From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Fri Aug 27 10:07:52 1999 Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26227 for britdisc-outgoing; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:06:56 +0100 (BST) Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26214 for <Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:06:53 +0100 (BST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14597 for <Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:06:53 +0100 (BST) Received: from trade-indemnity.demon.co.uk ([158.152.139.88] helo=london1.eulergroup.com) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11KHy9-000F9c-0K; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:06:49 +0000 Received: by LONDON1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id <RRAA73SL>; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:03:06 +0100 Message-ID: <3FEEBE10F61BD2119B0100805FB7A2E4AF4747@LONSEX02> From: "Wagstaff, Colin [euler:eti-lon]" <Colin.Wagstaff@eulergroup.com> To: "'matthew.lowe'" <matthew.lowe@dtn.ntl.com> Cc: "'Britdisc'" <Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: RE: National teams: a reply to Sammy Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:02:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk This (Akita 2001) will undoubtedly be discussed at length at the BUF AGM (Presumably being held on Sat night of Eastbourne as per previous years?). Participation in the World Games is a great opportunity for WFDF and the BUF/BUA alike, but there is a lot to discuss with regards the BUF's aims and how they/we are going to achieve those over the next two years or so. Therefore, I would urge anyone who is interested or has an opinion on Akita to attend the BUF AGM (whenever it may be). Rafi and Sammy and anyone else for that matter may continue to discuss the Open and Womens teams for next year but the overall plan for GB in respect of all five divisions needs to be developed as a whole if GB are to be represented at the World Games. I attended the WFDF congress meeting recently held in St. Andrews during World Clubs (No BUF officer did although I believe they were all at the tournament), where the organisers for the Disc Sports (there's Golf as well as Ultimate) at the World Games were present and they have some interesting views on how to run the tournament within the constraints given. There has been much discussion in WFDF in how to best use the time and allocation and indeed on how to select countries to be represented. These have now been pretty much fixed and it is clear GB does have a realistic chance of being represented in 2001. However this will not happen unless the teams in all divisions we send to WUGC in 2000 are the best possible. I trust some BUF type person can mail anyone who's interested the qualifying criteria, if not I have a paper copy from the meeting and all the details for Akita (flash brochure, schedule, selection process etc). Colin. UTI. -----Original Message----- From: matthew.lowe [SMTP:matthew.lowe@dtn.ntl.com] Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 8:15 AM To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: National teams: a reply to Sammy On a similar theme. The World Games in 2001 have been mentioned several times before, but no one has said if the BUF are interested in trying to qualify a British national team. As far as I can tell we would have to finish in the top 4 of 3 of the divisions at worlds next year (I think), and if there was interest in entering a team then this current discussion on squad selection techniques deserves more attention. Is it a realistic aim, getting into the top 4? I believe so, I also believe an appearance at the world games by a GB team would be great publicity for the sport in this country. That's my pennies worth, Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: rafael freire <raf.freire@bristol.ac.uk> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Sent: 27 August 1999 08:55 Subject: National teams: a reply to Sammy > Sammy aired a question about a week ago- whether a > strenghthened club team should represent GB as the > national team- which received some responses but his > point was largely missed. > > The idea that a strengthened club team should represent > GB, as Sam is well aware, has been around for quite a > while. It arose largely due to poor performances by > national teams. Many (I'll come clean, myself included) > thought these poor performances were due to the national > teams not having continuity, cohesion and lacking > experience of competition at the appropriate level. There > is little doubt that the top club teams posses these three > components, hence the idea that the best club side > (albeit strenghthened) should represent GB was developed > (I'll come clean again, it wasn't me) . How this idea > could be implemented is, as Ian Stebbings pointed out, in > need of further thought. > > So here's my answer to Sammy: > > Open: I don't think sending a strengthened club team to > worlds would be a good idea at the momment. In my view > none of the current top teams have sufficient ability or > know-how to form the core of a national team. All of the > top three have strengths for building solid teams, but > then they also have glaring weaknesses. Choosing one team > to form the core would discard the strengths of the other > teams, without addressing its particular weaknesses. Had > this question been asked in the early to middle days of > shotgun (4-5 years ago), the answer would have been very > different. > > On the plus side, I think the open division has skilled > players that can do well at international level. Its just > a question of deciding who they are and how they should be > put together to form a team. > > Women: As I'm not part of the women's scene, I have no > idea whatsoever how they could form a strong national > team, though they clearly have talented players. Perhaps > some of the players concerned would like to offer their > views? > > Rafi (22) > > > > > >