JWOC/EYOC selections
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
Fair point Andy, I only looked at the overall result on just w18e.
- PhilJ
- green
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:59 am
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
Many good points Duncan, and brave of you to put your head above the parapet - thank you. Picking up one of your points, and given that the bulk of the ire is directed at the failure to successfully prepare and select a full women's team (again!) ....
The fact is that there are athletes (not just one) not going who beat selected athletes in two out of three selection races, and were amongst the top 3 (not top 6) athletes in those races. Yet there are empty places - we are not talking about choosing between athletes here! There would have to be some pretty major hidden reasons to justify that decision, which of course there may be. But one way or another, if those going have "really" performed, then others certainly have too!
As for the arguments on friendship, networking, and using training camps and competitions for broader development.....just take a look as to how many of the selected team are the children of orienteers, many of whom grew up through the ranks of junior orienteering themselves. That is just one, relatively minor, facet of what taking a broader, more holistic approach, means. Retention is absolutely vital, and we ignore that at our long term peril.
In the meantime, the fact that, yet again, the selectorial system has deemed the junior women not to be strong enough to field a full team (others may disagree!), then it would be interesting to know what the Talent Manager is going to do to put this right - this is a major failure of the system for which the TM is responsible.
Duncan wrote:[*]There will always be plenty of discussion about whether all spaces available should be filled, regardless of how far behind the winners people are. What is pulling on a GBR vest all about? Should it be a given if you are in the top X, and for some just a ticket to make their lifelong friends at JWOC? Or is it something that should be earned, strived for, and to be proud of? Does not selecting full teams send out a message that just being in the top X in GBR is not necessarily good enough, thus making future aspirants realise they need to really perform, and raising the quality of the GBR team in future?[/list]
The fact is that there are athletes (not just one) not going who beat selected athletes in two out of three selection races, and were amongst the top 3 (not top 6) athletes in those races. Yet there are empty places - we are not talking about choosing between athletes here! There would have to be some pretty major hidden reasons to justify that decision, which of course there may be. But one way or another, if those going have "really" performed, then others certainly have too!
As for the arguments on friendship, networking, and using training camps and competitions for broader development.....just take a look as to how many of the selected team are the children of orienteers, many of whom grew up through the ranks of junior orienteering themselves. That is just one, relatively minor, facet of what taking a broader, more holistic approach, means. Retention is absolutely vital, and we ignore that at our long term peril.
In the meantime, the fact that, yet again, the selectorial system has deemed the junior women not to be strong enough to field a full team (others may disagree!), then it would be interesting to know what the Talent Manager is going to do to put this right - this is a major failure of the system for which the TM is responsible.
Last edited by awk on Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
I do bow down to your greater knowledge of selections you have Duncan but your explanation does fall fowl where some athletes are running in woc, wuoc and jwoc, or a combination of them. That's not to say they shouldn't but does mean they have to perform at their best weeks apart which goes against what you suggest should happen. So is this assertion correct?
Agreed so what is the answer, from the selectors opinion, as us nopers are none the wiser.
I believed we were moving to a more discipline selection as per the woc selections, so if you win the jk sprint and tick all the other boxes you suggest need to be ticked, but do badly in day 2 and 3 then why can you not be selected and then just run the sprint, and put all your efforts into the sprint aiming for top 10. At jwoc though you are expected to run all the disciplines in that case you need a consistent competitor not a winner? Or do you?
In the selection races, what is better, one great performance and two mediocre ones (or DSQs, DNSs etc.), or three consistent but not outstanding performances?
Agreed so what is the answer, from the selectors opinion, as us nopers are none the wiser.
I believed we were moving to a more discipline selection as per the woc selections, so if you win the jk sprint and tick all the other boxes you suggest need to be ticked, but do badly in day 2 and 3 then why can you not be selected and then just run the sprint, and put all your efforts into the sprint aiming for top 10. At jwoc though you are expected to run all the disciplines in that case you need a consistent competitor not a winner? Or do you?
- PhilJ
- green
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:59 am
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
Unfortunately the comments on this site regarding this years selection policy mirror the same as last year and the year before so on and so on, and as usual I harp on to the good old days of the FCC. This competition format gave an overall view of all junior athletes ability over a series of races, in various types of terrain and conditions and also allowed the juniors chance to recover from minor injuries picked up over the period of the races.
I make one last small point, I believe using the JK this year for selection for these teams was a poor decision. As a spectator to both the Junior and the M/W21E races I do believe the areas lent a lot to athletes following and forming chains of runners. Therefore testing more their physical ability rather than their technical skills. I ask what relevance do the JK areas have to the mountains and forests of Bulgaria and Macedonia!!
I make one last small point, I believe using the JK this year for selection for these teams was a poor decision. As a spectator to both the Junior and the M/W21E races I do believe the areas lent a lot to athletes following and forming chains of runners. Therefore testing more their physical ability rather than their technical skills. I ask what relevance do the JK areas have to the mountains and forests of Bulgaria and Macedonia!!
- Catfish
- off string
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:33 pm
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
Catfish wrote: I ask what relevance do the JK areas have to the mountains and forests of Bulgaria and Macedonia!!
Probably the most salient point I have read on this thread! (although I have no idea of the answer )
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
I think all would just like to see a fair and transparent selection process and set of criteria. Even the number of athletes taken per age group per event seems to change depending on performances at selection races.
How can athletes ever hope to prepare for selection if they dont have this clarity
If it's first past the post and only those that meet the selection criteria then make it clear or is better to do well in events other than the nominated races to impress the selectors ?
Are the selection races given equal weighting ? I would suggest not and that the long race has more significance
And is it better for your selection if you DNF when having a poor race or go on to finish with a poor time? Which do you get more credit for ?
If the selectors will always reserve one or two top picks irrespective of the athletes performance at the stated selection races then say so
And why not publish the percentages behind the winner for the selected athletes to show the transparent selection process, or selectors pick
I think the transparency is important, people should be able to understand why they have or have not been provided with the opportunity for thier age group along with why or why not selected.
How can athletes ever hope to prepare for selection if they dont have this clarity
If it's first past the post and only those that meet the selection criteria then make it clear or is better to do well in events other than the nominated races to impress the selectors ?
Are the selection races given equal weighting ? I would suggest not and that the long race has more significance
And is it better for your selection if you DNF when having a poor race or go on to finish with a poor time? Which do you get more credit for ?
If the selectors will always reserve one or two top picks irrespective of the athletes performance at the stated selection races then say so
And why not publish the percentages behind the winner for the selected athletes to show the transparent selection process, or selectors pick
I think the transparency is important, people should be able to understand why they have or have not been provided with the opportunity for thier age group along with why or why not selected.
- Vidalos
- white
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:37 pm
- Location: Out there
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
Duncan, well done for sharing the selectors views - very brave under the circumstances.
It would be really useful to have an answer from the selectors on this one as its not made clear in the selection policy. Clearly the athletes and coaches ought to know before the selection races.
Duncan - any chance you could clarify this for us.
PhilJ wrote:Duncan wrote: In the selection races, what is better, one great performance and two mediocre ones (or DSQs, DNSs etc.), or three consistent but not outstanding performances?
Agreed so what is the answer, from the selectors opinion, as us nopers are none the wiser.
It would be really useful to have an answer from the selectors on this one as its not made clear in the selection policy. Clearly the athletes and coaches ought to know before the selection races.
Duncan - any chance you could clarify this for us.
To oblivion and beyond....
-
buzz - addict
- Posts: 1197
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 10:45 pm
- Location: Sheffield
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
From a purely practical point of view - surely it would have been more sensible to take a minimum of 4 girls anyway. If one of the three gets injured during the course of the competition we have no relay team thereby severely limiting the chance of a podium place - how can this be a good management decision?
-
Mrs H - god
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:30 pm
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
Vidalos wrote:And why not publish the percentages behind the winner for the selected athletes to show the transparent selection process, or selectors pick
Any one can take the results and calculate their own percentages for all athletes concerned, that seems transparent
- Broken Ground
- off string
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:48 pm
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
Trying to distil the discussion, there seem to be two main questions:
(1) Should selection be more transparently linked to race results (ie, first X in some sort of ranking list get through), as opposed to including things like attitude and commitment
(2) Should we always take the maximum number of athletes, as opposed to having a "minimum standard" of some sort
Personally I think the answer to question 1 is Yes. As an example, the Americans use 4 selection races + the latest ranking list score, then take the best 3 of those 5. The top X are in and if you're a tiny sliver behind that, well tough. (The only exception is that you can "petition" to be included if you live overseas, then the selectors will slot you into the list at their discretion - but I don't think that needs to apply to UK). The list is then fully transparent: http://www.us.orienteering.org/sites/default/files/userfiles/u6/2014TrialsScoringListFinalRevision3.pdf
While the whole blurb about "commitment" and "attitude" is nice, at the end of the day is opens you up to big debates about fairness and preferential treatment.
For Question 2 I'd say the answer is No for seniors but emphatically Yes for Juniors. But if you have a minimum selection criteria, then be very clear about it.
(1) Should selection be more transparently linked to race results (ie, first X in some sort of ranking list get through), as opposed to including things like attitude and commitment
(2) Should we always take the maximum number of athletes, as opposed to having a "minimum standard" of some sort
Personally I think the answer to question 1 is Yes. As an example, the Americans use 4 selection races + the latest ranking list score, then take the best 3 of those 5. The top X are in and if you're a tiny sliver behind that, well tough. (The only exception is that you can "petition" to be included if you live overseas, then the selectors will slot you into the list at their discretion - but I don't think that needs to apply to UK). The list is then fully transparent: http://www.us.orienteering.org/sites/default/files/userfiles/u6/2014TrialsScoringListFinalRevision3.pdf
While the whole blurb about "commitment" and "attitude" is nice, at the end of the day is opens you up to big debates about fairness and preferential treatment.
For Question 2 I'd say the answer is No for seniors but emphatically Yes for Juniors. But if you have a minimum selection criteria, then be very clear about it.
- Arnold
- diehard
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:24 am
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
The sad thing to me about this whole discussion is the warped aspiration. We have somehow convinced our juniors to believe that being picked to trundle round mid-pack in Lithuania is more important than winning the JK in front of 2500 British orienteers. No wonder we end up with a disconnect between elites and the rest.
5 pages on, and not one of you moaners could take the time to write something positive for BO/nope news about the top juniors performance at the JK.
5 pages on, and not one of you moaners could take the time to write something positive for BO/nope news about the top juniors performance at the JK.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
Arnold wrote: (1) Should selection be more transparently linked to race results (ie, first X in some sort of ranking list get through), as opposed to including things like attitude and commitment
(2) Should we always take the maximum number of athletes, as opposed to having a "minimum standard" of some sort
(1) Scott Fraser (WOC Sprint Silver medalist) didn't run the WOC Sprint Test Race due to illness, and is still in the team, which seems to be fairly uncontroversial. It's undoubtedly tough on athletes who did run the races and run well to have someone who didn't selected over you, especially given the quality of our prospective WOC sprint athletes, but it seems that if we want the best team at WOC or JWOC there are some situations where we should take people who were ill or injured for selection races. For example, if you read Julie's attackpoint you'll see her account of the Long race (which she freely chose to share with the orienteering public on the internet), which seems to mitigate her Long race performance. So while it might seem appealing to have transparent selections directly off race results, it's worth remembering that DNS/DNFs, and indeed bad performances, can happen for legitimate and acceptable reasons. Also, if as Catfish says there was a lot of pack running going on, that would be a further reason not to use the race results directly.
And with (2), BOF are taking more Juniors in total than in the last two years to EYOC and JWOC, taking the first full team ever to EYOC. Given what I imagine are limited resources and funding, this seems a positive statistic. So the more relevant question seems to be should we send a full team to EYOC or to JWOC, given that both seems unlikely, and it seems this year, BOF thinks EYOC is more appropriate.
- parallelerror
- string
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:42 pm
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
Money has got nothing to do with it.
JWOC could be 100% self funded and athletes would still find the money to go.
JWOC could be 100% self funded and athletes would still find the money to go.
-
mharky - team nopesport
- Posts: 4541
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:39 pm
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
graeme wrote:
5 pages on, and not one of you moaners could take the time to write something positive for BO/nope news about the top juniors performance at the JK.
Well that may be a fair point graeme - but then I guess we have to ask our selves what winning the JK actually means. It obviously doesn't mean (to the selectors) that you are good enough to go to JWOC and for all the sport psycho babble which obviously underlies the selection justification I am not a fan of the 'treat them mean - keep them keen" philosophy. I would prefer the carrot to the stick approach when it comes to juniors (don't believe the children when they tell you the story about the hair brush - it didn't happen)
Parallel Error - I don't think anyone is disputing the validity of the selections that have been made - just the ones that haven't.
-
Mrs H - god
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:30 pm
Re: JWOC/EYOC selections
On a couple of things people have raised....
For consistency vs. single discipline excellence, there isn't a simple answer. E.g. it depends just how good the good result is, just how consistent the other results are etc. Putting precise percentages, positions etc. on things is very hard. Especially when to some extent it can depend on who turns up, how well the winner does etc. And like I said before, there are lots of other factors besides selection race performance to take into account (some of which are subjective rather than objective measures). It also varies with age - as a guide I'd say the older you get, particularly when going for discipline specific selections (e.g. WOC or WUOC) then specialism in one discipline is more important (obvious?). Compared to competitions where you are selected to potentially run all disciplines (e.g. EYOC, JWOC). But even for juniors we have to not dismiss e.g. the next sprint specialist with a medal potential, who might be rubbish in the "forest".
As for transparency, the selectors always attempt to speak to any athletes who have narrowly missed selection, or might otherwise be disappointed with the selections, to explain the reasons and what they need to do in future. This happens promptly, before the selections are publicly announced if possible. If any athlete feels this has not happened, I'd strongly encourage you to speak to Sarah Hague. Work is also planned to make the selection policy for future years much clearer – this is definitely recognized as an issue, both to guide athletes, and inform the orienteering public.
And lastly, I can confirm that in the JWOC selection meeting I was in at least, [lack of] money was never discussed as a reason not to take a full team.
For consistency vs. single discipline excellence, there isn't a simple answer. E.g. it depends just how good the good result is, just how consistent the other results are etc. Putting precise percentages, positions etc. on things is very hard. Especially when to some extent it can depend on who turns up, how well the winner does etc. And like I said before, there are lots of other factors besides selection race performance to take into account (some of which are subjective rather than objective measures). It also varies with age - as a guide I'd say the older you get, particularly when going for discipline specific selections (e.g. WOC or WUOC) then specialism in one discipline is more important (obvious?). Compared to competitions where you are selected to potentially run all disciplines (e.g. EYOC, JWOC). But even for juniors we have to not dismiss e.g. the next sprint specialist with a medal potential, who might be rubbish in the "forest".
As for transparency, the selectors always attempt to speak to any athletes who have narrowly missed selection, or might otherwise be disappointed with the selections, to explain the reasons and what they need to do in future. This happens promptly, before the selections are publicly announced if possible. If any athlete feels this has not happened, I'd strongly encourage you to speak to Sarah Hague. Work is also planned to make the selection policy for future years much clearer – this is definitely recognized as an issue, both to guide athletes, and inform the orienteering public.
And lastly, I can confirm that in the JWOC selection meeting I was in at least, [lack of] money was never discussed as a reason not to take a full team.
- Duncan
- light green
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:29 pm
- Location: Kendal
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 191 guests