Selection process for EHBPC 2011 23-26.06.2011

Anyway, my point was not to get into an argument about borders and national identity. I just wanted to explain that self-interest had no role in my vote.

Maybe that the Idea of country vs city is to see be the point of view of the organizers. What is the more easier way to give slot:
-Have like 80 cities who want 64 slots
-Have like 10 coutrny for 64 slots.

Allowing spots by country seems to be a more manageable choice.... specially next year as the worlds will not be hosted in Europe and the number of teams being capable to travel overseas is greatly reduced.

Currently Americans can play in the Euros if they live in Europe, or sub onto a European team, or if they ask the tournament organisers directly... should this change?

If we keep to city/scene boundaries then does a team have to have existed in that city/scene for a length of time before being eligible? If not, then can an American team come over for a holiday and compete for one of said city/scenes slots?

Is it time to mention the fact that Switzerland aren't technically part of Europe? With the retrospective disqualification of L'equipe from 2009 and 2010 standings, that would make the teams placed 2nd in each the winners. Whoever they were.

Currently Americans can play in the Euros if they live in Europe, or sub onto a European team, or if they ask the tournament organisers directly... should this change?

If we keep to city/scene boundaries only then does a team have to have existed in that city/scene for a length of time before being eligible? If not, then can an American team come over for a holiday and compete for one of said city/scenes slots?

There's been a lengthy discussing on this at the LOBP.
What it comes down to is that a foreign team must qualify in their respective city/country of choice in order to be able to earn their spot.

Is it time to mention the fact that Switzerland aren't technically part of Europe? With the retrospective disqualification of L'equipe from 2009 and 2010 standings, that would make the teams placed 2nd in each the winners. Whoever they were.

ha!

If we keep to city/scene boundaries then does a team have to have existed in that city/scene for a length of time before being eligible? If not, then can an American team come over for a holiday and compete for one of said city/scenes slots?

Not sure I follow. Why does that only apply to the city distinction? It seems to me that the same thing can be said when places are allocated by country.

Or are arguing that, with the country distinction, you must be a national of a country if you are going to be allowed to play for them?

Is it time to mention the fact that Switzerland aren't technically part of Europe? With the retrospective disqualification of L'equipe from 2009 and 2010 standings, that would make the teams placed 2nd in each the winners. Whoever they were.

Switzerland is part of Europe... unless they have moved their country outside of the European continent. They just don't belong to the European Union...

A selection by country is the only way we can do that.
For exemple, in france we have more than 10 cities who are playing. and seeing a shitty team from montpellier going instead of a good parisian or rouennaise one would be a shame

(no offence to the wild pig)

Is it time to mention the fact that Switzerland aren't technically part of Europe? With the retrospective disqualification of L'equipe from 2009 and 2010 standings, that would make the teams placed 2nd in each the winners. Whoever they were.

x2, FUCK THEM!

European is people who are using Euro money.

Surely, if you don't like the idea of borders, then argue against the idea of a "best of Europe" tournament.

Well, I'm not in favour of excluding London polo players who aren't british citizens from the euro champs, which could be considered the logical extension of the country argument.

so, what happen with teams, where the 3 players live in different countries and dufferent cities... can they choose from who are they playing for?

If for example, there is a national champ to determine who can go, if the team is allowed in the tourney by the organizers, and win, they take a slot.

1) more than 48, if possible
2) by city
3) may/june

The above preferences are entirely based on personal preference: more teams means more chance for shitty regional teams like Black Stabbath to get in, selecting by city also, may/june would be more enjoyable to non-acclimated pasty Brits.

Free accommodation is really appreciated, when offered, especially amongst the lower-waged players. It would be awesome if some accommodation could be preserved for these types. I try not to use it when it's not necessary (I stay with non-polo friends in London for example) as I can imagine how much of a ball-ache it must be to organise.

City-selection is a truly weird way of choosing who goes to a tournament, but I think it makes them more awesome, not less, than if the choice was made by country. Ultimately, the final day is probably going to feature most if not all of the same teams, but the previous day has a great all-inclusive festival vibe. I agree with Jono that it is a massive motivator for smaller scenes to put in more effort to grow. When recruiting new players, I always mention this years' Euros, and I think it drives frequent players to improve in what could be an otherwise very static scene. I don't expect that persistently poor-performing teams will be able to come to the Euros for ever, but I think it would good for everyone if it could last a bit longer.

Alejandro, yeah I read that... I agree that "scenes" are the only clear polo boundaries so far. Country seems arbitrary, although it would help out lots of London teams to go down this route.

Mark: I was just thinking from a "scene" mentality as an alternative to a birth/living scenario... in my mind anyone can play as long as they earn their spot based on the allocation of the tournament organisers... therefore: Americans should be allowed if the "scene" lets them in for qualification.

Bill: Agreed, although the alternative to letting anyone take a "scenes" spot would be an arbitrary length of time within said scene? 3 months or something?

Rik: As long as you have earned a "scenes" spot, then it doesn't matter... possibly this could be stopped with the "must have been within said scene" for an arbitrary time as mentioned above.

T-W: Welcome to London's world...

Dan: Agreed it helps smaller scenes, it does this to the detriment of larger scenes though (teams demoralized that they can't play as their scene has too many good teams already).

One alternative is a much stronger bias on scene size and a "qualification" size for smaller scenes... it would be like the Geneva system, but a city would not get 1 slot by default... they would only get a slot if they achieved a set percentage of all registered teams, cities could pair up with each other to form bigger "scenes" which would then be eligible for a slot, etc. (I'm not a fan of this idea as it's pretty complicated, just putting it out there.)

Is it time to mention the fact that Switzerland aren't technically part of Europe? With the retrospective disqualification of L'equipe from 2009 and 2010 standings, that would make the teams placed 2nd in each the winners. Whoever they were.

Seconded.

so, what happen with teams, where the 3 players live in different countries and dufferent cities... can they choose from who are they playing for?

I like the idea of European super teams (or whatever). I think there are two pretty good ways of handling them. Either allocating a number of spots out of the total (which can be "applied" for or handed out first-come-first-server or whatever) or have a wildcard tourney which they can play in to get entrance.

Ultimately, from my experience in Berlin, as someone not playing and just experiencing the weekend, wildcard tourneys are awesome and solve a lot of these problems I think. But, it's a lot more work for the host city.

+1 for the wildcard tourney.

1) more than 48 with a wild card tourney. As many as possible just make the tourney bigger!
2) country-u want the best send the best or I'm relocating with my team to some small place with no
polo to form a new polo scene!
3) may/June

1) more than 48 with a wild card tourney. As many as possible just make the tourney bigger!
2) don't care, I'll be whoring myself out to any half decent team whether they are from London or not.
3) may/June

.

i'm well up for sharing an apartment with pique for a week. One rule: no Brown.

Dan: Agreed it helps smaller scenes, it does this to the detriment of larger scenes though (teams demoralized that they can't play as their scene has too many good teams already).

Agreed. I did feel guilty at the Euros that better players and teams from London didn't get to go but we did, but I reckon Geneva 'weighted' selection really well, so that we only had one place, but Manchester had two.

Also, newer players in London are limited only by their abilities and ambitions - what I mean to say is they have loads of good teams to play and impove against - rather than in Brum/Manchester/Cambridge etc where the same 3-6 players are the strongest and have less opportunities to improve. But then flip that around and playing in London probably means a lot less court-time than in Birmingham. I agree with both the city and country systems, but obviously favour the former due to selfish reasons.

My 2p...Why not have the Euro's for City selection (but make the allocation method fairer for each city this time, and have more slots, make it massive!), and use the UK champs as the decider for the Worlds (I realise this is a Euro's discussion but I believe this is relevant, please bear with).

The Worlds should be the showcase for best teams, no question, and the UK champs is a competitive and fair tourney that does the job of selecting the right teams for the job. It's been done this year with (I would say) great success. However, my personal belief is that the Euro's should not follow in the same vein as the Worlds; it should be the pinnacle of what polo is all about, being a fabulous open sport that anyone can attend if they want to (only in a nice hot place!).

Here's a thought though: Euro's - fun, all-inclusive. Worlds/UKC - 'best of the best'. Why have two 'best of the best' tourneys when you could make one inclusive for a lot of people who are very glad of the opportunity. I know Fenboy3 (Cambridge) were super chuffed to play this year and had an absolutely great time, just check out RV's little biog of the event (http://tinyurl.com/39cp3tc). They probably wouldn't have made the cut if it was down to a UKC type event to determine team entry (sorry dudes). Why turn this around and make it more serious/competitive is beyond me, and will likely put new players off bothering completely.

More than 48 teams please (if possible)

By country

June sounds good

Just read through all the arguments about city. I think that big competitions like the Euros and Worlds can be "best of the best" and "fun and inclusive" by the way of Wildcard tourneys. Its the perfect solution, teams of lower levels from smaller cities can play in the wildcard and soak up the atmosphere and play some different competition, and better teams from bigger cities still get to compete.

Fenboy 3. They probably wouldn't have made the cut if it was down to a UKC type event to determine team entry (sorry dudes).

Cheek Bogey ! We topped our group in the Euros on the first day .
We would maybe have done better on day 2 if Hayden hadn't destroyed himself and his bike in the morning wiping out on the bottom of the hill from the bunker .