|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 16, 2014 17:00:15 GMT 8
From the schedule thread: .... As two regulars, Sven and Cedric, are introducing guests, can they be team selectors? Cedric and Sven have agreed on the following: Whites: Sven, Sivaraj, Jarrel, Ian, Joel Reds: Cedric, Kevin, Calvin, Shamir, Jordi Everyone, please be early. After the game, please post reports and comments on the game below. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 17, 2014 8:11:14 GMT 8
Further on the schedule thread: Sivaraj is out. .... Soon Leong ... is in. Sivaraj can play after all, but Soon Leong is already in. .... |
|
|
|
Post by Ian D on Sept 18, 2014 19:49:47 GMT 8
Whites: Sven, Soon Leong, Jarrel, Ian, Joel
Reds: Cedric, Kevin, Calvin, Shamir, Jordi
It was difficult enough to play in a match like this but now I shall try the much harder task of trying to report it. In short, I cannot recall a more one-sided match at the Cage in years. The teams were hopelessly mismatched from the get-go and the scoreline was such a landslide for Reds that we all lost count after it became 14-4 or something like that. This was an unmitgated disaster for the Whites and the less said, the better. I know there is a rule about swapping players in midstream in situations like this but we were probably too distressed to think of it.
As a postscript, it is somewhat odd that the team selectors get a $1 CREDIT for their (lopsided) selections. I am wondering whether Rajiv might consider tweaking the system and making it more incentive-based such that if the scoreline in a match is so skewed in favour of one team (e.g winning margin of 10 goals or more) then both team selectors (or at least, the losing team's selector) will incur a $1 deduction. A few of us also thought that this wouldn't have happened if we left team selections to Rajiv.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 19, 2014 9:48:19 GMT 8
$2 credit to Ian for a first report. $1 credit to each of Cedric and Sven as team selectors. .... As a postscript, it is somewhat odd that the team selectors get a $1 CREDIT for their (lopsided) selections. I am wondering whether Rajiv might consider tweaking the system and making it more incentive-based such that if the scoreline in a match is so skewed in favour of one team (e.g winning margin of 10 goals or more) then both team selectors (or at least, the losing team's selector) will incur a $1 deduction. A few of us also thought that this wouldn't have happened if we left team selections to Rajiv. The team selector/captain credit is a token for taking on the responsibility of agreeing on line ups and captaining the teams. I previously considered withholding it if line ups were very unbalanced, but I've decided not to, as the reasons why it doesn't work out on the day can be very varied, and doesn't detract from the fact that the selector/captain did make some effort. Instead, the consequences for one-sided scorelines is reflected in the points for the team selector/captain table. Of course, if, after the game, the team selectors are embarrassed by their selections, they can always decline the credit.  I can only go by the reports to have a sense of the current form of players, so wherever possible, I leave line ups to selectors. Additionally, for this game, there were two new players, so I thought it was fair to leave it to their introducers to agree on line ups. Like I've said before, players, especially the team selectors/captains, do need to bite the bullet to make changes during the game if it is clear that the line ups aren't working out. I really don't see how even those on the winning team can enjoy a grossly one-sided game. If they do, then they clearly don't appreciate what our games are all about. Team selectors/captains do need to be familiar with the Guidelines, but it will take time. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedric on Sept 19, 2014 23:35:18 GMT 8
I can only say in the team selectors defense that we thought we had picked what were even teams but two factors adversely affected this: a) the misjudgment on the wide gulf in standard between the 2 new players who each played on opposing sides. There was no way the 2 team selectors could have done any better in this regard given lack of knowledge; and b) the last minute withdrawals. Again, not much the team selectors could do about this. I do not support an incentive based nor a penalty system approach for team selection as team selectors are taking time out of their own busy schedules to select the teams. Overall, given the vagaries of the Tues game, it might be better to leave team selection to Rajiv. Thanks. PS: Anyone saw a pair of goalkeeping gloves at the field? I left it behind.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 20, 2014 8:00:24 GMT 8
... two factors adversely affected this: a) the misjudgment on the wide gulf in standard between the 2 new players who each played on opposing sides. There was no way the 2 team selectors could have done any better in this regard given lack of knowledge; and b) the last minute withdrawals. ..., it might be better to leave team selection to Rajiv. .... I would have been even more handicapped, as not only would I not have known the new players, there are an increasing number of players I haven't even met yet, and even the players I know, I haven't seen them play for ages, so I wouldn't know their current form. To be honest, line ups for the 5-a-side games are usually easier to do than the 7 or 8-a-sides, which is why I do them more readily. However, the system is geared towards those who play regularly having the final say on line ups, whether as team selectors or captains. It is after all, social football with a competitive edge. Experience counts for a lot in team selection, and the only way to gain the experience is to keep at it. The more important lesson really is that it is better to make the changes early on, once it becomes clear that the teams are grossly uneven, even if there is reluctance or resistance from several players, rather than to let it spoil the game, and having the feelings of dissatisfaction fester beyond the game. The final say is always with the team selectors/captains. |
|
|
|
Post by Calvin C on Sept 20, 2014 13:16:28 GMT 8
I think the bigger issue was on Ian's team was a guest player who could hardly play. And in a 5-aside game every player is important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 21, 2014 20:16:55 GMT 8
I think the bigger issue was on Ian's team was a guest player who could hardly play. And in a 5-aside game every player is important. Under Appendix I to the GIFFA System thread: .... Although the GIFFA-defined games are social, they are also competitive. It is difficult for those who have not played much football before to join our games, unless they have a lot of other sporting experience. .... Although those who play with us regularly find they improve a lot in many if not all areas of their game, you do need to meet a basic standard to fit in in the first place. .... .... I previously considered implementing the following (from the "Individual skills, attributes & positions" thread): .... * 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. .... In the end, it was too draconian, and difficult to enforce. I will have to consider some kind of rule though. |
|
....
