Team Comment on Season & League

Come on folks, let's talk!

I await further comment.

Following the Group III final at Lawn last night, a suggestion was made by Rod Nicolls for the league format that has merit. As such I would like to mention it here.

The proposal was that we use a 'draft' system to make up league teams.

1. Get all players interested in playing league to register (either as regular players or spares).
2. Based on the number of registered regular players, determine how many teams are required to accomodate all registered players.
3. Select captains for each team (these need to be people familiar with all the players in the league; if not, they would need to have 'advisors').
4. Captains draw straws (or some such) to determine selection order.
5. Captains draft their teams from the pool of available players.
6. The register spares become a pool for all teams.

The thought was that the skill level of the teams would be more equitable, that the matches would be better balanced — more challenging and more fun, that all doubles players would get to know more of the other players, and develop new relationships.

What do you all think?

Posted 2007.03.15

first paragraph deleted

As it was our first year we stumbled a bit but we had a lot of fun weekly deciphering the DaVinci code that is the league schedule until we realized we played all but one of our matches at home. We looked forward to the wardrobe choices of the fair maiden Jean (*sigh*). We were originally startled but quickly got used to the odd propane smell and strangely enough we miss it now that the season is over: I've caught myself looking at the BBQ in an odd way every now and then.

It was difficult to follow our progress during the year but that's mostly because Dennis never called in his score and also because I only realized at the end of the year that he was on OUR team:) Personally I liked the four person team as it was easier to coordinate team uniforms:)

All in all, a good year. Thanks again Rick. See you next year?

We would be most pleased to have you, and your fellow team mates, with us next season!

Posted 2007.03.15

Thanks for these comments.

The very broad spectrum of ability within a category certainly needs addressing.

The imbalance of home and away matches cannot be overcome as you pointed out, however your solution to the imbalance regarding the social hosting is simple and brilliant!

Lynn Broman

Posted 2007.03.13

Comment from another club

(ed. deleted by me)

As was mentioned, and I concur, the skill level was uneven but then I guess we need to entice more people to play. I/we really did enjoy playing the "A" player sandbaggers who were supposedly a "last minute" call. It did bring our level of play up but not really a challenge for them...YET. However, the same could be said when we play against people who are just starting out.

If a team is unable to field a full compliment of player's maybe some rule(s) if not already should be applied.

Also looking at the number of players that we supposedly had in Group III it always seemed to be the same 4-5 players each week despite I believe the captain sending out broadcast emails to the group asking who would be available to play (correct me if I am wrong on this one (ed. name deleted)). Don't get me wrong I did enjoy going out there but it is always nice to have an additional player(s) for the Captain to call on.

I also wanted to express my appreciation and a big thank you to our captain for organizing us.........an absolute keener and always, always upbeat. Also the cajoling that went on and off the court with the other teams was always a pleasure.

I also concur with others regarding the "social aspect" of the game. Even though we played I believe only once at Evergreen this season (other cancelled because of weather and no power) we can't expect the other teams to bear the cost of food/drinks. That I think should maybe be decided upon at the team level?

Lastly it would be nice to see the scores each week. I believe (again correct me if I am wrong) but the team captains phone/email in the scores of each game and then where does it go from there. I do not recall seeing any feedback as to the standings but not just for ourselves but how everyone is doing.

Well thanks for allowing me this opportunity to share and thank you all for listening. I am looking forward to the next season (that's if I am asked to play).

Posted 2007.03.13

Comment from another club

This was my first year playing doubles league and I quite enjoyed it for the most part. As already noted, the skill level was pretty uneven. Not sure how we ended up playing 2 A level men in Group III. We also played beginners on another occasion.

With such a wide range of skill, it can be frustrating all round. In Group III, we had good camaraderie and supported each other but didn't see much of the Group II players. Does make for a long night to stay for all matches.

I do like the idea of a mixed league. Although our team had difficulty fielding players, I'm sure we could have more depth if folks knew about it. I was somehow put on a spare list and ended up playing regularly. I'm glad it worked out that way as one's game can only improve playing with and against a variety of styles and at different courts. So communication is important to get more people playing. Interest in doubles is certainly growing so expanding league to accommodate a variety of levels is a good thing. The challenge is to have teams of comparable skill in the appropriate group.

We ended playing most of our matches away because of court limitations. Even so, we could be designated as the home team just so the other teams don't feel like they have to supply the food and drinks all the time!

Posted 2007.03.13

(ed. deleted by me)

Being my first year as a participant, I'm not sure how much constructive feedback I can offer.... though given that I did sub a few times last year, I hope to be able to offer something somewhat tangible.

In terms of camaraderie or having teammates cheering on teammates, last year's format seemed to me to offer the same result as this season; players would stay at the club for a two hour block. Were there many clubs last season that saw more than 8 players present at the club at the same time? Regardless of format, I believe it is a tall task (though a noble one) to strive to have players spend over 3 hours at a club. I believe it was you, Rick, that said something along the lines of camaraderie being born from the players themselves and the competitive nature of well matched teams. I would agree with this wholeheartedly, and although I noticed little difference between the few games I played last year and the season I played this year, IF the old system means fewer teams, which means fewer players (generally), which usually means greater disparity amongst players and hence less competitive matches, then I fail to see the advantages of changing.

(ed. deleted by me)

Posted 2007.03.12

Comment from another club

From my point of view, the league needed a change, so it was positive in this way and now we go forth with more adjustments.

Whether we will see a women's division next year, who knows but to make it go since there are few to fill a league perhaps we put ALL ladies in a hat and draw names for teams. Since the doubles community wants to encourage more ladies play.

Another would be a mixed (ed. see below) division? Between (ed. modified) Evergreen, VRC and Sport Central, we were able to set up more women involvement. I am sure the Lawn has beginner ladies in doubles but where were they?

The VLTC club is strong throughout their lineup and I would say it is "the others" who have to catch up somehow for now. I know Evergreen were strong before in doubles but time (age) has caught up to them.

I know in our club, we lacked communication between all the captains (ed. deleted).

I would like to get more lower level and "players that are interested" set up in a drop in format and that is where SCC could be of help. Your idea of some games between other clubs and SCC may fit in to this idea. Some games would be competitive and some more instructional.

Yes I am interested in some games between SCC and our club over the summer and before next season. I am presently instructing some ladies to play doubles (ed. deleted).

I really liked the Doubles format this year, I felt it more of team this year than last year with the smaller number of people on a team. Having less matches gave you a chance to support your other teams members, last year if you were playing last, most of your team members were gone, they had already been there 2 hours or more!

Posted 2007.03.11

Mixed Group

Talking with the Evergreen team last week, everyone there felt a mixed group might be in order for next year. Group III was for the most part (Evergreen, Sport Central, and VRC) played by mixed pairs this year. Only Lawn typically failed to field mixed pairs.

There were a few exceptions by the other clubs, when one team or the other did not have enough ladies available. But, the captains were usually pretty good about letting the other team know about those situations. And, they did not appear to affect the results significantly.

So, should be a small enough adjustment for next year.

Though it may be necessary to allow mixed players to play two racquets (so to speak).

Rick

Posted 2007.03.11

(ed. deleted by me)

• 2) Larger teams so that all 8 players are at the same club? It's a valid point - but only for away games. I would encourage players to stick around for the evening and enjoy the camaraderie of your 3 other team-mates instead of arriving & leaving right on time. Most of the players know the other teams well enough to enjoy their company, too.
• 3) Fewer divisions will not encourage newer players to join and what's a league without a succession plan.

I would like to play more away games only because of our low ceiling and chilly gas smelling club. Can we make it more cozy at the courts? Perhaps some hand-me down leather chairs from the Lawn?

Posted 2007.03.09

I thought the season went very well. All in all the teams we fielded and the great time had by all during and after the games.

If the Lawn is pushing the original format...then I'd be pleased to attend the upcoming league meetings and (ed. deleted by me) and let them know we will not be able to field a team.

I'm sure that Hollyburn has the same issues (ed. as Sport Central).

Posted 2007.03.09

(ed. deleted by me)

I think you have to get the other teams onside with whatever it is that you want for the coming season.  I think that you will find a lot of support, it just needs someone to coordinate the effort so that it represents the majority of players in the City and not just the Lawn. 

(ed. deleted by me)

Posted 2007.03.09

My Initial E-mail

Howdy all,

The season is effectively over, and plans for organizing meetings for next season are already underway. I, also, understand that Lawn is going to push for changes this coming season. They favour going back to a format with larger teams. Currently, they appear to favour 8 person (4 pair) teams, in two divisions.

I am concerned that such a change may make our participation in the league next year extremely difficult.

So, I would very much like to hear from everyone of you (regardless of your home club) regarding your impressions of the league format this year versus last year. If you have any suggestions on how to improve the format be sure to include that in your reply. Any comments on the possible move to larger teams and fewer divisions would also be appreciated.

From my own perspective, the revised format, this season, allowed us to actually field teams. Admittedly, we needed the help of Patrick and Costa and the boys from Denman to do it. But, I believe with some work, we might still have been able to field two teams (one in Group II and one in Group III).

With a core group of only 15 people (often less because of injuries) -- which included Patrick and Costa from Evergreen, and Dennis, Guy, Rob and Troy from Denman -- we were able to field 3 teams for the season.

• We only defaulted two matches all season long (one because our players went to the wrong club, and the other time both our team and the opponents defaulted). That's fewer defaults than most of the other clubs.
• We did on occaision have to have one of our players play in two matches, which doesn't strike me as being all that unfair.
• We only used spares, outside the core group of 15, 2 or 3 times; pretty amazing when you consider our small pool of players.

And, the format change also made our teams more competitive. Simply because we did not have to field a team in Group I. In fact, The Muddle Aged did extremely well, coming near the top of Group II Flight A. As did The Mostly Mixed-Up in Group III.

I think it speaks well for the format that a group as new (excluding of course Costa) to doubles, and as small, as ours could succeed as well as we did.

One of the things I was hearing from some of the Lawn players, is that they thought the smaller teams cut back on the camaderie, and team competition, that they had with the larger teams of the past.

When I look back at how our teams supported each other, how we treated our guests, how we socialized as a group -- usually larger than any individual team most Wednesdays, I consider the above a rather spurious observation. Camaderie and team competitiveness is pretty much what you make it. And, I believe we did a pretty good job of setting an example for many of the other clubs.

Yes, perhaps we did not have a lot of competition between players to get to a higher level team, or to be the #1 pair on the team. But, I believe, we still managed to challenge each other to get better each and every week.

In closing, I also have a couple of questions.

• Who is interested in playing next year?
• Who would like to go to the league organizing meetings on behalf of Sport Central?

ciao,

Rick