Selections and selection criteria

[FatBoy]

We want a fair way of picking the best team!

You can't have it.

It's an ideal to try an attain - the exclamation mark indicates the statement was intended to be a somewhat rash idealist statement.

Pretty much by definition, once you have selectors the criteria are subjective and therefore "unfair".

I don't agree - subjective judgements aren't unfair if it was stated in the criteria that certain selections are to be subjective. Also if you state the data that the subjective judgements are to be made from then this makes more of a formula. E.g. "Known form in the last 12 months" - you know that good runs 14 months ago won't get you a place like that.

If you do away with selectors and have some formula, its may be fair (i.e. same for everyone), but pretty much everyone will agree you wont get the best team.

I agree you can't get rid of selectors and go US athletics style, but a formula can include places that are completely subjective, and some that are subjective based on a specific set of data - e.g. last 12 months.

Although of course, you can never even know what the best team would have been.

Agreed - but doesn't mean we should stop trying to get the best team going (obviously), and doesn't mean we should throw the selection criteria out the window and pick who we like - i.e. unfair.

Personally, I think that selectors decisions should be beyond reproach

Yes and no. I don't think selectors should be criticised for tough decisions. I hope this debate is about improving the process for future rather than having a personal attack about any selections in particular. On the other hand if the selectors are god like figures without any callback then they could just pick their friends.

and where there's any uncertainty the selection should go to a fair competition (i.e. result of a selection race).
Aside from a very small number of top people, it really doesn't affect the strength of the team much who gets picked from the next group.

Agreed. Which is why a "formula" should be applied so that people who do the job at the selection races get the places - a fair way of picking the "best" team.

e.g. for the WOC I would select only Jamie and Heather, and give the other places by formula to those who did best at selection races (which is pretty much what happened anyway).

Sounds like we agree then?

A long post so I'll shut up soon. Speaking about personal experience many moons ago I felt selection was a black box and you didn't know really what you had to do to get picked (in hindsight 15 years later I just wasn't good enough). While it's grey not black and white some sort of idea when you see the results of the selection races should give you in, out or borderline. If you are borderline and you miss out then you can't be that gutted.

[Kitch]

I would also say you can't compare missing out on senior selection with missing out as a young teenager. These are fragile years at best and the strength you need to deal with rejection isn't there yet.

Fragile years at best !!!
oh please
give kids some credit.

[FatBoy]

So how many times did you miss out on selection as a junior?

Maybe it was just me who was a highly strung teenager but I suspect not.

[Kitch]

I can think of two certainly.

One thing that bothers me about all this is that most of the gripes here come from adults (I think).

I believe they would be better expending their energies supporting kids in dealing with disappointment - proposing alternatives, making them happen even. Helping learn lessons and plan how to move on. Showing them how to be strong how to rise above.
Not re-inforcing dissapointment, re-inforcing the victim complex.

[FatBoy]

Last reply on the subject cos I'm bored of it now.

At least you've had some rejection as a teenager Kitch - I thought I'd ask before saying "what would you know?" - which would apply to many senior GBR people.

Personally I have no vested interest in the selection process - I actually couldn't care who goes and I don't know any of the juniors. It does make me smile when GBR kick butt and that's the only reason I'd like to see everyone who could kick butt get their chance to.

I agree energy is well spent on help kids who miss out train back up but equally the selection is part of that same structure. As a coach you could say "train x and y then goto selection get top 3 and you'll go" then you don't go and it undermines the whole process. To train that hard you have to set goals and while the top top juniors maybe have positions in the JWOC final as goals lesser athletes (who could go on in senior years to be the better athletes) may have a goal of simply going on tour. If you do all the hard work, get the results you appear to need and not get selected that's very hard to fathom.

Rant over. It's only a forum - hope anybody who is anything to do with selection reading this found my rants useful. Going to beast myself over the Peak District now...

[bendover]

i had plenty of selection disappointments... four years in the squad and only one JWOC.. oops... however, believe me, once you've had a few disappointments, the successes are that much sweeter!

a dedicated athlete turns disappointments around and comes back fighting. in the long run these selections become so irrelevant - and as someone has pointed out, there's nothing stopping older juniors (16+) from going out and doing it themselves - there's loads of scandinavian clubs open to visiting orienteers. you don't have to rely on BOF.

[awk]

The recommendations by the appeals panel seem pretty straightforward - they were very much the sorts of guidelines we worked under, and make sense. If this wasn't happening, then it does need sorting.

Interesting, however, that Klebe wants more, and there's the nub of the problem as a selector: however much information you provide, people want more and more detail.

The fact is that unless you work to a mathematical formula, selection, especially for training tours, is an art not a science. It has to include a degree of subjectivity and flexibility. And there's the rub: Klebe wants a fair system, but unless you adopt the American style system of first past the post, selections can rarely if ever be completely 'fair'. A bit like life really.

Take the example put forward by Klebe, about how injuries are handled. Yes, but what sort of injury - one that puts you out of all the races? One that knocks you out of the big race? One that might hamper but you don't know until you run? What if you are a border line choice, what if a dead cert? How long can a dead cert be allowed to be injured before being no longer a dead cert? and so on and so on. Yes the selectors can give general guidance, but there are simply too many variables to deal with the sort of detail that coaches, parents and athletes sometimes seem to want. And these general statements are certainly not by their very nature going to make things crystal clear and 'fair'.

Klebe also wants the selectors to explain to athletes why they weren't selected. Whilst this may on the surface sound reasonable, I have to say I don't agree with this at all. This creeps into the realms of selectors having to justify and defend decisions to individuals. If you want guidance, the answer is simple - as Kitch says, don't be borderline.

[Jene]

as a junior who wasnt selected at all till this year, and then was only selected after an appeal..
i dont think there really is a problem with the criteria given, it gives a good enough guideline for what juniors need to aim for, however.. i worked hard this year to try and get selected and did think i had a good chance of being, come selection day, no letter..ok fair enough, i can cope with that and was just going to try and get on the same tour as a second year 18, but i think anyone who was borderline, like i am, should also recive a letter telling them they hadnt been selected and more importantly why not.
you'll never get a system every1 thinks is fair..and the current one is pretty good, get the gold standards @ the selection races, is similar to the us in that respect.. and most people who do end up on tour...

[PeterG]

I think the first year I didn't get selected I got a brief, informal email explaining that I hadn't competed in enough races (due to injury) to be considered.

[Klebe]

The recommendations by the appeals panel seem pretty straightforward - they were very much the sorts of guidelines we worked under, and make sense.

Agreed.
So why can’t this information be given to the competitors beforehand. Percentage difference behind the leader can give a whole new set of candidates compared to placings. Hopefully my original posting will have made many more people aware of this.

Interesting, however, that Klebe wants more, and there's the nub of the problem as a selector: however much information you provide, people want more and more detail.

Not more, simply guidance. Take the FCC series for example, some juniors made a point of attending them all, was this necessary? I have since spoken to the Interland selectors, Four events have been nominated, juniors are not required to attend them all and will not be discriminated against if they do not.

The fact is that unless you work to a mathematical formula, selection, especially for training tours, is an art not a science. It has to include a degree of subjectivity and flexibility.

Agreed

And there's the rub: Klebe wants a fair system, but unless you adopt the American style system of first past the post, selections can rarely if ever be completely 'fair'. A bit like life really.

No. I want an ‘auditable’ system. Simply do what it says on the bottle. If the selectors are looking for blondes with size 7 shoes, fine. If they are going to use one weekend of competition, fine. If they are going to use a series of events also fine. But don’t say you are going to select blondes and then choose a brunette.

Take the example put forward by Klebe, about how injuries are handled. Yes, but what sort of injury - one that puts you out of all the races? One that knocks you out of the big race? One that might hamper but you don't know until you run? What if you are a border line choice, what if a dead cert? How long can a dead cert be allowed to be injured before being no longer a dead cert? and so on and so on. Yes the selectors can give general guidance, but there are simply too many variables to deal with the sort of detail that coaches, parents and athletes sometimes seem to want. And these general statements are certainly not by their very nature going to make things crystal clear and 'fair'.

It appears that selectors will consider you fit if you run at an event despite being injured. The advise seems to be – if you are unfit let the selectors know and do not run. How your absence at one , two or more races is judged is down to the selectors. That is their job and I have no argument with that.

Klebe also wants the selectors to explain to athletes why they weren't selected. Whilst this may on the surface sound reasonable, I have to say I don't agree with this at all. This creeps into the realms of selectors having to justify and defend decisions to individuals.

Not defend decisions. A simple explanation, ie standards very high this year, we looked at positions/percentage differences (or whatever) in making our selections. Having said that, if the criteria is made clear at the outset then arguably there will be no need for an explanation. People will have a pretty good idea already.

If you want guidance, the answer is simple - as Kitch says, don't be borderline.

What is borderline? If you do not win every event you are ‘borderline’ depending on the selection criteria.
7 events, you attend 4 coming second in each one to a clear winner who is 20% faster than you. In the other 3 events the races are much closer and the person who finishes fifth in each event, again assuming it is the same person, is 8% behind the winner in each event. Who goes? The regular 2nd placed competitor or the competitor who finished fifth but closer to the leader. This is what makes borderline impossible to remove.
In either case it is very easy for the selectors to explain to the athlete not selected why that is the case.

[harry]

In practice though you know whether you are borderline or not. You know roughly how many places there are and as an athlete you roughly know the pecking order according to the results of the selection races.
So you do have a good idea of whether you are borderline or not.

If you miss selection you might feel a bit unlucky but normally you know deep down you either didn't perform well enough on the day(s) or you didn't prepare well enough, or both! I think even the juniors if they were told to sit down and pick X number of people, with these criteria on these races would come up with an almost identical team to what the selectors pick. You just know.

[ifititches]

I think Harry, that there's a distinction between what you, as a top orienteer from a family immersed in O "know" , as opposed to what others, without that background "know", You've got a great attitude, but if all athletes were the same as you in what they "knew" then the selection process wouldn't be under discussion

I'm worried, from reading the earlier bits of this thread and others on nope, that juniors are going to be pushed out of enjoying their sport, just because running whilst recovering from illness or injury and getting the result that can be expected as a consequence of that, can be judged as a poor performance that pulls you down against some better personal performances, (or, even worse, make you be seen as too inconsistent or even "unable to handle the pressure"). If that's happening then it's a sure way of causing juniors to leave the sport.

If only we had more healthy numbers of juniors and a srong club training and team structure across the country this wouldn't be such a big issue anyway.

But I find it pretty unhealthy that it's adults, including me, that are having the public discussion about this (apart from the odd junior, with some very reassuring good sense ) If juniors are old enough to have a selection process they should be the most important people in deciding the criteria and assessing their fairness. The adults that apply those criteria should do a quick audit against ageed audit protocol, before releasing the selections, just to judge how objectively they've applied them.

[mharky]

I dont know what all you pushy parents are going on about.

The selection process is quite simple. The selection races are released at the begining of the year, 5 of them normally. Juniors go to them, and orienteer as best they can. The selectors will then pick the people they think deserve to go based on these results, maybe some all known form if its close, and even what they know about the athlete.

Some fool mentioned that kids don't realise that selectors will look at time behind and not your position. Firstly, I don't think this is the case, as anyone knows that 8 mins down aint impressive even if you are 2nd. Secondly, if there are any people who think positions rather than time, then its their own faul for being dumb.

You are asking for somthing which is not needed and impossible to deliver. Due to such a wide a varied array of performances, illness and bad runs every years is diffferent, with each athletes selection situation being different. It would be impossible to say exactly how teams should be selected using some magical special pushy parent formula. If it was simple like that they could get a computer to do it.

Some of you annoying old people and R.F. who don't know anything about junior selections are acting like this is the first time it has happened as it a tragedy. It happenes every year, and it never seems to bother the juniors that much.

Stop this nonsense, for the juniors sake. They don't want or need you to do this for them. They are just going to go training and get better for next year, or they will drop out in which case it doesn't matter as they clearly dont have what it takes to get them to the top which is what World Class Start is about, isn't it?

And I hope to got you aint just moaning about JHI selection policy, are you?

[mharky]

I'm worried, from reading the earlier bits of this thread and others on nope, that juniors are going to be pushed out of enjoying their sport, just because running whilst recovering from illness or injury and getting the result that can be expected as a consequence of that, can be judged as a poor performance that pulls you down against some better personal performances

If you run when ill or injured you are being stupid, or you have pushy parents.

[ifititches]

Mharky, I'm with you on that, but there are lots of times when ,unless you're immune to all infections and injuries, both juniors and seniors are getting back into the sport again after physical set-backs.

At that point you will not be at peak fitness or totally on top of your O technique, but it's absolutely right that you should go back out in the forest. Perhaps it's just part of any sport that some people will make uninformed judgments of the results that occur during that period. I suspect the selectors are less likely to make uninformed judgments than others, but some juniors are better than others at knowing that they should let selectors know about their illness/injury problems.

Sadly,if you take it to its limits, this discussion is starting to echo those about pass/fail years and mitigating circumstances at University. That's got so complex now that it needs full-time extra people to administer the system. It would be a real put-off to staying involved in sport (for me) if it went much further down that path (am getting increasingly unsure of going on with my voluntary personal tutoring work at the university for that very reason)