View Full Version : Is it good or bad for polo on this stage?
What is your overall opinion on ICF decision to limit the number of countries taking part in World Championships?
mrkeeg
21-03-2005, 09:18 PM
For comparrisson,
A simmilar poll here http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1169 had 10% of votes for " only involve teams that have qualified through their regional championships and the top 8 from the previous championships."
Keegan
I am curious ...
The people that think it is good for polo, could you give me some reasons why? I am having trouble understanding how it helps developing countries at all.
MrDom
25-03-2005, 01:15 PM
The question is not correct. The ICF decision is to increase the number of countries taking part in Worldchampionships and to limit the number of teams participating at the final round.
The question is not correct. The ICF decision is to increase the number of countries taking part in Worldchampionships and to limit the number of teams participating at the final round.
Is the 2006 event in Netherland going to be called "The Final Round of World Championship 2006 / The First round of World Championship 2008"?
sp_edey
26-03-2005, 02:26 AM
The question is not correct. The ICF decision is to increase the number of countries taking part in Worldchampionships and to limit the number of teams participating at the final round.
Yeah, I don't understand what you mean here MrDom. If their increasing the number of countries taking part in the worlds, how come not every country that wants to go to worlds is allowed to go??? And by final round, you must mean the world championships itself
mrkeeg
26-03-2005, 08:39 PM
Hey Clinton and izzy.
You are correct. Contact me if you want a copy of the offical statements from the ICF. Briefly, the "World Championships" takes place in a 5 rounds. The first is at the previous "final round" - ie: Japan was the 1st round for Netherlands. The second is the "continental" champs - ie: Canada "attends world championships" by flying across the world to Brasil to play against 2 (probably one, since the US may not make it) other team. Rounds 3, 4, and 5 are the rounds that we think of as "world champs" - ie the tournament in Netherlands.
This way, as Mrdom correctly says, "overall participation" in "world champs" is theoretically increased (for example, puerto rico can go to brasil for round 2, rather than going to Netherlands), while participation is limited in the final 3 rounds.
Keegan
sp_edey
26-03-2005, 09:08 PM
Thankyou Keegan. I can understand that. Now though say if the qualification system is somewhat different where we won't neccasarily have to "qualify" for the next worlds, why not just let Puerto Rico go directly to worlds if they want to? They would get some much more experience and will to win after they have seen the best teams in the world. It'll inspirse them to do better after being at a world championship. It's these little things that help build a team into a world champion.
This way, as Mrdom correctly says, "overall participation" in "world champs" is theoretically increased (for example, puerto rico can go to brasil for round 2, rather than going to Netherlands), while participation is limited in the final 3 rounds. Keegan
I'm not suggesting the qualification process is ideal, with the amount of travel some countries are contending with for initial rounds (as well as final rounds)
and
I was always taught that geographically 'America' was one continent albeit that it is often viewed as two.
But I totally endorse the ICF philosophy of promoting overall participation in the initial rounds while limiting particpation in the final rounds.
What 'good' does it really do having fledgling nations competing at the Final round of Worlds?
What 'bad' does it do?
I think it does more 'bad' than 'good'
- the event becomes prolonged and rushed
- the standard of the event is downgraded, detracting from potential sponsorship and media coverage!
- (outside of Europe) too much focus goes on Worlds and not enough goes on developing domestic or continental competitions
- what real good does it do for a fledgling nation to get thrashed at Worlds - they can get the same experience continentally, (or sometimes within their own country perhaps), and if they choose they can then travel to the World Championships as spectators and sit in the stands where they belong! I mean that's where they spend most of their time at Worlds these days if the don't make the grade.
This is just another example of how our own particpants' attitude towards our sport contradicts our goals for it and reduces the chance of it developing the higher profile that we hope for.
I think we have this same problem at national level - I've seen sports with less participants taken more seriously by participants, media and sponsors because they are more professionally managed and participation at the highest level is limited to those who have earned the place to be there.
The problem obviously is in finding the most appropriate qualification process that satisfies the constraints around geographical proximity, population and numbers of teams. It does seem appropriate from your discussion that America is split between N.A & S.A, whether or not it is then appropriate for the top two teams from each to play off for the slot at Worlds?
The other thing that would help would be to reduce Worlds down to every 4 years:
- Continental championships could be promoted every 2 years - plenty of chance for developing teams
- but only Worlds ever 4 years and only the top qualifiers going
How many other significant multi-national team sports have World Champs every 2 years. Lots of individual sports do (which is where ICF is founded and Canoe Polo started) but is it really that good for team sports?
spike
27-03-2005, 08:28 PM
I was always taught that geographically 'America' was one continent albeit that it is often viewed as two.
sorry to say.....but you had a very very bad education if this is the case. if you want i can send you a map or atlas for you to look over. perhaps that will help you create a more realistic view of the world.
sp_edey
27-03-2005, 09:46 PM
What 'good' does it really do having fledgling nations competing at the Final round of Worlds?
What 'bad' does it do?
I think it does more 'bad' than 'good'
- the event becomes prolonged and rushed
- the standard of the event is downgraded, detracting from potential sponsorship and media coverage!
- (outside of Europe) too much focus goes on Worlds and not enough goes on developing domestic or continental competitions
- what real good does it do for a fledgling nation to get thrashed at Worlds - they can get the same experience continentally, (or sometimes within their own country perhaps), and if they choose they can then travel to the World Championships as spectators and sit in the stands where they belong! I mean that's where they spend most of their time at Worlds these days if the don't make the grade.
Troy, are you suggesting nations such as Canada and USA don't deserve to be at worlds??? I travel to a world championship to play with my team and for my country! I'm very proud of my teams performance regardless of where we place and if you are saying we don't deserve to be there, then you just lost my respect for you and all the others that think like that for that matter!!
I was always taught that geographically 'America' was one continent albeit that it is often viewed as two.
The continents are the great land masses of the earth. There are seven continents on Earth now: Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/geography/continents/
JW Lester
28-03-2005, 11:24 AM
Troy, are you suggesting nations such as Canada and USA don't deserve to be at worlds??? I travel to a world championship to play with my team and for my country! I'm very proud of my teams performance regardless of where we place and if you are saying we don't deserve to be there, then you just lost my respect for you and all the others that think like that for that matter!!
Hey Clinton - I'm sure you also haven't forgotten how close you came to beating New Zealand in Japan as well.
Canada - largely due to the experience of training and playing at Worlds - has come a long way, and especially since you've got at least 4 more years of Worlds-level development, I think Canada will soon find itself qualifying on a regular basis even at better attended European Worlds.
It's just a shame that the same opportunity isn't being granted to other countries for the sake of a U-21 division which doesn't attract interest from the top countries.
The following top Canoe Polo playing countries didn't have enough commitment to the sport to attend the 2004 U-21 World Championships: Netherlands, Great Britain, Germany, Ireland, France, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Switzerland, Belgium, etc....
Why should senior men's teams from countries that would benefit in the long run from the development that competing at Worlds brings be denied a place for the sake of junior teams with no commitment??????
sp_edey
28-03-2005, 08:20 PM
But I totally endorse the ICF philosophy of promoting overall participation in the initial rounds while limiting particpation in the final rounds.
Of course the overall participation is going to be promoted in initial rounds. Where else are they gonna ever have a chance to get anywhere with this sport if they keep getting cutting short from playing high caliber teams? If this is the case now, imagine 10 years down the road, there's gonna be limited participation at continentail championships because they're are to prolonged and that bs. I mean, soon there's gonna be more nations competeing in the Europeon chamionships then there is at a worlds.
I'm very sure in the ICF rules it states that the championships can't exceed 7 days. Umm...very sure 2004 worlds was only 4 days. Now ppl are complaining that worlds are too long?!? I don't know about everyone else, but a huge championship is an awesome atmosphre to be around. I travel across the world to compete in a competition that's only 4 days??? It's a WORLD CHAMIONSHIP!! Kind of a big deal, even to developing nations if you can believe that.
I'm sorry for this attitude, and I imagine you can sence my frusration but this is just getting pathetic.
steffers
02-04-2005, 11:54 PM
- what real good does it do for a fledgling nation to get thrashed at Worlds - they can get the same experience continentally, (or sometimes within their own country perhaps), and if they choose they can then travel to the World Championships as spectators and sit in the stands where they belong! I mean that's where they spend most of their time at Worlds these days if the don't make the grade.
I've seen sports with less participants taken more seriously by participants, media and sponsors because they are more professionally managed and participation at the highest level is limited to those who have earned the place to be there.
The other thing that would help would be to reduce Worlds down to every 4 years:
- Continental championships could be promoted every 2 years - plenty of chance for developing teams
- but only Worlds ever 4 years and only the top qualifiers going
How many other significant multi-national team sports have World Champs every 2 years. Lots of individual sports do (which is where ICF is founded and Canoe Polo started) but is it really that good for team sports?
honestly, that was quite ignorant of you. i cant believe you said that the spectator stands is where "we belong"??!?!?!? you undermine ANY team's hardwork, dedication, financial commitment, and determination that participates in a world championship? those teams that come and get trounced probably realize they are not up to the competition skillwise, but are still willing to play their hardest and swallow a huge loss. it takes guts to do that! it takes a type of sportsmanship that is deserved of world recognition.
first off, "fledgling" teams limited to competing within their own country ARE limited to the level of play and type of play within that country. it's obvious that each nation has it's different take on strategies and training below the underlining standard plays. this is helpful for other underdog teams that otherwise would not realize what kind of competition to play UP to. It is very important in development of a competative team to play against stronger teams and learn to play up to their level. that is often not the case within the US and surrounding area. we've all played eachother numerous times and more or less are neck in neck each year without much change relative to european standards.
next, prolonging worlds to 4 years is not going to help either! A team that wins a continental champ at the 2 year mark may not be the same team in another 2 years. that's a long time in which reassessment is necessary to ensure that the winning team is still worlds competition worthy. plus, many people may never have a chance to see a world championship with such a large time gap.
ugh, i'm so disgusted right now.
Hell Ya! I felt similar Steffers. :-).
I would be in the stands right beside you. I can also say for certain that Canada would not have progressed at all if we were not allowed to compete at the World Championships.
Perhaps other nations have not noticed, but we have progressed significantly and that is due to our individual athletes and our teams being allowed to compete at worlds.
We have had some help from coaches coming to Canada, but without the competition and seeing exactly what is possible we would still be in last place .. or perhaps second last.
:canada:
Well, I can see I certainly won't be welcome in Canada or US for a while!
I must highlight that I said: "I was always taught that the Americas were ONE continent". I did not say this was my own view, but your problem lies in that the view I was schooled in is at the foundation of the IOC (and hence ICF) establishment.
So firstly, some respondents challenged me as ignorant or badly schooled - I suggest that they do a little more research to find out what is presented as a continent. There is a variety of perspectives on this point depending on your source of reference, some of them quite debatable (I particularly like the references to Australia as a continent!). I highlight the following note which you can pick up at www.ask.com (http://www.ask.com)
"Note: In some parts of the world students are taught that there are only six continents, as they combine North America and South America into one continent called Americas. Other experts use only six continents by combining Europe and Asia into a continent called Eurasia."
So perhaps I am not so badly schooled that I am at least aware that there are different perceptions in the world as to what is a "continent"!
Secondly, and most importantly, this understanding of the historical and varied definitions of a "continent" allows me to understand the issue that is at the core of your problem...
Again quoting from www.ask.com (http://www.ask.com) (for want of a better easily accesible reference available to all readers:
"The Olympic symbol, made in 1913, has rings of all different colors representing the continents of Europe, the Americas, Asia, Australia, and Africa."
I had always understood (notwithstanding my "bad schooling" already mentioned) that the Olympic rings were chosen to represent the 5 inhabited continents, as cited in the above quote.
This division of the world into continental regions is at the core of the establishment of IOC, and therefore at the core of the ICF establishment which subscribes to (and is governed I think to some extent by) the IOC.
Therein lies your problem - it is historical that the ICF promotes delegation and competition on a continental basis that is a somewhat dated geographical and demographical view of the world.
So what we need to do is to change ICF's view or definition of a continent!
Best wishes to you folk in North America - I do empathise with you and support your objective to have America recognised as two (or more) separate continents.
(As for my comments on limiting Worlds to a selection of the best qualifying countries - I address those some more in a separate response.)
I think the part where you said we didn't belong at the World Championships was the part that got people upset and starting to criticize your post.
Suggesting that other countries should not be allowed to attend is a fine opinion for you to have, but it sure hurts when you are one of those countries.
The continent thing ... who really cares.
The issue is making people spend a ton of money to play against one maybe two teams when both of those teams are going to "qualify" for Worlds anyway.
What if the ICF said NZ can't attend Worlds because they just are not a part of any of the continents you listed??? Or that they cannot attend unless they travel to Japan to play for a weekend against Japan and say Singapore? It does not matter how you place in your games you just need to pay to fly someone to the other side of the World to show up. People in North America are very frustrated with the current situation so please understand why you might be receiveing harsh responses.
Most of our athletes can't afford to fly to the other side of the world every year. In fact, it is closer for us to fly back to Japan or to Amsterdam than to attend our "continental" championships. How does that division make any sense?
If we need to travel that far, let us travel to a location where we can play more than two games against more than two teams.
sp_edey
05-04-2005, 04:52 AM
Troy, it's not that your not welcome.....but really I think you should actually read what you wrote and you'd understand where we're coming from. I'm a very proud person of what my team and I have accomplished with Canoepolo and when someone tells me that I belong in the stands?!?!? Like really...I'm very sure your trying to make enemies. What you said was low and a lot of people took offence to it. So how about next time you decide to talk like that, think before you say something stupid.
Albert
05-04-2005, 06:48 AM
Well, I can see I certainly won't be welcome in Canada or US for a while!
:bfire:
Now you know it must be offensive if you piss off a bunch of Canadians!!!:eek:
Regarding the definition of Continents. Your reference to the IOC is probably the most compelling, but that is more relevant to popular Olympic sports (75+ countries)
This new qualification is seen as a double whammy for N & S Americans. First as fledgling countries we need to qualify. Then to qualify we are asked to spend most of our resources to travel to countries further than we would for most worlds.
Interesting Troy, if you had to qualify for worlds by playing in Brazil's Continental Cup, how much interest would you think you could substain in the future? The Canadian posters and Dany from Argentina would have to travel about that same distance to each other's cities!!!
South Africa to Netherlands is closer by far than the typical N & S American distances!
Think about it, you are a fledging country trying to learn a sport. You are asked then to pay 30-40% above what most other countries have to pay for new equipment. Very little used equipment to be found and must be shipped in from Europe or Australia. Then you hire coaches from across oceans. Your National teammates are >4000km apart so you need to fly just to practice and that the first time you get to play as a complete unit is at worlds. Add to that the lack of competition. Then the ICF tells you you have to fly half way around the world just to qualify in the future for worlds. Welcome to the world of N & S American polo.
Given the poll results, I guess most feel the qualification process is a bit premature. Let me get this straight, we are limiting attendance to World's to 24 teams (men's) and forcing qualification in a sport where only 18 countries bothered to show up in the previous worlds?!!!!
:bang:
This is a one third drop in attendance for 2004 from 2002 for the World Championships!. Drops in women and U21 too. The obvious conclusion is that the sport is dying ......
;)
Or is the goal to be the big fish in a small pond?
Then in our (canoepolo) premier year for world recognition by participation in the World & World Master's games, we are getting very low participation for our World Masters games. A world wide event that hosts ~15,000 athletes and one that is open to all canoepolo masters teams. Unfortunately (using arguements previously posted against Americas), countries outside of North America are not "dedicated" enough to show up to compete and promote the sport on a worldwide stage.
So what is the excuse? Distance? Cost? Resources? Time?
So if the canoepolo world outside of the Americas are not "dedicated" for the World Championships and World Masters, why would the ICF think that N & S Americans would be even more "dedicated" to just qualify?
Troy, come out to the Masters games in Edmonton, we will save a seat in the stands!
It would be easier if we lived in Pangean times.......
albert
So how about next time you decide to talk like that, think before you say something stupid.
I have the follow genuine and serious questions. Hopefully they're not too stupid.
- What makes canoe polo different that means we don't seek to adopt a World Championship model (4 year cycle / limited qualification process) similar to some of the better-established sports (like Soccer, Rugby, Netball, Basketball)?
- What is wrong with the models chosen by these other sports that makes them unsuitable or irrelevant to canoe polo?
- Where does our current model come from?
Your thoughts?
Albert
05-04-2005, 07:12 AM
similar to some of the better-established sports (like Soccer, Rugby, Netball, Basketball)?
I think therein lies the answer. CanoePolo is not very well established. It is not even credible in many countries.
I can easily invent a new sport and crown myself world champion. Institute an established qualification model to help me stay on top!
Hmmmmm....Sounds like American Football....A US team wins the World Championships every year. Unfortunately they make millions of US dollars a year.
albert
I think the part where you said we didn't belong at the World Championships was the part that got people upset and starting to criticize your post.
Suggesting that other countries should not be allowed to attend is a fine opinion for you to have, but it sure hurts when you are one of those countries
Hi Brad and sp_edey (and others),
I'm sorry where you took offence but philosophically I do believe and would reiterate those same comments. I have separated this commentary from my previous questions because it is lengthy, and it does reiterate my views and I hope that some of you will consider the previous questions without becoming prejudiced or personal because you disagree or are put off by parts of this response:
"What is wrong with being self-critical?"
I make my comments without prejudice and with no particular countries in mind... and I stand by these same comments even to any extent they have and could no doubt apply to NZ (as much as it also makes me unpopular at home in NZ!).
I thought it was good when NZ canoe polo used to have a policy (now overturned) which required a team from NZ to demonstrate a certain standard before being endorsed as a national team to enter international tournaments. Several other sports (including other canoeing disciplines in NZ) still hold that protocol, and I think some other canoe polo nations have had the same sort of protocol, much to the disgust of some of their players.)
All I want is to see our sport present itself more professionally and be taken more seriously by the media, sporting agencies, the public AND canoe polo participants themselves.
I look to prominent sports for inspiration and direction, and I don't see why what is 'tried & true' in sports like soccer, basketball, rugby, netball (and others), shouldn't hold true for canoe polo, particularly:
- Why are we different, insisting (countries bear the financial burden for participating at) World Champs every two years, when other prominent international team sports only host their champs every 4 years [and yet they have significantly greater media and financial backing!]
- Why do you expect the World Championships (the obvious objective of which is to determine the World Champion) to be open to all countries? - what is wrong with preliminary qualification? Surely it just means a better standard of competition on display at the ultimate level.
I do not propose to undermine any of your achievements or those of any other individual players, teams or countries. But when I suggest that some teams don't belong in the competition (and that will no doubt include NZ from time to time!) I genuinely believe there needs to be some qualification for the event.
As an example (excuse me if I get some details wrong), I remember the swimmer at the Sydney 2000 from Equatorial Guinea who took over twice as long as the rest of the field to swim 50 or 100m freestyle - he was even slower than I would have been... our media capitalised on the novelty of the situation, but I found their response extremely condescending - they joked about it. How did your media portray it? What did you think? Do you think that was appropriate at the Olympics?
Personally I'm sick of the poor, unprofessional image I see of canoe polo portrayed to the public, and this is one way I think we, as a canoe polo community, can 'sharpen up'.
I look at our Tall Blacks (mens basketball) team - struggling for years to qualify against Australia for the Oceania spot, and when winning it then reaching 4th at the Worlds. In that regard, I fail to see the great need for teams to travel to and compete at Worlds for development purposes (I'm realise the desire, but I don't understand the need!) - it doesn't require a team of players to scout the competition for ideas to develop back home - it only takes a couple of suitable delegates and you'd probably gain as much insight. I've been to internationals before just to scout the competition and their tactics - so (Brad & Steffers) I'll be happy to sit in the stands with you and share ideas if you'd let me. I had hoped to go to Japan last year and to World Games this year just to watch, but family & work commitments have overshadowed those possibilities.
I think you'd agree we have similar objectives at heart - we just differ in our interpretation of the politics and consequences of our propositions. I do not seek to make enemies, attack individuals or countries, I am aware I might be in a minority (certainly on this forum - and in NZ) but I do seek to challenge you a little to question your own views - I suggest you might find some relevance in some of my arguments, just as you challenge me to understand the faults in my arguments.
I redirect you back to the questions in my last post:
- What makes canoe polo different that means we don't follow the World Championship models (4 year cycle & qualification process) of better-established sports (like Soccer, Rugby, Netball, Basketball)?
- What is wrong with the models chosen by these other sports that makes them unsuitable or irrelevant to canoe polo?
- Where does our current model come from?
And ask you to stay objective and "attack the argument, not the person!"
See if we can agree on a philosophy, and then worry about how it impacts each and every country.
JW Lester
05-04-2005, 10:24 PM
I think we're talking apples and oranges Troy. A 4 year cycle isn't part of the discussion. I think a 4 year cycle would make more sense from our perspective.
Everyone knows how expensive it was to go to Japan. I don't think I met a person there who wasn't Japanese who wasn't whinging about the cost. On top of that, competing for a national team in large countries like Canada or Brazil is very costly on it's own.
The ICF is now expecting "American" amateur athletes to pay this cost each and every year - and I frankly think this is simply too much to ask - not only in the USA or Canada, but even more so in developing countries like Brazil or Argentina.
Apart from that, I also disagree completely that the standard of canoe polo is poor at Worlds as you and others have suggested. I don't know what you remember from Germany, but I saw alot of really outstanding games - played by outstanding players. Watch some of the video feeds from Japan, or some of Clyde's videos. The sport looks awesome - even at "division 2" standard.
But as far as what makes the other models unsuitable, our sport is still young, still developing and still small - and that's why it doesn't fit the current model for Football for example.
Since you've given that sport as an example, did you know there are ***40*** countries that compete for qualification in CONCACAF - the FA's association that Canada and the USA belong to?
That's more countries than competed in the Brazil and Japan World Championships COMBINED.
Countries with Canoe Polo teams in COPAC - 4
Qualification is fine - IF the qualification event itself is of a reasonable standard (as is the European Championships for example).
What we are trying to say - and I hate to say it again because we are collectively whinging so much it must be irritating by now (but I see it that we are also whining for countries less tuned in to Canoepolo.com that are also affected) - is that our "Qualification" event is not a sufficiently high level to justify it's expense. Were our qualification a similar standard as the European Championships, I would have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with qualification.
If our qualification were of a similar standard to the CONCACAF qualification in Football - I would have no problem either.
If the USA could only compete in the COPAC tournament, I personally would not have spent 6 years of training, and tens of thousands of dollars on Canoe Polo. I can almost certainly state that the same is true of nearly every single one of my team-mates unless they are psychotically addicted to Canoe Polo (and this may well apply to some well known Canadians :D ).
I seriously doubt that we would even have a USA National Championship tournament were it not for our participation at the World Championships.
Most of us who have competed in Portugal, Brazil, Germany and Japan, are now contributing to the sport wherever we are.
Qualification will kill development of Canoe Polo in the Americas.
That's why we're upset.
-John
Troy:
Interestingly enough, I agree with pretty much everything you said.
To quickly comment on other peoples posts.
-Troy never said specifically "Canadians" would be sitting in the stands. I dont even think there was anything there to suggest he hinted at that. That brings me to Troy's comment:
"And ask you to stay objective and "attack the argument, not the person!"
I think that there is a lot of value in what Troy is saying. Dont just blow everything off immediately bc you are overly sensitive and on some overly
patriotic binge.
The one thing that I do not really agree with, or have not really decided on is... Is there enough involvement in polo yet to restrict the number of competitors at high levels?? However, I think that we should really think seriousely about some of the play quality of a few (not mentioning ANY names) teams that are playing at the Worlds.(I wasn't in Japan, but I was in Germany.) You can be a "good sportsman" and "take a lose well" and "work hard" and "pay a lot of money", but the prestige of an event like the worlds puts all of those things secondary after ABILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought it was an extremely good point also that countries CAN work up their level of play within their own country. I dont know if anyone else has noticed, but the level of play and commitment just after a worlds competition really goes down. Why is it always just "The Worlds" driving our inspiration? (as one American post(forget which one) well established for me) We need competition to be found within the players of our own countries and there is no reason why this cannot happen.
On that note, I am done. This post thread is great. So controversial and obviousely hitting people in touchy spots. Hee! Hee! I hope it keeps up!
PS) We all know how crazy it is that we would have to go to SAmerica for CC. This is old news and almost everyone except for ICF seems to agree.
Well this, for sure, is a very interesting thread! There are words, ideas, knowledge, and (in some cases) lack of knowledge being exchanged. Strong opinions, and strong opposes, but this is what I have to say:
Canoe polo is big in some countries, and not so big in others. Is the lack of the participation because of distance and pricing? From where I stand, YES!!
But I know we have gone over this a number of times already, so I won't go off on a tangent. All I will confirm is; when it comes to distance to compete and prices to pay, North & South America gets the short end of the stick. (And I'm sure they're other countries in the same position).
As to the idea of having a "selected few" who can participate in the World Championships, your only kidding yourselves if you think that'll help the growth of Canoe Polo. I mean honestly, you can say "yea it'll be better for the sport" but that's a bunch of BS. World Championships are a big deal to a lot of people and to strip them of that opportunity will only make the population of polo decline. Although I agree, to some degree, with Tess when she said "why should Worlds be our only drive?" Well it shouldn't be, participation and competition should be just as strong in ones own nation. But heck, that one drive sure helps the development of polo in our country. The experience that is received by our men’s, women’s, and U21 teams is passed down directly amongst and towards those back home waiting to be trained. Why strip countries such as Canada and the United States of this opportunity to spread the sport with THEIR stories, knowledge, and experience of the Worlds. I am very Patriotic and therefore fairly biased, but mark my words, you watch our Canadian teams, because you’re going to notice every year our ranking is going to get better and better. Which I think will have to do GREATLY with the amount of experience collected from Worlds that Canada will have had previously attended.
-Rich :twocents:
sp_edey
13-04-2005, 11:44 PM
Couldn't of said it any better myself Rich.:wavey:
McGuiver
08-06-2005, 10:21 PM
I think the ICf should make teams qaulify
Firstly as i have played in many world champs now you spend the first couple of days playing the lesser teams and maybe putting ten goals past them. Anyone from a losing team that says they can get anything from that is talking out of there hoop.
Secondly as for preperation for the later stages these kind of games don't do anything for the top end teams. Some players may get excited about rattling goals in but if the preporation is done these would be run of the mill games anyway.
Teams would beneift more from playing in group stages where the gap from top to bottom team is not so great.
:guns:
Swaney
14-06-2005, 02:35 PM
^ i agree
sp_edey
14-06-2005, 11:43 PM
Anyone from a losing team that says they can get anything from that is talking out of there hoop.
Well....so what your saying is a weak team can't learn from their mistakes by losing 10-0. First of all, I don't think you should be playing canoepolo if you can't learn from your mistakes or any other sport for that matter. You mean to tell me you've never gotten blown out by a strong team 10-0 and never gotten anything out of it? Choose your battles, but if you don't think there's much point in playing a strong team, then I actually don't suspect much of a response.
I mean don't you ever get in a mood just before a big game against a strong team and say 'I'm going to show these guys what I'm made of'? Playing the best teams in the world means they have the best players and when you are battling with those players in any situation and win....doesn't that show improvement?? Doesn't that show pride or instill confidence? To me...it would. When I play the best teams in the world and get smoked 10-0, I remember my mistakes. I learn from them. I remember my accomplishments, and that's what strives me to do better and challenge myself.
Also, you said you've played in many world champs? Well, in those many games you've played and smoked the weak teams 10-0 and you were battling with some 18 year kid who has more heart then anyone and he beat you at the littlest thing whether it was taking the ball away from you, or keeping his mark on you. Then perphaps you skin him and score a goal. You don't think he's gonna want to do better next time. He will. I know this because this is me. Never know, perphaps I've played you in the past, if so, then you probably schooled me....numerous times. But I remember when our defence fended off you guys for three minutes without a goal being scored. I remember when I beat someone to the ball and got a good pass off to one of my teammates while under pressure.
You shouldn't underestimate the weak teams. Some of their players could have more heart then you ever could. Just wait till we beat you, that might be within the next couple years, might be the next 50, but when we do, then you might finally understand where I'm coming from. If you still do make it to worlds, I'm quite enjoying the possiblity of playing you. I mean what's the worst can you do....smoke us 10-0 again. Well, I've had that happen before and I've learned from mistakes. So I'm quite comfortable in either outcome.
McGuiver
15-06-2005, 09:11 PM
Keep Playing and training with that confidence and self belief and one you will be smoking teams 10-0:thumbup:
When I was young and enthusiastic, I fought to have New Zealand go to the World Championships. My association had missed the Portugal World Championships and nobody was looking at Brazil either. There was an attitude that we could play better by focussing on our local and national competitions.
The women's team went to Brazil and gained seventh place. The men's team stayed home.
The women's team have now achieved sixth place in two respective World Championships, where they have improved in the difference between them and the top four and are now only down by a goal or so at the end of the day. The men's team is not even in the top ten, due in part to the format of the draw at the World Championships.
Now that I am old and enthusiastic, I remain in the NZ Women's squad, but also have fascinating discussions about our club team travelling to Europe to play in the European Cups and other international competitions. My focus continues to be involvement with the hub of canoe polo, but at different organisational levels.
What have I learned from all this?
If you miss out on international competition, even if you are a good team, the draw will punish you.
If you hold World Championships outside of Europe, participation is reduced but there is a greater chance of attracting countries who can not normally afford to go.
I have learned that our association is prepared to hire a coach from Australia to help us get better. Our teams are prepared to travel to get better. They are happy to spend a month in Europe to get better.
Our National league competition format has improved our play but was needed in conjunction with international experience.
Videos and DVDs are wonderful things. They are also cheaper than plane tickets.
In conclusion, I believe that the canoe polo world has to have more interest in developing countries outside of Europe. There should be wildcards available for countries who do not make the cut, to make things more interesting and to give some opportunity for those countries. (Even the Olympics has this option.)
Finally, losing by miles is sometimes unavoidable when your country gets its feet wet on the international stage for the first time. Nerves, different refereeing interpretations, differing styles of play and lack of experience count for a lot- as does the financial strain that often selects a team for the country, and rapidly depletes the player base of much valued experience. The standards of each geographical location vary wildly- just look at the interpretations of the rules, for one. In order to standardise, we need to compete together, not separately. Perhaps Pre-Worlds needs to be more carefully thought out, than relegated solely to continental championships.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.