Increasing squad sizes in Northern Premier......
Moderator: Moderators
Forum rules
Before posting on the forum please ensure you read the Board Wide Rules
A full list of men's rules can be found here
Before posting on the forum please ensure you read the Board Wide Rules
A full list of men's rules can be found here
Increasing squad sizes in Northern Premier......
So what are your thoughts???
-
UKLacrosse
- Posts: 747
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:44 pm
- gender: Male
Can't understand the objections.
Look at the logic and the facts - how many clubs have found themselves short on the lower team and cancel/ concede?
Example - a club experience I saw happen where they fielded 4 teams and struggled to have 13 in each, eventually the lower team gets dropped because some players getting fed up not getting games, then the process repeats itself on the next team. If you had squads of 'up to 16' then that club would have been far more comfortable fielding 3 teams instead of overstretching themselves with 4. It also gives clubs the chance to blood younger less experienced players in higher teams without really weakening them.
Where's the logical argument against it?
Look at the logic and the facts - how many clubs have found themselves short on the lower team and cancel/ concede?
Example - a club experience I saw happen where they fielded 4 teams and struggled to have 13 in each, eventually the lower team gets dropped because some players getting fed up not getting games, then the process repeats itself on the next team. If you had squads of 'up to 16' then that club would have been far more comfortable fielding 3 teams instead of overstretching themselves with 4. It also gives clubs the chance to blood younger less experienced players in higher teams without really weakening them.
Where's the logical argument against it?
-
cheekylaxstuff
- Moderator
- Posts: 3860
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:41 am
- gender: Male
-
UKLaxfan
- Moderator
- Posts: 4109
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 1:36 pm
- gender: Male
- Location: Heaton Moor, Stockport
- Contact:
The Aussie State League play with 16 on a team, so it would bring us in line with them.
Increasing numbers though doesn't automatically increase the speed of the game. It just means 6 players will be on the bench at anytime.
Some clubs have had problems with some players not getting enough gametime, who wants to sit on the bench for 60% of a game?
Anyone who has coached large squads will tell you that running the bench is a tricky job, ideally everyone on the field runs flat out for short shifts and then they come off to let someone else run flat out. In reality players want to stay on as long as possible and complain of not getting into the game if they are continually subbed.
There is a culture change needed to play in squads, the intensity on the field has to be a lot higher to get the benefit, otherwise you are just playing less lacrosse on a Saturday.
I remember going from 10 to 13 players and a lot of players thought it was a backward step as you didn't have to be as fit, as you could go have a rest when you were tired.
The weather is not ideal either for large squads for League games, playing on tour in summer is fine being on the bench but January/February is no fun if you're not getting much game time.
Overall though, I think having upto 16 players is a good idea, as clubs can manage it how they want, but it will benefit the stronger clubs more as they have the depth of talent and more juniors filling in the lower teams.
UKLF
Increasing numbers though doesn't automatically increase the speed of the game. It just means 6 players will be on the bench at anytime.
Some clubs have had problems with some players not getting enough gametime, who wants to sit on the bench for 60% of a game?
Anyone who has coached large squads will tell you that running the bench is a tricky job, ideally everyone on the field runs flat out for short shifts and then they come off to let someone else run flat out. In reality players want to stay on as long as possible and complain of not getting into the game if they are continually subbed.
There is a culture change needed to play in squads, the intensity on the field has to be a lot higher to get the benefit, otherwise you are just playing less lacrosse on a Saturday.
I remember going from 10 to 13 players and a lot of players thought it was a backward step as you didn't have to be as fit, as you could go have a rest when you were tired.
The weather is not ideal either for large squads for League games, playing on tour in summer is fine being on the bench but January/February is no fun if you're not getting much game time.
Overall though, I think having upto 16 players is a good idea, as clubs can manage it how they want, but it will benefit the stronger clubs more as they have the depth of talent and more juniors filling in the lower teams.
UKLF
-
UKLaxfan
- Moderator
- Posts: 4109
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 1:36 pm
- gender: Male
- Location: Heaton Moor, Stockport
- Contact:
The people who are most likely against it are the players.
If you are on a club 1st team of 13 you will get less playing time on a Saturday if there is a 1st team of 16.
I don't expect people to post on here saying "I want more gametime". There may well be benefits to the National Team, the bigger clubs and players not currently on club 1st teams, but not everyone will be better off.
UKLF
If you are on a club 1st team of 13 you will get less playing time on a Saturday if there is a 1st team of 16.
I don't expect people to post on here saying "I want more gametime". There may well be benefits to the National Team, the bigger clubs and players not currently on club 1st teams, but not everyone will be better off.
UKLF
I WANT MORE GAMETIME
we play one game a week and maybe train for an hour more players would be less gametime and players would get annoyed and maybe not play anymore.
Plus watching some idiot who doesn't quite make the grade running around while u take a seat for a while would piss people off and that extra player probably wouldn't even get on other than in the games where it was a walkover so they'd be demoralised by watching all the time.
best practice is playing in a game so the system at the moment works well, everyone gets lots of gametime and improves while moving up toward the 1st team rather than being sat on the bench watching the 1st team.
we play one game a week and maybe train for an hour more players would be less gametime and players would get annoyed and maybe not play anymore.
Plus watching some idiot who doesn't quite make the grade running around while u take a seat for a while would piss people off and that extra player probably wouldn't even get on other than in the games where it was a walkover so they'd be demoralised by watching all the time.
best practice is playing in a game so the system at the moment works well, everyone gets lots of gametime and improves while moving up toward the 1st team rather than being sat on the bench watching the 1st team.
just because you can have 16 doesn't mean that you have to right!
if clubs feel they have 14 players that can play at the top level then choose 14 players if you feel you only 13 then stick with the 13!
i think it is a good idea, U-19s is 16 players so why not make seniors 16 players!
so i choose yes to the 16 dressed players!
if clubs feel they have 14 players that can play at the top level then choose 14 players if you feel you only 13 then stick with the 13!
i think it is a good idea, U-19s is 16 players so why not make seniors 16 players!
so i choose yes to the 16 dressed players!
Its a topic that will make people think but 16 players is good as you have the option to have more fresh legs...
Imagine turning up to play the top team in the prem and they have 16 man squad... you have 13 on the bench. how tired are you going to be to work at the game.
Your shooting yourself in the foot really... Midfielders need a short rest 6 players could be a long time to rest but the game is that fast the change over time could be minimal if people knew when to get off the pitch.....
I vote for leave things the way they are. the rules are set and changing them just messes around with our game more...
Imagine turning up to play the top team in the prem and they have 16 man squad... you have 13 on the bench. how tired are you going to be to work at the game.
Your shooting yourself in the foot really... Midfielders need a short rest 6 players could be a long time to rest but the game is that fast the change over time could be minimal if people knew when to get off the pitch.....
I vote for leave things the way they are. the rules are set and changing them just messes around with our game more...
-
Mr.Stanford
- Moderator
- Posts: 3957
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:54 am
- gender: Male
- Location: South Wales
- Contact:
and you could always have a ranking system. Where by each player is ranked in terms of importance to be on the pitch. And if there is someone ranked lower than you ahead of you in the que, then they can step aside for you... assuming your recovered and want to get on. Then the only thing overiding this ranking system would be the coach who may spot a player having a bad game!
Hitchin
Tros ryddid gollasant eu gwaed
Tros ryddid gollasant eu gwaed
Lots of debate. 
There are pros and cons but think about it......how amny times have you had 13 guys and one gets hurt, one guy is trying to fix the one stick he has. You are left with 1 sub, what if you are attacking and the 13th guy is a long stick middie?
So people talk about not wanting to be the 16th guy......so work at your game and make the starting line up. Don't like sitting on the bench......you are a main player at your club team and make a national squad but on a 23 man squad.....you are the 23rd!
There are pros and cons but think about it......how amny times have you had 13 guys and one gets hurt, one guy is trying to fix the one stick he has. You are left with 1 sub, what if you are attacking and the 13th guy is a long stick middie?
So people talk about not wanting to be the 16th guy......so work at your game and make the starting line up. Don't like sitting on the bench......you are a main player at your club team and make a national squad but on a 23 man squad.....you are the 23rd!
-
davidmcculloch81
- Moderator
- Posts: 2070
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:45 pm
- gender: Male
-
davidmcculloch81
- Moderator
- Posts: 2070
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:45 pm
- gender: Male
Purely selfish reasons. Good topic this one. Usually I've got a pretty good idea either way on these polls but I can't really make my mind up on this one.
For a start I can't really understand why it would be good for club numbers. We at Boardman only have two teams and sometimes struggle to put out 26 senior players.
If we played 16 on our first team, I'm pretty sure that our A-Team wouldn't be able to field a team some weeks. This is a club problem and in no way should affect any decision but it's another reason for me to say no.
Also I love playing this game and would do every single day if I had the time/people to play with/money for floodlights etc but the fact is (as I think that Mr Foster has already said) we only get to play for 80 minutes a week. I want to play for all of these 80 minutes, even if I'm knackered. That may be hard to undestand for the good of the team etc. But as soon as I go off I want to get straight back on again. I hate watching.
Obviously having a larger squad size would improve the game as players become more specialised (think that guy who runs on the pitch in an American Football game just to kick the ball) and you get to work on the specifics of your game. But I think that there just aren't enough players in the country to do that at the moment and I'm not just speaking of Boardman.
The initial objective is to build the profile of the game (read Oldman's brilliant assessment of current coverage on another thread) in this country to establish the player base. Once that is the case there is inevitably more competition for places. People train more to get into their team (maybe every day) and players become more specialised. Then you can increase squad sizes to cater for demand and hey presto the standard goes up.
For a start I can't really understand why it would be good for club numbers. We at Boardman only have two teams and sometimes struggle to put out 26 senior players.
If we played 16 on our first team, I'm pretty sure that our A-Team wouldn't be able to field a team some weeks. This is a club problem and in no way should affect any decision but it's another reason for me to say no.
Also I love playing this game and would do every single day if I had the time/people to play with/money for floodlights etc but the fact is (as I think that Mr Foster has already said) we only get to play for 80 minutes a week. I want to play for all of these 80 minutes, even if I'm knackered. That may be hard to undestand for the good of the team etc. But as soon as I go off I want to get straight back on again. I hate watching.
Obviously having a larger squad size would improve the game as players become more specialised (think that guy who runs on the pitch in an American Football game just to kick the ball) and you get to work on the specifics of your game. But I think that there just aren't enough players in the country to do that at the moment and I'm not just speaking of Boardman.
The initial objective is to build the profile of the game (read Oldman's brilliant assessment of current coverage on another thread) in this country to establish the player base. Once that is the case there is inevitably more competition for places. People train more to get into their team (maybe every day) and players become more specialised. Then you can increase squad sizes to cater for demand and hey presto the standard goes up.
Jedi Lax #9
CEng MIMechE
_______________
My views are not necessarily those of Clarendon Road Primary School Pop Lacrosse Team
CEng MIMechE
_______________
My views are not necessarily those of Clarendon Road Primary School Pop Lacrosse Team
Monster Mesh
