A Better President Shield…
- Thread starter 01kay
- Start date
How can you say that President Shield is broken? Go ask any one of the 138 bowlers if they think that shield needs changing? You will no doubt find that a huge majority will say no. Ask the spectators...again a majority will say no. What have you seen in the last 10 years to warrent a change in the way President Shield is run?
J
James
I agree with Luke.
Why fix it if the format is good. I mean i think the current format of Shield (although I have never bowled in it) is fine (I hear about the trips from friends that go on it) so why fix it??
Why fix it if the format is good. I mean i think the current format of Shield (although I have never bowled in it) is fine (I hear about the trips from friends that go on it) so why fix it??
Mr_RG
RotoNation...
I think if they did set a minimum game rule for all players in Sheild, would it not make it more challenging? Coming from a state which used to always come last, bringing on the minimum game rule would give the teams which dont neccesarily have bowlers rolling a 210 ave a chance in getting a higher position. For example, the NT has always been considered as pushovers and easy points in Sheild, but if the minimum game rule was introduced, the team may have a chance at getting higher up the ladder.
Well thats my opinion.. it may sound a bit blurry but I believe that making Sheild more challenging is better than having the same teams winning it oer and over again...
Well thats my opinion.. it may sound a bit blurry but I believe that making Sheild more challenging is better than having the same teams winning it oer and over again...
J
James
Interesting thoughts there BJ.
I think that if they do bring in the minimum game rule, it will spark a lot of contraversy in the shield tournament and a lot of state's will not be happy about it.
I think that if they do bring in the minimum game rule, it will spark a lot of contraversy in the shield tournament and a lot of state's will not be happy about it.
J
James
nice comment. I whole heartedly agree with that comment, not to mention the cost involved too
Dozza
Member
The decline in participants topic has already been covered else where and you will find it was more of a cost thing. Nothing was ever mentioned prior in regards to format. A lack of attention to juniors is also attributing to the lack of participants. How many centres have a devoted Development Squad for juniors or youth bowlers to help maintain their interest in the sport.
But again only my personal opinion.
Dozza
But again only my personal opinion.
Dozza
The Spanner
Tenpin's Jamie Lyon
Dozza said:
And who wants to pay out up to 3 grand for your kid to go to the shield and stand there for 16 games?
If I keep standing here, the ring of drift will come past on the Merry-go-round of ideas, and I'll catch it then.
bowlrig
Just A Bowler
01kay said:
and if they don't come back and shoot 230 and also possibly average 120 for their manditory 6 or 7 games and possibly cost their team a medal! What then?
How do you convince that kid to come back and try again next year?
I think the kids this year and in previous years that have had minimal games but maximum exposure to what is needed at State level and invaluable experiences with the bonus of a medal will be back next year.
Rob
The Spanner
Tenpin's Jamie Lyon
bowlrig said:
To answer your question, they dont win a medal. Someone else does, probably someone in exactly the same type of position. Someone has to win them ....
What makes you think that a medal will bring them back next year?
What makes you think that not winning a medal will make them stay away?
Well I have had time to digest all this retoric on the Shield, how to make it better or leave it alone.
In my opinion any "COACH" that only bowls a team member for around 3 games because they are not handling the lanes, than that socalled "COACH" should be putting himself on the sidelines, it's obvious the COACH has'nt the ability to help the struggling players. It's a lot of money to spend to sit on the sidelines and support your team, I can see the mothers in the background crying now.
I still think my idea of bowling all 7 players is the only fair option, take the 5 best scores or whatever, if a team member gets injured than there is only 6 but you still take the 5 best etc; If anyone was watching the Tour De France Cycling race they do a similar thing in the team trials they only record the first 5 across the line although they start with more riders, some pull out through tiredness some finish with the rest of the team.
JMHO
willey.
In my opinion any "COACH" that only bowls a team member for around 3 games because they are not handling the lanes, than that socalled "COACH" should be putting himself on the sidelines, it's obvious the COACH has'nt the ability to help the struggling players. It's a lot of money to spend to sit on the sidelines and support your team, I can see the mothers in the background crying now.
I still think my idea of bowling all 7 players is the only fair option, take the 5 best scores or whatever, if a team member gets injured than there is only 6 but you still take the 5 best etc; If anyone was watching the Tour De France Cycling race they do a similar thing in the team trials they only record the first 5 across the line although they start with more riders, some pull out through tiredness some finish with the rest of the team.
JMHO
willey.
*chook :>*
A child of bowling
01Kay,the reason why people become hostile when a topic like this is raised is because we are all afraid of change within the tournament that we have all not only grown to love but the tournament that we look forward to for 362 days a year, 363 for a leap year.
If the rule that you have suggested is applied to Shield it can have a 2 general reactions.
Possible scenarios:
1)It can go the way that you are suggesting, become more competitive, more strategic for the managers and coaches and everyone will have a "fair" go.
Or..2) it can backfire, where there will be much disagreement and arguement as seen on through posts on this topic alone, coaches and managers will have more pressure upon themselves to ensure that every bowler has had the minimal games, it will loose its competitveness, therefore bowlers will loose interest and Preseident's Shield will, in the future cease to exist.
The Spanner, Note: "with the bonus of a medal will be back next year". Nothing said there about definately getting a medal, but if they win then they do..bonus..
Dozza's last post made me think about encouraging juniors. President's Shield is not and should not be the only time that encouraging juniors should take place. President's Shield should be a dream, a goal that juniors should be encouraged to strive for.
Starting right from when they join a league, is when juniors should be encouraged, sometimes even before that!
From centre junior development/training squads and city/centre junior championships and masters to more competitive tournaments such as (for VIC, I'm not sure of other states) Junior Goldpin and AMF Shields, Junior State Championships and Masters, Junior Country Cup, Junior Country Championships and Masters.. For these tournaments I fully encourage that a minimum amount of games be applied here as these are the times when you should be encouraging your juniors..
Centres are now holding smaller national tournaments for juniors such as Melbourne Junior Cup, Werribee Victorian Junior Cup. These tournaments are a mix of team and individual events and from competing in these smaller tournaments brings experience, confidence and exposure to different patterns, lanes, approaches, atmospheres, pressure, friends...all of the things that are needed for the preparation to President's Shield.
By the time a bowler competes in presidents shield, they have been given all the encouragement that they can get from family, friends, coaches otherwise they will not be there at all.. They are now at a point where the only real encouragment they will receive is from their team mates and themselves.
And as much as people like to say its not and try to convince others that its not.. President's Shield is a time when Australia's BEST juniors COMPETE against the BEST, COMPETE to be the BEST and COMPETE to WIN.
President's Shield- the most prestegious junior tournament in the whole of Australia..It is a privelage to be involved in President's Shield, not a right.
If the rule that you have suggested is applied to Shield it can have a 2 general reactions.
Possible scenarios:
1)It can go the way that you are suggesting, become more competitive, more strategic for the managers and coaches and everyone will have a "fair" go.
Or..2) it can backfire, where there will be much disagreement and arguement as seen on through posts on this topic alone, coaches and managers will have more pressure upon themselves to ensure that every bowler has had the minimal games, it will loose its competitveness, therefore bowlers will loose interest and Preseident's Shield will, in the future cease to exist.
bowlrig said:
The Spanner, Note: "with the bonus of a medal will be back next year". Nothing said there about definately getting a medal, but if they win then they do..bonus..
Dozza's last post made me think about encouraging juniors. President's Shield is not and should not be the only time that encouraging juniors should take place. President's Shield should be a dream, a goal that juniors should be encouraged to strive for.
Starting right from when they join a league, is when juniors should be encouraged, sometimes even before that!
From centre junior development/training squads and city/centre junior championships and masters to more competitive tournaments such as (for VIC, I'm not sure of other states) Junior Goldpin and AMF Shields, Junior State Championships and Masters, Junior Country Cup, Junior Country Championships and Masters.. For these tournaments I fully encourage that a minimum amount of games be applied here as these are the times when you should be encouraging your juniors..
Centres are now holding smaller national tournaments for juniors such as Melbourne Junior Cup, Werribee Victorian Junior Cup. These tournaments are a mix of team and individual events and from competing in these smaller tournaments brings experience, confidence and exposure to different patterns, lanes, approaches, atmospheres, pressure, friends...all of the things that are needed for the preparation to President's Shield.
By the time a bowler competes in presidents shield, they have been given all the encouragement that they can get from family, friends, coaches otherwise they will not be there at all.. They are now at a point where the only real encouragment they will receive is from their team mates and themselves.
And as much as people like to say its not and try to convince others that its not.. President's Shield is a time when Australia's BEST juniors COMPETE against the BEST, COMPETE to be the BEST and COMPETE to WIN.
President's Shield- the most prestegious junior tournament in the whole of Australia..It is a privelage to be involved in President's Shield, not a right.
B
Bigun
Still pissed you didn't make the team Roory? Well SA boys won their lot without you. Get over it and move on!
Mr_RG
RotoNation...
Woah!!! That was pretty harsh mate, you shouldn't put people down just because they didn't make their state team.
Anyway, I personally think that an introduction to the "minimum game rule" would grab the attention to the bowlers that are up and coming aswell as those one which are unfortunate enough to only have averages around the 160's, because if they make their state/zone team they at least know they are going to get a decent amount of games in sheild. Its like all the parents have mentioned... they are not going to pay $2000 just for their kid to only bowl 2 games of sheild and sit on the bench for the rest!
Sorry to those that think sheild is fine the way it is, but i believe that this is a valid point that needs to be addressed by TBA.
Regards,
BJ
Anyway, I personally think that an introduction to the "minimum game rule" would grab the attention to the bowlers that are up and coming aswell as those one which are unfortunate enough to only have averages around the 160's, because if they make their state/zone team they at least know they are going to get a decent amount of games in sheild. Its like all the parents have mentioned... they are not going to pay $2000 just for their kid to only bowl 2 games of sheild and sit on the bench for the rest!
Sorry to those that think sheild is fine the way it is, but i believe that this is a valid point that needs to be addressed by TBA.
Regards,
BJ
The Spanner
Tenpin's Jamie Lyon
*chook :>* said:
In the original post by Bowlrig, he (or she) inferred that if a bowler cost his or her team a medal, it would be hard to get them back to the shield, because of a sense of failure.
Some people on here think getting a medal is the only thing worth getting out of shield. I've heard more congrats for individual performances than I have for entire teams.
Luke D
The Reflecting God
Ok, here's a question for all:
If you were a bowler in a Shield squad about to depart their home state/zone, what would you be more happier with?
a) Going away to a tournament knowing that you are going to bowl a set minimum of games, with NO OR LITTLE CHANCE of picking up a medal? or
b) Going away to a tournament knowing that you may not get a fair amount of games, but there is a GREAT CHANCE of picking up the win, or at least a podium finish?
Success is a lot greater feeling than failure. I know which one I'd choose. TEAM GLORY can cancel out any personal sadness!
If you were a bowler in a Shield squad about to depart their home state/zone, what would you be more happier with?
a) Going away to a tournament knowing that you are going to bowl a set minimum of games, with NO OR LITTLE CHANCE of picking up a medal? or
b) Going away to a tournament knowing that you may not get a fair amount of games, but there is a GREAT CHANCE of picking up the win, or at least a podium finish?
Success is a lot greater feeling than failure. I know which one I'd choose. TEAM GLORY can cancel out any personal sadness!
