<< Go back to previous page

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Second New Zealand Petanque team!

This is a permanent record of a MPC Blog posting

This text appeared on the PNZ website on 20/06 (today):

Here is an earlier PNZ announcement (taken from PNZ website on 12/06):

Does this mean that our selectors are sending a second team after all, only because "some" of the originally selected players (June 5th) are now (June 20th) able to go due to a "change in circumstances"?

Does this mean that the selectors could not find suitable replacements amongst the players that had made themselves available? Does this mean we nearly didn't send a second team and thereby have deprived good players of an opportunity of gaining valuable international experience? What kind of message is this sending to our NZ Petanque community and those other players who were available but not selected? Is it time to look at our selection policies and processes?.

Update 20/10/06: Liz Rocks provides an explanation.

Congratulations to Andrew Joe, David Lippard and Andre Noel.

posted by Tom van Bodegraven @ 10:47 AM

5 Comments:

---

At 1:17 PM, Anonymous said...

Its time for the selectors to be honest.

They should tell those players who put their names forward for selection, and who are not up to standard, that this is the case and to try again next year.

Its not fair on these players to be keep in the dark about their chances, when the selectors know they have none.

The selection policy also needs to change. The selectors are incapable of sticking to their own selection policies and are causing disenfranchisement within the game as a result.

Currently there is not a full number of selectors, which is a possible breach of the PNZ constitution. If this is the case, than any person who feels hard done by with regards to their non-selection, could probably mount a challenge to the selection process and the selectors themselves - who have a number of conflicts of interests - especially as the convener of selectors who is married to a member of the World Cup team.

-Margret

At 5:38 PM, Anonymous said...

Yes, selecting continues to be a problem, it's not really working is it.

I have a number of issues, and generally agree with Tom and Margret's comments.

What I can't understand is why a womens team is going to Singapore anyway. It is an Open tournament with no womens' division. This means they'll be competing against internation mens' teams on the whole.

With respect to those women chosen to go, this surely is contrary to PNZ Selection Criteria. This states quite clearly (quoted from PNZ Selection Policy):

"Selection Criteria.

The objective is to select a team that is likely to be the most successful in the competition for which the team is selected."

Which means in effect the women chosen for Singapore have been rated higher than the other male players available. Has the Selection Policy been followed? Or has some alternative interpretation been used - such as a reward for good performances this season?

Secondly, in the selectors newletter to candidates in late 2005, it was recommended that players compete in at least 3 of 6 nominated tournaments, and these would be the main basis for selections. But I believe one of the selected players for the recently announced national teams did not go to the required 3 of the 6 tournaments. What message does this give to the players up for selection? Many have made considerable effort to travel around the country in the chance of making a representative team.

With regards to Toms' original post, it seems clear that one of the 3 mens players chosen for Singapore was chosen but made himself unavailable, but now has had a change of circumstances and is able to go.

Anyway, I'm sorry to grumble and I'm sure the selectors are trying to get it right. It's just if you publish guides and policies they should be followed.

No Name.

At 10:20 PM, Anonymous said...

As a player I have followed PNZ's selection policy, put my hand up for selection, modified my action, and spent time and money and weekends away from my family at the nominated tournaments.

The team selected is a good one and congrats to those selected, however PNZ's actions with regard to the "stop go" selection of this team does not follow its own policies and processes and therefore, frankly stinks.

I play for the enjoyment of the game and hopefully for higher honours. I have wasted my time with the latter - something I was not aware of prior to the selection of this team. The result is that I am pissed off with the cavalier approach of our national body as I have followed PNZ's selection procedures while PNZ has not given me the same courtesy.

I completely agree with the comments by Anonymous that if you have guides and policies, follow them. I also agree with Margrets comments that PNZ needs to come clean on selection and be honest with those who put their hands up. I would add that PNZ needs to come clean on what the hell happened with the process for the selection of this team to avoid a similar selection debacle in future.

My last comment is that had PNZ followed its policies and sent a so called "B" team and assuming that "B" team performed badly, it would not be the end of the world for chrissake.

The outcome would have been people outside the regular pool of our internationals who would also have international experience. Given PNZ's intention to grow the game and add depth this surely can't be a bad thing.

I hate grumbling about this as our sport is small and our officials are unpaid but this is not the first time that selections have been inconsistent.

If PNZ is to continue ignoring its own sanctioned processes, well, I have other interests I can divert my attention to ......

- Maurice

At 10:47 PM, Anonymous said...

I think we should get rid of the current selection process asap. It doesn’t work and only has resulted in a rotten atmosphere at the tournaments. For every person chosen into (yet another) selection there will always be at least 10 others angry because they think they are at least at good as the player selected.

The selection criteria in my eyes aren’t very clear and several of the points mentioned in the selection criteria (Evidence of a positive attitude to training and commitment to the team; Demonstrated compatibility with other selected players; Priority will be given to selecting a team that can be expected to behave in a harmonious and responsible manner; Previous unacceptable behaviour (including breaches of PNZ’s Constitution and/or Code of Behaviour ) by a player may be taken into account by the Selection Panel; Neatness in appearance ) are so blatantly subjective that any player can be selected or left out (What is unacceptable behavior, Graeme’s wet rag, anonymous complaining about another club on this site, always claiming the point is yours even when it obviously isn’t?).

Rightly or wrongly I have the impression now that it is all decided by this little cozy band of people where you have to belong to, and who therefore like to keep the thing the way they are. I also know I’m not alone thinking that, and that by itself should be enough to seriously reconsider the current selection policy if it wants to be believable.

With the winner of the national triples there was at least a clear and honest system leaving no room for discussion. To prevent slipping more down the path of banana republic policies we should look at something similar. Have the team selection decided by one or (preferably) more national tournaments (or competition).

Easy enough, the overall winner goes to the worlds, second to Singapore etc. This way the number of teams with a real chance will be back to two or three and the rest of us can perhaps enjoy a tournament again without having to worry about whether our appearance, attitude and behavior are in accordance with the current selection policy.

Oskar

At 1:52 PM, Anonymous said...

I agree with Oskar's comments.

The power social clique that currently dominates the game at the national level is causing a nasty atmosphere at tournaments. This was quite obvious at the national doubles at Herne Bay last year, where there was a distinct an "us and them" atmosphere pervading the whole event.

When I started playing there was generally a congenial atmosphere between players. Now if you go to an event, especially those where a selector is present, there is a distinct "attitude" (for want of a better word), that some players are more equal than others (and yes I am referring to George Orwell's Animal Farm).

Moving back to a tournament based selection process may not be the ultimate answer, but I'm sure it will be a start in bringing back some of the more enjoyment to the games/tournaments where skill and ability are judged, and not who your social contacts are.

Given the small size of the player base and the ad hoc application of the selection policies - I'd like to see the tournament selection process reinstated, until such time where the game has grown to sufficient level (ideally more than 2500 registered players as a opposed to the 1400 or so we apparently have now), whereby a selection squad process should be neccessary, as we would hopefully have developed appropriate processes for player development and selection criteria.

This could hopefully be done in an open forum environment so that everyone knows what is expected of them and what they can expect of the selectors.

Unfortunately this is not the case at the moment.

By the way - did anyone know of the special meeting being held this weekend in Wellingtonby the PNZ executive and the PNZ Council to discuss governance/management of the PNZ?

-Margret

This page has been viewed times

Back to Top

<< Go back to previous page