Polo. Seeding: Yes or No?

I meant cos they're girls and men are useless. As a part-time rollergirl, I know we got shit organised. Everyone takes it in turns to do admin stuff, we have skills training nights and then practice bouts and the team gets shuffled every few months. There is also a special noobs practise to encourage new players but we're talking much higher numbers than polo. Hopefully, a dude from the cycling forum whose card I gave to Dan will help with spreading the word to other cycle activities and aid in finding new venues. I pretend vote yes to seeding if it is more flexible/more often and teams aren't set in stone so noobs can join in :)

Vote is actually 5/4 in favour of seeding.

Still waiting for votes from Hyper, Malletesta and LucasR.

In the event of a less than 2/3rds majority for either outcome, I suggest we use seeding for the Euros (could come in really useful as it's going to be a late call and I can see people not being able to go) and a free-for-all approach for the Nationals (rumoured to be in June, too). See how that goes.

Seeding - yes, I am for it.

That being said and having just read the entire thread (sorry late to the party), I would like to make a few comments.

First, I need to work on my track stand. My goal tending is getting better, but it is limited by the track stand ability.

Cambridge -
I was very disapointed in my play. Granted my first tourney experience, so game one was all adrenaline and inacuracy. I feel we were beaten by teams that were no better in skill but were acustom to playing together. By the third game in Cambridge I felt much more in tune with where Andy and Dan_lj were going to be and how to play asa group. Still we did not communicate as well as I would have liked on goal tending and when another player was in trouble/open for a shot. The last item for me at Cambridge was the two syles of play. First, Fast and aggressive attack strait line play that is our method in Birmingham. As soon as we have the ball we attack fast and hard. Second, is a style of play that I recognize from ice hockey. long looping patterns always coming back to centre court and controling the pace and tempo to get the players set. As soon as a player gets the ball they imidiatly move away from goal unless shooting and loop to the centre of the court. I am too new to the game to see that one is better than the other, but after watching all the games, I was struck by this difference in style.

Seeding - I like to know where the other players feel my abilities are. I agree with EMM it pushes me to be better if the rank is not where I feel my ability is.

Team Setting -
I feel this is seperate to the seeding. At some point in the weeks leading up to a tourament we need to solidify the teams and then play as those teams. If I would have had 2-4 weeks playing with Andy and Dan_lj, we would have rocked at Cambridge. I don't feel the need to play as those teams always or routinly as I think the fun of BHM polo is playing throw-ins and pushing each other. Also, you never know who can and can't play at a given tourney.

Vote is actually 5/4 in favour of seeding.

Still waiting for votes from Hyper, Malletesta and LucasR.

In the event of a less than 2/3rds majority for either outcome, I suggest we use seeding for the Euros (could come in really useful as it's going to be a late call and I can see people not being able to go) and a free-for-all approach for the Nationals (rumoured to be in June, too). See how that goes.

I think Lucas summed it up - it's not seeding that's the problem, it's our disorganisation leading up to tournaments. As soon as we know team line-ups, we should dedicate some time at every meeting to play those line-ups. If only one of your team mates is there, take a sub and ask them to practice their goal-keeping.

I don't think people who aren't in the teams will begrudge their friends a few games in preparation for a tournament.

@Lucas

Have a few games of footdown with other cyclists or polo players, no mallet to lean on just you v who..object, make tap the ground without any contact.

More fun than practicing on your tod..we usually play that in my car park after a mtb day out around these parts, good fun and a cool warm down.

I'm going to utilise my local court on a friday afterwork for solo practice, schools are closed and its
rude not to.

I'm interested in your ice-hockey perspective. I think polo is largely about 'overlapping' and 'circling' when you're on attack. Basically, doing the opposite of what your team mate is doing. If he/she goes deep towards goal, stay back behind the other players, make yourself 'last man'.

If your teammate has the ball, get yourself in the mix near enough the goal to score (this differs for each player!) and wait for a pass. Your team mate can circle the d, checking all the angles.

Today was great for communication, but one thing (I mentioned this to Fin). When we're trapped in a corner, we often play blind passes to the front area of the goal. These are sooo risky. If an opposing player sees what you're doing, he/she can intercept and start a strong break.

Of course, if they don't it's great for you. So my suggestion is that the player waiting for the pass makes the call for it. They can spot if an opposing player may intercept or not. So if you're the guy in the corner, faced away from play, *wait for the call*. If you're the player in the mix in front of goal, be aware and tell your team mate when/where you want it.

That is all.

Except @Si and Lucas - yeah, keep up the solo practice. I've noticed with goalies, it's not as much the standing there that's too difficult, it's re-positioning yourself when you're there. Learn to hop around so your back wheel is right against the post. You'll be suprised how easy it is to wheel backwards with the help of your mallet. Not you Si, now you have a coaster...

Ill have to master backward hops...unlearn..but you can push yourself backwards..bit of a brain burp but i am warming to it.....

its fantastic for progressive slowing, but a sudden stop, brake is needed...'oh fuck..fence..smack!'

How about one or two 'team' games per session i.e. black stabbath vs. b team and so on - based on the seeding? Qualifiers/euros require team practice.
This way you get build team skills and intuition. While this could create a uneven game i think that's ok as i) it's only one or two games ii) it's good practice for playing top ranked teams (who school even our top players).

Would not bother me, best way to learn is the hard way.

Plus the Underdogs generally have to want it more, you want it more than the other team you will have it.

Bham v Arsenal..i hated that Sunday afternoon, but a nice lesson.

Yeah, good idea.

At the moment shall we just keep to the top two teams, by seeding? If turnouts stay high, and there's more enthusiasm for tournaments from people seeded 9-12th we can incorporate a third team.

We could spread the games out through the night, and play 'best of three'. IE three ten-minute games, with proper reffing, spread out across the evening. We could keep a record of the scores to raise players' enthusiasm (mimic tournament conditions) and see how B Team in particular progresses over the months. Maybe even record scorers/assists/strong saves to finally get to the bottom of what we're *actually *good at... That would also give the spectators something to do!

This way it's only 20-30 mins of 'exclusive' play, but we make an effort to do it every time. Also, people not in either team can play the following game and all the other games are just random throw-ins.

Sorry, wordy response (again).

PS - we'll also need to do re-seeding soon to see where Neil fits into the scheme of things.

we could re-seed each week for a final game of the night - 6 top players of the session. might take more mental arithmatic than i could manage though.....

Just have a B'ham tourney. You've got 4 teams...

why not bring stationary and put names in a hat?

random teams for a bit (not seeded) and everyone gets to play with everyone else?

Then tourneys 3-4 weeks beforehand seeded players?

BACK FROM THE DEAD.

It seems that people want to talk about seeding again...

I'm for it, it gives a good idea of relativity, however I still think it shouldn't be final word ie. pick own teams if you want to as it doesn't reflect level of skill as a whole team. Technically the top seeded players should form the best team but biology doesn't always work like that and for some reason their level of comfort is not at it's best!

Plus I like numbers!

I like numbers too ...but only cos i spend a week a month trying to prove my bad numbers are actually better than someone else good numbers. It works 'cos i'm still getting paid \o/

A practical test for the validity of the results would be to do this simple test when there are next a few folk about ....

6 people play and the x people that watch, rank those playing, by committee discussion, into 1st to 6th. Then (probably) a different 3 (or so) will play next time round, and they get 'slotted' into the 'league' where the combined opinions deem accurate.

This can be repeated as people are seived into their slots.

And repeat agan, until you get bored doing it or someone breaks down in tears as they're having a bad day polo playing. It would however show up those whose opinions widely skew the end result ...i.e. in my other post using the fictitious Jess example as an example (sorry again luv) by having her voted in second position by one individual.

It does jack-shit to promote better team playing nor does it give any guidance to indicate which 3 might play best, but if you're competitive enough to wonder where you fit in the league of buddies, it's possibly the fairest way.

Reet - now i'm gonna go draw some graphs ... nothing to do with ^

Pete did the final seeding list vary much from what you wrote down?

If by that you mean, did my vote reflect the end result accurately, yes it almost did actually, with only one individual swap-round at the top and one at the bottom end. Spooky.

I'm not saying that the result is in any way not correct nor is it inaccurate, i just can do big addy ups in my otherwise empty head and some of the big changes are for the reasons mentioned elsewhere ... explained for the benefit of those who think it's flawed.

I think seeding is less important.
There are plenty of people from which to make teams and the 'top' players can't always attend tournaments (which was the purpose of seeding), so it becomes kind of irrelevent.
Also we're all pretty much aware of each others skill level. I think tourament teams should be decided informally amongst those who want to attend.
I care more about improving birmingham polo than winning tournaments.

i agree hyper.

Like I said when this vote was first done, the only thing i like about seeding is that it lets me know what others think of me, and thus spurs me on to do better etc.

@speedo I'm not sure i understand the full issue - its tough when its not in person. Is it the same issue MG said. "some people who haven't played regularly have slightly different views"

or are you saying there's a snake in the grass?

/off topic: Talking of tourneys, can somebody/people put their name(s) down for Brighton..Emm and Hyper so far..come on!

/on topic: Seeding..i would rather go with what Hyper has said, kind of sums it up for me. Also low turnouts in this weather is bamboozling my brain, what the?

Anyway..suns out..catch you later...=)

I agree with all of Hyper's sentiments above. The only thing I don't really like is 'informally' deciding teams for each tournament. The only thing I like about seeding is it prevents popularity contests/feuds/personalities muddying things.

I thought seeding meant people liked me more than pete....damn it!

I'll put money on this subject never reaching a conclusion.....

Its just like our 'bonus' system at work, complex matrix, which rings a bell in my mind. And we are still trying to deduce the problems 6 years down the line.

Off to William Hill...