Trials for Australian teams

[tripod]

This may have been on before but what do you all think. Should all trials in the future be held over a week period or remain the same format that occurs at the moment.
The first would allow people who work to be able to spread there holidays out a lot better and if qualify attend the shoots with less stress.

[Clare Barnes]

This may have been on before but what do you all think. Should all trials in the future be held over a week period or remain the same format that occurs at the moment.
The first would allow people who work to be able to spread there holidays out a lot better and if qualify attend the shoots with less stress.

Why is holding trials over a whole week going to help anyone with their holidays? :-?

[Flame]

:D

[Oldtimer]

To be fair, and to be seen to be fair, to those not at the Institute, I believe that the trial should be over a weekend + one day. This would give three days of shooting, with at the most, another 2 days for travelling. There are many fine archers who, for various reasons, are not Institute scholarship holders, and they should be encouraged, not penalised.

Where possible, the Nationals should be used as the trial, with, perhaps, extra matchplay afterwards for only those who have qualified, and using the FITA 70m range scores for ranking.

My preference is for one trial, instead of a series of trials, a few months before the championships that the selection is for. After all, the World Championships and Olympics are held as one event and you have to perform there and then, regardless of injury, sickness, equipment failure etc. The trial should mirror this, with no exceptions being granted. However, I think reserves should be chosen in case someone cannot take their place in the team.

[tripod]

Thanks Old Timer that is what I was trying to point out. The AIS scholarship holders have no problems and don't have to worry about time away from work and other people whom they may have to work in with.

"However Clare" a week of trails rather then 3 trails over a period of time would make it a lot easier on those that have to take work commitments into consideration.

On the other hand what has been suggested by Old Timer has I believe great promise, 3 days of shooting including a weekend would be great. :D

[2Dogs]

Deeeerrrrrrr CLare! :D

let's see you want to make the Team and you work. Most people have 4 weeks leave a year on full pay.

So you use 3 weeks of it under the current format to attend the trials and if your lucky to make it that gives you a week for the worlds. I think most of the worlds Teams need two weeks off.

So you end up taking time off without pay........that's if they even let you.

Much better to pick the team over an intense bash of a week IMO :wink:

[Clare Barnes]

"However Clare" a week of trails rather then 3 trails over a period of time would make it a lot easier on those that have to take work commitments into consideration.

I read your original comment as comparing it to the "current" format of this week, which was 2 days of shooting! May I assume you are starting debate on the process of 3 selection shoots for the Olympic Games?

Only speaking as an observer I offer the following comments as, however inconvenient it may seem to some, I can see the positives of 3 trials spread over several months. There are also no doubt many negatives which I will rely on the rest of you to vocalise! :roll:

1. The first trial simply selects the 8 archers to go forward to the next 2 shootoffs. The archers pay their own way to this trial only.

2. Very few points are carried forward from the first trial so it allows for archers improving to make up lost ground in the following events.

3. Should an archer have a problem (health, equipment etc) during one trial they have the opportunity to still prove themselves.

4. Basically it allows a consistently performing archer to earn a spot, as well as an archer who is peaking at the right time due to the later trials being worth so many more accumulative points.

5. I know of many employers who would offer support (even by allowing leave without pay) to someone once they had reached the final 8, though I guess there are also others who wouldn't.

6. As for "giving up" your holidays for a year by using them up on trials.....I can assure you that those on scholarships at the AIS give up lots too. Getting offered a hard earned scholarship is one thing .... working out if you can survive the lifestyle, and probably sacrifice educational opportunites and many other things, is another.

Making any Olympic team is not designed to be easy .... :-?

[2Dogs]

Making any Olympic team is not designed to be easy ....

Pigs Arse!.....just wait for the top Dog to get the ****s, quit the team....and then make a late charge in through the back door.

Bam...hello Olympics :D:D

Screw all that other crap. Do it all from a Sunday to Saturday.

The way matchplay goes, the current selection method gives no guarantee of coming in the top 10 let alone the top 64. So if you have the qualification scores hook in for a week and when the dust has settled.....whalla Olympic Team :wink:

working out if you can survive the lifestyle, and probably sacrifice educational opportunites and many other things, is another.

:rofl:

Yep I can see the similarities..... Tell boss your taking leave to go to Olympic trials although leave was not granted.......lose job......lose house.....lose your Mrs (could be considered a +) :D....go bankrupt

[Clare Barnes]

The way matchplay goes, the current selection method gives no guarantee of coming in the top 10 let alone the top 64.

Let me know if you find a way to come 65th at the Olympics!! :lol:

[Robert de Bondt]

All those other great recurve archers who must be hiding in the cupboards don

[Flame]

Let me know if you find a way to come 65th at the Olympics!! :lol:

Maybe just as well :D

[2Dogs]

:rofl:..........lookout here comes the AIS Tag Team Support Crew!


rather than bellyaching about things not being fair.

Speaking of bellyaching, where's OD when we need him! :D

.......Now excuse me I have to go to the bog to get rid of this bellyache :wink: :P :lol: :lol: :lol:

[OldDog]

Workin :(

[Marianne Rieckmann]

I posted a whinge on the Olympic index that you all may be interested in.
http://www.archery-forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=102355#102355

I am interested in archers opinions on the current selection system of bonus/penalty points. My concern is that the system is too complex.

Is there any way to simplify it and make the results a meaningful number that archers can easily understand? I would prefer to have it reflect the actual score shot, with some bonus system for winning a match... what do you all think? :-?

[Clare Barnes]

Is there any way to simplify it and make the results a meaningful number that archers can easily understand? I would prefer to have it reflect the actual score shot, with some bonus system for winning a match... what do you all think? :-?

Do you mean to just add the cumulative scores together with, say an extra 10 points for a win for 18 arrow matches, and an extra 8 for 12 arrow MP wins?

Would you still consider more than one trial, with increasing points for each one such as 25% of total first trial points, 50% of second and 100% of third one being counted towwards the overall score? :-?

[Marianne Rieckmann]

That sounds okay, but I would still put a lot of wieght on winning a match. Maybe more like 100 bonus points?

No, 100 bonus points may be too much... I'm going to have to think this through... :roll:

[Barracuda]

Isn't the current points system designed to have archers shoot to win with a greater score rather than shoot just for a win? If there were no bonus/penalty points wouldn't it become more difficult to separate placings. As it was it looked pretty close at the top.

[Marianne Rieckmann]

I agree Barracuda, an archer winning matches with a greater score should be in front. To accomplish this, I think Clare's idea has a lot of merit.



Do you mean to just add the cumulative scores together with, say an extra 10 points for a win for 18 arrow matches, and an extra 8 for 12 arrow MP wins?

On reflection your extra 10 points for winning a match is more realistic. That allows an archer the opportunity to out perform the competition with a better score rather than just the MP win.



Would you still consider more than one trial, with increasing points for each one such as 25% of total first trial points, 50% of second and 100% of third one being counted towards the overall score? :-?

On the number of trials, I do think 2Dogs has a valid point about time taken off work. I would prefer 2 trials rather than 3.

[Robert de Bondt]

Personally I think the current selection process is excellent. I

[tripod]

So we can expect to see you at the next trial then as a archer? :o
I agree totally with two dogs and old dog and then well Marianne with two trials, maybe the archers are trying to say something. :agrue:

[Madeleine Ferris]

Robert and Clare have saved me a lot of typing. I agree totally with their sentiments - especially for the Olympics!!

For World Champs perhaps one selection shoot is enough but then it should be a comprehensive series of matchplays etc. (and perhaps contenders should submit a list of their scores in the 6 months or year prior to the selection event so that the selectors get a feel for how each archer is performing generally). Whether it is a special event or tagged on to the Nationals depends on how far out from the WCs it is. It's best to have the selection event as close as possible to the WC. In any case, it should be a separate event with only those nominating for selection competing. I am also in favour of a (e.g.) $300 deposit (including shoot fee) being paid by each contending archer to show their good faith. If they make the team and then pull out with insufficient good reason then they lose the deposit, otherwise it goes towards their costs and nothing is lost. Those archers who don't make the team get refunded (minus the shoot fee). It's not fair on any of the other archers trying to get on the team if some just turn up to have a go for the sake of it knowing full well that they will not actually accept a place on the team (or are even iffy about it). I also think there should be a base minimum qualifying score for their average FITA which should be at least the top 32 score at previous world champs (for target, that is).

Mad.

[Marianne Rieckmann]

I aggree with a lot of your comments Madeleine, inparticular...
(and perhaps contenders should submit a list of their scores in the 6 months or year prior to the selection event so that the selectors get a feel for how each archer is performing generally).
Mad.
The National Ranking List is an excelent resource, and scores submitted there could be considered by selectors... Although the final selection should be made from a selection shoot or shoots.
I was under the impression that the National Ranking List was used to select teams for non-world events. Is this still the case? :-?

[mdavi53583]

I would be much happier to select a team member who has performed consistently over three selection shoots rather than one who may of had a purple patch over one week. I think in reality the national ranking scheme is only a guide and is most times outdated and incorrect. Comments aside, the winner of the selection shoot is off to athens. Congrats

[2Dogs]

I personally think we should just draw straws :D....nice and quick :wink: and quality is assured

[OldDog]

One potato 2 potato 3 potato 4. :rofl:

[David Rowson]

Marianne

I believe that the selection rules for non world championship events has not changed and is to freeze the ranking list three months before the event and invite the archers in order of the highest first until a full team is reached.

These events recieve no additional funding only the $300.00 to purchase their uniform.

The ranking list was frozen in july ready for the Oceania Championships.

[Juggs]

I personally think we should just draw straws :D....nice and quick :wink: and quality is assured

swimsuit selection

4 judges to decide or a postal vote on the issue.

if they cant shoot for **** they may as well look good in the uniform

[DrRalph]

Personally I think the current selection process is excellent.

I tend to agree, but only because the 'matchplay' is a round-robin, not elimination. The trials nearly have too few arrows shot to get an accurate measure of ability, but with the three round robin shoots, and between 5 and 8 archers , enough arrows are shot to measure the archers abilities are pretty accurately. Any less archers or matches/shoots and statistical fluctuations will play too big a part in the outcome.

The point system is good, but it can be hard to follow unless you have memorised the score levels. You can't just go by the scores at face value, but I wouldn't change the factors, as long as the matches are all run under similar conditions.

There is however a need for dedicated selection shoot software that works out the math pairs, and then accepts the scores and works out the wins/points automatically, with an option to display the running totals somewhere.

The errors to date presumably happened because they are using a spreadsheet that requires some manual entry of win points, because the round robin matchups - determining who the two archers are in each match - is not part of the sheet with the points totals. (ie a simple mistake was made as to which pairs of archers were competing in match 4). This could not happen in a fully automatic selection scoring system.

It needs to be more integrated, to workout the matches, pairs, and the points in the one operation.