From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Feb 29 16:53:15 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA13177 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:52:04 GMT Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13168 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:52:02 GMT Received: from smtp.screaming.net (smtp.screaming.net [212.49.224.20]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17982 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:52:00 GMT Received: from simon ([212.188.133.42]) by smtp.screaming.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA18847; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:52:22 GMT Message-ID: <004401bf82d5$53a30220$f58fbcd4@simon> From: "Si" <dgcltd@dgcltd.screaming.net> To: "Timothy Rogers" <trogers@srv1.mech.ed.ac.uk> Cc: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> References: <200002291458.OAA09234@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The Tour Format Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:51:15 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Hi Tim, Just a few comments :-) regarding your email to britdisc To just say that the seeding problems cause most of the tours problems is slightly short-sighted !!! It does cause problems for certain teams, but also has helped to develop the top flight of ultimate in this country quite considerably. making there be more than two teams capable of winning events (gun and druids) as was happening before. Also this format has helped too give the teams of all standards closer matches throughout their whole weekend of ultimate and therefore making for increased skills needed at all levels to win the tight games. As in the past the better teams were beating the newer teams 15-2 15-1 etc and as you must be aware playing games like this can be very tedious for the better teams and very frustrating for the new teams. As for worlds being three years away I can tell you now that it does take longer than twelve months to get a squad working together As world clubs this year proved. Uti , Chevy , Catch , Bliss, and Twin Peaks, ranked higher this year than the other British teams that were formed just for worlds. This must tell you something about keeping squads together???? Also the top teams last year in this country mainly consisted of geo players Uti(London), Chevy(Manchester), Catch 21st :-):-)(Leeds and London), Red (Leicester),Soup(Scotland) , Dough boys(London), etc etc I can see your point that needing twenty players for a squad dilutes the other teams but the other side of the coin is that the top teams with big squads will always be looking to increase their squads with new players(as older ones retire), which in turn gives the lower team players an incentive to improve their skills so they can be noticed!! and then when a player moves teams he gains new experiences to improve his game!! and also leaves a gap in his last team for another player to fill by improving their skills and fitness . The problem will happen that student teams can't get squads together during the 4 months rest :-) every summer /during exam time and that's always going to be the case, as it was when I started playing for Fingers 6 But somehow we still took a squad of at least seven to virtually every outdoor and indoor tournament throughout the year as have done Catch22 sneekeys etc etc over the years, it depends on your commitment to playing and also how much funds you can get out of your uni or sponsorship from local pubs etc to help with the cost of tourneys (they have gone up a lot over the last few years though I'll grant you that). As for if a student team does well at student nationals etc??? shouldn't you all be using TOUR ONE this year as a warm up for the student nationals !!! Wouldn't that be a logical step??? And as for your Swiss tournament structure I don't understand the difference to the current system we use???? (as we already play against teams who have won as many games as ourselves!!!! on the Sunday after pool games on the Saturday) As for "having a crack at the top teams" why don't the student teams etc think about a one off friendly against the top teams or teams of their own standard throughout the year. And also most of the top teams goto non tour events. Si.b Chevy ----- Original Message ----- From: Timothy Rogers <trogers@srv1.mech.ed.ac.uk> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 2:58 PM Subject: The Tour Format > I think much of the Tours problems revolve about the current seeding > structure. > > 1) At the moment, if you miss a tour, particularly the first then > your scuppered if you want to have a crack at the top teams. I know > its supposed to be 'a tour', but there are loads of players > (including most students) who cannot afford to go to all tours. > > 2) To compensate for the fact that many players can't go to all > tours, we need huge teams of 20+ players. Why do we do this? The > next world clubs is 2 years away. Is it not better to spread the > talent amonst more competitive teams, and increase the amount of > pitch time, fitness and skill of British ultimate players? Surely it > doesn't take more than a season to prepare to play 20 a side. > Needing so many players encourages super teams, discouraging the > building of geo and student teams. > > 3) Competitive summer tournaments serve as an important bridging gap > for players who have the basic skills. Where does a student team go > if they win or do well in student nationals, if they can't compete in > the Tour and see how far they can go. > > An alternative seeding structure might be to have a Swiss tournament > structure (play teams who have won as many games as you) to find the > top 8 on Saturday, or maybe have a few shorter games Saturday > morning. Both would flatten the seeding structure and avoid too much > time being spent on the stronger teams gubbing the weaker teams. > > Tim > Ro-Sham-Bo >