World Target Team Selection.. Give or Earn

[Freeman]

The question is, as an archer would you like to have a spot given to you or would you rather earn your spot on the National Team to represent your country ?

I would rather earn my spot by going head to head with other archers that have qualified for the shoot off. I have had to earn every World Championship spot I have competed in in the last 15 years. I do though think that the compound side of things needs to be held over 3 shoots(weekends) and that it should take in shooting qualifying rounds and matchplay with points given for highest qualifying score and points given for match wins and then point given for total score shot that takes in qulaifying score and match round scores.

Over 3 weekends the best will make it through, if they dont....then stiff try again next time. My opinion is if you cant handle a National Team shoot off then how are you going to handle a world shoot off.

Maybe the elite program could pay the airfare to the shoot offs as part of a bonus for making the squad ?

Just my thoughts

[2Dogs]

I have had to earn every World Championship spot I have competed in in the last 15 years

LOL not quite, you got your spot on the 2003 World Target Team when Adam Richards quit due to illness & the other qualified guys were not interested :D

And I do like your suggested method of Selection :thumb:

[coach]

LOL not quite, you got your spot on the 2003 World Target Team when Adam Richards quit due to illness & the other qualified guys were not interested
Ah ,, some inside info :rofl:

[2Dogs]

No... that was what happened. Clint was retired from Archery at that stage :thumb:

[Matt Gray]

Clint it looks like the selection process has been decided on.
Jim Park wrote
- "That is, no matchplay in the selection at all.
- Two positions to be selected like that with the third position at the discretion of the Selection committee."

I have gone through the same selection of earning my spot aswell. It is very hard and very stressful, however it is the best method, and always gets the best team. I missed out in 2004 yet the best team was selected as a result of the selection process.

Match Play included in the selection gives all archers the training and experience needed to compete on the World Stage.

Not sure what criteria is for the 3rd person, yet it would open up a huge can of worms, and appeals I'm sure.

Everyone needs to know were they stand. First three past the post is the best method.

[dbjac]

LOL not quite, you got your spot on the 2003 World Target Team when Adam Richards quit due to illness & the other qualified guys were not interested :D


Oh well, did pretty well for a retired shooter, huh =P

EDIT: And i agree, selection needs to be very cut throat, not just send people if they want to go. No point in sending people that wont be competitive, or survive the stresses.

[2Dogs]

Agree with Matt too.

[NOCK HUNTER]

LOL not quite, you got your spot on the 2003 World Target Team when Adam Richards quit due to illness & the other qualified guys were not interested :D


A good call by someone though....didn't Clint win the Worlds that year;)

[2Dogs]

Yep.... So much for being ****ing retired :rofl:

That reportedly cost Dave Cousins $25000 in earnings :D

[Freeman]

LOL not quite, you got your spot on the 2003 World Target Team when Adam Richards quit due to illness & the other qualified guys were not interested :D

And I do like your suggested method of Selection :thumb:

Yes, very true. Though I was the last they called. Everyone else who had tried out did not want to go. I could not attend the shoot off for personal reasons, which at that stage was the Nationals.

[2Dogs]

See that shows Jim Park's method of "Picking People" has some Merit :D

You just stuffed up your arguement.......quick I'll delete this post before he see's it :D

[dbjac]

That reportedly cost Dave Cousins $25000 in earnings :D

Sounds to me like it was well worth it then =P

[Freeman]

No I havent, a spot was available so I took it when no one else wanted it. Now we have a bunch of shooters shooting very well, with all spots going to be filled...... so spots should be earned

[Eberbachl]

I say most definitely earn it.

:thumb:

If you can't earn it at a National level, then you're not the best man for the job.

;)

[dbjac]

Its a good idea spacing out the selection rounds.
While it might make it difficult for attendance, it is better in that you have less chance of catching one shooter having a blinder of a weekend, form that might not continue too long.
Though, i guess most of the top shooters are pretty reliable with their scores.

[NOCK HUNTER]

I say most definitely earn it.

:thumb:

If you can't earn it at a National level, then you're not the best man for the job.

;)

Good call, Luke :thumb:

[Eddie C]

Agreed, you need to earn it!
Isnt that the only reason AA is getting funded more money for the Commonwealth games because we have a good chance of getting medals? We need the best of the best for that :thumb:

[Marcus]

Yeah a more intensive selection process would be great. As mentioned at worst it gives more experience in pressure matchplay which can only help, not hinder.
Probably doesn't help that one committee member doesn't think matchplay is important

[GuyDawg9]

Earning your spot should be the only way to do it.
With the above method there will be very little apeals if any.

[STRINGWALKER]

Can't I buy a position........what sort of country is this?????

[2Dogs]

So how do we go about Sacking the Current Committee, and getting back to a straight forward (first three past the post) selection process.

We could start with the AA Board :thumb:

[Marcus]

As long as the system isn't open to match fixing.
Perhaps when someone has enough points to get through then they no longer participate.

[GuyDawg9]

As long as the system isn't open to match fixing.
Perhaps when someone has enough points to get through then they no longer participate.

thats is an important factor to consider

[whiz]

Reply edited as it's not relevant now.

[tropicalshot]

As long as the system isn't open to match fixing.
.

what? how else am i supposed to top up my V Bookie account??

but seriously, the Finals are Match play so surley the selection process should have a matchplay componant as well, just to help the Athlete adjust to the pressure,

[apexrob]

Match Play included in the selection gives all archers the training and experience needed to compete on the World Stage.

I agree, we will be shooting matchplay on the World Stage, why should the selection process not include it.


Everyone needs to know were they stand. First three past the post is the best method.

Having the 3rd position picked from opinion is not transparent, I wouldn't be suprised if appeals are lodged. If it's serious enough, it could go to the courts.

What clint has mentioned about having 3 to 4 mini world cup events is a excellent idea. Shooting Matchplay is totally different to shooting a Fita. While fita scores are important, qulaification really doesn't mean a thing at these events, top 16 your sitting well. Handling your nerves with 12 arrows is what it's all about.

[Coghlan]

You would have to have a lot of money to take it to Court :-)

I think as long as we know what the selection process is then it doesnt really matter, you train for the selection process.

Get in the top 2 and you dont need to worry about the 3rd postion.

I think it the Committee position is more for anomilies happening like Zoran getting crook in 2005, but who knows, that is the process so thats what we do......

Just my 2 cents.

but in the future if they change the next selection, then we go with that.....

[DanceswithDingoes]

So how do we go about Sacking the Current Committee, and getting back to a straight forward (first three past the post) selection process.

We could start with the AA Board :thumb:
Ive got a nomination form here 2Dogs, shall I add your name to it?

[GrahameA]

Ive got a nomination form here 2Dogs, shall I add your name to it?

Yes. Why not?:thumb:

[Matt Gray]

I think as long as we know what the selection process is then it doesnt really matter, you train for the selection process.

Get in the top 2 and you dont need to worry about the 3rd postion.



In relation to this selection process from what I have read no body knows what the selection process is about. You rank 3rd and find yourself being dropped because a guy sitting in 4th or 5th has a better relationship with the committee.

No match play and deciding on who gets to try out by shooting QRE's. What pressure is there with a QRE.

Given Ki Sik Lee's method in the past he always wanted as many people involved in the shoot off to give as many people the experience in the match play format.

Looking at this one for you guys its about reducing the number of archers so those that shoot a good QRE can get selected without having to deal with any pressure of match play or a selection.

As I see it you put down a few good QRE's and all of a sudden you only have three archers in the group and that's your team. No math play no real pressure.

[apexrob]

I think as long as we know what the selection process is then it doesnt really matter, you train for the selection process.


The selection process isn't aimed at what is going to be shot at the World Target and Comm Games.

[DanceswithDingoes]

To facilitate the running and conduct of National and International tournaments, including the selection of national and international representatives and teams.
To establish such Committees or Working Groups as are necessary to progress the development of the sport and the establishment of standards and programs.
criteria from AA, sounds like the very things you wish to affect 2Dogs :thumb:

[Coghlan]

I dont mind, in the end it isnt up to us.

It is up to us to make the team based on the Selection Critieria.

I would hope and I am sure that it is true that the Committee will select the best person for the third position, but as I said earlier, it is up to them.

[Kite]

Perhaps someone can explain exactly what the current process is?

IMO ALL the positions on the teams should be earned and the selection process should be transparent, fair and based on performance... nothing else.

[Coghlan]

I may be wrong but as I see it.

Mens Compound

Shoot 1380x3 to qualify

then add up the Nationals Fitas with the Australia Day Fita to give you a score

Top 2 are in.

The third position is decided by the Compound Committee.

They can pick number 3 if they want.....they can pick number 10. It has been explained that the point of the next few years is picking a team that can win a team medal not just an individual. It also gives the organising committee the option if something out of the blue happens, an example I use is Zoran in 05, he was up on me by 3 points on day 1 in Target then due to illness was unable to continue day 2. yeah I may have won anyway, but I may not have so they can take into account what was going on for the rest of the year to make that decision.

They are selecting on who is the best, but it gives them some options. The goal at this stage is to win a Team Gold in Commonwealth Games, all this is just a stepping stone to get there.

[2Dogs]

See I think the system is flawed right there.

If they are going to use it for the top 2, then they should do it for the Top 3.

End of story, you are the three highest qualifiers off you go.

And like as Matt Hyperthetically said, the selection comittee says no we are going to send the 5th ranked guy because....yada yada. I think that is not on.

If they are going to do that, then all three positions should be open to that criteria. Guy ranked 5th goes to a few international events an smokes it up. Guy ranked 1 is on a downer. So they throw out the No.1 ranked guy and replace him with the 5th guy, because they feel this Team Combo will win in India.

You would have to have a lot of money to take it to Court


Arbitration of Sport...... Nope doesn't cost much to take it to that level :thumb:

[Coghlan]

Get top 2 and it isnt an issue hey 2 dogs

[2Dogs]

That's true, but I won't be around to worry about it :D

But I still think it IS an issue for those that will be trying to make the Team.

[Kite]

The third position is decided by the Compound Committee.
Mmmm, that needs further explanation. What criteria is is ued for selection?

The link to the team selection guidelines is dead, perhaps this is just an interim solution while a policy is being developed?
http://www.archery.org.au/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=ASP0009/ccms.r?pageid=10635

But in the interim, I agree with with 2dogs :eek:

[wareagle]

That would be 2Dogs and me :archer: : (the top two that is.)

[Marcus]

A few points worth considering.
If you go a matchplay system then you would need to lower the ranking score to make it valid. Ideally you want about 8-12 people there in my opinion. So 1350 would be a likely entry score. No point setting it at 1390 and having 3 attend.
Do we think a 1350 shooter can get it down when the chips are down? To win one of these you must be consistantly shooting 116+ mens and 114+ womens.
That's 348 and 342.
1350 FITA is 337 Mens level and 329 womens level. So a fair way off what it takes to win.
So do you risk having a 1350 class person make the team knowing that it will weaken the team?
Remember that they may be able to handle the pressure, but they will not maintain a level good enough to win (unless they are VERY lucky). If you look at Turkey's MC matches the top 8 guys were very consistant from match to match. A 337 level guy may shoot a 117, but he's then shoot a 112 and a 108 in there too.

So from a selection point of view it's difficult.

Issue 2

On the other hand. Lets say that the selection score gets pushed up to 1390. But the ones who make that score go to competitions and shoot 1340's. They pushed and qualified and because only 3 did it, 2 make the team. They go OS and shoot 1340 and kill the chances.

Issue 3

You select your team of 3. They are the highest scorers in the land. However they, as a team, suck at team matchplay. They are slow, struggle with the time and drop points when rushed. They rank high, but get knocked out first round. Thus, pointless.

Issue 4

You run 4 matchplay trial events. You have 12 people trying out in total. Each one must be flown and provided accomodation for a 2 day trial. Cost would be around $24,000 to determine a team that would cost you about that to send OS anyway.


Lots of things to consider.

[Xs24-7]

I dont think you give the best archers enough credit. A format can be chosen that includes matchplay and is fair to all competitors. If you think that a 1350 shooter is going to get past Rob, Pat, Clint, Zoran, Paul, Brendan, Craig, etc in a heads up format your really selling these guys short.
I think having the 3rd member a selective pick is total BS, and sets the system/committee up for failure. Pick archer "A" who is third...and "Archer B" in 5th place is put off by the fact he didnt get chosen based on his record. Pick Archer B in 5th place, and archer A is upset because they were third in ranking, only 2 points behind the second place archer, and feel they missed the team because they dont get along with the members of the committee.

All three team members should be picked based on the same, objective, published criteria.

[dbjac]

The nature of matchplay means that there is every chance that said 1340 shooter could knock our 'top' shooters out.

In a perfect world, Marcus' suggestion of numerous events is the best option. Increasing score sample size reduces the random error of matchplay. However this is often unfeasable as where do you set the qualifying events? and how likely is it that these shooters can take the time to attend them? considering many of them would be pushing it for time off work/family to attend the event let alone its qualification rounds.

I think for a matchplay event, team selection should be based on matchplay scores. Or at very least the ranking round format that will be used at the event selection is for.

[2Dogs]

Nah!.....We are Rock!....Rock Solid....Just ask Rocky..Err Pat :thumb:

[James Park]

Bear in mind guys that we have a compound program and funding only because Jim Larven and I set out to create it. Without us doing that we would have no program and in nice big round numbers the funding for compounders would be ZERO. I think you are complaining far too much (and it seems to be typical of those who get it too easy). Jim and I would quite happily stop doing all this and get back to our own shooting (in fact that would be a pleasure).

In relation to selection it is largely as posted by Pat. I have been trying to get the agreed document sent out by AA for a while (and will keep trying to do so). I have emailled it to all the program members, so they should indeed have read it. If they have not done so then they are especially slack and deserve nothing.

I have seen just about every variation of selection procedures, and have seen the archers complain about all of them (and then do nothing). We are very definitely focussed on trying to get the very best archers to the major events so that we have a chance of winning. How about just accepting that we have a set of criteria and getting on with trying to ensure you have the best chance of meeting it (as nicely noted by Pat)? If in due course we find a better way then I am sure we will move to it.

[STRINGWALKER]

Whingeing is as Australian as waltzing matilda..........with regard to selection trials "all" have an opinion....trouble is this country is too big (travelwise) and with fuel costs it's getting bigger!

[Marcus]

If you think that a 1350 shooter is going to get past Rob, Pat, Clint, Zoran, Paul, Brendan, Craig, etc in a heads up format your really selling these guys short.
Nothing to do with those guys at all, it's more than possible.
I've run a few round robin matchplay shoots where really odd things happened.
In one case one 1370 archer failed to win a match. They shot well, but everyone they shot against jumped 3-4 points for that match winning it. Another 1360 archer won every match but their opponents actually dropped those rounds.
In one really interesting case one archer went undefeated except for 2 matches against 1 1345 shooter. In both matched this archer shot 58's (in high winds) and won.

If I recall correctly a a 340 shooter has about a 20% chance of beating a 350 shooter. So in one match there is a 1 in 5 chance you get the lower guy go through. It's those percentages that the committee is trying to avoid.

IMO ALL the positions on the teams should be earned and the selection process should be transparent, fair and based on performance... nothing else.
I believe that the third spot will be based on performance. The committee is there to get a team that wins medals. If they sent someone who does not give them the best chance to win then the criticism will be huge. Having the 3rd position open to a selection committee gives you more safety for that than just taking the top 3. What if your 3rd is a good local shooter but another person is better suited to the conditions they will be competing under?
Remember, this is a professional team. Professional sports don't select people based only on talent. They play the guys that will give them the win, and sometimes that is not the 3 most talented people around.

Personally I would like to see matchplay given more opportunity here in Oz, but I think it's more complicated to get right than many realize.

[dbjac]

In one really interesting case one archer went undefeated except for 2 matches against 1 1345 shooter. In both matched this archer shot 58's (in high winds) and won.

I know the case you are talking about, and it is a perfect example of matchplay. This shooter lost only two rounds in that event. Most of the rest were won by a slim margin, with scores between ~95 and 110 (due mostly to the high winds). But in his round against the far and above favourite, scored 114. Then in the finals against the same person, 116 (i think?) in incredibly strong winds (59 on the last end). If i recall correctly, removing these two rounds dropped the average scores shot to below that of most of the shooters attending.
No one would have picked the 1345 shooter to have taken that out. I certainly didn't.

[Bottom Dweller]

I've run a few round robin matchplay shoots where really odd things happened.


I have to agree there.

Have a look at the recent Erina matchplay results.

http://www.archerynsw.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=257&Itemid=31

Zoran shot a 698 in the ranking round yet finished third in the Matchplay.

Matchplay has its place in selection, but I don't think a single 12 arrow score should be used to eliminate someone who consistently scores higher than their peers.

[apexrob]

but I don't think a single 12 arrow score should be used to eliminate someone who consistently scores higher than their peers.

Welcome to the world of matchplay :D

[tropicalshot]

Zoran shot a 698 in the ranking round yet finished third in the Matchplay.

Matchplay has its place in selection, but I don't think a single 12 arrow score should be used to eliminate someone who consistently scores higher than their peers.

which is why i believe at the WC events and the olympic event you should receive 1st 2nd 3rd medals for the Qualification round and separate medals for the matchplay
my 2c
then the events best could claim to have won both

[ec]

If they sent someone who does not give them the best chance to win then the criticism will be huge.

although, if they subjectively choose someone and that person doesn't succeed the criticism will be larger and more deserved.

[Sandy Hancock]

Bear in mind guys that we have a compound program and funding only because Jim Larven and I set out to create it. Without us doing that we would have no program and in nice big round numbers the funding for compounders would be ZERO. I think you are complaining far too much (and it seems to be typical of those who get it too easy). Jim and I would quite happily stop doing all this and get back to our own shooting (in fact that would be a pleasure).

In relation to selection it is largely as posted by Pat. I have been trying to get the agreed document sent out by AA for a while (and will keep trying to do so). I have emailled it to all the program members, so they should indeed have read it. If they have not done so then they are especially slack and deserve nothing.

I have seen just about every variation of selection procedures, and have seen the archers complain about all of them (and then do nothing). We are very definitely focussed on trying to get the very best archers to the major events so that we have a chance of winning. How about just accepting that we have a set of criteria and getting on with trying to ensure you have the best chance of meeting it (as nicely noted by Pat)? If in due course we find a better way then I am sure we will move to it.
Here endeth the lesson.

Amen.

[Freeman]

Bear in mind guys that we have a compound program and funding only because Jim Larven and I set out to create it. Without us doing that we would have no program and in nice big round numbers the funding for compounders would be ZERO. I think you are complaining far too much (and it seems to be typical of those who get it too easy). Jim and I would quite happily stop doing all this and get back to our own shooting (in fact that would be a pleasure).

In relation to selection it is largely as posted by Pat. I have been trying to get the agreed document sent out by AA for a while (and will keep trying to do so). I have emailled it to all the program members, so they should indeed have read it. If they have not done so then they are especially slack and deserve nothing.

I have seen just about every variation of selection procedures, and have seen the archers complain about all of them (and then do nothing). We are very definitely focussed on trying to get the very best archers to the major events so that we have a chance of winning. How about just accepting that we have a set of criteria and getting on with trying to ensure you have the best chance of meeting it (as nicely noted by Pat)? If in due course we find a better way then I am sure we will move to it.

I think that evryone appreciates the effort Both Jim's have put into getting funding for the compound program, but I still do not agree with the selection proceedure. Plus I think I have a right to voice my opinion as I have been around long enough and had enough experience to see what would be fair for all archers. The multible selection seems to work for Korea, Usa..... look at the usa selection for 2007 world target, one of the worlds best shooters did not shoot well enough to make the team and finished 4th.... so he was not sent.

I do not know what the slection commitee is affraid of, every team I have been shooting for has got along well and performed well. I am not affriad of trying out and missing the team.

[Coghlan]

I do not think they are 'afraid' of anything, why would they be.

I think they are doing what they think/consider is right to get a Team Gold Medal in India.

[GuyDawg9]

i have a question, and i'm not putting down anyone or taking sides.

but say if archer A is ranked thrid and in for a chance to win an individual medal as well as the top 2 but doesn't work well in the teams event. and archer B is not as highly likely to win a medal in the individual part, but make the other 2 selected archers shoot well as a team and makes the team a really good chance of winning, who do you select?? what is more important the individual part or the teams event?

i just wanna know out of interested.

[Coghlan]

I am lost in what you said.....I will try again

Archer A is not in the Top 2 hence they are at the disgretion of the committee as to getting into the team, individual medals are not taken into account as there is a greater chance of winning a TEAM medal.

Archer B is better in Teams but not individual, then according to the theory that has been announced then Archer A would get in as they are looking at the TEAM medal.

[dbjac]

I would imagine selection based on team synergy would be rather difficult to quantify. Its far easier to select people based on how they perform individually, since the alternative would require extensive testing not only of the individual archers, but of almost every combination of team possible.

Having said that, I would imagine that any person who disrupts the team moral or causes a rift in it severely lowers their chance of being reselected for the program (and therefore the team).

EDIT:

Guys post, for Pat:
If archer A and B are selected, is it better to select archer C because he is 3rd best even though he might not offer as much to the team synergy, or select archer D because he is better for the team although perhaps a slightly lesser shooter (we're talking SLIGHTLY, since they are still qualified program shooters)- potentially increasing the scores shot by archer A and B.
In essence, he's trying to say should we have only quantitative selection criteria (ie. the score an archer shoots) or add in some thing qualitative (like how good the team would be with which ever archer's inclusion.)

[GuyDawg9]

i meant like archer A is ranked 3rd at the time of selection, and acher B is ranked 4th, sorry for the confusion.

[Coghlan]

I think I reclarified it. But this is only from me reading the Selection Criteria.

It is not the Official answer.

I really think it is more to cover the 'Thorpey' falling in the pool senario more than anything else

[GuyDawg9]

EDIT:

Guys post, for Pat:
If archer A and B are selected, is it better to select archer C because he is 3rd best even though he might not offer as much to the team synergy, or select archer D because he is better for the team although perhaps a slightly lesser shooter (we're talking SLIGHTLY, since they are still qualified program shooters)- potentially increasing the scores shot by archer A and B.
In essence, he's trying to say should we have only quantitative selection criteria (ie. the score an archer shoots) or add in some thing qualitative (like how good the team would be with which ever archer's inclusion.)

Thats what i meant. thanks

[Coghlan]

I dont know what the committee will pick.....up to the committee.

[Freeman]

I have to agree there.

Have a look at the recent Erina matchplay results.

http://www.archerynsw.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=257&Itemid=31

Zoran shot a 698 in the ranking round yet finished third in the Matchplay.

Matchplay has its place in selection, but I don't think a single 12 arrow score should be used to eliminate someone who consistently scores higher than their peers.


Not talking of a knock out matchplay, I am suggesting a round robin matchplay where at every meet, you may come up against each archer 3-4 times.... so this would not create many upsets and the more consistant archers would come through.

Marcus, I am not saying the compound program pay for all costs attributed to each archer attending the shoot off (airfare and accomadation), I am saying that if the program might want to pay for either the airfare OR accomadation for the qualifying archers to attend as a reward for qualifying. I am sure if this was done that archers qualifying would find the rest to at least have a chance to try out.

I feel there are alot of archers out there putting in time, effort and money and not getting an equal chance to try out.

[DerekTheWonderFerret]

Not talking of a knock out matchplay, I am suggesting a round robin matchplay where at every meet, you may come up against each archer 3-4 times.... so this would not create many upsets and the more consistant archers would come through.

Yes. You shouldn't just be able to get lucky on the day or in one or two critical matches.

[reversehaven]

well, if you're afraid of the 'getting lucky' part, then shouldn't you just stick to ranking scores? after all, a good ranked archer is more often than not a good matchplay archer, going by statistics alone.

of course, i would agree that some people have a slight edge in matchplay. i feel as though my best shots are sometimes 'saved' for matchplay. though occasionally i perform like crap in matchplay.

[Matt Gray]

[QUOTE=
I have seen just about every variation of selection procedures, and have seen the archers complain about all of them (and then do nothing). If in due course we find a better way then I am sure we will move to it.[/QUOTE]

My first Australian Team was in 1988. Since then I really don't think the selection procedures have been the same for any one event. Some have been off the National resutls first three past the post. Some have been a Ranking and Match Play or knock out.

Take the Olympic Selection for example my first team I tried out for was in 1992 and every Olympic year the selection has been different. So it appears to me that a trend is happening. Why change it? Does it always have to be changed? Why not stick to something that has worked in the past.

I really think the third position should NOT be an subjective one. I understand unfortunate situations can arise for some people, yet the first three past the post should be given the postions and if anyone wants who misses out wants to appeal than they can.

This current selection process appears that the selection committee are playing God. I am sure this far out of the selection process they already have selected the team they want, irrespectively of how people are shooting in 12 months time.

[James Park]

You really do seem to be quite cynical Matt.
Have you actually taken the time to look at the statistics of all this? Probably not. I have.

[James Park]

I am sure this far out of the selection process they already have selected the team they want, irrespectively of how people are shooting in 12 months time.
Clearly not. That is an appalling statement - you should be ashamed to have made it.
What we want is the best possible team, and we are putting a lot of effort and some money into trying to assist our archers to do the best they possibly can.

[James Park]

Since then I really don't think the selection procedures have been the same for any one event.
Perhaps you have not been particularly observant? I have been.
For the compounders it has been:

Prior to 1995: no compounds included
1995: FITA + matchplay (in Canberra, separate from the Nationals)
1997: FITA + matchplay (in Canberra, separate from the Nationals)
1999: FITA + matchplay (in Canberra, separate from the Nationals)
2001: FITA + matchplay (in Perth, separate from the Nationals)
2003: Nationals target - two FITAs (Brisbane)
2005: Nationals target - two FITAs (Melbourne)
2007: Nationals target - two FITAs (Melbourne)
2009: Nationals target plus ACT - four FITAs (Adelaide and Canberra)

That seems to me to have been pretty consistent.

The World Field team has had an equally consistent approach.

[Freeman]

1995, '97, '99, '01, '03, '05 and 2007 were all spots taken past the post(3-4 depending on the year)

2009 first two + committee's opinion..... not really consistant with any other year.

2001 was the best shoot off as it was 2-3 days of shooting which took in all forms of shooting Ranking rounds and Match Play.

MatchPlay has been apart of the World Champs since 1995(inclusion) so why are we still not including it into selection.

The committee is putting all the focus on the team event...... why? what are they going to do IF Australia wins gold ?..... are they going to promote it like they did with Simon's 2000 Olympic GOLD or my 2003 World Champ GOLD which was bugger all promotion.

[Freeman]

Confucius says: A wise man knows to hold his tounge while drinking wine

[STRINGWALKER]

Ahh...passionate healthy debate, us lesser mortals are following with interest!

[Freeman]

Ahh...passionate healthy debate, us lesser mortals are following with interest!

Yes very much so and will only become more passionate as time goes on

[Eberbachl]

Confucius says: A wise man knows to hold his tounge while drinking wine

It would be difficult not to spill the wine if you're holding your tongue.

:D

[Matt Gray]

[QUOTE=James Park]You really do seem to be quite cynical Matt.
QUOTE]

The reason is that I have been around awhile and get frustrated with the committee wanting to change everything all the time. If it an't broke don't fix it.

The main issue is the the third position is left in the hands of the committee. The archers have no control in it.

Match Play is what this game is all about. No good shooting a 1380 and not being able to put that into a match.

Ki Sik Lee like I have said before used previous selection for training purposes. So that as many people as possible would get exposed to match play. The best team always was selected. If at the end of the day an archer can not be consistent enough then they shouldn't be going away.

[Freeman]

I think it is a total bunch of poliical BS. The recurve program is looking at going to the same selection proceedure only so they can say the an AIS archer made the team and justify the AIS program.... what about all the other guys and girls out there putting in the hard work.... total BS

[Freeman]

Eg.
Matt Gray and Michael Naray finish 2nd and 3rd for Olympic trials... as they did. Michael being 3rd and even though he has put his life on hold for 2 years and financed his own training and paid his taxes which goes to funding the AIS archers could be told SORRY fella but we want to run with someone else. How would that be fair ? would you other archers want your dreams trashed ?

Maybe AA might have to issue knee pads

[Xs24-7]

I applaud everyone who is stepping forward. While I heard a lot of discussion of this when I was in Aus, most wouldnt persue it, because if they did they risked falling out of favour of the committee. While I know all are appreciative of the work of the committee, and the funding that has been made availible, it isnt like the archers are doing nothing. They work their butt off training to get the a world class level. The sacrifise their jobs, their families, their own money...and end up third in the ranking...how is it fair to say that using the results to pick #1 and #2 is going to guaruntee picking the top 2...but then picking the #3 archer needs some other criteria? How does the system have any credibility when it comes down to the choice of a group of people. While I know most of the committee members, and know that they all have the best intentions...who is to say that when picking the team a protest filed at nationals last year wont sway the decision...or perhaps a response to this post may cause some sober second thought....an easy way to avoid that is to simply hold all archers to the same standards, it removes the committee from second guessing, and the archers know what they are up against, everyone wins.

[tropicalshot]

Here

[2Dogs]

Ok you can turn your Thoughts off now. :silly:

[tropicalshot]

Ok you can turn your Thoughts off now. :silly:
:rofl: i think they were off when i posted :silly:

[STRINGWALKER]

The forum is a good tool for discussion, taking it personal is par for the course for those who strive to achieve.....but it's all just wind if nothing is resolved!

[Craig R]

I don't think there is one compound archer out there that isn't appreciative for the work done by the committee to get this funding.
But surely they could listen when some of the best archers in the country are openly(and some not) voicing their concerns at the selection criteria.
This is generally healthy discussion.
If the committee don't like what they are reading here then they shouldn't have left themselves open to it by having a whole section dedicated to the subject on an open forum.

[James Park]

Bear in mind that the Australian Sports Commission wants subjectivity to be a large component of ALL sports. Be thankful that it is here just one spot and not all of them (and it is highly likely that the 3rd scoring archer would be selected in any case).
It was very nearly included as part of the selection procedure for the 2008 Olympics.
Please don't think that we do not understand these things. We very much understand the care with which this sort of thing would need to be used (if ever).
As I said earlier, just get out and practice a lot and get to be number 1 or number 2.

[James Park]

If the committee don't like what they are reading here then they shouldn't have left themselves open to it by having a whole section dedicated to the subject on an open forum.
We have a section dedicated to the program because we want the archers to know what is going on. That is: we are interested in effective communication.
I do get somewhat annoyed when we have a recurve archer commenting negatively on things that are nothing to do with recurves.
I do get somewhat annoyed when people do not use appropriate procedures. For example, if you wanted to have any influence on the selection process for WAC09 then it needed to be through appropriate channels back at the end of last year, not now.
As far as I can tell, I am about the only compounder in the top group (if you allow me that liberty) to have actually got up and done anything at all to make the selection processes more acceptable to the compounders and aimed at winning (if I am offending anyone here I apologise, but you have been invisible in relation to the correct processes and procedures). I have listened quite carefully to comments from the compounders in relation to this topic for many years. (I can also recall some recurvers who directly commented that they did not like the process requiring them to take a lot of time off work for things like selection events, but I will not go there).

[James Park]

Perhaps I should add that we do indeed listen to the archers.
At each of the workshops we have run we have quite deliberately asked the archers what they want.
Pretty much everyone said they were happy. Virtually no comments at all about the selection process.
The one area where the archers said they wanted something different was to make it easier to run QREs. That is, to do something about the requirement that a judge be present. We took that one to the AA Board (through the correct procedures) and had it changed to be as the archers wanted. Marcus would be able to verify that we pushed what the archers wanted very strongly, despite some arguement, and got (to the letter) what it was that the archers wished.

[Marcus]

Marcus would be able to verify that we pushed what the archers wanted very strongly, despite some arguement, and got (to the letter) what it was that the archers wished.
yeah I was at the board meeting reporting on something else and watched this all happen. (I was done but wanted to stick around once I heard this topic come up)
The discussion was quite in depth and addressed many concerns and issues that had been raised in the past.
IIRC the idea behind choosing the 3rd member was as a failsafe so that in the event of a disaster (for example the top shooter having a major malfunction in his gear and falling from 1st to last right at the end) there is the possibility of them getting selected. However the feeling was that it would be likely to go to the 3rd person in 99% of cases.
Personally I prefer seperate selection events, but then everyone complained about the field event for 2002 and it's cost to attend. I also hear recurvers complain all the time about their selection events being both expensive on time and also fixed.

[Freeman]

We have a section dedicated to the program because we want the archers to know what is going on. That is: we are interested in effective communication.
I do get somewhat annoyed when we have a recurve archer commenting negatively on things that are nothing to do with recurves.

The topic of discussion is team selection, being that the recurve side of things is about to change also.... I think their opinion is justified

I do get somewhat annoyed when people do not use appropriate procedures. For example, if you wanted to have any influence on the selection process for WAC09 then it needed to be through appropriate channels back at the end of last year, not now.

Nothing is ever set in stone, if there is enough opposition/disagreement why cant the board just change..... it seems that a very high percentage of archers do not like this selection.

Is AA running the sport of Archery or is the ASC. I am only asking for a change of selection for the World Target Champs, if ASC want representation then give them the World Cup series(4 archers per division) which is second tier in target archery and run this selection..... but as for a world championship event, every one deserves the right to try out without an outside influence.

(EDIT by admin to fix quotes ;))

[apexrob]

Eg.Maybe AA might have to issue knee pads

They would need titanium plated ones for Postman!!

[apexrob]

I do get somewhat annoyed when people do not use appropriate procedures.

This annoys me too Jim, especially when a certain member of the elite compound program seems to find out information on team selection and other matters before anyone else.

[Freeman]

Could there be a hidden committee inside the committee itself...... the plot thickens. Could it be another IOC scandle all over again ?