From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Wed Apr 10 13:14:47 2002 Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3ACEkd24435 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:14:46 +0100 (BST) Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@agave [137.205.192.52]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3AC6O707362; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:06:24 +0100 (BST) Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g3ABxSQR019137 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:59:29 +0100 (BST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g3ABxRbo019136 for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:59:27 +0100 (BST) Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g3ABxNQR019131 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:59:24 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail1.messagelabs.com (mail1.messagelabs.com [212.125.75.4]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g3ABxMt08516 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:59:22 +0100 (BST) X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 12394 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2002 11:59:16 -0000 Received: from mail.oyster.co.uk (HELO aurora.oyster.co.uk) (193.132.201.148) by server-6.tower-1.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2002 11:59:16 -0000 Received: by AURORA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <GZQT93WW>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:59:15 +0100 Message-ID: <7165D5A55FC4D41184DB00D0B7B9E62D0480D3A7@AURORA> From: Roger Thomson <Roger.Thomson@oyster.com> To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: RE: Geo teams etc Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:59:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk -->Long, but no anti-Red flames as I've now officially given up Red Bull at work ;-) > How many Clapham players would play for Red if they happened > to move to Leicester ? Hmm. I doubt any of the core team ever would move to Leicester (as we all moved to Clapham pretty much just for the frisbee AND we didn't get let into a drum'n'bass club in Leicester one year cos we were wearing trainers!), but others would probably consider it. John Palmer, who played with us last year in Prague, has started playing with the Sharks now he's moved back to Oxford. Pete Coy has started playing with Poco now he's moved back to Brissle. We don't try and hang on to players who move out of our area - if they can't make at least one practice a week we shove 'em out the door pretty sharp. Personally I agree with both Sammy and Ben in that we shouldn't place any further restrictions on the geo nature of teams. Until we have top quality teams in every city (which we're much nearer today than we were 5 years ago, but still some way off) some people will always want to play with people of a similar standard or with friends; true, some will be willing to play with newer teams to bring them on, but we shouldn't penalise those who don't as we may compromise their dedication to the sport or at worst drive them away completely - when they will probably join a geo team later as their team breaks up (cf UTI, Catch 22, Regulators). Ben's entirely right that teams which are mostly geo-based are proving to be a very very strong basis for improvement and growth of quality UK Ultimate (proved by the brilliant results for ALL our teams last year in Prague - where our 2nd placed team and 4th, 5th & 6th placed teams came higher than the corresponding team from ANY other country), but we should let competitive forces prove to non-geo team players that if they want to play at the top level in the UK or at international level they'll have to join a successful geo team. I do struggle to see why Ben is 'becoming more sceptical of the current geo system' as the current system places virtually no restictions or offers no real advantages apart from allowing 2 teams which doesn't apply to any of the non-geo teams anyway. Ben? >My suggestion is that we should encourage *loyalty* (by discouraging roster additions >for international clubs events, for example). I think this is more palatable than >annoying nanny-state regulations and would help local teams. ?????? Not sure exactly what you'd be hoping to gain from this. As far as I can tell this has always been a way of talented junior players getting experience that will greatly help their development, and thus the development of the sport as a whole in the UK. Examples abound of how well this has worked in the past: Dougie and Ollie from Bad Company (Cambridge) playing with the Hombres abroad; Wigsy, Bowles and Sickboy playing with Shotgun in Vancouver; bl**dy everyone playing with the Purple Scum ;-). It happens the world over and to prevent UK teams alone doing it would only hold development back in the long term as well as put us at a competitive disadvantage versus the rest of the world in the individual competitions. At the moment all it would mean is that someone way down the roster who is probably far less committed to the sport and has far less potential would get an opportunity to play at a level which is completely beyond them. This year's Tour should shed some light on the issue - will the honourably geo Sharks be able to use that advantage over the more experienced but dishonourable Druids? How well will less-than-geo Poco fare with their strong roster but lack of weekly practice? What about the strongly geo Leeds*3 without some of their main players? Anyway, can't wait for it all to begin on Saturday :-) Silver Bear cu#1 "He's grey, he's fat, he cuts like a twat - Roger, Roger" -----Original Message----- From: Ben Ravilious [mailto:ben@ravilious.net] Sent: 10 April 2002 11:18 To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: Geo teams etc Rob, Fair point about the impracticality of moving teams regularly. (Thought: Perhaps if we all recruited locally then we would get more settled players?) > How many Clapham players would play for Red if they happened > to move to Leicester ? I'll let the Clapham players answer that question (!) but the way you put it reveals the same old attitude that I'm on about. Is playing for the very best team you can get on the single most important aim of your playing career Rob? And what makes a team good? Is it simply down to their roster? Why not ask "How much better could Red be if a Clapham player joined us?" Clapham are better than Red due to training and experience not some god-given gift (what have I started?!). I'm asking that if more people with said experience and training were to spread it around then we would have a better sport. Full respect to Clapham (sic!) for doing exactly this by maintaining a second team, running the winter league, etc ,etc I vaguely remember a rather mediocre Sheffield uni graduates team (who folded not so long ago) who discovered that the addition of an experienced American(?) player could give them the confidence to beat the best team in the country at the time. What does that tell you? I'm sure this will now decend into farcical Red vs Clapham jibes (Roger? Harvey?) but your somewhat mercenary attitude is very frustrating for those clubs who want to develop. If we are to grow we need more players like you to do the right thing and help out locally. You can do both - play with your mates AND help out a local team - perhaps you already do? "Think not what your team can do for you but what you can do for your team" or is that saying a bit dated nowadays? Ben ----------------------------------------------------------- Internet communications are not secure and therefore Oyster Partners Ltd does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Oyster Partners Ltd.