|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 24, 2011 13:24:59 GMT 8
This thread currently deals with the above subject matter. Announcements and developments relating to the subject matter are posted below. Go to the last page (by clicking the largest number to the left of "NEXT >>" above) for the latest announcement/development. As the subject matter has been modified from time to time, as described in various posts below, any given post may not fall squarely within the subject matter. As at 17 February 2014, this first post on this thread was: .... I think it's more important to have a mix of stronger and weaker players in both sides, so that the two teams are balanced. It's not a perfect science, and sometimes, we will get it wrong. .... .... The rules actually provide: We have far fewer one-sided games than we used to. As I said on 6 September 2009: 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. If the score line is better than the above, in my view, it's not really one-sided. An easy way to change line ups is for the best one or two players from the winning side to switch with any two players from the losing side. As I also said in the comment of 6 September 2009, "Exercise common sense and good discretion". |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jul 12, 2011 15:50:16 GMT 8
.... Whites took a 4-0 lead - two good goals, a defensive lapse and a deflected goal. After Damian arrived, I managed to get the spare player, but it went to 5-0. Rajseran swapped with the spare player. We then had a second leg. Reds led 1-0 and 2-1. Whites levelled at 2-2 before Reds pulled ahead 5-2. On aggregate, Whites 7 Reds 5. .... .... - change of teams half-way through always makes it difficult to sustain effort: do we start the score from sratch or do we continue where we left it? .... Does it really matter? Either way, we have the score before the swap, the score after the swap and the aggregate score. Personally, I think it's better to treat it as two legs. A swap would usually be made if one side is far ahead, so instead of leaving the losing side to try to catch up, treat is as a second leg. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jul 21, 2011 11:27:40 GMT 8
Going 3 or 4 goals down early on shouldn't be a reason to lose heart or swap players. There've been a few comebacks this month: Three draws in a row, all involving coming back from 3 or 4 goals down: * On Sunday, Reds came back from 0-3 and 3-6 down to draw 7-7. * On Tuesday, Whites came back from 1-4 down to draw 5-5. * Last night, Whites came from 0-4 down to 4-6, and then 8-8. Trailing, even by several goals, is an opportunity to re-organize the team, as long as the team doesn't lose it's head or become discouraged. A comeback earlier in the month - on 7 July 2011, Whites came from 3-6 down to level at 6-6. The game finished 7-7. Wait until about halfway through the game before deciding on any player swaps. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 23, 2011 15:37:58 GMT 8
.... .... it's more important how one plays the hand he is being dealt and not blame it on the cards. instead of switching players the team should play its cards differently and above example from 8th aug underscores that in my opinion. For that reason, there's no point making changes early in the game (unless it is very clear that one side is much stronger). There are many other factors though, such as: * New players being stronger or weaker than anticipated. * Players suffering injuries and loss of form. Many of us are playing for fun and fitness, even if our games have a competitive edge. One side running away with the game does detract from the enjoyment, so in one-sided games, it's worth considering player swap(s) about half-way through. 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. For those who prefer more competitive games (without any player swaps  ), challenge matches are the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 7, 2011 7:14:13 GMT 8
.... ... one sided scorelines are not always due to one new/weak player. .... Like I've said before: .... We tend to focus too much on line ups, and underplay ... other factors. .... Other factors include: * Team formation and organization. * Fitness and form of individual players. * The attitude of the players. New players can be significant factor as well. Not only can a new player whose weakness is not factored into to the line ups shift the balance against his team, a new player who is very strong can shift the balance in favour of his team. The solution factored into the system is player swaps, but there is a reluctance to swap players, especially in more competitive games. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 7, 2011 10:41:59 GMT 8
.... Personally, I think the result is not as important as the build-up play, since we are doing a social game rather than a competition. .... .…. .... .... It is also not a competitive game. .... .... Our games are not entirely social affairs either. Apart from challenge matches, there is a competitive edge even to our regular games. Every e-mail Update repeats the tagline "Social football with a competitive edge". Outside of challenge matches, it really depends on who the players are for each game. Popular games probably have the greater competitive edge, as the players are largely regulars and up for it. However, which games are popular can vary from time to time. As extra games tend to have players who haven't played for a while, or who haven't played together before, there is less of a competitive edge, as the edge is taken off by uncertainty over the players and line ups. For regular games with largely regular players, the competitive edge can be enhanced by having two regulars taking turns to select their teams. The most competitive matches would probably be a tournament, but I don't see us having a tournament any time in the foreseeable future. To reflect this spectrum, this thread will be renamed "The competitive edge". The competitive edge is an important factor in keeping our games exciting and fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 12, 2011 17:19:47 GMT 8
In July: Going 3 or 4 goals down early on shouldn't be a reason to lose heart or swap players. There've been a few comebacks this month: .... We've had a few others, including one last night from 1-6 down to draw or win: .... .... With some good plays, and guns blazing from left, right center, Whites was leading up to a scoreline of 6 - 1 or so. It seems that the game was a foregone conclusion with Whites leading at such a big margin. Then Red started to claw one back, and that one goal seem to be the catalyst for what eventually was the revival for Reds. .... Red then proceed to score a couple more to take the lead. With White pulling back one goal at the final stage of the game. It was a close game in scoreline. All in all, I had alot of fun. In my opinion, what won the game for Red was their discipline and strong mentality. They didn't give up one bit even when the game was against them. They kept their shape well throughout the game, and stick to their game plan all night long. Reds played more as a team while White seem to be a little less organized in the middle of the game. .... From the thread on team formation & organization: I've renamed this thread "One-sided games & comebacks", as it deals with both sides of the coin. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 17, 2011 8:44:20 GMT 8
There is the option of switching a player over when one team is a player short due to illness, injury or any other reason, and that team is trailing badly. .... Anyway, there seems to be a general reluctance to switch players during the game. It's up to those playing. It's fine if players aren't too bothered by scorelines. .... |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 21, 2011 7:35:13 GMT 8
.... It was nil all for first 15 mins.. Then the dice started roliing.. Whites went 4-0 up! At that point i was thinking another defeat was on the cards and two straight losses in a day.. Morale was low but something in reds just didnt want to give up.. Nick made a run, a low cross and yaseen scores.. 4-1.. Then steve scored.. 4-2.. Unfortunately, whites scored and they were 5-2 up! Whites had runners and their middle playmaker was all over the place and was skilful.. Reds were disorganized but somehow kept their shape well.. Whites had runners and were fitter in comparison to reds.. Steve and Nick were bulldozing their way in whites goal area.. Steve was impressive today and really work hard tirelessy... Reds also had defenders whom stuck to their positons and defended well despite whites bombarding forward.. Soon the hardwork and organization of reds paid off and reds were 6- 5 up.. Whites clawed back to lead 7-6!!... Then a corner for reds which was practically the last attack for the game... Nick passes, steve runs and shoot and GOALLLLLLL...... 7-7 ALL!!! End to end stuff and all done in good fighting spirit... A draw is the fairest result for both team and whites played compact football as a team and reds never say die!! Good football and skills from both sides .... Another good comeback. It's a good thing there were no player swaps at 4-0 then. On the other hand, on Sunday, when the game finished 6-0 to Whites with Reds a man short due to injury: It is becoming increasingly clear that for games to be competitive, both teams need their fair share of experience and leadership. And apart from all the other variables in a game, a fair share of luck. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 21, 2011 7:35:45 GMT 8
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 23, 2011 11:03:47 GMT 8
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 23, 2011 11:37:00 GMT 8
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 30, 2011 12:02:36 GMT 8
The regular Saturday game from 5 to 6 pm at Turf City has developed a reputation as being our most competitive. On the other hand, it depends on who is playing: Also, as with all our weekend games: For the game yesterday (Saturday): .... With so many regulars not playing, it was different from the usual Saturday game, which made it interesting. We've had such "different" games before, several as recently as July 2011, where things didn't work out as well. .... The one obvious difference for me: .... What newer players (or even regulars from other games) coming into the Saturday game are not really prepared is how quickly they are closed down when they have the ball. It's something you get used to if you play regularly on Saturday. .... |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jan 20, 2012 10:53:25 GMT 8
Keeping our regular games competitive keeps our games exciting and fun. To this end, we aim to have balanced line ups for each game. However, we don't always get it right, and we do sometimes have one-sided games. Player swaps during the game is available as an option, but rarely used these days. We also keep score during the game, and report on the score (or at least the result) on the message board after the game. I started a thread on "One-sided games" on 24 June 2011: .... 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. If the score line is better than the above, in my view, it's not really one-sided. An easy way to change line ups is for the best one or two players from the winning side to switch with any two players from the losing side. .... This is especially so when there are non-regular players, late withdrawals or injuries during the game which might affect the balance of the teams. Exercise common sense and discretion. I have suggested treating a game with player swaps as a two-legged match. Re-set the score to 0-0 after the swap, and treat the remainder of the game as a second leg, with the score before the swap being the final score of the first leg. The aggregate score still determines the winner. By re-setting the score, it gives the side trailing badly something to continue to play for. By determining the overall winner by the aggregate score, the team that took a big lead still has the advantage. If player swaps detract from the competitiveness of a game, treating the game as two-legged should redress that, and keeps it fun. On the other hand, we have had the side losing badly coming back to draw or win even without player swaps. "Comebacks" was the subject matter of a post on the old blog on 8 February 2009: More recently, on two successive Sundays, a similar, experienced, Whites came from 0-2 to win 3-2: * 8 January 2012* 15 January 2012The "One-sided games" thread was expanded on 12 October 2011 to include "Comebacks" as they were two sides of the same coin. Going forward, where the players for a game are largely regulars, line ups and player swaps will be left to team selectors/co-ordinators, one from each team. .... .... Swaps have become very rare, which increases the pressure on those doing the line ups to get it right. Having two players (one from each side) agree on the line ups shares the responsibility, and reduces the burden. .... I have moved all the posts from the "One-sided games and comebacks" thread to this, the "Competitive edge" thread, and renamed the merged thread "Keeping score & the competitive edge".
|
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Jan 30, 2012 10:04:44 GMT 8
Swapping players is not practical : swapping just one player may not be enough to level the playing field; it seems to be the case in this game. Many do not bring the other colour. An easier, and more gracious, way would be for the stronger team to ease off and swap their players' positions. The stronger players play goalie and defenders while the defenders get their chance to play strikers. I was not there so would not know if this happened. However swapping player arounds may still not level the playing field if the teamwork is still good. The weekend games (including Sunday's) are good examples of the x-factor that is required: teamwork and organisation. On paper the line-ups look fairly balanced but the outcomes were one-sided. The playing styles of some players just cannot click together, through no fault of theirs, so when they come together, the teamwork is just not there. Some players are adaptable and can fit into any position or style of play and make the team stronger. This is what make things interesting and unpredictable. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jan 30, 2012 10:25:11 GMT 8
Some rather one-sided games this past week: * Wednesday night (25 January 2012), at Khalsa - final score 12-3, even after the winning side eased off a bit. * Thursday night (26 January 2012), at Khalsa - final score 12-6. * Saturday evening (28 January 2012), at Turf City - final score 9-2 or worse. Only the first game (on Wednesday) was a clear one for changes to the teams. What I said about the Saturday game was actually: It only applied if the score was anywhere close to 22-2, which apparently it wasn't. For really one-sided games: .... With the game being so one-sided, it lacked intensity, and was a bit flat. .... Those on the winning side feel it worse. Increasingly, more regulars now don't really care if they win or lose, they just want a good game. 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.  Just to be clear, for me, scorelines like 5-1, or 7-2, or 10-4, or 12-5 are not very one-sided. They're within the range of normal. Ultimately, keeping score and the competitive edge are more about keeping our games enjoyable, than about competition. For those more interested in competition and winning, there are alternatives. |
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Jan 30, 2012 11:35:22 GMT 8
.... never been an advocate of swapping. but i am also not an advocate of changing positions due to domination of a team. what's so wrong with losing? are'nt we all looking for a challenge - the bigger, the better? i can tell from my own experience that it is a much bigger challenge to accept a loss, to stay calm when one gets trashed than to cruise to a victory. but the point is that the opportunity to learn is never larger than from an uncomfortable, humiliating situation that clearly sucks. as the prediction poll indicated the line-ups per se did nt scream for a one sided game. why was it balanced for about 30 min? why did reds lose by such a margin in the end? definitly a huge void to be filled with lessons if one wants to get better from this experience. In the first place, the spirit of the game is that players take turns to be keeper and also to rotate around. However this has not been practised in all games. Even in professional competitive matches, the much stronger team do ease off, partly because the game is already won, and partly not to embarrass the weaker team further. The key players are taken off to be rested for the next game and the reserves are given a run-out. It is fine not to ease off if everyone on the losing team is looking for a challenge, the bigger the better. However, the common complaint after a heavy defeat is the unbalanced line-ups. The SMSes Rajiv received were from competitive players complaining about being thrashed. Has there been positive feedback from players on the losing team saying that they enjoyed the challenge, they will learn from the thrashing etc.? Some on the losing team do say they enjoyed the worked out regardless of the scoreline, but enjoying a good workout is not the same as enjoying a heavy loss. GIFFA is social football with a competitive edge. If anyone wants a bigger challenge, whether in victory or defeat, there are more competitive leagues out there. |
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Jan 30, 2012 11:57:41 GMT 8
I agree it's not fair on anyone for the winning side to ease off just to make the scoreline more respectable. The game becomes very flat. Would swapping players then be fair to the winning team? Isn't this weakening the winning team and trying to make the scoreline more respectable? Easing off or swapping players may not level the playing field if the teamwork is not there. |
|
|
|
Post by Rainer on Jan 30, 2012 13:13:53 GMT 8
FC - by the same token one can argue not to pick the most challenging game within GIFFA but one of the many less challenging ones. there are even mixed games available - warm and fuzzy feeling guaranteed. |
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Jan 30, 2012 13:27:24 GMT 8
Yes agreed. But people still choose to play in the challenging games and then afterwards complained about the line-ups not being balanced.  |
|
), 
