From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Thu Sep 23 23:38:18 1999 Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19133 for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 23:37:20 +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 XAA19128 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 23:37:18 +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 XAA27301 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 23:37:14 +0100 (BST) Received: from phidelta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.248.177]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11UHUD-000GcX-0K for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 22:37:11 +0000 Message-ID: <jp91UFAEtq63EwzY@phidelta.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 23:35:48 +0100 To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk From: Wayne Retter <postmaster@phidelta.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: Wayne Retter <wayne@phidelta.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: GB Ultimate References: <B07B1BF7F6CED11184E900609739CF8921E396@CAYMAN> In-Reply-To: <B07B1BF7F6CED11184E900609739CF8921E396@CAYMAN> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S <pjZRgFWDsQK5ViyP$l4rxVrb6a> Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Simon Hill <simon.hill@actix.com> writes >but why exactly is Chris dealing with this? It doesn't seem to fall >anywhere near his role? It also seems to be a funny week for the DoC to be >worrying about something other than Nationals. Si, Roger, and others... Chris is dealing with this 'cos a) when it all went pear-shaped at the AGM discussion he volunteered to post such a message and collate responses b) he has the loudest voice c) he has an interest in becoming GB CoEd (sorry, "Mixed") Manager [with advance apologies for either stepping on other's toes, or being completely wrong!] As far as my memory and understanding goes (hopefully the people involved will correct me if/when I'm wrong), the story thus far is: The AGM was looking for candidates to fill the roles of the "traditional" GB Managers; Aram Flores suggested that the "traditional" method hasn't quite managed to achieve the results it ought; [to much agreement, but little identification of reasons...] Aram suggested that there ought to be an alternative method for the development, training and selection of the GB teams. Aram's suggestion was that there should be regular (twice-weekly?) regional training sessions, to work on fitness, skills and drills and familiarity/bonding between players no matter their potential division, and should be a mixture of players from ALL divisions. The current regular (once/twice monthly) GB sessions would continue, but in ONE venue - all the regional players would gather together and the cross-regional integration and bonding would occur - there would also be the movement of players between the various divisions to investigate how the best squads (across all divisions) could be achieved. The organisational structure? A "GB coach" to write and implement the playbook to be used by all divisions and regional sessions. (Preferably) One male, and one female co-ordinator to assist the "GB coach" (whether this is pyramidal or committee is unclear, and the point of several arguments) in keeping tabs on players and their performances, and experimenting with the distribution of players between divisions. The theory is that maximum strength can therefore be developed in all divisions, and that the core of players within each division would select, from their own number, captain(s) that would later have more responsibility for the selection of the actual team. (I'm assuming!) Organisation and Coaching at regional sessions would be undertaken by "respected and experienced" players that liase inter- Regionally and with the "GB coach". The main arguments against this model were: (proven) successful management/coaching structures are pyramidal; that the 2 (male and female) co-ordinators should be replaced by divisional co-ordinators; that there was a risk of using the Mixed and Masters divisions as dumping grounds (or merely understrength) by developing potential "cusp" players and poaching them for the Open/Womens divisions; that the Regionalisation idea might/would have an adverse effect on the non-London regional players (due to the higher concentration of ultimate players, and therefore the higher likelihood of potential GB players in that area) training and selection prospects; that the lack of "defined squad" until "too late" would hinder the TEAM development of any particular divisional team; that the style of play of each division have quite different properties, and thus require different attitudes and training methods. The expected/potential "cross-divisional" movements will not help in the training. And thus, no significant decisions were reached... Wayne ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Retter at home: 0181-663-4856 wayne@phidelta.demon.co.uk mobile: 07970-903420