Hello,
Brummie, thanks for your long reply. Sorry I didnt receive this
email first time round (I guess smart technology keeps
improving). Fortunately a weekend with the prospective inlaws when I
should be in Rimini provides the necessary impetus to go back through
my inbox and do my replying to britdisc.
Ok, so here goes, the geo debate...
At 09:03 10/04/2006, you wrote:
Dave said:
> Do they stifle the development of Ultimate? No.
I disagree. Good players not playing with their local teams is
extremely damaging to those local teams. Some might describe them as
"feeder" clubs. Why shouldn't they grow to become a big club in their
own right? Why should they have to put in all the hard work year
after year to see their most promising players snatched away by
non-geo teams?
You're wrong.
"Good players" as you put it generally help to coach and develop new
clubs and new talent. By allowing them to play in high level teams
as well we permit them to work on their own game and improve, thus
improving the knowledge and expertise they subsequently pass on to
the lower level players they help develop. If these players were to
play exclusively for their local teams they would stifle their own
improvement, be able to pass on less knowledge. Whats more, they may
actually may slow talented players from reaching their potential.
But thats ridiculous I hear you cry! No it isnt. When a very good
player plays for a low level team, they automatically become main
handler and main cutter. They take every second pass and they do all
they can to help the team win games. When they arent on the field
then the more junior players have to step up and take control and
consequently get a lot more of the action and then they become better
players faster. I bet you most the top players in the country once
played in teams at the lowest level in ultimate for a season or 2
before getting to play at the top level. It is part of the necessary
learning process. Players get better by getting more responsibility.
As for clubs having the right to "grow to be a big club" well that is
up to every club. No club in the country stifles the growth of its
feeder clubs, it wouldnt make any sense.
> Do they provide a necessary function? Yes.
What exactly is it? If teams want to play with their mates (see
below) then fine, fair enough, but the UKU shouldn't allow them to get
the benefits that geo clubs should have. The existing benefits are so
small as to provide no incentive for teams to go geo... something I
think should be changed.
Why should geo clubs have all these extra benefits you talk about?
What is so great about them?
Heres my story, and bear in mind I'm really not that special. I used
to play for Chevron, they were a geo club but I was not a geo
player. I lived in York, and I travelled for about 2 hrs to get to
training midweek every week. I dragged myself along the M62 spending
time and money that I didnt have in order to play for my club, to
play a sport I used to love, and to play with people I loved playing
with. I had offers to play for Leeds and York and turned them down
because I liked the club that gave me a break into the top 4 of the
UK and I had a bit of loyalty to them. They were also my mates and I
liked playing with them.
So what makes me such a bad person? What gives you the right to take
the moral high ground? You think I should have played for York and
played at the bottom of the B tour, sacrificing my chances to play
for GB, and saddling them with an old grumpy scotsman on the field
taking every second pass? Or should I have compromised and gone to
Leeds to play with a team for which the only difference is how far I
had to drive to practice? What right do you have to tell me how far
I should drive to go to practice? Are you the environmental police
or just some self appointed moral guardian?
Or perhaps you take the tone that indeed its up to me but that
Chevron should have been penalised for allowing me to play and not
been allowed to qualify for Euros? Again you are appointing yourself
as some sort of moral adjudicator who this time is prepared to
penalise a whole club of players for showing loyalty to a player who
has moved away from them.
Non-geo teams provide alternative teams for individual players to
play with. Some of the perfectly legitimate reasons that a player
may choose to play with a non geo team include::
1. Live too far away from a local team to train with them
regularly (e.g. no teams in Derby)
2. Cant make the commitment to training that their local team would
ask of them (e.g.other commitments on training days)
3. Dont reach the standard of their local team (local team wouldnt want them)
4. Dont agree with the ethos or style of play of the local team
(e.g. too competitive, too sociable etc)
5. Have different aims to the local club (want to play at a higher
or lower level than the club captains are aiming for)
6. Have built strong relationships within a team prior to a change
in circumstance (e.g. moved due to work)
This is just a very brief selection, there are probably as many
reasons as there are non-geo players, and all of them are valid. I
know of several players who have stopped playing because they simply
no longer felt a good match to their local team. These people have
been lost to Ultimate, and it is arguable that were there more
non-geo teams that they would still be playing. This is not a
criticism of geo teams, it is simply pointing out a side of the story
that many people never look at.
> Are they really more likely to win the Tour than a geo team? No.
I agree with you but my point isn't so much aimed at the winners of
the Tour as the clubs lower down who suffer more from the exploits of
non-geo clubs.
So they come 15th rather than 12th, or 6th rather than 5th etc.?
Sorry, still cant get worked up about it. Whenever I play I always
want to win by being the best, not by other teams being forced to let
me win. Kind of the reason I dont like golf much too but thats a
different story.
"Or is this really about teams whining that sometimes they
dont manage to persuade people in their catchment area to play for them?"
The problem being that if there is a more attractive offer, such as
forming a super team with a split populace, then local teams *will* be
stifled. How exactly do you persuade a player to play for you? Often
incentives such as Euro/World clubs are the deciding factor, so
removing those privileges from non-geo teams will force those teams to
rethink their approach.
Again you fail to address the point of so what? I dont agree local
teams get stifled, I dont agree we should be artificially weakening
our representatives at international tournaments and I dont agree
that we should be imposing dictatorial rules on amateur players in an
amateur sport.
One issue I would perhaps agree with is if a new superteam from all
over the country formed simply for one tournament e.g. Worlds but
realistically this isnt going happen. To qualify for Euros etc you
have to finish in the top x of the Tour or win Nationals. New teams
forming have to come in at the bottom and work their way up, so this
will take them 2 years minimum to get up there. I cant see a GB
select type team forming to do that.
>Another 2 arbitrary rulings to replace the arbitrary rulings that are
> already there then?
I was simply trying to acknowledge that a 40 mile radius might not be
sufficient in the less populated areas. If you want to drop to 0
players outside that area that's fine by me. The point was trying to
impose tighter restrictions, rather than the existing ones which
basically do nothing.
My point is that it is all arbitrary, there is little or no logic to
why you created them. And thats the non-cynical view...
>Are there really
> geo teams out there that would like to be handed the Tour because another
> team gets deducted points for having players who like to play
with their mates?
If people want to play with their mates then that's fine. Of course
they can. But I don't see why they should be allowed to represent the
UK, win National titles or the like.
How about because they might be the best, and the best should be
National champions? If a team is a UK team, are based in the UK and
play primarily in the UK then I think they should be eligible to be
UK champions.
There are teams out there that put a lot of time and effort into
player development; it is they who
deserve the rewards, not the super teams.
You keep giving the impression that these evil superteams do nothing
to develop players and ultimate in general. And you are totally
wrong. There are just as many non-geo players who put a lot in to
local development and I dont think they get enough
credit. Fortunately I know they dont do it for your approval, they
do it because they want to.
I'm really happy that there are local clubs out there doing a lot of
local player development but I dont think it is appropriate to award
them National titles just because they do it. Lets give them a pat
on the back or hold them up as shining examples but lets not
patronise them by changing the rules to make it easier for them to
win tournaments.
>A while ago the geo rule was invented for a very specific reason
which no longer applies
Perhaps you'd like to let us know what that was (I for one have only
been involved in this sport for 4 years so this might have been before
I started), and why is it no longer applicable.
It is no longer applicable because Ultimate is no longer dominated by
superpowers who are primarily telephone teams. People have seen that
living and training together has lots of benefits for teams. Most
people dont have to travel far to get to play for a good team which
matches their aims and expectations. The move to geo was a conscious
decision by certain players when some old teams had reached the end
of their natural lives. They have now been replaced by clubs that
are vibrant and regenerating. Creating geo rules simply helped to
smooth or accelerate the transition and to avoid certain political
minefields. I wasnt involved either at the time but the trend will
not be reversed.
>I think it is right for the UKUA to encourage the growth of the sport, and
>encouraging geo teams is great but the solution is not to penalise others,
>rather it's to support regional development
If you have an alternative idea for regional development then I'm all
ears. What is yours?
I would like to see the UKUA support teams development. That
includes helping them to find coaches, fields, funding, tournaments,
mentor clubs etc. I would like to see initiatives that develop
regional leagues and perhaps create some inter-regional competition.
I think I would support any positive strategy that helped the
development of Ultimate in the UK. I would be opposed to any
strategy based on penalising players or teams in any way. I believe
in positive reinforcement, not punishment.
I think teams need to take a responsibility for the development of
local players. Let's start looking at the big picture, and I mean
5-10 years down the line. Rather than having one teams stacked with
all the best players, that talent will be split amongst several teams.
Have you looked at last year? 4 teams were fighting out the Open
Tour title on the last Sunday. 2 womens teams were inseperable over
the entire season. The mixed Tour was highly competitive. Which is
this single superteam you are talking about? I know of 4 other Open
and 3 other Womens who will instantly disagree.
If teams are basically forced to take on local players if they want
to win the big silverware and compete abroad, then that means more
youngsters being coached by the best players.
They already are coached by the best players.
It also means that
superstars will be able to put something into their local teams;
again, this helps that team out.
They already do. They do it without being forced to by their
national association and my guess is that most would not take kindly
to being forced to do so.
In a few years you'll have a lot of
players who have had access to the quality coaching that most never
get exposure to, the result being *real* competition across the board.
Where in the Tour is there not *real* competition? I am just totally
lost with your assertions that things are so bad at the moment. The
logical derivative of your arguments seems to be that all teams
should be made as equal as possible? Maybe then we are all wrong and
hat tournaments are the way forward? We could run the Tour as an
individual competition with players scoring points for games they
play in. Hang on - that has some appeal, lets face it, the reason I
never won anything was always because my teammates were chumps, maybe
now we could prove it!
The UKU Coaching scheme is a step forward but it's too small, and
giving someone a book and a weekend course doesn't make them a good
coach if they don't have the experience to back it up.
Give it a chance! The coaching scheme has a structure that it will
grow into a 5 level course but to get as far as we have has taken
time. Taking away the opportunity from players to play at the top
level is not going to improve the situation.
Lets be absolutely clear about one thing. Although your aim I'm sure
is top bring less experienced players up by playing with more
experienced ones, what you are actually proposing will PREVENT
experienced players from getting better, and will actually decrease
the quality of our top level play. Thats before we even go into the
facts about players who would simply retire because of this.
The junior
scene is becoming bigger and bigger which is fantastic; now we need to
bring those players up through the ranks of their local teams where
they should also have access to good coaching every week.
Yep. and they will.
I have read the rest of your mail and dont think there is anything
new in it so I will close my argument here in as simple terms as I
can imagine. Before anyone wants to go about tightening or
implementing new geo-rules you have to convince the community of the
following things:
1. What is wrong with our system at the moment?
2. What are the specific, measurable, achieveable, realistic goals
of any change?
Then you have to come up with a solution that meets the following criteria:
3. Will directly lead to the achievement of agreed goals.
4. Will not lead to any decrease in the quality of GB or any other
UK representative teams.
5. Does not impose any inappropriate restrictions on individual players.
6. Does not lead to a narrowing of our player base or the
accessibility to our sport
I dont claim to know everything or that everything is perfect but I
do think that our views are a long way apart. Hopefully this has
explained my point of view adequately.
Thanks for reading this far,
Dave.
Team Dave #10.
Time and time again, good talented young players are lured to bigger
teams that they live many miles away from because those teams can
offer them big incentives (play at a higher level, go to Euros, Worlds
etc). This approach prevents the local teams they pull their players
from from improving because they are continually removing their best
players, and still get the privilege of representing their nation. Am
I the only person who thinks that approach is a negative one?
If you take away some of those incentives then it is more likely that
teams will recruit local players (who might not be as good) over
people from a long way away. Those people will stay with their local
team, which evens things up. Then you actually get competition
instead of some bunch of ringers crushing the teams that helped to
form them in the first place. And in the longer term, all clubs will
benefit.
Of course if they choose to play as non-geo then they can; so anyone
can play for any team you like. But they can't get the benefits that
a geo team can, and the distinction between geo and non-geo needs to
increase dramatically to force the hand of those who only think about
themselves.
Brummie
On 4/6/06, David Grayson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or an alternative view...
>
> > - you should always be able to play for your nearest Tour team (if
> >you're from the UK or Ireland), regardless of distance (this may
> >already be the case)
>
> What if they dont want you? Are clubs required to rostor all players
> nearest them? Or is this really about teams whining that sometimes they
> dont manage to persuade people in their catchment area to play for them?
>
> > - bigger margins for Scottish/Irish teams (possibly)
> > - max of 1 player from outside this area. (With the ability to have
> >a guest, this makes 2)
>
> Another 2 arbitrary rulings to replace the arbitrary rulings that are
> already there then?
>
> > - students can register from either uni or home address (this may
> >already be the case)
>
> This was always the case.
>
> > - penalties for non-geo clubs by deducting (serious amounts of)
> >points from Tour results. Deductions made at the end of the season so
> >as to not to have an impact on seedings during the course of the Tour,
> >but to prevent non-geo teams from having a realistic shot at winning
> >Tour, lower their seeding for Nationals
> > - non-geo teams should not be able to qualify for international
> >tournaments such as EUCC, EUCS, WUCC
>
> Can I ask a question? What is so awful about non-geo teams?
>
> Do they stifle the development of Ultimate? No.
> Do they provide a necessary function? Yes.
> Are they really more likely to win the Tour than a geo team? No.
>
> So what is this geo crap all about? I just dont get it. Are there really
> geo teams out there that would like to be handed the Tour because another
> team gets deducted points for having players who like to play
with their mates?
>
> A while ago the geo rule was invented for a very specific reason which no
> longer applies. The only purpose it now serves is to demonise certain teams
> for no good reason. Personally I have no problem with them at all.
>
> I think it is right for the UKUA to encourage the growth of the sport, and
> encouraging geo teams is great but the solution is not to penalise others,
> rather it's to support regional development. Lets have an organisation
> that is positive rather than negative.
>
> Rant over.
>
> Dave.
> LLL. Geo. But I wouldnt be if they were all a bunch of
> peckers. Fortunately fewer than 5 of them are more than 75% pecker so its
> officially ok though.
>
>
>
>
> >If the UKU is serious about its claims of promoting geo clubs then
> >some changes should be made, although not necessarily those mentioned
> >above.
> >
> >Comments welcome...
> >
> >Brummie
> >
> >On 4/6/06, Aura Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hmm, just took a look at the Tour rules and noticed some big
differences
> > > between last year's rules and this year's rules. Anyone else
notice the
> > > same?
> > >
> > > I'll give you a clue: there is no mention of Geo teams.
> > >
> > > Could we please get an explanation as to why these rules have
been removed
> > > and how this decision was reached?
> > >
> > > Aura
> > > Iceni/IF
> > >
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
