Based on everything this year, Nationals can only get better for me. I'm not slagging the TD's or anything, they did a great job, but I was injured in the lead-up, played terribly and was woefully unfit, then got injured on the second day. And there were (gasp) personal reasons, too.
As it is I don't really have any observations to make about the game itself, other than how a lack of fundamental training can really hurt your skillset, even if its only from a month's absence. I hadn't picked up a disc in a month because the throwing action hurt too much and subsequently all my throws were rubbish, even in no wind. The image of pro basketball players sinking hoops all alone for hours despite their proficiency springs to mind: these skills are called 'fundamentals' because they need to work no matter how fatigued you are. Unfortunately, we're not at the stage where we are paid to throw around in the park for hours every week, so most of us have to have a different sort of motivation.
Something else I took home from Nationals was how silly the seeding system seems to be. Granted, it works as well as a seeding system can be expected to for most years. But all of a sudden threepeat winners Chilly split x/x and HoS are seeded 1st. Everyone save HoS realised that they weren't going to retain their #1 status through Nationals (this is not slagging Heads of State, they are a great team, and while they did manage to give Fakulti the closest non-finals run Fak had at 15-9, they were never going to beat them) and they ended up 5th, which is a hot showing by the boys nonetheless.
It seems like the AFDA went through a lot of trouble to create an objective seeding system that works. By and large, this is what happened. However, the 'everyone knows everyone' nature of Australian ultimate seems to be a pretty good call for the use of a subjective seeding system (as was used for the women in Eastern Regionals: the seeds were just guesses based on who was in what team, and the guesses were 100% accurate) in years where it is clear that basing Regional seeds for Nationals on past performance isn't going to be the most accurate way of doing things.
Unfortunately no seeding system - objective or otherwise - can cure the Barefoot syndrome: lots of good players, but they don't win any games!
T.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The debate rages every year.
A subjective seeding system for Nationals will NEVER work. Too many people having input and you will never get all of those people being 100% happy with the result. The seeding system must remain objective.
It also must be based on Regionals placings. Regionals is the start of Nationals, and teams are going to have to get used to that. This is only the 3rd year Regionals have had any real meaning, so people are still adjusting.
At Southern Regionals, everyone was well aware of the situation...winner got #1 seed, runner up got #7 seed, etc. and only the top 4 teams go to Nationals. If ANY of those variables changed between Regionals and Nationals, you would have seen the mother of all tantrums from all the South teams.
Sure there's going to be problems, such as what you described (Chilly suddenly being not so good any more), but these kinks will iron themselves out over the coming years.
In 2009, this is how the seedings will go...
1 - East
2 - East
3 - East
4 - NZ
5 - South
6 - South
7 - East
8 - West
If NZ don't come, 5-8 get bumped up one, and North gets #8. Teams know that well in advance (12 months, in fact) and can start planning their attack early.
Post a Comment