Machine Politics vs L'Équipe, August 2010. Photo by Steph Simcox
Assuming a 50 minute game with two 25-minute halves, which has been the standard at Bench Minor.
I'm in favor of 7 active players if there is a player/coach, but I really like the idea of a non-player coach. I would be in favor of a 8 player maximum if a team could only dress 7 per game.
I vote 7, assuming one is a player/coach- more a coach but with the possibility to play if necessary. That way there are two lines at all times and the coach can be on the bench calling the shots for either of the two lines.
whoa, we were writing at the same time......
That settles it. No other opinions will be considered. There is instant NA/European agreement.
Seattle is currently testing the amount of players in bench leagues. Let us figure it out and we'll have an answer to this question.
i assume players mean players who play on court. So i voted 6. I already made a bench with 7 players and that's a lil' bit too hard to handle, i prefer 2 blocks of 3 players.
I voted 7 assuming that one of the players was a coach with the possibility to play in case of injury or other circumstances. I was also counting on two 3 player lines. It seems to be the same Clement, except I include the possibility of a coach/sub....
Why not refer to 'em as the "captain"? A bit cliché, but distinctive. I like the idea of said coach/player being used in ringer situations as well.
For the London league (60 minute games), we went for average of 6 players per team (with people dropping off, and newbies joining, some had 5, some had 7).
I'd say 6 active players is the perfect number.
I'd see a bike polo squad being something like up to 9 players, plus a non-playing coach, with a lineup of 6 being active for any one game.
That way, if we have a World Bench Championship (something I'd like to see happen), teams can bring extra players to cover for injuries, and for extra tactical options.
thumbs up to a world bench championship!
7 with one of those players acting as a captain.
7 is good for 50 minute games but what about 9 players with 60 minute games 20-20-20. Another problem with the bench tournaments has been cancelations. More players mean less shitty subs. If this style of play is to make the sport less about beating our international friends then maybe we should really think the most about making it watch-able.
Gotta get that national game in there first.
Ideal mix: distinct line changes, thus being blocks of three. Longer games, more players, more excitement. Shorter games, less players, more polo for all. That being said, 45-50min games run 6 player teams, full hour games run 9 player teams.
I don't think we need to further complicate things by making bench two different formats.
I like the 6/7 number. 50 minutes makes sense logistically because you can schedule games to start on the hour every hour. 5 minutes half time and 5 min turn around.
I personally like 9, but can appreciate the logic of 6/7. I think in an already exclusive format (be it a draft, or making the team for your city/state/country) it's a strong learning experience for players who may not be top line. There are also players taken 8th or 9th that bring unity and leadership to a team, who may be contributing more on the bench than on the court. The strength of bench format, in my opinion, is the process. Finding positive and negative combinations, fostering a dialogue about the mental approach, coaching and being coached, the need for communication, and playing as a unit. Much more about the challenge of the process than honestly about making sure everyone's a slayer and winning.
Purely "Bench Minor" related, I think if we can secure a 2 court host for Bench Minor 5, moving to teams of 6/7 is a lot more feasible, as we could increase the number of teams in the tournament, and still complete it in a weekend.
last thing: from a coach's standpoint, i'd much rather have 9 players to choose from. having 2 lines, six players is too easy of a coaching job.
having 6 players...2 lines...kinda ruins bench style play, no? half of the challenge to winning is having to strategize when to use who and how and when, right? not just subbing out two teams over and over again ad nauseum. lets not turn bench into pairs of traditional threes. I'm sure this is an unpopular suggestion but tandem teams seems kinda boring...any amount but a multiple of three!
I think another important factor to consider is that you should roughly match the number of players on the team with the length of the game and the exhaustion intervals of the players.
This is why I'm more inclined to say six or seven rather than nine. I think hockey has three lines because they need three lines. Hockey is way harder than bike polo. Rarely am I not ready to go back in after I've been sitting for one shift. With a 50 minute game, nine makes the bench feel lethargic in it's movement (as a player). You got too many people who are standing there, ready to play.
I think we should let necessity determine the number. With six, you're in -- then you're out when you need to be -- then you're ready to go and you are in again. It's fluid and it just feels like the right amount of playing time per player.
This, if players aren't getting tired, then it's too many on a team.
To choose the "perfect" number of players for a new format match is a narrow-minded approach.
There are so many factors, such as court size, opposing teams strengths/weaknesses, individual player specialities, etc., that play into each match. Why limit your options?
Menace was onto something last year when he came up with the scheme for last years ESPI. This allows for a coachable team - one can be flexible, you can match your players to your opponent.
Maybe you have one player that just take the joust and comes straight off the court. Maybe you have one player that is only a goalie, another that is special teams.
See what I'm getting at?
I'd like to see 3 30 minute periods. Makes the game more of an endurance match, with less possibility for keeping your ringers in for 3/5ths of the game. What top level player can't play for 30 minutes straight, even more if they have a couple of 5 minute breathers in between? a 50 minute game is too short, I think.
If you aren't sinning, Jesus died for nothing.
I got 99 bitches, one ain't a problem.
An hour and a half? That's too long for a game. I can't be bothered to watch most 12 minute games. Sure I can play for that long. Sometimes I wish I could in pick up but there is a reason I can't watch a full soccer match.
Shouldn't go any longer than a hockey game.
Keep the numbers low. Too many and it makes international (if it happens) and long drive tournaments too much hassle. Nine players won't want to fly over to Europe or somewhere and not be able to be on the court for a good portion of the game.
You can't watch a full soccer match (neither can I for that matter) but that doesn't mean that millions of people the world over can't. An hour and a half seems appropriate to me for a team of 6 (maaaaaybe 7) that includes the captain. OTOH, if (read: when) polo gets big, with cash sponsorships and prizes, teams of 8 or 9 and maybe four 30 minute or three 45 minute periods sounds pretty sweet. Of course by that time, the coach won't be playing, they'll be on the bench in a snappy looking suit with cameras panning to see the look of frustration every time their team gets scored on, yelling at Joe Panizzo when he refuses to quit ripping shots when he gets upset. Then later he'll have some 'splainin' to do in the press conference with the NAH, Fixcraft, Magic, NS, and probably Pepsi or some shit plastered all over the backdrop
Polo is not going to get big unless people want it to get big and it seems like most people don't want it to get big (or organized or competitive for that matter).
the resident misunderstood yet well meaning theory junkie
http://thesaurus.com/ ... http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/
Pete, I can only assume you're not trying to antagonize here, as the "misunderstood yet well meaning" type, but this comment doesn't contribute anything helpful or new. I think we all understand your primary concerns about the progression of this sport, but we're just gonna have to do it the hard, painful, slow, democratic and natural way. Not that you ever gave a shit about pissing anyone off, but you're gonna have to be patient if you don't want to drive yourself crazy. Our time will come.
if you don't find polo competitive you must not be playing the right teams.
In defense of the point that Pete makes though, he is right that polo will not get big unless we want it to. This is a fact. Self-determination is the only thing that is going to make this happen for us. He is of the opinion that most players view this as something along the lines of broomball and softball (maybe even less than that), just something to be unregulated, cheap, and completely devoid of outside commercial sources. This is a very large debate for another thread (so don't start that here) but I think that even outside the "serious polo" cascadian bubble I live in, that most players who are movers and shakers are trying to push for this outcome, one that I personally believe is inevitable. I'm sure he finds difficult games, just like we all do. But I would rather see a thread dedicated to that difficult commercial discussion than a few naysaying comments spread throughout each discussion thread. Sorry Pete.
I'd like to see 3 30 minute periods.
What's the advantage of three periods?
The game should be broken into an even number (either 2 or 4) so that is fair for switching ends as almost all courts have a good and bad end.
three 30 minute periods is just more coherent than four 22.5 minute quarters. We could do a 45 minute half but at least from my experience in Seattle's league, 30 minutes feels like an appropriate amount of time for a team to be on court before a quick breather and regroup. I hear what you're saying about light, but I don't know if "most" courts have a "good" and "bad" side (feel free to "heckle" my "excessive" use of "quotation marks"). Either way, I'm sure there's another way around that problem without changing the format to accomodate certain lighting situations.
I think an hour and a half game works fine in a setting where there is a traveling league that functions for a season. But the format as it is now, relies on gathering the maximum amount of teams at one location for a tournament. At a tournament, with 1 or even 2 courts, 20 minute halves to determine seeding is about the best you can do over 2 days.
30 minute periods may feel right (I haven't played the format enough yet to agree, though I'm sure I would) but it simply cannot be tackled in a tournament setting. But maybe I'll try to convince the two teams in the midwest final to do this...
It seems this topic is already getting convoluted. I love the idea of longer games, but it does make full tournaments difficult to complete. Plus, valid points made that smaller teams leave less to the imagination for variation. Basically shorter games are prefered for ease of accomodation and thus justifies a tighter 6 player team. Any additions or variations in format can be left up to clubs as they see fit per their own tournaments, but i think as an "officially recognized," format is being sought here.
In any case, my vote has been changed to "7" only to accomodate more variety. VARIETY IN LIFE IS GOOOOOOD! :p
do we need an exact number? How about just minimum 6, max 9.
9 is overkill. you have more than enough time to rest with a 6 player team, in anytime of game.
while i'm not a huge fan of this format, per say, i would like to see longer matches, and periods rather than halves.
while i'm not a huge fan of this format, per say
I'm going to comment before this takes off:
i like wrestling tournaments, not wrestling matches. i like beach volley ball, not indoor. i like batting cages more than base ball. i like single tennis, not doubles. i raced in the sprints, never in the team sprint. more participants means more people to trust. not my thing usually. thats not to say i didn't fair well in madisons, wrestling matches, and little league.
hope that wasn't too long.
I was referring to Pete getting involved in another thread though.
I hate teamwork
Well, some people actually like the idea of having more people to trust. In bike polo, if you have a trust problem with one of your teammates, you can't trust half of your teammates. In bench format, if you have a trust problem with one of your teammates, you can't trust1/8-1/5 of your teammates. More people means that if someone gets too hungover or sick or (gasp) injured, the team identity won't be hurt nearly as much.
Team identities change constantly in 3v3. How many 3v3 teams have been together for more than 1 seasons? Not many. This is part of the spectator/sponsor problem, methinks. I feel like large companies would be more willing to sponsor YourCity Bike Polo than a 3-man team that has little or no history together and may not last long. YourCity Bike Polo isn't going anywhere, it's a club that works with the city and is known by the people of YourCity. But what the hell do I know, I'm not an economist/advertiser/marketeer. But I think it's obvious to say that it would be more inticing for spectators who are unfamiliar with the game to watch a game of YourCity vs. TheirCity rather that lasts an hour vs. a 3v3 game that lasts 15min at the most.
i didn't know this was about sponsorship, i thought it was about whether or not i liked the idea of the silly bench format.
Typically people try to have reasons for liking or not liking something. Weighing pros and cons and such.
i shared my reasons. the cons are the idea of pros. too many dicks on the dance floor.
I know, right? Reading is HARD and all of these issues are REALLY SIMPLE and don't deserve any serious discussion. Polo is nothing more than a hobby of ours, anyway, agreed?