[BD] Squad Sizes

Wed Jul 9 11:41:02 BST 2008

I think, like Dave has already suggested, people are too focussed on a number he has picked rather than the principle.

The principle in my opinion is: should a realistic upper limit be applied to squads.  I think the answer is Yes.  The WFDF also think this (see rule mentioned earlier) although their rules probably don't do enough.  That is something which Si Hill can take to rules committee and suggest a discussion takes place.  What this number should be will be different for every person hence why that discussion will take place within a committee (and we end up with another non appropriate number!) :O)

The argument of limiting 14 (or another number) of players in a match to me doesn't seem to work.  It will be hard to manage and I think unnecessary.  If a decent ruling is made in the point above then the entire squad should be available for each game.

Anyway enjoying Dave being picked on so carry on :O)

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: britdisc-bounces at ranulf.net [mailto:britdisc-bounces at ranulf.net]On
Behalf Of Jaimie Cross
Sent: 09 July 2008 11:25
To: Dave Grayson
Cc: britdisc at ranulf.net
Subject: Re: [BD] Squad Sizes

Hi Dave,

Don't be so modest, you absolutely see my point, which is that our current
tournament structures demand too much of a squad/team of 14. You even appear
to have answered my argument with it.

Note that other sports (e.g. American football, football etc) have been
increasing the number of subs available "off the bench" because they have
recognised that the spectacle is improved by having specialists as
replacements. I do not think that your option of having an unlimited squad
of which only 14 can play a game makes any coherent sense, with matching
your arguments. I do not think that you can argue that your proposal meets
several criteria for bettering the game. I think you should concentrate on
deciding which aspect you feel is most important and then look at
(potentially) a range of measures for shoring it up.

Judging by your Ultimate career, Dave, you appear to have been a strong
advocate for that which you appear to oppose, namely non-local "superteams".
When I met you in 1999 you were living in York and playing for Fusion
(Scottish "superteam"), you then moved to Chevron (again a "superteam"),
followed by Leeds (northern superteam), and back to Chevron, who judging by
the Tour this year were most guilty of having a horde of young subs who
didn't get much pitch time.

Given the range of levels of interest/talent/commitment within our small
community, it is unsurprising that people gravitate towards teams with
similar interest/talent/commitment. You appear to have and you are not
alone.

Jaimie

PS On the advice of my cardiologist I've moved from flaming to
benevolent/condescending gravitas.

On 08/07/2008, Dave Grayson <chevron03 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Jaimie,
>
> I'm glad you kind of see my point, I'm afraid I cant honestly say the same
> in return!
>
> Do you think it is impossible to play a match with a team of 14?  If so
> then either:
>
>    1. Pick a bigger number
>    2. Make the games shorter
>
> Do you think it is impossible to play a tournament with a squad of 14? If
> so then either:
>
>    1. Pick a bigger number
>    2. Make the games shorter or fewer
>
> Or do you think that it is a good idea that teams have unlimited rostors?
> If so then presumably you think that strength in depth should be heavily
> rewarded and glad that superteams will continue to absorb all talent from
> surrounding areas and genuine competitiveness will be defined almost as much
> by the volume of players in an area as the talent of the players and
> coaching in an area.
>
> I see a lot of people are arguing based on the number 14, but not many
> people arguing the principle. Maybe we should aim for consensus on the
> principle first, before deciding whether it is worth heading for a debate on
> the number?
>
> Dave.
>
> PS - only half a flame in there J - are you going soft in your old age?
> Aura is beating you!  ;-)
>
>
>
> 2008/7/8 Jaimie Cross <jaimiex at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dave (G)
>>
>> I kind of see your point. Most of the people I hear talking about this
>> sort
>> of thing are people who started playing before me, in the days when GB
>> took
>> 14 to a worlds tournament and played 3 hour games to 21 which mainly
>> involved short/fat/old/slow people (or handlers) luzzing the disc
>> downfield
>> in the vain hope that it's arrival in the endzone might coincide with a
>> teammate, happy in the knowledge that the other team would do the same. If
>> this was a better spectacle than what you see currently then maybe you
>> prefer the long ball tactic as well?
>>
>> I think Ultimate isn;t interesting to watch because we take ages between
>> points and make fundamental catching errors (with perhaps the exception of
>> the open final, watch any of the Euro finals from Southampton and think
>> about how someone new to the sport would percieve the skill level
>> required!!!).
>>
>> Lets not pretend we play a full time sport, we do this for fun (!) and so
>> have to cram our matches into a weekend nationally and a week
>> internationally. If we had three days off between games then I could see
>> the
>> point in limiting to 14, but it's much better watching a game where every
>> turnover matters, than one where they are inevitable.
>>
>> Jaimie
>>  __________________________________________________
>> BritDisc mailing list
>> BritDisc at ranulf.net
>> http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
>> Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
>>
>>
>
>
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
BritDisc at ranulf.net
http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed