# Canadian Team Trials



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I'd be interested in a discussion regarding the Team Trials for selecting members of the World Championships Canadian team.

This is of course a done deal for 2009, and I'm not suggesting a change at this late date. However, I was wondering if there might be some common sense incorporated into future team selections.

There are always a number of individuals who can reasonably considered "automatic" selections for a team event, based on recent performance. This year, for instance, I doubt if anyone would disagree that among the Canadians, Kevin, Dietmar, Crispin, Jay, Hugh, Marie-Pier and Kateri would be the best choices for selection to our 2009 World Target Team.

Is it really necessary to put these archers through the time and expense of attending a Team Trials? Even if they have a bad day and are beaten out for a spot by another shooter, is it in the best interest of the Team to have the proven, international class shooters replaced by relative newcomer who has no track record of high level performance?

Each year a panel would "pre-select" some team members, based on common sense. Basically, given a "bye" for the Trials. The rest of the team would be filled out based on the conventional Trials system.

This is of course not a new idea, but with the economy the way it is, maybe it's time to consider it. 

What does everyone think about the concept?


----------



## bigdawg (Feb 26, 2003)

I am pretty sure a lot of us would agree with you. there are many archers in Canada who stand out more than the rest and probably should be given a spot on the team. I think Dietmar should be automatic as he is defending champion. There are many others, like on your list who also have proven themselves enough and should be given the chance to represent the Country without having to attend the trials. I wouldn't name a full team though. I think there should be at least one spot available.

The one thing I find very funny is the USA just completed their team trials. Jamie Van Natta is by far the strongest female compound archer in the world. She is not going to be at the World Championships because she lost out in their trials. I think that is not right.


----------



## NockOn (Feb 24, 2003)

The only problem I see with that is that most that normally go on the chance they might squeeze by, will no longer bother going. So why having any trials at all. Use a combinations of scores from last year and this year and save everyone money. The best players will still endup going and nobody has to spend rediculus amount of money to try to get on the team.

Cheers,


----------



## TeneX (Mar 24, 2003)

i would disagree,

for right now in Canada you are probably right. There are a few archers that have proven themselves on the international stage time and time again, but if we just roll over and say here is your spot have a nice day, how will we get ever get more archers at that level. 

And when we do get more archers at this level how will they ever prove themselves if we are always saying, well these guys have proved themselves so they get to go not you.

Referring to US team trials, how many mens compound shooters in that group would you say were "qualified" to make the team? 

If they just said, "dave, braden and reo are the most experienced at this event so we'll send them." I think we would all agree that would be stupid. If Chance, Jesse, and numerous others can all compete at the same level they all deserve a chance to go.

I think everyone should have to shoot the trials and if they really are as assured of a spot as everyone thinks, they shouldn't be worried about not getting their spot. 

Also if we just select people with out trials we are basing our selection on peoples opinions, not on solid evidence, trials is the only way to be sure that the selection process is fair for everyone.

Allan


----------



## bigdawg (Feb 26, 2003)

So, USA Mens team, have more than enough qualified archers, thus it makes sense to have a trials, but I never referenced the Mens team. Jamie Van Natta is by far the most dominating woman in the World and is not going to get a chance to go to the Worlds this year.

Trials may not be be as fair as you think. With the current system, which has been argued many times, and I don't really want to open that can of worms again, but because points are so heavily weighted on a specific day a "blind squirel finds a nut once in a while" holds true to our format. 

We can get an archer who can't break 1350 this year, maybe fluke their way into a team spot. Then they go to the Worlds, lose their first match, and what expierience is gained? 

It is a tough arguement. I personally think that trial qualification for Compound Men (All catagories) should be harder than it is right now. There are a ton of great up and coming shooters. Simon Rousseau, has proved he can hold it together at a large event. 

You want people to gain expierience than ask them to go and shoot tournaments. There are the World Cups, Arizona Cup, Gold Cup, etc, etc etc. There are enough big tournaments out there that will help somebody gain the expierience required by not going to a World Championships. There are more tournaments out there than Vegas. The archers who should be granted a free spot on the team are ones who have dedicated the time and money most archers haven't to get where they are. The names that Stash listed have spent so much money to help them become the best, and have dedicated more training time than any other archer in Canada.

I also think that if there are more than 2 archers who can consitantly prove they deserve to go, then a trials should be required. Men recurve definitely have 3 who have proven themselves. Men Compound, as of right now I think there are only two who are "Proven". Kevin (World Cup Silver, and consistant Point earner at World Cups) and Deitmar(Defending World Champ, and also consistant point earner). Marie Pier also has proven herself as somebody who can compete against the world.

You tell me if Any of those names deserve to not go, because somebody who doesn't train as hard, attend the events they do to continue to be the best, come out and possibly fluke off a spot at Trails?


----------



## Pete731 (Aug 9, 2002)

I agree with Blair on that one!!! 

Simply put, there is not enough archers to do trials like the US do. I think the average of FITA, 70m round and 12 arrows match show more consistancy that 3 days trials.

And please ..... send Dietmar .... he is the World Champion!!!!

To attempt to this trials, it cost me money, if an archer win it cost more money and I really think that the actual ranking should be taking into consideration for the team. I have no problem with that. If I want to make the team, I better start shooting 1400+ FITA and consistant 118+ arrow matchs.

I don't believe in trials and especially in our country. 

I WON'T jump in the FCA Hula Hoop this time ... good luck to the one who twill attempt!


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2009)

Ah and the cycle repeats its self once again, does anyone remember the excellence programe and all those "gold squad scores" that rarely got repeated at the Nationals. Doesn't any remember the third or fourth placed gold squad person and none of the top gold squad had ever beaten him in a tournament and the crys for a trials system, now we want to go back to a ranking system again. The ranking system actually cost more money than one trials.

is it possible for a bye, certainly being the current World Champ would be the only thing I feel should qualify

We go round and round about this possible flash in the pan scenerio but has it actually happened

I think that the integrity of the organisation requiers that an open trials be held. The top archers certainly are not worried about any up and commer and if they are all the more reason for a trials.

Jamie Van not making the USA team certainly is a shock but the team choosen certainly isn't any less formidable.

Making the trials more streamlined would be better, 2 days is plenty mimic the US system which I think is best


----------



## cdhunter (Feb 4, 2006)

I had this discussion with another archer recently and a few points we discussed haven't been mentioned.

Everybody talks about the lucky streak, but what about the slump? I'm going to use Deitmars name in a what if scenario I'm not implying anything .....Deitmars the current world champion, lets say back in December he had a small stroke..... kept it quiet, reaaaallll quiet. He's off his average now by 20 points his 1410 suddenly has become a 1390 nobody would notice because hell it's still better than most us shoot. now there is this up and coming former junior we'll call him Allan who just aged in to senior mens and he shooting consitent 1395's due to lack of access to international events he lacks the exposure and notoriety that most of our top shooters have. at this point in time who is the better shooter?

this part has been discussed the qualifying score is to low. Lets face it 1300 when the top ten are shooting 1380 or better won't cut it and all we are doing is a disservice to the 1300 shooter by setting that individual up for a fall.

other than Nationals, Canada cup and trials there are no other major events that attract archers or give /make archers face different environments other than their home ranges. At this years Canada cup most if not all the western provinces were represented, Nationals typically draws from the entire country. trials unfortunately are not shot every year and while an inconvenience is one of the few opportunities the Fca has to evaluate what should be Canada's best on a level playing field in one place. I've heard the arguments that the spring classic in Ontario is a Canadian major, the fact of the matter as the name implies it is a large regional tournament at best same goes for any provincial championship.

If we want to eliminate trials, the first thing we have to do is create a level ranking system that all archers hoping to make the team would have to be part of, and create enough national events that mean something so that their ranking would mean something. Now for the controversial part that started this discussion the minimum number events to be allowed to be ranked would require the archers to travel from coast to coast. This would prevent some local hot shot who is comfortable in his local area but collapses as soon as he leaves from achieving an artificial high ranking.

I'm not against eliminating trials, I am against free passes based on past accomplishments but doesn't accurately take in to account what their current shooting situation is. Deitmar shot his world championship last summer, kevin his silver last summer, Fred shot 1380 last summer but since the start of the outdoor season is shooting 1395's and just last week shot his 1402. barney on the other hand ended last season shooting 1401 but his best score this season 1375. I want Canada current best to represent Canada at the worlds nothing less. jmo

chris


----------



## bigdawg (Feb 26, 2003)

Good points. So first off, only one person mentioned eliminating the trial system.

I am not for eliminating trials all together. I do however believe the trial format should change, but again that is a different subject all together.

Anyways, so what about the idea of additional points towards the trial system for recent results within a certain time frame. Since you can use scores from X date to Y date, why not allow results from major events to go towards the trials.

One thing I forgot to mention. Tenex mentioned that my current idea's may hinder other archers from making the team which would prevent them from gaining expierience. The World Championships is not an event to go and gain expierience from. This is an event that the elite archers spend a ton of time and money preparing for.

Back to my idea. I think World Cups are a great event to use as an example. This is an event that will prepare an archer for the Worlds, more than any other event. If an archer is good enough to earn points at these events every event, or even earn points at any of the event this should be taken into consideration for the trials. This would be current year results. If the archer is earning points, then they have proven that they can compete against the world and win several matches.

It is just another thought.


----------



## cdhunter (Feb 4, 2006)

bigdawg said:


> Good points. So first off, only one person mentioned eliminating the trial system.
> 
> I am not for eliminating trials all together. I do however believe the trial format should change, but again that is a different subject all together.
> 
> ...


I agree that participation in an recognized series and producing results should have some bearing on team selection. How much is open to debate.
some thing that trials imo has failed to do is help Identify those that are just on the bubble of taking that next step and helping them find the resources they need to move forward. The deeper the talent pool the stronger the team is. A strong team is what all of us want in the end. More than an event trials is a tool, a snap shot of the current condition of Canada's most eligible athletes to represent us and the current state of the sport. Again jmo rather than debate whether or not to keep trials we should be figuring out how best to process the information we could be gathering from this event. The data is there. Those whom have coaching positions with fca ie regional coaches should be identifying where our archers are struggling and where improvements to coaching and teaching programs need to improve.


----------



## Jay (Sep 18, 2002)

I saw a post about is it fair for USA to say, "Braden, Dave and Reo go because you arem ost experience" and how it would be unfair to Chance, Jesse, Logan etc. you are right, it would be unfair, but that is not an issue we have in Canada because we do not have the depth of field that the USA does. Not yet anyways.

The trials right now are not as horrible as people make it sound, there are still a few issues such as our ridiculously low qualifying score. For Compound men to qualify for trials it is 1300. a 1300 would get you dead last at world cup events. It is bs to have qualifying score that low. If you look at the past world cup scores: 1350 was 59th in Croatia, 1350 was 57 or 58th. Those scores barley make the cut now! So I firmly believe that the score should be adjusted and made to 1350 to qualify. For recurve, a 1200 is also stupid low. In Turkey, 1261 was 64th, the cut and Croatia 60th was 1240. so the qualifying score should be upped to 1250. Who cares if the participation would low in some categories but that's fine, this way you are atleast getting someone going who will make matchplay and preventing a lucky win by someone who won't. 

Another point that wasn't made was the difference at 70M from 1360 to 1400 is very little. 1360 a 70M score would be approximately 345 and a 1400 would be about 350. Both archers then are very capable of 118's in matchplay. The 1400 more so lilely then the 1360, but who's to say that an equipment failure, illness, bad day etc. could make the 1400 shooter (who's proven and more consistant then the 1360 shooter) lose out in matchplay and other h2h's to the 1360 shooter who has a hot weekend and drops a lot of 118's? The current trial points are not fair to prevent a flash in the pan weekend. Instead of doing sudoku, 1300 score or higher gets X amount of pounts plus rank gets point doesn't evenly reflect performance. a 1400 score doesn't have enough point lead over a 1350 after trial points. Easiest way to do it is, shoot a FITA, (eg. 1400 is 1st) then take your FITA score and just add to it. Add all your round robin match scores plus bonus points for wins then add the points of winning the double elimination matchplay.

That should better prevent the flash in the pans from lucking out and making the team.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2009)

Again we talk of this flash in the pan......,when has it happened. I think we are concearning ourselves with an urban legend.

I think that making the trials important is the key, move the qualifing scores to reflect current standards. I think the US system covers it well

No matter what tournament the archer attends experience is gained to suggest that an archer that chooses to attend trials and makes the team is some how undeserving because someone else decides that they are not experienced enough is short sighted..... and who gets to decide what is experience and what is enough, talk about a can of worms or worse

Make the qualifing scores high enough and your coverd


----------



## RT56 (Jun 24, 2005)

Very good discussion

Although the qualification score is low, the qualification FITA only allows the top eight archers to move on to day 2.

This is also the first trials after the dissolution of the Excellence Membership that members complained about years ago. There was always the comment, "why should I have to pay the FCA $150 or so to go. I won't"

Well, the trials this year are basically open, so I hope those archers show up at trials this year to walk the walk. 

Flights were (are) cheap to get to Winnipeg from anywhere in the country this year. The trials are on the weekend so someone may only need to take the Friday and Monday off from work. The cost to go to trials would be less than going to many of the major events.


----------



## bow slayer (Apr 2, 2007)

TeneX said:


> i would disagree,
> 
> for right now in Canada you are probably right. There are a few archers that have proven themselves on the international stage time and time again, but if we just roll over and say here is your spot have a nice day, how will we get ever get more archers at that level.
> 
> ...



couldn't agree more.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

The discussion is very intersting and surely more general than specifically related to Canada, so let me say few words about how to select a team.

*- Pure trials-*

Pros - The best objective way to avoid politic issues and to select those that shoot at best at that time.
Contras- Do not protect THE TEAM from losing its best archer because of illness, material failure, slight drop of form or simply practical impossibility to participate.

*- Average score over 3 results *

Pros - best to evaluate consistency of results
Contras - no granting that results are obtained under same conditions as far as weather and competitivness are concerned, and can be repeated at the event

For sure, pure trials are OK if you really have a large number of archers shooting at very close level. Eliminating Chance Beubeuff in favour of Reo Wilde does not change the result of the team, and same if you eliminate Park Kyung Mo in favour of IM Dong Yun. But if average results are not so close, then pure trials are very dangerous for the team (strenght).

*Best system found up to now in the world is a mixed one in between the 2*. 
- A) you create a pre-selected LIMITED group of archers based on average score over at least 3 results over one year, and you call them National Team
- B) you run trials among this group only in a date as close as possible to the event
- C) you live 2 places to the results of the trials and the third one to the decision of the national coach, national commission or any other technical board that can objectively judge who should be the third one in the team (ever in any case belonging to original pre-selected group).

Above system is used, with small variations, by almost ALL European nations, and even Korea does not leave their (pure) trials open but limited to their previously selected national team members .


----------



## Pete731 (Aug 9, 2002)

TeneX said:


> Also if we just select people with out trials we are basing our selection on peoples opinions, not on solid evidence, trials is the only way to be sure that the selection process is fair for everyone.
> 
> Allan


An average of scores or either in a trials aren't people opinion, they are fact!

What is fair for one, may not be as fair as you think for another one ...

Like Vittorio wrote, always pros and cons, whatever you decide there is trade off.


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER (May 20, 2005)

*?????*

Is there funding involved here,,. If so, a trials should be shot as this lets the newcomer maybe step up and be noted ... We all know this sport even more so than others is TODAY A HERO TOMORROW A ZERO...Is this for Italy as well ??


----------



## Pete731 (Aug 9, 2002)

It is for the FITA World Championship in Korea.

No funding .... 

+ 450$ for a new national suit 
+ expense to go to the trials 
+ expense for the event. 

Since it is in Korea, it is not a bad idea to take 2 weeks to get use to the 12h jetlag!

Some guys in my area are complaining about expenses for 3D events LOL


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

CLASSICHUNTER said:


> TODAY A HERO TOMORROW A ZERO...Is this for Italy as well ??


This is a general worldwide valid rule for all sports... I suppose


----------



## TeneX (Mar 24, 2003)

Pierre you are right,

the average score is fact, BUT also as Vittorio said, it does not ensure that all scores are shot under the same conditions. 

And as for Cost of attending trials, would you rather spend money trying to get to multiple majors every year hoping you have good conditions at one of them so you can get your qualifying score? Or would you rather spend money going to ONE event for trials? 

I like most of what Vittorio said.
What I like most is that there is a previously selected group allowed to attend Trials, 

I think it should be limited to gold squad members. 
this would take the average score thing into consideration while still making the team selection while everyone is shooting under the same conditions.

Maybe one day we will have a selection process that makes sense but until then we have to work with what we have. 

Allan


----------



## rgauvin (Feb 20, 2007)

on paper I'd think bye's are good, but in reality I don't like it. In addition to the reasons outlined above I'd like to add 2 more.

1) gimmies, bye's and free rides don't encourage people to keep training
2) free rides and the selection process would be a potential source for controversy


There needs to be a balance, what it is, or how it is done, I have no clue.


----------



## cdhunter (Feb 4, 2006)

one thing Vittorio may not realize is the travel associated with trials in Canada and probably one of the driving forces behind this discussion. Rough calculation from top to bottom including Sicily, Italy is roughly 1800km give or take a couple hundred Km. For those of us that live in Manitoba and are head to Quebec for nationals we are traveling 2400km there is 500k between Winnipeg and the next city with a population over a 100,000 people Regina. Mt inlaws housed an student from austria one year and drove from Winnipeg to Calgary to visit me and my wife. The young lady was just blown away how you could travel for over 12 hours and not have left the country let alone pass only one major city in that time frame. Our current trials system is in it's infancy and it will take time to molded it in to something successful that works for us. One thing that it needs though to improve is our Participation and Patience.


----------

