2008/7/8 Jonathan Kinsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I've put some counter-points to your statments below... > > > Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:13:33 +0100 > > > > It is not unusual for teams to turn up at tournaments with more than 20 > > players, many of whom are asked to rest games, or many of whom only play > a > > few points. I dont think its unusual anymore for a player to go through a > > Tour tournament playing less than 10 points - that can equate to > > approximately 1 match per season. > > I think the average squad size is less than 20. Assuming a squad of 20 and > about 20 points a game then 20*6*7/20 = average of 42 pts per person per > event, not many people will be playing less than 10?
Lets be clear - this is aimed mainly at the top teams, I dont think its such an issue lower down, but I think the principle holds. Remember most teams will have senior players and junior players and most top teams will have fairly well defined O and D lines. There will also usually be more players on the D line. As a junior player on the D line there are a maximum of 15 points you are eligible for in a game, it is not unusual for there to be 2 full D lines. That immediately cuts your number of points you are likely to play in a game to 7 (for games you win), now of course because you are one of the junir players you will play less than the others - therefore maybe 3 or 4 is more realistic. Now suppose you ;lose the game - more points are offence points, and fewer are D points - therefore your chances of getting on decrease. If the game is close you will also be more likely not to get on. Hopefully you can see how easy it is to only get 1-3 points a game, which equates to about 10 per tournament. But you're right, I dont have figures for this. Besides - just cos there aren't many players who dont play much, does that mean its right? > > > I believe that an important element to winning a > > match/tournament/championship should be player fitness. Decision making > and > > throwing skill under pressure of fatigue should be part of the skill. > > I think to play well for a weekend you currently need to be fit, skill > should be more important than fitness; ultimate isn't an endurance event, > it's a team sport. But this isn't an argument about winning tournaments, it's about winning matches. I am currently only proposing a change to the number of players involved in a match, not a tournament (though I did and do continue to float that idea too). Lets be clear - I think you need to be fit to play a single point at the top level. But games would be closer, more exciting, and fitness would be more important by limiting team sizes to 14 per match. > > > > At the moment the emphasis is on teams hoovering up lots of talent and > keeping > > their best players at maximal fitness to do a very specialised role. > > I think this is wrong, almost all teams play their best players for the > majority of points. I agree, but they have specialised O and D players, specialised zone lines, specialised O against the zone lines etc. > > > > My very simple suggestion would be to limit teams to 14 players for a > match. > > Possibly it would also be worth limiting squads to 16 for a weekend or 20 > > for a week long tournament, but that may not be necessary. > > How does limiting team-sizes to 14 help? Surely if a team has a big squad > they'll be resting some of the players anyway. If you want to limit > players, a squad limit must be the way to go? Limiting team sizes to 14 helps because over the course of the game the number of players is fewer so there is more emphasis on fitness and strategy etc. It means you have to trust the folks you pick to play the game. If teams want to rest players then that is a separate issue aimed at winning tournaments, not matches. It may sound semantic, but actually its a very real difference I think. > > > > The advantages for this rule include: > > > > - Increasing the importance for physical fitness > > How does this help the sport/new players/unfit players? It helps in loads of ways: 1. It makes the sport more exciting, and more appealing. 2. It makes every player more worthwhile as part of the team they play for. 3. It will instantly grow the number of teams in the UK/Europe/World The vast majority of new players dont come and join teams of 20, and if they do they dont learn much. Most players certainly used to get thrown into teams with 7,8,9 players and go and play full tournaments. They learn that it is fun to play, not fun to watch. There will still be every level of player accommodated. Just as some players will be better cos they are fitter, some will be better cos they are more talented. The best will be fit and talented, the worst will be unfit and untalented. No-one says they wont play, they just wont be able to play for a top team. Same as now really. > > > - Increased excitement due to more turnovers > > Do you mean sloppy play from tired people - that doesn't sound good. No I mean better skills and better mental and phyusical toughness will be better rewarded than just now. Players will have more personal battles on the field that will allow one player to get the upper hand on. Currently I have heard ultimate is considered by many people to be quite boring to watch at the moment, and I think this would help. This change wont suddenly make good players crap - all the top guys will play similar amounts as they do now, maybe just slightly more. > > > > - Greater emphasis on tactical/sideline decision making (in selecting > > squads, rotating players etc) > > What advantage is this? It means that the whole team, including coaches and management may have more of an impact. This means it is another facet of the game that teams may need to work on to be successful. > > > > - All players become more important to the success of the team > > Equally, just the best 14 get picked and a few fillers get added? Yup - and all those 14 are really important as opposed to now where the top 25 are picked and the top 10 are really important. > > > > - Greater emphasis on all round performance > > This means star players are even more important? No I dont think so. But I think players who can only one thing may find it more challenging. > > > > And off the field benefits include... > > > > - Players get greater value for money > > You will limit the growth of the sport by telling some people they can't > play (as the squad is full). Totally disagree and would be happy and willing to bet my life on it. I think the growth of the sport is limited for more by top teams hoovering up all the good players and leaving the feeder clubs to survive on scraps. I can see very few situations were players will be told they cant play. If your club has 16-20 players you probably only have enough able to attend an event for 1 team, if you have more than 20 players you probably have enough for 2 teams. > > > > - Greater spread of high level players amongst teams (as there are fewer > > squad spaces available) > > This could lead to weaker top teams. So what? I am suggesting this for the entire World. I think it would narrow the gap between top tier and next level and make it easier for teams to come through with a good crop of players. Wouldn't it be great if teams like France, Switzerland, Germany, Holland etc. could really be a challenge to USA, Canada etc.? How about if a Uni team gets a core of 5 freshers who are great, and trains them up for a few years, they could make a huge difference to making a club team challenge or a small addition to a superteam. At the moment the emphasis on increasing squad size means more emphasis on strength in depth rather than talent per se. > > - Cutting the gap between teams/nations with greater depth than others > > (as there is no advantage to picking 25 great players over picking 14 > great > > players - therefore a successful team/country only need 14 great players > to > > compete with the best) > > Picking 14 players from a squad each game doesn't exactly mean this. What does it exactly mean? > > > > The arguments that I expect will be made against will be based on > overdoing > > it and injuries etc. but I dont believe them, as the top players often > play > > practically every point anyway when things get tough. Having a limit that > > allows you to sub off every other point is hardly forcing people to > overdo > > it. > > This paragraph goes against some of the things you've said earlier. I > think 14 players is plenty for a game, I also don't have a problem with > larger teams either. I think the major advantage is for players who dont play much. I think on a practical level the superstars will notice very little difference. I'm not designing a sport just for superstars though. > So here goes. I'd like to gather support towards changing the rules to > allow > > a maximum of 14 players to be used in any match. > > > I think the idea of limiting squad sizes (min+max) makes more sense, say > 10-16 players for a weekend. I also think it makes more sense for A-tour > events. > I dont think there is ever likely to be support for a rule that only applies to the elite. I believe even matching shirts has been required for the C tour. Like I say, I dont think this will have a major effect lower down the leagues, I think it could have a beneficial effect at the top of the game, I dont think it would have any negative effects anywhere. Based on your last comment I'm not sure if we agree or disagree but thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion - its good to get the debate started. All the best, Dave. Dave #10 > > Jon > > _________________________________________________________________ > Find the best and worst places on the planet > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719807/direct/01/ __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
