Team selection

[J T Melsom]

One of my players asked me for clarification on our selection policy for the first team and whether it was based on rating. I replied that essentially it was, but you rarely get the top six to start a fixture. He was concerned that without using the data, there might be bias and favouritism. I think he has a point, but there are side effects also of over reliance on rating alone, it doesn't tell the full story, it makes it harder for players to diary matches in advance, team captains might drop out of the team, and you can probably identify more.

I have no doubt these sort of issues have arisen elsewhere, and suspect that captains are generally allowed a degree of discretion, but be interested to hear your experiences.

[Jon Mahony]

I don't think anyone will dispute every club has the 5 or 6 "Usual suspects" and they always make up the top team.

What has annoyed me in the past is, I've been part of a second team, which gained promotion into the 1st division, but the clubs first team did poorly and got demoted to the 2nd. Yet, when the next season started those players again were playing in the 1st division (in actual fact the team I was part of, which gained promotion) and I was again playing in the 2nd division.

To me the club's first team should have been in the 2nd division if they were not able to stay up and the second team should have been allowed to play in the 1st division as they earned promotion.

When I raised this, I just got a load of waffle about "The greater good etc etc". Niggled me for quite a while.

[J T Melsom]

Jon
Were the relegated side still the highest rated players? If not then I think in those circumstances I'd have tried to mix things up a bit. A closed shop regardless of rating would niggle me as well.

[Peter Ackley]

Having been a captain on-and-off it's not always that easy:
-who is available?
-are players needed for other reasons (eg driving)?
-which players perform well as a team?
-do players have any special requests or requirements?
Theoretically a 1st team should always be the strongest (available) players however it's not always that easy.

In response to Jon's point about second and first teams:
-could this be due to the rules of the league regarding eligibility?
-did the ex-div2 players want to play in div1 (and vice-versa)?
-was there changes to club membership, affecting team-player allocation?
I do agree, though, that if there is no good reason to prevent it, and the team achieving promotion wants it, then really promotion (and, ergo, relegation) should follow the team.

[Jon Mahony]

In response to Jon's point about second and first teams:
-could this be due to the rules of the league regarding eligibility?
-did the ex-div2 players want to play in div1 (and vice-versa)?
-was there changes to club membership, affecting team-player allocation?
I do agree, though, that if there is no good reason to prevent it, and the team achieving promotion wants it, then really promotion (and, ergo, relegation) should follow the team.

Hi Peter - no, there were no other circumstances other than the top team (including the club secretary that made the decision) Did not wish to play lower rated players all season, and so took our spot

But yes, I've also captained and acted as a club secretary - I'm aware all too well of the issues you mention.

[Jon Mahony]

Jon
Were the relegated side still the highest rated players? If not then I think in those circumstances I'd have tried to mix things up a bit. A closed shop regardless of rating would niggle me as well.

They were J T and basically the only reason was they did not wish to play lower rated players for a season - they used our promotion as a passport out of it.

[Roger de Coverly]

I do agree, though, that if there is no good reason to prevent it, and the team achieving promotion wants it, then really promotion (and, ergo, relegation) should follow the team.

The usual solution in the Berks League has been that the higher designated team is deemed not to be relegated and the lower team not promoted. As to who plays for which team, that's a matter mostly for internal rules within a club, subject to whatever League rules are in place to restrict players from appearing unfairly in more than one team.

Premises that clubs can follow are to select the "first" team from the top downwards and the lowest team from the bottom upwards, not that it works very well when you only have two teams.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It can be complicated when the other scenario happens and first and second team play in same division. That can cause headaches depending on squad depth and local league rules. I captained Richmond & Twickenham B for some seasons when in the same division as the A-team. The main effect was that some players were able to play 20+ games a season by playing all for one team and their quota for the other team. End of season matches saw many people become ineligible for one or other team. Required careful planning.

[Roger de Coverly]

The main effect was that some players were able to play 20+ games a season by playing all for one team and their quota for the other team. End of season matches saw many people become ineligible for one or other team. Required careful planning.

Some leagues, the 4NCL being a recent example, have adopted the brute force approach of requiring two distinct squads in those circumstances. That works best when both squads have an excess of players and in the 4NCL it isn't possible anyway to play than 11 games. You can also have an explicit rule about the maximum number of matches an individual is allowed to play.

These are extracts from the current rules in Bucks which has two divisions.

14. The strongest team shall be named as the first team, and the next strongest as the second team, and so on. It is acceptable for the ranges of playing strengths (based on ECF ratings) to overlap between adjacent teams

Player Nominations and eligibility
16. Players rated 1900 or above cannot play in a lower division. The only exception being where a club does not have a team in division 1.
Players rated 1900 or above can only play for one team in division 1.
Players rated 1700 or above can only play for one team in division 2.

Rule 16 is a diluted version of having separate squads.

[J T Melsom]

My original post was prompted less by the vagaries of league rules, but by the way clubs themselves choose to select teams. I'm very much with other posters in that there are clearly many good reasons why you would not wish to be bound by the player ratings for selection, but I'd not really been challenged on this in my previous quarter century plus of captaincy. The more reasons you have, the greater risk of bias and favouritism, but one would hope that in a well run club, a level of trust might exist to give match captains discretion. One issue in Bucks as Roger has hinted is that the current second division isn't much fun for aspiring players, so a first team place is desirable. But unless a player's rating is clear distance from those you picked originally, I find the idea of revising the team on a regular basis rather unappealing. There are usually enough opportunities to fill in.

I guess some of this debate may be a consequence of the more regular ratings. I detect some players are becoming a little obsessed by their rating, without reflecting on what it actually represents and also the confidence levels that apply.

[Andrew Zigmond]

As team manager for most of my club's league teams the general policy is that the highest rated available players play in the first team and the next highest rated available players in the second team etc and this is based on the most recent rating list. However for every rule there is an exception - for example if a player will not play away I'm not going to give them primary selection for a home game unless there is a legitimate reason such as disability. Also at the lower level it is often harder to establish a strict hierarchy particularly when juniors are involved, or you might rotate to ensure everybody gets a turn.

There is some debate at my club as to whether the top players should have a stable order based on the rating list at the start of the season (which would have been the case until relatively recently). Where it does throw up a problem is when a player gets cup tied under league rules but misses the cut on latest rating - in this instance it would be pointless to sideline a player.

One thing I absolutely despise is having to drop players although sometimes the solution, particularly in mid week leagues, is to have reserves who are genuinely not bothered but will play if need be. Creating opportunities for everybody is what I am most passionate about.

[Reg Clucas]

Having been a captain on-and-off it's not always that easy:
-who is available?
-are players needed for other reasons (eg driving)?
-which players perform well as a team?
-do players have any special requests or requirements?
Theoretically a 1st team should always be the strongest (available) players however it's not always that easy.

I would add recent form to those criteria.

[IM Jack Rudd]

When I was playing for Keynsham, team selection and board order was done on the basis of TPR over the player's past five games that season. (If they had not yet played five games that season, their grade was taken for each of the missing performances.)

[Roger de Coverly]

I have no doubt these sort of issues have arisen elsewhere, and suspect that captains are generally allowed a degree of discretion, but be interested to hear your experiences.

Musing on this, I concluded that I had a long standing practice in team selection for first teams of rotating the bottom board particularly when there were several plausible choice and no established candidate. This has the point that it gets potential reserves experience of playing alongside the "top" players. It can be intimidating to be asked after the game why you played x when y was known theory or have your errors or your opponent's errors pointed out. Eligibility rules sometimes force rotation when raiding lower teams.

[MartinCarpenter]

Yes, mostly grade order but.... When there's the sort of 100 point gap that represents an obvious quality difference, then fine.

When you've got live grades going +-25 pts over the season, then reacting to small changes is just going to shuffle people about randomly. Mostly I'd have thought that that'll be rather annoying, maybe people would like it if it avoids endlessly repeating opponents!

In some leagues there's also things like colour matching, whether people are happy shutting a board down/playing down to stack up a huge score over time etc.

As for A vs B teams, it depends greatly on how the league is set up but I'm far from sold on stacking all the strongest players in the A team. There's often a huge difference between boards 1/2 in and the bottom boards in a league (less so in the 4NCL I guess), so it's often just sense to split off a few top boards for the B team.
(Especially when they're in the same division. It's been very rare for York A's board 8 to out grade York B's top 1/2 players, although we do have the luxury of strengthening vs our strongest opposition.).