Selections and selection criteria

[Klebe]

Apologies in advance for the length of the post, stick with it, hopefully some good may come out of previous years failings.

On a previous thread I was told not to moan but to take up the issue with the selectors. I do not hide within Nope, the contents of any postings made here are voiced elsewhere, in person.

The issue of what appeared to be unfair selections was taken up with the selectors at the time through an official appeal. Ultimately the appeal was rejected and I have no right to appeal against that decision despite the appeal verdict upholding my view that the selections were not made in accordance with the selection criteria.


“We have spent many hours going over all the information and discussing points raised, as we felt that there were many areas in the published criteria that were not made crystal clear. As such, juniors showing potential were clearly not made aware of the full selection process as used by the Selection Committee. This had the effect of some Juniors apparently looking at a different set of goal posts to the Selectors as there were anomalies in different publications of the criteria.

We felt that this year the committee had a difficult job in making selections due to the high standards reached by juniors this year…., but feel that they did not stick rigidly to published stated criteria and as such gave reason for some juniors to feel that they had been badly treated or discriminated against. “


Criteria not clear.
Selection process unclear
Selectors choosing their own criteria, not the published criteria

The above is an admission of a shambolic state of affairs. Given that so many ambiguities existed within the selection process it does seem inconsiderate for the juniors not to have an explanation given to them for their non-selection. As Hocolite rightly asserts. This is not moaning or griping, simply pointing out an obvious courtesy.
I had to make a formal appeal in order to get an explanation.


The only positive issue from the appeal was the recommendations that the Selection Committee have been asked to consider. Consider, not implement.


We ask the Selection Committee to consider the following for future reference:
1. The criteria are clearly stated in writing well before the beginning of the FCC race season and any ambiguities are sorted out. A copy of these is sent to each of the Regional Co-ordinators and they are asked to make sure each of their athletes who they consider to be in line for selection i.e. on whom they will be writing a report, are given a copy.
2. If there are any amendments before the FCC race series begins, again they should be sent to the Regional Co-ordinators.
3.A copy of the Criteria and any amendments to be placed on the BOF web-site and in other relevant publications (handing out criteria at any event, weekend etc. cannot be fool-proof in getting the criteria to all athletes as they may not all be at the event).
4. The athletes do not necessarily know that selectors select on results not by looking at positions so much as the % time difference from the winning time. Informing the athletes of this may also be helpful to an athlete in assessing their own performances.

So there you have it.

My recommendation, for what it is worth – put pressure on the selectors, we know who they are, to follow the recommendations made by the appeal panel.
Clear guidelines to the juniors on how their performance will be measured and assessed.
How absence through injuries will be considered.
What attendance levels at selection races are deemed to be appropriate.
‘Points snatching’ at the lesser attended more remote venues will, I suppose, always go on. Let the selectors be crystal clear how performance within a restricted field will be viewed.

I have taken some criticism on Nope for making comments about the selections. I do not crticise fair selections, if one of the family has had a bad run then non-selection is fair enough. This is easy to deal with.
When one set of rules is said to apply and selectors choose to use a different set without notifying anybody then I believe I have every right to be critical and suspicious of their motives.

Over the past 12 months Ruth has said that she felt guilty for going for easy points at an event at which few people attended, more recently Tess has said she felt she had been ‘lucky’ with her selections this year.
Guilt and luck should not come into it. Clear advice, clear criteria and justifiable selections based on stated criteria is what is needed. Let the selectors decide how they want to choose their team, let us all know and then stick with it.

(Rob, I will PM you with some further information which may be of use.)

[harry]

Selection races and FCC races aren't the same thing. This was all explained and the info given out to squad managers at the Lakeside weekend last November, as it always is. Sue Marsden also spoke about the selection criteria, what kind of results they would be looking for.
Junior selections are always going to be tricky because people tend to perform erratically at this age. I guess that's why they have so many selection races - to gauge how people are performing generally and their potential.

I was aksed recently whether I thought the WOC selections should be done over more races. I said no because at least if it's 3 races in one weekend you know excatly what you have to do and when and the power is with you. If it's over more races then I believe the control lies more with the selectors - more chance to justify the selections they want to make.

But generally in either case I just think that missing out on selection should fire you up and make you more determined. People talk about the gap widening when some juniors get to go away on training tours etc. But that's only for 2 weeks. Maybe 20 technique sessions? It's the work people put in all year round that really counts. If you fit in about 2 or 3 technique sessions every week that could be 150 sessions, makes the 20 extra ones seem irrelevant. And juniors get half terms - they could go up to Aviemore, crash in the bunkhouse and do their own tour.

Remember the selectors are volunteers and it is a thankless task. It is up to the juniors to force the selectors to pick them by getting some dazzling results!

[PorkyFatBoy]

I think the only problem with fixed criteria is "what happens if everyone achieves them?" There still has to be a choice made as there are only so many places in the squad/team/tour.

Is it not similar to a job recruitment, where you can fulfil all the criteria to do the job, but still don't get employed for other reasons that weren't specified in the original job specification?

Life is unfair. It's how you deal with it that counts. If not being selected completely screws your life up, then maybe the selectors called it right- you wouldn't have the mental fortitude to handle top level international competition and the disappointment that not finishing in the top three brings?

[harry]

yeah i got picked for everything and was always winning stuff as a junior. then you get to senior and get a few injuries/illnesses and it's tough. but it has toughened me up. just wait til next year...
only a few of the juniors going on tours eventually get to jwocs
only a few of the juniors that went to jwocs make it as seniors and get established in the senior squad
only a few of them become world class
and there's 3 individual woc gold medals up for grabs every year.
that's a lot of people to be left disappointed. if you can't handle that then choose an easier path or GO FOR IT! but you have to believe that is ultimately up to YOU and not up to a panel of selectors.
also believe me that the selectors understand all this.

[Jene]

i dont think the whole "cant handle the dissapointment" thing isnt the issue, more that juniors are dissapointed when they arent selected if they thought they might of been, going by the selection criteria given.

[PorkyFatBoy]

I do however agree with Klebe that the criteria should be clearly defined and stuck to, and those that are not selected should be given good reason as to why not, so that they may improve.

I doubt very much that meeting any set of criteria would automatically guarantee a place. I think that there would always be an "other" factor that would enable the selectors to distinguish between candidates. I guess the issue is one of transparency over the "other" criteria.

A requirement for formal, detailed, constructive feedback to those unsuccessful would enforce the explanation of the reasons for non-selection and remove any suspicions of favouritism.

[Neil M37]

there were many areas in the published criteria that were not made crystal clear. juniors showing potential were clearly not made aware of the full selection process as used by the Selection Committee. This had the effect of some Juniors apparently looking at a different set of goal posts to the Selectors as there were anomalies in different publications of the criteria.

While I agree with Harry and PFB that if you miss out on selection it should make you more determined for the future, this does not justify the situation described above. The selectors have apparently said they will look at one set of results and then decided to look at a different set without telling everybody. No amount of hard work between now and next year will do you any good if the selectors do the same thing again.

[Neil M37]

Mind you, it all comes down to communication, and that works both ways.

[FatBoy]

Rules on selection should be rules on selection, even if the rule is "we'll pick who we feel like".

Being upset at missing out on selection and then having the strength to bounce back and have another go next year is completely different to being disillusioned with the system.

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. You also have to remember as I've said before it's not always the best at 14 who are still the best at 25 or 30. We need to encourage as many as possible and try not to reject those on the fringes.

All that said selection's a hard job and I guess somebody will always be gutted. I think at least these days there is many levels of selection for juniors (e.g. Start Squad) and you'll get steps in the right direction to help you toward the big time, rather than feeling completely rejected.

[Kitch]

Harry is arguing that selection is your personal responsibility - you have to make the selectors select you, give them no choice.

If you want to be good at something, and you want other people to take you seriously in that, support you in your pursuit of excellence and spend money on supporting you then you have to be professional about it.
You have to be thorough.

within the recommendations it suggests that selectors should ensure "any ambiguities are sorted out". (and yes they should publish any clarifications)
But unless you as an athlete point out any ambiguities the selectors aren't going to realise they are there.
You the athlete should make it your personal responsibility to fully understand what you have to do to ensure selection.
And you might find you need to update that understanding as the season progresses.

If you don't achieve that level of result then don't expect any favours - not in the real world.

Klebe wrote
Clear guidelines to the juniors on how their performance will be measured and assessed.
How absence through injuries will be considered.
What attendance levels at selection races are deemed to be appropriate.
‘Points snatching’ at the lesser attended more remote venues will, I suppose, always go on. Let the selectors be crystal clear how performance within a restricted field will be viewed.

There are infinite permutations of what might happen in any race how may different statements would you like to be made ?
The answer can only ever be "It depends"
It depends on who you are talking about, their track record, and it depends on how they run.

Selection is not a science, there is no formula, not when you get to the borderline cases.
The only answer for the athlete is Don't be borderline.

Before you set yourself a goal you must first understand what it will take for you to achieve it.

[Lil' God'rs]

Selections will often be controversial simply because athletes won't 'fit in' with the selection criteria. The selectors are there to make the decisions and if it is a close call then they have to make a choice - which will probably upset someone - but I guess that is their job and why we have selectors. If we have some really accurate criteria and everyone can measure themselves against it to see if they are selected then why would need selectors?? Surely part of their job is to make the decisions when the criteria cannot decide.

Should we go for the US Athletics criteria?? Everyone knows exactly what they have to do and there can only be controversy when someone who was expected to meet the criteria doesn't make it. Criteria clear - absolutely; selections clear - absolutely; too harsh - definitely for juniors compared to senior in the US.

I didn't get selected for the 6-nations in 1996 and someone who had been out of the country for the year did make the team. As I remember things the selection policy included 'all known form' and he'd been running well at the O-ringen. Was the selection wrong - no; was it a bit controversial - I thought so; how did it make me feel - noping angry; how did I deal with it - training really hard over the winter/spring and I made the JWOC team in 1997.

[FatBoy]

The only answer for the athlete is Don't be borderline.

That's a good aim, perhaps not as good as aiming to win

What I think we're talking about though is not personal selection woes but a clear way forward? We want a fair way of picking the best team!

I'm not sure if it was stuck to (I guess so I haven't heard any controversy) but this seemed like a sensible system:


http://www.trailquest.co.uk/World%20Champs%202005%20Selection%20Consultation.pdf

[ER]

Do you really want a selection procedure to become an adjudication process where volunteer selectors have to give reasons for decisions and be subject to rights of appeal? Fairness in decision making cannot be determined by objective criteria, if there is scope for interpretation of those criteria as there will always be in orienteering selection. There is always an element of discretion in the application of criteria that are not set for eg to qualify for English Schools you have to run so fast, jump so high etc. Orienteering could have totally objective criteria - one race and first five are selected - would that be fair? I found no ambiguity in the selection critera, but looking at the results thought that the selectors would have a difficult task. I did not envy them before they started.

If not selected then it can cause immense disappointment, but is it not a lesson of life ?- There can be many disappointments along the way - not getting the grades, not getting the job, not getting the love of your life. All children/juniors need praise and affirming in their endeavours.All juniors involved in sport need coaching and mentoring help through the disappointments. Life is not perfect and you cannot leave it to selectors to make it so.

[Guest]

I found no ambiguity in the selection critera,

Which is fine, but also is not the point. If the selection criteria is clear then the selectors should stick to it. As Jene said, the problem lies when Juniors see that selections have not been made according to the guidelines they have been given.

[Guest]

We want a fair way of picking the best team!

You can't have it.

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

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

Personally, I think that selectors decisions should be beyond reproach, 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.

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).

Graeme