I suspect we'll all be under the same banner, that said I don't expect any NZ teams to vie for Worlds places...We'll be lucky if we get a full team over for the Australasians (or any other Aussie tourney). It really just comes down to funds available. So for now any discussion on Australasian teams and their qualification for 2011 Worlds may as well exclude the chance that NZ would "steal" a spot.
Worlds Discussion
continued from Melburns email discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/melbournebikepolo
This is such an iffy topic, there are so many "what if's".
IMO Nationals is the only feasible and fair way to determine the best teams for now, and perhaps even for the future. (from Perths perspective at least)
Australia is freaking massive, travelling interstate ain't cheap, riding across the country ain't cheap either ;) I don't know what others may think of Perth, but i reckon we're a pretty good unch of blokes; unfortunately not all of us have the a) TIME or b) FUNDS to go to every single tournament to prove that we are good players and make a decent team. Therefore we don't have much of a "track record" to go by. This year we came 5th, we felt we could have done better, but thats freaking polo, if coming 5th means we can't go to worlds, than we'll cop it
on the chin, put our heads up and keep improving for next year. (THERE WILL ALWAYS BE NEXT YEAR)
This year we had THREE, teams go to Nationals, not because we wanted to win, but because we love polo so freaking much and we know we'll have a good time. I know I'll try my best my best to attend as many tourneys next year as possible, but i'm lucky enough to have the spare time on my hands. now that I think about it $500 on a weekend of polo seems pretty ludicrous, but dammit, I love polo. Just don't remind me that I could be spending a week or two in bali or thailand for the same price.
If we set the record straight, and early -> Best team at nationals go to worlds. Perhaps this will mean that there will be less chances of people declining their place to go. The what ifs are a pain in the butt, I've always liked the idea of an "ALL STAR" team, the idea that any good player should be able to pick up a mallet and play awesome polo with ANY team mate. Keen to see what lewis thinks about this. (im also against this in some ways, im sure the Melburn crew will enjoy talking about their sweet passes to their team mates)
Aj's database idea sounds awesome, from that list we see who from the top 5 teams from nationals are on there, that will eliminate anyone who is not going, figure out which teams are still intact. Allow teams who have lost players to pick anyone off that list and create the final ALL STAR teams from the rest... (this all depends on how many teams are allocated to ustralasia. don't forget about NZ too, hopefully they can attend nationals this year.
oh well, I love this discussion, and would like to hear more opinions from different states.
i think we've had this debate before, but i skimmed over it whilst enjoying a nice coffee in a secluded town somewhere in new zealand :P
Groups:
I didn't mean you would steal a spot! I thought if you really wanted an NZ team to go you would probably get a spot if you asked the Worlds committee for it instead of having to compete with Australian teams in Australia (which doesn't seem fair cost-wise unless the next Australasians are held in New Zealand).
Off topic question: Have you finalised the dates for the Winter Wack tournament. There are many Sydney players very keen to go and we'd like to lock in cheap tickets asap
I think we should get info onto this board in a clear concise way for more people to access.
Heres something I posted to the e-mail list yesterday.
What we're dealing with here is a decision making process. So we need to design this.
We also have no organised body as they do in North America (not sure what they have organised in Europe either)
This has been on our minds for a while, but how it could take shape is yet another discussion we need to have.
We are fortunate that last year the number of people who wanted to go, matched the number of spots, the same may be the case for the next
year or so but not for much longer.
Firstly I think we need to articulate what our principles are for making decisions.
We already have these in our minds but they may not be as clear as they need to be, they also do not accord with the way we have been doing things for a while.
National Championships: In the first instance, winning or placing at the Nationals should earn you a spot at the worlds.
The other principles outline how we deal with things when problems occur.
Fairness: The decision should be fair. pretty straight forward.
Representation: The decision should support the representation of Australia at the world championships.
Team Consistency: The decision should support the wishes of teams to stick together.
Players Wishes: The decision should support the preference of the players involved.
Track Record: The decision should consider the track record of the 'team/player'.
The Year: The decision should be based on the preceeding year for that champiosnhips.
Common Sense: The decision should make sense.
I've got more thoughts and it's still developing in my mind but let me know what you think and we can throw this around a bit.
FYI This is how europe/NA does it:
16 spots for NA teams, each team must have two players from top 16 at NAHBPC.
No restrictions tying people back to their exact NA/Euro teams. Allows for substitutions amongst 'good' players, you can even have a third who didnt rank.
But dont forget, this is in an environment where a (very big) country/region is getting 16 spots. Still not sure exactly how those are allocated. (will keep searching/reading)
Automatic entry for 2010 world DFL team?
Seriously though, having the nationals as a starting point is great.
However, what if, for instance, a player whom everyone rates as top one or two in Australia has an injury that keeps them out of the Nats?
I guess your substitutions idea covers this D just throwing it out there.
http://www.bikepolo.com.au/2010/11/world-championships-2011-seattle
World Championships 2011 Seattle
The worlds have been announced, Seattle will host the world championships in September/October 2011 (exact dates TBD)
League of Bike Polo thread
NA Hardcourt 2011 Tour / Submit your proposals!
http://www.leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/tournaments/2010/09/29/na-hardcour...
World Hardcourt Bike Polo Championships
Will take place over 4 days:
1 day prelim tourney with X teams (number TBD).
2 days of Swiss Rounds with 48 teams
1 day double elimination with 24 teams
Eligibility (subject to change based on capacity, etc)
16 spots for NA teams, each team must have two players from top 16 at NAHBPC.
16 spots for European teams, each team must have two players from top 16 at EHBPC.
8 spots for other teams, including Australia, Japan, the host city, to be decided by Worlds host city at a later date.
8 spots for top 8 teams from a prelim tournament held the day before with 32 teams registered on a first-come, first-served basis, like in Berlin at WHBPC 2010.
—-
As stated above, Australia will be allocated spaces from 8 Available to teams outside Europe & North America. These will need to be shared with NZ, Asia, South America
In the first instance the results from the Australian/Australasian Nationals will be used to determine who will be allocated these spots. Exactly how this will occur is being discussed here:
http://leagueofbikepolo.com/club/australasia/worlds-discussion
At this stage we expect that we would be allocated 4 spaces (the same as 2010) based on the number/size of polo clubs in Asia and South America, compared to Australia, Europe and North America.
Australian teams are also eligble to enter the Prelim tournament on Day 1.
For the purposes of planning, If you have an Australian team and have formed a specific intention to attend the world championships, please leave your details in a comment below this post at
http://www.bikepolo.com.au/2010/11/world-championships-2011-seattle
I am so going to Seattle!! Maybe also head south to this: http://oregonmanifest.com/ on 23-24 Sept, check out vancouver's court, meet some rad peeps. play some polo.. sounds pretty good.
Bumping this. With nationals only 2 months out, people deserve to know where the cut off point is.
I've been in touch with Seattle today to try get a firm (or atleast a minimum) number of allocations.
Will post back as soon as i hear.
My proposals are as follows:
- Highest placing teams get first claim to World's spots.
- Teams must consist of at least 2/3rds of their original players to retain their World's spot.
- In case of replacements, the new 3rd will be chosen at the teams discretion (no qualifying pre-requisites needed)
- If a team forfeits their World's spot, it will be offered to the next placed team from Nationals rankings
Comments or additions?
I totally agree with this idea Lewis. The only issue is ranking teams that finish below 4th place. How do you think teams that finish equal 5th etc should be split? Goal difference? Head to head? I am thinking goal difference because not all teams play each other in a tournament. If goal difference is the same, then what?
How do you think teams that finish equal 5th etc should be split? Goal difference? Head to head? I am thinking goal difference because not all teams play each other in a tournament. If goal difference is the same, then what?
My opinion would be to take a head-to-head history (from Nationals only) first. If tied or no head-to-heads, go to goal differential.
If the teams are both from the same city, they could also organise a play-off.
How do you think teams that finish equal 5th etc should be split? Goal difference? Head to head? I am thinking goal difference because not all teams play each other in a tournament. If goal difference is the same, then what?
My opinion would be to take a head-to-head history (from Nationals only) first. If tied or no head-to-heads, go to goal differential.
If the teams are both from the same city, they could also organise a play-off.
Most other sports would go to head-to-head records, then goal difference, then if still tied, go to highest goals 'for'. It has to be clear before hand whether if same city it comes down to a play-off.
I think most of us are in agreement with structuring it as NA are doing it. We need to make sure that this is communicated to all the cities to discuss as soon as possible as not everyone checks here. I think it needs to be clearly stated and agreed on so the Adelaide boys can include it into the rules/rego signup so its in writing and confirmed.
The NA structure is slightly different.
For the sake of explanation let's say we get 4 spots. That's 12 players.
Teams may be formed with any combination of 2/3rds of players who finished in the top 4.
I.E a player from the 1st place team, a player from the 4th place team and a play from the 10th place team could form a team.
The bad thing with this system is theoretically you could form more than 4 teams with the possible combinationsof players.
The benefit is that if 2 players from the 1st place team are injured, the left over player. Who would arguably be one of the best players can still go, and form a competitive team to go with them.
The NA structure is slightly different.
For the sake of explanation let's say we get 4 spots. That's 12 players.
Teams may be formed with any combination of 2/3rds of players who finished in the top 4.
I.E a player from the 1st place team, a player from the 4th place team and a play from the 10th place team could form a team.
The bad thing with this system is theoretically you could form more than 4 teams with the possible combinationsof players.
The benefit is that if 2 players from the 1st place team are injured, the left over player. Who would arguably be one of the best players can still go, and form a competitive team to go with them.
The way we have it at the moment, the remaining player from the first place team loses their spot. (according to the rules) wheras I presume common sense would suggest that this person should be able to form a team, I'd hate them to miss out on a technicality.
(and what if the injuries/family tragedy/unforseen circumstance/ happens after they have bought tickets?)
One more thing - if you replace a player, the new player needs to have played in Australia and not be some random international.
"if you replace a player, the new player needs to have played in Australia and not be some random international."
x2
It would be great to have australian teams representing australian polo scene. (temporary/long-term residents included)
(temporary/long-term residents included)
If it came down to it I wouldnt have a problem with Markus, Julien, Maija etc playing on an Australian team.
(temporary/long-term residents included)
If it came down to it I wouldnt have a problem with Markus, Julien, Maija etc playing on an Australian team.
I wouldn't either. They don't have to have necessarily played at this Nationals or even recently in the country but they have spent some time in Australia playing.
"- In case of replacements, the new 3rd will be chosen at the teams discretion (no qualifying pre-requisites needed)"
i like this.
"they don't have to have necessarily played at this Nationals or even recently in the country but they have spent some time in Australia playing"
unless it's an emergency and there is no one else avail and without said international person, the team couldn't enter - like damon's case last year?
Emergency situations have to be different. From memory Damon was already in transit to Germany when he found out that their 3rd player was not coming. There was no other option.
>From memory Damon was already in transit
Not exactly, but it was close...
Last year a player in my team dropped out with 4 days notice. This was an American who fell into the Markus/Julien/Maija catergory. He had lived and played in Melbourne for a while earlier that year. After he dropped out we managed to raise $1500 in 48 hours to try and get Leigh to Berlin. Sadly we were still $1500 and 24 hours short.
>if you replace a player, the new player needs to have played in Australia and not be some random international.
(Damn random internationals! I much prefer the more predictable ones :)
Earlier on I agree in principle, but depending on the situation or timing, it may not be an option. Making this into rules becomes too restrictive.
This is what happened last year, we met McKenzie the evening before our first games, I found her through my Canadian connections. We were hardly shopping for someone to carry us. It was a last minute attempt to fill a gap due to injury and lack of $$. 2/3rds would be good here as well.
There is no single point in time when you make a decision. Though arguably when you buy plane tickets is a pretty significant point in time...
Has anyone put any thought into how we end up making the final decision..
One vote per city?
One vote per nationals team?
One vote per player?
Just go with what the person who has the most posts wants?
Consensus
ken-ball elimination
foot down
Actually, how about a game of bike polo?
No. I prefer the foot down.
But to make it interesting, lets split the people up into two teams. And then each team has a goal. Oh and there should be some kind of ball. Now if you can imagine some sort of metal stick with a plastic head on it. Every player should have one of these. You get extra points if you hit the ball into the goal with the stick. But off the small end. And actually, lets make it that even if you foot down, your still out, but then if you tap out at the side of the court you can come back in again.
We should try that some time. It could be a fun new version of footdown. We could call it stick-foot-down-ball....
p.s ihatefootdown
(i am having difficulties using this forum)
this: If a team forfeits their World's spot, it will be offered to the next placed team from Nationals rankings and
+ this: Teams must consist of at least 2/3rds of their original players to retain their World's spot.
could potentially cause one member of a top team having to concede their world's spot to 5th, 6th, 7th etc etc in line... a potentially tricky situation.
rules could perhaps reflect the organiser's preference as closely as possible.. if they are ok with only 1/3 having to have qualified, then we should be too.
if they are ok with only 1/3 having to have qualified, then we should be too.
Hypothetically, if your team missed out on goal difference to them, then only 1 of their team wants to go and gets 2 mates from overseas who had visited Australia for a day 10 years ago. I could understand you'd may feel a bit slighted about missing out to a team which really isn't 'Australasian'.
Its a bit extreme but it is possible. I think 2/3rds rule is fair.
if they are ok with only 1/3 having to have qualified, then we should be too.
Hypothetically, if your team missed out on goal difference to them, then only 1 of their team wants to go and gets 2 mates from overseas who had visited Australia for a day 10 years ago. I could understand you'd may feel a bit slighted about missing out to a team which really isn't 'Australasian'.
Its a bit extreme but it is possible. I think 2/3rds rule is fair.
You are lumping 2 examples together.
2 foreigners
1 nationals player
I think the hypothetical nationals player in your example should be allowed to form a team with another nationals finalist and another player of their choice. Therefore the 2/3rds rule applies for "australianism" and the requirement for qualified players is the same as NA
(i.e. some of the other teams you'll be playing against in this competition)
I got confused as sometimes this 2/3rds rule is mentioned as 2/3rds of their team as opposed to 2/3rds filled with finalists. And im just pointing out possible issues with our decisions, i.e. the international player has only had to have played a game of pick-up to qualify?
We should still have a think about with the 2/3rds rule about the off chance of having 5 'qualified' teams actually qualify. I know what much of what ive been saying is extreme cases, but i just think it needs to be put down to avoid any conflicts down the road.
Just to confirm, have they actually given Australasia 4 spots, or are we just assuming we have 4 of the 8 non EU-NA?
>(i am having difficulties using this forum)
Yeah, you can freewheel here :P
hmm hmm, sure, i see what you mean Brook.. but i wasn't really referring drafting from abroad.. just concerned about one person losing their team, and thus their spot at the worlds... get me?
i guess there are endless scenarios to imagine, all adding shades of grey to the discussion.
North America has 16 spots. The way that they are determining who qualifies for their Worlds spots is that a team must consist of 2/3rds of the players on a team must have placed in the top 16 at the NA Championships.
This means that if your team finishes within the qualifying cut off (top 16), you become PERSONALLY eligible to compete in the Worlds. Once you are eligible you have no obligation to play with the team you qualified with, you just have to be playing with atleast one other eligible player for worlds.
What do people think about this? It would mean that a player whos team qualifies will not miss out simply because their team mates cant/dont want to go.
North America has 16 spots. The way that they are determining who qualifies for their Worlds spots is that a team must consist of 2/3rds of the players on a team must have placed in the top 16 at the NA Championships.
This means that if your team finishes within the qualifying cut off (top 16), you become PERSONALLY eligible to compete in the Worlds. Once you are eligible you have no obligation to play with the team you qualified with, you just have to be playing with atleast one other eligible player for worlds.
What do people think about this? It would mean that a player whos team qualifies will not miss out simply because their team mates cant/dont want to go.
It makes perfect sense. Favours merit, doesn't punish circumstances out of control of each player.
NZ Prospective:
I'm going to be in Adelaide this year for the Aussie Nationals, and at the moment I agree that I don't see NZ forming a team at this stage. But for us here to even to consider getting a berth at the worlds we have to compete under the Australasian banner.
I would how ever like to see a NZ team represent NZ, the same as you want Aus represented with Aus players.
I can't help read into the title "Worlds". To me this suggests that the world is represented. Forget for a moment about the level at which we compare to other teams in the world, because the only way to get better at any thing is to compete with people better than you (Jamaican Bobsleigh Team).
I'm as passionate about Polo as the guys from Perth, and feel sympathy about travel and funds especially when trying to vi for a spot in the "Worlds."
I can only see the NZ scene growing, and if for the moment if we have to travel to to compete, then so be it, but I want NZ to represent it's self with it's own team, and it's own berth in the World Champs.
I agree with all your points and don't wanna dismiss/discourage you. But just to note that NA is Canada and the United States. Europe is a bunch of countries and so is the UK. I can't think of any country that actually has its own allocation.
Though I am wary that we have just decided this is the "Australasians with very little input from NZ and no input from any other asian cities. And if no other kiwi/asian people actually make it, can we really say it was the Australasians? I think you guys deserve your own nationals, but thats up to you to organise (just as Brisbane has their own championships) but there's still another step or two to get a regional worlds spot.
My advice? If you really are keen, get to the nationals/"Australasians" not to win a rightful spot, but to get to know as many people as you can. Rumour has it that the tourney rego system _may_ include some internet dating inspired functionality soon that will help you find team mates from other cities.
The second part of my advice is, go to the worlds, if you qualify or not, just get there, on Day 0 you can enter the wildcard tournament and play for a spot, and even if you don't qualify, you'll still be able to play more polo than you could ever imagine on the 4+ pickup courts. Every game with people from so many different countries all in the same place. In fact, as a non registered player you could play more games of pickup with people from more countries than you could as a registered player.
No matter what happens in this scenario, you will come back with more inspiration and new skill than you could imagine. I know the longer I stay still here the more I feel my skills becoming routine. This is addressed only by the occasional tournaments and the steady stream of international visitors.
I know that even if I come 13th in the Nationals (again:) this year I'll still be going to Seattle and playing as much polo as I can.
Quit perpetuating the stupid misconception that "Australasia" and "Asia" are in any way related.
"Australasia is a region of Oceania: Australia, New Zealand, the island of New Guinea, and neighbouring islands in the Pacific Ocean"
"Geopolitically, Australasia is sometimes used as a term for Australia and New Zealand together in the absence of another word limited to those two countries. Sometimes the island of New Guinea (Papua New Guinea and the Indonesian part of the island) is encompassed by the term."
Somehow Malaysia has been lumped into the region as far as the League of Bike Polo goes, but that does not have any particular bearing on Worlds.
I feel if NZ wants a Worlds allocation that we (Australasia as a region) need to either a) approach Seattle and ask for an additional spot that can go to NZ or b) NZ come to Adelaide and compete for it.
As it stands (to the best of my knowledge) there has been one NZ player who has played in Aust (Craig from Christchurch came to Brisbane during the Throw Up tourney).
Saying "it can't be Australasians if there are only Australians" is a little off, since we have been inviting NZ to come for 2 years now. We cannot force them to come, that is their decision, but the invitation is open. Ever heard of the saying "build it and they will come"? Shit takes time.
It seems as though there will be a few players going to NZ for the Winter Whack tourney later in the year and hopefully this will help kick things off a bit.
> Quit perpetuating the stupid misconception that "Australasia" and "Asia" are in any way related.
yikes, you make it sound like a conspiracy... my mistake, don't really use the term every day.
Quit perpetuating the stupid misconception that "Australasia" and "Asia" are in any way related.
"Geopolitically, Australasia is sometimes used as a term for Australia and New Zealand together in the absence of another word limited to those two countries. Sometimes the island of New Guinea (Papua New Guinea and the Indonesian part of the island) is encompassed by the term."
yup, once upon a time, my thesis fell within the 'Australasian' studies banner... it's confusing, I like the idea that we have a 'trans-Tasman' connection...
Kinda late to this conversation as there's been this fuckin' huge earthquake thing going on over here and after 3 weeks without polo we are finally mentally ready to give it a casual shot again tomorrow. Yep we'd love to attend the "Nationals" and make it a truely Australasian tournament. That said the majority of our players will be living in other peoples houses 'cos their own one is stuffed, looking for new jobs 'cos the CBD is about 80% fucked or moving to new cities 'cos the "aftershocks" (about 6 a day) are just more earthquakes by another name and they've had enough. Christchuch has a kick ass polo scene and any of you in a better position than we are currently in SHOULD come over to the Winter Whack in August and show your support for Australsian bike polo. We'll make it over there to OZ in greater numbers soon.. we just got lives and a city to rebuild first.
I know the longer I stay still here the more I feel my skills becoming routine. This is addressed only by the occasional tournaments and the steady stream of international visitors.
sweet, Damon thinks he's getting rusty... *packs bags for London/Paris/NA tour of duty*
:P
"but for us here to even to consider getting a berth at the worlds we have to compete under the Australasian banner" - would you though?
surely NZ would have one spot allocated? if not, write to the organisers requesting a spot? (for example, i think this is what Eire are doing for the Euros, because they were mistakenly grouped with the UK)
there is also a wildcard tourney.. would be cool to play in that in any case
Cheers for the support. I understand how Europe and the America's fight for placings, and I'm not for an instant thinking that we are so special to deserve our own place right now. I would hope that 1 day and hopefully soon, we have our own team strong enough to compete in it's own right at the "Worlds"
I agree Dingo, the best place to play is amongest the best, hence the Aus Nationals for me this May. Can't make it to the worlds this year, but plan to make it next, to play and be part of the Atmosphere.
I'm sure all the NZ clubs will be talking to each other and discussing ways to make our sport grow bigger, and hold more comps that hopefully Australia can make it to.
^ great attitude, a bike polo scene can grow without the argument for subsidising places at the world's for 'smaller scenes' (as some people argue it should). it grows by the player's dedication to turning up to throw ins, playing more tournaments, organising tournaments, trial and error, solo polo, polo in the rain, etc etc etc. in my opinion, in polo, you 'do your time'.. and doing your time is the funnest part and brings the best rewards (what ever criteria you have for achievement)
some of the best polo teams in the world, l'Equipe for instance, i read recently have come from the what is still one of the smallest scenes in Europe.. and if we take a home example, Markus from Brisbane, coming from a scene that was small and struggled to get 4 people sometimes by 3.40pm for a sunday throw in, is among the best we have in australia (and is playing at a high international standard in my opinion). so don't discount the value of what can occur and emerge within smaller scenes... (should point out that he was also amongst the most dedicated in Brisbane)
the world's are a huge deal, but is the one of the only tournaments really that excludes based on merit - as it rightly should, it is the World Championships. there are still a multitude of tourneys that don't cap numbers of teams, or players, or have pre requisites for entry... we are lucky in australia that our 'road to the worlds' (nationals) is still inclusive (but then again many Nationals tourneys still are, though are not necessarily used for a qualifier for the Euros etc )... we still have tourneys like the Bench Minor of Feb 2011 that didn't put a cap on the number of players and welcomed EVERYONE.
chapeau Australia/NZ, and bike polo in general, there is still a large democratic element visible, yet when it's time to bring it, there are people out there that can and will do so and they come from everywhere.
polo <3
x2
Dingo wrote "I know the longer I stay still here the more I feel my skills becoming routine. This is addressed only by the occasional tournaments and the steady stream of international visitors."
It's just those shuffle shuffle shuffle tap-in goals that are routine D the rest of your game's really coming along. ;)
>It's just those shuffle shuffle shuffle tap-in goals that are routine D the rest of your game's really coming along. ;)
Thats the _only_ part of my game thats working.
Okay, I'm amending my proposals based on the feedback.
Lets keep it coming and see if we can work out something solid that everyone is happy with.
New proposals are as follows:
- Highest placing teams get first claim to World's spots.
- Placing within the qualifying-cut off makes a player personally eligible to go to Worlds.
- Teams must consist of at least 2/3rds qualified players
- If a whole team forfeits their World's spot, it will be offered to the next placed team from Nationals rankings. All these players will become personally eligible.
- In case of replacements, the 3rd player will be chosen at the teams discretion (no qualifying pre-requisites needed).
Go.
Do we need to add anything in regards to total number of teams or something dealing with the chance of 6 teams 'qualified' for 4 spots (from 2/3rds rule)?
Maybe.
I think the chances of that happening are very unlikely, but we can come up with something if people feel its necessary.
I think a deferral to "highest placed teams have first claim" works?
Damon mentioned to me some kind of system where you have an averaged ranking for a team based on the players' nationals results.
for the following lets assume we're allocated 3 spots to the worlds, space for 9 players.
so what your saying is if the first team accepts 3/9 players allocated, the second team accepts 6/9, 2 players from the 3rd team accept, but one doesnt and the others don't pick a replacement, so we're at 8/9, if the 4th team is offered the spots and they all want to go then thats 11/9 places.
can anyone think of a fair way to resolve this?
force team 3 to make a decision, let all of the allocated players (teams 1, 2 and the 2 from 3) vote for who they want to be the final player? let team 4 nominate a player? random draw? death match polo?
If one from a team doesn't accept they can be replaced with anyone from Australia. Fourth team doesn't come into it. The only way team 4 would come into it is if only one player accepted from the 3rd team. Then it gets complicated - either 1 or more players from Team 4 join up with remaining team 3 player or Team 4 gets the spot. Is this right? [Since all other eligible players have remained with their original team]
You beat me to it. Great minds think alike. Too bad our minds aren't great enough to figure this one out.
2 players from the 3rd team accept, but one doesnt and the others don't pick a replacement, so we're at 8/9, if the 4th team is offered the spots and they all want to go then thats 11/9 places.
No, under the proposal a team only has to be 2/3rds qualified players.
So in this situation the 2 players from the 3rd team are free to pick any player of their choosing, even if that player is from the DFL team if thats who they think will best suit the team.
What i think is more likely to be an issue is that from the 3rd team only 1 player wants to go. Then what? The 4th place team then becomes eligible but the player from the 3rd team still has preference. Can the 4th place team stay together as a team and the 3rd place player looses their spot? Or does 4th place team have to break up and join up with the 3rd place player?
I think 4th place team should go. If not all of the 4th place team want to play then 3rd place player gets the spot.
If 2/3 4th have to play with 3rd - what happen if all of the 4th place team wants to go but have to play with the remaining 3rd place. How are the 2 spots decided - 1 x 1 x 1 play off??
"I think 4th place team should go. If not all of the 4th place team want to play then 3rd place player gets the spot"
i feel like we'd only be leaning towards this because it is less messy and it eliminates 'that conversation' where 1 person from the 4th team is told they can't go.
imo, too bad for the fourth team.. there is so way i support a higher ranking team member losing their world's spot just because replacing them with a pre formed team is neater. what if it were you? or what if it were the 1st placed team?
i think if we adopt the rule of 2/3s and being 'personally eligible' then we have to allow that one person to keep their personal eligibility.
favour the top, not the middle. it might hurt for that 4th, but they missed out anyway... i think as reasonable people the top players would be able to reach a decision without causing too much of a shit storm.
It's still messy whichever way we decide to go.. Too many what ifs..
What if the 4th place team (who may not be reasonable) refuses to break up? Does the 5th place team then become eligible?
Im thinking Erin is right. The 4th placed team might BECOME eligible, but the 3rd placed player QUALIFIED, right?. So maybe it should fall to the 3rd place player to call the shots.
yeh, I think so. there are a lot of 'ifs'. but i think many of these can be resolved at the time with discretion. imo, it's most important to prevent qualified players losing their spot, and that we have checks and balances against 'majority wins' type arguments, i think a body of poloists can make an executive decision based on a set of principles that we all agree on.
i guess if not everyone agrees to the principle of 'individual eligibility' then something else is agreed upon. but if we do, then we can't disqualify an eligible individual from taking up their spot.
similarly, if we agree to go head to head in a qualification tournament such as the nationals, then we agree to stand by the result, and not quibble over things like player x from team 3 is not as good as those in team 4... in a qualie all that is relevant is who qualifies. there is no subjectivity.
there is still a valid place for honesty and chivalry and being ladylike in polo, and if i were on the 4th team, there'd be no way i'd do things to prevent a higher ranked play taking up their spot.
in my honest opinion, let's not be too restrictive to rule out the myriad of possibilities. but agree to a few key principles - such as individual eligibility, the merit of the qualie etc etc.
No, under the proposal a team only has to be 2/3rds qualified players.
So in this situation the 2 players from the 3rd team are free to pick any player of their choosing, even if that player is from the DFL team if thats who they think will best suit the team.
?
yeah i understand this, I was trying to find an edge case where your initial suggestion for placement would fall over, and i can't see 2/3rd of a team not picking a 3rd, so it was a pretty shit example really.
Ultimately I don't see this being a problem, and if it does become one I believe the fairest way to resolve any disputes is by giving each player who has undisputedly qualified a vote and then deciding it democratically.
for the following lets assume we're allocated 3 spots to the worlds, space for 9 players.
so what your saying is if the first team accepts 3/9 players allocated, the second team accepts 6/9, 2 players from the 3rd team accept, but one doesnt and the others don't pick a replacement, so we're at 8/9, if the 4th team is offered the spots and they all want to go then thats 11/9 places.
can anyone think of a fair way to resolve this?
force team 3 to make a decision, let all of the allocated players (teams 1, 2 and the 2 from 3) vote for who they want to be the final player? let team 4 nominate a player? random draw? death match polo?
This is a tricky example, Of course the others would pick a replacement, why wouldn't they?
Maybe we missed an obvious rule here. You have to enter the worlds as a team.
I guess this is in effect forcing the team to pick a third player...
The unresolved part of this discussion, is how we rank these reconstituted teams against each other (If several happen).
If a player from the 4th place team, a player from the 3rd placed team and a 3rd unqualified player of their choosing form a team.
Would they rank higher or lower than the entire 5th placed team?
I think the ranking of the 2 qualified players should be used to make comparisons.
- If a whole team forfeits their World's spot, it will be offered to the next placed team from Nationals rankings. All these players will become personally eligible.
I'm unsure if I'm happy with this part.
Maybe something along these lines would work better:
If the quota for teams can not be filled by players finishing within the qualifying cut-off from Nationals (and potentially unqualified 3rds), the players from the next placed team will become eligible.
How are we going to make the final decision on qualification? I realise this is the second time I have asked this question but I think how we decide things is as important as what we decide.
My concern is that out of the potentially 60+ players that will be at Nationals, there are only 10 players that have posted here.
More people need to be involved in this decision than just us.
Suggestions?
Vote from 2 elected reps from each city?
If it was elected reps, then I think three from each city would be better. That way they can't cancel each other's votes out.
What I would prefer is a vote from every player at Nationals following registration.
I'm just unsure on how every player votes on such a broad set of different proposals that really require discussion and consensus
I agree, I think this should really be figured out by negotiation and discussion rather than numbers.
I feel like we have progressed our ideas alot, and I know there are a bunch of people reading this who haven't posted.
Either way, we have a while to sort it out (a few weeks before the nationals?)
We need to know how many places we are allocated as well.
I think another thing missing is how and when teams need to have confirmed their places.
And I learnt the hard way last year that a player aint confirmed till they have a ticket.
>My concern is that out of the potentially 60+ players that will be at Nationals, there are only 10 players that have posted here.
Thats a pretty good ratio actually.
We also have a good ratio of the players that represented last year.
I think its also not too much to ask people to come on here and give their opinion if they want to be involved.
We have people from every city already involved, can those people go to their clubs this weekend and start the discussion face to face. The people already contributing here can either report back how people in their city feel, and/or encourage them to come give their opinion themselves.
A good ratio yes, but it should still be a supported decision. Its likely that half of the 10 that have posted here will be going, i know that if i wasn't reading this here then found out at Nats what the rule was then some how i missed out because of a technicality it would be hard to take. Until (or if) there is ever an elected national group or chosen reps, I don't think its fair to make any decision of this size without at least offering for people to give input.
I think it needs to be decided and clear BEFORE nationals so when people register to Nats they are agreeing to the conditions of Worlds Qualification.
i know that if i wasn't reading this here then found out at Nats what the rule was then some how i missed out because of a technicality it would be hard to take.
I think its going to be very hard for someone to feel "ripped off" in this manner.
Realistically all this discussion is way overcomplicated and mostly is only going to deal with a myriad of worst case "what if" situations.
Its good we are prepared for these but in reality, there is going to be a certain number of spots. I'm unsure here about where there is the potential to feel so hardly done by. If you finish inside this cut off you'll be guaranteed the opportunity to go. If you don't finish high enough you miss out unless you get lucky and someone above you drops out. Then you might get asked as an individual if you want to join a team.
No one is getting rorted out of a spot.
I think the main difference between people's opinions is going to be about the one player left in a qualified team after two drop out. I know people I have spoken to have very different opinions to what has been said here. Let's at least ask people what they think.
Nationals rankings system can be easily worked out without too much disagreement and is probably something that the organisers should decide.
The number of places we have no control over.
Let's at least ask people what they think.
How about we discuss this with everyone at polo tomorrow V? I can post live quotes/minutes of the discussion from courtside. Will mean people can have their opinion heard but don't even have to sit down at a computer, let alone have an account on this forum.
Nationals rankings system can be easily worked out without too much disagreement and is probably something that the organisers should decide
Do you mean you think the organisers of Nationals (i.e Adelaide) should decide on a "nationals ranking system"?
If so, I disagree. This has very little to do with the organisation of Nationals, we are merely hijacking the results from our only tournament that (almost) every polo player in the country will attend. Volunteering to host a tournament doesn't really give anyone the authority to make a decisions like this that affects every player in the country, outside of that one tournament.
Let's at least ask people what they think.
How about we discuss this with everyone at polo tomorrow V? I can post live quotes/minutes of the discussion from courtside. Will mean people can have their opinion heard but don't even have to sit down at a computer, let alone have an account on this forum.
That sounds sarcastic. Is it?
Dead serious.
It would be cool for other cities to do the same. We probably don't need to coninue adding to the list of "what ifs", only constructive ideas that can cover all bases or serious concerns.
Let's at least ask people what they think.
How about we discuss this with everyone at polo tomorrow V? I can post live quotes/minutes of the discussion from courtside. Will mean people can have their opinion heard but don't even have to sit down at a computer, let alone have an account on this forum.
Nationals rankings system can be easily worked out without too much disagreement and is probably something that the organisers should decide
Do you mean you think the organisers of Nationals (i.e Adelaide) should decide on a "nationals ranking system"?
If so, I disagree. This has very little to do with the organisation of Nationals, we are merely hijacking the results from our only tournament that (almost) every polo player in the country will attend. Volunteering to host a tournament doesn't really give anyone the authority to make a decisions like this that affects every player in the country, outside of that one tournament.
Isnt the Nationals (Australasians) the device for the ranking system? How complicated does it need to be?
From the final results we can rank all the teams from 1st to 30th(+) without any "4 teams, 9th equal" scenarios by using goal countback and head to head results. So to rank qualifying individuals you give every player in the 1st-placed-team a rank of "1" , 2nd-placed-team players are ranked "2" and so on. How worlds teams are formed come down to the teams and individuals using this ranking data using whatever approach we decide upon.
What was suggested above was that a 3rd ranked player has more power over a team of 4th ranked players to form a "worlds" team which could be called the one3rds rule.
One more scenario for the player that qualifies retains his/her right to play rule. We have assumed they are left alone because their team mates don't want to go. What if they lose their place in a team? Say Australia gets 3 places at Worlds,
Team 1 replace one of their players with a player from team 2. Their original 3rd player still wants to go.
Team 2 chooses a different 3rd player
Does Team 3 (or at least 1 of them) lose their place in favour of a team formed by the Third Player from Team 1?
Does Team 3 (or at least 1 of them) lose their place in favour of a team formed by the Third Player from Team 1?
Don't forget the 2/3rds "qualified player" proposal.
Though 2 players from Team 3 could CHOOSE to ditch their 3rd player to pick up the Team 1 player. Though there is no forcing them to do so.
Alright. I've been given all this a lot of thought.
I've tried addressing each "what if" situation above by judging what outcome i thought was "fair" and then applying a range of the different proposals to the hypothetical situation. I couldn't find one set of proposals that, when "tested" gave the "fair" result every time.
Now what people judge as "fair" is going to differ from person to person. But the fact that none of the proposals could find a consistent result makes me sure we haven't yet found the right solution.
So next I decided to test out an idea Damon suggested to me, and expand on it.
The idea was to give each player an individual ranking based on their nationals solution. And then come up with a team ranking based on a number averaged out from the individual rankings.
Here is a spreadsheet drawn up to demonstrate how a few different averaging systems would work (note - this was done on the assumption we are getting 4 spots):
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?hl=en&hl=en&key=0Ar246OGZfLO0dEJ1Snh...
The first column represents the individual player rankings that make up each team.
The different methods I tried out were:
- Averaging the ranking only of the top 2 players on each team.
- Averaging the ranking only of the "Eligible" players on each team
- Averaging the ranking of all players on each team
- Averaging the ranking of all player on each team, but where the maxing ranking a player can have is 5.
The lower the average, the higher the team ranks.
In case 2 or more teams are tied on points, preference will be given to the team with the highest indivually ranked player. eg. if averaging only top 2 players, 3,3,5 ranks at 3, as does 1,5,5, so 1,5,5 is the higher ranked team.
I haven't yet decided which averaging system i personally like the best yet. But i'm sure "All Eligble players only" is NOT the one.
I think a rankings system is a good idea but it should not be the first consideration.
Assuming we get 4 places, teams that finish 1, 2, 3 and 4 should have the right to form a team for worlds provided they keep 2 of their original players. Rankings are then used to determine the eligibility of teams that are made up of completely different players.
It would be unfair for a team that finishes 4th to be told they didn't qualify because players above them wanted to reshuffle. This system is fair to teams that want to stick together but also allows good players that want to play with other people a chance to qualify through rankings.
I think a rankings system is a good idea but it should not be the first consideration.
Assuming we get 4 places, teams that finish 1, 2, 3 and 4 should have the right to form a team for worlds provided they keep 2 of their original players. Rankings are then used to determine the eligibility of teams that are made up of completely different players.
It would be unfair for a team that finishes 4th to be told they didn't qualify because players above them wanted to reshuffle. This system is fair to teams that want to stick together but also allows good players that want to play with other people a chance to qualify through rankings.
Basically the point of your idea is to essentially "protect" and top 4 team that retains 2 of their original places?
What if one player from each podium team decides to leave their original team to form a new team.
Do you think its unfair that this team (even though that all placed above the 4th place team) gets the spot over team 4.
You have a good point aboiut team 4 missing out, but I think there are a few extra factors to consider. namely "unforseeability" and "best possible teams"
You say "players wanted to reshuffle" as if it is a preference thing. And earlier you mentioned that you assumed such and such because the other players "didn't want to go".
I am really concerned about situations where people who wanted to go are either injured or don't have enough money or other unforeseen circumstances.
Another consideration that I know was mentioned earlier on but hasn't really been considered in our recent conversations is about sending the best possible teams to represent Australia. I think this is super subjective especially when talking about reconstituted teams.
We also have to save the phrase "don't get to go" for people who actually cannot go, because if you don't qualify then you can still "go" (as outlined in detail above) but if you break your leg, you don't actually "get to go"
I think all of these issues would be easily and fairly discussed by a group of people but creating a set of rules about it is damn hard.
Back to Team 4, perhaps it's worth saying that podium teams at nationals will be offered the places. Then shuffling teams will be allowed. Then the place will be offered to 4th after those deliberations have ocurred (after a set time)
So 4th doesnt even win a podium place at the nats, the thing you have hit on is the 'giveth and the taketh away', so we can just downplay the initial giveth... say that 4th wins the rights to a spot if the podium players do not fill up all the allocated spots.
(and if we get allocated 3 spots, then we restructure accordingly.)
I am really concerned about situations where people who wanted to go are either injured or don't have enough money or other unforeseen circumstances.
Should we say then that if all players from one Nationals team want to attend Worlds then they must stay together? I dont know.
It WOULD save a lot of these "shuffeling" situations and simplify the whole situation. But I dont know if that is reason enough to implement such a rule.
Back to Team 4, perhaps it's worth saying that podium teams at nationals will be offered the places. Then shuffling teams will be allowed. Then the place will be offered to 4th after those deliberations have ocurred (after a set time)
So 4th doesnt even win a podium place at the nats, the thing you have hit on is the 'giveth and the taketh away', so we can just downplay the initial giveth... say that 4th wins the rights to a spot if the podium players do not fill up all the allocated spots.
I think I like this.
Let me know what you decide. I have had enough of arguing and I really don't want to be involved in this discussion on this forum anymore.
Lewis, I am happy to talk about this at polo if you want.
I'm not arguing with anyone.
I'm trying to discuss my way to a solution. I DONT KNOW what the appropriate solution here is. I'm try to get ideas from other people and work the good ones out into something that everyone is going to be happy with.
Its tedious yes. I'm not particularly enjoying this either, but we need to come up with a solution.
You yourself said we need to have more input from everyone. Your input is valued V, and it would be a shame to lose it here now. I feel like we are getting close to an answer.
Arguing was probably the wrong word. Maybe I saw it that way because it seemed everyone else was agreeing with each other and not with me. Not the first time that has happened, and probably won't be the last. Sorry for being overly sensitive.
Lewis - thanks for saying my input was valued. I wasn't feeling that before.
Damon - thanks for the phone call. Sometimes (most times) it's better to talk things out with someone than try to interpret their tone/meaning on a forum.
No need to be sorry. Its so hard to tell on the intertron sometimes.
Sometimes (most times) it's better to talk things out with someone than try to interpret their tone/meaning on a forum.
Agreed. Lets talk at polo and see if we can come up with something solid and then report back.
No worries, I feel like we are slowly getting towards a solution. either way, nobody can say we didnt think and talk about it.
I think we are also in a brainstormy situation where you have to put all ideas on the table and nut them out. I think the saying goes that first you have normal ideas, then really good ones then you run out. But if people criticise your first normal boring ideas then you shut down and we never get to the good ones. This is why we do all the post it note/butchers paper/whiteboard and texta stuff at council/community meetings.
There are a bunch of ideas that aren't so good in themselves but could be a stepping stone.
4 spots. 1st and 2nd from 2010 nationals and 2011 nationals. (i know I am biased here but thinking outside the box - and only because last nats was after last worlds :)
Also consider V's last proposal if there were only 2 spaces allocated to Australia. (or 3, or 1?)
Set a separation between reshuffling teams and unforseen circumstances. (and set some dates)
Only let people go who say they would go anyway?
We need greater protection for 'unforseen orphans' than for reshuffling.
Big question, what is more important, protection for unforseen orphans above lower ranked entire teams? (or rather how can we balance this)
Reconstituted teams can't take up more spaces than they otherwise would have?
The 2/3rds rule could come in handy here.
Also, as for forum involvement. I think that if someone really wants to go to the worlds it's not too much to ask them to join the leagueofbikepolo.com :)
I also wouldnt stress too much, we have a few weeks to sort things out.
First and Second from 2010 Nationals is a great idea (not that I'm biased or anything!)
In relation to this forum, there are some people (okay, Locky) who want to go to worlds and don't have the internet so it's important we start/keep talking to people outside of this.
Once we know how many places we have, we will have a lot more to work with to make our decision.
First and Second from 2010 Nationals is a great idea (not that I'm biased or anything!)
I detect tongue in cheek but I am going to shoot down that idea right now.
The whole reason why we are having the AHBPC in May is to select teams for the worlds. IIRC that was decided in the post tournament meeting last September.
(Otherwise there would be no reason for us to hold it in May and get stressed about organising the largest polo tournament in Australia in such a short timeframe.)
The idea was... both 2010 1st place + 2nd place and 2011 winners + 2nd (sorry if I didn't make that clear the first time around :)
(both are nationals and both are held before the worlds :)
Posted by 2010 1st placegetter (me) and seconded by 2010 2nd placegetter. (if that wasn't cheeky enough for you. ;)
Re: the stress. If you need a hand with anything, let us know :)
Neil, you should come to Seattle! was awesome playing against you last December would be even more awesome playing with you...
Not sure what our teams will do with 4 places :)
(Otherwise there would be no reason for us to win/place last September and get stressed about winning/placing at the largest polo tournament in Australia in such a short timeframe.)
:)
The idea was... both 2010 1st place + 2nd place and 2011 winners + 2nd (sorry if I didn't make that clear the first time around :)
(both are nationals and both are held before the worlds :)
Posted by 2010 1st placegetter (me) and seconded by 2010 2nd placegetter. (if that wasn't cheeky enough for you. ;)
Re: the stress. If you need a hand with anything, let us know :)
Neil, you should come to Seattle! was awesome playing against you last December would be even more awesome playing with you...
2012, Damon, if you are looking for a worlds team mate, I would be more than delighted to play with you.
Would love to get to the worlds. Seattle is just a no go this year, nowhere near enough time or cash.
As such I am seriously considering sitting out of this champs to run it.
AHBPC2011 is coming together nicely. I just fret alot when there is one thing after another in terms of organising that I know wont relent until its all over. Radelaide crew is awesome at getting stuff done though.
OK, in an attempt to sum up the ideas of the above, this is my proposal. The below is in the case of 4 spots, it can be changed for any number. The below I think is fairest. It is slightly weighted for teams staying together, then followed by a mixed team of players from qualified teams, then the remaining teams below the cutoff point.
1. The top 4 teams from nationals get first call to claim a spot at Worlds.
2. Each team at Worlds must be filled with at least 2/3rds of the qualified team from nationals.
3. If for some reason a player must pull out, whether financial, personal or due to injury, a team may replace that player with some one of their choosing, maintaining the above mentioned 2/3rds rule. This may be with a player from an unqualified team.
4. In the situation that a qualified team splits, the minority player (1/3 of the qualifying team) can join or form with another qualified team.
5. If two minority players (both 1/3 of a qualified team) join to create a new team, they will be ranked as the next highest team below the cutoff point from Nationals.
6. If any of the qualified teams discard their claim for a spot at Worlds, the spot will be offered down to the next highest rank team. As described, this will first be a team of qualified minority players from qualified teams, then followed by the highest ranked team from nationals below the initial cut off point.
7. In the case of there being more than one team created with minority players from qualified teams, the minority team with the highest ranking players will have priority.
Mixed teams forming and getting preference over other 'qualified teams' would be unfair and a bit elitist. The below structure aims to keep it fairest for teams staying together, but also recognizing the higher skilled players. The Worlds is about the best TEAMS from around the world, not the best countries. Leave that for a Bench Minor like Greifmasters. To describe it to those that follow soccer, the Worlds is more like the Champions League rather than the World Cup.
3a.
If 2 players pull out for 'legitimate reasons', the orphan retains the spot.
This is the most comprehensive proposal so far.
I can see nothing at all wrong with it at all. With a small addition I would be very happy to see this implemented.
Damon and I have discussed what I shall refer to the "Orphan Protection Clause".
The OPC is designed to protect a player from a qualified team, whos 2 team mates decide not to/can't go to Worlds. In this situation only, the 1 player from the qualified team is allowed to retain their spot and form a team with any players of their choosing.
Note: This does not apply to single players from qualified teams where the other 2/3rds of that team is still on one team who is keeping their Worlds spot. This type of player would be what Brook's proposal refers to as a "minority player"
I don't believe its our place/responsibility to be prepared to have to deal with team politics. A player who chooses to leave, or who is asked to leave a team has no special privileges, and it is between that team to sort out their own business.
Oh, and I also suggest that we have a registration that closes one month after nationals. If a qualified team doesn't register before this deadline the spot will be offered to the "next in line" team. Registration should be a commitment to going (emergencies permitted of course) and definitely NOT be approached as an expression of interest.
Plane tickets should be purchased promptly after registration closes and your spot is confirmed.
yeah, people! make sure your team mates have tickets. Learn from _my_ mistakes :)
And on that note, get a cage helmet too...
I agree with this. It also protects the teams below from losing their places.
Essentially, the members of a qualified team have one team spot. They can either stay in that team (either as 1, 2 or 3) or join another qualified team. Is this what you mean?
Yes, exactly, a team has 1 'definite' spot, allowing at least 2/3rds of it go through. If 1/3 still wants to go and not with another already qualified team, it gives them a chance to make a completely new team with first dibs AFTER the other qualified teams decide to go or not.
And yes to Lewis' suggestion of a cutoff. Maybe needs 2 cut offs, one for the first 4 teams, then one a week or 2 after of there is a 'minority team' - then the rest.
Okay. So we discussed this at polo today. There's a few people who weren't there who are likely to be interested in going to Seattle, that still need to be consulted. But think its safe to say that with the addition of the Orphan Protection Clause as point 3a that - so far - Sydney is pretty happy to endorse this.
Will update when we've spoken with everyone.
Any other cities have a chance to discuss it at polo today?
Hey Aussies!
I know a bunch of you are planning on coming out to Seattle for Worlds, wasn't sure if any of you need a third on your team or if anyone is coming without a team and wants to join in on some wild card action, but I'd love to play with ya.
Sam
Hey Sam! Does this mean your going to be over there?? Maybe email Will from Melbourne as he might be looking for one or two team mates. I'm not sure if he is on LoBP though. Regardless, the pick up at the tourney would be epic!
I am going the be in Seattle...WOOT! If you have Wills email that would be cool, and hopefully I can put together a team to rule alllllllllll wildcard teams.
I think it's really important that we try to find out as soon as possible how many places there will be for Australian teams. Also, are New Zealand making a separate request for places or are we all under the Australasian banner?
www.goalhole.com
www.sydneybikepolo.org