| Topic: BC: speak up!: 2009 Tornado World Canadian Team |
| ||
|
As the TSAC BC Rep, i'm asking what BC players think about the following topic, that i'll have to vote for in week. How should we decide on our National Team for Tornado Worlds 2009? Please select one of the following options: 1. We should have a qualifier in Dallas, any Canadians that want to qualify can enter the qualification event. 2. We should have a vote, all of the Canadian players in attendance at Worlds can vote on who should be on the National Team. 3. We should have a vote, all Canadian ProMaster players should select the team 4. We should have a vote, all TSAC Members should vote on who is on the team. 5. We should elect a Coach and have him pick the team. I'm going to vote for whatever most of the players here feel is the best option for this year. Either post your vote, or send me an email. Just to be clear, the votes counted here do not ultimately decide the overall outcomes, they decide how I as BC rep will vote on this matter. The other provinces / table reps also get to vote. |
Posted: Aug 17 2009 12:07AM
| ||
|
Why don't we have the qualifier in Edmonton instead of Dallas.. would make more sense cause more canadians would be there and it would be fair for the players that can't cross. Better yet just use the results since it is the Canadian championship. |
| ||
|
that would be optimal, but the dates don't line up. We're voting for the team that is going to the Tornado World Championships, in the ITSF Team event. In Dallas, TX, Sept 2-7. The Edmonton tourney is after that, Oct 2-4 |
| ||
|
The only option you've given that I can support is the qualifier in Dallas. I do not agree on voting as it is absurdly unfair given that most of the easterners don't know the westerners and most of the westerners don't know the easterners. Additionally, picking a coach and having them select the team is just as fraught with peril as the first World Cup selection process showed. Some people, myself included, still have an impression of Mario clouded by that fiasco. Going forward after this Tornado World's, I suggest we set up tournaments to pick the champions/teams for the ENTIRE year. Year 1 in the west (since Will has organized that already), Year 2 in Ontario, Year 3 in Quebec, Year 4 in the west, Year 5 in Ontario, etc., etc., etc., ... A tournament may not select the best team but at least it is unbiased and therefore much less controversial. |
| ||
|
I like the Idea of using Edmonton on Oct 2-4 for next year, and I have to agree with tim for the rest |
| ||
|
I am totally sure my opinion won't be the popular one, but I don't agree with any of those options. I'm sure most people would love a qualifier, but for making the best team, I think it's the worst way. We all know someone (especially locals playing locals) can get hot for a match or two and take out the best teams, or the way match ups work out, or even the pressure of having to prove yourself. That is waaaay all too easy. The real way to choose a team, imho, is to take the top players who are competing regularily and proving themselves regularily. We all know who those players are. It's pointless to have a qualifier when the same people are going out and proving their skills time and time again, spending money, gaining experience, winning and/or learning how to win....only to get beat by a couple of hot semis because they had nothing to lose? Sorry, but really, gimme a freakin break. I think there's a much more simple way of chosing who gets to compete and I think it's a no brainer. The ones who put in the time and money, travel and produce. So, I'm not sure any of that helped unless there's a different option for me to vote on. My 2 cents, which I'm sure won't we be taken well.  Moya |
| ||
|
I'd like to go back to Craig's point in another post. A lot of people do not have the time or the money to go to France. So why not see how much interest there is first? |
| ||
|
Qualifiers are cool and all for wild card spots. But the core player base should be picked by Moya. That simple. |
| ||
|
Nelson this one isn't about France, its about Tornado worlds in Dallas. The team should be Forward Kane proven himself is a pro master places well Forward Mario proven himself is a pro master places well Stronger goalie than forward but can play both, him and Mario I should play together Eric proven himself is a pro master places well Stronger forward than goalie Mario I won a number of recent tournaments all be it am Struggles at forward from time to time, but is an elite level goalie(dont get mad now)Jeff A From the rest of the list, its a pickem, Ive seem most of them, if not all play and what the team needs is another strong goalie, you decide who that is. Ithas already been stated that if there is a qualifier Jeff and Mario A arent going to play in it. I'm also pretty sure option 3 or 5 is what you are saying Moya? Plus as i posted on the other board. Kane, Mario and Eric, will be voted in regardless of the voting system. and will more than likely be on the team if there is a qualifier. I do agree with Tim, I dont like the picking of the team, but the best team will be made this way. So its a question, of do we want to be Canadian and be nice of just do anything to win. "Additionally, picking a coach and having them select the team is just as fraught with peril as the first World Cup selection process showed. Some people, myself included, still have an impression of Mario clouded by that fiasco. " But thats also why i said everyone should vote, I put what i think canada's strongest team is, you really need 4 singles players(Kane,Mario get 2 spots the other two go to Mario,Moya,Eric, or Jeff) Keeping in midn the two who dont play have a doubles game to play) and as far as doubles you team Kane and Jeff, Eric and Mario I, and Mario A with the strong goalie. I dont need to hear whining about who i THINK should be on the team its just my opinion. |
| ||
|
I know it's not my home province, but I would like to comment on Moya's post. I entered a qualifier at the worlds in Vegas in 2007. Brian Leopky and Myself decided to get in it at the last minute. We begged Eric D. to let us play and he was gracious enough to oblige. Well, Brian and I beat the team that qualified in first place. (We were the only team that beat them) and I ended up qualifying as the alternate (by virtue of winning a coin toss between Brian and myself). Eric D. didn't make the team. For obvious reasons and for the good of the team I gave up my spot to Eric D. Not to bad for a couple of over 40 rookies! I agree with Moya. The team should consist of the best players we have. Get a list of players that are attending the worlds and decide from there. Hell, I'll even pick em if you want me to!  |
| ||
|
Eric Goodman, Eric Dunn, Mario A, Kane Gabriel, Mario Iannuzzi, Will Stranks, Jeff Allen, Dave Ahn, Tony Tong, Brian Loeppky, Fred Quan, Desmond Tse, Olavo Tavares, Nhu Tran They have it on the other board |
| ||
|
ok, here is my list just for the hell of it. I think it's 6 men 2 women? Moya Kane Mario A Eric D Mario I Olavo Eric G This looks like a pretty solid team |
| ||
|
We're stuck with these 5 options for now. So give me something to work with here Dave, Moya and Craig in what way (out of those 5) would you think your thinking would be most likely satisfied. Best to mention at least one of those options, so that your voice counts when i tally the vote. so far we have 2 for #1. Dave are you saying, you'd pick option #5, and have Moya be coach? and don't forget Audrey. she's playing as well. Oh and i should point out, that Mario A has made it very clear that he will NOT arrive in Dallas in time for a qualifier if there is one. |
| ||
|
Yes, that is correct. Option #5 with Moya as the coach. It's the best way. It would be even better if our coach didn't play but that's no option here. I'm pretty sure i won't make the team unless there is a qualifier, which then, I am certain i will earn a spot. I am ok with that because my foos carear just started last year for the first time, I have many more opportunities to contribute my talents to future teams. |
| ||
|
my vote is for 2, as that was my idea in the first place |
| ||
|
Well, I would say #2 probably best fits my opinion at this point, but what about going back through the year and alotting points for finishes in Open Events. Then pick the 6 players with the highest amounts of points. (Not sure if theres a way to weigh those points as well, like more points for a larger tourney or whatever.) (You would also have to exclude Mixed seeing not everyone gets the chance to play in that event.) Just throwing out ideas and maybe it will trigger something. Moya |
| ||
|
OK, everyone already knows my answer, but for the record...ya....what Tim said. Please stop reading here, unless you want to try to understand why I (and I believe Tim) are so unwavering in our response. I absolutely do not care to debate this issue, nor will I. However, it is self-evident that my previous attempts to explain my reasons have been inadequate. Therefore, being both an eternal optimist and a very persistent (obsessive?)pain-in-the-ass, I will try again. Of the options given, there is only one that is fair and unbiased. In my admittedly narrow-minded and inflexible view, the options that do not meet these two criteria are unethical and therefore I cannot with any integrity even consider them. Sorry, but yes, to me it really is that simple. I personally don't have to waste even one second considering such questions as which method would form the most competitive team, whether or not being competitive is the desired result, whose feelings I might hurt, etc...these are irrelevant to me. In the past I have not adequately addressed those who say "the end justifies the means". I had never considered this argument at great depth myself, but I've now found someone with considerable intelligence who has (M. Adler), so I'll gladly defer to his explanation: ....."But how about good ends? We are always morally justified in working for their accomplishment. Are we, then, also morally justified in using any means which will work? The answer to that question is plainly Yes!! ...thats right he AGREES with you!!??   ............BUT then adds...."People who are shocked by this statement [like I was!] overlook one thing: if an action is morally bad in itself, it cannot really serve a good end, even though it may on the surface appear to do so." See the rest of Adler's very thoughtful and readable essay here: http://www.radicalacademy.com/adlerendsmeans.htm |
| ||
|
So... to paraphrase what Gerry said, "I pick #1, and yes, that's my final answer." B-) |
| ||
|
The underlying question that should be asked is why was the original question "How should we decide on our National Team for Tornado Worlds 2009?" asked so late? |
| ||
|
Thanks Eric!!! .....I was SOOO hoping I had remembered to say something in there somewhere. BTW I didn't really expect to get the chance, but I dropped into the Victoria location briefly on Aug 8 (Sat). Nice spot! |
| ||
|
fly.. there's been a 5 page discussion going on since mid july on this topic. http://tablesoccerca.ning.com/forum/topics/itsf-team-event-worlds-in these are the options that were talked about during that time. |
| ||
|
I have to send in my vote on this topic by the 23rd (end of Sunday), So i'll wait until 8pm Sunday to send my vote in. So far, what's been posted on this board is #1: 3 votes #2: 2 votes #5: 1 vote |
| ||
|
I'd have to recommend #1 too, Eric (with my apologies re Mario and figuring out uniforms). |
| ||
|
I vote for number 5. To me, the only realistic guage is open events at worlds or hall of fame. Everything else doesn't mean shit. |
| ||
|
k its past 8pm, and i've sent in our vote. #1 it is. for what its worth, i'm a bit disappointed. I'd hoped after all these years of doing things right, we could get past the fear of having to do things in the most absolutely fairest way no matter how that might effect the eventual outcome - we might as well draw names out of a hat. Other national sport teams are able to use coaches or have their team picked by committee - why aren't we? Other national sport teams are able to use some method that ensures that that they are forming the strongest possible team - why aren't we? How long will Canadian teams continue to suffer due to the mistakes that OTHER groups (ie the CTSF) have made. If we continue in this vain, Canada will never be able to put together its best team, and Canada will never be able to compete at the level it should. Is that fair to Canada, is it fair to the best Canadian players - who continually travel and pay hotel costs, and entry fees, and vacation days, to compete with a team knowing that it could of been better? Am I the problem here? If I resign, does this then mean that the TSAC executive can be seen to make its own decisions, and not be seen as attempting to favor one of its executive board members? Almost every decision that TSAC has to make, can be seen to give me advantage in some way or another - as i'm one of Canada strongest players, and do wish to continue to represent Canada on the international stage, but how effective of a board member can i be, if i'm constantly in a COI - and at best have to be careful what i say (like on this topic as it was open for voting - you can see i had an opinion that i could not share). So to the players that i'm supposed to represent what do you think i should do? I'm no longer concerned with the life of TSAC should i leave (as i was before), as Will has shown he can easily lead things going forward. Sorry for the rant - but honestly just want to throw a few things out there now that my doing so can't be seen as self serving. |
| ||
|
I think the lack of people involved with the Federation that have a strong knowledge of what it takes to win at the top level at the biggest tournaments is a detriment. The way I see things evolving now, is in the direction that people who think they dominate their dyp's think they are the best players in the world, and this is not the voice we should have leading the charge. The skill set required to win locally vs abroad at state tournaments vs abroad at the world championships against the best players is totally different. Most people won't realize that the super 5 bar they have at home gets smashed to *bleep*ing pieces when they play a top player for the first time. We need people who know whats really going on in the game to be on the board. |
| ||
|
I think the lack of people involved with the Federation that have a strong knowledge of what it takes to win at the top level at the biggest tournaments is a detriment. The way I see things evolving now, is in the direction that people who think they dominate their dyp's think they are the best players in the world, and this is not the voice we should have leading the charge. The skill set required to win locally vs abroad at state tournaments vs abroad at the world championships against the best players is totally different. Most people won't realize that the super 5 bar they have at home gets smashed to *bleep*ing pieces when they play a top player for the first time. We need people who know whats really going on in the game to be on the board. |
| ||
|
double post. awesome. |
| ||
|
For what it's worth Eric, I agree with you, obviously. I don't have any fear with regards to you and COI, but I know you know that. I've always trusted you with wanting the best for Canada and making the "right" decisions with regard to Canadian foosball. Other than that, I don't really know what to say. I think you might have to make a difficult choice. It's also a little scary to think of the committee existing without you because you have been the main driving force since day one. Not sure who or how it would move forward without you and all your work. Hard for me to also understand that people who don't even compete outside locals have a say as to who should even be on the team. Hmpf is bout all I can say. :( Moya |
| ||
|
Eric - you should post that on a thread that includes all the other message boards. I'm not sure what other people opinions are of you so I wont comment on your post. |
| ||
|
Jeff – I'm not sure if you are talking specifically about me in your post or just the TSAC Exec as a whole... Either way you should probably step up and run for a board position if you think you fit the description that you listed as people who should be taking charge! I’m not sure why you think that to be a good executive on a board a person would need to be a good foosball player... I have a lot of training and experience in marketing, sales, management, etc and I am focusing my efforts on promoting foosball and running tournaments. Not even one tiny part of what I have done as a part of TSAC has anything to do with my skill on the table. You posted saying “The way I see things evolving now, is in the direction that people who think they dominate their dyp's think they are the best players in the world, and this is not the voice we should have leading the charge” I’m not trying to overreact... but I think you mean me because I am clearly attempting to “lead the charge.” I don’t think I am one of the best foosball players in the world, I think I am one of the best foosball promoters in the world. I’ll keep doing my best at both things though |
| ||
|
You were not even on my mind when I made my post. If I have a problem with anyone I will call them out by name. I think you are doing a good job and have had no qualms with what you are doing thus far. That being said, I think without Erics voice within the organization, we will be missing out on a crucial viewpoint on the game. Without his participation, I think the voices from Canadas other top players and other touring players will continue to disapate, leaving us with nobody to learn from and us canadians to repeat the same ol mistakes. and us to repeat all the same mistakes. |
| ||
|
Wow. There's a lot to be addressed in the last few posts but let me only say this for now: Eric: Please do not read anything personal into my vote. I thought very long and hard about my vote. I followed every word of the related discussions daily and strongly considered at least one of the other options. I never viewed this as being a non-confidence vote on your TSAC leadership and I think it's incorrect to characterize the results in that way. There's more that needs to be said but that'll have to do for now. Earl |
| ||
|
We don't have outstanding leadership yet from no one, not that i've seen. Seems like to me, Canada is kind of like an expansion team just getting its feet wet. No long traditions, just a few pro masters, so on. What Eric is doing is what is needed to be done for the time being, with what we got, and that is simply to get things moving forward. Eric, I wouldn't be dissapointed with the outcome, infact it was a success. You wanted participation from your province, you let people know 5 options and you said the method will be decided with the most votes, and BC spoke up. 32 replies. You accomplished what you planned to do and it was completed. Good job man! Keep carrying out your duties as the current Rep. You are doing fine. But I must add this. Post#1 and then Post #24 is doesn't show consistency. Since you posted 24 you should have urged the player base to vote for a particular method you prefered. With that said, It's a thrill to get an oppurtinity to get a chance to play for Canada, and I'm sure every Canadian who is making the trip to Dallas will play their best! Good luck to all, (especially to myself and my partners  |
| ||
|
Will - the main reason this is coming up is because we have a few very strong opinions here in BC about the way things need to be done, and i'm trying to gain some clarity on whether or not it would be any different (and hopefully better), if i was not on the exec. Its the BC players that i'm supposed to represent when i'm not acting as president, so i'll leave it local for now. |
| ||
|
oh and by the way, we've had to run this vote again - we didnt follow our constitution -and narrow down the choices to 2 options. The reason that wording was added to the constitution was to avoid the situation where the eventual winner was not voted for by the majority of the exec. as it turned out in this case. The first vote (which no longer stands) ended up 2 votes for #1 1 vote for 2, 3, and 4 (each had 1 vote) as you can see we had too many options and the votes scattered all over the place. I'm re-assuming my role as President (as per Will's request) - so Earl will be voting in my stead. It's up to him how he wants to handle the BC vote going forward, as he is not in the COI that I was in - as it is pretty obvious now, that my personal opinion was quite different than the eventual vote that BC cast. |
| ||
|
Next One: The reason that post #1 and post #24 are so different is central to this whole thing. I'm a player and i'm an executive board member for TSAC. As the executive board member, its my job to post as i did in #1 - and i should not attempt to sway the voters in any way during that vote, as i'm in a conflict of interest, as my swaying the voters can be seen to benefit myself. For example, my personal opinion, is that picking a coach is the best way to go - and to be honest - i think i should be that coach. But if i attempt to sway the voters to pick that option, then it can be seen that i'm only doing so to get myself on the team - as apposed to doing what's right for the team. Once the vote was over, i shared my personal opinion in post #24 - as at that time the vote was over and me voicing my opinion would not be seen to benefit myself or get myself on the team. So ultimately as a board member i'm never going to be able to share my thoughts on a topic if that topic can at all benefit me as a player in any way. So how good of a board member can i be, if all i can do is facilitate the discussion and call some votes. I guess as the president that's what they're supposed to do, but often i feel i have good ideas, that i'd like to share, but can't cause often times they favor the better players, or the players with high rankings - or the players that travel more. and hey that's me. Where normally a non-player board member would go, hmm we need to form a team. hmm . who's our best players. hmm. well we can look at rankings, or past tournament results. that seems obvious. but i as a board member and player can't do that - cause ultimately as one of the better players in Canada - any of those choices ultimately picks me in the end. ARRGGHGH |
| ||
|
Politics! Awesome. So when is this qualifier so I can not show? |
| ||
|
lol Jeff. Seriously though, there’s not necessarily going to be any qualifier. There’s going to be a second vote - see Eric’s post #35 above. I’ll start a new thread about the new vote. |
| ||
|
Bear with me...I think this story from PHD supervisor IS relevent.... He was once on an international committee to select the recipients of some major research grants. The committee elected a Russian member as their President. After discussion, votes on individual grant applications were carried out by hidden vote, and several of these went by without any problems and nearly unanamous agreement. However, funding for one application, CLEARLY supported by the president and several others during discussion, was then rejected by the majority. After the vote was announced, their was an awkward silence after which the president, very hesitantly and with heavy accent asked: "vellll.......what now?......(more awkward silence).. ...ve vote again?" The point is that we should not even be having this vote, as it has already been done (....As Eric alludes to when he says "I'd hoped after all these years of doing things right, we could get past....", and is even already included in the constitution: 10.2.2 Canadian champions can be named in one of two ways: through a competitive process (like a national championships tournament, or finishing first in a national ranking system), or named via a selection process (where the I.T.S.F. committee will accept applications and pick the best candidates). and: 10.2.3.8 In the case where a competitive process CANNOT be run in a given election year, for whatever reason, the I.T.S.F. committee MUST use a selection process to determine Canadian champions. The capitalization in 10.2.3.8 is mine, to emphasize that, AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED AND ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION, a selection process is ONLY to be used when a competitive process is not possible. In this case a competitive process is possible and this vote should be declared unconstitutional. OK, granted, the previous was discussion specifically about ITSF events, but the principles are all the same, and the constitution should just be expanded to cover all international events where TSAC has to "pick" players to represent Canada. Just like the Quebec referendum, you shouldn't be able to keep rewording this question and resubmitting it until you get the answer you want. ONE LAST point re. the constitution: Eric, I know you find the team selection issue important and obviously are frustrated by not getting involved in the discussion. The COI the constitution SHOULD (and does) give you the option of having someone else replace you on the committee, in which case the COI is removed. However, THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD THEN ALLOW YOU TO BE FULLY INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION(with the understanding that you do so as a player not as an executive of TSAC). I THINK this WAS the intent of: 11.2 An executive member must realize when they are in a conflict of interest and EITHER allow a different person to take their position in a committee, even if only temporarily, (if this is where the COI is manifested) AND by abstaining from voting on the issue in question, and by not actively participating in a discussion in a way that may sway the other executive members to the executive member’s gain. This effectively removes the executive member from the COI position. As indicated by the word EITHER, the "AND" in the above clause should have been "OR". (ie. be replaced OR stay on the committee, shut up and don't vote). EITHER ACTION SHOULD REMOVE THE COI (and if not in COI due to being replaced, then there is nothing to stop you from discussion about anything you want). All that is needed is a one word change to the constitution to correct a "grammatical error"! |
| ||
|
Thanks for the clarification Jeff, I agree that we need Eric (or Eric style leadership) in TSAC for sure. I posted on the TSAC board asking not to be president and I would at least like a year or two in the organization and time to meet all of the Canadian foosers that I am representing before stepping into that role(if I ever do step into it). |
The last post to this thread is more than 30 days old.