Proposition Regarding match size and Roster

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Something seems to be missing on this discussion...
Some teams joined the Nations Cup having in mind this rule-set that established 8vs8, that was the case of Team Portugal, otherwise we wouldn't be here, or will be in the future, if the rule-set changes to 10vs10.
We agreed upon this rules when we joined and I don't believe that this matter should even be voted if the outcome translates in one team(s) being undermine.
I don't understand all the fuss about this, teams are allowed to raise their numbers above 8 if agreed...
 
Maynd said:
Something seems to be missing on this discussion...
Some teams joined the Nations Cup having in mind this rule-set that established 8vs8, that was the case of Team Portugal, otherwise we wouldn't be here, or will be in the future, if the rule-set changes to 10vs10.
We agreed upon this rules when we joined and I don't believe that this matter should even be voted if the outcome translates in one team(s) being undermine.
I don't understand all the fuss about this, teams are allowed to raise their numbers above 8 if agreed...
Perfect way to put it. *golf clap*
 
Perfect way to put it. *golf clap*

OF

I was wondering about the expression *golf clap* so I googled it, in the process I found that it was a show of sarcastic support or disdain, but however, it is increasingly being used to mean a sincere show of appreciation. But I loled at this...  :mrgreen:

A particularly virulent strain of Gonorrhea caused by illicit sexual intercourse with Tiger Woods. In the US, known incidences have increased rapidly since November of 2009, although it is not clear exactly how long this disease has run rampant.

Golf Clap cannot be spread by sharing toilets and bathrooms or by those who have Jesse Jamesed. Font: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=golf%20clap
 
My proposition is not intended to harm any of the teams. It will allow more players to actually play, and also have larger and more exciting battles, where tactics and teamplay will have a larger impact then personal skill.

Maynd - please read the OP, there is a solution for this particular case.

"A - Consider a merger with another team, like many nations with a small player base already have done.
B - If a merger is not possible, then make a rule that these specific teams will only play under the minimum of 8 vs 8."

To enforce option "B" - make a list of all the national teams that are truly unable to field 10 players, and give only these teams,  the right to play 8 vs 8, all other teams that have enough players, will play 10 vs 10 as a minimum.

I don't see this as unreasonable or as hard to implement. More importantly, it is not harming any of the teams, and improves the tournament experience.
 
A- We don't need to merge since the rule-set establishes 8 vs 8 and we can handle that. The merger between Nations, even if allowed, I believe it should be avoided in order to have more Nations in the mix and only used as a last resort.

B - Isn't that the same of : "Games can be played 10vs10 if both team agree"?

I really cant get the point Gultar
 
Gulatr said:
My proposition is not intended to harm any of the teams. It will allow more players to actually play, and also have larger and more exciting battles, where tactics and teamplay will have a larger impact then personal skill.

Maynd - please read the OP, there is a solution for this particular case.

"A - Consider a merger with another team, like many nations with a small player base already have done."

Honestly the Dutch team has merged with Belgium and I still struggle to get 8 people, the most people I have ever gotten for a training was 8.
 
The Point: To have the "Hard Minimum of Players" set on 10 vs 10, instead of 8 vs 8. And address the issue for the teams that have a problem of gathering 10 players.

As it stands right now, any team can force the other to play on the smaller scale of 8 vs 8, even if that team has enough for
12 vs 12, the considerations behind this may vary, but the problem remains - less players will take part!
 
Gulatr said:
The Point: To have the "Hard Minimum of Players" set on 10 vs 10, instead of 8 vs 8. And address the issue for the teams that have a problem of gathering 10 players.

As it stands right now, any team can force the other to play on the smaller scale of 8 vs 8, even if that team has enough for
12 vs 12, the considerations behind this may vary, but the problem remains - less players will take part!

Ok, but that can become quite dubious and raise some issues during the competition.
Team Portugal has more then 12 players in the team, that doesn't mean we can actually do a 10vs10. How can we judge that? Am I being honest? Am I a liar and we can, in fact, play 12 vs 12 if we want to.
That's why the rules should be applied equally to all teams , creating exceptions might be a bad idea.
 
Gulatr said:
As it stands right now, any team can force the other to play on the smaller scale of 8 vs 8, even if that team has enough for
12 vs 12, the considerations behind this may vary, but the problem remains - less players will take part!
That's just not an argument. You think people go to FIFA and say that matches should be 14 vs 14 or 25 vs 25 so more people can take part?
 
arsenic_vengeur said:
Then it should go to 10 vs 10 after first group stages, when Portugal Austria and Slovenia will very probably be eliminated, and when the best teams will be selected.
Apart from Portugal both Austria and Slovenia are merged with other countries into NC teams :wink:
And what if one of those teams(maybe all of them)progress to the next stage?Kick them out?Force them to play 10vs10?In my opinion why complicate already pretty decent rules.Also there is always an option to make a poll for captains to vote.And lets be honest,from what i read here it will be landslide(i could be wrong though :wink:) victory for 8vs8 as minimum.
 
captain lust said:
Gulatr said:
As it stands right now, any team can force the other to play on the smaller scale of 8 vs 8, even if that team has enough for
12 vs 12, the considerations behind this may vary, but the problem remains - less players will take part!
That's just not an argument. You think people go to FIFA and say that matches should be 14 vs 14 or 25 vs 25 so more people can take part?
Honestly, Lust pretty much has it right.

In my opinion, this seems like a personal crusade. I would support a rule change if there was a logical problem with a pre-existing rule, but there really doesn't seem to be one aside from your subjective opinion on it being more "fun." Honestly, your logic can beg the question: why not make it 25v25 while we're at it?

I think enough people have voiced enough opposition, and I believe 8v8 is a nice compromise. You have the part of the rules which allows both teams to play more players if they'd like.

So, for the last time: no.
 
This proposal won't happen mostly for the reasons already listed.

The state of play at higher numbers tends to encourage things which I don't really think are conducive to a decent match, most especially due to the ease of forcing draws with just one player left, or similar situations.
 
arsenic_vengeur said:
Then it should go to 10 vs 10 after first group stages, when Portugal Austria and Slovenia will very probably be eliminated, and when the best teams will be selected.

Probably...your argument its utterly depressing,without logic and sad.
 
Alex_C said:
This proposal won't happen mostly for the reasons already listed.

Then I see the matter closed.

I still hope that teams will try to field as many players as they can, so that fewer players will have to be on the bench.

See you on the Field of Battle!  :grin:
 
Gulatr said:
As it stands right now, any team can force the other to play on the smaller scale of 8 vs 8, even if that team has enough for 12 vs 12

This is a possibility, but I do not think it will prove to be a common occurrence.

the considerations behind this may vary, but the problem remains - less players will take part!

Conjecture. You assume a conclusion based on a possibility, rather than a probability.

Alex_C said:
This proposal won't happen mostly for the reasons already listed.

Huzzah!
 
The major premise also has some other flaws. The OP's argument is based entirely around the idea that more people is more fun, which and since fun is different for every person, it's unfair to make rules catering to one persons opinion of fun and assume everyone else will feel the same way
 
Mr.X said:
The major premise also has some other flaws. The OP's argument is based entirely around the idea that more people is more fun, which and since fun is different for every person, it's unfair to make rules catering to one persons opinion of fun and assume everyone else will feel the same way
You might find it less fun to play 10vs10 compared to 8vs8, and I dont criticize your point.
But you forget that 10 vs 10 = 4 more guys on the field, and these 4 guys actually have fun, rather than being on a bench.

So yes 10 vs 10 = more fun.
 
Maybe if the russians want 'more fun' they could drop some of their non-russian players and allow more russians to have 'more fun'!
 
sammac said:
Maybe if the Russians want 'more fun' they could drop some of their non-russian players and allow more Russians to have 'more fun'!

It is sad to see such destructive comments in this discussion.

If you want to have a "Friendly Chat" on TS, to clear some issues, your are welcome to contact me via PM. But please avoid such sarcastic remarks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom