|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jul 12, 2019 16:31:07 GMT 8
The problem of clustering has gotten worse since mid June 2019, especially since the start of July 2019 for the Monday night game at Macpherson (at the expense of the Tuesday night game at Macpherson and the Thursday night game at Khalsa), notwithstanding my attempts to use the priority system and admin fees to get a better spread of players across all games. The waitlist for the Monday night game at Macpherson, the Wednesday night game at Khalsa and the Saturday evening game at the Grandstand have been as follows: - Saturday, 15 June 2019, 4.
- Saturday, 22 June 2019, 2.
- Saturday, 29 June 2019, 2.
- Monday, 1 July 2019, 10.
- Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 4 (but reduced to nil by withdrawals).
- Saturday, 6 July 2019, 2.
- Monday, 8 July 2019, 8.
- Wednesday, 10 July 2019, 3.
- Saturday, 13 July 2019, 6.
- Monday, 15 July 2019, 12!!!
The game for Wednesday, 17 July 2019, which was put up this morning, already has 4 on waitlist. For the game on 1 July 2019, players surprisingly voted for switching to playing 3 teams over 2 hours, but unfortunately, a second hour was not available, and is unlikely ever to be available on a Monday night at Macpherson, as they have to close by 10 pm. I reintroduced the Tuesday night game at Macpherson at the start of the month, but the game has been cancelled in each of the two weeks so far (2 July 2019 and 9 July 2019) with only a couple of names put down. What is even more disappointing is that the Thursday night game at Khalsa and the Sunday evening game at Grandstand, both of which I have been trying for years to stabilise, have barely had half the players required in the past few weeks. We have not had a Thursday night game since 6 June 2019, while the Sunday games on 9 June 2019 and 7 July 2019 were cancelled, with several other Sunday games over the past few months filling up very late on, and even then, only after a lot of asking around. The game for this Sunday (14 July 2019) only has 6 names down at the time of this post (Friday afternoon). I have spent a lot of time over several years trying to sustain the Thursday night game at Khalsa and the Sunday evening game at Grandstand, but players clustering around the Monday night game at Macpherson, the Wednesday night game at Khalsa and the Saturday evening game at Grandstand undermines my efforts. I will stop scheduling the Thursday night game for the rest of this month, and if the game this Sunday is cancelled, I will also stop scheduling the Sunday evening game at Grandstand for the rest of the month. I will review the situation towards the end of the month, but I am not likely to resume these games until September 2019 at the earliest. Instead, for now, I will focus on the extra game on Monday night at Macpherson and, if I stop scheduling the Sunday evening game at Grandstand, I will re-start the extra Sunday night game at Khalsa. The entire system is based on a "pooling effect", that is, a larger group of players across a wider range of games. Clustering undermines the pooling effect, and I will look at other ways to deal with this issue. The Tuesday night 6-a-side game at Grandstand has just about been filling up, and I treat it separately, as it is the only regular game that is not 7 or 8-a-side. As most players only want to play 7 or 8-a-side, the pool for the Tuesday night game at Grandstand is smaller. To encourage PRG players to play the additional games, those who put their names down for Tuesday night at Macpherson or Sunday night at Khalsa will have priority in the first 24 hours for all games for which the schedule thread goes up that Tuesday or Sunday or in the 6 days after that day. To deal with the issue of "hogging" or "choping", I posted the following on the "GIFFA system & playing rules" thread on 10 April 2019: I have not had to apply this up to now, but I will do so going forward. As this has not been applied before now, I will delete the post from the "GIFFA system & playing rules" thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 15, 2019 12:05:23 GMT 8
On 20 Jul 2019, I re-set the criteria for inclusion in the selector/captain poll. The reason I have a minimum threshold (based on number of games played) is to limit the position of selector/captain to PRG players who have sufficient experience of our games, and have been playing regularly enough to be sufficiently familiar with the current players. As each PRG player has two votes (for two selectors/captains) The threshold for the selector poll in particular has from early on been set somewhat higher than it needs to be in order to try to prevent "tactical" voting, basically where a player votes for one player whose team he wants to be on, and another who is vastly less experienced, and/or is likely to agree to significantly less than optimal line ups merely out of lack of experience, indifference or deference to the other selector. This was a greater risk when I went with the vote even where there were less than the minimum required. However, I also changed this on 20 Jul 2019. From the schedule thread for the game on Monday, 2 Sep 2019: @rajiv - can you give the rational of not letting those without the minimum required votes be the selector but those with the most games instead ? From the schedule thread for the game on Saturday (31 August 2019): Cedric asked why Raj with 2 votes is not the other selector, as he would be familiar with those playing. The rules were changed in July 2019 as follows (on the "Team selectors/captains & line ups" thread): .... Although there is a minimum requirement for each selector to have at least 3 votes, even if one or both of the two players with the most number of votes have less than 3 votes (1 or 2 votes), I allow them to be selectors if they are experienced and are sufficiently familiar with those playing in that game. Going forward, I am going to apply the minimum 3 vote requirement strictly. If either or both players have less than 3 votes, either the player(s) with the most number of games in the current 6 month period or over the past 3 years, or a selector/captain from a previous game, will be appointed instead. .... The previous work around diminished the rule requiring a minimum 3 votes each, and left it to me to make an assessment of whether a player with less than the minimum number of votes is sufficiently experienced and familiar with those playing, which I am no longer willing to do. Further, the votes of just 2 players should not be deciding who the selector is. I would rather fall back on more objective criteria, such as number of games played, or a player having been a selector in a previous week. The bottom line is more players should vote. Additionally, being selector/captain carries certain responsibilities (taking charge of the game, implementing the rules, making changes to the line ups during the game if necessary, and reporting serious breaches of the rules or other material developments), and benefits (priority for the following week's game, and credits) which would be better placed in players who are clearly experienced (previous selectors or most number of games). Again, the bottom line is more players should vote. And if a player voting feels strongly enough about who is selector/captain, get others to vote. Further, tactical voting can backfire, as a player may end up on the other selector's team, or teams risk being significantly unbalanced. From the "Team selectors/captains & line ups" thread: As I update the number of games played in the current 6 month period some time during the month, dropping the numbers from the game 7 months ago, the figure can change significantly. As Ben hadn't played any games between May and July 2019 due to a hamstring injury, when I dropped his games for February 2019 towards the end of August 2019, his number of games fell below the threshold. Nothing to do with his performance as selector.  I was thinking that I actually don't need such a high threshold. I will lower it going forward. For 7 or 8-a-side games, any of the following will suffice: - 18 games in the current 6 month period and 40 games over the past 3 years.
- 15 games in the current 6 month period and 45 games over the past 3 years.
- 12 games in the current 6 month period and 50 games over the past 3 years.
- 10 games in the current 6 month period and 55 games over the past 3 years.
- 8 games in the current 6 month period and 60 games over the past 3 years.
For 5 or 6-a-side games: - 15 games in the current 6 month period and 35 games over the past 3 years.
- 12 games in the current 6 month period and 40 games over the past 3 years.
- 10 games in the current 6 month period and 45 games over the past 3 years.
- 8 games in the current 6 month period and 50 games over the past 3 years.
If more players vote in the poll, I can reduce the threshold even further, giving the players more choice.
Since the start of the month, I have allowed any regular to convert any slot, even one for a fast-filling game, into a challenge match. The request needs to be made at least 6 days before the slot (because otherwise, I will schedule the usual game 5 days before the slot), and the thread for the challenge match has to be put up on the "Challenge Matches" board in the OPSAGE category at least 5 days before the game. Two Saturday slots have been converted to challenge matches at the request of Aschkan, that is: Going forward, it suffices if the request for the following week be made in the report for the previous game.
- Selectors can be appointed or elected first, and then they put together their own teams from a wider range of players (including guests). Players can even be given incentives to play for a particular team, such as waiving of payment (full or partial).
- A high quality team can be put together to play against an existing team from elsewhere.
For challenge matches, my role can be limited to holding the regular booking (on the venue's terms) or can extend to collecting payment from players. The organiser can decide on a higher payment per player to allow for incentives to be given to certain key players. If payment is on my standard terms, I waive the organiser's payment, for taking on the responsibility of organising.
Even if players organise everything for themselves, including bookings and payments, they can still post the game on the challenge matches board, as a way of keeping a record of their games, or even as a way of picking up players when they are short. However, for such games, if captains are named in the report, and the organiser requests that the result be included in the selector/captain table, I will charge $10 per game, as there is prize money at the end of each season, with two seasons in a year. If there is sufficient interest in bringing outside games under challenge matches, I can increase the prize money. Again, it is about having greater choices.
And from the schedule thread for the game tomorrow (Monday): Wilson first to post but 9th in the packing order. Lol! From the "GIFFA values, principles & standards" thread: ... 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. .... All other things being equal, those who contribute more to the system should benefit more. For example, from the "Keeping score & the competitive edge" thread: .... .... I would rather the rush be to provide reports for games (which benefits everyone, and the system) rather than to be the first to put one's name down for the following week's game (which only benefits the player concerned, at the expense of the system). .... .... And from the "Individual skills, attributes & positions" thread: .... Players coming into our games should also make sufficient effort to fit into the game, including trying to appreciate the dynamics of the more popular games which have developed over time, in particular, the level of competitiveness, and the social interaction. If a player does not have the technical skills or the fitness to fit into a particular game, then he should look to develop those elsewhere, for example, at an adult soccer school, through a fitness regime, or playing more often in less competitive games. With 9 routine games (6 fixed and 3 rolling), and an all-comers' game, I hope in time to be able to provide ample opportunities to play. If the issue is one of attitude, then a change of mindset may be required. However, none of this can be properly addressed unless we speak up about specific players. If a player has serious shortcomings, the captains do have a responsibility to tell him. It shouldn't be rude, insulting or abusive, these are just matters of fact, which can be looked at and discussed objectively. Constructive feedback is also needed for the player to improve. We all have to be more thick-skinned about such issues. If the captains feel the player hasn't listened or won't listen, or that they don't want to have to speak to the player concerned directly, then let me know. However, I am not likely to act on such feedback unless I hear from more than one captain, perhaps several. There is no point other players complaining directly to me about particular players (other than perhaps their own team's captain), because increasingly, I will refer them to their captain for that game. .... Again, players have a choice about how involved they want to be in the entire system, be is as selectors/captains, providing reports or comments, or just contributing to the discussions on the forum. Players who contribute more will benefit more, whether directly or indirectly. To give players more choice on which games to play, the weekly schedule now comprises of 6 fixed and 3 rolling games. A rolling game can be moved to later in the week (if there are insufficient names put down for the game) or to the following week (or if they are no names put down). However, to reduce the work I need to do, I will only schedule the rolling game, or roll over to a later day in the week, for days on which the fixed game fills up within 48 hours or is converted to a challenge match, and doesn't already have a fixed game with places left 2 days before the game, or another rolling game, scheduled for that day. Fixed games that fill up within 24 hours are fast-filled games. Fixed games that do not fill up after 72 hours are slow-filling games. Players who commit to playing in a slow-filling game will have priority for all games scheduled in the 7 days from the date of the slow-filling game. To try to fill up slow filling games, I am also posting slow filling games on the FIFFA & GIFFA Facebook page. Going forward, instead of creating new posts each week for slow-filling games, I will roll over the thread from a previous week. I will delete all other posts. That means a maximum of 6 posts (one for each fixed game in a week). However, so far there are only posts for Sunday evening at Grandstand, Tuesday night at Grandstand and Thursday night at Macpherson. The other three fixed games in a week have either been converted to challenge matches (Saturday evening at Grandstand) or been filling up fast (Monday night at Macpherson and Wednesday night at Khalsa). I will only post slow-filling games which have less than the minimum number 72 hours after the schedule thread is put up. |
|
