17-09-2016, 01:44 AM
Hi Andy. If a level of inactivity in itself is unacceptable (so that the active 2300 in your example gets the nod over the inactive 2500) does that not mean an absolute threshold – maybe I’ve misunderstood you.
No status quo from me – yes, I am saying the parameters covering inactivity should be set. I personally doubt a 200 point gap should be ignored due to inactivity (except in the case of 10-20 years inactivity or something like that), but that would be for a committee to determine (sorry to bore everybody, but I also think that finding out the views of the CS members on the priorities and criteria would be a good idea).
Whatever parameters were set, it would be better to set them than not – it would be more open, selectors wouldn’t be so readily criticized and players would know where they stand. It would also be suggestive of the notion of ‘commitment’ without singling out individuals.
Cheers
No status quo from me – yes, I am saying the parameters covering inactivity should be set. I personally doubt a 200 point gap should be ignored due to inactivity (except in the case of 10-20 years inactivity or something like that), but that would be for a committee to determine (sorry to bore everybody, but I also think that finding out the views of the CS members on the priorities and criteria would be a good idea).
Whatever parameters were set, it would be better to set them than not – it would be more open, selectors wouldn’t be so readily criticized and players would know where they stand. It would also be suggestive of the notion of ‘commitment’ without singling out individuals.
Cheers