I don't quite follow the bit about unfair travel times. The Canberra players have shorter drives to both Melbourne and Sydney than their counterparts. If the trials are held in Perth, wouldn't the vast majority of people trying out have the same issues regarding jet lag as the WA players flying to the east coast?
Australia is a large country and ultimate players are generally located in the capital cities. Any selection event held in any city, regardless of which one, will benefit the players who live there. I'm not sure what can be done to solve the complexities of distance.
I don't think she's saying to solve it in a way that everyone has to travel the same, I think she's just saying that the coaches need to understand these factors and take them into account during selection events.
I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not quite sure about that. My reading of the post is that Laura believes that AFDA should be more interventionist about including players from all states (i.e., “…to close the distance between the haves and the have-nots.”) My reading that that she is endorsing state quotas in order to promote fairness.
it’s an interesting article. On one hand, she endorses that the national teams should choose the best players. On the other hand, she wants selectors to include non-playing considerations (e.g., does player A have any friends at the trial, is player B’s long plane flight more important than player C’s long drive). If the selectors need to allow for non-playing considerations, how can they make judgements about who are the best players if they’re not evaluating what they see on the fields?
The things you've listed aren't "non-playing considerations". What (I think) Laura is saying is that players play better when they don't have to worry about long flights, sleeping arrangements etc.
Imagine the scenario where a decision making robot chooses the team based entirely on the performance of a player at a selection event:
- player A lives in the city the trial is being held in, slept wonderfully in their own bed, knows the way to the field and a bunch of their friends are also a part of the trial
- player B had to take time off work to fly a day earlier for the trial, slept on the couch of a random who (very generously) opened their home to them, had their mind full of logistics trying to even make it to the field and doesn't have a single person at the trial that they've ever played with before
Assuming their actual skill levels are exactly the same, who do you think is going to perform better at the trial? Decision making robot is probably going to notice that Player A is less sluggish in the morning, has no missed throws due to pre-built chemistry with their friends and plays with absolute confidence. Player B has to be BETTER than A to even compete on the same level.
Now, imagine that decision making robot is actually someone who has seen Player A playing ultimate at least monthly (probably more like multiple times a week) for the last 3 years, and has literally never seen Player B before in their life. Who do you think they're going to pick? Even if Player A has an off day, the selector can say "ah you didn't play your best today, but I've seen what you're capable of (when you're not under the pressure of a selection event) and for that reason I'm going to select you for the team". Meanwhile player B cops "Hey mate nice to meet you, seems like you weren't really able to connect much with your throws out there, seems like you weren't cutting to the places the throwers were expecting you to. Based on what I've seen of you today I don't think you have what it takes, sorry"
Even if Player B is BETTER than Player A, due to the circumstances of the trial, who the coach is and a bunch of other "non-playing factors" as mentioned above, they are much less likely to be selected. That means we end up selecting a worse team.
Laura (again, my read on the text, not trying to put words in her mouth) is not saying that coaches shouldn't select the people they think are best, she's saying that our selection processes should be mindful of the fact that "non-playing considerations" have a big impact on who those coaches think are the best. She's not accusing coaches of actively choosing people they think are worse, she's saying there are unconscious biases leading to them discounting athletes who have more systemic factors standing in the way of their performance being absolutely optimal during selection events.
Yes, a person who gets enough sleep the night before plays better than someone who is sleep-deprived. We agree on that.
The obvious answer is to arrive the night before the selections and get a good night’s sleep. I’ve never tried out for a national team before, but I assume that most selections are held at locations with accommodation nearby.
An objection may be that accommodation and earlier flights cost more than overnight ones. Yes, agreed. That said, though, ultimate is a self-funded sport. If I remember correctly, the estimated cost of the U24 campaign held in Germany was $10-13,000. If a player can afford to spend up to $13,000 to play worlds, then he or she should budget an extra $100 to get a good night’s sleep before the selections.
As far as the selectors picking who they know, I think that statement short-changes the selectors. I don’t know many selectors, but the ones which I have met strike me as being scrupulously fair. I don’t think they volunteer their time just to pick their friends — I think they genuinely intend to pick the best team to represent Australia (or their states for domestic competitions).
Laura stated that the current selection process isn’t fair. By definition, therefore, I understand that she believes that different criteria should be used for selections. I’d be quite interested in reading the criteria that she proposes (e.g., quotas for states, minimum number of years before a state can host national selections).
Although I have criticised some of her post, I respect her for putting her point of view out there. Although I disagree with some of her points, I think she’s correct that the selection process must not only be open and transparent, it must be seen to be so. Candidates should believe that they had a reasonable chance of making the team. I think we all agree on that goal. We probably have different solutions for getting there at present, but discussions such as this will hopefully contribute to a good outcome.
I don't quite follow the bit about unfair travel times. The Canberra players have shorter drives to both Melbourne and Sydney than their counterparts. If the trials are held in Perth, wouldn't the vast majority of people trying out have the same issues regarding jet lag as the WA players flying to the east coast?
Australia is a large country and ultimate players are generally located in the capital cities. Any selection event held in any city, regardless of which one, will benefit the players who live there. I'm not sure what can be done to solve the complexities of distance.
I don't think she's saying to solve it in a way that everyone has to travel the same, I think she's just saying that the coaches need to understand these factors and take them into account during selection events.
I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not quite sure about that. My reading of the post is that Laura believes that AFDA should be more interventionist about including players from all states (i.e., “…to close the distance between the haves and the have-nots.”) My reading that that she is endorsing state quotas in order to promote fairness.
it’s an interesting article. On one hand, she endorses that the national teams should choose the best players. On the other hand, she wants selectors to include non-playing considerations (e.g., does player A have any friends at the trial, is player B’s long plane flight more important than player C’s long drive). If the selectors need to allow for non-playing considerations, how can they make judgements about who are the best players if they’re not evaluating what they see on the fields?
The things you've listed aren't "non-playing considerations". What (I think) Laura is saying is that players play better when they don't have to worry about long flights, sleeping arrangements etc.
Imagine the scenario where a decision making robot chooses the team based entirely on the performance of a player at a selection event:
- player A lives in the city the trial is being held in, slept wonderfully in their own bed, knows the way to the field and a bunch of their friends are also a part of the trial
- player B had to take time off work to fly a day earlier for the trial, slept on the couch of a random who (very generously) opened their home to them, had their mind full of logistics trying to even make it to the field and doesn't have a single person at the trial that they've ever played with before
Assuming their actual skill levels are exactly the same, who do you think is going to perform better at the trial? Decision making robot is probably going to notice that Player A is less sluggish in the morning, has no missed throws due to pre-built chemistry with their friends and plays with absolute confidence. Player B has to be BETTER than A to even compete on the same level.
Now, imagine that decision making robot is actually someone who has seen Player A playing ultimate at least monthly (probably more like multiple times a week) for the last 3 years, and has literally never seen Player B before in their life. Who do you think they're going to pick? Even if Player A has an off day, the selector can say "ah you didn't play your best today, but I've seen what you're capable of (when you're not under the pressure of a selection event) and for that reason I'm going to select you for the team". Meanwhile player B cops "Hey mate nice to meet you, seems like you weren't really able to connect much with your throws out there, seems like you weren't cutting to the places the throwers were expecting you to. Based on what I've seen of you today I don't think you have what it takes, sorry"
Even if Player B is BETTER than Player A, due to the circumstances of the trial, who the coach is and a bunch of other "non-playing factors" as mentioned above, they are much less likely to be selected. That means we end up selecting a worse team.
Laura (again, my read on the text, not trying to put words in her mouth) is not saying that coaches shouldn't select the people they think are best, she's saying that our selection processes should be mindful of the fact that "non-playing considerations" have a big impact on who those coaches think are the best. She's not accusing coaches of actively choosing people they think are worse, she's saying there are unconscious biases leading to them discounting athletes who have more systemic factors standing in the way of their performance being absolutely optimal during selection events.
Yes, a person who gets enough sleep the night before plays better than someone who is sleep-deprived. We agree on that.
The obvious answer is to arrive the night before the selections and get a good night’s sleep. I’ve never tried out for a national team before, but I assume that most selections are held at locations with accommodation nearby.
An objection may be that accommodation and earlier flights cost more than overnight ones. Yes, agreed. That said, though, ultimate is a self-funded sport. If I remember correctly, the estimated cost of the U24 campaign held in Germany was $10-13,000. If a player can afford to spend up to $13,000 to play worlds, then he or she should budget an extra $100 to get a good night’s sleep before the selections.
As far as the selectors picking who they know, I think that statement short-changes the selectors. I don’t know many selectors, but the ones which I have met strike me as being scrupulously fair. I don’t think they volunteer their time just to pick their friends — I think they genuinely intend to pick the best team to represent Australia (or their states for domestic competitions).
Laura stated that the current selection process isn’t fair. By definition, therefore, I understand that she believes that different criteria should be used for selections. I’d be quite interested in reading the criteria that she proposes (e.g., quotas for states, minimum number of years before a state can host national selections).
Although I have criticised some of her post, I respect her for putting her point of view out there. Although I disagree with some of her points, I think she’s correct that the selection process must not only be open and transparent, it must be seen to be so. Candidates should believe that they had a reasonable chance of making the team. I think we all agree on that goal. We probably have different solutions for getting there at present, but discussions such as this will hopefully contribute to a good outcome.