GeorgeF
Hypercell = Hyperhook!
First of all, I want to make it clear that I am in the process of completing a revised and suggested 'selection criteria' for the upcoming AGM in a few weeks. I have full intentions of taking this further as I am passionate about Queensland fielding the best possible team. I am shocked on the some of the omissions from both teams, TBAQ had a chance to pick the best teams and they clearly got it wrong.
I'm not going to beat around the bush (I'm not going to name players either though).
Here are my thoughts on why they got it wrong
1. The selectors need to be transparent on their decision making. Apart from the resumes bowlers submitted what pro-active due diligence to each selector take to verify the past results of the players nominating. Results for every tournament in Australia are readily available on the internet now, how much consideration was taken for past performances?
I can tell you by the selections, not much! National rankings were not considered, past Rachuig experience was not considered, National tournament results outside of Queensland were not considered, if they were the team would look a lot different. There were some experienced, well seasoned bowlers who didn't make the right teams, nor did some of them make ANY teams, how the hell were they over looked?
2. Whilst the TBAQ went to extraordinary lengths to ensure the lane surface and patterns were similar, they clearly were not. Humidty, oil type, there are countless variables that are out of the hands of lane men. The 20 game pinfall, including the strike/spare tally should have only been a minor GUIDE and part of the selection criteria in relation to picking the 20 bowlers, not using it as a tool to pick the top 7 of each team.
3. Selectors need to be bowlers or pro-actively monitoring the State and National tournament scene all the time. Level 2, HP or whatever they call it means nothing to me. Sitting down with this qualification, reading score sheets, counting strikes and spares is NOT how you pick a team. Experience, knowledge and common sense will undoubtedly allow the best team to be picked 99% of the time. How about tournament experience, bowlers ability to adapt, bowlers range, bowlers knowledge?
There are alot of bowlers who nominated who travel almost monthly, bettering themselves and improving, they are a force to be reckon with in every event. Leaving them out of a team, or both teams all together is a slap in the face for the hard work and dedication these bowlers put in. If I was in their shoes I'd probably never nominate again. They were omitted infront of other players who clearly don't travel, don't make an effort to better themselves, and don't bowl tournament outside their home town. It is a disgrace.
Selectors need to know who is bowling what and who is not bowling. It's appalling that to see that tournament results over the last year meant nothing.
If you had a drop down menu on total bowling with the 20 people who made it through and asked the general public to pick 2 teams they would certainly pick 2 VERY different teams to what the selectors have. They is no logical justification to the current selections. Bowlers could select the relevant teams better because they know, they know who bowls, they know who's good, they know who's got the experience, they know who travels and is committed.
Putting bowlers into teams who clearly don't deserve to be there places the team under stress. No longer do you really have 7 bowlers, you have 5 or 6. As a team member I want to believe in the ability and experience of my team mate, knowing if I sat out he could get up there and perform. It is clear that both teams are not even close to being correct, therefore if I don't back my teammate, it places added pressure on everyone else.
I could go on and on but it's best tabulated in a document for the AGM. Please feel free to leave your comments on here in support or disagreement to my comments. If you would like to PM your comments will remain confidential but will mentioned in my document to the AGM (not referring to names though).
Over and out
George Frilingos
I'm not going to beat around the bush (I'm not going to name players either though).
Here are my thoughts on why they got it wrong
1. The selectors need to be transparent on their decision making. Apart from the resumes bowlers submitted what pro-active due diligence to each selector take to verify the past results of the players nominating. Results for every tournament in Australia are readily available on the internet now, how much consideration was taken for past performances?
I can tell you by the selections, not much! National rankings were not considered, past Rachuig experience was not considered, National tournament results outside of Queensland were not considered, if they were the team would look a lot different. There were some experienced, well seasoned bowlers who didn't make the right teams, nor did some of them make ANY teams, how the hell were they over looked?
2. Whilst the TBAQ went to extraordinary lengths to ensure the lane surface and patterns were similar, they clearly were not. Humidty, oil type, there are countless variables that are out of the hands of lane men. The 20 game pinfall, including the strike/spare tally should have only been a minor GUIDE and part of the selection criteria in relation to picking the 20 bowlers, not using it as a tool to pick the top 7 of each team.
3. Selectors need to be bowlers or pro-actively monitoring the State and National tournament scene all the time. Level 2, HP or whatever they call it means nothing to me. Sitting down with this qualification, reading score sheets, counting strikes and spares is NOT how you pick a team. Experience, knowledge and common sense will undoubtedly allow the best team to be picked 99% of the time. How about tournament experience, bowlers ability to adapt, bowlers range, bowlers knowledge?
There are alot of bowlers who nominated who travel almost monthly, bettering themselves and improving, they are a force to be reckon with in every event. Leaving them out of a team, or both teams all together is a slap in the face for the hard work and dedication these bowlers put in. If I was in their shoes I'd probably never nominate again. They were omitted infront of other players who clearly don't travel, don't make an effort to better themselves, and don't bowl tournament outside their home town. It is a disgrace.
Selectors need to know who is bowling what and who is not bowling. It's appalling that to see that tournament results over the last year meant nothing.
If you had a drop down menu on total bowling with the 20 people who made it through and asked the general public to pick 2 teams they would certainly pick 2 VERY different teams to what the selectors have. They is no logical justification to the current selections. Bowlers could select the relevant teams better because they know, they know who bowls, they know who's good, they know who's got the experience, they know who travels and is committed.
Putting bowlers into teams who clearly don't deserve to be there places the team under stress. No longer do you really have 7 bowlers, you have 5 or 6. As a team member I want to believe in the ability and experience of my team mate, knowing if I sat out he could get up there and perform. It is clear that both teams are not even close to being correct, therefore if I don't back my teammate, it places added pressure on everyone else.
In my opinion the selectors got it very wrong!
I could go on and on but it's best tabulated in a document for the AGM. Please feel free to leave your comments on here in support or disagreement to my comments. If you would like to PM your comments will remain confidential but will mentioned in my document to the AGM (not referring to names though).
Over and out
George Frilingos
