More Pro-Active Thinking

[Squirt]

While at the Auk competition recently, James and I had a discussion regarding the format of the draw for each of the tournaments. This talk outlined a few things for me regarding the layout. I found it both helpful and informative. He explained why the format was the way it was and how it worked, turns out it wasn't as 'unfair' as I originally thought...
BUT...
There is always room for improvement!

In the Open grade we had a round robin type format where all the teams played each other once, then this placed all the teams into placings to then enter the final "playoffs" to finalise the placings for the weekend and alocate the respective points to each team.
One problem that arose from this was that there was an odd number of teams (7). So one of the teams, 7th place, was left out of these final placing games.
From my perspective, it seemed unfair that the team whom was placed in the 7th position missed out on the opportunity to better there final placings in the last game of the tournament. (Yes being the coach of that team may further heighten my concern for fairness throughout the entire grade)

So I have a solution...

Instead of -
7th v (no game)
6th v 5th
4th v 3rd
2nd v 1st

How about -
7th v 6th
5th v 4th
3rd v 2nd
1st v winner
(Adding only 1 more game).

Please revise and advise.
Squirt.

[mike1982]

Thats a better way of doing it. Granted i played in the 7th placed team and was just as gutted not to have another crack at nelson but it was different to the womens draw where they had an odd number but still played off for 4-5th place.

Reward the team who came 1st is a good idea, so Squirts sugestion of playoff's sounds reasonable to me, the way the womens play off's were set up the top team in pool play could have been placed 3rd if they lost the last 2 games

[Bean]

Does squirt mean 1 v winner of 2 v 3, or 1 is automatically the winner? I agree 1 v winner of 2 v 3 would be a good idea.

[Squirt]

Yes, 1st 'vs' Winner (from 2nd v 3rd)
Thus adding more pressure to those top level players and teams, just as they would receive at higher level competitions.
And yes, rewarding the 1st place teams consistency and providing them with that game off before that last big final.

[Not fair :(]

Yes, 1st 'vs' Winner (from 2nd v 3rd)
Thus adding more pressure to those top level players and teams, just as they would receive at higher level competitions.
And yes, rewarding the 1st place teams consistency and providing them with that game off before that last big final.

Its not really a game off for the winner but an extra game for the other team in the final!!, which certainly helps the 1st ranked team, and it would have to be close to the final timing wise which is less time for the second team to recover and make it a good hard final.

All for the team that came last to try and prove that they shouldn't have come last, and maybe the should have come second to last, you should try wining more often and not leave it to the last game to try and sneak up the ladder.
How about we treat our elite teams as elite, if you want more games win then you get more games. As a spectator i want to see 1st Vs 2nd, 3rd Vs 4th and thats about it, i don't care how comes last really just get better

[mike1982]

It is a game off as its direct entry to the final without a playoff

and your comment about "winning more" can be applied to 2nd ranked who have to play in that play off - if they won more they would have direct entry to the final being in 1st place

as far as timing goes there can be at least 2 games between that and the final if played in this order

2nd v 3rd
4th v 5th
6th v 7th
then 1st v winner

not to mention you can add an extra game or two in there with the womans playof's and in wellington there will be B grade finals to fit in too

as for elite teams, ill conceed that the top 3 are definitly good but the bottom four were closely matched in auckland.

and lastly Im sure you are a member of Canoepolo.com if you watch so much polo so why dont you use your name when you make comments like that

[Paul]

I dont think it really matters, either way Hawkes Bay will always come last :eek:

[Marty]

Nice, you just made eventual victory that much sweeter!

[Paul]

James will back me up

[mike1982]

Now now if you wat to start something like this paul then you really should start a thread of your own.
this is about how the play off's and how placings are decided not about the final placings from auckland

[Cainus]

sounds like a catch-22, and either way you run it someone wont be happy. I reckon it works best for the top 3 teams, as the 3 of them have a shot at coming 1st however the 4th team may be disgruntled that they miss out on an opportunity on getting 3rd place. would be interesting to see as it'd make the 6v7 game just as exciting as the 2v3 as the crowd love underdog games

[Cainus]

I dont think it really matters, either way Hawkes Bay will always come last :eek:


big words for a guy who has given up on polo :D

[Squirt]

Not fair?!?!?! You must be pulling my leg!
You want to take your eyes away from the pool with "your so called elite players" on it and watch the entire league as a whole instead of concentrating on the top teams.

Its not really a game off for the winner but an extra game for the other team in the final!!, which certainly helps the 1st ranked team, and it would have to be close to the final timing wise which is less time for the second team to recover and make it a good hard final
Thats correct....it rewards the 1st place team that has been consistant and the two teams in 2nd and 3rd are required to compete for that final position, thus creating what James discussed with me = 'more pressure games for those "elite" players'.
With the draw adequately adjusted there will be plenty of time between games for player recovery. But if they cannot recover time for the final then I think "your so called elite players" aren't all that "elite".

All for the team that came last to try and prove that they shouldn't have come last, and maybe the should have come second to last, you should try wining more often and not leave it to the last game to try and sneak up the ladder.
Someone always needs to come last, and second to last, and third, and so on....that comment was small minded really.
Try winning? I don't see any teams out there just trying to make up the numbers....again, try watching the whole league not just the finals.
Leave it to the last game? Again, small minded comment with no thought. Why would any team go into a tournament and wait for the last game to prove their worth?
How about we treat our elite teams as elite, if you want more games win then you get more games. As a spectator i want to see 1st Vs 2nd, 3rd Vs 4th and thats about it, i don't care how comes last really just get better.
With my suggested format you will get to see even more games that interest you!!!! Yahoo!!!!
ELITE. Now lets talk ELITE shall we?
As for the correct definition, I have no idea. But, I would consider this as a good example-
2 New Zealand Youth Mens representatives whom may choose to proceed further into the Mens
2 New Zealand Junior Mens representatives with great speed, agility, and fantastic skill and strength.
2 Future New Zealand Junior Mens representatives - and I will bet my boat on it that they will be!
ELITE enough for you?
And thats the make up of the team that is currently in that 7th position that consists of 'New Zealands Representative Future' and that you "don't care about" and are telling them to "just get better".

Regards,
Squirt

[mum]

Here,here Squirt

Where else do elite players of tomorrow come from if it isn't from teams that are placed lower down in the league, the B grade and schools. They are the first place teams of the future or at the least the teams that gives the grounding skills to the players of the 'elite' teams of tomorrow.

Even our own men's team from our small club managed to supply a few players to a couple of 'elite' teams, as did the smallest college in the Wairarapa. Just an example.

Anyway I might not play (a thought all together too scary) but I like your idea Squirt.

Mum

[SeanT]

I've no problems with draw formats being "improved" but at the end of the day theres only so much pool time. We drew with Kaos, had the same number of game points I believe and got seperated on a 'goals for' countback. Due to the draw structure we then came 5th, meaning we didn't get to play them again, bummer, but we should have played better to start with. No complaints.

The question of repercharge games and how many etc always comes down to pool time and how many games its reasonable to play in a day :twocents:

[vish]

When I write a draw, I like to give teams a second chance if they mess up in the round robin. In the current NZ canoe polo climate, the games are getting closer and closer, the teams are getting better and better, and I think at the end of the day, coming seventh in NZ isn't as bad as say, being seventh in Lithuania. (I suppose that means I've picked a fight now, but I'm basing that statement off the 2002 game I saw, so apologies in advance, or whatever...)

What matters is that the standard of every team improves, that the standard of every player improves, that the game as a whole improves so that we can take on the world. If I could, I'd give seventh place a shot at improving their position. It keeps everyone else on their toes!

Having said that, I prefer to have extra time for playoffs- at least two lots of 3 minutes sudden death, before going back to count back. If I had to choose between having the seventh team play another game, and having time for playoffs for the rest of the field, I'm afraid I'd choose extra time for the other games. (That is IF I had to choose between one or the other. I'd have BOTH options if I had my way... and enough pool time.)

In the meantime, I suggest the players practice their catching and throwing, improve their vision and their team play, encourage their coaches to improve as well, and not rely on the draw at all, because it's a harsh world, and it has to be harsh if we want every single one of our teams to foot it with anyone overseas.

[Squirt]

Yes I agree with both, pool time may play a part BUT...

The suggestion is not as dramatic as it is being made to sound.
ONE game is all that is suggested. Not a full revamp of the structure.

The top three teams all have a better chance at making the final, therefore, increasing competition level.
It gives all the teams with the opportunity to play that final placings game, instead of cutting out the 7th place team because "they're last".

The original suggestion has been taken slightly off target (I think I may have concentrated on the lower end too much).

Its not about winning or losing.
Its not about coming 1st or 2nd or 7th.
It is, however, about - 'Improving the draw for EVERY team in the league by only adding one more game'.

Sorry Vish but your suggestion of improving and practicing and encouraging?! We don't go to training and competitions to #$@* Spuds! ;) Also, there is no reliance on the draw. If I was to do that, I would save the team the money and not bother with ChCh all together. It is highly viable :twocents:.

[Jimmy]

Probably just my pig headed viewpoint, but if you don't perform in every game then I believe you should finish lower. If you lose or draw a game which you feel you should have won, then you deserve to get a lower ranking because you just proved that your team couldn't perform when it was required.
Justice drew with Kaos in Auckland and it cost us at least one place. We did not approach that game with the same level of intensity as we would a higher ranked team and we payed for it. Why should we be given a second chance right at the end, Kaos proved during the round robin that they deserved it more and I congratulate them for it.
Approaching each game with a high level of intensity is something we as a country are lacking. We play down to the opposition (not talking about Kaos any more) and it costs us especially at the international level. The structure as it is will hopefully teach us to approach those easier games with the same level of intensity and get the high scores which will give you that higher position in the end.
That's what I took out of the Auckland comp anyway.

[vish unplugged]

Sorry Vish but your suggestion of improving and practicing and encouraging?! We don't go to training and competitions to #$@* Spuds! ;) Also, there is no reliance on the draw. If I was to do that, I would save the team the money and not bother with ChCh all together. It is highly viable :twocents:.

What gave you the impression that comment was directed specifically at you or your team? It was a general statement that I personally believe is valid at all levels. As I focus more on my coaching, I tend to talk about the process of the game rather than outcomes. I've been in positions where the outcome of a draw was discussed and affected the performance in a game (more than once).

At International level, it is as Jimmy says. Win every game. I just happen to have spent a fair bit more money travelling overseas to learn that lesson. As a member of the lowest ranking women's team, and as wanna be coach of Kaos, I'm following my own advice.

I don't think there's anything wrong with advising people to train, and I seriously doubt there is any coach in New Zealand who is able to say they are not in need of further development and education, but hey, Squirt, if you want to have that attitude, you're welcome to it. Anyone else who may find my opinion useful, good luck to you.

[Squirt]

Sorry Vish.
My sarcasm and internet just don't work together :rolleyes:;)
Action taken:Attitude refined and adjusted for further improvement.

Yes Jimmy and no not pig headed. You lose you go down, you win you go up.
With the proposed suggestion there is no change to that and only one 'second chance' provided to the third ranked team, which is appropriate for a third placed team to push the other teams to prove their worth.
With looking at this years teams it will surely only create a higher level of competition for the top four teams battling for the finals.

If we look at the final round of the Auk comp, every team had the opportunity to either prove their worth and maintain that ranking position or the opportunity to move up the rankings. That would be called a 'second chance'. But the 7th place team was not allocated with that second chance. If 7th place is pushed to win instead of being left out, then this will reflect up the rankings and therefore increase competitiveness and intensity throughout.

The suggested alterations will teach us to approach all games with a higher level of intensity and get the required scores which will give that higher position in the end. :cool:

[Jase]

Squirt

Isn’t the Auckland and Christchurch competitions seeding (practice ;)) for the final tournament anyway, where you will get your wish of extra chances as it works by play-offs rather than rankings just in two half’s, where chch’s lack of intensity really might cost them more that they wanted? :D Plus you wouldn’t want to use all your secret plays early or we will work out how to beat them.

it’s a different format to what we are used to but still not as harsh as it could be. At the world cup every loss costs so much more, once you have 2 losses you can’t do better than the top half it sucks and it hurts especially when there are teams that you can smash that end up with a much better ranking because you didn’t beat the teams in your own pool.



I also agree with vish and the level of competition has got much better from all the teams including yours squirt, as a senior men’s player I don’t want your junior team to win (what would that say about us :p) but you do have us all worried ! we see the potential you guys have, we play bad, you play good, we lose, simple.




Keep it real :cool:, excuses are like elbows :confused:, we all have them :eek:.

See you in Christchurch

Jason

[JenniG]

There are lots of reasons for and against. I particularly agree with Jimmy, NZ teams/players have to get used to NEEDING to win every single game. There is no second chance.

But having said that, if it is possible do it without giving teams at the top an extra chance, why not give the bottom team their "fair share" of games?

It means that a team very much in need of practise gets an extra game. Chances are this is a team of players that have little competition experience & they will have been improving throughout the tournament.

However it is done in the end, I think the men's and womens draws should be structured the same as far as possible.

My :twocents:

[Karlos]

Hey squirt I know you have had a bit of advise from different corners on this but as the team just above you I have to comment that firstly if you lose all your games in any sport it is a tuff ride but as a coach its not a time to look at the structure of a comp but use it to motivate your team to train harder to prove everyone wrong on your previous placing.Making excuses automaticly strips what value you should have walked away from the comp with,this year more than any other any team can upset another.In saying that they had 6 chances to make a differance in Auckland one more game should not have made a differance to where goals for the team need to be set for those potential international players for NZ.Keep your boys heads up,don't give them excuses!

[mike1982]

At no point does it excuse out placing or do we complain about it we lost there it is, but if other teams get to play off to better there position then to be fair 7th place should as well

Also the set up proposed by squirt means the top 3 have a shot at 1st place not just the top two, the three at the top are closley matched from what I saw and this would give them a chance to step up and claim the no1 spot.

As for our young guys they played out of their skins all weekend. for a team that has 4 new players to the NL They came out with their heads high and rightly so. Now they have a taste like Marty said winning will be so much sweeter

[onlooker]

It seems as though being the coach of the last placed team gives you no voice. It doesn't look like anyone has taken the time to read the details of squirts ideas. It in fact looks like a better idea for the top teams and not the bottom teams.
The feedback all seems to be concentrated on the fact that the coach of the last place team is a sore loser or something. But i take from it an improvement. It is the first year for this structure and therefore upgrades are surely necessary, don't you think? And what better place than from the bottom team trying to push all the others?
Just more input anyway.

[Marty]

While one team has no chance of getting a better placing in the final round of the current system, which some are clearly against, 3 teams (1st, 3rd and 5th after the round robin) can only get a worse position in the final round. This will always be the case for the 1st place team, but for the others it seems almost tougher than no game at all. The only way I know around both 'issues' is a full elimination round, where 7th can win (at a cost of 12 games if you have 7 teams). Since this is not possible timewise, at some point you have to draw the line, at which point there is no possibility of recovery. In the current NL format, this occurs in the round robin.

Marty