I couldn't agree more about the whole mental thing & perhaps you are right that the teams between 10 - 20 would start to worry a little more about being relegated.
But still the Top teams become so good partly because of the players they gain - what I would like to ask partly includes the whole discussion about the growth of Ultimate. It seems to me that unless you join a good student team with affiliations with a open team you are unlikely to ever play for a good team. Just out of interest do the best teams 'scout' for players? I worry for some of our juniors who at the moment are good enough to play GB juniors that unless they attend Uni they will end up playing 17-32 level Ultimate with Kamamya Maya the rest of their time. Can I ask anybody who used to play at junior level for teams such as 'Hint of Lime' or 'Blue Arse Flies' or 'Discult' how you got to the big teams - I definitely remember seeing some of you playing for Druids etc. Please bear in mind I am asking out of interest so I can help the younger players who I think who could be excellent players - is the only option to go to Uni & get on a good student team? -----Original Message----- From: Sean Holden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 August 2002 16:06 To: Bolstridge, Thomas Subject: Re: [BD] TOUR SPLIT >From my experience I have found that yes there are positions to play for apart from 1st, hence 5th, 13th, 21st, etc. But mentally, do you feel that these positions hold the same kudos as 1st. How do you think your team would prepare if they were going to tournaments that they could win the whole as oppose to come 17th. Winning any tournament is a mental battle as much as physical. Do you think that Chevvy are weaker than Clapham physically? Yes, it is even mental battle playing a lower team. It is easy to find yourselves playing a lower team and playing at their ability because you aren't focused for the game. The next thing you find is that a team that you should have beaten easily are in the running for winning and may even win the game. But this isn't as strong as the mental battle to beat the teams at the top. As I said, with a split tour you have to win or come second in your pool and then win all your games on Sunday to win that tournament and hence come 17 overall. This will teach teams lower down about treasuring the disc more and improve their mental game to realise they can win. There are also teams in that 12-16 bracket that have always been there and are neither going up or down. With the teams just below finding themselves improving with that fight for the top of their pool, I think the 12-16 bracket will get a shock when they meet. Suddenly they find that they are fighting more strongly for their spot. As the ability of the 17-20 bracket becomes stronger, then the teams below this will have harder teams to play and so on down through all divisions. Going by tour 1 this year, on a 16 team split you could actually have 3 divisions. The same will apply between divisions 2 and 3. This mental attitude applies to most sports. Do you think that a team in the final that loses had no chance of winning because they weren't as good, or do you think that they have the same ability as the winners, but couldn't win mentally? We know that we have the ability to beat Clapham and we have done, but that was once (actually we crushed them 15-6 and I will make sure I remember that). It isn't there game is that much better, but that their mind set is that much better. We need to believe more that we can win and we will. It is this that I feel teams need to learn. Sean "Bolstridge, Thomas" wrote: > You're right in many cases (I wasn't for one moment the situation of my > friends should have any impact on the Tour split). The only thing I worry > about is that the lower teams get left behind. I completely realize the > purpose the Tour was intended for & I wouldn't want little reasons like the > convenience of watching the big teams at the same tournament to dilute the > effectiveness of the Tour. The only question I have is how does it benefit > the lower teams? How would the increase in ability come about? Bear in mind > this was Kamaya Maya's first outdoor season, so I'm pretty inexperienced in > these matters. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Holden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 30 August 2002 15:16 > To: Bolstridge, Thomas > Subject: Re: [BD] TOUR SPLIT > > "Bolstridge, Thomas" wrote: > > > I don't want the Tour split - I completely agree that the difference > between > > winning Division 2 & coming 17th would make little difference to our team. > > At Tour 2 we came 21st Bowl winners & we were well chuffed. Also my > friends > > that have all deserted Kamaya Maya to go to Uni & now play with the better > > teams (Teamshark, Oxford, for example) & splitting the Tour means I would > > see them even less. (ah boo hoo everyone says!) > > Surely if they are your friends, you meet up with them anyway? Hardly an > argument > for stopping the progession of ultimate! > > > > > > > Does it make that much of a difference to the top teams that once or twice > > the first couple of games they have to play a much weaker side? > > No it doesn't and if this is what you want then there is plenty of > opportunity > at > other tournaments. The tour was designed to separate the teams so that the > UK would be competing higher at international tournaments. See the > introduction > > of tour, we have seen this growth, more recently with both Clapham and > Chevvy > being the highest finishers in Europe at Worlds. > > I remember when I used to play such games as you mention and even though you > lose, it is a big learning experience, but this is not what the tour is > about! > Remember, > I am already playing at the top and at tour events I don't need to be > separated > from the lower teams, it happens naturally anyway. I am writing this > because I > feel it will benefit all, but more so those lower down than those at the > top. > > What I would like to see is both an increase in the ability, which I feel > the > split > would offer and an increase in the way Ultimate is presented. No one has > yet answered the question, would you be more impressed to turn up to a > venue, > if you have never seen the sport before, that has 40 odd teams and no > spectators > > or a smaller venue (which is likely to have much better pitches and > spectator > viewing areas) with other people watching? > > I know what would impress me more. > > Sean __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pootle.near.me.uk/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
