|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 28, 2011 11:50:42 GMT 8
New players can affect the balance of a game. For their first game, I treat new players as being about the same standard as the players who introduce them. If they join our games through the message board or our regular venues, I treat them as average (vis-a-vis our entire pool, rather than those actually playing in that game). I won't know how good a new player is unless I play in the same game, or there are comments about him on the message board. If a new player is just one out of 7 players on a team (for a 7-a-side), he is likely to have less of an impact on the game than if he is one out of 5 (for a 5-a-side). Even less so if he is one out of 8 (for an 8-a-side). However, if the new player is very good or weak it can still have quite an impact, even with 8-a-side. .... If anyone knows how good a new player is, you can let me know before his first game. .... Our regular games remain open to all adults. However, as the standard keeps going up with new players, and games become more competitive, I need to consider how to accommodate weaker players, or those looking for a less competitive game. I've considered having different kinds of games before. Trying to re-start a mixed game may be the first way forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 8, 2011 9:35:03 GMT 8
.... Players are switching between games more, .... From the outset, the aim was to allow players to play at their convenience. If you can't make one day, of the week you can always play on another (provided there are still places available). It works better if players don't stick rigidly to one day of the week or one particular venue (although I appreciate players will have preferences). |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 7, 2011 6:57:52 GMT 8
.... ... I think we need to remember that this is an open game (unlike invite only games). It is also not a competitive game. .... .... Just to reiterate, with regard to the new rules on new players: .... The purpose is not to shut out new players, but to introduce them in a more systematic and less disruptive way. : .... * If you put down the name of a player for a regular game who has not played with us before, you must vouch (on the message board, when putting his name down) that you have played in a game with him before, and that he meets our minimum standards. * If you cannot vouch for that, he must post a Self-Rater on the "New Player" sub-board. * If neither condition is met, he can only remain in reserve, and can only play if we have no other players available. The above does not apply to mixed games, so introducing him to a mixed game might be a better way to bring in a new player, whose abilities you're not familiar with. The rule may also be relaxed for extra games. and For all players registering after today, I will not approve their registration unless I am satisfied they meet our minimum standards. After they play their first game, they will remain on Guest List A until their registration is approved. Just to be clear - the new rules are not a reaction to any one particular event. It is a response to a situation that has arisen from time to time from the outset (2008), and which I have been thinking about for several months. .... As for the new players, if someone tells you they have played a lot, can play and wants to play, what are you supposed to do? .... .... That's why to vouch for a player, you need to have played with him before. If not, the player himself should post on the "New Player" sub-board (for which registration is not required). I don't want approved players having to vouch for matters on which they don't have first hand knowledge. To introduce himself, a new player doesn't have to do the full "Self-Rater". Just a brief description of his standard, abilities and/or experience will do. If a new player misrepresents himself, he and only he is responsible. If a new player tries to register first, I will elicit his self-rating by e-mail. If there is no one who can vouch for a new player, and he doesn't want to post a brief description of his standard/abilities on the message board, then the remaining options are: * remain in reserve unless and until there are no other players left to fill any places left when the line ups are put up. * play in a mixed game. .... .... Obviously if they come once and see it is not right for them they are unlikely to come again. .... I would hope that new players are not put off by just one game. I think it takes at least 3 games, if not more, to have a sense of what our games are about. New players can be hit or miss. .... .... On the other hand, there are several who have become better players after playing regularly with us. .... I think its a matter of coming into the right game. It's not just which day of the week or which venue at which you play. It's about who the other players are. They may not be competitive games, but our games are clearly stated to have a "competitive edge". Depending on who the players are, some games can be highly competitive.  If I know everyone playing, I can still balance out stronger and weaker players in the line ups. New players can affect the balance of a game. For their first game, I treat new players as being about the same standard as the players who introduce them. If they join our games through the message board or our regular venues, I treat them as average (vis-a-vis our entire pool, rather than those actually playing in that game). I won't know how good a new player is unless I play in the same game, or there are comments about him on the message board. If a new player is just one out of 7 players on a team (for a 7-a-side), he is likely to have less of an impact on the game than if he is one out of 5 (for a 5-a-side). Even less so if he is one out of 8 (for an 8-a-side). However, if the new player is very good or weak it can still have quite an impact, even with 8-a-side. .... If anyone knows how good a new player is, you can let me know before his first game. .... .... It's not perfect, but it's getting better all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 21, 2011 23:47:39 GMT 8
Line ups have been in issue again: .... To be balanced, both team should have a similar mix of stronger and weaker players. In a perfect world, we would list the players from strongest to weakest (say 1st to 16th for an 8-a-side game), and them divide them into two teams as follows: Whites: 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 13th, 16th Reds: 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th In this scenario, the weakest player is on the same side as the strongest player. In the real world, listing players from strongest to weakest would be highly subjective and subject to debate in any event. There are also other variables (described below). In practice, I do not list the players in any order at all ( although under the old points system, I used to list players by their points). ..... More importantly: .... As our standard goes up, and players become more familiar with each other, variable standards can be adequately addressed by line ups. .... .... In a similar vein: As I've said before, players are stronger or weaker relative to the others playing in that game. A stronger player in one game may be a weaker player in another game, and vice versa. .... Depending on the range of the standards of the players playing in a game, our games themselves have different standards. .... ..., there is a spectrum of competitiveness in our games. It really depends who the other players are. .... 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. .... I would say that currently, the Saturday and Monday games are of a high standard, the Wednesday game of a decent standard and the remaining games of a variable standard. The Sunday game, which used to be the most popular, is now the most variable. Coming back to line ups, one player being exceptionally strong or exceptionally weak can still skew the line ups, even in an ideal world, using the above sequence. A player being exceptionally strong or exceptionally weak is relative to the general standard of the players in that game. A player that meets our minimum standard may still be exceptionally weak in a high standard game. To compensate (even in an ideal world), the sequencing may have to be varied in order to balance the sides, for example: For an exceptionally strong player: Whites: 1st, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 16th
Reds: 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 15th So that the exceptionally strong player with Whites is offset by the next three strongest players being with Reds. For an exceptionally strong player: Whites: 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 16th
Reds: 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 13th, 15th So that the exceptionally weak player with Whites is offset by the two strongest players also being with Whites. Although the above examples are purely illustrative, and I do not list players in order of strength before suggesting line ups, varying the balance of the strongest players does come into play when I know that there is an exceptionally strong or weak player. Exceptionally strong or weak players will be a problem if we have two regulars picking their respective teams from the pool of players, as the sequence is based on the ordinary one at the top of this post, not the exceptional ones immediately above. If we get round to using the selection method, and there is an exceptionally strong or weak player playing, we may have to identify the exceptionally strong or weak player (as the case may be), and modify the sequence as necessary. As the selection method will only be used where all the players are regulars and familiar with each other, exceptionally strong or weak players should know the general standard of that game, and be prepared to be identified as exceptionally strong or weak when they put their names down for that game. Before identifying anyone as exceptionally strong or weak, I will discuss the matter with the above average regulars. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 30, 2011 14:34:07 GMT 8
The same is probably true, even if to a lesser extent, to the weeknight games, due to work and other commitments. That is the FIFFA cycle - (1) we need a large pool of players to ensure we get to the minimum number for each game; (2) on the hand, we need more games to accommodate the growing number of players. The law of averages (more properly called the law of large numbers according to Wikpedia) perhaps, that drives growth. Players come and go. Sometimes, they are enthusiastic for a while playing regularly, then find other things to do, and stop playing. Or they suffer a serious injury, or find other commitments prevent them from committing to our games, or they move away from Singapore. Sometimes, those that stop playing come back after some time, sometimes they don't. Others sustain their interest and continue to play regularly. We're getting a lot of better players coming in, but we still get weaker players. As long as they have some basic skills, and are prepared to do their bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 17, 2012 22:59:05 GMT 8
The players voting for two team selectors, and the two team selectors agreeing on the line ups, with each responsible for one team, is intended to keep our games fair yet competitive. Unless they ask someone else on their team to be team captain, the selectors are also team captains. We've sometimes had other criteria for line ups in our regular games, for example: More recently: * Thursday, 7 June 2012, at Khalsa - Khalsa regulars (+ 1 guest) v The Rest. * Sunday, 10 June 2012, at Turf City, 2nd game - Look Liew & friends v The Rest. * Thursday, 14 June 2012, at Khalsa - David T & friends v The Rest. Xiong Wei has introduced several colleagues recently, so we've also had: * Sunday, 27 May 2012, at Turf City - Xiong Wei & colleagues + 2 others v The Rest. * Sunday, 10 June 2012, at Turf City (1st game) - Xiong Wei & colleagues + 3 others v The Rest. Three of Xiong Wei's colleagues had joined him for the first time the week before - the second game on Sunday, 20 May 2012, at Turf City. Allowing friends/contacts to play on the same team is an important way of introducing new players. Of course, it's a lot easier if it's just 2 or 3 friends. Generally, 3 or 4 friends on the same team is ok if the teams can still be balanced. With team selectors, the final decision is with them. A group of longstanding friends playing together will have the advantage of greater understanding over and above their individual abilities. Therefore, the other team should be significantly stronger individually to compensate. Further, when a group of friends put down just enough names to make up a team, there is an element of having "selected" their team. "The Rest" don't have the same advantage. To be fairer, it should be a team match, where it is open to both sides to put together their team without being limited to the pool of players who put their name down for the game. Look Liew and friends are largely older players, so I give them some leeway as age is a significant disadvantage. David T and friends playing as one team in our regular games has been a bigger issue. For last Thursday, I left it to the players on the opposing side: .... The rest are fairly strong, just that some of them have never played together before. .... Between Kelvin, Bobby and Brendan (who has been playing regularly on Thursdays at Khalsa), they might know all the players. Perhaps they can discuss it, and decide if it would be fair. Final say is Kelvin's, with 2 votes. If they decide to mix the players up, let me know, and I'll suggest line ups, with Kelvin as captain of 1 team, and Bobby of the other. .... It would have been a difficult decision for the players, but in the end, they went with David T & friends v The Rest. I have no idea how it worked out, as no one provided a post game report. .... As regulars become familiar with each other, each game develops a social dimension of its own. There is a balance between keeping a game sociable, while not allowing it to become cliquey. The latter can be a greater deterrence to new players than any rules. This applies to line ups as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 7, 2014 10:47:37 GMT 8
From the report for the game last night (Thursday) at Khalsa: .... I've added the team selector poll. I've limited it to the Khalsa regulars. #11-15 would like to be in the same team. Thanks! Vote for Kelvin! Team selectors are Kelvin Au and Sean Luo. .... .... .... I stopped keeping score at 11-4 and i think the game ended 18-6. .... To say the match was imbalanced is an understatement. .... Sorry guys - I did consider proposing to swap some players, but I couldn't think of a good split (assuming the 4 or 5 of you wanted to continue playing together). I wasn't planning to play much as my knee was still not 100% - and sort of took that into consideration when we formed the teams. Anyway, apologies if it was too one sided, certainly didn't want to ruin anyone's evening... .... Yesterday's line up was totally lop sided. It was no contest at all honestly. Whites were way too strong for reds to even give a fight as a team. At some point due to the huge deficit, morale was also low from reds. ..., if you showboat, do fancy tricks and flicks ... when your team is leading by 8,9 goals, then that is very very disrespectful. You just want to humiliate your opponents further. No need to do all this especially when you know its already a big gap in the scoreline. .... I dont know who would agree and not agree with me but that is my perspective. Cheers. Yilong has played with us before, at Kallang, on 9 July 2013: .... Yilong, playing his first game, proved to be a good player, .... .... Wayne and Martin were new to us. As Sean observed: .... Playing together at their 11-a-side Saturday games, Wayne, Martin and Yilong combined well with lots of one-twos and off the ball running. .... As I've pointed out before, familiarity between players on one team can be a big factor, especially as our games usually involve a wide mix of players. .... Earlier on this thread: .... I accept that there are two major problems with a group of friends playing on the same team in a regular game: * Even if the players on the other team are stronger individually, the understanding between the group of friends can be an overriding factor. * Unlike for a team match, the other team doesn't have a choice of players (for example, to ensure all positions are covered), which risks the game being even more one-sided. .... Good understanding does not develop overnight. .... There is a difference between players who just want to play, and those who want to play as a team. ..... .... As I have previously stated: .... Trying to keep friends/relatives or players who are familiar with each other on the same team can distort the balance. Hopefully, as players get to know each other better, these factors will be less relevant. .... I hope that the more regularly players play, the less the need to stick together as a group of friends/relatives. .... Once a rapport builds up between regular players, do the team of 7 really need to stick together as one team? More feedback helps. And more recently, on the "Skill sets & playing positions" thread: .... The ability to develop understanding with different players is also a skill. The more instinctive understanding with players you play with regularly comes more easily, and is comfortable. For a group of friends who have been playing together for a long time, it can sometimes be difficult to come out of that comfort zone. Again, it is about adaptability. .... Anyway, those who play regularly learn to adapt. .... When the group of friends include good new players, it is even harder for the other team. If you are familiar with the group of friends, you can try to organize your team to counter their strengths. If you don't know their strengths and weaknesses, there is a greater chance they will tear your team apart. This was the issue previously with David T and friends. When they first started playing with us, they were much stronger, and used to win comfortably. After playing with us for a while, our overall pool of players got better, and learned to counter some of their strengths, games against David T and friends got closer. In the past, when David T and friends had 6 who wanted to play on the same team, I on occasion jokingly suggest playing 6 against 8. I once even seriously suggested that a player on waitlist come in to make 8 v 7, in order to redress the balance. However, due to withdrawals, we only had 14 in the end. For last night, we could actually have had 8 v 7, as William Y was on waitlist, but I guess no one was to know how one sided it would end up. Also, I think last night's game might not have been so bad if Reds had taken up a very defensive formation, but perhaps they didn't have the players for that. If a group of friends want to stick together no matter what and don't want to switch to make the game more even, and the game is very one sided, I suggest one of the other players from their team switch over to make 6 v 8 at least until the team with 8 take the lead. 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, and would only arise in our games because one group of players is not mature enough (or perhaps not familiar enough with our games) to split themselves up between the two teams. The "adults" in "Generic Indoor Football for Adults" is not meaningless.  Some of these issues are now addressed by the following: Changing line ups during a game has been dealt with for a long time under Playing Rules & Principles. Each schedule thread provides: For new players, I ask for their mobile numbers so that I can add them to the WhatsApp group chat. I then inform them that more information about our games is available under "The GIFFA System" thread. I do this to impress on everyone what our games are about. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 4, 2014 9:24:52 GMT 8
Kelvin, I moved your post from the "Filling places & choices" thread to this thread because it is a better place to discuss the overall considerations. The aim is to give the players a choice, so that's why the post to which you responded on the "Filling places & choices stated: .... I would rather give the Sunday evening game at The Grandstand a rest and make an effort to get the two new games going. What I plan to do is not schedule the Sunday evening at The Grandstand for the whole of April 2014, and instead schedule both the Sunday night game at Balestier Road and the Monday night game at The Grandstand. Those who want a second game at The Grandstand still have it, on Monday night, and better spaced from the other game on Saturday, so players can play both games if they want. It also means that we now have a weeknight game at The Grandstand. And we get a weekend game at a venue besides The Grandstand. While trying to fill up the Sunday evening game at The Grandstand over the past couple of years, I have become aware that there are players who would otherwise play on Sunday who find The Grandstand too far from them. It also means that the Sunday game is at a cooler time of day. The heat at 5 pm is a factor, even on the covered pitch. .... I sent out a WhatsApp broadcast this morning to try to fill both games. I explained that it was "2 new games for our existing pool of players". There are two features of our system that require the bulk of our players to be regulars:
- Team selectors/captains need to be familiar with the bulk of the players for each game.
- It takes some time for players to become familiar with the GIFFA System, the playing rules, and the GIFFA values and principles.
An influx of large numbers of new players makes both more difficult. So I'd rather keep it as largely introductions through friends.
The number of GIFFA Players has actually risen quite fast over the last few months:  On the other hand, there has been no corresponding increase in the number of games per month. The reason would appear to be far fewer players are playing 30 games or more each month. As pointed out elsewhere, the profile of our players is changing. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 21, 2019 11:43:00 GMT 8
From the "GIFFA system & playing rules" thread: Places for each game are based on a priority system. Although ordinarily, priority is based on the order in which names are placed on the schedule thread, there are the following exceptions: - Selectors/captains from the previous week's game have first priority in the first 24 hours.
- PRG players who commit to less popular games have priority in the first 24 hours for all games scheduled on the day of that game and the next 6 days. ....
- PRG players are allowed to put one name other than their own in the first 24 hours, and and additional name in the next 24 hours. Any names exceeding these limits lose priority within those periods.
- Players who have not played with us before or are not registered as GIFFA players (that is, guests) have no priority in the first 48 hours.
- If, within 24 hours of the schedule thread going up, a game fills up and has players on waitlist, and continues to have players on waitlist until the selector poll goes up (not more than 24 hours before the game), but withdrawals after the selector poll going up resulting in the game being cancelled or postponed, those who had a confirmed place when the WhatsApp group chat was created, but withdrew after the selector poll went up, will lose priority in the first 24 hours after the schedule thread for the following week's game goes up.
- Anyone who owes for more than one previous game when the WhatsApp group chat is created will lose priority and be moved to the bottom of the list.
Additionally, players who owe more than $50 (including the game they wish to put their name down for) are not allowed to put their names down for any game.
Our primary routine games are about giving more players the opportunity to play across a broader range of games, rather than fewer players rushing to grab or hog limited placed in a few games. It's not about getting your name in within the first couple of hours, but about making the commitment within the first 24 hours to play. Within that first 24 hours, players who are supportive of the system benefit in return.
Selectors/captains having priority has been in place for several years now. And from the "Reports, polls & chat" thread: ....
..., in the first 24 hours of the schedule thread for the following week's game being put up, the selectors, captains, and the first PRG player from each team (and the first of any non-playing PRG player) to provide an account before then, will have priority. Currently, the games that fill up and have players on waitlist within the first 24 hours are:
We have had up to 12 on waitlist for popular games, enough for a second game. This may not include other players who did not bother to put their names down after seeing so many on waitlist. I have considered mini-tournaments (4 teams, 2 hours) or playing three teams over two hours to accommodate more players in the popular games, but the change in format has not been popular.
Giving PRG players who play in less popular games priority in the first 24 hours for popular games was introduced first for the Monday night game at Macpherson in January 2019, and then for all popular games by July/August 2019. Not surprisingly, the first time the issue has come to a head is for the Saturday game this weekend (24 August 2019).
For each of the three popular games, there is an equivalent game at the same venue and at about the same time on another day of the week (originally, Sunday evening at Grandstand, Tuesday night at Macpherson, and Wednesday night at Khalsa). However, despite my best efforts, including asking around extensively, these three games have been difficult to get started or sustain.
It does not make sense to me, that despite having enough players for these 3 pairs of equivalent games, one of each pair fills up fast, sometimes with long waitlists even within the first 24 hours, while the other of each pair struggles to fill up, and is always, often or sometimes cancelled, even after I ask around, depriving those who commit to those games of a game.
As stated above, the entire system is based on a pooling effect, and on everyone being accommodating and flexible. In giving players an opportunity to play, I seek to accommodate as many players as possible. The least I would expect is for those who benefit from the system to reciprocate by being accommodating and flexible.
I now schedule 8 games a week, so everyone who wants a game should be able to get a game, provided that they are accommodating and flexible. Apart from the 6 games at the three venues referred to above, there is the Tuesday night 6-a-side game at Grandstand (Rainforest) and a Friday night 5-a-side game at Kallang (The Cage). Regular PRG players clustering or hogging places in one game or one of each pair of games undermines the entire system.
The equivalent second game for each of the three popular games is now Sunday evening at Grandstand, Sunday evening at Khalsa, and Thursday night at Macpherson. To make it clear, for now, the priority system for more popular games will only apply to related games, that is, Sunday evening at Grandstand for Saturday evening at Grandstand, and Sunday evening at Khalsa and Thursday night at Macpherson for Monday night at Macpherson and Wednesday night at Khalsa.
There are other ways of gaining even greater priority within the first 24 hours, such as being selector or captain in the previous week's game, or writing a first report within the first 48 hours of the previous week's game.
A simple value - those who work with the system and for its benefit, will benefit in return.
Further, as new players only get a place if there are still places, or places become available, 48 hours or more after the schedule thread goes up, the regulars for the more popular games being familiar with the less popular games makes it easier for them to introduce new players. As several players drop out over time or don't come back, new players are essential for the pooling effect, and the sustainability of this entire platform.
If players can only play on a particular day, time and/or venue, and are not interested in contributing in other ways, there are other avenues to find games, such as Stranger Soccer. I have neither the time nor inclination to pander to every whim or fancy of players, especially players who are themselves neither accommodating nor flexible in return.
If 14 to 16 regulars or more for any particular popular game disagree with me, and want to run the game themselves, they are welcome to do so. There is a precedent for this. When in May 2009, I having difficulty sustaining a Monday night game on a small covered pitch at Grandstand, Tom took over the running of the game. Other players later took over from Tom. Later, that game was switched to a big pitch covered pitch at Grandstand when one became available on Monday. Even later, the game was switched to a big covered pitch at Grandstand on Wednesdays when a pitch became available for that day, presumably because it is easier to fill a midweek game than a Monday night game. It shows that regular players can run their own games to meet their own needs if they so wish. I am sure the Wednesday night game has its own method of deciding priority.
Ultimately, first come first in is a rule of convenience, nothing more. My purpose is to accommodate as many players as possible, which is a value central to the whole system. I do not need a mad rush for popular games in the hours, minutes or even seconds after I put up the thread for the game. Every PRG player who commits to playing within the first 24 hours should get a place. Unfortunately, if the number of PRG players committing to play within the first 24 hours exceeds the number of places, I have to decide how priority between them is to be determined. Following from the above, within the first 24 hours of the schedule thread for the popular games being posted, priority is as follows (based on the value provided by the player):
- Selectors/captains from the previous week's game. This could be up to four places, as a selector can appoint another player from his team as captain.
- The first player from each team to do a report by then. That is a further 2 places.
- PRG players who commit to playing in the related less popular game in the 7 days up to the day on which the schedule thread goes up. The related less popular game may vary from week to week. Basically, it is any game at the same or nearby venue in a similar part of the day which has not filled up 72 hours after the schedule thread for that game is put up.
- In the order in which the names are posted (including one name of a PRG player other than that of the player posting himself).
Those who are accommodating and flexible, to the benefit of the system, should themselves benefit. A simple enough value, applied transparently.
|
|
