16-09-2016, 08:21 AM
Andy B: "I believe there should be a number, but the goal is to get players into shape, not sideline them"
It would be better if this number were not fixed, as this could lead to dropping a player who should be picked on strength even after taking account of inactivity. Rather, a big gap down to the next candidate should count more than a small gap!? An adjustment for inactivity could be made on agreed basis so the gap to the next player can be assessed.
Just for example, I think I remember Douglas Bryson saying that a returning inactive player loses about ten rating points on average for each inactive year. This could be adjusted to take account of the number of games played, and form the basis of a tweak to the ratings.
It would be better if this number were not fixed, as this could lead to dropping a player who should be picked on strength even after taking account of inactivity. Rather, a big gap down to the next candidate should count more than a small gap!? An adjustment for inactivity could be made on agreed basis so the gap to the next player can be assessed.
Just for example, I think I remember Douglas Bryson saying that a returning inactive player loses about ten rating points on average for each inactive year. This could be adjusted to take account of the number of games played, and form the basis of a tweak to the ratings.