8 a side is fine with the right formation & people understanding their positioning and how to find space! In any case it teaches players to keep the ball moving fast and improves their pass and move game.
8 aside is fine. Like Babs said you just have to think about where you are moving and pass the ball more. If you change it to 7 you will alienate a lot of the regular players... 7 aside is pretty fitness intensive and I am pretty sure 90% of us are not fit enough to do the extra running anyway.
I had the following discussion with Lee Powers on 1 and 2 June 2014:
Lee: "Hey Raj, I'm not gonna play [Sunday game at The Grandstand] for a while, i find the game too hectic, I would prefer one less player per side and to play with a traditional sized ball. Maybe you put this to a vote with your members.? Thanks Lee"
Me: "There was a fairly lengthy discussion between July 2010 and June 2011, with a poll narrowly in favour of 8-a-side - giffas.proboards.com/post/9663/thread Hasn't really come up as an issue since then. You can add your views on the thread. The type of ball to use is discussed on another thread - giffas.proboards.com/post/30652/thread The Khalsa game is 7-a-side, and more likely to use a standard football. But the Khalsa games are all played at night.
Lee: "Ah ok thanks Raj I'll look at the Khalsa games I like the quality of the players at Turf City, I just find it too crazy, no time on the ball and that small ball is hard to control, so the game ends up very scrappy. More likely to get injured too..!"
If we limit the Sunday evening game at The Grandstand to 7-a-side, the price will have to be $13 per player. However, we would be able to go ahead 6-a-side on a big pitch even if we are stuck with 12. I don't need to scramble around trying to fill the 2 extra players, and can focus on getting the night game going. If more players want to play on Sundays, then the night game can get going too.
I have added the poll above.
I have no intention to re-consider the maximum numbers for the Saturday evening game at The Grandstand. That game has its own dynamic, is still popular, and is in any event the only game on Saturday, so I will keep it at 8-a-side to accommodate more players.
...., we continue to allow up to 8-a-side for the weekend games at The Grandstand. When we were stuck with 14 for the game at 5 pm on Saturday, 21 February 2015, one more player came in at 3 pm, so we needed 1 more for 8-a-side. Jake asked on the WhatsApp group chat:
Why have we gone out and asked for 2 more when 7 aside was fine?
I'd have paid an extra dollar or whatever it is
Each game has a maximum number and a minimum number, 2 less than the maximum number. If we don't have the maximum number the day before the game, I continue to ask around. However, as long as we reach the minimum number by the time the team selector/captain poll closes (5 or less hours before the game), I can stop asking around (although I usually continue to ask around until 2 or 3 hours before the game), unless we have uneven numbers (that is, 1 more than the minimum number or 1 less than the maximum number), or, with the minimum number, one or more of the players say they will only play with the maximum number, in which case, we need to find a replacement for that player, or 2 more to get us to the maximum number.
For the game on 21 February 2015, the extra player went down to watch, and the players managed to pick up one more player at the venue, so the game went ahead 8-a-side.
Jake brought up the issue again today in the WhatsApp group chat for the game today (Saturday) at The Grandstand. I referred the group chat to this thread. 5 votes now. And Jake has finally voted.
This issue has been ongoing for a long time now. The arguments can be summarised as follows:
Arguments for allowing up to 8-a-side:
If we allow up to 16, even if there are late withdrawals, we should have enough for 7-a-side on the big pitch. If we limit numbers to 7-a-side, we may have to go ahead 6-a-side on the big pitch.
2 more players get to in play popular games.
Works out to $12 per per player. Limiting numbers to 7-a-side means $13 per player.
More competitive game.
Arguments for limiting the game to 7-a-side:
More space, so:
less intense, less physical game,and fewer collision-type injuries.
Better flow to the game.
Each player having to cover more ground improves fitness.
Generally, older, less fit but more tactical players prefer 8-a-side, while younger, fitter but less tactical players prefer 7-a-side. There are of course, many exceptions to this generality.
It is currently 3:2 in favour of capping numbers at 7-a-side. It's worth considering how individual players vote. If I monitor, I can follow the vote. As it stands:
Players voting for limiting game to 7-a-side
Players voting for allowing up to 8-a-side
In the WhatsApp group chat today, Jake also stated:
Why don't we try 7 aside on the Saturday game for a month and then assess / vote from those who played after the month?
As I stated in reply, I am prepared to follow the poll game to game, month to month or season to season. Players can change their vote while the poll remains open.
If it is game to game, I might consider the following system:
If the game is scheduled as 8-a-side, any player may request on the same thread that it be limited to 7-a-side when putting his name down.
If at least 2 players make the request any time before the first 14 places are filled, I will put up a poll for those down for the game to vote. If a majority vote in favour of limiting numbers to 14 before the number of names exceeds 14, or before the team selector/captain poll is due, I will limit that game to 7-a-side.
If the players making the request subsequently withdraw from the game, and there are less than 2 players remaining who made the request, the game will revert to 8-a-side.
I will give it some further thought, and won't try it out before June 2015.
many of the regulars including myself have been playing based on 8 a side for years and we like that system a lot. I dont think we should look at a change because one or two players dont like it. If you change it to 7 a side, you risk alienating some of the players. fm this post, you know where i stand on this.
no strong preference from my side. but let's look at it from another angle also: if we aim for 8-a-side we got the option to also go ahead with 7-a-side in case we only get 14 players. additionally, if one player does nt show up/arrives late/has to stop playing due to injury then - in a 7-a-side game - it becomes a 6 vs 7 game. not that i like 7 vs 8 either but i think that is the less bad option. hence my vote for 8-a-side.