Team selection WAC09

[James Park]

Here is the (unofficial) selection criteria. It has been approved by the Board and should be circulated shortly.
How about stopping arguing and just getting on with trying to be number 1 or number 2? (If you devoted your energies to practice instead of arguing, perhaps you just might score more?)
__________________________________________________ _______

Selection for WAC09: compound team

In the World Target Archery Championships it is highly desirable that an archer finish in the top 16 places in the ranking round, and preferably in the top 8 places, if that archer is to have a realistic chance of winning a medal. This implies that the archer must preferably be capable of obtaining scores in excess of 1380 for the FITA 144 arrow round. Also, past results have shown that many of the final top 16 places following the matchplay rounds are filled by archers who have obtained a FITA 1400 Star, or who have shot in excess of 1390 for the FITA 144 arrow round in competition. The team selection process needs to take these facts into account. Hence, we have Principle 1.

Principle 1:
Archers must have demonstrated an ability to obtain world level scores for the FITA 144 arrow round.

It is an archer

[Freeman]

Who are the Compound Committe ?

Who are the Selection Committee ?

[Ed]

Who are the Compound Committe ?

Who are the Selection Committee ?

Clint - the Compound Committee was published quite a while ago:
Jim Park
Jim Larven
Leigh Cornish
Clare Barnes
(I think)

The AA Selection Committee has been on the AA website for a long time:
Bruce Lang (Chair)
John Chaplin
Kyo Moon Oh
Jim Park

Nothing secret about anything of this.

[David Rowson]

Selection Committee:
Bruce Lang Chairperson
John Chaplin AA Vice President
Kyo Moon Oh National Head Coach
James Park
James Larven AA CEO

Compound Committee:
James Park Chairperson
James Larven AA CEO
Leigh Cornish
Clare Barnes Chairperson Records Committee.

[Ed]

Selection Committee:
Bruce Lang Chairperson
John Chaplin AA Vice President
Kyo Moon Oh National Head Coach
James Park
James Larven AA CEO

Compound Committee:
James Park Chairperson
James Larven AA CEO
Leigh Cornish
Clare Barnes Chairperson Records Committee.

Didn't I just say that?? I don't think Jim Larven is on the AA Selection Committee.

[Freeman]

Clint - the Compound Committee was published quite a while ago:
Jim Park
Jim Larven
Leigh Cornish
Clare Barnes
(I think)

The AA Selection Committee has been on the AA website for a long time:
Bruce Lang (Chair)
John Chaplin
Kyo Moon Oh
Jim Park

Nothing secret about anything of this.


Thanks for that.

[grantwomack]

These are very thorough and precise rules. It's great to see a committee who has clear guidelines and is getting it right! You're bound to have an incredibly strong compound team.

[Freeman]

Jim, currently there are 3 archers qualified at 1380(mens compound)..... what happens if noone else qualifies 1380 or better, do these archers automatically make the team or does the qualifying get moved back to 1370 to allow for more archers.

If the score does not get moved back and it only allows for these archers to try out(have the spots).... then why stop at 1380, why not continue raising the level to 1390 or 1400 ?

[James Park]

Clint,
Good question.
Our study of the results of major tournaments shows that to have a reasonable chance of success we need archers who can reasonably reliably score in excess of 1380.
Hence, we are trying hard to encourage our compounders to get to (and above) that level. Part of our strategy with the World Cup events has been to try to push a few more up there, and to get them used to the pressures of top level events.
Nevertheless, we do not want a situation where we only get a couple qualified at the very highest level and then get too comfortable - we would like the pressure to remain on them to get even better.
Hence, we have placed a cap of 1380 on the qualifying score escalation process. We have also said that we do not want 'one round flukes' so we have said that archers need to get three scores at that level.
Our expectation is that despite it being a reasonably high score we will still get perhaps 5 or 6 qualifying at that level (for the men).
We have also pushed the scores up so that we do not have a lesser archer have a couple of lucky days and push out an expert.
Hence, I am very confident we will end up with a very strong team and that we will indeed have a competition right to the end.
No, we will not lower the qualifying score once it goes up. hence, the mens' score is now at 1380 and will stay there. (Our first inclination was to keep letting it go up, but then we could perhaps have had three archers over 1390 and no competition at the end).
At present we like where we are at with the men. We expect the women to get a few more reasonable scores and do see the potential for a competition there as well, but perhaps not at the 1380 level just yet (although several of the ladies have shown that they can indeed get there).
Since we started the program we have seen a very definite increase in score levels, which is really pleasing.

[James Park]

One of the things I did at the workshops we ran was to step through the (very careful and detailed) thinking behind the score levels we see our archers need to be able to achieve to have a reasonable chance of success in both the individual and team events. It was a pity that several of the archers were not able to attend and missed that material. Nevertheless, you can be assured that it was not just adhoc thinking and has a very strong basis behind it.
Also, my experience over many years (from about 1970, in fact) is that despite us pushing the required scores steadily upwards we still get a good number of archers making it. I can remember when we pushed the required recurve score to 1150 and then to 1200 for a FITA round. Many archers said 'no one will qualify', but they did, and we did indeed win World Championships medals.

[James Park]

For WAC09:
Now on the Archery Australia web site.
http://www.archery.org.au/lib/pdf/90wacselection.pdf

(The recurve version is still to be published).

[Freeman]

Step 3 of the selection process still seems pretty vague.

What is considered a poor shot ? Is this poor shooting the work of brain farts or condition effects(weather) ?

Or is this an escape clause for the commitee who want to exclude certain archers to further their objective of a pre selected team ?

[Marcus]

I think it means that if an archer has a tendancy to put one off the butt under pressure they may be deemed too risky for the teams event.
In other words, would the TEAM be better off with a 1380 shoot who misses due to flinch (which while for the FITA doesn't matter too much, but that same miss could kill the team in the team matchplay) or someone who shoots 1370's with all in the gold and never has those flinches. Keeping in mind hat at 70m they would only have about a 2-3 point difference.

[James Park]

There is no 'pre-selected team'. That would be quite contrary to how these things should work. What we want is the best possible team and the highest possibility of winning medals and we are trying to encourage as many of our archers as possible to get to the capabilities needed.

If, however, we have archers who clearly cannot cope with the pressures at the top or simply cannot fit into a workable team them we need to be able to deal with it. (A not very good analogy might be a capable cricketer who consistently ran his batting partners out - even the best do it occassionally, but if it happened consistently you would want to be able to deal with it somehow.)

[Craig R]

It seems to me that nearly every Aust' MC representative over the last year or so could be considered to have had a 'brain fart' or two when under pressure. This could possibly leave their selection/non selection under the current process open to abuse.

Whats wrong with the committee saying that they fully expect the first three past the post to get the nod for team selection?

And, that if they ID potential problems within the top candidates that they will attempt to address/fix these issues?

Its obvious that the selection process is causing some concern for some of our archers so how about addresing them.

Craig:)

[James Park]

Its obvious that the selection process is causing some concern for some of our archers so how about addresing them.

Craig:)

Perhaps the archers should just get on with trying to shoot wonderful scores.
It seems to me that they complain too much, especially when they have been getting more assistance in the past year than ever before. There are no conspiracies or preconceptions here, we just want archers who can shoot wonderfully well.

Think about it - in the past year we have funded 6 compounders to the world target and 17 to world cup events. They have never had it so good, and yet I hear more complaining than ever before.

Yes, the selection process is indeed different, but I am sure it will work well. I have not the slightest intention of changing anything.

[Clare Barnes]

Whats wrong with the committee saying that they fully expect the first three past the post to get the nod for team selection?


Something like Jim posted 2 months ago?

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).

[Craig R]

Perhaps the archers should just get on with trying to shoot wonderful scores.

Aren't they?

It seems to me that they complain too much

Why??

especially when they have been getting more assistance in the past year than ever before.

I haven't heard anybody complaining about this at all in fact all I hear is gratitude for the assistance/oportunities.

There are no conspiracies or preconceptions here.

I haven't suggested there is. Just that it appears all is not transparent/clear to those concerned.

I hear more complaining than ever before.

Again why?

Yes, the selection process is indeed different, but I am sure it will work well. I have not the slightest intention of changing anything

I'm not suggesting you have to change anything but maybe some further clarification for those concerned might be the go.

:D

[Craig R]

Something like Jim posted 2 months ago?

(and it is highly likely that the 3rd scoring archer would be selected in any case).

Not quite the same as I said.;)

[Freeman]

It seems to me that nearly every Aust' MC representative over the last year or so could be considered to have had a 'brain fart' or two when under pressure. This could possibly leave their selection/non selection under the current process open to abuse.

Whats wrong with the committee saying that they fully expect the first three past the post to get the nod for team selection?

And, that if they ID potential problems within the top candidates that they will attempt to address/fix these issues?

Its obvious that the selection process is causing some concern for some of our archers so how about addresing them.

Craig:)

Good stuff Craig,

Brain farts, maybe like Pats miss at 30mtrs at the worlds last year.... did make the list ?

These sort of things happen.... even to the best of us and yes sometimes at the worst possible moment, but #$@% happens. First 3 past the post, then fair is fair and what happens... happens

This whole thing seems very un Australian

[Freeman]

There are no conspiracies or preconceptions here, we just want archers who can shoot wonderfully well.


Yes, the selection process is indeed different, but I am sure it will work well. I have not the slightest intention of changing anything.

Thats not exactly how I know it to be Jim, things have been said while I have been present by commitee members and things that go against everything I believe to be fair and certain things that certain archers have stated that those archers should be ashamed to call themselves Australian representatives. Australia, a nation that believes in a fair go.

A fair go, I DONT THINK SO

[Marcus]

What if the first 3 are the worst 3 for the team matchplay event though?
If there are 100 Competitors then we have a 1/11 chance of medalling in the individual but likely a 1/5 chance in the teams.
Lets say you get Yourself and Pat take 1 and 2 but say Rob gets ill and misses the the third spot. The selection committee may say "we would like Rob in that third spot because he's a great team matchplay shooter who has won with Clint and Pat before. " While that would suck for the dude who came 3rd, these things happen. (and if Rob was winning at the time probably would not object much anyway)
Isn't it good to have the option to swap out a competitor for the betterment of the team if need be? I imagine it's unlikely but it would be better for that option to exist than not I would think.

[primal]

This whole thing seems very un Australian

Thats an interesting call.

on what basis do you consider it un-Australian?

[Freeman]

What if the first 3 are the worst 3 for the team matchplay event though?
If there are 100 Competitors then we have a 1/11 chance of medalling in the individual but likely a 1/5 chance in the teams.
Lets say you get Yourself and Pat take 1 and 2 but say Rob gets ill and misses the the third spot. The selection committee may say "we would like Rob in that third spot because he's a great team matchplay shooter who has won with Clint and Pat before. " While that would suck for the dude who came 3rd, these things happen. (and if Rob was winning at the time probably would not object much anyway)
Isn't it good to have the option to swap out a competitor for the betterment of the team if need be? I imagine it's unlikely but it would be better for that option to exist than not I would think.

Bring in a system like the world cup is run, points earning and make it over 4 events and take best 3 results.

I have never been apart of a team that has not worked well together. I am sure if Rob was allowed to voice his opinion on here he would agree.

[Freeman]

Thats an interesting call.

on what basis do you consider it un-Australian?

I consider it un Australian when a guy busts his guts to try out and finish in the top 3 and then is told that sorry you cant go cause another team member or commitee member does not like it when you have a miss fire every now and then.

[Singerov]

Jim, to quote you, “Perhaps the archers should just get on with trying to shoot wonderful scores.”

What is the use of shooting “wonderful scores” when the archer can be excluded from the Team “even though that archer’s scores may exceed the requirements under Steps 1 and 2.”

This statement in the rules can be used against any archer, and is ridiculous.

You are long time involved in this sport I don’t want to remind you how much effort, dedication and personal and family sacrifices we should make to shoot these wonderful scores at the nominated Tournaments, and then at the end to be excluded on an “opinion” that the archer is not suitable for the Team ?

Step 4 from the Rules. How ECPC are going to “monitor” an archer’s performance in the team environment during the selection period ? How many Team events we have during the year ? How you are going to “monitor” the “appropriate attitude”? Are you going to organise “Shooting with the Stars” type of tournament or we are going to give merit against the scores to select the Team?

And about that “tendency to have very poor shots” rule, show me an archer who never had a poor shot in a big tournament and I’ll call him a LIAR.

By my opinion the rules are not realistic and ridiculous, too much room for unfair decisions and at least in this sport you can measure the achievements precisely and decide the best 3 team members according the achieved results.

[Bottom Dweller]

"Tendency: a mean movement in a particular direction". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Therefore if an archer has a "tendency to have very poor shots", how can they ever attain the scores necessary to meet principle 1 & 2?

A "tendency" by definition, is not a rare occurrance but something that happens "on average" or "mean". It is systemic. It seems to me that it would not be possible to meet principle 1 & 2 if you had a systemic issue, especially given that principle 1 is based on average scores.

So if the principle 4 (step 3) was applied, in its true meaning, it is redundant as principle 1 & 2 would already include the impact of any poor shots.

Perhaps a separate objective mean score principle for matchplay events would have been better, eg 115.

[primal]

I consider it un Australian when a guy busts his guts to try out and finish in the top 3 and then is told that sorry you cant go cause another team member or commitee member does not like it when you have a miss fire every now and then.
thanks for clarifying, to often people banter around "Un-Australian" without qualifying what it is.

[Marcus]

I have never been apart of a team that has not worked well together. I am sure if Rob was allowed to voice his opinion on here he would agree.

I agree, that's why I would not be concerned about it. I'm not privy to the committee's discussions but given the variety of people sent overseas this year I would guess that the rule is there as a 'just in case' basis.
For example Zoran in 2005 is a prime example of where had this been in the selection process then perhaps the committee would have said "We would like to send Zoran as he was leading before falling ill and had won the previous 2 Nationals"

I understand the concerns but personally see the good aspects of this rule.

[Eberbachl]

I agree with Clint that it should be first three past the post.

Very easy to set up a range of events where archers can accumulate points so that one poor shoot or an isolated illness would not mean the otherwise third ranked archer misses out.

:thumb:

Of course compounders are getting alot of assistance at the moment and I'm sure they're all very thankful....but

...whenever anyone asks a question of the selection process, the canned response of "Compound archers have never had it so good, and should therefore be thankful, not complain, and just train harder so they're not number three (or worse)"...that just doesn't cut it.

I'm sure interested archers are indeed out there training as hard as they can to be the best they can be, and I think they're well within their rights (actually I think its their duty to do so) to examine the selection process and make comments where they think it might be flawed or could be improved.

;)

[Hannah]

"Tendency: a mean movement in a particular direction". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Therefore if an archer has a "tendency to have very poor shots", how can they ever attain the scores necessary to meet principle 1 & 2?

A "tendency" by definition, is not a rare occurrance but something that happens "on average" or "mean". It is systemic. It seems to me that it would not be possible to meet principle 1 & 2 if you had a systemic issue, especially given that principle 1 is based on average scores.

So if the principle 4 (step 3) was applied, in its true meaning, it is redundant as principle 1 & 2 would already include the impact of any poor shots.

Perhaps a separate objective mean score principle for matchplay events would have been better, eg 115.
Not sure that I can wholeheartedly agree with this one. There are those people who are "unpredicatable". Sometimes they shoot really well, whilst other times they don't. They still may be able to pull out the selection scores, but they would not be reliable.

I would agree that I don't know its relevant as you get closer to "elite" level...at least, I can't think of an example of it.

[wareagle]

I agree with Clint that it should be first three past the post.

Very easy to set up a range of events where archers can accumulate points so that one poor shoot or an isolated illness would not mean the otherwise third ranked archer misses out.

:thumb:

Of course compounders are getting alot of assistance at the moment and I'm sure they're all very thankful....but

...whenever anyone asks a question of the selection process, the canned response of "Compound archers have never had it so good, and should therefore be thankful, not complain, and just train harder so they're not number three (or worse)"...that just doesn't cut it.

I'm sure interested archers are indeed out there training as hard as they can to be the best they can be, and I think they're well within their rights (actually I think its their duty to do so) to examine the selection process and make comments where they think it might be flawed or could be improved.

;)
I know I don't have a dog in this fight....... but well said Luke.:thumb:

[slick]

Principle 4:
Archer’s must have demonstrated an ability to obtain high scores without any poor shots,
particularly at times of high pressure during tournaments, either during ranking rounds or during
matchplay rounds.

- What tools or form of evaluation will be used for monitoring?


Principle 5:
Archers must have demonstrated an ability to work well as part of a team and to understand the
processes and compromises necessary to maximise the team’s performance.

- As per principle 4.

Principle 6:
The selection committee needs to have some flexibility to include an archer in the team where
that archer has not won a place through others means but is nevertheless the best choice for a
team position.

- Best choice based on what (objective) criteria?

Words like subjective and flexibility remind me of invite lists for parties. Impirical evidence and transparent process with clearly articulated bench marks will put a lot of questions to bed.

[Freeman]

I believe the World Target Champs is the Ultimate for the Compound Division. The selection should be first 3 past the post using points earned over 3-4 events incorperating all aspects of archery today(Ranking rounds and matchplay)

If you want to use this selection proceedure, then use it on the second teir events such as the World Cups series to give experience to others or to satisfy sport commissions or who ever.

The World Champs are for the WORLDS BEST archers. Archers who have proven this by earning their place. The places are not and should not be for a commitee to fill.

[Bottom Dweller]

Principle 4 is looking increasingly like a "Sally Robbins" principle.

In her case she should never have been allowed to compete as she definately had a "tendency" for poor performance under pressure yet was still picked for the event. That was a mistake by the selectors who had ample evidence of a systemic psychological problem yet picked her anyway.

I'm not aware of any such cases in Archery. (Edit) At least not at elite level.

Edit:
If it intended as a Sally Robbins principle, then it needs to be determined by a qualified sports psychologist.

[2Dogs]

The Selection Procedures have already been passed and approved by AA.

As much as I agree with some of the idea's being proposed by people, it's too little too late.

If you want it changed someone is going to have to be passionate enough about it to throw their submissions into the AA board and go through the processes necessary to have the Selection Procedures changed.

You might get a chance to change things after 09.

But with most of this stuff who is going to put their hand up to lead the charge and do all the work to get it through the AA Board?

[Freeman]

Its never too late for change.... plus the board is coming up for re-election soon

[Bah Humbug]

Its never too late for change.... plus the board is coming up for re-election soon

And very few of the people on here (in fact I don't think any) have thrown their hat in the ring. It's one thing to constantly bang on about what's bad but I think there's only one way to change and that's from the inside. I exempt active elite competitors from this because the conflict of interest in competing and being on the board would be far too great. It's a shame because I'm sure so many AF folk could make a tangible contribution and have unique skills to offer the sport.

Unfortunately, of all the nominations we see only one nomination that isn't from a current or previous AA board member and he probably isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting up but would be probably be a good choice, if only to reinvigorate those already sitting and provide another perspective. I hope he get's a gig just to have some change and new blood.

Back on track, archery, in terms of management, is not a unique sport. It is in very good company and let me tell you, if you think the divers (as an example of another boutique sport) or many other sporting participants don't 'bust their gut' by comparison to archers and have to suffer an 'un-Australian' process whereby they don't get in no matter how hard they try (possibly ‘close but no cigar’ or in some cases just not good enough) then you'd be sadly mistaken. We're talking about the elite end of a sport. There will be those that get up and those that don't. That's the nature of the beast I’m afraid, so those that get in – appreciate it and those that don’t – better luck next time. That’s sport and the more you're funded the more cut throat it will become.

All this is borne out of the sport's culture. Unfortunately, archery promotes the warm fuzzy feeling rather than the harsh realities of competition. A perfect example is the Youth Nationals. I can hear the carnies crying now "Step right up, that's right folks, every child player win's a prize. No, no, it's not hard, just pay your money and everyone can have a go, don't worry if you miss, you'll still get a medal - every child player wins a prize"! Do we really wonder why we have a cultural problem?

Bah Humbug I say

[ec]

Dear Bah,
Please don’t compare archery to diving, sync swimming, floor routines in gymnastics, or anything else that is subjectively assessed. These are pastimes, hobbies or events, if you must. Sports have quantifiable outcomes, which cannot be separated from the sport in question without it loosing its’ identity, that are called scores. It’s why we shoot at targets with numbered rings and not blank bales.

[rachel]

Of course compounders are getting alot of assistance at the moment and I'm sure they're all very thankful....but


Where? I'm not getting any help and I'm part of the team.

[Freeman]

Something like Jim posted 2 months ago?

Can you show me where the Aust Sports Comm has put it in writing about wanting a say in that one spot ? Why are you implying that they are pulling the strings ?

The compound program has NO coach that is on any performance base bonus, so there is no reason for spot selection there.... and there is no perminent compound facility for the ASC to be injecting money into either. So why are you trying to put the blame onto others when its committee who has the only say ?

[markjam51]

There are plenty of genuine "sports" that have "scores" where the makeup of teams is decided on subjective and discretionary grounds. Such is the lot of selectors for any team sport you can name - soccer, league, union, AFL, cricket, hockey et al, to have to decide every week what is best for the team in terms of the makeup of a team.

The way rowing teams are selected provides a useful comparison - it can be a team sport or an individual sport. When you go in selection trials you may compete as an individual or as part of a crew (team). But if say a quad sculls team wins every regatta - does that mean they should be selected for the Olympic quad sculls. On a purely objective view you might say yes - but it is quite likely that other rowers or boat crews may contain better rowers, who when combined may make a better crew than the objective winner. And it is the later way that crews are selected. While such a scheme produced the "Lay Down Sally" incident, it has also produced a lot of medals over the years.

While archery team events are perhaps more of a "collective individual event" than a traditional team sport such as a football or rowing team team, and hence more readily assessable by objective measurement (individual scores), objective measurement is not necessarily the be all and end all of it either. One could well imagine an archer in excellent form, meeting objective selection criteria, then getting injured with consequential form drop. Should that person be continue to be selected or maintain a place in a team when there is a better person available? There is I think a valid argument for having a discretionary criterion to enable patent problems to be rectified that the published purely objective assessment criteria not correct.

What this thread highlights is the need to have the discretionary criteria set out in a a clear or compressive fashion to make the exercise of the discretion as precise as possible so the playing field is as level as it can be.

A read of Justice Santow's decision in the NSW Supreme Court case of Forbes and Bundock -v- Australian Yachting Federation Inc and Booth and Landenburger (1996) 131 FLR 241; (1996) ATPR (Digest) 46-158 which concerned the selection of the Tornado class crew for the 1996 Olympic games and the effective "de-selection of Forbes and Bundock and their substitution by Booth and Landenburger by the Court shows what can go wrong if the subjective criteria are no concisely spelt out and exactingly applied. Interestingly, though Booth represented Australia that year, he subsequently elected to take up Dutch nationality and has represented Holland at all the subsequent Olympics including the current ones - and his Australian opponent on each occasion including this year is of course Forbes!

Fortunately, other than as an esoteric mental exercise, this issue is not likely to confront me in my archery career - but maybe in my legal career .....

[Bah Humbug]

Dear Bah,
Please don’t compare archery to diving, sync swimming, floor routines in gymnastics, or anything else that is subjectively assessed. These are pastimes, hobbies or events, if you must. Sports have quantifiable outcomes, which cannot be separated from the sport in question without it loosing its’ identity, that are called scores. It’s why we shoot at targets with numbered rings and not blank bales.

My apologies, I forgot that archery is the single, most unique sport on the planet and it's management can't be compared to any other!

I know there's another thread dedicated to the argument about subjective results and pastimes, hobbies or events but let me tell you, there are plenty of these that, even as a pastime or hobby (I mean seriously, who dives off a 10m platform in the pike position with double somersault or swings at unbelievable risk to personal safety on the uneven bars as a hobby or pastime but I'll leave you in your little reverie). They require similar or greater degrees of technique and concentration and, to top all that off, a modicum of athletic ability!

Let's just get a little realistic in the debate.

[Bah Humbug]

There are plenty of genuine "sports" that have "scores" where the makeup of teams is decided on subjective and discretionary grounds. Such is the lot of selectors for any team sport you can name - soccer, league, union, AFL, cricket, hockey et al, to have to decide every week what is best for the team in terms of the makeup of a team.

etc

Fortunately, other than as an esoteric mental exercise, this issue is not likely to confront me in my archery career - but maybe in my legal career .....

Why aren't you on the AA payroll MJ! They could do with having a lot of other points made as accurately and succinctly. You have my vote. Well done.

[slick]

What this thread highlights is the need to have the discretionary criteria set out in a a clear or compressive fashion to make the exercise of the discretion as precise as possible so the playing field is as level as it can be.

Presently 50% of the six principles fall exactly into this group and (I subjectively perceive) is the area of concern. The provision of nothing in black and white to support them and provide clarity for the competitors, renders them nebulous paragraphs of concern for those trying to make the team.
Does a formal appraisal system/form exist for the AA Elite Compound Group members? Does it encapsulate all principles? Do members receive formal feedback to enable them to meet committee benchmarks and gain clarification if falling short of expectations?

[cschach]

Jim Park has done a huge amount of work for the discipline of compound archery in Australia and is widely accepted as being the person we all rely on for sorting out truth from rubbish when it comes to form and equipment. I am sure even Clint would acknowledge that.

I don't think it is unreasonable for him (in particular) to have some say in the third archer and I think it is gutsy of him to even want to make such a call.

I know Jim has made some comments on here in the past about Zoran's reliability with respect to his shooting style. Zoran is an extremely capable shooter, and indeed could finish in the top three. Hoevever, I personally witnessed a team consisting of Pat, Zoran and (I think Leigh Cornish) exit the team matchplay in the first round of an Australian Nationals a few years ago because Zoran put his first arrow into the wood-work. This wasn't because of equipment failure.

It is a really tough call, but you could be forgiven for feeling nervous about pinning your hopes on any shooter with that "tendency" in a matchplay event. Should that rule out Zoran's chances forever? Of course not, but if he was honest he would acklowledge that their is/was a problem to be fixed, and go about trying to fix it. I am sure Jim Park would be eager to help.

Not having a go at Zoran in any way here. He seems a very nice guy from the couple of times I have encountered him, and I know Pat thinks the world of him. I am just trying to highlight an example of why a bit of discretion is not such a bad idea.

I would also say, though, that if the committee does have reservations about a particular archers style or behaviour that may result in bias against them, it would be extremely unfair for them not to be completely open about that now and leading up to selection. The archer(s) in question must be given an opportunity to "redeem" themselves.

[James Park]

I would also say, though, that if the committee does have reservations about a particular archers style or behaviour that may result in bias against them, it would be extremely unfair for them not to be completely open about that now and leading up to selection. The archer(s) in question must be given an opportunity to "redeem" themselves.

Quite so.
If we were to think that an archer was unsuitable it would be essential that we tell them, in writing, in advance. That is, any intent to use discretionary powers would need to be well documented, in advance.
We have not done so and hence our present expectation is that the top three would be the team.

[rachel]

Can I ask a question about the original purpose of this thread?

Is there a cut-off time to have the desired scores in for consideration?

[James Park]

The cut off is the second FITA of the Nationals.

[Juggs]

been out of archery for 2 years and it seems it is still an amateurly run organisation that would benefit from a sports administrator who does not hang on to 20 years of biased and ego blinded opinion.

reminds me why i should enjoy my professionally run fishing competitions and not return

[2Dogs]

Well you won't get any arguments from around here, go on **** off :thumb:

[DanceswithDingoes]

......and when are we gonna see a High Performance Longbow Program eh? .....I can put most arrows on the target at 60m, does that mean I qualify?......... :archer:

[ec]

i believe the qualifying cut off is being able to finish the course with the same number of arrows you started with :)

[2Dogs]

Nope....you are the weakest link....goodbye :D

[Lagare Lout]

The AA Elite Compound Program appears to have more infighting, intrigue and he said/she said than Big Brother.

Where can I join and when is the next eviction night...

[Freeman]

What is the situation with the Australia Day Tournament, I am hearing that this tournament is going to be a fita round with the second day being matchplay.... if this is true, how does that play out with the team selection ?

[Hue]

and LL's post was on topic, was it Marcus?
i was going to add to mine, before i was so r.... interrupted that i may not like the term "elite" compound squad (god i hate that word in archery) but compared to say 5 years ago, i think it is fantastic that a real initiative like this has been taken to enhance our chances at the commonwealth games.
if some money and real training can help champion compound archers "bring home the bacon" so to speak, then well done, as long as all the criteria are transparent and fair. the fact that someone like Freeman has concerns does bother me though.
can you do something about that name please, the recurve olympians don't go round calling themselves the "elite.......... whatever"

Hue

[Eberbachl]

What on earth is wrong with being elite Hue?

I think it's great that the archers involved are referred to as that.

After all, they are our Elite.

[Hue]

overused word in archery
too many big fish in a very small pond
in my humble opinion only

[Marcus]

"Elite: best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons."

So given that archery is a sport that uses SCORE as a means to determine who is better and the Elite Compound Program takes those who score the most, ELITE is the correct term for the program.
For example I am a GMB but am not good enough to be on the program. I am fine with that, that is the rules.

[Eberbachl]

overused word in archery
too many big fish in a very small pond
in my humble opinion only

Really?

You haven't been paying very much attention. I'd say the Elite program represents a very small and quite select group of our best archers.

I like it.

[James Park]

We are trying to create a group of 'very tall poppies'. That is: we want a group of archers who can compete very well on the world scene.
In that arena medals mean everything, just competing is not sufficient. That is: if the archer is simply satisfied to have got to the major world event that is not enough and we have sent the wrong person - we want the archer who is only satisfied if they finish up the top of world events.
As Marcus and Eberbachl noted, "Elite" is very much what we mean and is the correct term. We chose it quite deliberately so that there should be no doubt at all about what we mean and want.

(Nevertheless, my experience is that along with "elite" we want a dose of "modesty", not "arrogance").

[Hue]

thank you Jim
that's what i was getting at
the term elite and arrogance has just been defined
it has also been my experience, in this art form anyway, a lot of times the two definetely went hand in hand
and Jim was the only one to produce a sensible answer to date
thanks mate

Hue

[Eberbachl]

before i was so r.... interrupted that i may not like the term "elite" compound squad (god i hate that word in archery) .................................................. .........can you do something about that name please, the recurve olympians don't go round calling themselves the "elite.......... whatever"

Hue

Can you show me Hue, where you asked for a definition?

:silly:

Had you done so, I would have provided one.

[Hue]

i didn't
but it was defined briefly by someone sensible

back on track lads!
wouldn't want to corrupt a thread, would we?

Hue

[Ed]

thank you Jim
that's what i was getting at
the term elite and arrogance has just been defined
it has also been my experience, in this art form anyway, a lot of times the two definetely went hand in hand
and Jim was the only one to produce a sensible answer to date
thanks mate

Hue

You have extrapolated enormously here - it is YOUR interpretation that 'elite' is equated with 'arrogance' and now you appear to be claiming that it is Jim's definition - what a load of rubbish, Hue. There are many people involved in archery, and other sports, who are certainly 'elite' and most certainly not 'arrogant.' The two do not necessarily go "hand in hand," not even for a "lot of times." You need to tack on a course in logic to your current uni studies.

[Eberbachl]

i didn't
but it was defined briefly by someone sensible


...no - you didn't.

Then:

and Jim was the only one to produce a sensible answer to date
thanks mate

Why would you expect anyone else to provide you with a definition.

If you want one, ask for it - and don't imply that we're not sensible because we didn't give you something for which you didn't ask.

:silly:

[James Park]

Hue,
Marcus actually provided an excellent definition of elite, and did so prior to my post. I do agree with Marcus' definition.
I most certainly did not define elite as including arrogance - I noted that arrogance or modesty are additional factors and that I prefer elite performers who are modest.
It seems to me that you are wanting to hear a particular definition rather than the actual definition.

[Hue]

mea culpea

i merely meant that the term "elite" was used back when i started archery, eighteen years ago, to include anyone who was "anyone" and i never said Jim, that you equated the two.
your last sentence stated that you "want a dose of modesty. not arrogance" with the Elite.
i still hear more arrogance than modesty and i did not extrapolate the two Ed. i never said that Jim used those words together, i merely agreed with his last sentence.
i was involved with athletics for many years and later, the martial for many more! and i have never heard the word "elite" as often as i have in archery.
we need to be inclusive in this small pond we play in, not exclusive. the average archer at there couldn't give two hoots about the "elite" program because it is something they may never attain, but they just here the word "elite" and roll their eyes.
i merely asked if there was another word we could use, i just asked..........
there's no need to get defensive, i just simply asked

Hue

[James Park]

My experience is that if we all value our small pool of elite performers then as a whole the sport will do better.
That is, we very much should all be wanting there to be some tall poppies rather than none.
I know the usual Australian way is to hack them off, but then we all lose.
For example, when I see a club that has one or two highly capable archers I generally see the members of that club as a whole having more fun, being involved in more things, and all scoring better.

[Freeman]

What is the situation with the Australia Day Tournament, I am hearing that this tournament is going to be a fita round with the second day being matchplay.... if this is true, how does that play out with the team selection ?

Its seems that this has not yet been answered ?

[Hue]

i agree with you Jim, i'm not argueing that.
we need the top performers and we need to nurture and improve their skills to compete and represent our country at the highest level.
i simply questioned the use of that word, not the principle involved.
perhaps it's my working class background.
would someone answer Clint's question and can we get back on track please!

Hue

[James Park]

Yes, I know you are querying the word Hue, and what I am saying is that it is exactly appropriate and just what we want.

[Ed]

It's surely not overly difficult to contact the ACT Club concerned and ask them what the format will be, is it?

[Freeman]

The committee has laid out the selection procedure as 4 fita's over 2 events and now it seems they have changed the rules and making it a 3 fita selection procedure... I have not been notified of the change by the committee and I have qualified for the team selection, it took Pat Coghlan to notify me... what is going on.

The club in ACT is not in charge of the selection.

[Coghlan]

Clint when I found out Canberra had changed to 1 FITA 144 and Matchplay I asked the same question over the phone, but I think you need to read the Document on the Official Website, I may be wrong but.....

This is from the Selection Process on the AA website that anyone can access, hence they have notified all on the OFFICIAL AA website. This website is not official for AA and hence is really only a discussion area.

SELECTION PROCESS

Bearing in mind the above Principles, the selection process for WAC09 is as follows.
Principle 1 implies the need to set a reasonably high and ambitious score that archers must exceed if they are to be considered for selection. Recognising the variable and often poor weather conditions in Australia, this qualifying score is initially set lower than the desired 1380 for the FITA 144 arrow round. However, should sufficient archers obtain this score it will be raised during the qualifying period (perhaps multiple times). Principle 2 implies the need to archers to exceed this score not once but a number of times. This leads to Step 1.

Step 1:

Archers must exceed a score of 1360 (for men) or 1350 (for women) for the FITA 144 arrow round (90 Metres for men and 70 Metres for women) in competition or in a Qualifying and Ranking Events (QRE) at least three times during the qualifying period. Should the number of archers of a particular gender who have qualified at that score level reach a total of five, the qualifying score will be raised by 10 points so long as at least three of those archers will have qualified at that new score level. This process of raising the qualifying score will continue during the qualifying period each time that threshold is reached, to a maximum of 1380. Principle 3 notes the need for a nominated selection event, or events. These need to be majortournaments using FITA 144 arrow rounds, open to all archers. This leads to Step 2.

Step 2:

Two of the three available team places will be allocated to qualified archers based upon the cumulative results in the FITA 144 arrow rounds at the Australian National Target Championships 2009 and the Canberra Archery Club Australia Day Tournament 2009. As the qualification period may extend past the date of the Canberra tournament and as noted in Step 1 the qualifying score may change during the qualification period, the evaluation of the results from these two nominated tournaments can only be finalised after the end of the National Championships. Principle 4 needs to be monitored throughout the selection period. Should an archer fail to meet this requirement it may be necessary to exclude that archer from consideration, even though that archer’s scores may exceed the requirements under Steps 1 and 2. This leads to Step 3.

Step 3:

Each archer’s performance will be monitored by the Elite Compound Program Committee during the selection period and should an archer show a tendency to have very poor shots in tournaments that archer may be excluded from consideration. Principle 5 needs to be monitored throughout the selection period. Should an archer fail to meet this requirement it may be necessary to exclude that archer from consideration, even though that archer’s scores may exceed the requirements under Steps 1 and 2. This leads to Step 4.

Step 4:

Each archer’s performance will be monitored by the Elite Compound Program Committee during the selection period and should an archer be seen to perform poorly in a team environment or not display an appropriate team attitude that archer may be excluded from consideration. Principle 6 implies that the selection committee needs to have the ability to include an archer where in its subjective opinion including that archer results in the strongest team. This leads to

Step 5:

The third position in the men’s and women’s teams will be allocated at the discretion of the Archery Australia Selection Committee. The Elite Compound Program Committee will be responsible for making recommendations to the Selection Committee in relation to these positions.

(1) At no point above does it say that Canberra will hold 2 Fita's.

(1a) The word Rounds is used, hence more than 1, they are using 3 hence I think the grammar is correct.

(2) Nothing has changed, add the FITA's from Canberra and Nationals in Adelaide, to give you the Places if you have met Step 1.

(3) If you do not show up in Canberra you get a big fat 0 which would make it hard to qualify I guess, even with back to back 1440's

[Freeman]

Pat, my point is that everyone knew it was going to be a 4 fita round shoot off. I was told it was going to be a 4 fita round shoot off, now it is a 3 round shoot off and no one has been formally informed of this.... I think its pretty poor changing the rules leading up to the shoot off... but being that a committe member stated that "we are the committee, we can change the rules as we like to get the team we want"... I guess they are just doing what they said they would.

I might be complaining or bitching alot about this subject but I would hate to see someone wronged by what is happening, I am only trying to have things fair for all archers. I have received alot of messages for fellow shooters who agree with me and it seems that its a minority that agrees with the whole selection procedure.

[Coghlan]

The thing is, you must remember that if you read what AA has written (The Selection Process for 09 WAC) then nothing has changed.

What might change things in the future is I have heard FITA may only have 2 members in a team and not 3, so things will change again. I think this may come up at FITA Congress in Korea in 09, but who knows. This will make Team Selection even harder.

I know there have been some discussions re the Selection Process, and no matter what they, the decision makers decide, people will always have varying opinions, thats just the way it is.

By the way it was actually Mark Pepper that asked for the Canberra Shoot to be changed, not the Compound Committee.

[Freeman]

I am not saying the committee changed the Australia Day Tournament, I am saying they have changed the selection process. Maybe the committee should have confirmed what was going to be shot at the Aus Day shoot before saying to me and the other potential ELITE SHOOTERS that it was going to be the top 3 shooters over 4 fitas.

[Marcus]

To my knowledge Canberra have not actually officially determined the format for next year, so maybe quite a few people are jumping the gun on this issue. I think some in Canberra want to change the format but it has not been ratified yet. This is grapevine stuff and not in stone.
So perhaps we should
• wait for the entry form to come out
• See how the committee responds
Then go from there.

But then it doesn't effect me anyway.

[2Dogs]

I'd love for it to stay as one of the last great double FITA Star Events.

Bugger the Matchplay crap.

[Marcus]

Double FITAs suck! Hate em.

[2Dogs]

Good!..... bring em on :D

[Clare Barnes]

I'd love for it to stay as one of the last great double FITA Star Events.

Bugger the Matchplay crap.

Why not a double FITA Star (using just one of them for ranking) and then individual MP on the morning of the third day?

[Coghlan]

I do not mind whatever Canberra decide to do, they have held an excellent tournament in the past and I am sure they will do it in the future.

I will show up, shoot and see what happens.

[dbjac]

It's my opinion that this thread has run it's course.
I'm deleting the crap and locking this thread.

Should more information be released regarding the WAC selection another thread will be produced.