From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Sun Oct 27 11:29:47 1996 Received: from thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk by clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP id LAA11068; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 11:29:06 GMT Received: by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk id PAA28086; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:46:19 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.clarityconnect.com by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP id PAA28071; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:44:51 +0100 (BST) Received: from [206.64.143.156] by mail.clarityconnect.com with ESMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:49:43 +0000 X-Sender: silbey@mail.clarityconnect.com Message-Id: <v03007800ae96686608f0@[206.64.143.146]> In-Reply-To: <961025.122818@designmotive.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:07:13 -0400 To: Jonathan Schofield <jonathan.schofield@designmotive.co.uk> From: David Silbey <dsilbey@acpub.duke.edu> Subject: Re: Into the fray... Cc: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Sender: owner-britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Status: RO >Glad to see that David from Lurkers has noticed us grinning >whilst playing. But then in the past we've been criticised >for just that. Not from me, you haven't. >2. The point that y'all seem to be missing from Nolan's >excellent incendiary is that the top teams want to get >better too, but can't because we are condemned to spend >three quarters of our weekends playing teams that we know >we are going to thrash. You seem quite happy to be selfish >enough to require us to do this, but won't allow a little >selfishness on our part. Remember that the boys on Shotgun >have had to put up with this situation for between four >to nine years! (What a luxury, you think, but it really >isn't much fun). I think this is a useful point; it suggests that perhaps one of the reasons that the top British teams have not done as well in World Clubs as they perhaps would have liked is the lack of homegrown competition. It also suggests that rather than demerging being the answer, *more* mergers are a solution. The final (at Leicester [?]) between Shotgun and STAN seems a case in point. STAN, with 8/9 players, stayed with Gun (who had 14 or 15) for the first 10 points or so and then tired. Had STAN had 5 or 6 more quality players, I think they might have won. But I do agree with the argument that playing the top teams helps improve lower level squads, at very least by understanding the intensity and discipline that those high-level teams bring to the game. I know that practicing with Shotgun helped my game immensely, even if it was only trailing Roger (or you, John, or Aram, or Doug, or Ollie, or, oh for Christ's sake, all of you) around the pitch. My suggestion (there had to be one, didn't there?) is a mix of high-level and open tourneys: some tourneys at which top teams play each other only, and some tourneys where the format is as now, with everybody playing everybody. To prevent top teams from skipping the opens, have a certain minimum number of tournaments required to be eligible for Nationals. _____ David J Silbey Duke University dsilbey@acpub.duke.edu