fair?

Hey everybody!
im trying out for the team and there are two couches. One caouh picks fair and chooses skilled players with experience, but the other couch chooses only the people that he knows and the people that are loud and are talking to him. Do u think iz fair?
________
Deposit Premium Forums

the way you describe it it doesn't seem fair, but maybe there are other factors involved. the only advice i can think of is to play your best and impress both coaches

kul, i made the JV team
________
POV REVERSE

good, but as for your question, the coach-and only the coach- knows "why" he is choosing who he chooses and cuts. However, if he likes to win, he will pick based on that factor. However, even good players (ones better than another) does not make a winning team. Temperment is very key.

Suppose person A tends to play better than B, but in a bind be it a bad call or simply the fact that he/she is being outplayed, person A lets frustration ruin concentration. Person B may play steady in such a case. Now, based on this knowledge, who would you tend to go with? Remember, it can often take years to mentally change a players ability to deal with losing.

Unfortunately not all coaches are perfect. or is there a perfect coach that everybody likes?

everyone has something to learn, even couches. give some feedback to people in charge. only that way you can make them learn...

Congratulations on making the JV! Sometimes what you think of a coach comes from your perception. I coach a very large high school team -- we usually have about 30 girls -- over the season, I try to play them all, but in a close match, I have to play my top players if we're to win as a team. My girls grumble at first, but they understand. It's important the coach communicate his/her goals to the team.

And sometimes someone just has a bad day...

This is what made me a believer in challenge matches. Because any player can have a bad day, the need for at least 2 or 3, made me think there isn't time for a fair and reliable system of challenging. But, with a little ingenuity and using various scoring methods, there is. In fact, this way you get to find out who performs better under the pressure of, say, a short 21-point match or a 10-game pro set and who has better skills that come through in a long best-of-3 set match. Moreover, playing challenge matches improves performance under pressure through getting this "practice" time under pressure. It really helps sharpen kids' competetive edge. And it works. And nobody feels cheated by plain, hard facts. So, I'd never go back to basing these decisions on my own judgement.

But, I do have to base the initial ladder on my own judgement, or it would take forever to establish one through challenges. Also, it's one thing to find enough time for challenge matches before the meets start, but it's much harder to find the time between meets. So, I don't allow midseason challenge matches unless there is real evidence of the challenger's improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathyk

This is what made me a believer in challenge matches. Because any player can have a bad day, the need for at least 2 or 3, made me think there isn't time for a fair and reliable system of challenging. But, with a little ingenuity and using various scoring methods, there is. In fact, this way you get to find out who performs better under the pressure of, say, a short 21-point match or a 10-game pro set and who has better skills that come through in a long best-of-3 set match. Moreover, playing challenge matches improves performance under pressure through getting this "practice" time under pressure. It really helps sharpen kids' competetive edge. And it works. And nobody feels cheated by plain, hard facts. So, I'd never go back to basing these decisions on my own judgement.

But, I do have to base the initial ladder on my own judgement, or it would take forever to establish one through challenges. Also, it's one thing to find enough time for challenge matches before the meets start, but it's much harder to find the time between meets. So, I don't allow midseason challenge matches unless there is real evidence of the challenger's improvement.

---

I think Challenge matches should be a weekly event to prove worthiness of a position on the team. It's great fun and something to do aside from practicing drills every day. Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathyk

This is what made me a believer in challenge matches. Because any player can have a bad day, the need for at least 2 or 3, made me think there isn't time for a fair and reliable system of challenging. But, with a little ingenuity and using various scoring methods, there is. In fact, this way you get to find out who performs better under the pressure of, say, a short 21-point match or a 10-game pro set and who has better skills that come through in a long best-of-3 set match. Moreover, playing challenge matches improves performance under pressure through getting this "practice" time under pressure. It really helps sharpen kids' competetive edge. And it works. And nobody feels cheated by plain, hard facts. So, I'd never go back to basing these decisions on my own judgement.

But, I do have to base the initial ladder on my own judgement, or it would take forever to establish one through challenges. Also, it's one thing to find enough time for challenge matches before the meets start, but it's much harder to find the time between meets. So, I don't allow midseason challenge matches unless there is real evidence of the challenger's improvement.

---

Kathy, I agree with you about challenge matches, although I use them a little differently. I hold challenges during practice up until about two weeks before the season begins. Using the results, and my observations, I then set the ladder. I've learned that challenges after that time lead to dissension among the players, and I'd much rather they blamed me instead of their teammates. Players can learn how to beat their teammates after repeated play, but fall flat in match situations, either because they don't adjust quickly, or aren't mentally tough.

Quote:

---

Players can learn how to beat their teammates after repeated play, but fall flat in match situations, either because they don't adjust quickly, or aren't mentally tough.

---

Good point. I have seen that happen too. Player B always beats Player A in a challenge match but loses to opponents that Player A regularly beats.

I think Kathy has a good point. I come from a high school where challenge matches were a weekly thing. I had to fight for my spot. There were the times where I would drop a spot, but it made me want to work harder to get it back. Maybe you should suggest this to your "unfair" coach