17-09-2016, 03:34 PM
Thanks AndyB for the constructive reply.
I think what might be making these discussions difficult is the conflation of the two issues of present playing strength and the desire to have match fitness. Am I right in thinking you are looking for some leverage to get a better level of match fitness Olympiad (and hopefully thereby performance)?
We’re all aware that at least 30 games are desirable for rating accuracy/validity but 15 games does not have equivalent significance over a six month period in terms of stats. The player’s ratings are a good general guide, the question from the viewpoint of selection being what adjustment to make for inactivity.
Of course, as captain you would rather they all played at least 15 games anyway!
Isn’t there a halfway? (Oops I nearly said a third way
). You say:
“Perhaps it's not the selection criteria which needs changing. I personally think it is somewhere we should be looking to tweak things, but I do not plan to ride roughshod over the views of those who have more experience than I do, or who have provided solid arguments against my suggestions.”
You can tweak the criteria and also encourage players to play more games by simply devising a scale of adjustments to the ‘effective rating’ for inactivity.
I think can see where you’re coming from here:
“However, selection is also a privilege not a right. I don't see how anyone can argue that just walking into a team without playing any games is in any way correct or desirable or likely to produce a better (relative) result. If this isn't what we should be looking to achieve, then we need to decide what is :/”
Well of course we’re not arguing that pre-Olympiad inactivity is desirable, but it’s quite a jump there to a blanket ‘unacceptable’ if this means ‘unselected’.
But using a system of sliding scales, a borderline player might well miss out due to inactivity, while a clear selection on rating would have more leeway (but would also not be selected if the period of inactivity were long enough). Doesn’t this reflect the thinking adequately? No-one would be completely indispensable and selectors could still have some leeway built in.
It is open to the objection that 2500+ players will get in easier than the bog standard 2400 (
) ones, but as the Olympiad itself is an elitist concept so this is not a very convincing objection.
Craig put the point well about the top-down, near autocratic approach – I would add that the painless way to exert influence over players is via the selection criteria and its surely worth taking some time over these to make sure they reflect the thinking in a measured way.
Cheers
I think what might be making these discussions difficult is the conflation of the two issues of present playing strength and the desire to have match fitness. Am I right in thinking you are looking for some leverage to get a better level of match fitness Olympiad (and hopefully thereby performance)?
We’re all aware that at least 30 games are desirable for rating accuracy/validity but 15 games does not have equivalent significance over a six month period in terms of stats. The player’s ratings are a good general guide, the question from the viewpoint of selection being what adjustment to make for inactivity.
Of course, as captain you would rather they all played at least 15 games anyway!
Isn’t there a halfway? (Oops I nearly said a third way
). You say:“Perhaps it's not the selection criteria which needs changing. I personally think it is somewhere we should be looking to tweak things, but I do not plan to ride roughshod over the views of those who have more experience than I do, or who have provided solid arguments against my suggestions.”
You can tweak the criteria and also encourage players to play more games by simply devising a scale of adjustments to the ‘effective rating’ for inactivity.
I think can see where you’re coming from here:
“However, selection is also a privilege not a right. I don't see how anyone can argue that just walking into a team without playing any games is in any way correct or desirable or likely to produce a better (relative) result. If this isn't what we should be looking to achieve, then we need to decide what is :/”
Well of course we’re not arguing that pre-Olympiad inactivity is desirable, but it’s quite a jump there to a blanket ‘unacceptable’ if this means ‘unselected’.
But using a system of sliding scales, a borderline player might well miss out due to inactivity, while a clear selection on rating would have more leeway (but would also not be selected if the period of inactivity were long enough). Doesn’t this reflect the thinking adequately? No-one would be completely indispensable and selectors could still have some leeway built in.
It is open to the objection that 2500+ players will get in easier than the bog standard 2400 (
) ones, but as the Olympiad itself is an elitist concept so this is not a very convincing objection.Craig put the point well about the top-down, near autocratic approach – I would add that the painless way to exert influence over players is via the selection criteria and its surely worth taking some time over these to make sure they reflect the thinking in a measured way.
Cheers