World Cup Team Selection

Details of international Foosball events
Rob Atha
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2003 2:47 am
Real Name: Rob Atha
Location: Manchester
Contact:

World Cup Team Selection

Post by Rob Atha » Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:46 pm

With The World Cup about half a year away I think its time to start considering Selecting the team.

How will it happen? POTY? I hope not.

IMO most of the team picks itself with 1/2 harder ones.

What table do we pick? Tornado or Garlando, I would say tornado is a better option as most countries are used to Garlando and We are strong on tornado.

We need 7 men and 3 women for the whole team, 4 doubles (1 women doubles), 4 singles (1 Women Singles)

Just to put it out there, these are the players who I would choose.

Men,

Tom
Joe
Shovo
Rob

The next 3 are harder so this is a little pool of players who I would choose from, we need 3 more.

Shovie
Juj
Jon M
Dave B
Mike A
Rob D
Dave Z

I Would take Juj because of Experience under pressure on all tables. Shovie because he can be amazing at times and Jon May because hes deadly on garlando.

My Doubles Teams would be Joe/Shovo, Rob/Alex, Tom/Juj with Jon M as a reserve for garlando mathces.

For singles it depends who is playing better at the time, in this team we have  alot of good singles players who are in contention to play, so its not that easy to pick the team from that squad.

Women,

Jody
Mayya
Sarah

What do other people think? What would your team be? and why?

Rob

User avatar
Boris
BFA Treasurer
Posts: 9447
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:15 pm
Real Name: Boris Atha
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Post by Boris » Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:58 pm

Bear in mind that this year there will be no sponsorship from the World Cup Organisers, so each team or team member will have to pay his/her own way.

Also, as the World Championships are happening in parallel, it would make sense to pick at least the bulk of the team from players who qualify at the National Championships.

There is a real possibility that there will be separate mens and womens team events, with 8 +2 reserves in a mens team and 6+2 in a womens team, formats tbc.

Finally, which table would we pick this time?

User avatar
Jonathan May
BFA Committee Observer
Posts: 3817
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Real Name: Jonathan May
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Jonathan May » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:51 pm

It would be good if the Committee could describe the process by which a team will be selected. It's great that we've started discussing this soon. At some point though someone is going to have to draw a line and make some decisions. Will the team be predominately picked by Rob and ratified by the Committee?

If so, will Rob be duty-bound to attend all UK tournaments up to the date our team is picked and ensure he watches all players in contention? As chief selector, he'd have to make sure he gives everyone a fair chance to impress...

Should we name a provisional squad, from which players are chosen after performances in tournaments, and in a few trial/practice sessions, are taken into account? Basing results on the UKC or PoY seems very restrictive. I am not in favour of decision by Committee, because of:

1. Vested interest from many of the committee
2. Lack of tournament attendance or experience from most of the rest of the committee
3. The fact that decision by committee almost always produces an "average" result... e.g. we may well end up picking a team that contains on average the best players rather than tactically good choices...

Although currently it does not particularly favour me I think we should pick a table before we pick a team. I also think if we do this we should make it very clear well in advance what table we are picking.

What is the deadline for team selection?

Personally, I believe that the right move is to name a provisional squad of players as soon as possible who are in contention for the places in the team. This will enable that squad to organize training sessions/practices/small tournaments which Rob/chief selector(s) can attend to get a better idea of everyone's ability and coach people on their game.
--
Manager, TeamGB.

User avatar
Chaz
Posts: 2907
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 4:50 am
Real Name: Charles Allen

Post by Chaz » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:54 pm

Jon May wrote:Although currently it does not particularly favour me I think we should pick a table before we pick a team. I also think if we do this we should make it very clear well in advance what table we are picking.
This is a bit circular. We also need to know the team to choose the table. Although I do agree the final table selection should precede the final team selection, perhaps something like "rough player pool > table choice > team choice". I suspect I'm being pedantic.
.

User avatar
Jonathan May
BFA Committee Observer
Posts: 3817
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Real Name: Jonathan May
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Jonathan May » Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:58 pm

Chaz wrote:
Jon May wrote:Although currently it does not particularly favour me I think we should pick a table before we pick a team. I also think if we do this we should make it very clear well in advance what table we are picking.
This is a bit circular. We also need to know the team to choose the table. Although I do agree the final table selection should precede the final team selection, perhaps something like "rough player pool > table choice > team choice". I suspect I'm being pedantic.
Lol, there was a lot in my post other than this particular argument. It's not that circular either, since even if you picked Bonzini as the table, if you gave us e.g. 6 months notice, you'd get pretty much the same team of players involved - we'd put in enough practice to make sure we earned our place(s) in the team (or at least, I would), even if initially unfamiliar with the choice of table. That's why I don't think it's particularly important in terms of team members what table we pick - I think we pick the table mostly on the back of what we're most likely to do well on relative to other teams... and then work to select the team, who will be improving on that (now nominated) table during this selection period...
--
Manager, TeamGB.

User avatar
Teeb
Posts: 1115
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:30 pm
Real Name: Tom Burdett
Location: Leamington Spa

Post by Teeb » Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:25 pm

I think a potential team should be chosen for each table type. The merits of each considered including the possibility of playing potential opposition teams. Finally, the table and the respective team should be chosen which gives us the best chance of doing well.
Tom

edit: I think this should be done by Rob btw.

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:50 pm
Real Name: Richard Thomson
Location: London

Post by Richard » Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:11 pm

My experience is that there is only downsides/arguments/disagreements from any method other than the Committee electing a captain (who we all assume is Rob but presumably this should be ratified if not already) and then that Captain picking a team inconsultation with players/committee, with final announcement on a certain date that is specified in advance.

As Boris says, anyone interested would need to confirm that they are willing to meet the costs to get to the event. Given how crap people are at meeting obligations (mentioning no names but there was more than one last minute dropout last time) i would suggest players should be required to put some form of cash bond down until they have booked and paid for their flights.

User avatar
Oatsey
Posts: 2993
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Real Name: Dave Oates
Location: Bristol

Team

Post by Oatsey » Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:28 pm

Given that the UK champs are just a few weeks away (I think) and that this is the closest you can get to an ITSF style choose a table tournament
and also given the cost of attending the event surly it make sense for whoever does best in that event (possibly even qualifying to attend) out of the potential maybe's e.g. Rob D, Mike A etc to then be chosen for the non definite places on the team.

Basically what could be fairer they compete at that event for a place based on end result. If they actually qualify or get a wild card  hence are going anyway they may as well be in the team?

User avatar
Happyham
Posts: 1531
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 3:51 pm
Real Name: Joey 'Slackjaw Chavilton' Hamilton
Location: Nebraska - USA

Post by Happyham » Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:43 pm

I think there should be one person and one person only who picks the team.  I think that person should be Rob.  

I like the structure used in football, where one manager picking his team, and on his head be it.  

I am against the structure used in cricket which involves a panel who decide between themselves who goes.  I think this can only create disagreements between committee members, which is far too complex really when we all know that Rob has the best idea of how the team will work!

Rob knows our players.
Rob knows what tables we all prefer.
Rob knows how well we will fair against other countries, as he knows international players.

It makes no sense to get committee members, who perhaps don't have the knowledge that Rob has, to be granted some authority in a decision that they could potentially getting wrong.  

What is 'wrong' is the question!  I think wrong is whatever Rob thinks we shouldn't do, as he knows pretty much everything about uk and international foos.

Last time round I'm pretty sure Rob hadn't seen everyone play in a while because he was off on international duty a lot more.  This time round however, he knows all the possible candidates, and I see no reason why Rob cannot make this decision on his own.

EDIT -
I also think choosing people who qualify via UKC for Nantes shouldn't get an automatic spot on the team, just because anyone can have their day, and perhaps it could mean not selecting some pretty obvious choices!

In referance to Jon's post:

I agree we should short list ASAP the possible players who could be selected.  The short list should be about 10 men and 5 women long.  Although this is kinda arbitrary.  After short listing. . see how form over the next few tournies, plus findin out whether or not everyone on the short list could afford to travel to the tournament in nantes!

For me I agree with Rob that we should pick tornado.
My justification is based on the fact that Louise herring (although not UK is a good example), Juj, and Myself have shown we can win Rookie and Amateur events on tornado in the USA, whereas we've pretty much sucked on Garlando rookie / semi pro events in Austria.

I think my shortlists would be:

MEN -

Rob A (captain)
Joe H
Tom B
John S
Alex S
Juj S
Jon M
Rob D
Dave B
Mike A

WOMEN -

Jody W
Mayya R
Sarah B
Cath B
Hannah R

I would like to think the sooner we can get this team picked, the sooner we can have a few practices perhaps and actually have some good preperation, instead of goin into the event blind like last time!
I hated every minute of training, but I said "Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion."

Please subscribe/comment/support my blog at http://happyham1986.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Jonathan May
BFA Committee Observer
Posts: 3817
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Real Name: Jonathan May
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Jonathan May » Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:47 am

I think there are some good and bad points in Joe's post, so I'll pick them out.
Happyham wrote:I like the structure used in football, where one manager picking his team, and on his head be it.
Don't like the sentiment, as we can exactly "sack" Rob if he does a bad job of picking the team. I'm not saying he will, but the analogy does not really work. A football manager is heavily incentivised to pick the best team (they get paid if they do, they get fired if they don't). We don't have this kind of incentive! That said, I still largely agree that Rob should do the bulk of team selection, with a caveat that he should try to make every opportunity to see those in contention play. If we go down the "provisional squad" route, that means attending every practice session, helping with people's games, watching competitive matches and seeing how people improve. I'm not saying that Rob doesn't know pretty much everything already - I just think that it's instructive to watch how people learn and adapt as well as whatever their current playing standard is on the various tables.
Joe wrote: It makes no sense to get committee members, who perhaps don't have the knowledge that Rob has, to be granted some authority in a decision that they could potentially getting wrong.
Agree with this. But obviously I think the Committee should have to ratify a team selected by Rob - as this makes the process clear for now and the future.
Joe wrote: I also think choosing people who qualify via UKC for Nantes shouldn't get an automatic spot on the team, just because anyone can have their day, and perhaps it could mean not selecting some pretty obvious choices!
This should be totally obvious! For example, suppose I go and buy a Roberto Sport, spend the next month practicing on it intensely, and beat everyone on RS and scrape enough games here and there that I win the UKC Singles. Does this justify my inclusion in a team that may well pick Tornado as its home table? When so few other countries will pick RS? Definitely not! Can think of many other examples...
Joe wrote:I agree we should short list ASAP the possible players who could be selected.  The short list should be about 10 men and 5 women long.  Although this is kinda arbitrary.  After short listing. . see how form over the next few tournies, plus findin out whether or not everyone on the short list could afford to travel to the tournament in nantes!
Definitely. But I think the shortlist should be longer - around 12.
Joe wrote:For me I agree with Rob that we should pick tornado.
My justification is based on the fact that Louise herring (although not UK is a good example), Juj, and Myself have shown we can win Rookie and Amateur events on tornado in the USA, whereas we've pretty much sucked on Garlando rookie / semi pro events in Austria.
Obviously, I prefer Garlando, but I can't dispute the logic of picking Tornado for the tournament. That said, if that were announced, I would make sure my Tornado game gets up to the point where inclusion in the team would be justified on the back of my Tornado game, not necessarily just my Garlando game.
Joe wrote: I think my shortlists would be:

...

I would like to think the sooner we can get this team picked, the sooner we can have a few practices perhaps and actually have some good preperation, instead of goin into the event blind like last time!
I totally agree we need to pick the shortlists ASAP. But I do not feel that we need anyone to post their lists! I can name at least one player I would definitely want on that shortlist that no-one has mentioned so far (Paddy)... I think we should name an extended shortlist of around 12 players, and work from there.

Committee, is this currently under discussion? Do we have a captain? Who is naming a shortlist? Are we even doing this?
--
Manager, TeamGB.

User avatar
Jonathan May
BFA Committee Observer
Posts: 3817
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Real Name: Jonathan May
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Team

Post by Jonathan May » Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:06 am

Oatsey wrote:Basically what could be fairer they compete at that event for a place based on end result. If they actually qualify or get a wild card  hence are going anyway they may as well be in the team?
In addition to Joe's point and mine above about how this is not the fairest way, it is also unfair as it depends substantially on seeding for the (presumably DE) UKC Singles knockout. Who is to say that a player coming 5th behind e.g. Joe/Tom/Shovo is necessarily better than a player coming 7th. The player coming 7th could easily have only lost to Joe and Tom, the player coming 5th could have lost to random + Shovo.

Basically, DE is not a fair way of ranking people relatively outside of the top 2...
--
Manager, TeamGB.

User avatar
Messiah
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 4:12 pm
Real Name: Dan Gallon
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Messiah » Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:45 am

The UK championships should be Swiss then...
Still going....

User avatar
Jonathan May
BFA Committee Observer
Posts: 3817
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Real Name: Jonathan May
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Jonathan May » Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:54 am

Messiah wrote:The UK championships should be Swiss then...
No.

DE is not a fair way of ranking people outside the top 2, as I said in my post.

Therefore, given that the UKC only concerns finding the top 2, DE is entirely fair and is a good system.
--
Manager, TeamGB.

The Doctor
BFA Chairman
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:41 pm
Real Name: Andrei Russell-Gebbett
Location: London

Post by The Doctor » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:20 am

Use one of these on each table, between the top players?

Image

Craig
Posts: 1309
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:36 pm
Real Name: CF
Location: London

Post by Craig » Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:19 am

Start with a list of players who would be able to go (and would want to), given the chance.

Richard's point about the finances are important.  This is not like attending a UK tourney where a top-10 pro can be sure of winning their money back.  This is probably gonna cost a few hundred quid each.

User avatar
Jonathan May
BFA Committee Observer
Posts: 3817
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Real Name: Jonathan May
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Jonathan May » Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:36 am

Craig wrote:Richard's point about the finances are important.  This is not like attending a UK tourney where a top-10 pro can be sure of winning their money back.  This is probably gonna cost a few hundred quid each.
Lol. When was the last time you attended a tournament, Craig? A top-3 PM has a fair chance of breaking even for the weekend. :-)

That said, I agree about ensuring people make a binding financial commitment.
--
Manager, TeamGB.

User avatar
Oatsey
Posts: 2993
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Real Name: Dave Oates
Location: Bristol

Prizes

Post by Oatsey » Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:27 pm

Jon I think a top 3 PM has no chance of recovering money at this event do they as there is normally no prize money is there ??

User avatar
Jonathan May
BFA Committee Observer
Posts: 3817
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Real Name: Jonathan May
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Prizes

Post by Jonathan May » Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:57 pm

Oatsey wrote:Jon I think a top 3 PM has no chance of recovering money at this event do they as there is normally no prize money is there ??
I was saying.... that, at UK tournaments, even a top PM has little chance... never mind...

I'm well aware that there's no money at this....
--
Manager, TeamGB.

User avatar
Chaz
Posts: 2907
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 4:50 am
Real Name: Charles Allen

Re: Prizes

Post by Chaz » Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:11 pm

Jon May wrote:
Oatsey wrote:Jon I think a top 3 PM has no chance of recovering money at this event do they as there is normally no prize money is there ??
I was saying.... that, at UK tournaments, even a top PM has little chance... never mind...

I'm well aware that there's no money at this....
Craig and Richard are saying that the Nantes tournament will cost the UK team players money.
.

User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Post by davez » Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:40 pm

Until full team sponsorship is available we will be selecting from the set of people who actually go.

This will depend on a number of factors, for example on which players qualify for Nantes at the UKC.

As we know from past experience, qualified players may drop out at the last moment while other players are suddenly able to go at the last minute.

There is no point agonising over an abstraction that will never materialise.

The approach which yields the best outcome is to exercise the options as late as possible (but no later).

Post Reply