15-09-2017, 06:10 PM
[quote pid='18310' dateline='1505486041']
only 1 former selector, Craig, has commented on this specifically so far, admittedly strongly against my plans.
[/quote]
Since my name has again been mentioned rather a long way on in this discussion since my last post, perhaps I might be permitted to clarify.
My issue is mainly one of principle: I do not particularly mind any attempt to spell out and incorporate in the selection criteria a reasonable 'activity' limitation on selection (though I'm not yet persuaded that the existing guidelines prevent selectors from weighing 'activity' wisely as they stand) but I would prefer such a guideline not just to be reasonable but also framed in a way that allows it simply to be that; i.e. simply one of many spelled out 'guidelines' in the existing criteria (as they stand) and not necessarily an absolute, limiting factor.
The 8/15 rated games in the last 6 months isn't 'unreasonable', as a guideline. Actually if you wish to have such a guideline, I think it's perhaps a bit too tame. Will it really affect anyone? As a selector, I never had qualms about considering the claims of a seriously inactive player for selection over those of even a much lower-rated player (say up to around 50 or even more ELO points) to require exceptional justification. Activity is obviously one of the key factors in selection (not just the only one).
Hence I cannot get excited about trying to work on tweaks of the kind that AndyB is asking for. At least until perhaps whatever the eventual tweak, it were ultimately couched, even in such strong and especially clearly justified language as, say 'Selectors will ordinarily expect selectees to have maintained a reasonable level of activity in the previous X months, such as (whatever, if you want to spell it out) and give much more weight to activity than historic rating ... The reasons for this are (whatever they may be)'
Anyway, well done Murad Abdulla on winning Player of the Year and for Scot Champ win! Let's stay upbeat!
only 1 former selector, Craig, has commented on this specifically so far, admittedly strongly against my plans.
[/quote]
Since my name has again been mentioned rather a long way on in this discussion since my last post, perhaps I might be permitted to clarify.
My issue is mainly one of principle: I do not particularly mind any attempt to spell out and incorporate in the selection criteria a reasonable 'activity' limitation on selection (though I'm not yet persuaded that the existing guidelines prevent selectors from weighing 'activity' wisely as they stand) but I would prefer such a guideline not just to be reasonable but also framed in a way that allows it simply to be that; i.e. simply one of many spelled out 'guidelines' in the existing criteria (as they stand) and not necessarily an absolute, limiting factor.
The 8/15 rated games in the last 6 months isn't 'unreasonable', as a guideline. Actually if you wish to have such a guideline, I think it's perhaps a bit too tame. Will it really affect anyone? As a selector, I never had qualms about considering the claims of a seriously inactive player for selection over those of even a much lower-rated player (say up to around 50 or even more ELO points) to require exceptional justification. Activity is obviously one of the key factors in selection (not just the only one).
Hence I cannot get excited about trying to work on tweaks of the kind that AndyB is asking for. At least until perhaps whatever the eventual tweak, it were ultimately couched, even in such strong and especially clearly justified language as, say 'Selectors will ordinarily expect selectees to have maintained a reasonable level of activity in the previous X months, such as (whatever, if you want to spell it out) and give much more weight to activity than historic rating ... The reasons for this are (whatever they may be)'
Anyway, well done Murad Abdulla on winning Player of the Year and for Scot Champ win! Let's stay upbeat!