Choosing position in TEAM format

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


I have been part of this team setup:

Team A
Anchor: Competent D (in USFA equivalent, no official letter ratings in Sweden)
#2: Weak E
#3: U

Team B
Anchor: 3 times National Champion, World Championship MET bronze medalist, has crushed USFA A´s like bugs. (5-0 in 45 seconds, without really trying)
#2: Weak A
#3: Competent B

I was the A anchor. This particular matchup happened 3 times, with 10-45 the closest result.

The time when we lost 10-45, it was the first team match in a 4-team poule for the MET National Championships. We did our best in all matches, so gave the other two teams to study us. In the match against the #3 team of that poule, we lost, but we at least were within a reasonable distance, so that it could have gone our way without asking for outright miracles.

How does this mesh with non-combativity, and the explicit statement that fencers should fence to the outmost and get the best result that they are capable of?

IF we had fenced non-combatively, we would have gotten an even worse result, and gotten somewhat worse indicators going into first DE (100% promotion from 6 4-poules). If we would have tried even harder, we still would not have won. One can hope all one wants, but it just was not reasonable. Non-combative fencing, if done in such a way so that it would not have black-carded us, would have given team#3 less information to work with, and we just might have won that match. If so, one more win there would have been far more useful than the indicators lost in the blowout.

So, what would have been our best strategy in the 1st match? How should rules be written so that this kind of non-combativity is not rewarded?

In general, what is the best strategy when going out into a team match that everyone expects to be this kind of blowout?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[pinkelephant]

Hi!


I have been part of this team setup:

Team A
Anchor: Competent D (in USFA equivalent, no official letter ratings in Sweden)
#2: Weak E
#3: U

Team B
Anchor: 3 times National Champion, World Championship MET bronze medalist, has crushed USFA A´s like bugs. (5-0 in 45 seconds, without really trying)
#2: Weak A
#3: Competent B

I was the A anchor. This particular matchup happened 3 times, with 10-45 the closest result.

The time when we lost 10-45, it was the first team match in a 4-team poule for the MET National Championships. We did our best in all matches, so gave the other two teams to study us. In the match against the #3 team of that poule, we lost, but we at least were within a reasonable distance, so that it could have gone our way without asking for outright miracles.

How does this mesh with non-combativity, and the explicit statement that fencers should fence to the outmost and get the best result that they are capable of?

IF we had fenced non-combatively, we would have gotten an even worse result, and gotten somewhat worse indicators going into first DE (100% promotion from 6 4-poules). If we would have tried even harder, we still would not have won. One can hope all one wants, but it just was not reasonable. Non-combative fencing, if done in such a way so that it would not have black-carded us, would have given team#3 less information to work with, and we just might have won that match. If so, one more win there would have been far more useful than the indicators lost in the blowout.

So, what would have been our best strategy in the 1st match? How should rules be written so that this kind of non-combativity is not rewarded?

In general, what is the best strategy when going out into a team match that everyone expects to be this kind of blowout?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Why on earth should it be black carded? The team is doing its best to win the match - by employing tactics which are completely within the rules.

[D'Art]

Remember, it takes a village people of epeeists to raise a referee.

Fixed.

[Mr Epee]

Fixed.

Thanks :-)

I call fireman.

Don't worry I'll bring my own hose.

[D'Art]

Does the policeman get to play with his truncheon?