SQ De Veer and Rachuig Nominations 2006.
- Thread starter The Spanner
- Start date
DaleS
Well-Known Member
Jase said:
This idea has merit, I don't know how it would go nationally, it doesn't seem that some of the other states are having any problems getting bowlers to fill their Rauchig teams. But it is definitely worth thinking about, I would assume that then if you're selectd and you decline the offer then the next one in line is asked. Then what happens in the unlikely event that you run out of bowlers to ask ? Something to think about...
Jase said:
I dont think it matters if you nominate for both (you would have to pay 2 sets of nomination fees anyway prior to bowling qualifying), but I can see your point Jase.
The Spanner
Tenpin's Jamie Lyon
Sure ... but it wont stop an overly ambitious 170 avg from maybe nomintaing for Rachuig, and if there are only 7 nomination ......
The Spanner
Tenpin's Jamie Lyon
Jase said:Pete you sure ice averages 170
Jase .. she did at Redcliffe ... but I wasn't talking specifically about her anyway.
The Spanner said:
Well you and i both know that this is where this has all eventuated correct?
Redcliffe hey
the hi scoring tournament for some yeah i remember that. But 170 average on that wouldn't be what i would call a state representative level average.No offence Ice but to be honest 190 average for a woman on that would only just be at a state level of competition. But good luck if your rolling off for Rachuig you will have a great time.
The Spanner
Tenpin's Jamie Lyon
Jase said:Redcliffe hey
Dont know mate, I wasn't there.
I wouldn't call it (170avg) rep level either, but if that's all thats willing and available, then we have to train them up to speed very quickly.
Easy Tiger
Active Member
The best solution to this whole problem as far as I can see is:
Promote the roll-offs to as many people as possible.
Turn up and Bowl
Everyone does the best they can
From that we have the best team available to send away. What more can you ask for?
Seriously. Everytime the word "Rachuig" is mentioned in a thread, it gets about 15 pages of response. It's had like 3 pages added just this morning. This is good, in that it shows that SQ is passionate about our state and doing well and sending the best team we can away. But seriously, what good is it doing? Wouldn't it be best if everyone just gave it a rest with the selection issues etc, and just turned up to bowl? Then in time, people might start trying out again! And we might be able to send away the best team possible, instead of what is available.
Promote the roll-offs to as many people as possible.
Turn up and Bowl
Everyone does the best they can
From that we have the best team available to send away. What more can you ask for?
Seriously. Everytime the word "Rachuig" is mentioned in a thread, it gets about 15 pages of response. It's had like 3 pages added just this morning. This is good, in that it shows that SQ is passionate about our state and doing well and sending the best team we can away. But seriously, what good is it doing? Wouldn't it be best if everyone just gave it a rest with the selection issues etc, and just turned up to bowl? Then in time, people might start trying out again! And we might be able to send away the best team possible, instead of what is available.
Hammer
Moderator
The Spanner said:
Lmao, Are you goint to train them are you Spanner
Just my opinion, but i think if you avg under 190, in the twin tour, lets say the Brisbane circuit, and most leagues than your not up to standard to represent your State in the open Rachuig competition. This is the elite level.
People like Frillingos, bottomley, Brandon, there our best, and in my opinion should be drafted and not have to roll off. Im stuck in between, i avg between 210- 220 most leagus, yet probably wont make the team, and cant bowl for Deveer because my avg is to high. Why dont we make Deveer our second best team available, i might have a chance of makeing that team 1 day. Just my opinion
The Spanner
Tenpin's Jamie Lyon
No Steve, I'm not a coach, so I wont be training anyone.
And you are good enough to make Rachuig ... so go for it.
But I wont deny anyone the right to have a go, and If we can't get more than the required number, what do you want to do ... not send a team?
And you are good enough to make Rachuig ... so go for it.
But I wont deny anyone the right to have a go, and If we can't get more than the required number, what do you want to do ... not send a team?
Hammer
Moderator
The Spanner said:
I agree Pete, everyone is entitiled to have a go. In my opinion, you should have to chose which team your nominating for. If you think you can cut it at the elite level than try out for that team, but if you miss out you should'nt have the chance to bowl for Deveer. 2 bites of the cherry, I dont think so.
Another way to get the best is to send out invations to the people who have represented before, people who are known by reputation, to be great bowlers. Another option is TBA to charge everyone maybe $3 dollars extra membership per year, and we pay the people to go down and represent our state. Just thoughts.
The Spanner
Tenpin's Jamie Lyon
Hammer said:
Then we will agree to disagree, because I dont see anything wrong with it.
Hammer said:
My thoughts on this are well documented ... but $3 a year wont get much. Are you talking just one team (Rachuig) or all the teams (Juniors, Seniors, De Veer and Disability)? Even at one team, you would have to levy everyone about $10.
Doesn't someones nomination for De Veer or Rachuig go into the kitty to help out with expenses if they are unsuccessful? If thats the case, wouldn't you want as many rolling off as possible?
bm2
I'm still standin'
Wow, this is a can of worms. It is amazing to think that with the level of passion running in this topic that there aren't enough bowlers to fill the spots at ground zero.
A quick look at the 2005 womens Rachuig individual scores (and I only looked at the women, because this "appears" to be where the shortfall of bowlers in SQ is) reveals the following interesting statistics:
NSW was the only team whose bowlers all had an entering average over 190.
27 bowlers from the other states and territories, including NZ as well, had an entering average of 185 and under. Of those 27, 17 bowlers had an entering avg of 175 or less. Bar a couple, these lower averaged ladies all won points, some won quite a few, and bowled some reasonably high games to boot.
There is no question that Rachuig is the pinnacle, and that each state should put forward the very best team they have - but when the very best choose, for whatever the reason, that they don't need or want to bowl Rachuig, what do you do? Choose not to field a state team because you only have eager, committed, but "SECOND STRING" bowlers turning up to the rolloffs, not so much as to make up the numbers, but to genuinely have a go despite the public put downs, or do you bite the bullet and let them qualify and make up the state team, knowing that you are going to get 200% effort and committment at the nationals regardless of the final outcome? I thought that the whole idea of this new format was to encourage more participants to have a go, rather than dissuade them totally.
Good luck to you all, whatever team you are rolling off for
Broni
Hammer said:
A quick look at the 2005 womens Rachuig individual scores (and I only looked at the women, because this "appears" to be where the shortfall of bowlers in SQ is) reveals the following interesting statistics:
NSW was the only team whose bowlers all had an entering average over 190.
27 bowlers from the other states and territories, including NZ as well, had an entering average of 185 and under. Of those 27, 17 bowlers had an entering avg of 175 or less. Bar a couple, these lower averaged ladies all won points, some won quite a few, and bowled some reasonably high games to boot.
There is no question that Rachuig is the pinnacle, and that each state should put forward the very best team they have - but when the very best choose, for whatever the reason, that they don't need or want to bowl Rachuig, what do you do? Choose not to field a state team because you only have eager, committed, but "SECOND STRING" bowlers turning up to the rolloffs, not so much as to make up the numbers, but to genuinely have a go despite the public put downs, or do you bite the bullet and let them qualify and make up the state team, knowing that you are going to get 200% effort and committment at the nationals regardless of the final outcome? I thought that the whole idea of this new format was to encourage more participants to have a go, rather than dissuade them totally.
Good luck to you all, whatever team you are rolling off for
Broni
Shadows Fall
Prince of Darkness
Hey guys/girls,
Just my two cents worth, but for years I have been a strong advocate of total selection and would be extremely supportive of the National body if they were to go in this direction.
Why I hear you ask?
1. Top 7 past the post is something akin to a raffle, and does not guarantee your 7 best bowlers. An example of this is as follows: The weekend before the SQ Rachuig trials George Frilingos drops a can of paint on his foot and either can't bowl or is unable to bowl to his full potential. a) If he can't bowl at all then he doesn't make the team as there is no scope for selection and so even though he has been the form bowler in the Nation for the last 12 months he misses the side or b) He takes part in the roll off hampered by injury and misses the top 7. Once again the no.1 ranked bowler in the country gets left at home and SQ aren't able to send their best side away.
2. Top 5 past the post and 2 selection is slightly better, but picture this - Carl can't make a roll off due to work committments, Brando has a bad dose of some illness and can't bowl and George dropped the paint on his foot and can't bowl. So how the hell do you pick two out of those three.
3. Total selection (Provided the selection panel is made of knowledgeable, committed and unbiased people) allows for the best 7 bowlers based on resume' and previous results to be selected to represent the State.
The flow on effect of this is that it will entice people to bowl more tournaments in order to expand their resume.
It also means that in scenario 1 George is able to be picked, and in scenario 2all three bowlers would be able to be selected and combined with 4 other strong bowlers would make a very formidable team.
Ideally, prior to the team being selected, a weekend camp would be held where the applicants bowl on a variety of conditions, talk to the coaches about their (bowling) balls, lines they like to play, position they like to bowl etc and are observed in a team environment by the selectors. This combined with the bowlers resume of results would provide the selectors with an excellent basis for selecting the strongest possible team.
Like I say it's only my two cents worth
Cheers
Steve Hunt
Just my two cents worth, but for years I have been a strong advocate of total selection and would be extremely supportive of the National body if they were to go in this direction.
Why I hear you ask?
1. Top 7 past the post is something akin to a raffle, and does not guarantee your 7 best bowlers. An example of this is as follows: The weekend before the SQ Rachuig trials George Frilingos drops a can of paint on his foot and either can't bowl or is unable to bowl to his full potential. a) If he can't bowl at all then he doesn't make the team as there is no scope for selection and so even though he has been the form bowler in the Nation for the last 12 months he misses the side or b) He takes part in the roll off hampered by injury and misses the top 7. Once again the no.1 ranked bowler in the country gets left at home and SQ aren't able to send their best side away.
2. Top 5 past the post and 2 selection is slightly better, but picture this - Carl can't make a roll off due to work committments, Brando has a bad dose of some illness and can't bowl and George dropped the paint on his foot and can't bowl. So how the hell do you pick two out of those three.
3. Total selection (Provided the selection panel is made of knowledgeable, committed and unbiased people) allows for the best 7 bowlers based on resume' and previous results to be selected to represent the State.
The flow on effect of this is that it will entice people to bowl more tournaments in order to expand their resume.
It also means that in scenario 1 George is able to be picked, and in scenario 2all three bowlers would be able to be selected and combined with 4 other strong bowlers would make a very formidable team.
Ideally, prior to the team being selected, a weekend camp would be held where the applicants bowl on a variety of conditions, talk to the coaches about their (bowling) balls, lines they like to play, position they like to bowl etc and are observed in a team environment by the selectors. This combined with the bowlers resume of results would provide the selectors with an excellent basis for selecting the strongest possible team.
Like I say it's only my two cents worth
Cheers
Steve Hunt
Gary
Active Member
And u thought we were Bitchy in Victoria. ( WDV )
Omg ice what have u done
So u should be barred for trying ur best?
With State's that can not get number's or only just why u trying to stop some-one tring out for both?
As for selection for Rachuig what a load of crap your best team is the one that whant's to bowl when u are required to maybe go 5 first past the post the other 2 only selected if (top bowler's injured , ill or had an accident), if u go down the road of only selection it would be so unjust i'll look after u if u look after me!!!!!!!!!!! If ur on the fringe why would u bother!!!!!!!!!
I bowled my last WDV last year as have bought new ball's and going well if we had selection i would never get a look in, at least if we have a roll off i'll have a chance!!!!!!!!!!!
Just my 2 cent's worth..............
Gary.............................................
Omg ice what have u done
So u should be barred for trying ur best?
With State's that can not get number's or only just why u trying to stop some-one tring out for both?
As for selection for Rachuig what a load of crap your best team is the one that whant's to bowl when u are required to maybe go 5 first past the post the other 2 only selected if (top bowler's injured , ill or had an accident), if u go down the road of only selection it would be so unjust i'll look after u if u look after me!!!!!!!!!!! If ur on the fringe why would u bother!!!!!!!!!
I bowled my last WDV last year as have bought new ball's and going well if we had selection i would never get a look in, at least if we have a roll off i'll have a chance!!!!!!!!!!!
Just my 2 cent's worth..............
Gary.............................................
Stuart Little
Member
No offence to anyone, but this is impossible, no matter who you pick, they will always be biased.
Shadows Fall
Prince of Darkness
Hey Hamish,
No offence taken.
People by their very nature will have some degree of bias towards other people, but surely there are people out there with enough back bone and moral fortitude that as a selector would select a team purely based on merit and not let personalities or personal preferences cloud their decision making.
Mind you, if the selectors for the Australian Cricket and Rugby League teams are anything to go by, maybe I am deluded and living in a world of naivity
Cheers
Steve
No offence taken.
People by their very nature will have some degree of bias towards other people, but surely there are people out there with enough back bone and moral fortitude that as a selector would select a team purely based on merit and not let personalities or personal preferences cloud their decision making.
Mind you, if the selectors for the Australian Cricket and Rugby League teams are anything to go by, maybe I am deluded and living in a world of naivity
Cheers
Steve
aphelion
Vittu Perkele Saatana!
Stuart Little said:
So true. There is no such thing as an unbiased selection panel. Doesn't matter if it's to do with work, sport, art, whatever.
I've been on the wrong side of the equation a few times in the past. Could I tell some stories, hehe.
Rolloff plus selection is the fairest way in my opinion. That way, everyone is "supposedly" in with a chance, and the selectors can still choose their favourites.
