|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2006 12:19:55 GMT
The national rankings had its day on this forum. I feel that we should also concentrate on the England Selection process.
How do you determine an England team without a ranking system that most agree on?
This to me is very important as one day I wish to be included in Jersey. I am a bit confused over why we haven’t had an all England ranking system all these years. I understand Fazza used to be a big help with “Fazza Points”, but surely the AEBBA committee should be responsible for the England selection and ranking process?!?
If not then who deals with these processes?
I would like to see a ranking system and an England selection that suits most people and is “official”. We can’t continue with Jersey if people are being naïve over the selection. We can’t also just go with the usual selection as most people will be missed out from having the opportunity.
If Bar Billiards is in decline then decisions like these have to be dealt with ASAP or more people will get frustrated.
We have to save the game by doing something, not talking about doing something!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2006 17:54:59 GMT
But Johnny, that's the whole reason for this move to have official ranking points - so that we can all eventually see where we stand in the great scheme of things.
I would say that I will never get into the England team. And also I cannot point the finger at anyone in the England team at present who doesn't deserve to be there, IMHO.
|
|
Josie
Full Forum Member
Posts: 365
|
Post by Josie on Aug 5, 2006 20:49:56 GMT
You say that Tommo - but a few years ago now there was a huge discrepany with the Ladies selections that astounded a lot of people in the BB community.
The selectors are supposed to take notice of certain events (AEBBA events mostly, but also opens). I'm not going to rake it all up again, but lets leave it at the fact that there were examples of people being chosen for the wrong reasons and the selectors being unaware of the results of one of the AEBBA competitions that was supposed to be the grounding for their choices!
I'm also speaking as one who couldn't now get into the Ladies team (due to not attending most competitions any more - but also playing crap! ;)) - but if there was a ranking system in place then it would be impossible for people to be put in the team just because they always play for the team. People who are up and coming and have proven their worth should, without a doubt, get in the team. If that means dropping a regular who isn't playing well - then that's the way it should be.
This doesn't always happen at present!
That said, I do agree with you that having looked at the last selections (mens and ladies), there isn't a change I would make. But then I'm not 100% up to date on how people are playing!!!
I think we're doing the right thing in trying to automate the selection process as much as possible - people can then see where they stand and if they don't have enough points to be selected they can understand that more than a closed meeting where decisions are made, but explanations are thin on the ground!
Josie
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2006 21:11:45 GMT
Josie, That dispute you are referring to pre-dates my involvement with Surrey, but I did get to hear of it.
At the moment Sussex are very strong and comprise 80% of the England team, plus of course Pauline who is playing at her magnificent best-ever.
Surrey are lucky in that they have some excellent players too - yourself, Denise, Alison to name but three and none of you would be out of place in the England team.
My comments above really were about the constitution of the mens team, Ladies being a 'special case' and tend to organise themselves !
|
|
Josie
Full Forum Member
Posts: 365
|
Post by Josie on Aug 5, 2006 21:18:45 GMT
Tommo
I understand that - but just saying whether you are a lady or a man - surely a basically automated system for selections will help everybody. If you're good enough, lady or man, you'll be in the team. At the moment there is quite a number of things left to chance - and unless you get the support at the closed and private selection meeting, you'll never get in the team (whether you are a lady or a man!). For loads of reasons, relying on other people to put your name forward is not a good system.
Automatic selection by rankings takes away this hit-and-miss criteria that we have at present.
(PS: I hear the table from the Prince has disappeared today! >:()
Josie
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2006 22:10:27 GMT
Josie, I think what you've said is a logical means to an end for a national ranking system, and hopefully will be agreed at the AGM in December - else why are we going to all this trouble ?
Johnny, You've think you've got troubles at the White Swan - Josie has just informed me that we've just lost our home venue the Prince of Wales.
Josie I won't shed any tears - fifteen pounds on home night for sandwiches was a bit of a rip-off. And I never could get to grips with that table, with the draughty window at the back and the roaring fire at the front. There'll be quite a few other teams who'll be relieved as well. I favour becoming the Ship 'B'. How about you ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2006 22:45:59 GMT
Tommo - I ain't going to despute over who is suffering worse ??? I and the rest of the people who have been in contact with me have shared their great concern.
This thread isn't meant to be about table sgoing anyway, lets get back to the main point in my FIRST post.
I still find discomfort with the AEBBA, who have had this issue for YEARS, yet have done "jack all". Time for a change?!?!?
|
|
|
Post by H on Aug 5, 2006 23:56:53 GMT
I agree Johnny, it is time for a change. However, you have to remeber that bar billiards is currently a very small game. The AEBBA are a very small organisation of players, who do have other jobs, and so, unlike sports like snooker etc, do not have most of their time to commit to the game. Also, the current England team are the best of the best there is no doubt of that. I do however believe there should be more opportunities for "up and coming" players to proove themselves to the BB community. Were it not for the fact I am at university I would put myself forward to organise a number of events for the younger BB generation...one thing was mentioned a couple of seasons ago about an England under 21 team - I think this is a great idea which should be taken further, as well as a number of other "youth" tournaments across the country...it is one way to encourage younger players into our game.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Aug 6, 2006 8:32:35 GMT
Wearing my England selectors hat, it is time to put things in perspective. I have criticised selections in the past, but selections are reasonably good now. The selection board is nearer the one representative per county target, and so the decisions are more balanced. If no-one from your county can be bothered to put themselves forward for the selection panel then up and coming players from your county have a more difficult route to getting noticed.
1) Each post has said the team has been picked correctly, for the last few years, so why criticise the selectors?
2) The selectors operate and are bound under the present constitution. I have seen no proposals at the AGM to change that constitution. So unless the three men and a dog that can be bothered to attend our national AGM see some new people, it ain't gonna change!! AEBBA sit and discuss KT being 15 minutes late at a tournament and how to toss a coin!!, meanwhile Rome burns. No amount of whinging on here will, or has, managed to change burger-all. If you all want the selection panel to be accountable for their decisions, then propose the meetings are minuted at the AEBBA AGM. its not rocket science!!
3) Regarding the Ladies selection mentioned, I believe I was on that panel, and the team the previous year had whitewashed Jersey, so we did not want to drop anyone. T'aint easy with the ladies when there are only a couple of ladies on the panel and most of the men are not at the ladies tournaments. There has also been problems with ladies results getting to Fazza who used to correlate performances during the year.
4) You cannot pick a team purely from rankings especially for the away matches. It takes a more all round player to win reliably in Jersey, where the tables are set to make the split (our game) awkward. When was the last time you saw a player playing Oxfords in the final at Jersey?? There are several notable 'split' players who have faired poorly in the internationals out there. The internationals are not played to the rules that the rankings are compiled under, so how the hell can you use them 'automatically' to pick a side to play a different game.
There will still be anomalies. I was not pleased to be dropped this year after winning my previous ten consecutive England singles legs, however the selectors are the most experienced people out there, and you must respect their judgement. If not who is going to pick the team??
To sum up, if you want changes in the way we flatter our top players with rankings or to try to do something more important about the catastrophic decline in our game and promote younger players, as H sensibly suggests, use this board to agree proposals and get your @rse to your local AGM's, county AGM's and especially the AEBBA AGM in December.
/Sav dons his tin hat
|
|
Josie
Full Forum Member
Posts: 365
|
Post by Josie on Aug 6, 2006 10:12:50 GMT
Hello Sav
I don't think anybody is against the present selectors - more against the system!
I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I have great admiration for anybody who puts in time and energy into Bar Billiards both at local and national level - very often for no thanks and lots of hassle. I used to be involved in the RDBBL committee and helped out at tournaments and things - but now, for various reasons, I don't have the time. I'd loved to still be involved and would be proud to help out at any level, but this is not possible at present. I understand that people in these positions can only do the best they can with the criteria that is set.
I just think an "automated" system would be easier for all to handle (once it's up and running anyway!). I understand that when playing in Jersey the rules are different (I have played there a couple of times myself! :)) but if you're on form and playing well then somebody who you could beat time after time after time after time should not be in the England team ahead of you. For instance, I know you say you were dropped this year - even after winning your previous ten matches - but if you consistently beat KT (for example!!!!! ;)) time after time and then he was put in ahead of you - regardless of whether the match was being played in England or Jersey, you would be even less happy about being dropped.
The rankings would make it more obvious who should be picked - they shouldn't just be ignored in order to keep the same team as last year. 12 months is a very long time!
You may now remove the tin hat! :-*
Josie
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Aug 6, 2006 10:47:33 GMT
Hello Sav You may now remove the tin hat! :-* Josie LOL Josie. Basically as far as the men are concerned, approx 8 of the eleven are obvious. There are an awful lot of players who are competing for the last two or three spots. You can't please all of the people all of the time. I just find it awfully ironic that we spend so much time discussing the top echelon, when most of the other 90% have left the game. Ken Hussey is now down to 166 tables from 2500 twenty years ago. Yet most leagues do their own thing amongst counties who do their own thing amongst an AEBBA association that shows little leadership for the game at grass roots level. The game is mostly run by the top players for the top players I don't know what the answer is and I'm too old to be worrying about it for much more than a very few years. I do know that, unless we find a way of encouraging the H's & Johnnies and their friends, there will be no one left to rank. The first thing that does need to be done is for others to get involved in preserving our tables as I have done, otherwise there will be nothing to play on!! Sav.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Pringle (R.I.P.) on Aug 6, 2006 11:32:50 GMT
You know me I don't make many controvercial posts ::)
I agree with most of what has been said above so will not go over it, but raise a question that many are probably not willing to put forward.
Is it time the AEBBA was either 'replaced as the governing body' or dragged screaming and kicking out of the dark ages and brought up to date. Many businesses hold conferences on-line, I have been a part of many at national and international level, using webcams and speech software.
I get involved in many multi-player 'meetings' discussing rule changes for a gaming clan who probably have a greater turnover of money than the AEBBA, and have members discussing their views from as far away as the USA.
Why are people travelling 150 miles at high costs with todays prices when everything can be on-line, people like Josie who cannot justify for whatever reason being able to attend would find the few hours needed from her own armchair.
You still need the same officers to run things, tournament directors etc., but everything is open to the masses far easier. Proposals still would come under the same rules, but would be available to see.
Minutes are taken and published on an official site, it can all be done. Rankings and England selection is then not behind closed doors but for all to see and listen to and all at minimum cost.
Note, I am not suggesting this to put myself forward for being a part of the organisation, I have enough on my plate now, but this would be the way forward to get some changes made and move it out of the 'ice age' as it is now. I would be happy to help in 'finding' the required software and providing technical help, but not being involved.
We can all talk about the good old days of BB, it would be nice if as Sav says to have some future for our younger players.
Tommo joked in a previous thread about what the menu will be at the AGM, with a better system you can choose your own menu albeit chinese, indian or a salad.
Sorry Sav I am putting on my 'suit of armour' I might just need it :(
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Aug 6, 2006 17:41:39 GMT
As a present England selector, I feel that the current team have done a good job, and England have been unbeaten for a couple of years now.
An automated process just would not work. As we have discussed ranking systems are hard to get right and fair to everyone. When picking an England side other things other than form need to be considered that cannot be factored in to an automated list such as, previous international records and ability on Jersey tables as opposed to our ones.
I have detaild my selection criteria before on another thread, which makes it clear I do take time and consider my selections very carefully. I do use the ranking list, but only as a guide. Jersey have an automated list, it is a bit easier when dealing with 1 league and less players, but you could see a couple of key players were absent each year they used the system.
As Sav says when it comes topicking the side the first 8 or so are obvious and unanimous and the last few places are hotly contested. My advice to anyone with any England ambitions is to play every open tournament you can (and aim to make the Grand Prix), play in Jersey, play for your county - you will find that all the current England players do this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2006 22:01:08 GMT
Ken Hussey is now down to 166 tables from 2500 twenty years ago. The first thing that does need to be done is for others to get involved in preserving our tables as I have done, otherwise there will be nothing to play on!! Sav. What happened to all those tables, Sav ? Were they chopped up for firewood, or was there an almighty cull rather like the American buffalo, with them all being driven over a cliff ? :o Surely they were not all sold into private hands - knowing what he'd want for them.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Pringle (R.I.P.) on Aug 6, 2006 22:04:13 GMT
Quite a few made there way to USA I believe as antique furniture :(
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2006 22:49:11 GMT
Antiques, thats it.
Who wants to go over to the US and teach them Yanks that its not antique. It is a work of art ;D :D ;)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2006 11:46:20 GMT
Well, assuming that some of our tables have ended up as a sideshow in some of the U.S. Pool halls, who's going to be daring enough to take on Minnesota Fats ? ;D ;D ;D www.jimloy.com/billiard/fats.htm
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2006 12:07:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2006 13:51:00 GMT
Cool, I would get frustrated with it though. If someone kept shinning it in to my eye while im counting. ::)
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Aug 18, 2006 7:33:03 GMT
....................and another thing....................
(another portion of the BBQ62 editorial, which is still to be finalised)
ENGLAND SELECTION
It seems that, rightly or wrongly, it has now become acceptable for selectors to openly and publicly discuss the criteria they use to choose the England team.
That is fine, but I wish to point out that selectors DO NOT DISCUSS RANKINGS AT ANY POINT IN THE SELECTION MEETING, just performances during the year and past England performances. Any selector who has rankings in mind in the discussion should be asked to change their errant ways forthwith or resign from the panel, whether the rankings become official or not.
To pick a team based in part or in whole on the rankings, especially when the match is in Jersey, would be total foolhardy. Even when it is in England, you have to pick a team to play “off the spot”, which is obviously not everyone’s forte as, crazily, we never have a competition to these rules in England nowadays.
Even though I am not now a selector, I am totally against any suggestion that it would be better just to choose the top ranked players to take part in the Internationals. An England jersey (if you pardon the pun) should be earned by reputation and team spirit, as a top individual player does not necessarily make a good England player. By the way, whatever happened to Mark Sawyer?
And I am talking about the Ladies as well as the Men.
See your BBQ for the rest of it.......
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Aug 18, 2006 11:00:12 GMT
Pete
Obviously it was I who was very open about stating my criteria for picking the England team. I am open because it gives players a chance (especially those who are up and coming) to see what they have to acheive in order to be up for selection. Also why should it all be a big secret? I agree what is said in the selection meeting is not for public disscussion but I am happy to be open about how I pick my team.
I want to make it clear that although I said I use the rankings (amongst other things) to narrow down the players that I would pick for England, I have never suggested that a ranking list should be used to pick the team straight off. I probably spend more time than anyone picking my team as I consider it a big responsibility to be Sussex's selector.
So yes, the ranking system is in my mind when picking the team, along with past Enlgnad form and performances throughout the year in opens and county champs. So if someone (not that it has happened) came up with a name that was outside the top 50 in the rankings, I would certainly question that suggestion, but if there was a legitimate reason why they were so low down the rankings but of England standard then I would still be happy to pick them (unlikely to happen but could if someone like Terry Race if he won Jersey but enters nothing else at all)
Anyway, nice to hear from you Pete, hope you are back for good.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2006 11:23:58 GMT
It seems that, rightly or wrongly, it has now become acceptable for selectors to openly and publicly discuss the criteria they use to choose the England team. That is fine, but I wish to point out that selectors DO NOT DISCUSS RANKINGS AT ANY POINT IN THE SELECTION MEETING, just performances during the year and past England performances. Any selector who has rankings in mind in the discussion should be asked to change their errant ways forthwith or resign from the panel, whether the rankings become official or not. See your BBQ for the rest of it....... I 100% disagree with you Fazza. The ranking points are only given out to people who earned them, therefore they must have a better chance of being selected. If the ranking points are not even considered I might as well walk away from the game, as I have no chance of completing my ambitions. This attitude to ranking points Fazza is 100% wrong, I think you need to look at yourself!
|
|
|
Post by SirKT on Aug 18, 2006 11:49:15 GMT
Nice to hear a young voice in a sport that is full of "older" players but i do think you are i little bit off track here Johnny. Let me give you an example. A player could theoretically get to the 1/4 finals of most opens, including Jersey (but maybe not scoring very highly). That player would think after those performances he had a good chance maybe of sneaking into the England team. The selectors would certainly notice the performances and might agree but if they went on ranking points alone, he probably wouldn`t have gathered enough to climb very far up the list. I`ve been a selector from the start and since the rankings started in the early nineties, i haven`t used them once in selecting my team. There have only been a couple of occasions in the past where players have let themselves & the team down (mainly due to alcohol) so i think the England teams` record speaks for itself. I am definitely one for bringing more youth into the game, so hopefully we will see you at some of these Opens or A.E. competitions to see what you`re capable of. Be nice to meet you as well.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2006 12:15:54 GMT
KT, I agree with you, I am trying to say that ranking points should be at least looked at when the selection process takes place, Fazza was saying they don't even look >:(
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Aug 18, 2006 13:22:26 GMT
Trying to answer Nigel and Johnny at the same time, and desperately trying not to insult either as that is not my way ;D
Nigel. I must really try to stop you taking rankings into consideration, especially as so many think I take the wrong criteria into consideration for getting them. It seems that it is you who has led poor Johnny up the garden path. The rankings ARE unofficial and produced by the BBQ for interest only. No heed should be taken on them, PLEASE.
Johnny. One gets into the England team by producing consistent performances over a period of time. One climbs the rankings by doing the same. So, the fact that rankings SHOULD not be taken into the selection panel's deliberations really does not make any difference to your chances of getting into the team, and maybe as captain one day. Kevin can't go on forever, he is getting so old, he has moved nearer the coast. But you have to make sure you have a table to play on first, not just give up because your pub is throwing theirs out.
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Aug 18, 2006 13:24:52 GMT
If the ranking points are not even considered I might as well walk away from the game, as I have no chance of completing my ambitions. This attitude to ranking points Fazza is 100% wrong, I think you need to look at yourself! I used to Johnny, but all the mirrors in the house are now broken.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2006 13:59:28 GMT
I wonder why ::)
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Aug 18, 2006 14:33:38 GMT
Pete,
I do understand what you are saying and I stress that I don't merely pick the names of the ranking list for my England team. However, if a name was picked and he was not in the top 100 in the rankings I would want to know why, as I said if the reason was legitimate (eg not playing enough tournaments but won Jersey etc) then I would still possibly pick them. Equally, if someone was number 1 I still would not pick them if the had never played in Jersey, if we were picking a team to play in Jersey.
In summary, I do think it is fair to say if you are in the top 10 of the rankings be it official or unofficial you must consider yourself in the running to be in the England team, although again I stress it would not put you automatically in my team selections. As I said before when picking my team I look at the records of everyone in the top 20 in more detail, I also look at anyone who has made the Grand Prix, and I look at anyone who played in the England team in the previous year. I would suggest that it is very unlikely that anyone would make the England team that do not meet 1 of the above criteria
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Aug 18, 2006 14:42:14 GMT
Pete, I do understand what you are saying and I stress that I don't merely pick the names of the ranking list for my England team. However, if a name was picked and he was not in the top 100 in the rankings I would want to know why, as I said if the reason was legitimate (eg not playing enough tournaments but won Jersey etc) then I would still possibly pick them. Equally, if someone was number 1 I still would not pick them if the had never played in Jersey, if we were picking a team to play in Jersey.So are you saying that if someone won every open and climbed into number 1 spot, you would not consider them for England just because they have never played in Jersey ? Is it me, or does that not make sense ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Aug 18, 2006 14:45:25 GMT
[quote author=milhouse board=general thread=1154780395 post=1155912134[/quote] So are you saying that if someone won every open and climbed into number 1 spot, you would not consider them for England just because they have never played in Jersey ? Is it me, or does that not make sense ? [/quote]
Yes, I am saying that. Sorry if you have never been to Jersey, you have no right to expect to be selected for England if we are taking a team over there to play in Jersey. An international is not the right time to be learning how to play on a table that is new to you! There are very few players who successfully play the split shot out there and a lot adopt the potting of the 50 hole approach.
|
|