|
|
Post by Rainer on Apr 27, 2013 11:40:58 GMT 8
my preference is for a game at all. i.e. why don't we do an additional game on saturday instead? if there are 20 players then do two 5-a-side games, if there are 24 players then make it a big pitch 7-a-side plus a 5-a-side and so forth.
i am not a fan of the 20min games over 2h at all though. my reasoning is similar to what has been mentioned already. i.e. 20min is too short, particularly on a big pitch. but additionally, i don't wanna committ for 2h instead of the 1h.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 27, 2013 19:38:10 GMT 8
Dealing first with the second part of Rainer's post: .... i am not a fan of the 20min games over 2h at all though. my reasoning is similar to what has been mentioned already. i.e. 20min is too short, particularly on a big pitch. but additionally, i don't wanna committ for 2h instead of the 1h. My view, going back to January 2009, is that playing with 3 teams over 2 hours is a lot of wasted time. If we do have it at all, it is an exception. Like I said above, I suggested that we try it out once or twice on Saturday to get players used to the idea of playing 6 to 7 pm, and to allow more players to play on those one or two occasions. However, beyond that, I am looking at two separate games, one from 5 to 6 pm and the other from 6 to 7 pm. If 6 to 7 pm is too late on a Saturday, 3 to 4 pm might become an option, but it may be too warm for this time of year, up to around September. .... If we do try playing 3 teams over 2 hours in a subsequent week, whether we have 3 game of 40 minutes or 6 games of 20 minutes is still open for discussion. And now with the first part: my preference is for a game at all. i.e. why don't we do an additional game on saturday instead? if there are 20 players then do two 5-a-side games, if there are 24 players then make it a big pitch 7-a-side plus a 5-a-side and so forth. .... In the past: The 5 (or 6) a side mini-league tournaments played over one hour with each team playing three 20-minute games were popular to begin with, but became less so over time, as the games became too intense. Such mini-league tournaments were held when a popular game was oversubscribed, so much so that we could get to 20 players .... Instead of turning players away, if two small pitches were available, we divided the players into four teams, with the teams playing against each other in 20 minute games, for example, as follows (with teams A, B, C & D): * first 20 minutes: A v B (first pitch), C v D (second pitch) * next 20 minutes: B v C (first pitch), D v A (second pitch) * last 20 minutes: B v D (first pitch), C v A (second pitch) Teams were ranked according to points, and if level, goal difference. However, there were no prizes. In the alternative, we either had two separate games (which meant less interaction between players), or a knock-out tournament (with semi-finals played in the first half hour and a final and 3rd/4th placing played in the second half hour). The mini-tournaments were usually "impromptu", as they were organized at short notice, where: * There were already several reserves for a game two or more days before the game. * Two small pitches were available. * We could get to 16/20/24 (as the case may be) players. .... The last time a game at Turf City was switched from a big pitch to two small pitches due the game being oversubscribed was on Sunday, 27 June 2010. Increasingly, players who put their names down for a game on a big pitch don't necessarily want to play on a small pitch. Apart from 5-a-side games at The Cage, we've only had 3 games on a small pitch since the last mini-tournament in June 2010 * On Tuesday, 20 December 2011, at East Coast, due to Sports Planet double booking the big pitch. * Saturday, 4 August 2012, at Turf City, due to insufficient players (back in the day when the Saturday game didn't fill up as fast as it does - surprisingly, not that long ago). * Thursday, 6 December 2012, due to insufficient players. In fact, increasingly, players who put themselves down for a game on a big pitch would rather withdraw than switch to a small pitch when we have insufficient players for a big pitch but sufficient players for a small pitch, and a small pitch is available. The effect of such withdrawals is likely to be that we don't even have sufficient players for a small pitch, and the game is cancelled. On several recent occasions when we have been short of players on Sunday afternoon for the game that evening at The Grandstand, players have made an extra effort to get to 14 (including getting friends in), rather than risk having to play on a small pitch. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on May 2, 2013 23:26:53 GMT 8
The game tonight (Thursday) at East Coast ended up as Glenn T's Shell (Special Chemicals) team against the rest. Most of Glenn's team were new to our games. Glenn T put the names of 6 colleagues down together with his, and then requested that they be on the same team, which effectively gave rise to an old-style team match. I'd rather such matches come about by the team looking for a match letting me know early. One of the Thursday slots (9 to 10 pm, either at East Coast or Khalsa) can be made available. I will then either not schedule that slot as usual, or, if already scheduled, take it out of the regular schedule. Those looking for the regular game can still put their name down for the other venue. The alternative would be at the weekend. I ordinarily will not make a regular slot available for a team match at the weekend, but I can check for the availability of an additional slot. As I have pointed out before, for team matches, I am not concerned about the players in the other team. If a GIFFA selection is playing, I am more concerned that the GIFFA selection is not weaker than the team they are to face. For tonight, when we had several players on waitlist, I tried to persuade Glenn T to postpone the team match to the following week, so that it could be properly scheduled. However, his team were keen to play tonight. With several withdrawals, everyone got to play in the end. Although we didn't get to select the GIFFA team, I felt it was reasonably strong, so I let it go. Just over a year ago, on 5 April 2012, we had Chen Hong's Shell team against East Coast regulars. With the tighter rules on guests in our regular games, such ad hoc team matches are less likely in future. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jan 31, 2014 10:57:34 GMT 8
For the game on Wednesday (29 January 2014): .... 21 names in the first 45 minutes, ....! The thread for Thursday is up. I know it is the eve of Chinese New Year, but those who can play on Thursday, please put your name down for that. If it doesn't look like the Thursday game will go on, I'm prepared to consider, as a one off for the Chinese New Year, and subject to the availability of a second hour, having 3 teams playing 2 hours on Wednesday. .... 24 names down for today's game, and still none for tomorrow's. .... The 10 to 11 pm slot is available, so 3 teams. .... .... .... 9.00 to 9.20 pm - Whites v Reds 9.20 to 9.40 pm - Reds v Blues/Blacks .... 9.40 to 10.00 pm - Blues/Blacks v Whites 10.00 to 10.20 pm - Whites (Stanley in for Ray) v Reds 10.20 to 10.40 pm - Reds v Blues/Blacks 10.40 to 11.00 pm - Blues/Blacks v Whites .... .... It was a novel idea - but given the choice next time, I prefer one hour straight. The start stop start stop was a bit lethargic, for me at least. .... Players do suggest it sometimes, when a game fills up fast, and we look like we might have enough for 3 teams, for example, as appears earlier in this thread, and: Hi guys...a suggestion...since we have got these many players...what about 2 hrs with 3 teams? :-) I think even Kelvin Au might have suggested it in the past.  Generally, I am against playing three teams over two hours: .... My view, going back to January 2009, is that playing with 3 teams over 2 hours is a lot of wasted time. If we do have it at all, it is an exception. .... (and even put up a poll), but it has never been implemented, and the mad rush for the Saturday game has since abated somewhat. Wednesday was an exception because within a short time (45 minutes) of being put up, it had filled up, and we already had enough on waitlist for a third team, and I couldn't really expect players to switch to the Thursday night game on Chinese New Year eve. Also, with a lot of newer players on the waitlist outside the first 14, switching to three teams over two hours gave the newer players a chance to play, and provided everyone an opportunity to meet and play together. .... I think those who were otherwise not on the initial list of 14 will be very thankful that you made it happen. In the past, I might have considered a four team mini-tournament but that requires even more players to keep it at 6 or 7-a-side (24 to 28 players in total), and two pitches for the same hour. It works better with 5-a-side (we only need 20 players in total), and at The Cage @ Kallang or Sports Planet @ East Coast, where two pitches for the same hour are more readily available (as they have more 5-a-side pitches), or on the covered pitch at The Premier Pitch @ The Grandstand, where one big pitch can be divided into two small pitches for a 5 or 6-a-side game on each (20 to 24 players in total). The price per player is also an issue. Playing 4 teams over one hour on two pitches leaves the price per player the same as playing with 2 teams on one pitch for one hour, but playing three teams over two hours does require an increase in the price per player: For the Wednesday game: .... If we get a second hour, the price per player would ordinarily be $13 but I can squeeze it down to $12 for this game. .... |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 14, 2014 17:59:37 GMT 8
Kelvin Au has put players from his Saturday 11-a-side team down for the games at Balestier Road over the past two Thursdays ( 4 for 6 February 2014 and 6 for yesterday, 13 February 2014). With the other team having stronger players than the week before, Kelvin's team didn't win as comfortably as they did the week before. In fact, I understand last night was a good game. However, we've been through this issue several times before, mainly with David T and friends. Kelvin was fairly outspoken in how one-sided games could be if a group of friends was on one team, and the other team comprised of the rest of the players who put their names down for a game. For example: .... .... I received the following SMS yesterday from a East Coast regular, even though he wasn't playing last night: .... That was Kelvin (when he was still an East Coast regular!). By November 2011, my position was: .... 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. Our regular games are for the former, .... 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. .... Even earlier: .... If there are several weaker players amongst the others, putting just one with (a group of) friends, even the weakest, can still leave very uneven sides. 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 (a group of) 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. .... On WhatsApp, both last week and this, Kelvin said there was interest from players on his 11-a-side team to use one of our games for "training" for their Saturday games. Training involves both working on fitness and teamwork. To work on teamwork, they would like to be on the same team. I have two responses: - If it is to work on an individual's fitness and ability to contribute to a team generally, they don't have to be on the same team.
- If it to work on teamwork as a group, then our games are not suitable. They are better of arranging their own midweek training session or friendly matches.
In my view, any resistance to being split between the two teams in our games on the grounds that the players want to work as a group on their teamwork is misconceived. If they had a squad of 14 say, and arranged their own training game, they would in any event be split between the 2 teams. Our regular games are defined by a system, which includes the following: ....
- 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!
- 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.
....
Anyone whose participation is conditional on being on the same team as a group of friends can only go on waitlist. I have now made it clear on the "Filling places & withdrawals" section of the "GIFFA System" thread that participation is unconditional. Players who wish to participate in our games have to do so on our terms, not theirs. If a team wants to arrange the occasional training match, I will try to help out if I can. I can consider making one of the extra slots, such as Sunday night at Balestier Road or Monday night at The Grandstand available for such a match. I could even check if Thursday night at East Coast is available. I may even try to organize a team to play against. However, using one of our regular games as a training match will only be allowed in very exceptional circumstances: - I agree to it at least one week before, or the game is very slow to fill up and more than half the places are still available 36 hours before the game.
- The team is of mixed abilities (similar to our pool of players), such as a small company or a department of a company with a limited pool of players, or old school friends who haven't played together for a long time.
I am prepared to consider an alternative to b - 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, .... .... Introducing players from other games you play in is always welcome. However, you can't introduce a whole lot at one go and assume that you will be allowed to play as one team. There is of course, the another restriction on introducing new players - until the last 6 hours, only one guest per player per game. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 21, 2014 16:23:59 GMT 8
Further to the above post on the game over the last two Thursdays at Balestier Road, last night, for the third consecutive Thursday at Balestier Road, we had several of Kelvin Au and Stan D Man's 11-a-side team on one side. From the report thread for the game: With 7 withdrawals (one returning), we went from having 3 on waitlist in the morning to 12 by 3.08 pm, before getting back to 14 at 5.30 pm. .... I think there's enough talent to split the team according to Stan and my friends versus the rest? Kelvin Au/Stan and friends are now 8, and we only have 14, so Kelvin said he will join the other side, which gives us: .... Kelvin Au and Stan can be captains, .... .... I don't remember the exact score, but the difference was about 6 goals? Don't think reds were bad - we were just less fit. I know Rajiv will post the link to it - but keeping positional discipline is key. I think we did enough in the first 70% of the game. We slackened a bit, partly due to fitness, and that's where it went south. Kah Boon put in a good shift playing from the back and Shawn Koh defended valiantly. When two team are reasonably evenly matched, formation, team organization (including position discipline) and tactics can make all the difference. When one team comprises of 7 players who play together regularly, and the other team comprises of 7 players, a couple of whom don't play very regularly, and several of whom are meeting each other for the first time, it is less meaningful to emphasize team organization. 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. Kelvin Han's comment on the WhatsApp group chat after the game is more apt: I had a discussion with Kelvin Au on WhatsApp yesterday, around the time we got back to 14 players: I think we've had enough discussion on the matter. The system and rules have been tightened, and they will be applied more strictly. Under the "Filling places & withdrawals" section of the "GIFFA System" thread: .... .... If a player's participation is contingent on other matters, he may be moved to waitlist until either he confirms his participation is unconditional or the contingency is fulfilled. .... And from the post above: If a group of more than 4 is put down for a game in circumstances which suggest they only want to play on the same team, I will ask each of the group if that is the case, and anyone who confirms that to be the case will be moved to waitlist until either the team selector/captain poll is put up, or closes. The "Filling places & withdrawals" section also provides: I have started applying these rules more strictly. .... I've been fairly lax with the priorities for some time up to now, because with withdrawals, it has always worked out in accordance with the rules, but I will be applying the rules more strictly from now on, .... .... : .... 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, .... .... .... If a team wants to arrange the occasional training match, I will try to help out if I can. I can consider making one of the extra slots, such as Sunday night at Balestier Road or Monday night at The Grandstand available for such a match. I could even check if Thursday night at East Coast is available. I may even try to organize a team to play against. However, using one of our regular games as a training match will only be allowed in very exceptional circumstances: - I agree to it at least one week before, or the game is very slow to fill up and more than half the places are still available 36 hours before the game.
- The team is of mixed abilities (similar to our pool of players), such as a small company or a department of a company with a limited pool of players, or old school friends who haven't played together for a long time.
I am prepared to consider an alternative to b - 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, .... ....
Introducing players from other games you play in is always welcome. However, you can't introduce a whole lot at one go and assume that you will be allowed to play as one team. ....Also: Players like Shawn Koh and Kelvin Han who work long hours or a lot of overtime try to grab a game when they can. They may be good-natured enough to accept a trashing, but I have no wish to see them being used as "fodder" for a group of players who use our regular games as their team's training match. Such use of our games also ignores the extensive citing of from the "Team Selection, Organization & Game Play" thread in the post above, and is contrary to the GIFFA system. When you ignore the basics of team selection, there's no point emphasizing the finer points of team organization. Kelvin, if your Saturday 11-a-side team is looking for a training match, how about on Monday, 3 March 2014 at The Grandstand? I'll see if any of The Grandstand regulars are interested in putting together a team. |
|
|
|
Post by Kelvin Au on Feb 21, 2014 17:57:37 GMT 8
I'll check and see ... but Monday may not be the best as we have Sat games. Will check anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 21, 2014 17:59:13 GMT 8
Saturday/Monday or Thursday/Saturday, what's the difference? Anyway, let me know by the coming Monday (24 February 2014) for the following Monday (3 March 2014).
|
|
|
|
Post by Kelvin Au on Feb 21, 2014 17:59:22 GMT 8
I will try to talk to the team about splitting and respecting the house rules - never my/our intention to make it difficult. I've been receiving end before, and I know what it feels like. That's why I didn't mind going over just to see if we could put up a fight.
I think it's workable if the opponents are sufficiently talented and organised - and hopefully you remain open minded about it when the opportunity presents itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 23, 2014 12:34:59 GMT 8
Apart from the discussion with Kelvin Au above which has come to nought, I have had discussions about team matches with others: ...: - With Shawn Low on 7 January 2014:
....
I enquired again on 6 March 2014, but there has been no follow up by Shawn.
- With Kai Jie on 6 March 2014:
....
There has been no follow up.
Anyone interested in a match can post on this thread. I have changed the name of this thread from "Weeknight training match for Stan & Kelvin's 11-a-side team" to "Team Match". From the "Days, times & locations" thread: .... I haven't tried the Sunday night game at Balestier Road yet, mainly because I've been busy with all the recent changes in the GIFFA system and on this forum. I will start next Sunday (9 March 2014). For now, I will alternate weekly between a Sunday night game at Balestier Road and a Monday night game at The Grandstand, so for the rest of this month: - Sunday, 9 March 2014, 8 to 9 pm, Balestier Road.
- Monday, 17 March 2014, 9 to 10 pm, The Grandstand.
- Sunday, 23 March 204, 8 to 9 pm, Balestier Road.
- Monday, 31 March 2014, 9 to 10 pm, The Grandstand.
I am prepared to use either slot, whether it is a scheduled week or an off week, for a team match. I also know that 9 to 10 pm on Thursday and Friday nights are available at East Coast. The thread referred to is on the "OPSAGE" board. The "OPSAGE" thread started with: Last Thursday, Mark T asked me if we could have a game against a team from his new work place tonight. I replied to inform him that I was not keen on using the Wednesday booking for a representative game, as it would affect our regular game, and then leave me with a extra work to re-establish it. As I was looking to re-start the Monday night game, I suggested Monday, 14 June 2010 instead. It has not been uncommon to have a representative game early on when starting or re-starting a session. As it takes a while to have sufficient numbers interested in a new session, a representative game is one way to get it going. We had a representative game early on for both the Saturday afternoon and Sunday evening games at the Premier Pitch. We managed to get good numbers for the game this Monday. I have held back putting up the schedule thread for next Monday, as places would be limited if we were to have a representative game against Mark T's team. I SMSed Mark T yesterday and today. He is not yet able to confirm a team for a game next Monday. In the circumstances, I will proceed to put up the usual scheduling thread for next Monday (a day later than would usually have been the case). .... I actually don't have the time to be arranging representative games anymore.
We have a large pool of players, so anyone who is interested can arrange a match against another team, or between two GIFFA teams. Please make separate bookings for any such representative games. Unless it is useful in starting up a new regular game, or in keeping an existing regular game going, I am not prepared to use a regular booking for representative games. I have moved that post to this thread, and it is now the first post on this thread. Representative games were the original version of team matches. Bringing a team of friends to play in our regular games is raised from time to time by newer players. As their old group meets and plays together less often, they think that they can use our pool to find a team to play against. They don't yet see themselves as part of our group. Kelvin Au's purpose was different - using our game as midweek training for his Saturday 11-a-side team. Although Stan also plays on the same 11-a-side team, and it may well be Stan's team, personally, I don't think Stan was all that interested in having his players use one of our regular games to train. As set out above, neither was I. I have no objections to anyone trying to arrange a match against our pool of players, but don't try to use one of our regular games for this. For a long time, David T and friends circumvented this by putting up to 7 names down for one of our 7-a-side games at Balestier Road on Wednesday or Thursday. This has been discussed in depth above on this thread, as well as the "Team selectors/captains & line ups" thread. With David now working in Macau and only back occasionally, the group diluted by Sean Luo's other friends, and several others of David T's friends now registered and getting used to playing alongside our bigger pool of players, this is less of an issue now. When it does arise, it is an issue for team selectors/captains to deal with. From the "Filling places & choices" thread: And from the Player groups, list & playing records" therad: .... The profile of our players is also changing: .... In the early years (2008 and 2009), players were just glad to get a game. Pitches were fewer and often fully booked, groups organizing social games were fewer, and breaking into existing groups was harder. Players have a lot more choice these days, with more pitches having opened up and better organized leagues. Also, most of the players in the early years were average, and we had several weaker players. The fact that, increasingly, our games were on a big pitch may well have attracted better players to our game. As the standard has gone up, better players have come in, and many weaker and average players have dropped out. With more games about, better players do have more choice where they play. .... .... In the first few years of doing this (starting 2008), we often had extra games on public holidays. I think players saw our games as a break from their routine, rather than as part of their routine, so they were more likely to play on public holidays. However, in the last couple of years, treating a public holiday like a Saturday or Sunday hasn't often worked out. Players increasingly see our games as part of their routine, so when they have a public holiday break, they take a break from the games as well. Perhaps it is a change in the profile of our players, with more serious players compared to more leisure players in the early years. Or perhaps it is a broader change in the way players see public holidays - as a time to get away or do something different, rather than just some extra leisure time. Perhaps a combination of both factors. .... I get the impression that each new year, more serious players try to play more competitive and organised games, such as refereed 11-a-side games or in 11-a-side or 5-a-side leagues at the weekend on on weeknights. This leads to a significant drop in numbers for our weekend games, and more volatility for our weeknight games. Our Sunday game has been 7-a-side for for much of this year, while even the popular Saturday game has been stuck on 14 a few times. From the "OPSAGE, women's & all-comes' games" thread: .... ..., I am also considering the following for this year: .... As our regular games become more systematic and better structured, and as more non-regular alternatives become available, players may come to see our games as the better alternative. Previously, on the "Social dimension, and fun" thread: We have players who also have teams players in such leagues. Often, they pick up new players for their league teams from our pool of players, those they meet and get to know through our regular games. I know Dave Kotroczo has for his 5-a-side league team, while Stan/Kelvin have for their Saturday 11-a-side team. I'm sure there are others I don't know about. I have no problem with this, or players trying to put together a team from our pool to join a league. I don't see myself as competing with leagues. Some of the better known amateur or "social" leagues in Singapore: I would be grateful though, if any team put together from our pool of players, or with several players who met through our games, plays in a league, they provide updates on how they are doing on the "OPSAGE" board. You never know, you might develop a fan base! |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 6, 2014 10:41:30 GMT 8
I started using the term "Team Match" in October 2011 to describe any of our games where one or both of the teams was put together by a regular. This arises when a regular asks to reserve half the slots for his team, or putting down the names of enough players to make up one team. Our regular games are based on team selectors or myself splitting the players into two teams with the primary aim of having two evenly matched teams. However, team selectors occasionally choose teams to keep a group together. Keeping two or three players together is not a problem even where the primary aim is to have evenly matched teams. However, if the group make up more than half of a team, then it may be seen as a team match. As described in this thread, the team is usually a group of friends and/or colleagues. Occasionally, teams have been formed based on venue preferences, nationalities or other criteria. As our regular games have their own dynamic, I do not usually allow our regular slots to be used for team matches. However, if the two team selectors agree to group players in such a way as to be akin to a team match, I won't interfere. We had one last Wednesday, when the teams were primarily East Coast regulars against Khalsa regulars. We've had a few of those since the East Coast regulars first started trying out the games at Khalsa. I may however, allow team matches for newer slots, so as to get new games going. I may also on occasion schedule an ad hoc game to allow for such team matches. However, unless there is a very good reason to do so, I am not inclined to do so. If the GIFFA system is applied in large part to such a game, I will start the thread on the schedule board under the "GIFFA-Defined Men's Games" category. If not, I will put it on the "OPSAGE" board under the "General" category. Whether every player is to be named on the thread, whether one or both team selectors/captains are to be elected, or whether I am to collect payment from individual players or each team separately, are significant factors. If under the "GIFFA-Defined Men's Games" category, the usual credits for a first report and for team selectors/captains will apply. If under "OPSAGE", there is only a $1 credit for a first report. It has always been open to players to arrange their own matches, where my role is limited to making an unused booking available to them, or making a booking at one of our regular venues for them. I'll call them "arranged matches" to distinguish them from "team matches". We had one such game last night (Wednesday), at East Coast. Although this was an ad hoc booking, it utilised one of my pre-paid slots. Where an arranged match utilises a pre-paid slot, I can pass on to the arrangers all or part of the discount I get for my block booking/prepayment. It is up to the arrangers to decide whether to keep the discount for themselves, to pass the discount on to the players, or use the discount as a "prize", for example, to pay for drinks for the winning team. Although Brendan used two Monday night slots at The Grandstand for such arranged matches (for 20 January 2014, and again for 10 February 2014) , he asked for the bookings to be transferred to his name, so there was no discount to pass on to him. If a prepaid slot is used for an arranged match, I will start a thread on the "OPSAGE" board, for me to keep tabs on the usage of my prepayment. It is up to the players whether they want to provide more details. Again, there will be a $1 credit for a first report. Also: .... If at least 10 of the 14 players are GIFFA Players, and each team has a captain or co-ordinator who is also a GIFFA Player, I can include the result in the team selector/captain table. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 29, 2015 17:28:20 GMT 8
With the popular games weeknight games (Monday at Macpherson and Wednesday at Khalsa) sometimes oversubscribed 150% or more (that is, 7 or more players on waitlist for 14 places), while less popular or new games remain a struggle to fill, I created "The price of popular games" thread on the "Introductions, Requests & Chat" board to discuss possible solutions. From that thread: From the schedule thread for the game at Macpherson on Monday, 19 October 2015: Poll is 6:2 against playing with 3 teams over 2 hours, so we'll go ahead with the usual 7-a-side from 9 to 10 pm. .... The Wednesday game at Khalsa today had 7 on waitlist within 10 hours of the schedule thread being put up, but I didn't bother putting up the same poll. Anyway, it's much harder to get a second hour at Khalsa. .... Playing with 3 teams over 2 hours has been suggested several times over the years, but mainly by newer players or players who don't play so regularly. Our regular players are used to our format of two teams playing flat out for an hour without breaks or substitutions, and are not keen to switch to 3 teams over 2 hours to accommodate more players in our regular games. When we have played with 2 teams over 3 hours, the format has been: - 1st 20 minutes - Team A v Team B
- 2nd 20 minutes - Team B v Team C
- 3rd 20 minutes - Team C v Team A
- 4th 20 minutes - Team A v Team B
- 5th 20 minutes - Team B v Team C
- Last 20 minutes - Team C v Team A
There will be 3 team selectors in the team selector poll, and each player will have 3 votes. The colours will be white, red and black.
However, a switch to playing with 3 teams over 2 hours will remain very exceptional, and is of course subject to a second hour for the same pitch being available. And of course, the price per player will have to be adjusted, depending on the price of the pitch.
The reasons why it will remain very exceptional, including reasons first set out on the old blog in January 2009, and repeated on this forum in February 2011, are as follows:
- The switching of teams breaks the momentum of the play. The intensity of our regular games is lacking.
- Over two hours, players, especially those on Team A, spend a total of 40 minutes waiting. Players on Team C can come later, while players on Team B can leave earlier, and save themselves up to 20 minutes of the waiting time. Many of us don't want to waste those 40 minutes.
- The switching of teams requires a lot of co-ordination, and can be a bit chaotic.
If players are interested, it might make more sense as a one-off GIFFA event.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 21, 2016 20:52:13 GMT 8
Hamadi WhatsApped me on Saturday (19 Nov 2016) to ask if he could put together a team of 6 for the game this Thursday (at Khalsa). I drew his attention to the following post earlier on this thread: I started using the term "Team Match" in October 2011 to describe any of our games where one or both of the teams was put together by a regular. This arises when a regular asks to reserve half the slots for his team, or putting down the names of enough players to make up one team. Our regular games are based on team selectors or myself splitting the players into two teams with the primary aim of having two evenly matched teams. However, team selectors occasionally choose teams to keep a group together. Keeping two or three players together is not a problem even where the primary aim is to have evenly matched teams. However, if the group make up more than half of a team, then it may be seen as a team match. As described in this thread, the team is usually a group of friends and/or colleagues. Occasionally, teams have been formed based on venue preferences, nationalities or other criteria. As our regular games have their own dynamic, I do not usually allow our regular slots to be used for team matches. However, if the two team selectors agree to group players in such a way as to be akin to a team match, I won't interfere. We had one last Wednesday, when the teams were primarily East Coast regulars against Khalsa regulars. We've had a few of those since the East Coast regulars first started trying out the games at Khalsa. I may however, allow team matches for newer slots, so as to get new games going. I may also on occasion schedule an ad hoc game to allow for such team matches. However, unless there is a very good reason to do so, I am not inclined to do so. If the GIFFA system is applied in large part to such a game, I will start the thread on the schedule board under the "GIFFA-Defined Men's Games" category. If not, I will put it on the "OPSAGE" board under the "General" category. Whether every player is to be named on the thread, whether one or both team selectors/captains are to be elected, or whether I am to collect payment from individual players or each team separately, are significant factors. If under the "GIFFA-Defined Men's Games" category, the usual credits for a first report and for team selectors/captains will apply. If under "OPSAGE", there is only a $1 credit for a first report. It has always been open to players to arrange their own matches, where my role is limited to making an unused booking available to them, or making a booking at one of our regular venues for them. I'll call them "arranged matches" to distinguish them from "team matches". We had one such game last night (Wednesday), at East Coast. Although this was an ad hoc booking, it utilised one of my pre-paid slots. .... and .... Bringing a team of friends to play in our regular games is raised from time to time by newer players. As their old group meets and plays together less often, they think that they can use our pool to find a team to play against. They don't yet see themselves as part of our group. .... .... I pointed out to Hamadi that after a lot of effort, the Thursday night game at Khalsa has been filling up quite well in recent weeks. Using it for a "team match" would be a backward step. As I have pointed out on this thread several times, it is not fair for a team that is selected to play against an ad hoc team based on first-come first-in. On the other hand, the Sunday evening game at The Grandstand has been struggling, with several games cancelled in recent weeks, including the game yesterday. In fact, we've only had one Sunday game over the past 7 weeks ( since 9 October 2016). In order to breathe life into the Sunday game, I am prepared to use it for a "team match". Hamadi said he could put together a team of 7 for this Sunday (5 to 6 pm, at Grandstand). Also earlier on this thread: .... If a prepaid slot is used for an arranged match, I will start a thread on the "OPSAGE" board, for me to keep tabs on the usage of my prepayment. It is up to the players whether they want to provide more details. Again, there will be a $1 credit for a first report. Also: .... If at least 10 of the 14 players are GIFFA Players, and each team has a captain or co-ordinator who is also a GIFFA Player, I can include the result in the team selector/captain table. I will schedule this Sunday's game as a "team match" on the "OPSAGE" board. To be fair, if we have more than 7 players, the team will be selected (instead of first come, first in). |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 29, 2016 9:13:34 GMT 8
Continuing from the post above, Hamadi only managed 5 players for his team. The GIFFA team got to 7 players and I tried getting 2 more so that 2 could switch over to Hamadi's team. However, after withdrawals, the team match ended up as a 5 v 6 from 6 to 7 pm on a small pitch at Grandstand. A lot of work for me, as many of the regulars don't want to play on a small pitch, or to play against or with players they are not familiar with. It turned out to be a "great game". Further to the post above, as 9 out of 11 players were GIFFA Players, I have recorded it as a game for everyone who played. .... Hamadi messaged me today to ask for another 5-a-side game. I'll leave it to him to organize the next one.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jan 20, 2018 15:11:38 GMT 8
Recently, on the "Filling places & choices" thread, I discussed switching to 3 teams over 2 hours when we have at least 1.5 times the number of places (minimum or maximum number), subject to the availability of a pitch. For an 8-a-side, that would mean at least 21 players (at least 5 on waitlist). For a 7-a-side, that would be at least 18 players (at least 4 on waitlist). With 24 players on Saturday, 23 December 2017, we made the switch, as 10:4 (71%) were in favour of the switch. I had stated I would make the switch if at least two-thirds (66.67%) were in favour. I did not make the switch for the game on 14 January 2018 despite having 6 players on waitlist as the first 3 to respond were against it, and no one came out in favour. Going forward:
- If we get to 1.5 times the maximum number more than 24 hours before the game, and an extra hour is available on the same pitch, I may put up a poll to decide whether to switch to 3 teams over 2 hours. The game will be switched if at least 66.67% vote in favour of the switch before the poll closes.
- If we have 1.5 times the minimum number more than 24 hours before the game, a player requests that we play three teams over two hours, and an extra hour is available on the same pitch, I may put up a poll to decide the question. However, the game will be switched only if at least 75% vote in favour of the switch.
Playing three teams over two hours remains the exception. However, if players choose to cluster round certain games, and not take up places in additional games, I have no choice but to consider the alternatives. As set out in the "Weekly schedule & number of games" thread, the additional games are currently as follows:
.... ..., I will not schedule a Monday night game at Macpherson until March 2018, after Chap Go Mei which is on 2 March 2018. Until then, the alternative games are: - Friday nights at Macpherson (9 to 10 pm).
- Sunday nights at Khalsa (6 to 7 pm).
- Tuesday nights at Khalsa (10 to 11 pm).
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 19, 2018 11:13:43 GMT 8
Switching to playing three teams over two hours has come up three recently: On each occasion, the option was not pursued, or voted against. Stuart has put down Derek's daughter for the game on Tuesday, 21 August 2018, at the Grandstand: Georgina (Derek’s Daughter and very good player) I drew Stuart's attention to a post on the "OPSAGE, women's & all-comers' games" thread, which included: The next post on that thread included the following: With withdrawals, we were short for even a 5-a-side for the game at Khalsa on Thursday, 8 December 2016. Ziliang got a female friend to make up the numbers. Continuing from the post above, an All-Comers/Mixed Game remains an important objective. I spend too much time trying to stabilise the regular games, but we are getting there. .... The GIFFA-defined games are designated men's games so that those who put their names down for the games know what to expect, and various sensitivities and objectives are respected or maintained. I have been keen to give women an opportunity to play too, be it in women's games or all-comers' games. The age restrictions are also fairly strictly applied, as Damian will testify to. There are some very good players who are under 21 (including Damian's son), but the GIFFA-defined games are not intended for them, so they are only allowed to take a place in a game in exceptional circumstances (usually only arises when we are desperately short of a player or two!). I wish people were more supportive of my efforts to get an all-comers' games going. It would help fill the gap we currently have. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jul 29, 2019 13:30:53 GMT 8
In January 2019, I renamed GIFFA-defined games as "Primary Routine Games", and changed the name of the board accordingly. I have also made some changes to the weekly schedule. From the "Regular venues & pitches" thread: With the latest changes, our regular venues/pitches are now the following: - The 8-a-side covered pitch at the Premier Pitch @ Grandstand on Saturday evenings.
- The 7-a-side uncovered pitch at Premier Pitch @ Khalsa on Sunday and Wednesday nights,
- The 7-a-side uncovered pitch at HYFA @ Macpherson on Monday and Tuesday nights.
- The 6-a-side uncovered pitch at Rainforest @ Grandstand on Tuesday nights.
....
However, from the thread for the game scheduled for yesterday (Sunday) at Khalsa: Going forward, the Sunday game at Khalsa will be from 5 to 6 pm. I have tried to schedule a Thursday game last week and this, as follows: From the "Regular venues & pitches" thread: .... Going forward, I will schedule a 5 or 6-a-side game for Thursday and Friday nights, for those who just want a game, and are not fussed by pre-conditions. I will not pre-set the venue, because I will only book a pitch if there is sufficient interest. If there is sufficient interest, I will check for availability, either at our regular venues/locations, or other venues/locations. I should be able to get a 5 or 6-a-side pitch somewhere. Unless the game is at Grandstand, it should not exceed $8 per player, which is less than our current regular games. Please indicate preferred time/place. I think it is better I fix a venue. As I have removed a Grandstand game on Sundays, I will fix the Thursday game at Grandstand, either on a small covered pitch at Premier Pitch or a 6-a-side uncovered pitch at Rainforest, at the regular weeknight time (9 to 10 pm), subject to availability. Apart from the PRG games, I am looking at a weekly all-comers' game and 11-a-side game. From the "Additional weekend game" thread on the "OPSAGE" board: .... I am open to an additional game at the weekend, either: .... The variation of playing 3 teams over 2 hours came up again recently. From the "Filling places & choices" thread: A weekend all-comers' game could be played 3 teams over 2 hours. However, it is likely to be 5-a-side. I have renamed this thread "GIFFA-defined & other men's games" to "Primary & other football games".
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 1, 2019 15:25:15 GMT 8
From the "OPSAGE & all-comers' games" thread: .... As set out above in this post, and earlier in this thread, apart from our primary routine games (fixed or rolling), there is room for the following through OPSAGE: - Challenge matches. As set out above, challenge matches are ad hoc, upon request, using our routine game slots.
- 11-a-side games. I may work towards a regular monthly or weekly 11-a-side game. In the meantime, they are ad hoc, as any GIFFA player may try to organise.
- All-comers' games. Going forward, I will create a new thread on the "OPSAGE" board for all-comers' game, focused on weekends, for players to indicate their interest. The current thread has been around for a while, and is more about games for female players generally.
- Other activities relating to the games, such as post-game drinks.
- Other unrelated activities. I will be looking more at this going forward.
.... Earlier, from the "Keeping score & the competitive edge" thread: .... As I will now be scheduling 6 fixed games and 3 rolling games each week, I will allow anyone to take over any slot on a one-off basis for a team match (to be referred to as a "challenge match" going forward, which was the term I used originally). This includes the more popular games, Saturday evening at Grandstand, Monday night at Macpherson and Wednesday night at Khalsa. Anyone who plays a particular game regularly (or in the case of newer or slow-filling games, any PRG player) must let me know at least 6 days in advance of the slot that he wishes to take over. If I agree, the player must then create a thread for the game on the "OPSAGE" board at least 5 days in advance of the date of the game. I will leave it to him to co-ordinate the game. He can ask for players to sign up for one or both teams on the thread. Or the teams can be organised off-forum. All I require is that each team has a designated captain, and the result be posted on the same thread. The result will be recorded in the selector/captain table. .... Aschkan messaged me today and asked if he can use next Saturday's slot at Grandstand (8-a-side covered pitch, from 5 to 6 pm) for a challenge match. As I now have two rolling games also available for Saturdays, one from 4.50 to 6.00 pm and the other from 8.50 to 10.00 pm, I agreed. I have created an "OPSAGE" category, and created a "Challenge Matches" board under it. To use the slot for a challenge match, the organiser must create a thread on the board stating at least the date, time and venue. He can state how the two teams are to be formed now, later or not at all. He can lock the thread or allow others to post on the thread. All I require is that before or after the game, he states who the two captains are, and the result. The information should be on the thread at least 3 days after the game, if not earlier. As for payment, the organiser has the following options: - Pay me for the pitch, and then arrange to collect payment from the players. I will notify him the amount for the pitch. The amount he collects from each player is up to him.
- Request that I use my current payment methods to deduct or collect payment. The payment per player will be the ordinary one applicable to the venue, and the players must be listed on the game thread. The organiser's payment will be waived, and he can share the benefit with the captain(s) or other players in such ways as he thinks fit. However, he also has to indemnify me for the payment due from any player who does not have sufficient credit and does not make payment within 3 days after the game.
I will not give any game credits for challenge matches. However, the result will be included in the selector/captain table, and if the players are listed on the thread, the game will be counted in the number of games they have played.
The term "team match" will continue to be used to refer to a situation where a player puts together a team to make up numbers in a slow filling game, as Jordi M did for the evening game on Sunday, 21 July 2019, at Khalsa.
From early on, our routine games, whether 5, 6, 7 or 8-a-side, have been played one hour flat out, without specialist goalkeepers (with all players required to take turns in goal), breaks, substitutes or referees.
The alternatives of playing three-teams over 2 hours, four team mini-tournaments (also played over two hours), or 11-a-side games, have been tried out (as described variously above or earlier in this thread), may be exciting as a one-off, but have not proved popular in the longer term.
I have renamed the previous "OPSAGE" thread as "Other OPSAGE" and moved it to the new category. From the "Weekend all-comers' game" thread on the "Other OPSAGE" board:
.... .... I'm not going to specify days or times, but a Saturday or Sunday morning may be preferable to a Saturday or Sunday evening, especially if the aim is to bring along family and friends. Nor am I going to specify a venue. If there is sufficient interest, I will look around for a venue, even an open field, where we can gather. To start with, this will be more a social kick-about, so I would hope to be able to keep it free of charge. The game is open to anyone, male or female, over the age of 12. However, players under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a responsible adult. ....
I'll start another thread on the "Other OPSAGE" board for a weekend 11-a-side game along the same lines.
As stated above, going forward, I will be scheduling 9 primary routine games a week, 6 fixed and 3 rolling. The routine games are 6, 7 or 8-a-side. 5-a-side is not popular amongst our current pool of players. Nevertheless, there is still room for other types of football games, such as challenge matches, all-comers' games and 11-a-side games. I will rename this thread from "Primary & other football games" to "Routine & other football games".
While trying to find ways to fill slow-filling games which are often just one or two players short even after asking around extensively, once a day or two before the game, and again on the day of the game itself, I recently contacted Stranger Soccer to see if I could pick up additional players there. They have several games each day, at various venues and times. However, their games are played with four teams over two hours, winner stays, up to a maximum of 3 times. For games on uncovered 7-a-side pitches, they charge $11.50 per player (compared to the $10 for our games). If you are on a weaker team, playing only once every four times , you'll get about half an hour of play time over the two hours.  And also, there is the stop-start nature of the game, which is why playing 3 teams over 2 hours and mini-tournaments have not been popular in the longer term amongst our pool of players.
However, for those of you who can only play at a particular venue on a particular day and at a particular time, and are not interested in the broader community and values on which GIFFA is premised, you may wish to consider signing up for Stranger Soccer.
|
|
And REaLLY... We're not THAT goood.. I know I used to whine about it. But I just accepted it and moved on. Truth be told, there were times we were smashed even if they had 5 or 6 together.
And also, there is the stop-start nature of the game, which is why playing 3 teams over 2 hours and mini-tournaments have not been popular in the longer term amongst our pool of players.