From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Sun Oct 27 11:39:07 1996 Received: from thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk by clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP id LAA11315; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 11:38:14 GMT Received: by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk id PAA27782; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:34:27 +0100 (BST) Received: from bowden.uces.bangor.ac.uk by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk with SMTP id PAA27712; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:32:39 +0100 (BST) Received: from jeffpc.uces.bangor.ac.uk ([147.143.15.108]) by bowden.uces.bangor.ac.uk; Fri, 25 Oct 96 15:29:39 BST Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:24:12 BST From: Jeff Jackson <jfj@uces.bangor.ac.uk> Reply-To: jfj@uces.bangor.ac.uk Subject: Re: Into the fray... To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Message-Id: <ECS9610251512B@uces.bangor.ac.uk> Priority: Normal Delivery-Receipt-To: Jeff Jackson <jfj@uces.bangor.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Status: RO It's been nice to see some serious, informed debate on BritDisc recently - makes a pleasant change from the rubbish that seems to prevail in most parts of the internet. I'd like to pick up on a few points from Jon's recent message: > 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. Seems you just can't be right when you're > thrashing the opposition! Having played for teams at both ends of the ability spectrum, I've encountered this problem from both sides. Going into a game knowing your opposition can't really hope to win does make it awkward to know how to approach the game. In the past the Druids have been criticised both for being 'soft' on the opposition, and for crushing them too hard. However, my experiences with the Skunks (who, when I played for them were on the end of some pretty severe drubbings!) leads me to agree with earlier contributors, who have said that they prefer the 'big' team to play hard. That way, anything that the weaker team achieves has been well and truly earned. Of course, playing hard doesn't mean the smiles have to go! Striking the right balance is not easy. Back to Jon again: > ... we are condemned to spend three quarters of our weekends > playing teams that we know we are going to thrash ... > ... 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). Now I wouldn't want to seem unsypmathetic or anything (who, me!?), but it seems to me that the problem Shotgun face is partly of their own making. (I apologise if my memory of events isn't quite right.) Back when Shotgun were formed, Hombres had been the top team for several years, but were starting to lose older players to family commitments etc. Regulators were just starting on the scene, and looked to have the talent to make it to the top under their own steam. The merger between these two top teams created a 'super' team that has very rarely been in danger of losing since. I accept that much of Shotgun's success is the result of hard work and regular training, but I think the lack of competition is partly self- inflicted. (Recall Del's comment earlier this week about the Stan/Tennents demerger.) > Surely part of the whole problem is that no coaching > infrastructure of any kind exists for players beyond > those who want to be a part of the GB squads. Solve > this problem, as well as the structure of competition > in this country, and we might actually start producing > players who are mentally tough enough to compete at > higher levels. Absolutely true. But I think that the size of the sport in this country means that an organised coaching structure is still some way off. The way forward must surely lie in the geographically- centred teams advocated by both Aram and Scott. Regular local training sessions with more experienced players must surely be the best form of coaching currently available. Unfortunately Ultimate players are often the kind of people who move around the country alot, making stable geographical teams harder to maintain. Having agreed with the logic of locally-based teams I guess I should quit my job forthwith and move to Leicester or London and practice what I preach. Ain't logic a wonderful thing?!? It's a little easier said than done, though :-) 'Telephone' teams may not be the best way of advancing the sport as a whole, but they do serve a purpose for the players concerned. Besides, how many people out there can place their hand on their heart and claim that everything they do is for the good of the sport as a whole? Enough rambling for now, Jeff.