17-09-2016, 12:54 AM
"So what you and the selectors are saying is that 1 game a month on average is an acceptable number of games and/or that the gap is so huge between the 'elite' and the rest of the players that 2400+ is automatic selection?"
I wasn’t saying either of those Alan. I wasn’t referring to the present selections. I’m just giving my own opinion not speaking for selectors.
I don’t think an ‘acceptable’ number of games has been defined, inactivity is just a factor to be considered. If the rating gap between 2 candidates happens to be huge, then adjusting for a bit of inactivity wouldn’t close it. It might still be ‘unacceptable’ for the inactive player to be selected using other criteria like ‘commitment’, but how do you define that?
If the gap is small then the inactivity would matter more in terms of the strength.
Also, who should define what is acceptable? I think this places too high a burden on selectors, who should only be asked to apply their judgement and common sense within an existing, agreed framework, not to make up absolute thresholds. The parameters would be best set in an open way, after consulting the members on issues like inactive players. After that there wouldn’t be so much room for argument, and players would know where they stand.
Only my opinion about the process..but I hope this clarifies my post above. It's good you raised the issues as I think getting the process right is more important than a couple of particular selections. Cheers
I wasn’t saying either of those Alan. I wasn’t referring to the present selections. I’m just giving my own opinion not speaking for selectors.
I don’t think an ‘acceptable’ number of games has been defined, inactivity is just a factor to be considered. If the rating gap between 2 candidates happens to be huge, then adjusting for a bit of inactivity wouldn’t close it. It might still be ‘unacceptable’ for the inactive player to be selected using other criteria like ‘commitment’, but how do you define that?
If the gap is small then the inactivity would matter more in terms of the strength.
Also, who should define what is acceptable? I think this places too high a burden on selectors, who should only be asked to apply their judgement and common sense within an existing, agreed framework, not to make up absolute thresholds. The parameters would be best set in an open way, after consulting the members on issues like inactive players. After that there wouldn’t be so much room for argument, and players would know where they stand.
Only my opinion about the process..but I hope this clarifies my post above. It's good you raised the issues as I think getting the process right is more important than a couple of particular selections. Cheers