-
Point understood and taken. Seeding is never going to be a 100% accurate representation of ability, that's true, and it's hard to do often enough to be truly fair, and also, it needs to be done a long way in advance of the most important tournaments, so people can organise time off/travel/etc.
It's a shame StuF missed out (I thought he didn't want to go to tournaments), but that will happen some times. At least seeding means it's fair who gets left out - the people towards the bottom who are newer/less-committed/less-good (delete as appropriate).
Still open to change though, and with this much distaste for seeding, I don't want to be responsible for forcing it on people. I now think that if the poll is at all close, we should try doing without it for 6 months, see how we get on, we can always go back to it if people prefer it.
Good to have feedback on an issue for once - thanks everyone so far for chiming in.
As far as throw-ins go, I've recently been sort of half-shuffling/half-picking teams, to make an 'even' game IE Me and Hyper on opposite teams, Rob and 2Squeak on opposite teams, other two shuffled randomly. For me, games are more fun that way, but tends to end up with very similar line-ups.
-
@2squeak, I think we are getting somewhere. It's becoming clear that we're pretty evenly split on the issue, which explains the talking-in-circles thing.
Meetings are difficult to arrange, and I for one would much rather be *playing *polo when we can actually get together, not talking about it. That's what lfgss is for!
-
THIS is the list for wednesday
1:2Squeak
2:danwentskiing
3:dan_lj
4: EMM
5: hyper
6: n3il
7: SpeedyP + birthday beers and 6 plastic cupsdon't feel bad about the mallet thing it was F'kin hilarious, I was in stitches.
Sin bin was very funny, we wern't last...not sure how, but it was fun!
-
Yeah...
-
Like I said before Seeding and any other method work in the same way, if your good/committed then you will find your way into the best teams. Maybe we should keep seeding, but create say 3 or 4 teams, that way we will have the best of both worlds.. I voted no to seeding. but that's not to say I would be too bothered if it continued...
An example from the idea above would be to have:
Team 1 - top 3 seeded
Team 2 - 4-6 seeded
Team 3 - 7-9 seeded
Team 4 - 10-12 seededAs a tournament approaches we play each other to see who should go. this way the best players (at that time) will represent Brum, we will have our definitive teams, but we won't feel like it holds us back when tournaments approach...
The more I think about this, the more I struggle to find a fault, it seems to cover the bases, so any points about would be great.
-
Not a bad idea EMM. I'm not opposed to it (if I was left to my own devices I'd try to form a team with 4ndy and Hyper anyway...) and it kind of makes sense, although my impression is that some people don't like the enforced line-ups that seeding produces.
Your idea also puts a bit of pressure on the lowest-seeded player(s) to find one or two new players to form a new team!
To be honest, it's the Euros that's the biggest reason for seeding, and that looks likley to be decided by a qualifier tournament.
-
What I was suggesting was that the teams form themselves through seeding but we create the team names so where ever you are on the list you have a team. just like with black stabeth and birmingham b team. that way there is no beef, as the teams are decided as they are now...on merit. Yet everybody has a team that they can gel with and potentially go to tournaments with...
-
Can't do any harm - but I'd estimate that at 50% of tournaments, a few people can't make it, so all the team line-ups would be shuffled around. Having said that, even when they do shuffle around, you should hopefully have partnerships you can rely on, and it would definitely be an improvement on what we do now. I'm so hoping to take 3-4 teams to the UK champs/London Open this year.
I had a (related) idea how to organise team practice - depending on turnout, we form teams according to your suggestions above. If a full line-up of your team is there, that's who you play with. If two of you are there, you form a team, but use a shrunken goal for your games. If only one of you are there, you join another team who has only one or two players... Seems like it could work? Downside is that it might mean to reduced goalkeeping practice sometimes, which is seemingly needed, but, no better ideas, so...
-
Good idea EMM. Like it. Still keeps the democratic process rolling but will hopefully encourage better team play. Thats not to say we can't have just regular throwins as well.
The other knock on effect would be that Black Stabbath might not necesarrily go to tournements - example Cambridge team 2 would have more than likley gone as team 1 only had one player going. This will hopefully form better tyes and encourage regular turnout and tourne attendance.
Down side being we now need to come up with more team names...
See you guys tonight!
-
Good idea EMM. Like it. The other knock on effect would be that Black Stabbath might not necesarrily go to tournements - example Cambridge team 2 would have more than likley gone as team 1 only had one player going.
Need clarification how this would work. As it stands now, everyone 'feeds into' Stabbath, then B Team and then a theoretical third team. It means that the best/most committed/most long-serving players (remember seeding isn't just about ability, it's about turnout) get first dibs on going to tournaments. Obviously this suits me, Fin and Andy down to the ground, as we always have first 'dibs'. It is okay for middling people, and pretty poor for newcomers/unseeded people (Neil), although how much of a problem that is, is unclear (Neil has mentioned to me he's not that interested in going to tournaments at the moment).
If we change the way this works, according to Matt's system, what would Andy have been able to do about Cambridge? Can he still call on people from lower teams to join him in Stabbath? Do they have the right to say no? If they *don't *then I don't see any point using Matt's method; if they do then we may as well have the free-for-all/pick your own teams/play qualifier games and/or find subs when necessary.
People are trying to modify the seeding system to make more 'fixed'/reliable teams, when that is exactly what seeding was intended to prevent! For me, seeding as a way of making tournament line-ups/order of right-of-refusal has to work the way we do it now, or not at all. We could still run seeding alongside a free-for-all system, if people want to see how they're thought of by others, but not use it to decide those things.
Sorry, wordy response, but I can't explain any more concisely. It's suprisingly complicated!
(The poll actually stands 5:4 in favour of seeding - randoms are spoiling the vote!)
-
Right - this is my two pence: I think that teams are definitely held back when the individuals don't know each others' play inside out. After I've played a few games in a row with Dan LJ I can pretty much guess where he's going to be for a pass &c. So there's obviously an advantage to playing in at least semi-fixed teams.
On the other hand constantly playing in the same teams would mean excluding newcomers - no-one's going to enjoy at least a few months of constant thrashings.
How about doing seedings for each new tournament that comes up, say two or three weeks before and then playing in those teams against throw-ins and each other. New seedings could be made when the next tournament comes up after a couple of weeks of rotating play to give everyone a chance to join in and show what they can do with other players.
I don't think that seeding is anything like an objective measure of skill, but at least it makes things more public and open.
I hope that isn't just repeating what anyone else has said. There's already been a lot of discussion on this thread to review.
-
Two drawbacks with your suggestions (sorry to add to the long-winded responses, but they still stand...)
1) Seeding is a pain to do often - I'm not going to do it any more than annually, so it would have to rotate round players.
2) Seeding for international tournaments needs to be done at least three months in advance (this isn't a massive issue as it's only once a year for the Euros), and I'd say even for local tournaments it needs to be done a month inadvance so people can organise time off work. Realistically we'd be seeding every month at least during the summer.Still don't see that there's a middle-way... Both systems have drawbacks, combining the two only makes things more complicated.
I reckon we should try the free-for-all approach for the next 6 months, see how that goes... (Dammit, already voted to keep seeding)
-
1) Seeding is a pain to do often - I'm not going to do it any more than annually, so it would have to rotate round players.
Why not do the collation work on a rota or have a league secretary or something along those lines?
If a bunch of punky rollergirls could have a league secretary and still be cool you guys can.
I'd be happy to count votes sometimes, I'm all about supporting polo (finding yellow pipe, photography, word of mouthing it) just don't want to play.
Not trying to spanner your works if you're set on annual votes, just throwing options out there.
-
That would be fine with me, but bagsy not being that person! I've collated/led-up organising the last two. I'm happy to do it annually, but I'm not going to do it monthly, sorry!
-
If a bunch of punky rollergirls could have a league secretary and still be cool you guys can.
Men...
2Squeak
deleted
joeyfishwick
EMM
Dan_lj
Malletesta
MotherGirl-
Post a reply
About
Polo. Seeding: Yes or No?
Posted by
I think throw-in sessions are still best for BHM, but maybe say if Danski and Hyper get shuffled onto the same team, keep it that way, enjoy playing together (wheeeeyo) and also let the other players experience playing against two thirds of Stabbeth? This way we still continue with throw-ins and its fair. Also, I think that playing against your teammates is possibly a better way to see how they play?
To clear up the part you weren't sure about earlier Dan, I meant that if the best players (you, Hyper, Andy) were seeded lower than players who were clearly not as good, is it fair for BHM Polo as a whole to send the slightly worse player just because the seeding dictated it? It would never happen, as I assume we would always be honest etc... but the point is that the result is set in stone, and unless seeding takes place more regularly the teams we send to the tournaments may not accurately reflect BHM.
StuF missed out on Cambridge (before the broken wheel) because he wasn't ranked high enough to make the Birmingham B team, but say Sarah and Pete would rather play with Stu than me, surely they have every right to go and make that change, I know that beef will be an issue here, and i'm expecting some critisism on that one, but i think we are all sensible, it would be all gravy in the end, and besides you can't have 'all gravy' without 'beef'. whheeeeyyyyyyyyyyy