From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Fri Oct 16 12:31:08 1998
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) id MAA12913
for britdisc-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:25:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: from gatekeeper.cmht.nwest.nhs.uk (gatekeeper.cmht.nwest.nhs.uk [193.60.159.61])
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA12901
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:25:16 +0100 (BST)
Received: by gatekeeper.cmht.nwest.nhs.uk; (5.65v4.0/1.3/10May95) id AA23876; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:24:06 +0100
Received: from pers.cmht.nwest.nhs.uk (pers.cmht.nwest.nhs.uk [159.170.196.35])
by mar003.cmht.nwest.nhs.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA19832;
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:33:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: from MRI_PERS/SpoolDir by pers.cmht.nwest.nhs.uk (Mercury 1.40);
16 Oct 98 12:19:43 BST
Received: from SpoolDir by MRI_PERS (Mercury 1.40); 16 Oct 98 12:19:17 BST
From: "Harry Golby" <hgolby@pers.cmht.nwest.nhs.uk>
Organization: Central Manchester Healthcare Trust
To: BritDisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:19:14 BST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Discussion on World Ultimate
Cc: Alison Hill <D0192558@infotrade.co.uk>
References: <178EA92097A9D111AD0900A0C99B4EFC4F2473@UK-EXCHANGE1>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.981016091534.25518B-100000@purds>
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.01a)
Message-Id: <22801FC651E@pers.cmht.nwest.nhs.uk>
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Its probably about time I contributed to the debate (I've been reading most of
the stuff that has been written but not had an opportunity to comment until now.)
For those of you who don't know I have been involved in managing the GB team
for the past 6 years in one way or another (generally jointly with Simon Moore
and several others.) I quit after this year's worlds.
When we started doing it Ultimate was much smaller than it is now, the GB
team was formed around the best club teams and there was a lot of talk of it
being a 'closed shop' and not being representative of GB Ultimate, etc.
The BUF decided the GB team should be selected through a 'squad system'
where the best players in the country get an opportunity to try out for the squad
which should practice together and from that the team should picked to go to
Worlds. It was also accepted that team selection would need to evolve over
time, it's no good starting with a bunch of fresh faces each year. (Hang on a
minute isn't that very similar to the ground breaking new idea that was recently
suggested...)
So that's what we've been trying to do. A few years back we held 'trials' each
autumn but that has changed to inviting the existing team and a few people we
thought were good enough to join the squad around nationals to train over the
winter. (Now if you're upset that you haven't been invited its probably because
you're not as good as you think you are or because you didn't think that
perhaps with a player base now of x00 its kind of difficult for GB managers to
know every player in the country individually and perhaps it would have been
helpful if you had approached us....)
I think only once in those seven years have the team we have taken to the
major championships has actually represented the best of British Ultimate (94
just as the new system was begining to get off the ground.) Every other year I
have been frustrated that if I made a list of the 20 best players in the country
and the 20 people in the GB team the two would not match.
There have been lots of reasons why this has been the case. One has been
around time and money - the higher profile of World Clubs has meant the
Europeans have become a second rate tournament and alot of players
understandably chose to go to world rather than play for GB at Europeans and
there are far more tournaments/training happening generally now than before
(its a fact that Ultimate players are at their best when they've just started to get
jobs, houses, families, etc. - generally other things to do.)
10 or so weekends a year is a big commitment for people who also spend alot
of their time playing club Ultimate (hint perhaps we should think about fewer,
harder practices, with team members actually thinking about the tactics, plays
calls, etc. in between times.)
Another big part of it has been due to personal politics. Some players were not
happy with how Simon and i have managed the team and this has put them off
playing for it. (i'm not disputing their opinions and would admit that as my
frustrations around the team have grown my enthusiam for managing it has
waned.)
There's also a major snowball effect - as soon as one of your mates decides
he's not going you look around and see that you'll have to be playing with a
bunch of people you don't know too well, so you quit and then....
So nice idea to have a non-playing coach (in fact that was pretty much what
Simon intended to do this year before it became obvious that he would be far
more useful playing for the team as well.) But it still begs the question - who is
accepted and respected enough by the WHOLE Ultimate community to be able
to implement their own training methods / tactics (without being continually
asked why don't we do it like this, this is what our team uses and its a much
better idea...) and to be able to call subs (without people whining when they
don't get on as much as they would like.)
So am I suggesting we go back to the old system and send the National
Champions to represent Britain - because that's what USA does and it works
for them? Firstly comparisons with the US are meaningless because a) its far
too big to get people coming from all over the country to practice together b)
they do not need to worry about raising the level of Ultimate generally.
If we send the GB Champions to worlds the incentive for London players to form
a super team so that they all know they'll be able to go to every major
championship every year is huge. Not so you say ... it just means everyone
else practices harder to beat them. Ultimate is not strong enough in this
country to let that happen yet, players ony get any good by getting
international experience and I would say look around the top teams in the
country a fairly sizeable section of each of them got to be so good by gaining
some of their experience with the GB squad.
So what's the alternative. Well as I reported at the BUF AGM (which wasn't minuted by the man who started this debate off by asking for opinions.) One option some players on the GB team this year discussed was running the squad system with management by committee with one individual from each
of the three top teams (with Simon acting as a the non-playing coach/manager 'cos he seems to be the only person around to have the experience and dedication to do the job.) We weren't much good at World's and I think it was alot to do with no one thinking it was 'their' team so we were all
looking around waiting for someone else 'to make it happen.' Perhaps this new structure, if accepted, would help get some ownership back into the GB set up.
I think a change is probably overdue (that's going to happen anyway) but
forming the GB team around a club will lead to more not fewer problems.
Now i really ought to be getting back to doing some work.
Anyone who fancies the job as GB manager need to bear in mind that you'll
become as bitter as I appear to be on reading what I've just written.
Harry
Chevvy
Harry Golby
Email:HGOLBY@PERS.CMHT.NWEST.NHS.UK
Phone: 0161 276 4904 (W)
Fax: 0161 276 4980