These are my opinions and not my team's, however I couldn't resist putting in a
tuppence....
We don't need a seeding tournament, for the reason that Aura put out. There is
no B tour, there is progression available in the womens tour. However, the
super peer pool structure for 2/3 of the tournaments doesn't work for 2 reasons:
a) There is no longer a defined gap between 4 and 5. Last season (2008) there
was. Super peer pool gives one team a shot at the top 4 realistically, and
gives too much protection to the 4th seeded team who now aren't as different in
quality to the 5th seed in comparison to last year.
b) Games which end 15-5 could be said to be dead rubbers, but to the lower
seeded teams they are invaluable. You can't prepare to improve by only playing
teams the same standard as you. That's why Clapham and Iceni go to the States,
to improve. For teams playing 5-8, they don't have to go to the States, there
is aspirational quality teams in the bracket above them, and we want a shot.
With 3 tours I'm not sure what the solution is, if we have 1 tour as super peer
pools then the top 3 teams get annoyed, if we have 2 tours as super peer pools
then the other teams get annoyed. Yes, going abroad is an option, and lots of
teams do it, but there is not the same intensity as playing on tour, you could
equivalently say that the top 3 teams could organise social games between
themselves if they didn't feel they were getting enough competition on tour.
My gut feeling is that 2/3 of tours being super peer pools is too much, and it
adds more detriment to the "other" top 8 teams than it gives benefit to the top
3 teams. It would be interesting to hear from Leeds and Bristol on the matter.
Nicole
Currently without a womens team so not even sure why I'm adding much more than
my tuppence :)
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
