Letters from Jacques Cochonnet
W.P.R.T. (Wellington)
Complete Wiki Index (21/06)
North Island:
South Island:
StKildaClub 10
This NZPW is sponsored by:
I received this proposal on 09/10/06. Author and date unknown. - Wiki editor, Tom van B.
Proposal for the Selecting of New Zealand Teams to represent New Zealand
We all know the reasons after three years that the selection of players for Representative teams by a selection panel is not working.
The following is offered.
Three team trials to be held. One in Auckland, Wellington and Central. The self selected triples teams of men/mixed and women apply for selection with an entry fee of per team to cover costs. The player's contract would be signed on the basis that the funds to travel were available and a deposit of would be required when the winning teams are known.
The entry fee is to be used for holding the trials, looking after the host club and associated costs in providing food/drinks, getting speakers, motivators, coaches, sports psychologists, nutritionists involved etc.
All teams must play in the three trials in order to gain points from the results of playing against all the other teams over two days as well as a point allocation for the pointing and shooting exercises. The allocation of points is to be clearly expressed for everyone's benefit before the trials when the number of teams is known.
Once the entry has been received there can be no changes to the team. If a person is sick a replacement cannot be used. The team would have to rely on the results of the other trials and National triples.
There is no 4th player for the World Championships New Zealand team at this point in time as the position is self funding and they may not play enough game time to justify the expense. The 4th player would also not be included in the same team during the trials as it is expected they would be playing in another team trying to win to gain selection as of there own right. The process must be clear and simple.
A self funded Manager/player would be appointed by PNZ and the person would only move into the team in the event of sickness.
After the completion of the three trials all teams would play in the National Triples and points would be allocated on the ranking the teams finish for men's/mixed and women's.
The top teams ranked after the trials and tournament, men's mixed and women's would be the World Championship representatives, the second teams would be the Singapore representatives and the third the Asian Championship teams. Failure to meet the requirements of the contract and not play in the respective International tournament would penalise the whole team and no replacements would be allowed. The whole team would forfeit their position and the next team would take their place.
The Trans Tasman competition would give the top two men's/mixed and Women's triples teams the incentive to appear and perform before embarking on there other International tournament commitments.
These teams could also be the Oceania selection each two years.
If the Trust/sponsorship funding is not available and a team cannot afford to go to Oceania the next ranked team should be given the opportunity to help increase a wider playing base. This would help develop the future trial teams wanting to be selected each year.
Petanque New Zealand would still reserve the right to not send a team to any of the tournaments if they consider that any of the players are not ambassadors for their country and would not uphold the terms of the Players conduct code. It would also be expected that the selected teams would continue to practice and perform up until their departure for International honours.
No Name.
Comment 1 It feels to me that Michael Emerson's proposal is more simple and workable. It is important to strive for clarity so we do not end up with the same quagmire we all want to get away from.
I find this line rather disturbing: "Petanque New Zealand would still reserve the right to not send a team to any of the tournaments if they consider that any of the players are not ambassadors for their country and would not uphold the terms of the Players conduct code".
This seems to go right back to what Oskar says on this page: "The selection criteria in my eyes aren’t very clear and several of the points mentioned in the selection criteria (Evidence of a positive attitude to training and commitment to the team; Demonstrated compatibility with other selected players; Priority will be given to selecting a team that can be expected to behave in a harmonious and responsible manner; Previous unacceptable behaviour (including breaches of PNZ’s Constitution and/or Code of Behaviour ) by a player may be taken into account by the Selection Panel; Neatness in appearance ) are so blatantly subjective that any player can be selected or left out...."
We should aim to get agreement on the broad issues first and leave all this punitive stuff for later.
It is strange there is no acknowledgement or mention of Michael Emerson's proposal. This would have helped with the all important consensus building, as the above proposal by (No Name) agrees with a number of points made by Michael. It's a pity the author/s didn't just say - well we like it in essence but there's a few things we'd like to change. Then just those points could be discussed. We have now ended up with two separate proposals - one not acknowledging the other. This is all very confusing for people. -Tom van B.
Comment 2 The above proposal from Trevor Nielson of Central Region, does share many similarities with my proposal and I agree with Tom as to ask why they didn't just say we like the other proposal but would like these changes. Anyway, it appears the key differences in Trevor's proposal are:
His proposal has teams accumulating points over three or four tournaments. I have the finals idea with the teams ranked on finishing position. I must say I really don't like the idea of accumulating points. We want winners (in attitude and ability) representing New Zealand.
Trevor for a long time has said he doesn't like a team of 4 going to the Worlds, and his proposal only allows for a team of 3. My proposal says let the teams/players decide themselves, and let them enter the tournaments as a team of 4 if they want to.
He also seems to be asking players to put money into a pot to pay for expenses. I'm all for players being financially responsible, and I think there should be some financial `up front' to show commitment.
Other than the above points of difference, it's good to see Central Region thinking along these lines. Remembering the key points of both proposals are:
- no more selection process
- teams qualify through a series of tournaments
- teams must stick together through these tournaments
- allocate representation for different internationals based on finishing position in the qualifying series.
- Michael E
Comment 3 Hi Tom, I note you have asked some players to provide feedback on the selection options that have recently been posted on the NZPW. The Auckland region has a meeting scheduled for 27th October at the Herne Bay Club, 7pm where all affiliated members are invited to provide input into an “Auckland position” on selection. These members include those Auckland names posted on the Wiki site.
The purpose of this meeting is for two key reasons:
There is some confusion among Auckland members about the two options tabled by Michael Emerson. One document tabled last year (when Michael was a selector) supports selection as it currently is but adding a selection squad rather than having open selection. The second and more recent document opts for a team play off style, with no selectors. In addition to these two options, we now have another Auckland paper that supports a region by region selection process.
So a good discussion is expected. The outcome of this meeting will be formally tabled at the PNZ meeting as the Auckland position on November 25th. Perhaps you guys in Wellington could follow suit.
Whatever the format, in my view, the ability to self fund will be the lynch pin for everyone - such is the situation of this small sport! - Joanne Evans
Editor's note: Just to clarify my position as NZPW editor. I am only aware of one "option tabled by Michael Emerson" - this is the one Joanne Evans refers to as the "second and more recent document". The other proposal Joanne Evans refers to as "an other Auckland paper" (the one at the top of this page) has been attributed to four different people so far (including Joanne Evans). As editor I can only accept the true identity of the author - if or when this person steps forward.
Comment 4 Tom. I also am only aware of one proposal/option tabled by me. I've searched my emails and documents and can only find one. So I have emailled Joanne asking her to send me the second one.
Of course when I was a selector I wrote at times as if the selection process was continuing, but this is quite different to an analysis or proposal.
You'll note I refer to the above proposal as from Trevor Nielson of Central region. This is because when I was emailled it in Word format, Trevor was showing as the author. - Michael E.
Comment 5 If we can clarify the status of all the proposals, I'm happy to table them for discussion at the next WPA meeting. Michael's current proposal is already an agenda item for the meeting, with the view that support for it will be voted on at the meeting. It will be beneficial to clearly identify who the author of the second proposal is and to sort out if there are any other ideas out there on the selection process, so we can discuss things in a balanced manner. -Margret
Editor's note: Have emailed Trevor and asked him if the other proposal Joanne Evans refers to as "an other Auckland paper" (the one at the top of this page) is his.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about a proposal on this page: https://petanque.pbwiki.com/SelectionRemitTwo
It got on my computer via the Suggestion Box on our Blog - without a name.
If you are the author, could you confirm this to me, so I can clear it up. Georgio told me Joanne Evans had written it.
Kind regards,
Tom van Bodegraven.
Update 19/10: reply from Trevor Neilson.
Comment 6 Hi Tom, as you said to come forward regarding the experience and feelings about the selection of teams.
Well I can tell you now from my experience and from the last three world champs that I have been an ambassador for New Zealand and it made me so proud to wear that Silver Fern on my chest.
With the selection process in New Zealand it is going to be very hard to adapt quickly, it will take time for us to adjust to the way they do things in Europe (France) but we as a country are trying very hard to follow these kinds of adaptations (selection process wise) it's not going to be easy if we are at each others throats all the time! Here we are going back and forward but not moving at all with the selection process if you ask me. With the selection process I have spoke to (Phillipe Quintais and P.suchaud and la croix) THESE PLAYERS ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD. I have ask him how do you or your team get selected for the worlds.
Quintais reply:
Well, Georgio
As the Winners from the year (2002) before so it will be the same Team next year (2003 in Geneva) the team stand as it is.
'His reply was "win a lot of tournaments and get the maximum points that you can get as" a team" and the combination wise is very important" ? not because this is a good player! not only that is how you get along with that person socially or in the competition, how mentally strong he is, there is a lot of thing to be done team wise, federation wise, combination wise, and all those very important things we take them and absorb it. But we play all year round and this is one of the most important things we keep playing from year to year none-stop from club champ Singles, Doubles, Triples, and then we have the Interclub Club Champ, after that we have the Region Champ and then Nationals Sgles, Dbl, Tple, then Veteran & Senior tournament after the Master 2006 that just finished, and the biggest of all ( La Marseillaise ). So we (as a team) are pretty busy. And at the end we or the last one standing and by far!! The level is "High" for every one of us not only at the worlds, but European as well. They play lots and lots and lots and lots of tournament to be great as we are!
As for us in Auckland we are looking forward to the meeting coming up on the 27/10/2006 at Herne Bay, to discuss the selection process and give our own personal view of the selection on how we as a Region, to come with an idea that makes the process much more clear and understandable for everyone.
We in new Zealand we get three National tournament, Oceania and the Open at Vic park that is it ?......How pathetic we are and we need more of it ,"(but how)" the proposal from Michael Emerson is good, its going to be a very good procedure "from three tournaments". You Start from (Example) Auckland, Rotorua, then Wellington team of three player will have to stick together for these tournament as combination, and play together as well for a while as a triple team of course collecting points as a Team and they will be very crucial points.
Then your got your National, S, D, Triple which it will be great to had on that selection point panel and will be introduce into the Region and Club and P.N.Z . If the proposal goes well with the Region and will be presented at the next P.N.Z meeting with the idea of all the player in Auckland region.
Well these are some of my views Tom.
Thanks
Georgio.
Comment 7 Kudos to Michael for the change of stance re selections. And kudos for coming up with what is essentially an easy to understand and very transparent selection criteria. With a little fine tuning it looks very workable and takes the pressure off the selectors. It gets a vote from me. I’d also be interested in seeing how teams work with the concept of substitutes being allowed. Definitely worth looking at. -Andy Gilbert
Comment 8 Again I support the concept of teams winning selection by results and not by personality. I see great value in the transparency of the selection process. The proposal which is credited to Trevor Neilson (inaccurately, I believe) has some extra discussion points which could be ironed out in the fine tuning. I feel the major issue here is for PNZ to listen to how the regions and individual players are feeling about the possible new direction and make a decision as soon as possible.
Then can we please all get on with it and start pulling together as a sport? Except when we are on the terrain, we are all supposed to be on the same side. -Andy Gilbert
Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.
Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.
Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.
Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.
Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.
Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.
Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.
Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.
If you do not know our password but would still like to make a comment - email it to tom@bindu-design.co.nz
This page has been viewed times
Page Information
|
Wiki Information |
Recent PBwiki Blog Posts |
Create your own free wiki!