Posted: 2 December 2004, 6:27 AM
Sometimes it concerns me the amount of negativity that is generated over selections. Of course not everyone's going to agree exactly with who is selected every time, but that is hardly a reason to start moaning, making snide remarks or abusing each other. Myself, I'd like to think that I would support whoever was selected, rather than abuse the selectors and\or put down members of the team. The fact is, on the whole the selections have been reasonably fair and accurate. (At least I don't see anyone out there who has been regularly winning major events and has not been selected for various events).
Also in reply to Greg: Do you really believe all that stuff you have written???. Firstly, you imply that recent results are irrelavent and don't indicate anything about a persons performance in Japan? Well, what should be used to indicate a persons performance next year?
Secondly about 'peaking', I don't see anyone peaking so hard that it is detrimenting their performance for Japan next year. In my opinion what most of us need, is more hard competitions to improve our orienteering, not less. At present, orienteering in NZ is nothing like playing for the All Blacks.
Posted: 2 December 2004, 9:15 AM
Yes and No
I said I don't agree with curent selections, which I don't
I was basicly asking why Rob C was so happy when he can't be right until Japan next year, (and results in Oz are not the most relivant thing to Japan)
As for peaking, I'm just bring up what other people were saying about having time between events next year to have a proper 'Lydiard Program' In of which most people were fighting to get events moved do this could happen.
Posted: 2 December 2004, 10:19 AM
Greg, anyone who is serious about WOC 2005 will probably only peak twice next year. The trials and then WOC itself.
I seriously doubt if anyone has peaked yet. Just because someone beats you by 5 or 10 mins in a race doesn't mean they are peaking, it just means that they train harder and are better than you at orienteering.
The formula is pretty straight forward - train hard, run lots races (remember every race is a trial!), get consistently good results then you get rewarded with a place on the team.
Never ever forget it all starts with a positive attitude and a true belief in your own abilities.
Posted: 2 December 2004, 10:23 AM
Fair enough, It's just that your comments come across to me somewhat poorly at times. (Mind you, so do Darren's on occasions)
Purhaps I just take Maptalk comments the wrong way.
This message was edited by Chris Forne on 2 December 2004, 5:38 PM
Posted: 2 December 2004, 10:42 AM
you probably do Chris, yet Darren sounds pretty defensive to me??
And no one peaked for Oz bloody hell we should walk away with a medal next year at WOC!
Posted: 2 December 2004, 1:40 PM
Impartial observer here...
It's good to see some robust discussion about selection but don't you think this one's gone a bit far.
Don't know what the selection dispute was but based on what I picked up in the thread it looks like a close call between a few good orienteers. As I said worth discussion but reasonable discussion.
What is a problem with selection...
- If selection criteria aren't available to the athletes
- If process isn't transparent.
- If races not highlighted as important suddenly count after the event
- If Athletes who miss out can't get a reasonable explanation about where they fell down in comparison with those who made it
- If athletes are expected to perform and be scrutinised 12 months of the year
I'm speculating that some of these were an issue. That should be fed back to NZ Association and selectors through athlete reps in official fora.
Watching Kiwi performances over the last few months, the selectors must be getting something right. Especially the team in Australia, really impressive runs from Karl, Rob and Chris. But don't get too carried away. Last time I looked Julian, Robbie and I aren't Rostrup, Wingsted and Haldin.
Seems like New Zealand orienteers are expected to be competing 11 months of the year. The best will still win the races but perhaps not the best way to maximise performance at WOC. Can't believe your season is in full swing at the moment.
Being a selector is a thankless job.
Posted: 2 December 2004, 7:27 PM
This message was edited by Neil K on 3 December 2004, 7:50 AM
Posted: 3 December 2004, 2:34 AM
Greg, you don't give up do you?
You still state you don't agree with the selections, yet when challenged shortly after they were made, you agreed with 7 (as Aaron is still not indicating any interest) of the 8 going. The only one you had different was Neil over Karl.
That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to express it. And since you decided to publicly state your opinion, I believe I am allowed to have a giggle at your expense when Karl comes back as the overall winner in Aussie and then wins the CD Champs on a steep map that is the terrain he is supposedly weakest on.
What I don't accept that anyone is (publicly) entitled to do, is when discussing decisions made criticise my personal motivations and ethics.
So yes, I get pissed off when even one person (and even if they thought they were being funny, which they're not) thinks the basis of Karl's selection for Japan was because I'm his coach.
Neil and I don't agree regarding the process used for those picked for the training camp. That's fine, and again he's allowed and more than welcome to express his views. But when he makes the observation that he now understands why the process was followed now knowing who made the donation, in my opinion he was questioning my reasons for making that donation. That also pissed me off - but we've sinced smoked the peace pipe (I probably shouldn't use that analogy).
By all means continue to express your views on decisions made. But what is concerning me at the moment is that so far, every significant decision about Japan next year has attracted discussion, debate and at times criticism. First those picked for the training camp, then the trial dates, and now the potential unfairness of one of the rumoured trial areas.
Why I'm concerned is that our sport is largely run by volunteers and if they continually have their decisions debated and criticised, (and even worse have personal reasons thrown in their face) they'll throw their toys out of the cot and who would blame them?
I stress again opinions and debate are welcomed. However I suggest there's one or two people who need to learn how to make constructive criticism, and leave their warped sense of humour out of emails they publicly send.
Eric, NZOF has a Selection Policy and it is available online at NZOF's website, so everyone has the opportunity to access it. I would like to draw to people's attention the following clause:
"2.2.3 High priority shall be given to selecting a team that can be expected to behave in a harmonious and responsible manner."
Posted: 3 December 2004, 2:59 AM
So you're admitting that you are actually Karl's coach.
Posted: 3 December 2004, 3:19 AM
Oh Neil you've deleted your drunken message which didn't make a lot of sense, before I got a chance to show Carsten. Oh well, it gave me a giggle and Carsten had a giggle when I told him about it. We think you and BJ would make a lovely couple.
It was better than the first page of this which I found a bit distressing, I agree with Chris. Remember the positive thing was that 8 people did get funded to go to Japan which was great and hopefully everyone, including those who didn't get to go, will benefit from the experience. Are we going to have an organized display of the videos Clem took and discussion about maps and training ideas and so on?
Not so sure I'm keen on the Dane's idea of training in their jackets in the middle of summer to prepare for the heat! They apparently have to train two times a week for the month leading up to when they go, in the heat - there's some heat room in Copenhagen made for this kind of preparation. I guess it's something for us to think about though, especially considering it will be winter in NZ.
Posted: 3 December 2004, 3:24 AM
There is a heat room at Otago University that is used by athletes for training before they go overseas to compete in warmer climates.
Some of the other universities may have similar facilities.
Posted: 3 December 2004, 11:18 AM
read what I said again Rob I only agreed with 1 out of 4 men not 3!
And I'm disagreeing with the ANZ/Test team selection at the moment.
Posted: 3 December 2004, 9:14 PM
Chris and Neil would be my first 2 going on results from similar terrain, 1st day Queens b'day, 4th day Southern 6 day, and 5th Day southern six day.
Also I'm not sure if you have actually asked people if they are wanting to go but I am assuming (and assumption is the mother of all **** ups) that Mark Lawson is not wanting to go otherwise he would be my 3rd. Then the final 2 spots I would be between Darren, Rob J and I would be asking Aaron about his seriousness in wanting to go. If Aaron was fully behind it he would be in (going by southern six day results and that he had been injured before Queens B'day) and the final spot would probably have to go to Rob J based on 1st day of Queens b'day as he wasn't at S6 and Darrens results from there are less than favorable."
Mark was unavailable. Aaron didn't then and hasn't indicated any seriousness about WOC next year.
Posted: 4 December 2004, 8:21 AM
As another impartial observer (perhaps less impartial than our australian friends) I can only comment on what I THINK was the rationale behind the Japan tour and the selections for it.
Japan, despite being a fair bit closer than Europe is a big unknown for elite NZ orienteers. I'm sure there have been others but I can only remember Al and Katie having raced there, a long time ago. Therefore it was important if NZ was to take some of the advantages offered by a rare "out of Europe" world champs that at least a core group in next year's team had experience in the local terrain, conditions etc.
I'm guessing that when this opportunity came up, there was a limit to how many people could go, or at least be $upported. So, who to send? Unless the selectors have some amazing divining powers (and as far as I know none of them have had any lucky runs of lotto wins lately) they can't know who the top orienteers at the end of this season will be. However they could make educated guesses based on who was on form over nationals and QB, and who of those people have been MOST CONSISTENTLY up there. There are maybe 3 people who barring sudden changes could be selected for the WC, or anthing they were available for, now. They were in Japan. There is a largish group, both sexes but particularly men who based on the criteria I've just mentioned, could be fairly confident about selection. Most of those people were in Japan - I see the fact that some missed out as a damn good sign in that there will be serious competition for most of the places in next year's team, for the first time in a while. There are those who were not among the best in that nationals/QB period or just produced one or two highlights - they're the ones that would have missed out by my hypothetical criteria, (and missed out on the trip) but a couple of those people have produced results in the last few weeks that hopefully have got the selectors' notice, and if they do the same at the business end (nationals, trials) will also be gunning for WC team places. But they could have only been in the tour group if selectors had known in advance who out of all the "has shown promise" elites would be the ones stepping up this season.
Anyway, I'm finally getting to my point i think (sorry for taking a longish route). If the aim was to make sure at least SOME of next year's WC team know what to expect in Japan, then I think they did a pretty good job. Take another look at those who were named. What are the odds of NONE of those people making the WC team? What are the odds of half or more making the team? Still pretty good I'd say, though I'd hate to have to pick now (or 4 months ago) which ones after Chris, Tania and Rachel.
I can see those who just missed out this time or are stepping up now questioning whether those in the tour party will have an unfair advantage come selection time. Well, there are those who have now demonstrated their potential in Japanese terrain and probably have a better chance now. But there's also one or two who didn't do so well and might need to work extra hard in the trials to gain a place. I would hope the only scenario where people who trialled poorly get in ahead of people who trialled well is that if the selectors' first "paper team" post trials contains NOBODY who raced in Japan. But, again what are the odds of that happening?
Another gripe seems to be regarding communication, it reads like some of the contenders who missed out first heard about the tour the same way the likes of me did, when the participants were announced. That would be unfortunate, but explainable (though less forgivable) if the whole thing was organised in a hurry.
Or I might be talking out my arse, and this whole debate could have been avoided had Neil simply done a better job drying Marquita's dishes
Posted: 4 December 2004, 8:25 AM
Just to add comment on one specific case that Greg and Rob have been debating, my understanding is that Mark will probably be unavailable for serious competition next winter. In which case even if he was certain to perform better in Japan this time than some of those who went, it wouldn't have helped much in the "long run, big picture, what's good for next year's team" scheme of things.