I appreciate that there were flaws in the formats and scheduling this year, but I still think it was a great improvement on last year.
I'll try to cover the main points that Brummie has made: >Problem # 1 - Playing back-to-back games I don't have a problem with this, but I understand that other people do. However, having back-to-back games isn't because of the format. The format (e.g. knock-out or 4 pools of four followed by knock-out) shouldn't be confused with the scheduling (e.g. number of game slots played in a certain order in a set amount of time). I don't think that reverting to last year's format will solve this problem. It may even make it worse. I'm sure that Hannah, who's done a great job in her first year as DoC, will learn from some of these relatively minor issues when scheduling tournaments next year. >Problem # 2 - Lack of crossovers/quarter finals I don't think that seeding is as big an issue as has been suggested at various times this year. I think that the fact that two teams from Leeds' pool at Tour 3 dropped out of the top eight shows the great depth in competition there has been this year. Emo were justifiably seeded fifth at Tour 3 based on their Tour 2 finish. Therefore they were the team most entitled to having a shot at beating the fourth seeds (Leeds) and making semis. They got that shot. (Perhaps the seeding for Tour 3 should be based on accumulated points from Tours 1 and 2 rather than just the results of Tour 1, but would this make them more accurate?) Also, I think that one of the main reasons that last year's format was dropped was because pools of three were considered to be an unfair way of playing. This is because some teams would play their second pool game against someone playing their first which is tough on the team that has played more games. If you're avoiding back-to-back games then this also means that it takes five time slots to complete the pool and therefore seven time slots are needed in the day. This makes the day at least 12 hours long and means less recovery time for Sunday morning's early start for yet more cross-overs/quarters. Problem # 3 - Fewer games for seeds 1-4 I don't see what's wrong with this at all. All I would suggest is that the semis are played to 17 rather than 15 in a longer time slot. However, I do believe that a different format for each of the three tour events might make for a better all round test of each team. It would also avoid some of the repetition that Brummie mentioned. We could save the most elitist format (used at Tours 2 and 3 this year) for Tour 3 alone and have slightly more open formats (with quarter finals) at 1 and 2. It would be good to have some suggestions, but please without any pools of three. Finally, should there be a limit on squad sizes at tournaments next year? Having slightly smaller squads (say a limit of 16) might reward playing ability over sheer weight of numbers. It may also increase standards all through the Tour and stop people complaining about not having enough games. Just a thought. Ben Mitchell (Hoooves) LeedsLeedsLeeds -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sion Scone Sent: 14 September 2006 08:17 To: Britdisc Subject: Re: [BD] Re: How to improve on 2006 in 2007? 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 To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
