UltiTalk.Com
Welcome to the ULTIMATE Ultimate Frisbee forum. April 23, 2014, 05:23:39 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

The ultimate forum for talking about Ultimate Frisbee. Aimed at bringing new life to the world of Ultimate Frisbee discussions, UltiTalk.Com (UT) combines both regional and international topics in one friendly place. So say hello to UT: The International Ultimate Frisbee forum.

Register your FREE UltiTalk.Com account to reveal the members-only Shout Box, Chatroom, and more!
Show me all! Wanna see all topics from all boards on one page? Check out the UltiTalk Sitemap.
 
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Members Links Gallery Login Register  
Visit UltiTalk.Com on TwitterVisit UltiTalk.Com on Facebook

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22   Go Down
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot Google Bookmarks Ma.gnolia MSN Live Squidoo Yahoo My Web     Bookmark  |  Print  
Author Topic: WUGC 2008  (Read 98738 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
rjhberg
Full Member
***

Karma: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 147



View Profile WWW
« on: May 16, 2007, 12:19:50 AM »

So looks like some people have started to register interest for this: http://www.afda.com/rego/showcompetition.php?competitionid=309

Also some big names have registered for the Masters division

I just wanted to poss a question about this: Should eligble masters players register for Open as well, or should they let the 'younger' people have a go?

What do y'all think?
Logged

timill
Full Member
***

Karma: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 131



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2007, 04:21:11 AM »

It depends on which division Australia want to have a better crack at.

I think the best players should be playing in the Dingos even if they are old enough for Masters.
Logged

Chris
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +18/-20
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 368



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2007, 10:36:06 AM »

In my honest opinion I'm of the firm belief that high level competition should have nothing to do with "participation" or "letting others have a go" per se. The best players play on the best team (or their team of preference) and the "younger players" (obviously myself included) work their younger little asses off to have the right to say to the old savvy vets "you can't keep up old man go play masters".

I think it is one of the most unfortunate things about Australian ultimate - that even at a Nationals level which is meant to be high level competition, we still have clubs that are going with split X/Y development teams rather than A/B teams and I think it really highlights the lack of depth in Australian ultimate at club level, and well I'd hate to see that attitude transfer to the International level.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 10:43:40 AM by Chris » Logged

Help spread the word about the AUDL - "like" it @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/AUDL/

UQ Lovers & Firestorm
rjhberg
Full Member
***

Karma: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 147



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2007, 07:24:18 PM »

I tend to agree with Chris there

But let me pose a more specific situation

Two players are of equal playing ability and there is no clear way to pick between the two.

But one of them is eligible to play masters and the other isn't - should they pick the non masters player and let the other play masters?

On the flip side, one person was solely put there name down to play Masters and another is down to play Open, Mixed and Masters. They don’t make the Open or Mixed Team. Again these two players are of equal value. Do they take the person who wanted to play Masters all along?

The main question I guess here is what impact does it have on a team that someone is playing on that team as there second/third option?

I agree also with you Chris that it is not the best reflection of how serious Nationals is taken that teams send split teams.

If Fakulti send two even squads as a form of development, therefore not doing there best to win nationals each year, what are they developing them for?
Logged

littletom
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +21/-7
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 295



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2007, 07:43:24 PM »

Well I would argue that nationals is *not * the highest level of competition and has not been intended to be so. That as always been the purpose and level of play of NUFL and while it is certainly cooler to win nationals then NUFL, the fact of the matter is that NUFL is usually tougher. I think Fakulti's work on getting X/Y splits to 2nd and 3rd generates much better success for their club and Australian ultimate and increases the pool of players who can even compete at the higher lever.

Ruebs and Chris raise an interesting point about selections. I am pretty sure that the selectors will err on the side of experience and previous Worlds playing history over someone that is up and coming. Imagine an established former dingo player that has a bad training camp, plays average at a NUFL and then injures himself at the last NUFL. He will also certainly make it on to the *squad* (not team) for the next process anyway.

While some of the old guard (like scamby) are voluntarily stepping down to Masters, there are still a lot of others gunning for the open team. And while I don't agree with the automatic preference for worlds experience or for saying "I know he can play better" when the player blows at selection camps/NUFL, you have to take your best team, whether or not that includes your 70 year old grandma.

I think that the next Open and Mixed teams (I can't comment about the women) will have some different and new faces between the 30 men's players but that many old-hands will return.

If we really wanted too, we could put out the 2004 teams lists and start crossing out names to see how many spots there are to fill... I'll tend to make the conservative estimate that it will not be heaps of players, probably around 10, maybe up to 15 are in the mix.

I expect all Australian teams to improve their positions from last championships.

-Tom
Logged
Jangles
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +7/-29
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 357



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2007, 12:25:17 AM »

haha hey boys

yeh being a new kid on the block i put my name down for the sake of throwing my name in the hat. I dont think i am ready for worlds yet but i should be in a years time. how ever it should be the players choice of what teams he wants to play for (if selected). If the old boys want to play masters let them play. as for the trouble of selection that is the responsiblity of the selectors. I think you will see a few of the younger boys come through this year and a phasing out of the older crew.

Also the whole taking the 2004 team and crossing out names. i aint a big fan been looked over many times before for athletics teams becuase i was in the previous years team. only to find out my times were consitently better than choosen runners. It does happen and you have to accept it but again doesnt hurt to select some of the younger less experienced guys **cough** Jangles **cough** in the training squad to help develope the sport. Roll Eyes

At that any ideas who the selectors will be?
Logged
Chris
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +18/-20
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 368



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2007, 01:11:40 AM »

Quote
Two players are of equal playing ability and there is no clear way to pick between the two. But one of them is eligible to play masters and the other isn't - should they pick the non masters player and let the other play masters?
OK in the rare case where this happens I'd probably argue that the individual eligible to play masters should play masters because it will result in a better Australian representation overall consider the Open team will be no worse off selecting the younger player and Master would arguably be better off with a fringe Open player playing for them.


Quote
On the flip side, one person was solely put there name down to play Masters and another is down to play Open, Mixed and Masters. They don’t make the Open or Mixed Team. Again these two players are of equal value. Do they take the person who wanted to play Masters all along?
Flip a coin to decide.

Just because someone aspires to still play for the Open or Mixed team isn't a negative reflection on them when they are resigned to the fact that Masters is the more realistic option. If anything I think it is commendable that they are shooting for the Open and Mixed team and have Masters as a fall back.

I'm not really sure I subscribe to the ideal that people should just focus on Masters. I mean I'd like to think that if a 40 year old is capable and the best candidate for a spot on the Open or Mixed team then that is the team they should play on. Masters should really only be a consideration for them once they haven't made the Open or  Mixed teams. Though obviously with age comes wisdom and some of these savvy old vets still have enough marbles to realise that they have no chance of making the Open team therefore save everyone the administration work by not putting there name in the mix. 


Quote
The main question I guess here is what impact does it have on a team that someone is playing on that team as there second/third option?
I don't think it is an issue when you are playing for your country.


Quote
Well I would argue that nationals is *not * the highest level of competition and has not been intended to be so.
Well I once again think reflects the poor state of affairs in Australian Ultimate that our "National" competition is still about development. I know many others don't agree but I can't help but feel there really needs to be a push for making the focus of any Nationals event to be "high level competition", not just NUFL.


Quote
Ruebs and Chris raise an interesting point about selections. I am pretty sure that the selectors will err on the side of experience and previous Worlds playing history over someone that is up and coming.
That makes sense to me, not just from an individual's experience perspective but also a team dynamics perspective. I 'd like to think that preference would go to those that have played together before - I mean having understanding and connections on any sporting field can turn average players into great teams and these things need to be considered. I mean if push came to shove and you had six players of equal abilty competing for one spot and they were from QLD, NSW, ACT, VIC, SA & WA you would argue that the player from NSW should be the players selected because they would likely have better understanding, connections and relationships with the bulk of the team (assuming that that like previous teams NSW is well represented).


Quote
If we really wanted too, we could put out the 2004 teams lists and start crossing out names to see how many spots there are to fill... I'll tend to make the conservative estimate that it will not be heaps of players, probably around 10, maybe up to 15 are in the mix.
Here you go:

Men's Open 2004:
Tim Booth     
Owen Shepherd    
Jonathan Potts (c)    
John Greenfield    
Anthony Dowle    
Anthony "Sol" Solomon    
Mike Nield    
Sacha Vidler    
Matthew Dowle    
Ken Shepherd    
Charles Blumer    
Chris Warris (vc)    
Steve Campbell    
Jonathan Holmes    
Pete Gardner    
David O'Brien    
Roger Bralow    
Angus Keenan    
Lachlan Yates    
Piers Truter    
Tom Rogacki    

Mixed 2004:
Joel Pillar     
John Damiani    
Adam Mortimer (vc)    
Toby Vidler    
Joy Lee    
Tao Browne    
Jo McLellan    
Leanne King    
Lisi Jarrott    
Tamara Davis (vc)    
Kelly Kidman    
Sarah Crossie    
Andrew Craig    
Jeremy Hind    
Laina Hall    
Keah Molomby    
Abra Garfield    
Matthew Marcus (c)    
David Zuk    
Carlie Ryan    
Chris Stephens    
Lee Coady    


Quote
As for the trouble of selection that is the responsiblity of the selectors. I think you will see a few of the younger boys come through this year and a phasing out of the older crew.
LOL I think that pretty much happens every time.

Quote
Also the whole taking the 2004 team and crossing out names. i aint a big fan been looked over many times before for athletics teams becuase i was in the previous years team. only to find out my times were consitently better than choosen runners. It does happen and you have to accept it but again doesnt hurt to select some of the younger less experienced guys **cough** Jangles **cough** in the training squad to help develope the sport.
Well if I was to guess I'd imagine that when push comes to shove those that have delivered in the past will get preference over those that might deliver in the future. LOL and I mean if you were disappointed when you were looked off on track teams even when selectors had the aid of specific timed performances base selections on can you imagine how frustrating the experience will be for those looked off when the selection process is based on more subjective things.
Logged

Help spread the word about the AUDL - "like" it @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/AUDL/

UQ Lovers & Firestorm
ulty_arnie
Full Member
***

Karma: +13/-6
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 138



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2007, 09:26:10 AM »

I pose the question of, if you were a selector, what would your team look like?  I have made a team myself in my off time and here is what it looks like:

Dingos -
Matt Dowle
Tom Rogacki
Anthony Dowle
Pete Gardner
Jonno Holmes
Chris Warris
Tim Lavis
Ken Shepard
Owen Shepard
Dan Rule (people say you read this, feel special to have made my list Danny boy)
John Liddicoat
Abra Garfield
Mike Nield
Johnny Mac
Joel Pillar
Billy Alexander
Jonathon Potts
Angus Keenan
2 x Sydney players (I don't know them that well but can say there are a few that could/would make it)
3 x Melbourne players (this is purely for Chilly players, sorry HoS, none of you were impressive enough other than the two mentioned already)
'Wildcard' = someone who steps up at the right time and earns it

I made a team of 24 considering that most American and Canadian teams have rosters of around 24, so I ask everyone to make their hypothetical team and compare to see what everyones thoughts are.  I have been told by Johnny mac that hte Dingos usually only take 22, but 24 seems good to me. 

If you look at this team, it is extremely skilled, talented, and fast.  You can split my team into two groups, Talls and Small-Quicks.  All of the people on the list are extremely talented throwers, fast, athletic, smart, and passionate!  I like the fact that if you put a line of Joel Pillar, Gack, Matt Dowle, Ant Dowle, Mike Nield, Jonno Holmes, and Pottsy, you have a whole line of extreme height; can you imagine trying to defend against that line?  Freaking sweet team, whoever gets on, they will represent Australia well and I would be proud!  Interested to see what you guys think and see who you would select, so lets see'em!


Logged
simmo
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +45/-21
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 884



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2007, 04:46:12 PM »

Nah, Dan will just miss the cut for open and played mixed instead. Otherwise that's a pretty good squad. As for the 3 Melbourne players, I'd guess Lee Baker, Wheely, and either Freisey (if he's eligible) or Tao.
Logged

Time to waste? Visit the Ballarat Ultimate blog!
matt.h
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 89



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2007, 06:31:47 PM »

Afaik eligibility-wise anyone who is selected to play by the AFDA (appointed selectors) can represent Aus.
Logged

rjhberg
Full Member
***

Karma: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 147



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2007, 08:20:38 PM »

I would add Bretts name to that list too

Maybe Gav and Tubby would be the other Sydney boys?
Logged

tom_brennan
Newbie
*

Karma: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 30



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2007, 09:17:24 PM »

Chris

I think it is one of the most unfortunate things about Australian ultimate - that even at a Nationals level which is meant to be high level competition, we still have clubs that are going with split X/Y development teams rather than A/B teams and I think it really highlights the lack of depth in Australian ultimate at club level, and well I'd hate to see that attitude transfer to the International level.

I don't mean to be rude, but when was the last time you ran a club that took an A/B or X/X (even) teams to Nationals?

You're not exactly talking from a position of experience.

I've been involved with running six clubs that have taken more than one team to Nationals in the last ten years - and that doesn't include Fakulti this year when I was injured.  Of those, two were X/X, three were A/B and one was A/B/B.  I can tell you that from a player's perspective, the two years that we played X/X were more satisfying.  And interestingly enough, our final results at Nationals as a club overall were actually better.  Take 2002, when the two even Feral teams met in a semi that went to sudden death. The winning team then went on to meet a Chilly team in the Final that had not lost a game all season.  The game was not expected to be particularly close, and it wasn't.  From memory, Feral took half 10-2, and won 19-10, and the rookie players that were mostly playing their first nationals really stepped up.  Likewise with Fakulti last year, when it was a surprise that we even made the final.

When you end up running a club with enough players for two teams, you will find there are some good reasons (and some less good ones too) for splitting into two even teams. Here are a few:
  • B teams invariably lack leadership, which is provided by many of the A team players if you split
  • players who would be in a B team have to step up as they are marking/being marked by comparatively stronger players on the opposition
  • players who would be on the A team also have to step up for the same reason
  • more A team players have to take leadership roles as they are split over the two teams
  • both teams have a better chance of making Nationals
  • the B team players rave about the experience
  • training is more effective as you can play in the same teams as you're taking to Regionals/Nationals
  • selection is easier (in some ways)
  • there's no glory in winning with a stacked team, but there sure is for an underdog

In fact, the only good reason I can come up with for going A/B is that you presumably increase your chance of winning Nationals.  But historically there's no proof you can't still do just as well with even teams.  Who's to say that a Fakulti A team would have done better than 2nd this year or last?  Remember that last year Chilly lost to Fakulti P in the rounds, and came within a point of being knocked out in the pre-semi by Fakulti Q.

Personally, I think it was a pity for the development of ultimate in Victoria that after Chilly won Nationals in 2005, they didn't use that as an opportunity to split into two even teams. Their B team in 2006 was competitive (6th?), and they still would have had a crack at the title (perhaps two cracks!).  Instead, this year, Chilly B finished 14th and as a result Victoria will only have two guaranteed spots at Nationals next year.

Anyway, Chris, at least the way the results went at Nationals, you can say you beat one of the finalists Smiley

cheers
Logged
Staples
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 18



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2007, 01:13:02 AM »


In fact, the only good reason I can come up with for going A/B is that you presumably increase your chance of winning Nationals. 

This is a damn good reason.


Who's to say that a Fakulti A team would have done better than 2nd this year or last? 
cheers

Well we'll never know Tom. While I understand there are pro's and con's, I personally would have loved the opprtunity to see this match in the Nationals finals.

Well I would argue that nationals is *not * the highest level of competition and has not been intended to be so.

Personally, I am really tired of hearing this.
Logged
littletom
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +21/-7
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 295



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2007, 04:21:14 AM »

Quote
The main question I guess here is what impact does it have on a team that someone is playing on that team as there second/third option? I don't think it is an issue when you are playing for your country.

Actually, from what I have been told by several Mixed reps from the last squad, there were some players that couldn't let go of the fact that they didn't get selected for the Open or Women's team and that this was at times a problem. I suspect that as the level of competition to get on to the team rises, then this will become less and less of a problem.

I know a lot of people are championing the idea that Nationals ought to be the highest level of competition in Australia but the fact of the matter is that until the general standard of play rises to at least how the top ten teams played, then its never going to be. Chop out the newbs or get more competitive teams (effectively the same thing) It will come in time but it won't happen for a few years more.

Hey Brett, who is Billy Alexander? I'd also suggest that you have missed out Tim Booth (not a certainty for sure) and Wavey Dave O'Brien. I suspect it will be easier to select the men's open team then the boys who are going to make it on to the mixed team! Thats a whole other kettle of fish and one that will be much harder. But I agree on your open list more or less.
Logged
Staples
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 18



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2007, 04:55:54 AM »


I know a lot of people are championing the idea that Nationals ought to be the highest level of competition in Australia but the fact of the matter is that until the general standard of play rises to at least how the top ten teams played, then its never going to be. Chop out the newbs or get more competitive teams (effectively the same thing) It will come in time but it won't happen for a few years more.

Hey Brett, who is Billy Alexander? I'd also suggest that you have missed out Tim Booth (not a certainty for sure) and Wavey Dave O'Brien. I suspect it will be easier to select the men's open team then the boys who are going to make it on to the mixed team! Thats a whole other kettle of fish and one that will be much harder. But I agree on your open list more or less.

We've had how many years of Nationals tradition? And after 2 NUFL's it's all changed? Perhaps I just don't get it, admitantly I have not played NUFL. But in my view they are completely different beasts and the existance of NUFL shouldn't necessarily relegate the National Championships to a second rate development event. This years NUFL is being cobbled together with fairly short notice, many good players will be there and I am sure the overall quality will be high, but is it really a more important, more meaningfull win than Nationals? Or is it really the true "development" event for high level players? I suppose it depends on who you ask. I'd be curious what Chilly thinks.

Billy is the bald bad ass that played for Sublime. He's from Canadia but we hope he will stay in Perth. Look out when we get him and JD on the field together!

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22   Go Up
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot Google Bookmarks Ma.gnolia MSN Live Squidoo Yahoo My Web     Bookmark  |  Print  
 
Facebook Comments

Jump to:  






Advertise on UT!



Register your FREE UltiTalk.Com account to remove these ads!
Change language to English Change language to Brazilian Change language to Chinese-Simplified Change language to Danish Change language to Dutch Change language to English Change language to Finnish Change language to French Change language to German Change language to Greek Change language to Hebrew Change language to Hungarian Change language to Indonesian Change language to Italian Change language to Japanese Change language to Norwegian Change language to Polish Change language to Portuguese Change language to Romanian Change language to Russian Change language to Spanish Change language to Swedish Change language to Thai Change language to Turkish Change language to Ukranian Change language to Vietnamese

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
UltiTalk.Com is the #1 forum and bulletin board for talking about, chatting about and discussing Ultimate Frisbee.
Please help spread the word to promote an international community of Ultimate Frisbee players, coaches and teachers.


Site Design By MWM Consulting, Inc. MWM Consulting, Inc.



Google last visited this page April 21, 2014, 09:54:44 PM
SimplePortal 2.1.1