NOOOOOO

you've opened up a can of worms for 10 pages of the same discussion that happens every off season

It always ends in agreeing to disagree! First person to bring up that discussion should automatically lose it

A nice idea but it seems counter productive to me. The teams that have no need for subs will earn them, the teams struggling to get games done will not earn any subs and continue to struggle.

Flip it over would make more sense, if you don't reach a certain amount of games played in the first week then you are forced to make a sub to help a game get played.

there is no problem with any rules

lets remember games getting played is what its about
to avoid defaults

every sub or swap is tactical its how you interpret it

restricting games getting played really !

the only thing I would say when 2 players have arranged a game then that game takes preference, subs or swaps shouldn't be made
unless players don't show

I've read through many threads lots of players have swapped or subbed out of arranged games

so what is the problem

apart from crap all over threads
and the vindictive behaviour of the same people

deal with that please
end of

Yeah, Craig knows best!!!

*pops head round corner..

Someone mentioned the scoring system?

How about you are only allowed a limited amounts of subs per game, say 2 for an example! Then during the two weeks you need to make an additional subs for whatever reason.... then why not use the same process as in the fantasy league it costs you 1 or 2 points per sub. This will limit captains from making more than the allowed changes as this would cost him/her valuable points in each fixture. And if the request comes from the other team then the points are deducted from their team and not yours.

Everyone is mentioning this now

I have suggested 3 per fixture, to do tactical subs/swaps, take inactives out of fixture etc.

If near the end of the fixture and a sub needs doing, this can be agreed upon by both parties then its ok.

It obviously needs some tweaking etc, but I think limited subs might take some of the unnecessary subs out of it...

I think the main part was that extra subs would cost points that he was adding on to that system

I quite like the idea if the points are kept fairly low (2-3 per extra sub). It will mean that a clan is better off subbing than not still, bit over a season it will have an impact. My only issue would be to have a different winner of the league because of the subs, puts into question if they were really the best or just more reliable.

And I don't think you should punish the other team for requesting an inactive opponent to be subbed out. They would benefit from a default score in most cases and to punish them for trying to get a game played would stop them from doing so

I think the swaps are more a bug bear than actual subs if I'm perfectly honest. Completely abolish them, that ensures those fixtures submitted are the ACTUAL matches and no subs till 2nd week unless given authorization from Chris himself. (message from him must be posted to support the sub).

That way no one including myself can exploit anything.

Enhances the teams actions as plausible and legitimate too.

It will be a perfect world when the team lists submitted are the teams that play.

I don't see the problem with tactical subs, they do it all the time in footy, and I used to take my best 5 players with me when I knew I had difficult match in my pool league.

Every player knows they have a role to play, and they know their own ability, most will admit what level they can play to, shocks do happen, but over the course of a season, the better players shine through.

As a captain of a team though, if you have a tough game, then put out your strongest, most reliable players, then there should be no need to swap players or sub players.

It really shouldn't be as hard as it is at the moment...

I agree. It's only 1 captain tho that feels the need to keep making subs and swaps and telling constant lies when doing so, this is the problem.

None of this happens in clans on snooker. I wonder why..

Should other teams not take it as a sign of respect that he has to sub in his better players just to take a draw? When I'm sure that Faust just picks names from a hat sometimes

I've seen that comment so many times 'I have no issue with tactical subs', it's absolute rubbish. If that were the case then they'd be no posts discussing how rules can be modified or no posts complaining about how I operate.

At the end of the day we still manage to get ALL our matches player, that includes the same for our opponents, no one is really manipulated it's just we appear to be getting the upper hand with the quality we have/hold back in reserve.

Everyone wants to win and at whatever cost they can do so, sorry before I get another message complaining about 'tarnishing everyone with the same brush' I'll modify it too 'most'.

The recent posts on this thread make it sound like I'm the only person who's utilising the 'unlimited subs' rule. Everyone and in this case I do mean Everyone is allowed the same as anyone else. We aren't the only exception, make subs when necessary, some choose to make them to increase their chances in winning overall, so what. It's a competition, those who can't handle it then create another 'non competitive league' it's as simple as that. This has to be the ONLY site where you'd join a team just to have some fun.

Agree we play on this site to play pool and use up time as a hobby but surely clans is where the 'competitive edge' should kick in, you want to prove your game game and play vs the best or better players on the same site.

Well that's what I think anyway, might explain why I like to try to win 'at all cost'

If you abolish swaps then you need to abolish subs too as from zantes example a few pages ago, two or three subs is equal to one swap.

I think the combination of Alan/Horse's idea where you can't sub for 10 days then you have 4 days to get fixture played. If its the case where one team makes all the effort then you could refuse the sub, i know it may or not go against you for refusing but difference here compared to Snooker is Snooker has a 'Completion Bonus' so subbing is needed however Pool has a 'Win Bonus' and the huge bonus may cover the loss of points.

If a clan gets wacky with subs then you could have words with the Captain, if it continues then maybe Point Deductions?

I don't think this squabbling is as bad as when i was Runner as i remember a certain individual match fixing on purpose (unfortunately he was a Runner then too so he could) and most members asked me to 'strip' the clan of their title but at the time i decided not to.

Same case here really with Ash, Chris chooses to keep Ash as Captain

Ash, no-one is peeved at the fact that you made a sub, its that someone had 3 opponent in one day, excessive subbing, deemed messing someone around.

If it was a tactical sub, then just put the 3rd person in, instead of the 2nd and 3rd lol.

Everyone wants to win, but some people are more honest about it.

No-one would give a jot, if you came out and said that you were putting x player in the fixture instead of y, because you want to try and snatch the win, that's fine. It's when a barrage of excuses come out when everyone knows whats going on.

I think having a winning mentality is great, but you have to be able to give an inch back if someone gives you an inch mate.

Trust your players to play the best they can and bring a result home, sometimes it wont work, sometimes they will bring home the bacon

That was a one time occurrence and they were made to accommodate him so he wasn't put out with having to alter his own online availability. Admit three is very excessive but would they prefer I just made the one then the person fail to show, only for the same to happen with the second player? No is the answer.

No one knows what's going on, that's the problem. People like to assume they do and make their own comparisons to what I've done in the past. I don't let on why and neither feel it necessary to say it. You yourself know and a few select others, i'd love to be able to play more matches, even those I put myself in, it's not my fault I can't atm. Hence I'd rather select my team members than myself and manage/coordinate instead.

Maybe that's where the problem really lies? The fact I don't play and manage instead, it's different from just focusing on the playing aspect itself.

That's not me offering to resign btw lol (put the party poppers back in the draw)

Edited at 11:05 Tue 27/01/15 (GMT)

I'll have to cancel the balloons and party sausages then

I just think its something that hasn't been witnessed on this site before, someone who wants to win more than anyone else, but can also build a team capable of challenging.

If you abolish swaps then you need to abolish subs too as from zantes example a few pages ago, two or three subs is equal to one swap.

Disagree with that comment, not if the subs permitted are restricted too only 2 per fixture. (urgent) plus those subbed are exempt from the remainder of the match.

Just another idea everyone is allowed to be subbed say 2 times per season if they are used up then its tough lol. You have too wait till the next season. Harsh but how many subs involve the same player? IF a Captain is aware of a proven unreliable player on their side might make then think twice before selecting them.

Another thing I was trying to get removed from the games is having 2/3 players in the same fixture against an opponent. This is basically getting around the rules of actually making a swap/sub...

They are either subbed out (and in my opinion can't be subbed back in for that fixture, or the fixture left alone)

I think I have made that point several times. Amazing how often it happens though because Captains have this romantic notion of giving games to everyone whilst seemingly oblivious to the problems it will cause. Even if its only minor inconvenience and frustration to a laid back player who has no opponent to play.