team selectors and the team selector table: Team selectors for a game frequently say they're not familiar with all the players down for that game. This is especially so with players increasingly crossing over from one venue to another, players bringing guests, or players bringing returning after a long interval. ..... ..., players don't always remember players they've played with only once or twice before. .... Team selectors may have to do some amount of "due diligence", such as: * Going back to read old reports for games in which the new player played. * Asking others who played in that game their opinion of that player. * Asking the introducer about the player. * Asking the player himself about his abilities. Being on WhatsApp is an advantage in carrying out any "due diligence". Also, there is often some feedback on the WhatsApp group chat if other players feel the line ups are not balanced. I need to consider limiting team selectors to those who are on WhatsApp. Popular team selectors ... may end up no longer be included in the team selector poll if they are not on WhatsApp. .... And: .... 3 difficulties that team selectors face getting evenly-matched teams: * Not being familiar with all the players. * Players being below par due to impediments such as illness or injury. * Lack of experience on the part of either or both team selectors. The first two issues will be addressed by tightening the rules on putting names down for games. The third is addressed by more players gaining experience over time. I have not been including results in the team selector table. I will re-start the table in February, after the new rules are implemented. The first season will have an extended run from February to September 2013. The new rules: I won't exclude players who are not on WhatsApp from inclusion in the team selector poll. However, I will be slower to add newer players who have not been included before if they are not on WhatsApp. However, in order for a result to be included in the team selector table, all the players for that game must have played at least 5 times, and at least 3 times in that particular game (day/time/venue), over the current 6 month period. So no excuse that the team selector was unfamiliar with players.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 12, 2013 14:35:53 GMT 8
The general rule is we stop play when time's up, so the result could be win, lose or draw. However, when the score is close, we often continue to a "last goal". "Last goal" often has the effect of converting a draw to a win. Where this is the effect of a last goal, I will record it as a draw in the team selector table. "Last goal" is for the fun of those playing. The current rules actually provides: .... * When time is called, the game comes to an end when the ball goes dead. We do not play to “last goal”, although those playing in the game may agree to do so. ... The thing is, there's never really an agreement to play to "last goal". When the time is up, a player will call "last goal", and everyone just continues until it is scored. An old issue, but not one that has been addressed for a long time. There was a post on the old blog, dating back to 10 March 2009, entitled "Playing To Time Or "Last Goal"?", which includes a poll. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 13, 2013 22:34:11 GMT 8
No votes in the team selector poll for the game today (Wednesday) at Khalsa. .... If there are insufficient votes, can we go with the 2 players with the most number of games over the current 6 month period, Stan (28 games) and Martijn (26 games)? I'll apply this where everyone playing in that game has played at least 3 games in the current 6 month period and 5 games in total. As long as all the other criteria for inclusion are met, where the two players with the most number of games over the current 6 month period end up as team selectors, the result will be included. Unfortunately, today, there was no agreement on line ups, so I suggested line ups instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on May 6, 2013 9:05:14 GMT 8
Although several of the Saturday games at The Grandstand since the start of April 2013 qualified for inclusion in the team selector table, I had not included them due to various incidents during the games. I have now gone over the reports, and included the results that qualify. Although big wins (by more than 3 goals) earn the same number of points as wins, I am listing them separately in the table, so that I can match big wins to big losses (by more than 3 goals), which score no points compared to 1 point for a loss of 3 goals or less. I have summarized the criteria for inclusion below the current table, as follows: .... Criteria for inclusion: * Both team selectors are experienced. * Most of the players are regulars. * Everyone playing has played at least 5 times before, 3 times in the current 6 month period, and at least twice in the particular game (date/time/venue) .... Slightly relaxed from what is stated above on this thread. I have also added the following to that post: .... If there is any significant incident during the game which substantially distorts the balance of the teams, the fairness of the game, or the result, the game will be excluded. If any team selector wishes to appeal against the inclusion or exclusion of a result, please post below. If you wish to contest the result or score, post on the report thread for the particular game within 7 days of the result being included. .... I have also added the following: * How points are awarded, and the computation of the Average Adjusted Points (AAP). * The listing order. |
|
|
|
Post by Brendan on May 6, 2013 16:22:29 GMT 8
I don't really understand the point in the table Rajiv as it doesn't encourage captains to win their matches - Jye is first and has lost more matches than he has won!
I understand you are trying to encourage fair lineups but most of the games are won or lost on tactics and performance rather than a lineup being unablanced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on May 6, 2013 20:30:32 GMT 8
The team selector table is actually to encourage players to take on the responsibility of team selectors, and to take it seriously, not just in balancing line ups, but in organizing their teams properly. I acknowledge that there is only a small benefit in winning games, and a small detriment in losing them. There is a bigger detriment in losing badly, so keep your team well organized until the end of the game, and consider player swaps if necessary.
Early on, number of games as team selector is a bigger factor. Later on, performance will be a bigger factor.
Provided enough games are included, there is a $50 credit for the player at the top of the table at the end of September 2013.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 27, 2013 17:20:59 GMT 8
A heated moment during the game was reported on the message board for the following games: * Sunday, 9 June 2013, at The Grandstand. * Tuesday, 11 June 2013, at Kallang. Previously: The weekend games at The Grandstand have been the cause of some concern. Overzealous tackling, especially for the Saturday game, has been raised several times now, but I think the issues are wider than that. There's also a lot of arguing over decisions such as free kicks and penalties, again, especially for the Saturday game. When a player calls a foul, the response from the opposing player might well be that he went down too easily. And the camaderie, or if you prefer, kiss-and-make-up, of the after-game drinks on Saturday should not be an excuse for going overboard during the game. Nevertheless, the Saturday game remains very popular. I hope the excessive aggression during the game isn't a pull factor.  .... As the aim is to keep our games competitive, there are bound to be the occasional heated moment, even in games other than the Saturday game. The main considerations are: * It doesn't affect safety, such as over-zealous tackling, retaliation, or other acts of recklessness or excess force. * It doesn't affect the rest of the game. * Players can shake hands after, whether immediately after the incident or at least immediately after the game. * If anything lingers from the incident, it can be discussed on the message board, and put to rest there, before the next game involving the same players. Our games are ultimately social. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 1, 2013 22:21:02 GMT 8
I've decided to keep a table of team selectors. .... .... 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. .... I will re-start the table in February, after the new rules are implemented. The first season will have an extended run from February to September 2013. Lynz has won the first season comfortably. .... Team selectors table: | Name | PLA | WIN | BWN | DRW | LSS | BLS | GLF | GLA | PTS | AAP | | Lynz | 9 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 35 | 27 | 24 | 218.2 | | Babs | 8 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 34 | 34 | 15 | 150.0 | | Jye | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 15 | 15 | 8 | 133.3 | | Brendan | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 21 | 21 | 9 | 128.6 | | Kelvin Au | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 27 | 31 | 7 | 116.7 | | Rai | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 13 | 4 | 100.0 | | Dilesh | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 100.0 | | Ian D | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 100.0 | | Rainer | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 100.0 | | Arijit | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 11 | 4 | 80.0 | | Fred | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 12 | 4 | 80.0 | | Desmond | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 75.0 | | Jamie | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 66.7 | | Marko | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 66.7 | | Melvin Au | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 66.7 | | Imran | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 66.7 | | James Y | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 66.7 | | Chen Hong | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 33.3 | | Timmy | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 33.3 |
* 3 points for a win (WIN or BWN). * 2 points for a draw (DRW). * 1 point for a loss by 1 to 3 goals (LSS). * 0 points for a loss by 4 or more goals (BLS). Although they score the same number of points, wins by 4 goals or more (BWN) are listed separately from wins by 3 goals or less (WIN) so that they can be matched against BLS and LSS. Players are listed by Average Adjusted Points (AAP) - Total Points/(Number of Games +2) x 100 In the event of the AAP of two or more players being equal, 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. 5. Toss of a coin. .... Lynz wins $50 credit. The new season starts with the next game where team selectors are elected. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 14, 2013 12:25:49 GMT 8
For the first season: .... Criteria for inclusion: * Both team selectors are experienced. * Most of the players are regulars. * Everyone playing has played at least 5 times before, 3 times in the current 6 month period, and at least twice in the particular game (date/time/venue) .... Previously: .... 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. With our high turnover of players, there will always be newer players playing. Therefore, for the new season, I will simplify the criteria for inclusion as follows: * The team selectors were elected and agreed on the line ups. * The players playing in the particular game are largely regulars. The following remains unchanged: .... If there is any significant incident during the game which substantially distorts the balance of the teams, the fairness of the game, or the result, the game will be excluded. If any team selector wishes to appeal against the inclusion or exclusion of a result, please post below. If you wish to contest the result or score, post on the report thread for the particular game within 7 days of the result being included. .... The winner of the prize of $50 credit will be the highest placed player who has at least 5 games listed. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 17, 2013 9:36:29 GMT 8
The 5-a-side on Tuesday (15 October 2013) at Kallang finished 5-2. Also, the 2-0 final score at The Grandstand on Saturday, 21 September 2013, is one of the lowest ever. All-time low scores in our games: * 0-0, on Tuesday, 14 June 2011, at East Coast. * 1-0, on Saturday, 15 December 2012, at The Grandstand. * 2-0, on Sunday, 15 July 2012, at The Grandstand. * 2-0, on Saturday, 4 May 2013, at The Grandstand. * 2-0, on Saturday, 21 September 2013, at The Grandstand. * 2-1, on Sunday, 11 November 2012, at The Grandstand. * 2-1, on Saturday, 22 December 2012, at The Grandstand. * 2-1, on Saturday, 1 June 2013, at The Grandstand. * 2-2, on Sunday, 23 December 2012, at The Grandstand. * 2-2, on Saturday, 27 July 2013, at The Grandstand. * 3-1, on Wednesday, 22 February 2012, at Khalsa. * 3-1, on Sunday, 16 December 2012, at The Grandstand. * 3-1, on Sunday, 30 December 2012, at The Grandstand. * 3-1, on Sunday, 6 January 2013, at The Grandstand. * 3-1, on Saturday, 16 March 2013, at The Grandstand. * 3-1 on Saturday, 6 April 2013, at The Grandstand. * 3-1, on Saturday, 25 May 2013, at The Grandstand. * 4-0, on Saturday, 26 January 2013, at The Grandstand. Several other games on Saturday and Sunday at The Grandstand, tied at 2-2, where they played on to a last goal, so that the game finished 3-2. There might have been several more 4-goal games at The Grandstand on Saturday and Sunday before I started keeping detailed records of low scoring games in August 2012 (going back to July 2012). It is also possible that I missed a few between August and December 2012. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 6, 2014 18:20:08 GMT 8
I use this thread to keep track of low-scoring games, as set out in the post above. Previously, I also used this thread to keep track of comebacks, games where one team takes a big lead before the other team comes back to level or win. With the weekly round ups, it's now easier to spot both low-scoring games and comebacks. Some more low-scoring games: One of the lowest scoring games at Khalsa last night (Wednesday), ending 4-2 with two late goals. As for comebacks, there have been several games where one team takes a big lead, before the other team closes the gap, but only one real comeback, on 21 December 2013: |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 2, 2014 15:51:47 GMT 8
From earlier on this thread: And from the "Team selection" section of the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" 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.
....
Where there are no team selectors, and it is left to me to suggest line ups, I apply the same considerations. However, where I suggest line ups, there are still team captains. From the "Team organization & game play" section of the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread: .... .... If one team is dominating the game and take a big lead in the first half of the game which appears unassailable, ..., team selectors/captains need to consider what changes to line ups and formations are necessary to keep the game competitive. .... Again, from earlier in this thread: .... I've been looking at the scorelines of our games for over 3 years now, and a game is one-sided if the number of goals scored by the winning team (W), compared to the number of goals scored by the losing team (L), is equal to greater than 2x(L+2) (that is W>=2x(L+2)), so scoreline is: * 4-0 * 6-1 * 8-2 * 10-3 * 12-4 * 14-5 * 16-6 * 18-7 * 20-8 or worse for the losing side. If 25 to 50 minutes into the game, the scoreline is any of the above (or worse), there should be a change in line ups. Before 25 minutes, it's still too early to say. After 50 minutes may be too late to make a change. .... On the other hand: .... ..., we have had the side losing badly coming back to draw or win even without player swaps. .... .... Including the old FIOFAFI blog, it's 6 years now, and the above still holds true. I will add the above formula/scorelines to the guidelines. If 25 to 50 minutes into a game, the scoreline in favour of the winning team reaches or exceeds the above, team captains/selectors should consider making changes. Whether they make changes will depend on whether the team selectors/captains feel the line ups were seriously unbalanced to begin (in which case, changes should be made), or it is a matter of formation, organization and tactics (in which case, no change is needed, and the team selector/captain of the losing side has to consider what he needs to do). To this end, the losing selector/captain should be able to call two time outs between the 25th and 50th minute of the game. If changes are made to the line ups, the winning selector/captain has one time out after that to review the changes made and whether they should revert to the original line ups. Also, from the "GIFFA-defined & other men's games" thread: .... I am prepared to consider ... if a stronger group of players insist on playing on the same team, and they make up the whole or almost the whole of that team, they have to operate with a handicap: - If there are players on waitlist, the first one will join the other team so that they have an additional player. Last week, William Y was available. Last night, Gow was available.
- If there are no players on waitlist, and the game goes ahead with even numbers, and the team with the group takes a big lead (say by 5 goals or more) during the game (say anytime after 20 minutes into the game), one of the other players on that team will switch over so that the other team has a two player advantage until they take the lead, before the player switches back.
.... .... The team with 8 may feel embarrassed to play with 2 extra players, but even under 11-a-side rules, a game is only abandoned if a team is reduced to 6 players, so you could have 11 v 7. 6 v 8 is much fairer by comparison, .... .... .... .... Let's say we rated each player from 1 to 10. Let's say every player is rated at 6. The aggregate rating for each team of 7 would be 42. However, I would say that the team with players who play together regularly would be at least twice as good as a team compared to the team where several of the players had not met before, let alone played together before. .... I have added the words in italics to the "Team selection" section of the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread: .... I have summarized the considerations here:
....
- 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).
....
The option of a player switching over so that the losing team has 2 players extra until they pull back to within a goal or two will also be suggested as an option when one team takes a big lead as described above. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 21, 2014 20:05:57 GMT 8
Continuing from the first part of the post above, I have added the following as an Appendix to the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread: A scoreline is grossly one-sided if: - The losing side not having scored, the winning side has scored 4 or more.
- The losing side having scored 1, the winning side has scored 6 or more.
- The losing side having scored 2, the winning side has scored 8 or more.
- The losing side having scored 3, the winning side has scored 10 or more.
- The losing side having scored 4, the winning side has scored 12 or more.
- The losing side having scored 5, the winning side has scored 14 or more.
- The losing side having scored 6, the winning side has scored 16 or more.
- The losing side having scored 7, the winning side has scored 18 or more.
The formula is that if the losing side has scored L where L is 0 or greater, the winning side has scored W or more, where W=(L+2)*2
I have also added the parts in italics below to the "Team organization and game play" section of the same thread: .... Flexibility and accommodation extends to making changes during the game. If one team is dominating the game and take a big lead in the first half of the game which appears unassailable, or one team is a player short due to uneven numbers, a no show, a late withdrawal, an injury to a player, a player having to leave early, or a temperamental player walking out of the game, or a team is significantly weakened by an injured player who continues to play in a limited capacity, team selectors/captains need to consider what changes to line ups and formations are necessary to keep the game competitive. The onus is greater when the scoreline is or approaches one that is grossly one-sided, as defined in the Appendix below. Where the team taking a big lead is largely a group of friends who don't want to be separated, the option of one other player from that team switching over so that the other team has two players extra remains an option, as discussed in the section above. .... The first part in italics arises from events discussed yesterday on the "Team selectors/captains & line ups thread". The second part in italics relates to the addition of the Appendix to the thread. The last part in italics relates to the last part of the post above. With just 10 days to go before the end of the second season, we're heading towards a very close finish. The current top 10: Only those who have 5 or more results included are eligible to win the $50 credit for finishing highest. For the first season, all the included results, the table, and all explanation, were in a single post. I had a single post for the second season as well, but by mid February, the post had become unwieldy as more results were added and the table grew bigger, so I split it into three posts - one with the table and the explanation, the second with the included results from October to December 2013, and the third with the included results from January to March 2014. Soon after, it occurred to me that by combining the listing of included results with the weekly round up, I could save myself a fair bit of work. I will do so from the next season onwards, starting from April 2014. Also from the "Team selectors/captains & line ups" thread: .... The team selector poll is included if I think the players down for that game are sufficiently familiar with each other for 2 of them to decide on line ups. If there are several new, newer or less regular players, or players who haven't played together before much or at all, I will suggest line ups, and limit the poll to a team captain poll. I am more lax with the criteria for including players in the team captain poll, and I will include as many players as possible. As in such games, there will be several new, newer or less regular players, the bigger constraint may be that not many players meet the minimum threshold of having played at least 15 games. As they decide on line ups, team selectors do need to have the confidence of other players. From the next game onwards, the minimum number of votes for team selectors will be increased from 2 to 3. If no two players receive at least 3 votes, the two with the highest number of votes will still be team captains. If a significant number of players included in the poll withdraw from the game, I may replace the poll with a new one. If I feel that based on changes in personnel, the two players voted as team selectors are not sufficiently familiar with the rest of the players to decide on line ups, they will be designated as team captains instead, and I will suggest the line ups. Likewise, if I feel that the two players voted as team captain are sufficiently familiar with the rest of the players, and they each have at least 3 votes, I will designate them as team selectors and leave it to them to decide on line ups, provided I will not re-designate a player who has opted out as team selector. .... .... Ultimately, it how the team selectors/captains organize the teams, based on formation, deployment of players, and tactics. For next season, I will include results between team captains, provided that both have at least 2 votes in the poll. I will rename the "Weekly Round Up & Team Selectors Table" board accordingly. The aim is to have contenders having at least 8 included results. From the outset, I included a weighting to favour those who had more included results, so that a player cannot go top just by winning his first few games, then not having any more included results. I will modify the weighting as follows: Treating Big Wins and Big Losses differently was previously opposed. I treat any winning margin by 4 goals or more as a Big Win (and a Big Loss for the other team), with a Big Loss earning no points compared to one point for a normal loss. Taking into account the opposing views, I decided not to treat Big Wins differently from ordinary wins: .... 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. .... However, with team selectors/captains now tasked with avoiding grossly one-sided results as defined above, I am considering the following instead: - Only 1 point for a grossly one-sided win.
- No points for a grossly one-sided loss.
Such results will be very rare, and most likely excluded for the same reasons that it ended up as a grossly one-sided result, but I would like to emphasize to team selectors/captains that in certain circumstances, making changes become necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 1, 2014 15:18:41 GMT 8
From above: .... With just 10 days to go before the end of the second season, we're heading towards a very close finish. .... .... And the final outcome: With the end of the October 2013 to March 2014 season, Rai finishes top, and wins the $50 credit. .... .... : And what could have been: .... Gilbert L could have finished top and won the $50 credit had his selection won last night (Monday) at East Coast. However, they lost 4-6 to Jeff Salleh's selection, which saw Jeff climb to fourth, and Gilbert slip to tenth. Had Gilbert's team won last night, the top 4 would have been: | Name | PLA | WIN | BWN | DRW | LSS | BLS | PTS | AAP | | Gilbert L | 5 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 171.4 | | Rai | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 15 | 166.7 | | Sean Luo | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 166.7 | | Kelvin Au | 6 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 162.5 |
That's how the cookie crumbles... Winners will also get one star  over the avatar for each win. So that's Lynz and Rai with one star each. Also from above: .... With the weekly round ups, it's now easier to spot both low-scoring games and comebacks. ..... As for comebacks, there have been several games where one team takes a big lead, before the other team closes the gap, but only one real comeback, on 21 December 2013: A few more since then: As I'm only looking at games where one team leads by 4 or more goals before the other team comes back to draw or win, I've excluded a couple of games where one team came back from 3 goals down to win - on Sunday, 19 January 2014 at The Grandstand, and on Monday, 17 February 2014 at East Coast. A couple of "nearly" games too: On the other hand, also easier to note grossly one-sided results. From the "GIFFA values, principles & standards" thread: Also from above: .... .... For next season, I will include results between team captains, provided that both have at least 2 votes in the poll. I will rename the "Weekly Round Up & Team Selectors Table" board accordingly. .... For the new season (April to September 2014), I will create an "Overview" post to be stickied on the "Weekly Round Up & Table" board, stating as follows: I will add an appendix to the Overview thread to keep a record of the following (starting from this month onwards): - Lowest-scoring and highest-scoring games for each venue.
- Comebacks.
- Grossly one-sided results.
Earlier records will remain only on this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Kelvin Au on Apr 1, 2014 22:54:45 GMT 8
wow... I didn't know there was a league for team selectors, and you could win $50!
I'll think twice about NAATS now..
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jul 4, 2014 9:57:41 GMT 8
We've passed the halfway mark for the April 2014 to September 2014 team selector/captain season. At the start of the season, I set out the criteria for inclusion of results in the team selector/captain table as follows in the season's thread: However, I have been including results of all team selectors, even where the team selectors are appointed by default without a poll (due to all the other regulars opting out). Also: Where there are circumstances that might have affected the scoreline but not necessarily the result, rather than exclude the result, I have been modifying the scoreline to discount those circumstances before adding the result to the table. I have gone over the results so far this season and modified the scoreline for a handful of games. The modification is reflected in the right most column of the weekly round up table with the header "Included result (or not, including reasons)". Also, I have today gone over all the previous results and included drawn games, even where the team captains were appointed. I assume that a drawn game shows that the team captains did a good job. If the players play on for a last goal, I will discount the last goal. I have therefore modified the criteria for inclusion as follows: .... Criteria for inclusion of a result: - The result is posted on the report thread for the game.
- Line ups were decided by team selectors.
- Although I suggested line ups, team captains had at least 2 votes in the poll, or were sufficiently familiar with the players to make changes.
- All drawn games. Other than where team selectors are elected, where the result would have been a draw but for the players playing on for a last goal, the game the game will be recorded in the table as a draw.
- No report of any significant occurrence or incident surrounding or during the game, outside of the control of the team selectors/captains, which substantially distorted the fairness of the game or the result. If there are circumstances surrounding or during the game which may have affected the scoreline, I may modify the scoreline to discount those circumstances before including the result in table. This is reflected in the column headed "Included result (or not, including reasons)" in the weekly round up tables below.
.... The aim is to include as many results as possible. For the first time this week, every result (6 games) has been included. The current top 10 in the table: | Name | IRS | WIN | DRW | LSS | GOW | GOL | GLF | GLA | PTS | WTG | AAP | | Sean Luo | 9 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 76 | 67 | 19 | 0 | 211.1 | | Fred | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 28 | 15 | 1 | 200.0 | | Jeff Salleh | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 19 | 11 | 4 | 187.5 | | Jon Stratton | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 24 | 13 | 2 | 187.5 | | Keith N | 9 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 48 | 55 | 16 | 0 | 177.8 | | Daniel TKC | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 15 | 8 | 5 | 162.5 | | Rai | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 46 | 10 | 2 | 150.0 | | Derian | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 13 | 7 | 5 | 150.0 | | Gerard | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 14 | 7 | 5 | 150.0 | | Ling Chong | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 24 | 6 | 5 | 137.5 |
From the "GIFFA system & playing rules" thread: However, if the result is included, it is in the name of the team selector as originally elected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 8, 2014 20:59:33 GMT 8
Continuing from above: I've updated the "Overview" thread on the "Weekly Round Ups, Tables & Game Records" board. Previously, on the "Reports, polls & chat" thread: I've been keeping a record of the number of games each week on roughly a monthly basis on the "Scheduling & game per week/month" thread since November 2012, dating back to the end of September 2012. Previously, I did so on the "Days, time & locations" thread, dating back to 20 February 2012, and starting with just weeknight games. However, summarizing the weekly situation at the end of the month means having to trawl through the month's games at the end of each month. To make it easier for myself, I've started a weekly round up thread on the "Chat" board, for May 2013, starting with the week from 4 to 9 May 2013. Having a separate thread allows me to break down the work into weekly bits, and also allows me to add a bit more detail. The summary at the end of each month will still be on the the "Scheduling & game per week/month" thread. Each week, there is one post. I don't actually need a monthly thread. I will have a half-yearly thread from now on, so approximately 26 weeks. .... The summary at the end of each month will still be on the the "Scheduling & game per week/month" thread. And from earlier in this thread: .... For the first season, all the included results, the table, and all explanation, were in a single post. I had a single post for the second season as well, but by mid February, the post had become unwieldy as more results were added and the table grew bigger, so I split it into three posts - one with the table and the explanation, the second with the included results from October to December 2013, and the third with the included results from January to March 2014. Soon after, it occurred to me that by combining the listing of included results with the weekly round up, I could save myself a fair bit of work. I will do so from the next season onwards, starting from April 2014. .... .... For the new season (April to September 2014), I will create an "Overview" post to be stickied on the "Weekly Round Up & Table" board, stating as follows: .... The use of a single thread for April to September 2014 has worked well, so I have moved and merged the earlier posts on weekly round ups, monthly rounds (including from the "Weekly schedule & number of games" thread), tables and included results into two threads, which were spread over several threads, as follows: The "Weekly Round Ups, Tables & Game Records" board is now much neater. In the process, I "lost" about 600 page views from the separate weekly round up threads for the period from May 2013 to March 2014 (separate threads for May 2013, June 2013, second half of 2013 and first quarter of 2014), but never mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 30, 2014 22:54:00 GMT 8
From earlier in this thread: The team selector table is actually to encourage players to take on the responsibility of team selectors, and to take it seriously, not just in balancing line ups, but in organizing their teams properly. I acknowledge that there is only a small benefit in winning games, and a small detriment in losing them. There is a bigger detriment in losing badly, so keep your team well organized until the end of the game, and consider player swaps if necessary. Early on, number of games as team selector is a bigger factor. Later on, performance will be a bigger factor. .... The relevant considerations are set out in greater detail under the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread. Also from earlier in this thread: ..., I have added the following as an Appendix to the "Guidelines On Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread: A scoreline is grossly one-sided if: - The losing side not having scored, the winning side has scored 4 or more.
- The losing side having scored 1, the winning side has scored 6 or more.
- The losing side having scored 2, the winning side has scored 8 or more.
- The losing side having scored 3, the winning side has scored 10 or more.
- The losing side having scored 4, the winning side has scored 12 or more.
- The losing side having scored 5, the winning side has scored 14 or more.
- The losing side having scored 6, the winning side has scored 16 or more.
- The losing side having scored 7, the winning side has scored 18 or more.
The formula is that if the losing side has scored L where L is 0 or greater, the winning side has scored W or more, where W=(L+2)*2
I have also added the parts in italics below to the "Team organization and game play" section of the same thread: .... Flexibility and accommodation extends to making changes during the game. If one team is dominating the game and take a big lead in the first half of the game which appears unassailable, or one team is a player short due to uneven numbers, a no show, a late withdrawal, an injury to a player, a player having to leave early, or a temperamental player walking out of the game, or a team is significantly weakened by an injured player who continues to play in a limited capacity, team selectors/captains need to consider what changes to line ups and formations are necessary to keep the game competitive. The onus is greater when the scoreline is or approaches one that is grossly one-sided, as defined in the Appendix below. Where the team taking a big lead is largely a group of friends who don't want to be separated, the option of one other player from that team switching over so that the other team has two players extra remains an option, as discussed in the section above. .... .... Treating Big Wins and Big Losses differently was previously opposed. I treat any winning margin by 4 goals or more as a Big Win (and a Big Loss for the other team), with a Big Loss earning no points compared to one point for a normal loss. Taking into account the opposing views, I decided not to treat Big Wins differently from ordinary wins: .... 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. .... However, with team selectors/captains now tasked with avoiding grossly one-sided results as defined above, I am considering the following instead: - Only 1 point for a grossly one-sided win.
- No points for a grossly one-sided loss.
Such results will be very rare, and most likely excluded for the same reasons that it ended up as a grossly one-sided result, but I would like to emphasize to team selectors/captains that in certain circumstances, making changes become necessary.
. In the end, I did not record any result as grossly one-sided. The few games that could have qualified were excluded for various reasons. Also, recording a game as grossly one-sided adversely affects the losing selector/captain disproportionately. The result that best reflects the aim of competitive games and responsible selection and captaining is a draw. However, even when a game is heading for a draw, players do like to play on for a last goal, which is not necessarily inconsistent with the stated aims. The points system should promote the stated aims. For the new season (October 2014 to March 2015), the points will be modified as follows: - 2 points for a draw.
- 3 points for a close win.
- 2 points for a close loss.
- 2 points for other wins.
- 1 point for other losses.
A close result is where the winning margin is 2 or less, or where the winning team does not score more than 1.5 times the number of goals scored by the losing team. Other results will only be included where line ups were decided by elected selectors, or elected captains who voluntarily do the selection. For draws and close results, results will be included even if line ups were suggested my me.
Other results may be excluded even if the line ups were decided by elected selectors if there were unforeseen events or occurrences which significantly affected the result. This is a more limited exclusionary rule than the one that applied before. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 3, 2015 21:51:53 GMT 8
With one month left of the current season, the top of the table looks like this: .... | Name | IRS | CWN | OWN | DRW | CLS | OLS | GLF | GLA | PTS | WTG | AAP | | Sean Luo | 7 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 43 | 32 | 19 | 3 | 220.0 | | Derian | 12 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 91 | 68 | 26 | 0 | 216.7 | | Keith | 14 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 80 | 84 | 30 | 0 | 214.3 | | Charpin | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 38 | 32 | 17 | 4 | 210.0 | | CH Lim | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 34 | 32 | 17 | 3 | 200.0 | | Ting Han | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 31 | 32 | 12 | 5 | 170.0 | | Fred | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 22 | 24 | 12 | 5 | 170.0 | | Gerard | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 39 | 47 | 13 | 3 | 160.0 | | Elvin | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 26 | 25 | 12 | 4 | 160.0 | | Jeff S | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 19 | 25 | 11 | 5 | 160.0 |
.... With changes in the weekly schedule, in particular, the aim of having a regular Friday night game, for the weekly round ups, since the week of 20 to 26 December 2014, the week is referred to as a period of 7 days from Saturday to Friday instead of a period of 6 days from Saturday to Thursday. Since the week of 14 to 20 February 2015, I have added a row for a Friday night game in the table. |
|
