You are reading a single comment by @MAT and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@MAT
Not wanting to repeat myself from Brighton thread...
I really liked timed games w/ unltd goals. 15 mins felt like a good game length. 10 mins is too short. 20 mins max with a 1 min break for end changes (take on water, opportunity for a game reset) could be the perfect time length for later games in double elim.
I do appreciate that there were some big score lines which weren't nice to be on the receiving end of. But unfortunately, when a team starts conceding goals, most then start pushing 3 up to get something out of the game, only then to be more exposed and get scored on again and again, making the score line escalate beyond saving.
For a weaker team, I still think more can be learnt from being on court for a longer set period and get thrashed vs a quick first to 5 beating. More court time the better - for both teams.
But most importantly its about approach. Too many times I saw teams drop their heads this weekend after going say 3 goals behind. This only made their situation worse. With unltd goals there's more of an opportunity to pull the game back round. Some teams did (exciting for spectators), others let the score line get the better of them.
Overall, when teams were closely matched, unltd goals made the game more dynamic. This was more noticeable when time went to 15 mins vs 8 mins. Teams had the chance to change tempo and apply different tactics based on the score line and time remaining. It made games more intense to play in as well as watch.
I'd like to see this format tested more.
First to 5 makes no sense to me - never has. Just think of all the goals you could have scored?