From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Mon Aug 30 17:04:52 1999 Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16444 for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:04:01 +0100 (BST) Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16438 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:03:59 +0100 (BST) Received: from brookes.ac.uk (csmail.brookes.ac.uk [161.73.1.1]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15559 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:03:59 +0100 (BST) Received: from 97315250 (tnc09783.brookes.ac.uk [161.73.18.62]) by brookes.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA26159 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:04:42 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:04:42 +0100 (BST) From: jewell tara s <97315250@brookes.ac.uk> Message-Id: <199908301604.RAA26159@brookes.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Brookes Windows Client ver. 4.2b To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: GB debate - a women's perspective Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Following Rafi's prompt, here's a female perspective on the top (women's) club team representing GB (with guests) debate! I don't think women's ultimate is at a sufficient number yet to make this viable. As at the end of most outdoor seasons I have seen so far, players are leaving to go home/travel/retire etc and so a clubs player base needs replenishing. In order to do this in time to represent GB next year, at our current standard, there is a danger that only established players would be asked to join, whose goals match those of the remaining club players. With today's current number of women players around these are likely to be the same women who are selected for the GB squad anyway. By working towards Clubs for 2002?, and not Worlds in a years time, I would hope that newer players who show potential are more likely to be brought on board and trained and leave other more established players to bring on other women's teams between now and then. Only when there are sufficient numbers of players for the top club team to be able to survive with its core intact at the end of any year, and still be the top club team, should this idea be entertained. Further, I'm not even sure then that this proves to be the best team to represent the Country. Taking the USA as an example, I believe Godiva are the most consistant club team to win Nationals (and so represent the USA at Worlds), but have finished behind Verge at the last 2 World Clubs - 97 and 99. Their poorer performance away from home could be due to the cost of travelling abroad (and so lacking a complete squad) or they may lack what is needed to win at International competitions - either way, it's questionable that they are the best team to represent their Country. This debate is slightly different to the States in that it was suggested that it be the best club team plus guests (which I don't believe happens in the States, I think they send just club team players?). I think that the 'plus guests' turns the club team practically into the GB team, under the club team name, so maybe the debate should just be GB team or best club team. Lastly, something new to be debated - this years experience has shown me that a non playing coach is a definite advantage, and in my view, the way forward - whether it be for the GB team or a club team! Tara