DaleS
Well-Known Member
I never mentioned commitment because nomination does not immediately infer commitment, only interest.
Personally names have never worried me, grew up with Carl, and bowled against, him (in juniors & seniors) as well as bowling against & being thumped by Ramsay, Kury, Richmond etc...(showing my age now), I guess it boils down to any person can be beaten on any given day, we all learn that the hard way most times. So as for extra compettion, bring it on.
Further to that if you worry about Pilkington, Pearson, & Douglas (no offense guys) then how will you go up against Belmonte, Walsh, etc. If you really do get worried about names (not trying to sound elitest either) then maybe you shouldn't nominate for Rauchig. For one, I'm hoping there is a big turn out, it can only be good for Queensland bowling.
Getting back to topic, if we're treating this like a tournament (and by the looks of things we are), then shouldn't we "pay our money and take our chances" so to speak.
Also, If we're trying to keep quiet who is nominating, well sorry, I dont think that will work either, bowlers like all people talk, and you can be guaranteed that most of those who nominate or who intend nominating will be known prior to a ball being thrown whether you publish a list on names or not. That being the case and following your argument Andrew, people will still not participate due to the 'name bowlers' nominating and we're back to square one again.
Reluctant about change, for one I'm not. Nor am I trying to step on toes. Maybe I am just blind, but none of the arguments presented to me about delayed nomination make sense (to me), thats all.
Personally names have never worried me, grew up with Carl, and bowled against, him (in juniors & seniors) as well as bowling against & being thumped by Ramsay, Kury, Richmond etc...(showing my age now), I guess it boils down to any person can be beaten on any given day, we all learn that the hard way most times. So as for extra compettion, bring it on.
Further to that if you worry about Pilkington, Pearson, & Douglas (no offense guys) then how will you go up against Belmonte, Walsh, etc. If you really do get worried about names (not trying to sound elitest either) then maybe you shouldn't nominate for Rauchig. For one, I'm hoping there is a big turn out, it can only be good for Queensland bowling.
Getting back to topic, if we're treating this like a tournament (and by the looks of things we are), then shouldn't we "pay our money and take our chances" so to speak.
Also, If we're trying to keep quiet who is nominating, well sorry, I dont think that will work either, bowlers like all people talk, and you can be guaranteed that most of those who nominate or who intend nominating will be known prior to a ball being thrown whether you publish a list on names or not. That being the case and following your argument Andrew, people will still not participate due to the 'name bowlers' nominating and we're back to square one again.
Reluctant about change, for one I'm not. Nor am I trying to step on toes. Maybe I am just blind, but none of the arguments presented to me about delayed nomination make sense (to me), thats all.