Polo: Teams Proposal

It seems practically everyone is fed up with seeding now, so I'm suggesting this as a new system. I think it needs a majority (8 people) to be in favour for it to go ahead, so please add your name to the list if you agree. Also feel free to suggest ammendments.

I suggest the following:

a) Me, Fin and Andy split up and form three new teams.
c) We stay in those teams until the end of this tournament season (Oct/Nov) then have the option to stay in those teams, leave to form others, swap around etc
d) Teams can use substitutes at tournaments, but need 2 of 3 permanent players.
e) Nobody gets to be Black Stabbath - we all need new names and new t-shirts.

^Those are the important things, next some general suggestions:

• Obviously, this leaves out 5 players. Those people can form a permanent team if they want, or stay as 'free agents' to substitute for absent players at tournaments. Bear in mind that it's unlikely all 9 people from the top three teams will be available, so people can substitute *within *those teams too. It may be better to form a team...
  

• Throw-ins remain the main way of playing in Brum, but we can mix in a few competetive games (like we tried with the Stabbath v B Team games) when we have the right people in attendance. If the scene grows a bit more, we could even try a mini-league.
  Everyone should consider the practicalities of team membership - ideally teams would be of people in similar circumstances, who play with similar frequency and at similar times. Ideally you'll all be able to go to the same tournaments, and have the same aims as to how many/which ones to aim for...

• Seeding can continue if people can be bothered - I'll happily make a list every now and then, just don't want to compile it all as it would be less relevant.
  Don't let this be another dead-end idea - voice your opinions below, whether you love or hate the idea, I won't take personal offence!

I like this idea list:

1. danwentskiing
   2
   3.
   4.
   5.
   6.
   7.
   8.
   

This sounds like a good idea Dan, I guess the fixed time period (till the end of the season) gives us an opt out if it doesn't work. I'm happy to picked on a team or one of those that makes up numbers at throw ins. We might need to clarify the selection process more. Bring on grudge matches!

I like this idea list:

1. danwentskiing
   
2. n3il
   3.
   4.
   5.
   6.
   7.
   8.
   

**I like this idea list:
**1. danwentskiing

1. n3il
   
2. Simple
   4.
   5.
   6.
   7.
   8.
   

**I like this idea list:
**1. danwentskiing

1. n3il
   
2. Simple
   
3. Stu
   5.
   6.
   7.
   8.
   
   

Matt, Neil and I were only just talking about seeding on the way home from our ride yesterday. I think all our sentiments are pretty much covered by your proposal Dan, well done. Personally I think the selection process should be more informal (i.e. face to face) as we have a good idea of what the teams will be already and just need to see if they actually work well on the court.

If this is just for tournaments, i'm down with it.
Additionally we could make one wed/sunday a month team game day? 1 day Micro league?
If we do proceed with this method i think it'd be good to play in the teams for a couple of weeks to see if the teams gel, before it becomes 'official'.

I like this idea, and agree with all of the above.

Importantly, how are we going to decide teams? A players choose a B, then A & B choose a C?

If this is just for tournaments, i'm down with it.
Additionally we could make one wed/sunday a month team game day? 1 day Micro league?
If we do proceed with this method i think it'd be good to play in the teams for a couple of weeks to see if the teams gel, before it becomes 'official'.

It's mainly for tournaments, but also for ideas like a mini-leagues and a better way of practicing when appropriate. I agree with being flexible for a bit, but I'd really like to get things done and this could just drag on and on... Add your name to the list!

I like this idea, and agree with all of the above.

Importantly, how are we going to decide teams? A players choose a B, then A & B choose a C?

This is the tough part. Stu suggest just doing it face to face, but I think it would be easier by my method (people 'apply' to me, fin and andy, listing their first second and third preferences, then me fin and andy meet and negotiate). This way we can be direct and honest about who we'd like to play with, but it won't get personal, and there's an element of give and take...

Of course, it leaves a lot of power with the top three, and Matt's idea (above) seems good too. I reckon it may be best to forget about seeding as such, and just have open 'applications' and just '1st choice', '2nd choice' etc.

I think that's best, otherwise we may end up with three average teams who have almost been forced together.

Dan Andy and Fin choose one player each, then those two choose another player each, then choose a name, then play.

Easy

IDan Andy and Fin choose one player each, then those two choose another player each, then choose a name, then play.

Any idea how to decide who gets first dibs? What if me, fin and andy all want you, for example? This is why I suggest negotiating/trading in private.

Actually - maybe whoever gets first dibs on the 'b' pick gets last dibs on the 'c' pick, and vice versa, and the person in the middle gets 2nd dibs both times?

sounds good

Concentrating on something else..made out of Aluminium..

Multitasking is for fools..(men)

Thanks for adding my name to the list Danski, I dislike seeding as it doesn't account for specific talents, even if a 'good' polo player is good at everything, some people shine at different things and thus could compliment a certain double act to make the golden team. However i'm not sure this will work for me as I can't commit to regular play at the moment, that said I wasn't as shit on Sunday as I thought i'd be after a long break. Better weather means my Wednesdays and Sundays are too busy and polo has to give for now. I should have Wednesdays free again in 7 weeks time(mid June), Sundays, who knows. So perhaps i'm best as a 'free radical' for now.

Thanks for the feedback everyone - I've edited the original proposal to take account of a few mentioned things.

Hyper/Emm - as soon as you're sure, add your name to the list so we can move forward with this.

sorry - was working from my phone:

I like this idea list:

1. danwentskiing
   
2. n3il
   
3. Simple
   
4. Stu
   
5. EMMENTAAL
   6.
   7.
   8.
   

PS. This may not work, but we could try choosing the teams tonight, between the peeps who are there?

• Rather than doing deals for players, we could all agree on 3 teams we think will do best for BHM polo as a whole?
  

I want big money deals!

Rather than doing deals for players, we could all agree on 3 teams we think will do best for BHM polo as a whole?

+1

And for my twopenneth ...

I'm a bit puzzled so i think i'd like to quote the 'fifth' for the time being. Its a good plan for creating 3 equally talented teams for general sessions but thereby sentences 5 people to eternal beatings.

I'm also not sure that it'll do much to contribute to B'Hams domination of World Polo since the 3 best will rarely play with each other if the above become a rule / law / tradition / practice. Add to that the mixed levels of attendance, spurious commitment to tourny attendance and what not and it all becomes quite difficult to comment upon.

It'll make 2/3rd of games more interesting certainly but as far as planning for tourny growth is concerned, maybe then change plans when you find out who is able to attend and prepare for the e.g. 6 weeks preceding it by having the top 3 confirmed attendees whop the ass of others.

It seems to me that this suggestion is trying to cure many ills all at the same time - and i'm not convinced it will do.

So there, lots of words, i don't think i made a decision but if i'm agreeing with what you asked, feel free to add my name to the list.

PS. This may not work, but we could try choosing the teams tonight, between the peeps who are there?

• Rather than doing deals for players, we could all agree on 3 teams we think will do best for BHM polo as a whole?
  ]
  

This will be madly problematic - and I'd rather be playing than discussing. Also, there's a few people I'd much rather not be teamed up with and I don't want to have to mince my words to avoid causing offence.

@pete - I don't really expect it to mean better results at tournaments, but I reckon the general standards will rise. It's more for raising the level of competetive play in Brum. Kind of like extending what we did on sunday, when with 9 people we all get used to playing with the same people as a team rather than random inconsequential throw ins which encourage individual play/greediness. Also, bear in mind Cambridge sounds like birmingham's worst tourney performance since the euros 2009, so we are already capable of better!

As far as 5 people consigned to whoopings, yes, kind of. But they are already. To repeat, I'm not suggesting we use these teams exclusively, just a few games at every event with whichever teams have 2 of 3 there. Given patchy attendance, I don't even think that will mean other people sitting out any more than currently.

I understand the reservations, but for me, games like on Sunday were so much better than the random throw-ins, that's it's an idea worth pursuing, and this seems much preferable to the current situation (seeding). The third option is just to say fuck it and let everyone organise themselves.

games like on Sunday were so much better than the random throw-ins

Too right.

Regards having to tell people they're shite (or that you just don't work well with them), I wasn't bothered at all that I was swapped for Andy on Sunday due to me being the worst in that team, because it made the whole thing run more smoothly/competitively. And I don't think anyone else would take offense either.

I like the idea of rasing the overall play by setting teams. I found last Sunday to be some of the best polo games we have played as a group. Even though some changes were made through the day, I saw communication and team work increase.

I like this idea list:

1. danwentskiing
   
2. n3il
   
3. Simple
   
4. Stu
   
5. EMMENTAAL
   
6. LucasR
   7.
   8.
   

I like this idea list:

1. danwentskiing
   
2. n3il
   
3. Simple
   
4. Stu
   
5. EMMENTAAL
   
6. LucasR
   
7. 4ndy
   8.
   
   

I agree with pretty much all of the above but as matt said I think discussing the teams as a group to see what's best for Birmingham polo would be best and most friendly. I don't think it'll be too difficult to come to a decision that way.

was thinking about this grinding cranks on the way tonights games, if 5 players are out of contention, recruit one more...two more teams...

two more teams
everyones happy
helps the scene...

Face-to-face discussions seem popular, but bear in mind we never have all of the interested parties present at one time. Happy to try it if that's what people want, but I just thing as cumbersome as discussion here is, at least everyone can access it.

I already suggested pairings of me/dan_lj, fin/chris, andy/matt, who then choose one more each. Nobody noticed, or mentioned anything though...

One more player wouldn't really help, because a few people are very irregular at the moment. Bear in mind though that Andy's mate James has got a bike and is getting a mallet, so maybe he'll become regular and your wish will be granted. For that to work we'd need Rob to return and Sarah to play a bit more often.

6 teams would be awesome, and would definitely make an on-going league (one or two 'fixtures' each meeting depending on attendees) but 5 may be more realistic. Either way, it's up to the people involved to sort that out. Let's try and get the top three teams sorted, then focus on 2/3 more.