MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 - 09:55:31 PM (gmt)
 
ball MSWL UNITED ① - Landing
 
Home Auctions Blog Forum History Login Rules Scores Stats Tables Teams
 
Coaches Directory Donate Guest Rankings Schedule Updates Waitlist Wall
 

Join
MSWL
UNITED!

Recent Entries

Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Mike Parnaby
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Tim Batth
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Dave Dohm
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Hayes
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
19 Comments
Brian Beerman
20 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Andy Bate
1 Comment
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
21 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Graham Wilkes
1 Comment
Jose Freitas
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
10 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Rob Baptiste
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Graham Wilkes
6 Comments
Graham Wilkes
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rob Peterson
5 Comments
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
John Holden
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
19 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Rob Baptiste
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Rob Baptiste
5 Comments
Mark Stretch
5 Comments
Jake Hanny
1 Comment
Andy Bate
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Graham Wilkes
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
David Blair
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
12 Comments
Brian Beerman
5 Comments
David Blair
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
18 Comments
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Mark Stretch
17 Comments
John Holden
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Peterson
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Allan Sellers
30 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
15 Comments
Andy Bate
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Mike Cabral
4 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
26 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Kevin Martin
6 Comments
Dave Dohm
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
14 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
John Holden
4 Comments
Mike Cabral
9 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Simon Compton
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Abe Hamdali
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
6 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
20 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Andy Bate
7 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Lewis
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Simon Compton
4 Comments
Kevin Martin
12 Comments
Simon Compton
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rene Wilkens
5 Comments
Trevor Taylor
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
17 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Trevor Taylor
7 Comments
Trevor Taylor
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
27 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Dan Fitzgerald
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Alon Atie
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Rob Peterson
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
 
Petition to Limit Youth Cup Players
Posted by Rob Peterson on Saturday, Dec. 18th, 2010 at 10:44 PM

I've long thought that SL 13+ players don't belong in the Youth Cup. The Youth Cup is for Youth Players. We're only required to have 8 Youth players in the matches, which I am fine with. What I don't like is all of us (myself included) taking our 3 best players, who are generally SL 15 or 16, and popping them in. I'd like to propose either an Age or an SL cap for the Youth Cup.

In the event that a team does not field a team of 11 Youth Players, I recommend one of the following:

* The remaining player slots can only be filled by Age I players only.

OR

* The remaining player slots can only be filled by players SL 12 or lower. Any players played with SL 13+ will have their SLs lowered to 12 for the match (the idea being that you play down to the level of your competition).

I think doing one of these for the Youth Cup will make the Youth Development much more a part of the Cup. Right now, it doesn't matter how much you train up your youth players prior to the start of the Youth Cup. As long as you have 3 SL 15+ players, you've got a strong shot to go very far in the competition. I don't think that's what the Youth Cup should be about.

Thoughts?

Readers Comments

I understand the complaint and would like to note Mr. Peterson did unluckily draw Tranmere in the cup but from a development perspective the Youth Cup is a strange beast.

Playing at the bottom, in the 3rd division, you don't really need the Youth Cup to develop youth unless you got randomly relegated from the 2nd division and the apprentices should be good enough to crack the T17 by the end of that year, if you've been steadily developing them.

Consequently if you're a really good team the Youth Cup is a breather of sorts, allowing you to play your schoolboys in a match where they are needed to play. If there was a cap of 13+ SL, for instance, everyone would just play the 13+ SL players and that would negate the effect of the youth cup because advancing to the next round would be a crapshoot.

Port Vale won two seasons ago, I believe, thanks to 4 or maybe even 5 outfield apprentices rolling through coupled with our first batch of youngsters being trained up age I players, so they could rock the SL 17. We frequently were more than 10 SL better than the opposition that year, so while the three outfield players had impact there was a far greater impact from the fully trained up apprentices. Only the Tranmeres of the world can overcome that youth development deficit with their three superstars. Plus, then, you either have to spend CP on those superstars to keep their EL from falling, or only play them in only one other match during that session.

The best way for reform I think would be rolling the youth cup out over an extra week and instituting a group play with only the winners of each group advancing to the quarterfinals - OR creating a "Youth Shield" - but I also do not think there is any need for reform. The Youth Cup can be a burden when you are a team which is actively developing youth and spreading it out may not help much.

John Holden on Sunday, Dec. 19th, 2010 at 1:25 AM
 

Also, good luck this week in non-MSWLU matters.
 

John Holden on Sunday, Dec. 19th, 2010 at 1:57 AM
 

Interesting topic.  My thoughts are that:

1) I love the Youth Cup as it is now.  :-)    

2) Making it an SBY/APP/Age I affair is interesting.  Though to be honest it may just end up being some I/15 players anyway.  

In general I'm not sure there's a need for a change here.  I think the big teams know they need to win to be able to keep playing those SBYs in the YC.  And for the building teams, hopefully that's more division 3, they get a chance to be somewhat level in terms of SL on a given day.  Looking at the results this year we have 6 through from the 1st and 3rd divisions and 4 from the 2nd division.  Of course that depends a lot on who you play.  I guess I respectfully need more convincing that there's a problem here we need to solve or make an adjustment to. 

I say that from this standpoint:

1) I do feel like we need to make incremental adjustments over time that make sense or fine tune areas.  Ideally these need to result in minor code changes.

2) I always have in the back of my mind the voice saying "don't make a ton of changes".  I feel like this game is simple to understand and grasp (10-page rulebook) while at times I feel like I didn't have that voice talking to me in the original Olmec and that led to changes that weren't really necessary or added a level of complexity without enriching the gameplay.

3) Did I just say there are voices in my head talking to me?

Allan Sellers on Sunday, Dec. 19th, 2010 at 12:44 PM
 

I see where Rob is coming from - although WES putting in a couple of high ranking lads did not stop us being crushed in our Youth Game.

Why not just say all "other" players must be single figure SLs - as restricting them to age 1 will likely produce SL 13-16 players on the day on the team sheet.

Actually saying they have to be lower level SL players will leave most of the bigger lads free to play the other matches that day - problem solved!

It would certainly be a better leveller and results would come down to home team advantage, GPPs, hardness, and of course luck in the dice throws!

David Blair on Sunday, Dec. 19th, 2010 at 6:01 PM
 

I just think that the Youth Cup should be to showcase the league's Youth. Instead, we've got teams (yes, I'm one of them) that trot out 40-45 SL with the 3 extra players we get. This doesn't come just because I drew Tranmere this year. It's something I've felt for a few seasons now. 

Rob Peterson on Sunday, Dec. 19th, 2010 at 8:50 PM
 

I tend to agree with Al on this one. Did I just say I agree with AL? Oh boy! I enjoy game planning for the youth cup although Lewes has exited the last two years after the first round. You have to assume the remaining 3 roster spots will be filled with top level players but you do not always know where they will be playing. Some managers choose to load up in one area while others will balance it out. I vote leave this one alone.

Dave Dohm on Sunday, Dec. 19th, 2010 at 10:43 PM
 

I can understand the point, but I like the Youth cup as is for now.  I would not vote to change at this time.

Brian Beerman on Sunday, Dec. 19th, 2010 at 10:55 PM
 

I am also happy with things as they stand.

Mark Stretch on Monday, Dec. 20th, 2010 at 12:14 AM
 

I am fine with the current system.  If a change were to be made, I would say to allow only Age I players other than SBY and APP as it is more inline with the term "Youth".  This could/would eliminate the high SL Age II+ players so there'd be some effect.  This could also "force" these players into the Youth Cup matches leaving them with only one other match they could play in without losing fitness each week.  

Rob Baptiste on Tuesday, Dec. 21st, 2010 at 9:11 AM
 

But Age I players are easy to coach back up that extra level - it's only 1CP after all.

If you want to level the playing field a little in Cup competitions, give 1 extra 'Home Advantage' point per league difference to the lower ranked team.  So, Div 3 plays Div 1 and gets two extra HA, whether they are playing at home, away or on neutral territory.  Easy to code, HA limits still apply, so no overloading one area, but a slight bonus to aid the possible Cupset.  Maybe you need 2 extra HA per difference in league?

I don't believe mucking around with the Youth Cup is a good idea.  Extra games (in the form of a league (or two-legged knock-out games) just helps the better teams who would otherwise struggle to play their youth players.  And, as I found last season, playing good youth players and great older players doesn't guarantee you passage to the next round. *SIGH*

Andy Bate on Wednesday, Dec. 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 AM
 

The lower division teams don't really need any "home advantage" for youth cup games.  Typically their youth players are better because they're bringing up 5 Apps or have maxed Apps while the Div 1 teams often let at least one slide as they try to survive a far more brutal league campaign.  A Div 3 team with 5 or 6 Apps and just 3 good players has the edge over most Div 2 and 1 teams.

More importantly, what about the GK position if you don't have a youth player there?  Take the CRD roster this season as an example.  I have an age II, SL 17 and an age III, SL 13 GK.  I don't need a youth this season and don't have an age I either.  In order to make any age I cap or SL 10 or lower cap I would have to go out and sign a Sby GK or trade for one to play at GK?  Or else take the penalty for out-of-position and have an SL 0 in goal?  Either way I'm staring at very high odds of a first round exit thanks to having next to nothing between the sticks.

While I understand the desire of managers to keep the youth cup decided by youth players instead of by the massive impact that older players can have, how do you account for the specialized nature of the GK position without penalizing teams who have built up a very solid GK situation and don't need a youth player there so they aren't wasting a roster spot and CP loss on a Sby?

Kevin Martin on Wednesday, Dec. 22nd, 2010 at 8:35 PM
 

You don't.  You can still attempt to win by making one of the aforementioned options [by Kevin] or wait until next season when you have youth in the necessary positions.  If I had been champion one year and got ousted the next, especially by a Division 3 team, I would realize that the new change in place has done what was intended.  Why does everyonne want to be the UConn Lady Huskies?

http://audio.weei.com/a/36010641/uconn-women-s-basketball-reach-89-wins.htm

 
Rob Baptiste on Thursday, Dec. 23rd, 2010 at 1:56 AM
 

Happy as it is -

But if you wanted to change it make it youth players + 3 Age 4 players who will bring knowledge and experience to their young charges. 

James Tucker on Friday, Dec. 24th, 2010 at 12:15 AM
 

Think I like James option even better than any other mentioned so far. Although Age IV+ players are definitely not Youth it lends to a better chance of either leveling the playing field (no one should be against a level field of play unless he or she feels unable to coach effectively) OR reward those teams that has coached (okay someone will buy such players) such an aged player ot a usuable SL.  Allan, post the poll!

Rob Baptiste on Friday, Dec. 24th, 2010 at 6:14 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions