Announcement 131116

[bruce]

I did have a couple of thoughts Tom, but the other conversation took a bit too much of my time!

Other possible criteria for the panel's consideration; previous performance at ECs and European competition, potentially a commitment to be receptive to coaching and completing a training programme? Also, specifically for Juniors, player potential at future ECs. i.e. You might choose to send a 13yo who is slightly lower rated than a 16yo as experience and preparation for the next EC cycle.

[bruce]

Also, you could choose to keep your options somewhat open wrt players potentially up for selection being on the committee as long as they have no say in their division. Derek for example would doubtless be a good judge as long as he is not allowed to contribute to the decision in GM

[seamus]

I hope you are open to using our Euro Tour (among other criteria) as a key indicator to potential performance in selecting a EC Team for 2018.

[bruce]

I hope you are open to using our Euro Tour (among other criteria) as a key indicator to potential performance in selecting a EC Team for 2018.

That sort of thing was what I was getting at Seamus, yes. I would say that I don't expect them to detail which factors they are giving more weight to than others, I would trust the collective judgement to come up with a balanced decision

[LostMeow]

As you asked, Tom, thoughts on National Team Selection.

Overall I think this looks great. For openness and transparency it's excellent that there will be an independent committee to make the Team selection. Individuals that do and do not make the squad can be sure they've each be treated fairly and considered equally against the criteria.

Some questions/thoughts:
- Is it worth worth making clear to those who want to be considered for selection that if selected they are committed to going to the event and representing the team? Don't want anyone to be unclear the level of commitment required.
- In case of injury or other extenuating circumstance, it would seem to make sense that a reserve list is drawn up at the same time the Team is selected?
- When you say selection committee members will have 'no conflict of interest related to potential competitors or having financial interests', is that covering things like being involved in running the event itself, or being involved in a business that sponsors players?
- You say 'The team Captain’s role will be to act as a lead figure at the tournament, to look after player welfare and tactics as appropriate.
The team will be managed by the International Coordinator.' That makes clear the Captain's role and responsibilities which is great, but what tasks do you expect to fall under the heading of 'management' as regards the International Coordinator please?

The commitment to go would be included in the declaration of interest. Yes, we would draw up a reserve list - people's circumstances change.

'Financial interest' clearly includes being involved in a business that sponsors players, as long as those players are up for selection. I'm not enthusiastic about adding a long list of potential conflicts of interest to what it supposed to be a nice, clear statement of process. Even if we did have a long list, we could miss something; rather we will have a simple statement (as shown), which can be interpreted by the Board.

The manager I wold expect to coordinate the administrative tasks - payments, transport, kit, etc.

[LostMeow]

I did have a couple of thoughts Tom, but the other conversation took a bit too much of my time!

Other possible criteria for the panel's consideration; previous performance at ECs and European competition, potentially a commitment to be receptive to coaching and completing a training programme? Also, specifically for Juniors, player potential at future ECs. i.e. You might choose to send a 13yo who is slightly lower rated than a 16yo as experience and preparation for the next EC cycle.

For the European competition point (also to answer Seamus's Q below), we would be fools to ignore players' performances relative to their competition when they had actually played in the same tournament. However, it is my strong feeling that PDGA rating, especially when looked at over a year ("Trend in standard over the previous year") is a better measure of a player's ability than performance at a single tournament. However, context is important - if one player had maintained a high rating by playing in local C-tier events, and another had managed perhaps a slightly lower rating but had managed to get it there via playing against strong European fields, we would clearly have to bear that in mind!

On the junior point there, I'm not so in agreement. Not only would that seem very harsh on the 16yo but it would also be taking a gamble on the 13yo being able to attend the next ECs in another two years' time, and having improved sufficiently in that time. Trying to justify that to the (better rated) 16yo that got turned down would be impossible, in my opinion. Also, teenagers develop at different rates, so there's no saying that the 16yo might not improve leaps and bounds after their exposure to high-level European competition and be a fantastic 18yo selection for the Junior division the next time around.

[bruce]

a fantastic 18yo selection for the Junior division the next time around.

Sorry, I was thinking of ECs as a 4 year cycle, not 2. Amend my thinking to say a 15yo & 17yo, rated 890 & 895 respectively, with similar records in competition. I think that 'potential' would still be worth consideration. But of course it's up to the committee/board, just throwing ideas out

[seamus]

This is all I'll say regarding the selection process for the EC Team 2018. An objective system of player selection is irrefutable while a subjective system is the opposite.

[LostMeow]

This is all I'll say regarding the selection process for the EC Team 2018. An objective system of player selection is irrefutable while a subjective system is the opposite.

Agreed. However, until someone comes up with an objective system that does the job we need, we're stuck with our subjective one. Our main problem will be people who can't understand that.

I'll take solace from the fact that major sports teams in this country (e.g. football, cricket, rugby) are selected via a subjective committee system.

[Jester]

The commitment to go would be included in the declaration of interest. Yes, we would draw up a reserve list - people's circumstances change.

Great, that covers it.

'Financial interest' clearly includes being involved in a business that sponsors players, as long as those players are up for selection. I'm not enthusiastic about adding a long list of potential conflicts of interest to what it supposed to be a nice, clear statement of process. Even if we did have a long list, we could miss something; rather we will have a simple statement (as shown), which can be interpreted by the Board.

Sure, no need for a list, agree that it's better left open ended. Just wanted to check on those things specifically for interest.

The manager I would expect to coordinate the administrative tasks - payments, transport, kit, etc.

Ok, if this is all about team admin (which makes sense) I'm not necessarily seeing why this role has to fall to the International Coordinator? Perhaps it should be something that is assigned to an individual who puts themselves forward much in the same way the team is selected? It doesn;t even need to be limited to someone from the player base, just someone with the desire and time to help the team get organised. Just a thought.

[bruce]

This is all I'll say regarding the selection process for the EC Team 2018. An objective system of player selection is irrefutable while a subjective system is the opposite.

I completely disagree. Any "objective" system would be subject to subjective factors in setting it up, e.g. is rating more significant than overall performance that year. Allowing a committee to make a group value judgement means that the potential for individual biases is reduced.

This is by fair the fairest and most transparent system and, as Tom points out, that's why it's used by sports selection committees in every sport known to man...

[seamus]

I don't remember any open controversy/continued discussion regarding the the team Matt Cutler put together because his system of team selection was completely objective.
As an example, You can easily subjectively judge and justify Hamish Blair off the next EC Team but it is impossible to refute that he is the current UK #1 rated player. Sorry Hamish.

Or Keep the fox in charge of the chicken coup, your call.

[bruce]

I don't remember any open controversy/continued discussion regarding the the team Matt Cutler put together because his system of team selection was completely objective.
As an example, You can easily subjectively judge and justify Hamish Blair off the next EC Team but it is impossible to refute that he is the current UK #1 rated player. Sorry Hamish.

Or Keep the fox in charge of the chicken coup, your call.

Yes, it was the exact same objective system that would keep Hamish out of a current team, still a fan? The whole point of the revised method is to remove any suggestion of foxes. Maybe you just need it explaining verbally, it is a far fairer system.

[LostMeow]

Yes, it was the exact same objective system that would keep Hamish out of a current team, still a fan? The whole point of the revised method is to remove any suggestion of foxes. Maybe you just need it explaining verbally, it is a far fairer system.

You've both lost me here... Who's the fox in this scenario??

[seamus]

I don't remember any open controversy/continued discussion regarding the the team Matt Cutler put together because his system of team selection was completely objective.
As an example, You can easily subjectively judge and justify Hamish Blair off the next EC Team but it is impossible to refute that he is the current UK #1 rated player. Sorry Hamish.

Or Keep the fox in charge of the chicken coup, your call.

Yes, it was the exact same objective system that would keep Hamish out of a current team, still a fan? The whole point of the revised method is to remove any suggestion of foxes. Maybe you just need it explaining verbally, it is a far fairer system.

Sorry you lost me there Bruce, that doesn't make any sense, Hamish was just an example. I look forward to the future discussion at the appropriate time.

[seamus]

I don't remember any open controversy/continued discussion regarding the the team Matt Cutler put together because his system of team selection was completely objective.
As an example, You can easily subjectively judge and justify Hamish Blair off the next EC Team but it is impossible to refute that he is the current UK #1 rated player. Sorry Hamish.

Or Keep the fox in charge of the chicken coup, your call.

Yes, it was the exact same objective system that would keep Hamish out of a current team, still a fan? The whole point of the revised method is to remove any suggestion of foxes. Maybe you just need it explaining verbally, it is a far fairer system.

Sorry you lost me there Bruce, that doesn't make any sense. I look forward to the future discussion at the appropriate time.

[SueU]

Just a couple of practical comments on proposed timescales for the selection process - I was approached by Charlie in January about the Euros in Finland in August This was 7 months in advance. I think a number of players booked their flights in January (or certainly well in advance)
If the final decision is only 3 1/2 months before the event this may increase the travel costs (depending on the venue if course) for players

Some people may also need to book leave well in advance but I guess, as long as they know when the event is, they can book leave on the basis that they plan to put their name in the hat and cancel/make alternative plans if not successful

[Charlie Mead]

Sue's point is important. I am in touch with all 28 PDGA European Country Coodinators at present over the Team format and schedule for WFDF 2017 WTDGC as well as the BDGA Board. Many of the European Associations have already chosen their national teams for a number of events and put aside budgets in their association to support those teams in 2017. This allows good forward planning - especially for transport and accommodation. This year for Oulu all players bar 2 had flights booked by the end of January and most had accommodation sorted. Those that did not definitely paid more for their flights or could not get the dates they needed and had to stay longer.

I would suggest the make up of the BDGA National Team for WTDGC be selected as soon as the formal invitation has been received. This is likely to be a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 12 players per country. Each country will field a team of 6 players per round. This team will be made up of 2 MPO, 2 MPM, 1 FPO and 1 MJ1. So the full team of 12 could be twice this number in each division. This has still to be confirmed by the WFDF Board but it is hoped this will happen within the next week along with a more detailed look at the event and potential schedule.

Invitations will then be formally sent out the week before Xmas, all things being well. Hope that will focus your minds.

[LostMeow]

Fair point about the timing. It was really something I plucked from thin air while writing that policy.

I can see that players need good advance warning in order to book transport etc.

However, to pick the most competitive team we need to be picking players in good form as close to the competition as possible, presumably. If we picked the team for EDGC 2018 right now it could look different to what it would look like if picked in January 2018, for example.

What do people think? Where's the right balance?

[seamus]

What do people think? Where's the right balance?

I'm waiting on an answer from Phil regarding Bdga tournament sanctioning, plus I want someone else to pipe up first so I tell them they're wrong. Cheers