[BD] Squad sizes

[Jonathan Kinsey]

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?

> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

> The advantages for this rule include:
> 
> - Increasing the importance for physical fitness

How does this help the sport/new players/unfit players?

> - Increased excitement due to more turnovers

Do you mean sloppy play from tired people - that doesn't sound good.

> - Greater emphasis on tactical/sideline decision making (in selecting
> squads, rotating players etc)

What advantage is this?

> - All players become more important to the success of the team

Equally, just the best 14 get picked and a few fillers get added?

> - Greater emphasis on all round performance

This means star players are even more important?

> 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).

> - Greater spread of high level players amongst teams (as there are fewer
> squad spaces available)

This could lead to weaker top teams.

> - 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.

> 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.

> 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.

Jon

_________________________________________________________________
Find the best and worst places on the planet
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719807/direct/01/