| Topic: BC speak up, Part Deux!! |
| ||
|
So there’s a new vote that has been called by Eric (below). Because he called the vote as Prez, Eric will not be voting as BC rep – I’ll have a vote as the BC delegate. << Quote from Eric >> We're running this vote again, as we should of narrowed down the choices to 2 (as outlined in our constitution) - and the result showed the reason why it’s important to do that (the eventual winner was not chosen by the majority of the voters). How should we decide on our National Team for Tornado Worlds 2009? 1. 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. << End Quote >> As Eric sought all BC players’ opinions, I’ll do the same. But there’s a tight deadline of Thursday evening for the votes to be submitted. So I’ve interpreted the previous thread’s votes (see below) in order to give this discussion a jump start. Previous vote: #1: 4 votes Tim, Gerry, Rob G, Earl #2: 2 votes Craig, Moya << this option remains available in the 2nd vote >> #5: 2 votes Dave A, Jeff << this option has been eliminated >> My best guess for the new vote: #1: 3 votes Tim, Gerry, Rob G #2: 5 votes Craig, Moya, Dave A, Jeff, Eric D Dave & Jeff (or others), please don’t blast me too hard if this is too presumptuous. I just feel that you guys have a preference for a ‘selected’ team and though I’d place your votes there. Again just trying to jump-start the discussion. I have to send in BC’s vote 9pm Thursday Aug 27. I will do as Eric did, I will vote with the majority – feel free to email if you don’t want to post here. |
Posted: Aug 25 2009 2:12PM
| ||
|
Ijust posted this on the other thread, but it should be here: 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. |
| ||
|
Not presumptious. I don't think I 'll make the team any way we slice it, so no worry for me. |
| ||
|
Earl, I think you are being too presumptuous in your re-interpretation of the earlier vote. Although much of the discussion has been around select versus qualify, there is MUCH more to consider here.....SO I'm OK with it jump-starting discussion as long as the current "official" vote is 0-0. I vote #1 for 3 reasons: 1) As explained and uncontested in the previous thread...option 1 is the only fair, unbiased and ethical answer. 2) Option 2 gives no opportunity for lesser known players to prove themselves to others. It is little more than a "name-recognition" or "popularity" contest. 3) It is widely accepted that those that win a competition are actually the best at something, at least at that given point in time and amongst that given group of competitors. (In fact, why the hell would you bother with any competition if this were not true?) Therefore, though I personally could care less about this particular objective, I would argue that Option 1 is most likely to pick the "best" team from among those who choose to compete. Surely the pre-season predictions made by even the most qualified analysts should be enough to rule out "voting" as a method to pick the "BEST" at ANYTHING. |
| ||
|
BTW anything said in reply 3 does not contradict what I said in reply 1.....this vote is unconstitutional and should be stopped! To paraphrase the constitution: selection by any other method should only occur where competition is not possible. |
| ||
|
Gerry, you can't have it both ways. You can't quote constitution verbatim to support one claim, and then quote other lines in the constitution that kind of relates to support that claim further. It's either all or nothing. There are no lines in our constitution that directs us as to how to pick teams for any of the ITSF team events that occur at the various world championships. And now that you mention it - yes there should be. Yes there is direction as to how to pick our national champions and our world cup team members - but these events and/or designations are different enough in my opinion that these lines are not directly applicable. even if we wanted to use them 10.3.6 Based on these inputs, the I.T.S.F. committee will present a short-list of options to the T.S.A.C. president, who will narrow the list down to 2 choices. we did not narrow it down to two choices so we're having the vote again - with the two choices. one could also argue, that a competition is not possible, as some of the players are not going to be in attendance for such a qualifier, so is that fair to them? would you rather we should just leave this up to the ITSF committee to pick the team? I'd think not. Just to be open - and to let everyone know, i'm gotten a little tired of walking on egg shells to do everything perfect - and acting without reproach so there's no sliver of doubt ever as to my intentions - but in reality, my intentions are for the better of table soccer in Canada - i know that, and if you don't like the way i'm running things, then step up and run me out of office next election. This is not directed at anyone in particular - although we'd love the help, this is just a bit of communication that i'm likely to change my mode of operation a bit, so i can be of more use to the federation - and voice my opinion more - and not be so concerned that me doing so is benefitting myself in some way. and if people don't like it - then they can take my spot - or at least try. I trust folks like Gerry and Tim will keep me in line, and that's great - lets just stick to the constitution, and mix in a bit of reality, and we'll all get alone just fine. again if you don't like it, step up and take my spot. |
| ||
|
This whole thing is silly now. Earl please don't cast my vote till I make it official please. It's a tough one though. Mario doesn't want to qualify. He is a huge asset to team Canada. He expects to be on the team. That is why I assume that we are changing the format for the national team. We've been having qualifiers for the last 3 years, and through that the best teams were assembled. Mario qualified at those events. This year he doesn't want to qualify but we want him on the team. So option pick the team. Everyone else is spending their savings to go make this trip to Dallas. They should all have a say. The best players at qualifiers will go through, like in the past. Most players have improved from last year and may show that now they are one of the best, where last year they weren't. A lot can change in a year. Why deny these players an opportunity to prove themselves. Hot semi's....well if they are playing well enough to beat pro-masters, then they may be good enough to be on the team. That will give us as a nation to help them grow no? Next year just have a clause where pro masters automatically make it. It will save us all this grief. It's causing me grief, because i care. I'm sure BC will speak up. I'll cast my vote later. |
| ||
|
Isn't the qualifier a byp doubles? If that's the case, you will never, ever, ever, in a million years get the best team. period (dramatization bitches). The qualifier that is run every year is a terrible way to assemble a team because it only covers how one team will do against other canadian teams. So absolutley asinine. I have never heard of national teams of any sport ever holding a qualifer. They are picked by the coach or by a selection committee. Every time. Ohhh thats right, I forgot when Wayne Gretzky picked Canada's national team he had an open tryouts...that's how you guarantee the gold. lol. |
| ||
|
Well i believe in the qualifier.. Just like all sports, if you happen to be playing good at that time, you should make the team. I've never heard of anyone making any olympic event by getting a free pass, so therefor we should be no different. Earl i vote for qualifier. |
| ||
|
The only reason we are doing this vote again, is because it was run incorrectly the first time round - we had too many options to pick from, and the votes got scattered around - the proper way to conduct a vote is outlined in our constitution - and we missed an important step of narrowing down the options to vote on to only 2 (and not 5). Mario did not say he did not want to qualify. He simply stated that he will not arrive in time for a qualifier if one is held friday morning like we've done in the past. My concern is also that in previous years Kane has stated that he will not attempt to qualify. he's stated this in the past - and he was automatically on last years team through some results of some other tournmanet (i can't remember the specifics). he might do the same this year - so we might have no mario and no kane. Although i have not spoken to Kane yet this year, but he made it very clear last year this was the way he felt. |
| ||
|
The format of the qualifier is not layed out in stone - and is not outlined anywhere. yes we had a doubles round-robin byp the previous 2 years. Personally , i would think the format should be: Pro-Masters (Eric, Mario, and Kane) qualify, everyone else plays a round robin singles qualifier to fill the remaining 4 spots (3 + 1 spare). See - there i go - sharing my opinion. Watcha think? |
| ||
|
I like yer dramatization, Jeffie and totally agree with you. I was going to mention something exactly like that Eric, only didn't know if it would even be an option that would qualify being voted on. Everyone else, Sorry, but really, if you put in the time and the money and effort to get to Pro Master statis, you should be automatically qualified for the team. Period. (just for Jeffie. ;)) A doubles byp means f all. That's just the way I feel. This is going to sound really horrible I'm sure, but as much as I am proud to play for Canada, I don't really wanna bust my ass to get points for a team that doesn't stand at least a chance. I know there are only a few people in Canada who would be able to stand up to the fire power of the US and other European countries as well. Those are the people who have had the most experience playing those players, never mind a few wins against them under their belt. Sorry, you (whomever who doesn't like my opinion) can sue me, but I've paid my freaking dues to be on the best team we can put together. |
| ||
|
I don't think the selections should be based on points. IE:Pro Masters automatically on the team, since if you attend enough and don't go out in two you'll gain points Don't get me wrong if im picking a team the three "Pro-Masters" are on it. A committee should be selecting the team(TSAC) ask for applications to be on the team stating accomplishments and what they can bring to the team and go from there. From what i can tell, myself included we want a qualifier because of no steps being taken to select the best team when it has been selected. Make the selection process semi-public and everyone would be fine with it. |
| ||
|
an update on Mario and Kane, i phone them both today. Kane is down for anything - so if there is a qualifier he'll play in it. Mario is in Dallas, but is not available during the day on Friday - so will not be able to enter a qualifier if there is one. to me its just stupid if Mario is not on this team - no matter the selection process - same goes for the other pro-masters |
| ||
|
Craig I didn't understand some of reply #12...are you in favor of option 2 or 1? Thx, Earl |
| ||
|
Eric said: .,..” if you don't like the way i'm running things, then”…… Eric; please try not to take these discussions so personally. I, for one, do like the way you are running things. I certainly don’t regret being among those that tried to encourage you to take a leading role with TSAC as it was rising from the ashes of the CTSF, even when you questioned your suitability/popularity/desire to do so. I doubt that TSAC would even exist today if you had not answered that “call to duty”. Therefore, while I support and encourage your decision to become more active in discussions, I would be most disappointed if my opinions/rebuttal/”arguments” were to contribute to your consideration of resigning from TSAC. I always TRY to direct my “arguments” at specific opinions/ideas that I disagree with, but I know my tone/style can sometimes come across as being personal. It is not meant to be, so please put on a thick skin. Eric said: “Gerry, you can't have it both ways. You can't quote constitution verbatim to support one claim, and then quote other lines in the constitution that kind of relates to support that claim further. It's either all or nothing. Sorry I’m not sure what you are referring to here, but it sounds like you are suggesting that I took something out of context, which I did not….I quoted two parts of the constitution, both verbatim and both in their entirety. AND the second quote (10.2.3) isn’t just some other part of the constitution that “kinda relates” to the first (10.2.2), rather it is from the very next clause…though I grant that is the very last sub-clause of 10.2.3 (i.e. it is 10.2.3.8) Since taking the quotes verbatim didn’t prove to be as clear as I had hoped, I will paraphrase for simplicity…. -clause 10.2.2 says that either competition or selection can be used - clause 10.2.3 (subclauses 1-8) further explain the competitive possibilities starting with 10.2.3.1 “the I.T.S.F. committee SHOULD attempt to arrange a competitive process each year” and ending with 10.2.3.8 “in the case where a competitive process CANNOT be run”….a selective one must be used. - clause 10.2.4 (subclause 1-9) then goes on to explain possible selective processes. Eric said: ”There are no lines in our constitution that directs us as to how to pick teams for any of the ITSF team events that occur at the various world championships…” I didn’t say there were. I said “granted, the previous was discussion [and by inference the resulting constitution was based on discussion] SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ITSF EVENTS. Considering the title of section 10 of the constitution is “I.T.S.F Matters” I don’t think I was misleading anyone here. Eric said: “ but these events and/or designations are different enough in my opinion that these lines are not directly applicable even if we wanted to use them” As already stated, I agree they are different events and therefore that this part of the constitution is not DIRECTLY applicable. Furthermore, I will concede that (unfortunately) the committee is therefore not bound by this part of the constitution. However, I stand by my original statement that “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” i.e. I agree that the constitution does not apply, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD! Do you think the selection process should be different for ITSF events versus Tornado events versus ?? (either generally or specific events due to their format, number of players on the team, etc.) Eric said: ”10.3.6 Based on these inputs, the I.T.S.F. committee will present a short-list of options to the T.S.A.C. president, who will narrow the list down to 2 choices….we did not narrow it down to two choices so we're having the vote again - with the two choices.” 10.3.6 is irrelevant to the current discussion, since it is a clause within secti |
| ||
|
Jeff said: "I have never heard of national teams of any sport ever holding a qualifer. They are picked by the coach or by a selection committee. Every time." I guess you haven't heard of the tournament of hearts? Other sports (besides curling) may not specifically call it a qualifier, or may not have a single qualifying event, but some sort of qualification is required to compete on the National team of many if not most sports. I can't be bothered to look up all of these so I may be wrong on one or two, but to name just a few....as far as I know..... gymnastics, track, swimming, skating, and many other "olympic" sports have National Championships. Certain placements in these National event(and perhaps regional events) qualifies one to compete at the next level...say commonwealth games etc ...which in turn and/or in combination with other results or standings then qualifies the members of the National team for the Olympics, World Championships etc. IMO the only time qualification may not make sense is in "true" team sports like Hockey or Basketball where team interactions can be critical, and many not-so easy to quantify roles must be filled ("STay at Home" defenseman, penalty killer, "power" forward, face-off specialist, etc.) I say "true" team sports to distinguish them from say "Team gymnastics" where team members really carry out their events as individuals, but their points are then combined in some way. In these sports I think qualification tends to be the rule rather than the exception. Foosball "Team events" may be somewhere between the two extremes, but' I'd argue it is more like the gymnastics model than the hockey model. If the FORMAT of qualification is asinine then change it. Why wait till now? |
| ||
|
Eric said: "i would think the format [for qualification in Dallas] should be:Pro-Masters qualify,...everyone else plays a round robin singles qualifier to fill the remaining 4 spots (3 + 1 spare).... Watcha think? " Got that Earl? ERIC VOTES FOR #1 (qualification).   I don't mind qualifications being based on current standings (and its obvious that Tornado standings should be used for Tornado events). The remaining 4 spots still give unknowns a lot of incentive. The system also has a fair amount of potential going forward, as it could fairly easily be modified to accommodate different tables and various numbers of team members (e.g. stipulate that about 50% of the team be qualified by the most relevant and current tour standings)...so I'd give this SYSTEM fairly high marks. Personally, I'd prefer that this system or something similar be put on the table for discussion next year. At this late date, changing the qualification method to anything other than the method used last year will clearly have AT LEAST the appearance of being done to accommodate a particular player (Mario). Still, given the assumption that all the pro-Masters would almost certainly qualify by competition (if they competed), most lower ranked players might find this system to be an acceptable compromise even for this year. In the long run Tour Pros (and perhaps semis)are most likely to be "hurt" by this system. They would no longer be able to "steal" a spot from those "above" them, while they would still be open to being upset by those from "below". AND like the Pro-Masters they have paid their fair share of dues over the years. |
| ||
|
OK....hopefully mY LAST POST.... Earl, you are not in any sort of COI so why would you not vote the second time? Of course either of you could change your mind, but assuming you don't, then having Eric vote and you not vote will automatically change 2 of the original 7 votes...a swing of more than 25% without anyone actually changing their minds.....(mind you I think Eric should have voted the first time around ). |
| ||
|
I don't even know wtf is going on anymore after Gerry or Erics posts sometimes,and if Tim comes in, I might as well just quit my day job to completely read and makes sense of some of these messages....lol That being said, the/another argument is that there is a chance that not all of the pro-masters will make the team. I know last year Eric and Mario lost to Dave and Fred, then they were a ball away from not even being on the team because of Robert and Nelson, all rookies in the US Points book. If you guys think the pro-masters have an easy in to make it on the team, your kidding yourselves and the skill set of the players here. That doesen't necessarily make them the best candidates for the National Team (which is where the argument for the pro/cons of the vote come in), and I am not saying who is or isn't, but if you think it's a free ride for masters then your in for a surprise at the qualifier. |
| ||
|
Gerry, i'm not taking this personally at all. I've just decided that instead of resigning, i'm not going to attempt to be perfect anymore, and not share my opinions due to me constantly being in some type of COI. I'd never do anything that would be unfair, and i trust that you and tim will keep me in check if i ever mistep. Yes i agree the constitution should be updated to handle this selection process. But i don't agree that we can take it as it is, and use the lines that make sense, and just ignore the ones that don't make sense. That's what i was referring to when i said you can't have it both ways. Yes there are lines in 10.3 that would make sense, but then many other that just don't: like: 10.3.1, 10.3.2 10.3.5 .8 .9 and .10 When there's this many that don't make sense, i start to doubt if its applicable, cause it was written to be very specific. anwyas i gotta get back to work. B-) |
| ||
|
Now that I have a headache, I must change my vote to #2 this year. I still beleave in qualifiers but they are usually after a full season of regonal events where only the top players would attend the nationals I think a coach like moya or eric(or another just a qualified) can do a good job of picking the best people for the team, just because you have one good tournament dosnt mean your the best person for the job whatever we do we need to set it up much better for next year and start now..... it would be nice to have a reason to try at a local event |
| ||
|
Thanks Robert. So I guess I’d like to officially hear from Tim which option he favours…but until then: Starting from 0-0 according to the posts on this thread, I have a count of: #1: … 2 votes Gerry, Tuan #2: … 5 votes Craig, Moya, Jeff, Eric D, Robert G (Craig, am I right that you are still in favor of option 2?) Awaiting decisions from Tim & Dave A, and of course anyone else that wants to chime in! I’ll submit my vote to TSAC after 9pm tomorrow. |
| ||
|
Gerry, I felt that Eric showed good instincts to ask for input before the last vote and I thought I would follow his example. Of course I realized that using this process to decide was going effect the BC vote - that’s what led to my initial post including my presumptive vote count. But I still feel it’s important that the vote coming out of BC reflects the current opinion of the BC players - not just my opinion. |
| ||
|
Earl, I am NOT saying that you shouldn't ask for input, I am saying that you should still add your own personal vote to the tally. You are not in any COI and there is no reason to believe that your vote would unduly influence anyone elses. Also, I think that you are probably correct in guessing how people WOULD vote, but if you really start this vote at 0-0 and go through this whole thread counting only clear votes, then the current tally is 2-1 in favour of option 1 (or possibly 2-2 if you read a bit into Jeff's comment). You shouldn't assume anyones vote, since it is entirely possible that they could have had a complete change of heart, just as Robert apparently has done (without stating any reason other than that he now has a headache). Would it have been unethical of me too have waited until it was too late to vote before pointing this out? Has it even occurred to anyone else that the MAJORITY of players in Dallas will NOT be on the team (the last list of attendees I saw was 14 not counting the women). Wouldn't it be "interesting" if say eight players that are (otherwise)unlikely to make the team were to get together for a little chat prior to casting their votes in Dallas. (Voting as a block they could conceivably elect all but 2 of themselves to the team, perhaps drawing straws to decide which 2 had to sit out with the promasters.) |
| ||
|
ugh.. GERRY. now you've gone and done it.. you know only evil people would actually do this, and you know the great thing about evil people, they are usually stupid. Stupid people usually don't see stuff like this gerry. but now you've gone and given them the idea. jeesh you're one of these evil geniuses aren't you gerry! good thing this is only on the vancouver boards. hmm maybe when i make the ballots, we'll have the promasters names already checked in INK - that'll fixem. This whole process is just stupid. should of used a coach. |
| ||
|
coach/selection commitee would have been the best option. |
| ||
|
how can you pick the best people for this wihtout having them prove their skills. A vote wont dont anything. how would any sport go if they voted in the players, its not for the hall of fame. you need to have qualifiers and the best people make up the team. seems like lots of talking over something that is pretty simple |
| ||
|
I've spoken to many player over the phone and come to this and my prior vote of having a coach selecting the team has changed. I didn't have all the details, and now I do. I want to add that it is so sad that there are so few us who give a darn to come on here and vote. Mario is a huge part of team Canada, but not bigger than the principle. It's way too late to be doing this. The best way to do this is Pro Master's automatically qualify and the rest get a chance to qualify. TSAC should just throw the raggy rules out this year and make it that way. JUST DO IT!! JUST DO IT!! This whole thing is a disaster, it's time to make it right. FORGET THE RULES for just this year. JUST THIS YEAR!! Following years will benefit if you have the courage to do this. If we cannot....My vote is for a QUALIFIER. Thank you for you time, I hope the people who caused this turmoil can at least make an effort to get all Canadians to still feel like family. |
| ||
|
..in Dallas. |
| ||
|
#1: … 3 votes Gerry, Tuan, Eric K #2: … 5 votes Craig, Moya, Jeff, Eric D, Robert G Gerry, I will trust that all the people listed here can speak up for themselves without your help if I have got their vote wrong. That's why I posted the tentative total 24 hours early. |
| ||
|
Earl....thats WHAT I AM ASKING FOR, that they speak for themselves instead of having YOU interpret their answers based on the old vote and some very unclear statements on this thread. I have not tried to speak for them in any way, though I did agree with you that you probably have it right! however, as you already noted, Craig's vote is very unclear now, as he still has onlyb supported Coach choice which is no longer on the table. If he doesn't clarify it even after you asked him to, then it is probably because he did not see your request, not that he agrees with where you placed his vote. In any case, if you are going to assume 4 votes that were never made, then the least you should do is do the same for Tim (I am willing to take a chance here and speak for Tim since we have discussed similar issues at length, but surely NOBODY thinks he has changed his mind!). He has probably been too busy and assumes that all this was put to rest with the first vote. And that still leaves your vote. Yes you must vote the majority decision when you enter the vote with TSAC, but you have a right (even duty) to vote with your own conscious on this local vote. I'm not so sure you haven't changed your mind, but asuming that you have not, then my vote count is 5-4 for choice 1 (or possibly 5-5 if Craig clarifies). One last point....I totally agree with Eric and Dave....."this whole process is just stupid" and "this whole thing is a disaster". Its just too ironic that the only way you can still guarantee that Mario (or even Eric) are on the team is to vote for qualification, and then automatically qualify all promasters. Its not a great answer, but it just might be the "best" alternative left. |
| ||
|
Sorry Dave, I missed that you posted right before me: #1: … 4 votes Gerry, Tuan, Eric K, Dave A #2: … 5 votes Craig, Moya, Jeff, Eric D, Robert G |
| ||
|
please read the options again, The vote is not between a qualifier and a captain. It is between a qualifier and everyone in attendance from canada voting. and just as a fyi the second choice was my idea in the first place so yes my vote is for #2 and as a side note mario should have kept his mouth shut, "Mario is in Dallas, but is not available during the day on Friday - so will not be able to enter a qualifier if there is one." so hes going to be there...... and rather than rant about it more ill just leave it at that. Also i said that everyone interested in playing for the team post why they should be on the team and what they bring to it. "I say "true" team sports to distinguish them from say "Team gymnastics" where team members really carry out their events as individuals, but their points are then combined in some way. In these sports I think qualification tends to be the rule rather than the exception. Foosball "Team events" may be somewhere between the two extremes, but' I'd argue it is more like the gymnastics model than the hockey model. " I tend to disagree, most players have a preference of what they play and are much stronger in one area or the other. Therefore a qualifier if it is singles, gets the strongest forwards and players that are good at both, no goalies make it on. If you play it as byp doubles, its completely dependent on how good your teamwork is and who plays with you. |
| ||
|
This is retarded.. no wander vancouver foosball scene is dead.. It's not how much money you spent or how much time you put in the game that get you on the team, but how good your playing at that time.. The best always rises to the top, so whats the problem??? Make it out of five then we shouldn't have a problem of who is lucky and playing hot at that time. For the ones that don't want to qualify and just put on the team.. I say, " you should do it for the love of the game and your country and put your ego a side. Jeff.. for you to compare this to hockey is retarded.. you cant qualify one on one in hockey but you can in foosball. Just like swimming or track, the ones that make the single or team event has to qualify to get on. |
| ||
|
I believe to be the best you gotta beat the rest.. To wanna stay on top you gotta stop the slop... I vote for 1 qualifier!!! |
| ||
|
I vote for 1. See everyone there. Fred Gower |
| ||
|
I believe to be the best you gotta beat the rest.. To wanna stay on top you gotta stop the slop... I vote for 1 qualifier!!! |
| ||
|
Double-posting doesn't count as two votes, Rob. |
| ||
|
ok now it's: #1: … 6 votes Gerry, Tuan, Eric K, Dave A, Rob S, Fred #2: … 5 votes Craig, Moya, Jeff, Eric D, Robert G I was wonderin if you'd chime in Fred! Happy to hear that you'll be there. Craig thx for you're clarification - just being double-sure. I know, I know... both Fred & Robbie are a bit late but I really don't want to be persnickety about such details. I'll check back at 11pm - that will have to be the final tally... |
| ||
|
Ok after 11....whew....of course none of this means a darn thing because at the exec level the vote will likely be 3 for voting and 2 for qualifying. |
| ||
|
This is a no brainer, my game sucks right now so I won't even b going to Dallas , but if my 3 and 5 bar didn't stink I would like to actually gave the opportunity of earning a spot, because if it's a popularity contest anything can happen |
| ||
|
I have submitted BC's vote as option 1. Look for the final Canada-wide tally on the TSAC site thread. http://tablesoccerca.ning.com/forum/topics/tsac-vote-2-how-should-we Thank you to everyone who contributed to the discussions. |
| ||
|
Qualifier wins: details of qualifier can be found at: http://tablesoccerca.ning.com/forum/topics/qualifier-at-tornado-worlds-to 11am Friday - round robin goalie-option singles |
| ||
|
Earl, thanks for your energy on this. My chiming in will be a simple one. In my opinion, I only see a couple of votes that are not self serving. I.E. the more experienced and higher ranked players (internationally) think there should be a vote (which they are likely to win). The rest want qualifiers which gives them a shot. Maybe there are one or two exceptions to that but not many. The U.S. has enough events either rankings or public opinion (a vote) would both pick a pretty damn good team. Canada is not in the same boat. Yes, there are some players who seem to be locks on the team due to their international experience but them some others e.g. Tuan that has limited International experience but if he was ever in a position to go to worlds that he should be given a shot. If the best are the best they should be able to qualify. A lot of people across Canada get on my case whenever I state my opinion that Mitch is still one of the best players in Canada. I don't think that he is interested in going but if he were then someone with his skill should also have a shot at making the team. Also, Dave and Robbie (when his game is on) are both good enough to be considered but neither is likely to win any popularity contests. All of those people I mention are also my friends so it is in my self serving interest to vote #1. I admit it. I would also like the chance to play against some of Canada's best and even though I would be a long shot to qualify it would be great experience. Mario can't make it then and likely Dave and I will be playing AM events when the qualifier is on. That is unfortunate but perhaps unavoidable. I would expect a good number of the ones likely to win in a vote (e.g. Kane, Eric, Mario, Matt, Darryl, and Moya) would all make the team even of they had to qualify. Yes, Team Canada for hockey had all invites but they still have to compete for a spot both on the team (I know a few are locks no matter how qualifying goes) and also for their position on the team (e.g. starting goalie). Also, they get to play each other throughout the National Hockey league schedule enough that this could be considered in effect an open qualifier for the National team. In our case, a qualifier in Dallas may not result in the best team necessarily, but it is the most fair and it is in the best interests of both myself and of most of my friends. I am not going to try to justify it any more than that. I also didn't want to get too involved because I am moving back to China soon so won't be able to be a big part of Canadian foosball in the foreseeable future. I do hope to perhaps qualify for the ITSF worlds as a senior perhaps in a couple of years. Maybe Gerry and I could team up even? Any way. Whoever is on the team will get my support in the matches. Regards, Fred |
| ||
|
>In my opinion, I only see a couple of votes that are not self serving. My vote couldn't possibly be self serving except if you count that I want to play for a team that is built from foundation which has been proven to me. Pro Masters on tour have earned their right as current and touring Pro Master who continue to perform and produce at the highest levels. You wanna (excuse my french) newb with a hardon who has nothing to lose play to outscrub a Pro Master..(yes it's been done before) to get on a World Cup team. Where is the freaking justice? PM's have to pay more, win more, to earn little. I tell ya, as sick as this sounds....I almost feel like not even being on the team. Like I said, working my ass off, for????????? Yah, I'm a lil bitter and a lot opinionated. Sounds horrible, but I think this system is more horrible. Laters |
| ||
|
The system is horrible. That being said, my point about hockey picking a team is the same as any pro sport where they draft/pick their team. Gymantics and all that bullshit in the olympics are amateurs - once you go pro you cannot play (exceptions being in hockey, basketball, and a few others - where the team is picked). I can beat everyone anyway, so what do I care. You all suck at foos. Later. |
| ||
|
Moya.. If you read the qualifier flier, you would see that pro masters automatically qualify. Most people voted and won thinking everyone had to qualify, when all said and done you atill got what you wanted, so what's the problem. Foosball isn't hard work, it's game that you should love playing. Personally, I don't really care that pro master automatically qualify or not. To me, the best always seem to find a way to make it anyways. I just wish it was more clear what i was voting for. Maybe i miss a post somewhere. I thought i heard Kane doesn't mind being in qualifier and just Mario cound't make it. At the end, i feel that i wasted my time and we are back where we started. At least hand picking half the team. Thank god the qualification for France is a lot respectable...Looking forward to the next discussion when one of the pro master doesn't qualify for France.. |
| ||
|
Moya, You don't have to qualify, read the flier. There is always a newb who outscrubs a PM but also one who out classes them as well. It's when the game is evolving, new blood taking their natural place in the game. IE, Sydney Crosby, Pavel Datsyuk. like someone said earlier, and i freakin love this quote "I believe to be the best you gotta beat the rest.. To wanna stay on top you gotta stop the slop..." Laters |
| ||
 |
| ||
|
I hope Canada gets smashed. |
| ||
|
Tuean, the method of qualification had not received any sort of official approval prior to last night. In fact, I don't think there had been a lot of discussion about it. I too am a little dissappointed that it was pushed thru without any opportunity for broader discussion (not that I had anything to say  ), but given the late date I'm not too surprised.Don't be too dissapointed that the promasters get a free pass on this one. It wouldn't be my first choice of method, but in a way these players have qualified by being active and obtaining their promaster status. Having a core group of experienced players will make for a solid team, and at least less established (but "hungry") players have half the positions to battle over. I think its a reasonable compromise FOR THIS TIME. IMO the important thing from all this is that a message has been sent that the current system of deciding this for every new tournament is rediculous and will continue to lead to controversy. There appears to be some recognitiopn of this at the executive level. We need to amend the constitution to provide a player selection method that works in a most situations and that also provides broader guidelines/principles to be followed when the overall system does not work. I am also most encouraged by the fact that many of the younger "up-and-coming" players did start to voice their opinion. This issue should matter the most to these players, especially the ones that have started to attend tour events and/or intend to in the future. PLEASE continue to voice your opinions, and don't let the overall "drama" or the strong words of me or anyone else stop you. In the end we all want what is best for the future of Canadian foosball and ultimately that rests with you, not only because you will become the pro-Masters of tomorrow, but also because you will provide a big push for the current top players. Everyone will benefit. |
| ||
|
Jeff said "I hope Canada gets smashed." well I can say for sure that if I was going I would get smashed, at least after the tournament was over. |
| ||
|
Sorry guys, I didn't read the flier, so I didn't know that Pro Masters qualified. But Dave, I wasn't pissed about the system because I was worried about qualifying. I qualify by default because there are only two women going anyhow. I was pissed about the system because I think Pro Masters have earned their right to be on the team. Despite popular belief it's not all that easy to make it to PM. Most people give up after going Pro because there's not enough incentive to keep people going. I actually like the mixture of having PMs automatically qualify and having a qualifier for those up and coming hungry semis out there. We need solid PMs to be able to hold our own in singles and a solid team can be made for doubles with our hungry semis. So there......*sticks out tongue* :p |
| ||
|
"Despite popular belief it's not all that easy to make it to PM." Really? I thought being a pro master was super easy? I just didn't do it because I like all the spots... Ha ha No Canadians are over-ranked in their USTSA points but several are under-ranked e.g. Tuan, Craig, Dave and others. So because of that they need to qualify where others don't? I think your Canadian results should also come into it. Make no mistake, the U.S. is the best place to gain Tornado table experience but it is not the only place. If it was final match in singles against the U.S. I would rather have Tuan in there than any other Canadian player regardless of their experience. Nothing against them. They would all kick my ass. Moya, you are an anomaly. Nothing against the other Canadian lady players but your results are head and shoulders above theirs and of course you deserve to be on every Canadian team with or without a qualifier. But at the same time there should be an opportunity for other Canadian women players to unseat you without having to be a pro master in USTSA points first. People who say this system (democracy) sucks might want to ask Adam Imanpour to come back. His system had a lot more clarity! In China the players don't even expect to have a say or have qualifiers. I hope to change that when I go back. I wonder what the view is like from a Chinese prison? Hugs Freddy |
| ||
|
IN CHINA .. are you going back soon LOL ... He dosen't look asian ..butt and i repeat without lead |
| ||
|
Yes, going back soon. May need to come back to Vancouver first to drink all the free beer I am going to win from you on the foosball table. Played a guy last night here in Florida who had a nice Back Pin series. Too bad he didn't have your 5 bar to go with it. Mwahahaha |
| ||
|
"If it was final match in singles against the U.S. I would rather have Tuan in there than any other Canadian player regardless of their experience. " This is another one of the problems of our best players only playing locally. They are unproven. Pro-masters are proven. Tuan is a great player, but has not shown that his game can also be competitive with other pro-masters especially those in the US. I'm not saying that he would not be competitive, i'm saying he has not proven it YET. I'm hoping Tuan tries out for the team, would be great to see him prove it, and help us beat the US! |
| ||
|
This is going to be my last post on this, since apparently we weren't voting on the format anyways. "In my opinion, I only see a couple of votes that are not self serving. I.E. the more experienced and higher ranked players (internationally) think there should be a vote (which they are likely to win). The rest want qualifiers which gives them a shot. Maybe there are one or two exceptions to that but not many." Your right so instead of getting the best team, its going to be a team of trick shots. Oh and if you take away all the self serving votes option 2 which would create the best team would win. I would also like to know why that Pro masters automatically qualify was added afterward, as this may or may not have changed peoples votes. "Despite popular belief it's not all that easy to make it to PM. Most people give up after going Pro because there's not enough incentive to keep people going." Yes it is hard, and yes you spend a lot more money to get there, but why does this get you a free pass on a qualifier, especially when the "vote" as well call it didn't mention anything about this, and the only reason they don't have to qualify is that someone doesn't WANT to, not can't. In case you people who are going haven't read the format: Players with the most games won after the round robin qualify for the team. In the case of a tie, break ties by head to head (if it applies) goals against (max points against is 7 in a loss, and 6 in a win) goals for (max points for is 7 in a win, and 6 in a loss) if still tied players play another game - same format as above. This is for sure going to get the best team, because the format for the tournament your playing is race to 7 win by 2 as well. "The players let the USTSF know they'd like to be considered, and the USTSF just picks who they think is best for the team." The team that wins uses this format, so what is wrong with it? Or should they hold a race to 7 qualifier too? |
| ||
|
This whole setup is trash. Canada blows. And since I'm still infatuated with that red head from Tobys or whatever the *bleep* it's called I think I'm gonna pack up and move to Edmonds in the ol US of god damn A. |
| ||
|
"This is another one of the problems of our best players only playing locally. They are unproven. Pro-masters are proven." I think that you meant to say that "U.S. ranked Pro Masters are proven" and you are correct. But what they have proven is that they are very good, very competitive but haven't won internationally like say Moya has won. A second on multi table format in Europe is their top finish I believe. I also think that you had some top 10 finishes in major Opens as well. Now those are great results but are they worth a free ride onto the team from here on in? In your opinion and in the opinion of many of the other pro masters - yes, in mine and many others - no. If Frederico was a Canadian that might be a little different. If their experience means that in a big game where it is all on the line that their experience gives them an edge then that should also be the case in a qualifier. Existing U.S. ranked PMs may say that their having a place on the team gives us our best chance to win but they are still being self serving. Non U.S. ranked PMs justify a full qualifier as being better for the game but are just being self serving as well. The problem with being self serving is not the fact that you are just not caring about others and are just in it for yourself. The big problem is that it clouds your opinion often without realizing it. My likely only way on the team is as a senior in a couple of years but those who want to qualify have more of my friends in that camp so I am a little self serving as well I guess. But to me, "open and competitive" sounds better to me than "closed and pre-decided" any day of the week. Weren't we just discussing all this this back in the days of Adam? Tuano IS a pro master locally and is very proven here in Canada (the top player in the last big Alberta tourny) in and I don't see you in any hurry to cross the Juan de Fuca with all that experience you have to play him in any money matches. (Earl, If I put in a smiley face here will it mean that I only meant this as a good natured jab?) The difference is that I am not saying that Tuan should be on the team without qualifying. You Eric, Kane and Mario ( I think those are the male Canadian U.S. ranked pro masters but not sure) are very good and are fine players for any Team Canada. But that group are not so much better than Matt, Darryl, Mitch, Tuan, Robert, Eric K., Eric G., Tavares', Nu Tranh, Mario I., Dave, Jeff and Robbie (when he is playing his best) and several others, that the PMs deserve to be on the team without a qualifier. I realize that a number of the players I mentioned are either not interested in playing in the U.S. or have issues in crossing the border. But this is not necessarily going to be the case in the future. Also, what happens in the future if the number of Canadian (U.S. ranked) pro masters increases? Should there be no qualification? Should only they be allowed to qualify? I wouldn't put too much into rankings. How many times have I heard Jim Stevens referring to Rob Mares as the number one ranked Tornado player in the world just as he was consistently being eliminated by a stronger player who just didn't play as much in matches that had USTSA points attached to it? The current Canadian male pro masters are not another Moya situation where she is so obviously the best Woman player in Canada that it is beyond debate. The male PMs are really good but not head and shoulders above everyone else. And do any of them, you included, have more experience than Mitch? There are other advantages to having more opportunity to make the team. It will lead to: 1) increased attendance of all players in Canadian tournaments and qualifiers, 2) non-complacency in PMs (I am not saying they are now), and 3) faster improvement in Canadian players of all levels. Nothing personal to any Canadian players including even my buddy Tuan but I don't see any current Canadian |
| ||
|
Anyone that speaks more than me .. personally gets there ass kicked ... from here to Shanghai |
| ||
|
And back |
| ||
|
Looking forward to it Flyboy.  |
| ||
|
In response to reply #60 - part of me just wanted to leave it alone, as my mom once told me, 'if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all' - so i'm not going to respond directly - instead i'm going to make a suggestion. Do more research! Before one should go making statement such that were made in reply #60, once should do more research. Take the names of all the male players you've mentioned - and do the following: take a look at their USTSA Ranking take a look at their Warrior Ranking Take a look at the PM players / PM teams they have beaten before take a look at how they finish in Canadian Events These are the things we have to use to measure how good one player is compared to another - without being subjective. If you do what is mentioned above, you will find 3 names that rise to the top well above the rest. I bet you don't even have to do the research to know what those names are. Those players should be automaticaly placed onto the team. |
| ||
|
Eric, Do your own research. You will find that last year I was ranked even with Mario in ITSF rankings. What do I take from that? ITSF Rankings are a joke. But from your suggestion maybe I should just be on the team without qualifying? My other research has me 1 and 0 against you in head to head matches. How about world titles? International experience? Years playing? In any category you want I seem to be coming out ahead. The only difference is that I know that I am still just an average player and that stats can lie. More examples? Tim Ludwig. A great multi table player but not great on any one particular table. Again rankings are lying. I would take Tuan over two of the 3 you mention for whatever money you would like. The 3rd player I am thinking would be fairly even. Sure those 3 have more experience but that alone does not make them better and even if they are better they are not better by enough to be granted a free ride. Let's look at some of the players that I did mention. Matt, Darryl and Tuan. So you are saying that yourself Mario and Kane automatically deserve a spot where they don't? I'd like to know how you have done over the years against Mitch? The most recent Canadian event that I know of was in Calgary and none of the 3 PMs took part. Too bad that would have been a great test for all. I have done my research. On paper, Dave and I stood no chance against you and Mario in the qualifier last year and look what happened. Don't you dare call that a slop out either. If you don't like the race to 7 format don't blame me for that either. Maybe on the table you might beat me but when it comes to debating and swaying opinion you better be careful who you try to take on. Rookie! For the record, the 3 guys you mention are all great players but no qualifying is not winning many votes. If you are just not willing to accept that I guess that is your right. Now when was the next vote for CTSF head again? Ouchhh! Have a nice flight! Freddy |
| ||
|
Fred, normally you're very well spoken and simply just speak your mind, which is great, and why i bothered to reply at all. But now you're just being unreasonable. if you'd like to have a reasonable discussion, i'm game. if you want to call names, i won't bother. |
| ||
|
Sometimes not responding to certain things can be seen as an admission of guilt, so i've decided to respond to these comments as if they were asked in a reasonable and civil manner: Response to lots of statements about mitch and tuan where you share your opinion of their game and compare it to the pro-masters. Thank you for your opinion - but its just that. Your opinion. Opinions should be not taken into account when forming a selection process. "head to head matches": sure include them, but then you have to take into account all head to head matches - and this is just one metric we could use - not the only metric. We should take all metrics into account when forming a decisions - not just those that support your opinion. "International Experience": how much a player travels and loses is not a metric we wish to use - international success - and that's why i included the 'how players have done agaisnt other PM's' "Years playing" - we want quality of play, not quantity . "match with Tuan" again- thanks for sharing your opinion. "mitch" - thanks i've always enjoyed my matches against mitch - and ended up even as far as i can remember, but what bearing does my personal experience against mitch have in this discussion? "Dave and I stood no chance against you and Mario" Yes anything can happen in a race to 7 and if one thinks that you 'stood no chance' then one could reason that 9 times out of 10 Mario and I would of probably won - but thanks for proving that having a qualifier is not the best way to form a team when you put its proven players at risk on making the team due to a substandard format that we seem to end up with every year cause everyone wants to just show up to a single event, and earn a spot on the Canadian team. As TSAC its also our responsibility to form the strongest team that Canada can form, if it wasn't we might as well draw names from a hat. Naming our USTSA Pro-Masters to the team is one way to accomplish this - its the most established ranking system Canadian players participate in. and its TSAC - not CTSF - if you don't like it, step up and take my spot. |
| ||
|
Hey guys, I’ve been following this debate and it has become OBVIOUS THAT MY CONTRIBUTION IS NEEDED! I very much ADMIRE Eric and Moya’s determination to do what is right by making sure they are on the team without qualifying. REMEMBER, THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS, why would they take the chance that some NOBODY might beat them out! When I assemble the first World Cup Team, look how good we did with only a few people who actually qualified. My friends and I were VERY MOTIVATED BY THE HONOR OF REPRESENTING CANADA and that motivation helped us to PERFORM VERY GOOD! If I listen to everyone else, myself and my friends may not have made the team. I never understand why picking yourself for the team is a conflict of interest ESPECIALLY IF YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE THE BEST. That is what I did and so many people couldn’t understand but they didn’t know what I know. I made the CTSF and I HAD EVERY RIGHT to do what I wanted to do. Now the new owners of the CTSF SHOULD HAVE THAT SAME RIGHT AND PEOPLE SHOULD TRUST THAT BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT IS BEST! Isn’t it more important for foosball in Canada for us to have the strongest team there, even if it means the rest of the country is pissed off? I KNOW SO! Finishing in 4th instead of 5th will be HUGE FOR CANADIAN FOOSBALL! Those that aren’t supporter won’t stay mad for ever! I think that the whole team should be hand-picked. SUBJECTIVITY is more ACCURATE than OBJECTIVITY in this sport. That is why the best figure skaters always win, regardless of how they perform in the competition. PUT IN THE TIME, PAY YOUR DUES, AND THE SPORT OWES YOU! I vote for NO QUALIFIER! Thank you. Adam Founder, Canadian Table Soccer Federation |
| ||
|
lol - nice |
| ||
|
Eric, My last words on this will be these. You have been a very hard working leader ever since the Adam leadership disaster. I only used the words CTSF instead of TSAC because that is what it is named in China so it is on the brain for me. We obviously disagree on a number of areas and we probably have some personal opinions about each other that don't need to be aired here. I will be leaving to go back to China next month. If I can ever do anything to help TSAC in any way I am more than happy to do it. With regard to Worlds this year: GO CANADA GO! Fred PS It was nice to hear from Adam again though. LOL. |
| ||
|
just to clear the air. I have no personal opinions about you - not sure what you're referring to there. |
| ||
|
I don't think any of these points mean anything. Everyones point has come from a personal agenda, either it's they don't want to qualify because it will ruin their reputation if they don't and possibly think they may not, or the want a chance to qualify because they think they are better then the personal crop of pro masters and they don't have many comparative tools other then looking at their game or their results. I don't see many top 10 results in singles from the pro-masters, and to me, that's where the results are in pretty plain site. No riding a partners coat tails as in doubles. I am sure everyone can come up with a list of a few top players that they have beat, but the other players have not. Until someone is beating all the top players and consistently in the top 10, then there really isn't much to say. No canadian male has yet proven that they are a threat to the american top players. Doesn't matter if your a pro master or an amateur, the rankings in the states are trash. I personally know a hell of a lot of semi-pros that are better then many of the pro-masters out there (and pros and pms that should be moved down) so the ranking debate doesn't mean shit. Some of the semis I have beaten have beaten the other canadian pro-masters so does that mean I am better then them? These points and debates are rediculously stupid. Bottom line is canada sucks ass at foos, everyone thinks they are better then they are, our team won't win, so don't worry about it. Until a Canadian rips shit up, everyone is talking out of their ass. and oh yea. I am better then all of you. peace. |
| ||
|
looks like i better start going out on tour and ripping shit up then!lol |
| ||
|
"Bottom line is canada sucks ass at foos, everyone thinks they are better then they are, our team won't win, so don't worry about it. Until a Canadian rips shit up, everyone is talking out of their ass." Speak for yerself, yo!!! :p P.S. Im gonna be a little late. ;) |
The last post to this thread is more than 30 days old.