|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 22, 2014 14:23:25 GMT 8
From below: .... I'll replace the poll with a more general one, for players to express their preference for either 7 or 8-a-side on the big covered pitch at The Grandstand. The first post above currently reads: .... I will replace it with a more general post. Done. The subject has been modified accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedric on Jun 22, 2014 16:46:18 GMT 8
I found 8 a side too crowded, 7-a-side might be better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babs on Jun 23, 2014 8:57:20 GMT 8
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2014 17:33:32 GMT 8
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 3, 2014 12:26:59 GMT 8
I've summarised this thread on the "Venues, pitches & team sizes" thread, concluding with: .... The poll is still open. It is currently 4:1 in favour of allowing up to 8-a-side for the Sunday game at The Grandstand. I'll leave the poll open indefinitely. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 7, 2014 13:28:04 GMT 8
No further votes. However, from the schedule thread for the game on Saturday, 25 October 2014: .... My vote is still for 7 aside.. happy to pay a bit more.. the game is just much better.. Jake hasn't actually voted! I'll replace the poll with a more general one, for players to express their preference for either 7 or 8-a-side on the big covered pitch at The Grandstand. The first post above currently reads: 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..!"
Lee hasn't posted on either thread yet, but I am prepared to consider limiting the Sunday game at The Grandstand to 7-a-side. The Sunday game at The Grandstand has been a struggle to fill up for much of last year and the first half of this year, so much so I gave the game a break in April 2014. The game resumed in May 2014 at an earlier time slot of 4 to 5 pm (although it will be moved back to 5 to 6 pm from July 2014 onwards), alongside the extra game from 8 to 9 pm on Sunday nights at Balestier Road. 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. I will replace it with a more general post. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 4, 2015 17:08:18 GMT 8
From the "Venues, pitches & team sizes" thread: .... ...., 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: 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. I have at various times over the years discussed capping numbers for either the Saturday or Sunday game at The Grandstand at 14 (for a 7-a-side), as early as July 2010 and most recently in June 2014. There is currently a poll on the subject, but only 1 vote so far. 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 | | Foo Cheong | Timmy | | Jake | Rockstar | | Kelvin Au |
|
In the WhatsApp group chat today, Jake also stated: 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.
Please feel free to add your views below.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calvin C on Apr 5, 2015 14:33:54 GMT 8
Sunday 8 a side please. Many Sunday regulars are older in their 40s and 50s
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 5, 2015 14:57:11 GMT 8
|
|
|
|
Post by Elvin on Apr 7, 2015 9:27:44 GMT 8
Rajiv,
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rainer on Apr 7, 2015 10:46:24 GMT 8
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 8, 2015 11:51:34 GMT 8
The voting is now 6:3 in favour of allowing up to 8-a-side, as follows: | Players voting for limiting game to 7-a-side | Players voting for allowing up to 8-a-side | Foo Cheong, Jake, Kelvin Au
| Timmy, Rockstar, Damian, Christian, Elvin, Rainer
|
As I've stated above, we've been over this issue several times since 2010. However, the discussion is interspersed in the "Venues, pitches & team sizes" thread. From time to time, newer players raise the same issue again, so I refer them to the previous discussion on the matter. It's useful to have all the arguments on this single thread for future reference. If anyone changes their vote, it would be useful if you posted the reasons for the change below. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 3, 2017 8:48:22 GMT 8
As last Saturday (28 Jan 2017) was the first day of the Chinese New Year, we struggled to get to 14 players, but finally got there, and the game went ahead 7-a-side. After the game, Jake messaged the WhatsApp group chat: On the report thread: .... 7 aside made it more free for players to roam and attack but also meant its a tad tiring and more space to cover back. .... The above poll however is 9:3 in favour of allowing up to 8-a-side. Three more players have voted, Nick Hunter, Jessen and Dennis. The poll remains open. |
|
....
