Millennium Organisers

[Baca Loco]

glad you like it, Nick

And for purposes of setting up such a field one could still use a basic rectangle but set up the "diamond" field within the rectangle. As long as the bunker arrangement conforms to the "diamond" design it's not really a big deal--seems to me.
Moo

 

[Magued]

Nice Idea!

I will bring it up, and I think you can also have 4 smaller grand stands for the public. Should make it more compact and easy to watch. Nice one Baco


Magued

 

[Robbo]

Hmmmm

Why not play it on multi-levels, why not play it with a lily stuck up yer ass, why not play with only 20 balls in yer loader, why not play it with velocity at max 250.......and so on..........

Mag, there is no way you should even consider this as a field arrangement in any of this year's Millenniums for obvious reasons.
You need to have a tournament that is consistent in field design in terms of basic layout and to introduce a maverick field design; just to see 'how it goes' would undermine the integrity and fairness of the tournament structure.
Any experimentation must be done as a stand alone tournament or stand alone games running parallel to the main tournament but never part of, at this stage.

And Mag, for God's sake don’t dangle this for too long in front of Jean Manuel and Laurent, cuz the way these two guys are going at the moment, anything could come out of those two as a rule-change or new playing format .
The game as it stands at the moment, with 10 minute duration and present layout is working, why try to fix it ?
To 'improve' the game ???
In my honest opinion, I don't think improvement is made by these proposed changes any more than you could improve soccer by changing that in to a diamond format.
It smacks of tinkering for the sake of tinkering, Nick, I'm surprised at you but no doubt you are gonna hit me with all them theoretical possibilities of angle acquisitions and God Knows what else but in essence the proposed new field design is quirky and not providing anything substantial, other than being a novelty.
Just my humble opinion you understand
Pete

 

[goose]

The multi-level thing sounds cool...

... but seriously, I don't know how much "better" it would be as opposed to different, but I think there could be some uses for it.

Take last years Campaign Cup, the tournament site was excellent, however space was very limited. Making the 2 practice pitch fields - JT & whatever it was - play diagonally might have made for better game play.

I know that this won't be a problem for this years CC, but in the cases where space is limited, it might help.

Just a thought,

goose

 

[manike]

'quadratic' ?!?!?! that's just a fancy way of trying to say 'square' with more syllables

The fields at the indoor near Brum were played this way and it does help when space is limited as you can obviously get a greater distance between team starting points this way.

But in the small fields it only meant it was easier to lock down firing lanes as you only had one range of people running at to worry about. It limits your approach angles to the forward bunkers, you can only run ndiagonally to them, you can't run sideways then up behind them etc.

I doubt it would make any difference in a decent sized field other than make it easy to lock down firing lanes again... is that a good thing? Maybe it would even punish the teams breaking further?

I don't think the current field style needs changing. One thing I have definitely noticed though is that more bunkers on the 50 (and decent sized ones at that) encourage bigger breaks and more aggressive play.

manike

 

[canpap]

Pete,

trying something cannot be bad at any time. change and revolution is the key to improvement.

otherwise we would be stuck in the woods wouldn't we??

I agree with Pete on one point, you should not try this thing in Toulouse, which is the main event in Europe and has a title: World Cup!!!!!!

Try this idea on a small or local tourney. Do NOT do it on a major tourney!!!!!!!!

For example what would happen if FIFA comes up with a new rule say, offside is applicable after 25 meters instead of 50 in the World Cup 2002??

No way, they have got to try it on a small tourney.


Diamond can be good idea and if it is not, we cannot understand it if we do not try it.

It is not the same issue with playing with 20 balls or stg. Do not forget that we came from 20 balls but we did not came from diamond fields...

To sum up, try it but not in a major tourney. Do NOT modify international rules and concepts until it is proven good.

OK?

 

[kris]

problem with a diamond field is it would be insanely easy to sweetspot off the break
Everyone is in a very small area until they reach say the 30.
This would mean they would get trapped in both ends of the field and lead to a boring game afterall
just my way of seeing it
please comment if you think i'm wrong

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by canpap
Pete,
trying something cannot be bad at any time. change and revolution is the key to improvement.
otherwise we would be stuck in the woods wouldn't we??
I agree with Pete on one point, you should not try this thing in Toulouse, which is the main event in Europe and has a title: World Cup!!!!!!
Try this idea on a small or local tourney. Do NOT do it on a major tourney!!!!!!!!
For example what would happen if FIFA comes up with a new rule say, offside is applicable after 25 meters instead of 50 in the World Cup 2002??
No way, they have got to try it on a small tourney.
Diamond can be good idea and if it is not, we cannot understand it if we do not try it.
It is not the same issue with playing with 20 balls or stg. Do not forget that we came from 20 balls but we did not came from diamond fields...
To sum up, try it but not in a major tourney. Do NOT modify international rules and concepts until it is proven good.
OK?

Hey John, I am not advocating 'no' change but I am criticising 'change for change' sake.
As you rightly point out, any evolution requires change and this should be done experimentally outside any of the existing Millennium tournaments by anybody who wishes to become involved.
But as already pointed out, there are problems with break outs being easily sweetspotted and firing lanes constricted thus making it more likely teams will play less aggressively but hey, all this theorising is bull unless it's backed up by people going out there and trying it out, be my guest
Robbo

 

[Matski]

I have played square fields, with the start points being corner to corner (so nearly a diamond shape field). The field design does look aggressive, but, its not. Teams still have a tendency to break short, pair up and lock up the field....any team trying an aggressive break meets a hail of paint and the short breaking team gets the early tags and snatches the 50's.
I dont believe that a diamond shape field design will promote aggressive play, any fool can run down a field getting his ass shot off and teams will soon catch on to this and slow things down (back to boring games with teams digging each other out before making moves).
I also believe that its better to stick to the rectangle, football pitch kind of layout just to maintain the legitimacy of the game. How many professional sports do you know that use 'diamond shape' playing fields?..........None, football, ice hockey etc all have opposing teams facing each other off, from opposing ends of an equal playing field. I think that diamond shape fields will just move the game away from sport and into a more, 'just for fun', 'Gladiators' type of thing-a step back instead of forward.

 

[goose]

Hey Matski...

... what about baseball - after all it is played on a baseball DIAMOND.

goose

P.S. sorry couldn't resist