27-09-2017, 02:37 PM
Matt,
Anyone can miss the point if the strategy isn't explicitly stated. Andy's strategy can only be partially inferred from his subsequent posts. My post sought to get clarity on strategy as well as the main points of the selection policy.
"We all know that a 2400 who doesn't play for six months will still be stronger than a 2100 who plays a lot. Indeed, they will almost certainly be stronger if they don't play for a decade." - Agreed.
"Andy's reform isn't about getting the strongest team in 2018" - If true, this would be a divisive short term strategy that punishes current players for recent short term inactivity, especially because of the short lead time to rule implementation. I called for a wider discussion on strategy because I believe prescription is a blunt tool and it is more positive to find the right motivation.
"It is about creating a culture where the top players play more to the benefit of everyone so that Scotland will have the strongest possible team in 2028." I fully agree that reform is needed to ensure Scotland has the strongest possible team in 2028.
If the point is to get top Scottish players to play in Scotland to provide strong opposition for young players to hone their skills - and this is desirable - then make that a core plank of the strategy and work with organisers to achieve it. Note the rule as written doesn't require this. Also that it would have implications for Scots living in England and beyond. As I understand it, top Scottish players primarily assess participation a) financially, b) strength of opposition and c) potential achievement (titles etc). Non-participation suggests that current Scottish events are unattractive for them. So rather than try to resolve that issue the rule says "play in unattractive events within this window or you won't be eligible for selection". There must be a better way!
Anyone can miss the point if the strategy isn't explicitly stated. Andy's strategy can only be partially inferred from his subsequent posts. My post sought to get clarity on strategy as well as the main points of the selection policy.
"We all know that a 2400 who doesn't play for six months will still be stronger than a 2100 who plays a lot. Indeed, they will almost certainly be stronger if they don't play for a decade." - Agreed.
"Andy's reform isn't about getting the strongest team in 2018" - If true, this would be a divisive short term strategy that punishes current players for recent short term inactivity, especially because of the short lead time to rule implementation. I called for a wider discussion on strategy because I believe prescription is a blunt tool and it is more positive to find the right motivation.
"It is about creating a culture where the top players play more to the benefit of everyone so that Scotland will have the strongest possible team in 2028." I fully agree that reform is needed to ensure Scotland has the strongest possible team in 2028.
If the point is to get top Scottish players to play in Scotland to provide strong opposition for young players to hone their skills - and this is desirable - then make that a core plank of the strategy and work with organisers to achieve it. Note the rule as written doesn't require this. Also that it would have implications for Scots living in England and beyond. As I understand it, top Scottish players primarily assess participation a) financially, b) strength of opposition and c) potential achievement (titles etc). Non-participation suggests that current Scottish events are unattractive for them. So rather than try to resolve that issue the rule says "play in unattractive events within this window or you won't be eligible for selection". There must be a better way!