There are, I think, a few problems with the Tour schedule for 2006.
Having spoken to other people, there appear to be three issues: Problem # 1 - Playing back-to-back games This is IMO the biggest problem. At Tour 3 we played 2 games back-to-back on Sunday morning, lasting a total of 3 1/2 hrs. There was literally 3 mins between games; enough to move to the next pitch. Having back to back games was something that was complained about massively last year because it endangers players. Quality of play also decreases (unless you're Fire 2 and have 50 subs... ). Why this is necessary is beyond me, especially given the huge amounts of daylight in the summer. If you factor in that many teams meet about an hour before their games for throwing, warm up, drills etc, then it's 4 1/2 hrs straight. What exactly is the reasoning behind having to get pitchside at 7.30am on a Sunday and be finished by lunch when there is so much time available in the day? Problem # 2 - Lack of crossovers/quarter finals Ok so I can kind of see the reasoning behind the new way of doing things (in brief, 2 pools of 4 for the top 8, the top 2 from each group go straight to semis). Problem is, if the seedings aren't quite on then you get someone in the semis who might not belong there. Take Tour 3 for instance. One pool had Fire 1, Leeds, emo and Discuits. Both emo and Discuits went on to drop out of the top 8, and Leeds finished 4th having beaten both in pool play. Does 2 wins over 2 teams that finished 10th and 11th mean that Leeds earned the right to the semi finals? I don't think it should have done. Given that Leeds didn't win another game that weekend you could argue that there were a load of other teams that should have had a shot at semis that weekend, but didn't get one due to the schedule. I don't think this would have been an issue under last year's schedule (crossover vs 9th seed being their first game I believe, and to make a semi they would have needed to beat at least one team ranked 1-5). Incidentally at Nationals the change in schedule meant they had to play some different teams and they ended up 7th. [No offence intended to Leeds btw, it just happens to be one situation I know something about since I played (and lost to) them every weekend of the season!] Basically I don't think the seedings are good enough to have a schedule that clearly relies heavily on very accurate initial seedings. 2 teams dropped from top 8 at Tour 2, and 3 teams dropped from top 8 at Tour 3. A different format would encourage more teams to play more different teams. I can't remember ever finishing next to someone in the Tour standings that we never played once all year (Brighton), but that's what's happened this time. As it happened we finally met at Nationals and the game was very close; I'm sure both teams would have liked to have met before that. Problem # 3 - Fewer games for seeds 1-4 None of the players I spoke to in the semis seemed to like the fact that they had less games. One quote: "I didn't come to Cardiff to sit in a field for half the day". An extra crossover round or schedule tweak would give those teams an extra game, keep them sane and ensure they got the same value for money that everyone else gets. There is also the slight issue that if you pay £180 for 4 games you might feel a little hard done by. (Although I must point out that more games isn't necessarily better; just that all teams should play the same number of games). I can't remember massive complaints over last year's format (there were plenty re: gaps between games)... can we revert to the top 6 pools format in 2007? No quarterfinals seems like madness. It's 6 games in the weekend, which is the same as this year for seeds 5-12 but an extra game for 1-4 seeds, and more opportunities to... as Wayne puts it... "chump one". Generally I've really enjoyed this season, I just think there are a few things that could be improved upon. What do others think? Brummie On 9/11/06, Wayne Retter (aka Wrecker) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tour consistency: > Ask teams to pay for the entire tour up front. This would increase commitment and consistency. > Although this is quite a lot of money for teams to pay, and therefore not necessarily desireable, > it does fit in with the tours objectives. After all, the tour's goal is consistency and high > level competition. This would also encourage clubs to be more organised in their (financial and other) planning - which ties in with some of the general development plans that the UKUA have. > Nationals: > Revitalise nationals by stopping the "its Tour 4" feeling. Just another Ultimate tournament? So the knowledge that one chumped result can put you badly off target (pool play allows the possibility of chumping one game!) doesn't add anything for you? > You could make nationals a 16 team knockout tournament I suspect that a smaller field than 32 should be considered, but 16 excludes any A-Tour / B-Tour interaction? > with qualifiers being the top teams from each region (based on Ladder League). So, move completely away from Tour being qualification for Nationals (and Nationals seeding Tour?)... I'm (personally) not sure that Regionalisation is yet strong enough to give a fair representation at Nationals. > That adds a potential random factor and encourages regional growth. 16 team knockout means 4 > games each and plenty of time to schedule a womens and mens final, complete with bar and crowd antics. I'd be interested to know how many teams would be interested in such an idea... a requirement to go out and regularly play other teams in your Region, so that you can qualify for Nationals. > Other tournaments: No doubt about it, we need more. Potential TDs should also maybe consider what sort of teams/players they wish to attract and tailor their event to match - not wishing to sound like an essay question, but consider the attendees at BritOpen, Glastonbury, Copa and Durham Hat events in the last few years. There's also no reason that these non-Tour events should be run on the same weekends as Tour events - teams will then make a decision as to whether to attend the Tour event, or the non-Tour event, dependent on what they consider each has to offer. > Looking forward to seeing how things develop. It'd be nice if a few more people had some well thought out ideas, don't you think? If the ideas are popular enough, someone will make them happen! Wayne --- Wayne Retter wayne[dot]wrecker[at]ntlworld[dot]com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/442 - Release Date: 08/09/2006 __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
__________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
