From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Thu Sep 23 23:38:18 1999
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19133
	for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 23:37:20 +0100 (BST)
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daffodil [137.205.192.30])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19128
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 23:37:18 +0100 (BST)
Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27301
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 23:37:14 +0100 (BST)
Received: from phidelta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.248.177])
	by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 11UHUD-000GcX-0K
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 22:37:11 +0000
Message-ID: <jp91UFAEtq63EwzY@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 23:35:48 +0100
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
From: Wayne Retter <postmaster@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: Wayne Retter <wayne@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: GB Ultimate
References: <B07B1BF7F6CED11184E900609739CF8921E396@CAYMAN>
In-Reply-To: <B07B1BF7F6CED11184E900609739CF8921E396@CAYMAN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S <pjZRgFWDsQK5ViyP$l4rxVrb6a>
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Simon Hill <simon.hill@actix.com> writes
>but why exactly is Chris dealing with this?  It doesn't seem to fall
>anywhere near his role?  It also seems to be a funny week for the DoC to be
>worrying about something other than Nationals.

Si, Roger, and others...

Chris is dealing with this 'cos
 a) when it all went pear-shaped at the AGM discussion he volunteered to
post such a message and collate responses
 b) he has the loudest voice
 c) he has an interest in becoming GB CoEd (sorry, "Mixed") Manager

[with advance apologies for either stepping on other's toes, or being
completely wrong!]

As far as my memory and understanding goes (hopefully the people
involved will correct me if/when I'm wrong), the story thus far is:

The AGM was looking for candidates to fill the roles of the
"traditional" GB Managers;

Aram Flores suggested that the "traditional" method hasn't quite managed
to achieve the results it ought; [to much agreement, but little
identification of reasons...]

Aram suggested that there ought to be an alternative method for the
development, training and selection of the GB teams.

Aram's suggestion was that there should be regular (twice-weekly?)
regional training sessions, to work on fitness, skills and drills and
familiarity/bonding between players no matter their potential division,
and should be a mixture of players from ALL divisions.

The current regular (once/twice monthly) GB sessions would continue, but
in ONE venue - all the regional players would gather together and the
cross-regional integration and bonding would occur - there would also be
the movement of players between the various divisions to investigate how
the best squads (across all divisions) could be achieved.

The organisational structure?

A "GB coach" to write and implement the playbook to be used by all
divisions and regional sessions.

(Preferably) One male, and one female co-ordinator to assist the "GB
coach" (whether this is pyramidal or committee is unclear, and the point
of several arguments) in keeping tabs on players and their performances,
and experimenting with the distribution of players between divisions.

The theory is that maximum strength can therefore be developed in all
divisions, and that the core of players within each division would
select, from their own number, captain(s) that would later have more
responsibility for the selection of the actual team.

(I'm assuming!) Organisation and Coaching at regional sessions would be
undertaken by "respected and experienced" players that liase inter-
Regionally and with the "GB coach".


The main arguments against this model were:

(proven) successful management/coaching structures are pyramidal;

that the 2 (male and female) co-ordinators should be replaced by
divisional co-ordinators;

that there was a risk of using the Mixed and Masters divisions as
dumping grounds (or merely understrength) by developing potential "cusp"
players and poaching them for the Open/Womens divisions;

that the Regionalisation idea might/would have an adverse effect on the
non-London regional players (due to the higher concentration of ultimate
players, and therefore the higher likelihood of potential GB players in
that area) training and selection prospects;

that the lack of "defined squad" until "too late" would hinder the TEAM
development of any particular divisional team;

that the style of play of each division have quite different properties,
and thus require different attitudes and training methods. The
expected/potential "cross-divisional" movements will not help in the
training.



And thus, no significant decisions were reached...

Wayne



----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Retter
at home: 0181-663-4856                wayne@phidelta.demon.co.uk
 mobile: 07970-903420