I don’t understand people

Your team needs a minimum of six players, and is allowed a reserve player in case one of the players is injured.

So you start with seven players, but one needs to drop out and you are allowed to find a replacement for the seventh player (to be the reserve).

You ask the next best player you can find, but they can only attend on the first and third day of the six-day tournament.

The second-best has quite a big level of difference in skill compared to the first one, but can be there on all days of the tournament.

Do you:
a) Get the next best player as the reserve?
b) Get the second-best as the reserve?
c) Not get a new reserve player?

Have you got your answer? Well, this is a similar situation to what we had during our badminton tournament.

I’ve been wanting to write about it since it happened, but I never got around to it. Basically this year we had a last-minute replacement player into our team, because a player had to drop out.

The game format was with three doubles games, so we needed a minimum of six players, and were allowed a maximum of eight. We had eight players to start off with, so when one dropped out, I suggested not finding a replacement, and just going along with the remaining seven.

However, some other “senior” players said that it was too risky; what if our players got injured? That is a reasonable concern...so I totally understand if they want to get a replacement.

What I couldn’t understand was that they settled on a replacement player who could only attend the tournament on the first and third days. The reason for selecting this player was that the next best player was not good enough, skill-wise.

The group stage was played on the first four days (Tuesday to Friday), and then if we made it through, we would play the quarter-finals on Saturday. The semi-finals and finals would be held on Sunday. (I already mentioned this in my previous post on the tournament, so the details on our results are there)

So by getting this replacement player, if up to two of our original players got injured (which was the exact reason why they said they needed the new player), she would not be able to play towards the end of the tournament, when we would need the substitute player most. What kind of decision was that, to say you need a replacement player for a certain reason, and then select one who could not fulfill that requirement?

And it wasn’t that the thought did not occur to them. I was involved in the selection of the replacement player, and I did ask them, what if the day that she cannot attend the tournament is the day that we need the substitute player? (they ignored me, and I did not press the matter, leaving it to the captain to decide)

Another thing about my badminton team that I cannot understand is what the “senior” players say sometimes. After a tournament (or during it), sometimes they would say something like “Let’s get [this player] back next year”, or “We should get [this player] back next year”. And this is said when the whole team is there. So what does that make of the current team members? The number of players is limited, so if you want someone else to come back, it means that there is someone here that you do not want to be here.

This is not the first year I have heard them saying this. I usually just stay silent when they say things like these, but I do wonder, doesn't anyone else think the same way as I do?