[BD] Squad Sizes

[Dave Grayson]

Hi J,

Thanks for the gravitas...

I believe I've already mentioned that I have nothing against superteams,
think they are inevitable and indeed support them.  I am certainly proud to
be vehemently opposed to the geo rules that thankfully seem to have faded
from memory.

While I dont mind top players moving to top clubs, I do think there should
be a limit on the volume of players in an attempt to level the playing field
a bit. I think this would have a knock-on effect of bringing teams closer
together in standard without diluting the quality very much at all.

Suppose the rules were to be brought in for nationals (and I dont suggest
they should be, remember this is an international change I am suggesting,
but it will do for demo purposes).  Immediately Clapham 2, Fire 2, Leeds,
Fusion West, EMO would all be likely to benefit as top players are released,
and there would be knock on effects down the chain. The top teams would
probably remain at the same standard they currently are, but the next wave
of teams would get better, so the gap would close. Yes there would be fewer
players sharing the glory at the end of the tournament but I dont see that
as a big civil rights issue.

As for football seeing the need for more players off the bench, I'm a bit
confused. I seem to remember when Sven played 22 players in a match it
wasn't very popular. Last I saw, football allowed 3 subs per match, though
yes they can be chosen from a squad. I'm not sure your idea of unlimited
subs in football would work that well but I'm happy for you to suggest they
try it out.

The aim of my rule is to standardise a part of the sport that I think is
currently having a negative effect on the competitiveness of the sport.

What's the aim of the rule to have unlimited team sizes and unlimited squad
rostors?

Dave.

PS.  Please don't forget Team Dave ffrom my Ultimate CV, it's currently my
top priority for the season, and being a superteam it helps your argument...



2008/7/9 Jaimie Cross <jaimiex at gmail.com>:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>