Selection process for EHBPC 2011 23-26.06.2011

I guess the better question is what do we all want from the Euro Champs?

I'd want to know who's the best European team. Similarly, if I want to know who's the best North American tea, I'll check out the NA Champs.

I can't for the life of me think why Euro teams should compete in the NAs or vice versa. If people want to mix up which continents they're playing in/against, there are plenty of truly open tourneys.

I want the euros to be a showcase of European polo, and to determine which team/players are the best in Europe.

You know what I meant, open to any teams regardless of origin.

Not really sure of the definition of 'an open'

I didn't. That's why I wanted to make sure. I was thinking that you may have thought Bill was arguing for an open tournament.

I'm not bothered about the NAs in Euro debate. I tend to lean towards not allowing them simply because they would be taking up places of actual Euro teams who want to play.

I still think qualifying tourneys that are not based on nationality make more sense though. More accurate results (the best polo teams will get through), more fun, more opportunities to qualify, no gerrymandered borders that artificially influence which teams make it and don't. Sounds like a win.

The NA system works in my opinion. The country system has a major flaw in the allocation of spots to countries (for them to do with as they choose) by the tournament organisers (or a Euro body).

Personally, I'd rather travel to an "accredited" Euros qualification tourney (Karlsruhe would be perfect, etc) and continue to mix it up with all the countries as often as possible (I believe this helps our game, especially in London).

The idea of doing a UK champs every year seems slightly dull by comparison (less monetary support, less teams, no "bidding" or selection meaning there is no compelling reason to improve the event each year). I'm not saying the UK Champs wasn't fun, I just don't see European (and London) polo being the best it can be through national classification, especially as there is no body/funds/future for that kind of direction for the next few years (in my opinion).

I see the argument for being labelled the "best team in the UK" and for the traditional aspect of that kind of approach, I just don't think it's as much fun, as fair (in some ways) or as progressive for the sport. I may be wrong though, just thinking out loud.

Allowing Americans to play (or not) is a different argument, I don't actually think it would make that much difference at the moment (because of the shear cost/effort), but it's good to consider/think about it now rather than later.

I want the euros to be a showcase of European polo, and to determine which team/players are the best in Europe.

To answer my own question, I would want the Euro Champs to be the biggest & best tournament on the continent in that year.

to determine which team/players are the best in Europe.

I am not sure that a weekend tournament gives the definitive answer.

In 2009, in my view, BAD were the best polo team in London. And yet in the Euros, Malice placed above them. Did that make Malice the best polo team in London? Not in my view.

It may be heretical to say it, but I am not that bothered about who wins. I certainly didn't spend all that time reffing at the EHBPC because I was interested in who was the best team in Europe. I did it because I thought the EHBPC would be a fun event, and wanted to try & help it be the best event it could possibly be. Part of it is wanting to have really great polo matches, so obviously you want to have as many good players & teams as possible, but mostly it's about having a really great event, the best possible event on the continent in that year.

I think the London Euros were, and from what everyone says about Geneva & berlin, it seems that the 2010 EHBPC & WHBPC were too.

If the Euros goes open to teams who come completly (3players) from other continent, that's not european championship, that's world's.
For me, to get in EHBPC one team should have 1 player from a city involved into euro-polo.
I don't care if one or two teams aren't really from the place they should, im fuckin' not conservative or nationalist, don't care about all this shit. The only fact is, a tourney have an identity, a name, and if the NA are the same as the EURO who are the same as the WOrlds, just make 3 big tourney by year without calling them like this. Big tourney 1, 2 and 3.
One more point, for a lot, the name of European championship help us a lot during organisation of EHBPC 2010. Tell to the city that we want the make the european champs isn't the same thing that talking about a big tourney. Sure, we could lie, but it could be difficult to announce to medias that the winning of european is from MKE.

On argue against the major tourney option for selection:
In a lot of way make the selection by country is easier than construct a whole european body.

In 2009, in my view, BAD were the best polo team in London. And yet in the Euros, Malice placed above them. Did that make Malice the best polo team in London? Not in my view.

maybe not, but in the euros malice def had the best player in europe...mr mvp brown.

maybe not, but in the euros malice def had the best player in europe...mr mvp brown.

very nice of you but false imo... So what are the UK champs going to decide?

i don't think we kept the yanks out to protect the europeans bill it was to grow the sport across europe, which worked very well. There is more than enough spots to be filled by top teams from europe for us not to have american teams enter. The standard from 2009 to 2010 was drastically different.
Oh and i agree with you about the weekend thing :)

Polo-birth/regular scence perhaps? i.e. Where you started playing polo or played for a sustained period of time? Might sound silly but does eliminate the arguement of nationality and the fact that you are part of a scene and assuming you have good relationship with the local players they should be glad to give you a qualifying spot to represent them?

European body. Agreed.

Clearly, the outspoken, people want official polo. European body makes sense, good idea Jono, (if it was you that mentioned that first, I've read most of the thread, but it is a tough read and it sends my head up my arse!) you dont back the UK champs however. An odd stance that I think you should dwell upon and reconsider.
Polo gets official, it becomes this international sport everyone knows and watches and we look back and the first UK champs happened then stopped. Then it is brought back again down the line, which it will, because it is a fucking no brainer! Just let things ride their course and dont make decisions on thoughts, whims and because it seems "slightly dull".

No NAs, I agree. Im worried I cant take a team across and Im European. I wouldn't expect to go to the NAs as much as I'd expect Boca Jnrs to play in the Champions league, as cool as it would be (yes, they are SA, but point made).
I dont know about the player thing, all I can think is if someone has a lease or a mortgage in an area, they are from that area. Dont know, not really interested. Dont know where that came from but there must be a very simple solution to that problem.

Qualification should be regionalised. Cities, country, cities, country... but no mention of a regionised selection = London + surrounding areas, Ireland, Scotland and Midlands + North England or of something of that ilk.
Logistically it makes sense. Frankly, I am strongly opposed to a UK wide selection process for the follow reason:

What I learnt at the London open was that London is something of a Behemouth. Polo is massive, I'd be tempted to move to London to play massive polo, it would be ace, loads of leagues and stuff, it sounds proper good. But I will tell you this, if you think that it is fair for every other team in the UK to have their slots swallowed up by London, then you are very wrong. It seems that the country selection would do that. But it's another no brainer, because all European championships encompass teams selected via the different regions of the UK anyway.

'if you think that it is fair for every other team in the UK to have their slots swallowed up by London, then you are very wrong.'

I just want the best teams to represent regardless of city.

The current format seemed to work really well in the case of euros 2010. I think the diversity of teams has really helped to grow the sport, which can only be a positive thing.
If we try to 'open' it up by allowing NA or everywhere to enter it will in fact narrow the scope by removing the opportunity for people in europe to play each other, which is why we have them?

Much younger scenes (like the rest of the uk - i live in brum) have improved drastically by playing older team such as in london and europe, and through this have created some challenging opposition in the past couple of euros/tournies - netto, fen boy!? If country selection were to take priority and (hypothetically) london take most/all the slots then wouldn't you be removing that progress and diversity, potentially creating a bigger imbalance with the rest of the uk?

Indeed Pique. Qualification of course, this is not an open. Yip the best teams will play.
Ive read somewhere that having the best teams in Europe will be better for the sport, he/she would be annoyed if a crap team from small town France excluded a brilliant team from Paris = bad for the sport. What is good or bad for the sport? Who can define this? Here is how I look at good for the sport.

Please let it be known, I am not looking for an arguement. As an informed outsider, I want to ground some people and get some issues off of my chest that this, somewhat derailed, thread is missing.

Polo is a street sport. It's cool that way, people make their mallet, grab a tin or two, head off to a carpark / court and play with mates / make mates.

My experience is, I went to UKs, scored a goal. That was our aim, we were bouncing, loved it. Went back home, guys were like, "shit boys, you've improved" Next time around we, the same team, and another team, from our scene new to tournaments, do equally as good as each other by winning games, scoring loads and playing well. Return to home scene the whole scene lifts once more.

Look at the roots, the soul of the sport. It is not elitist, it is inclusive of all and by having teams from around Europe is only going to be better for the sport. Let's be professional, it just looks like things are on the cusp of becoming snobby/elitist and losing touch with reality.

Finally,
Regions - obviously some regions deserve more allocated spots than others. So London could still be allocated a good number of places. Im voicing for the rest (and thanks for joining the discussion Hyper - you posted before I could post this -our views seem mighty similar). I want good polo, now and in the future.

To put it simply, what is the advantage of the fifth best team in London going to the euros? Compared to even a terrible team from somewhere without an established scene?

Define 'European team'.

crickets

Ehpbc is not the only possibility to play against very good teams in europe. Almost every tournamant in europe has teams from a lot of different coutries. We played l'equipe, the clowns, the puceaux at regional tournaments. So, I don't really know why it's so important to go to the euro's, 'cause who the fuck cares about who's the best team in europe ?
I would say, as I already said, let us have country selections and get the qualified teams to the euro's.

I completely agree with everything you say tiger.

Yet, there are plenty of opportunities to play other great teams in lots of other tournaments as mentioned above and improve game play/ scenes.

To put it simply Louis - I feel it is important that the Euros is of the highest quality throughout, showcasing the best that Europe has to offer.
If that 'terrible team from somewhere without an established scene' is better than a fifth place team from somewhere else, let them play in the Euros.

Ehpbc is not the only possibility to play against very good teams in europe...

This is true. However lots of those tournament spaces go in hours (Greif Masters - not even half an hour!?) Ehbpc are usually around the same time every year which allows you to plan and build interest too (time off work and expense).

There are always going to be issues regardless of which format you choose. Just as London could say 'why should a valuable spot to a lesser regional polo team', I could say 'why give a spot to Budapest or Toulouse, we could easily beat them', but surely the arena for that is the polo court.
Scotland and Wales are different countries? Should they have their own allocation?
Munchen Mo has said that they sometimes struggle to get games during the week and yet they had three spots last year.

Ehbpc should be about seeing who the best team(s) in europe is, but would anyone say they were disappointed by tournament standards so far? From what I have seen ehbpc are fucking amazing.

This year -
Manchester:2
Cambridge:1
London:4
Birmingham:1
Oxford:1 (No show - Could this spot go to London or another regional team)

Let's ignore the American issue for now, it's a separate issue in my opinion (currently they can play if the organisers of the UK Champs or Euros allow it).

My decisions are based on three areas, I have little time for a "traditional" sporting approach, although I understand we set a precedent for the future:

What ensures the growth of polo?

• Polo should be exciting to watch ensuring others want to give it a try.
  
• Polo tournaments should be an awesome spectacle so they bring in lots of spectators, media interest, etc, further promoting/growing polo.
  
• Any polo team should be able to compete in European tournaments to further their game and addiction to the sport, you shouldn't feel you are not yet good enough, or stuck in your particular city/country, etc.
  
  

I'm of the opinion that qualification tournaments (geographically spread out, but you can attend any of them you choose) ensure each region gets a massive boost to their polo scene, ensures more media interest, bigger and better tournaments in the future (as countries/cities put competing bids together to host the tournaments) and ensures every polo team in Europe gets to compete in a few awesome events even if they don't make it to the Euros, keeping their interest in the sport (and an awareness of how to improve). For example, I'd rather come 10th in a Euros qualification tournament, than 76th at the Euros themselves. These tournaments "grow" polo by default, we are asking each scene to up their game and Europe as a whole to get more organised... there would still be National competitions, they just wouldn't feed the Euros (because of the many existing flaws to that approach).

What will be the most enjoyable to play in and be a part of?

• Tournaments would become bigger and better, bigger and better tournaments are more fun (in my opinion).
  
• We would have more importance placed upon the existing Euro tournaments (other than material prizes), more importance means better polo.
  
• Encouraging all teams to compete at a European level (as well as the UK champs) means we can all enjoy awesome tournaments such as Greifmasters more often (as there will be bigger and better tournaments in Europe).
  
• International polo is more fun by default as you are playing a more varied group of changing teams, it's also allows us to learn from each other, variety is fun.
  
  

Bigger and better events through qualification tournaments, more international polo, more varied polo, more importance on winning (immaterial importance at that). Marginally less importance placed on National Championships, but I'll get back to that in a minute.

What is best for London (as LHBPA chair)?

• London currently loses out through the "cities" allocation approach.
  
• Using the UK Champs (country allocation) as a qualification tournament is good for London as it's often dominated by our teams, although it is less of an indication of how good our teams are (in my opinion) as we're used to playing each other a little too much and have the potential to choke at International events (my opinion).
  
• London is likely to have very easy access to at least two Euro qualification tournaments and has great transport links/options, the increased organisation of European polo would ensure cheap travel well in advance.
  
• The standard of polo would be higher at qualification tournaments, it would be a better prep for London teams than the UK Champs (sorry UK).
  
• The potential to host a European qualifier would be great for London, as it would any city/scene.
  
  
  
  

How does this effect the future of polo?

• Keep the national tournaments, but don't use them to feed the Euros.
  
• Polo is currently too segregated (for low ability teams), this would encourage everyone to up their game more at an International level (my opinion).
  
• The European qualification tournaments would be great for the growth of polo.
  
• The Euros would have the best teams showcased, fact. (Wild card pre-lim for everyone else).
  
• Scenes can try different mixes of individuals/teams to qualify at different events, European "power teams" would better match the USA teams (my opinion, this'll change anyway in a couple of years)
  
• Polo would have a European-centric approach to rules, courts, reffing... "polo standards" would be better.
  
• European polo would become more entwined, experience/sponsors/tips would be shared more often... smaller scenes can be encouraged via a qualification tournament, new scenes could even be born off the back of it.
  
• Once the level of polo became more consistent, the Euros could revert to a country-allocation approach, but the extra experience/standards/organisation would stay.
  
  

In my opinion qualification tournaments and the creation of a European body would be best for Euro polo over the next 5 years (at least), the alternative of relying on each individual scene/country to "up their game", or get organised will have a less positive outcome.

There are three problems with the above as far as I can tell:

• More traveling to the qualification tournaments (increased organisation should reduce this effect somewhat, we could also have a Euro fund for extremely cash-strapped players to apply to)
  
• A movement away from a "traditional" approach to sports. In my opinion this is a mute point, tradition is holding us back and we can always revert back to a country-allocation process when it is the better approach (when the existing scenes are all organised, or when the size of polo simply means each National championship becomes like the proposed qualification tournaments, as the qualification tournaments simply aren't big enough any more).
  
• Less importance on polo at a national level... this is the big problem for me, we would be sacrificing the importance of winning the National tournaments as a trade off for more polo growth/tournaments/standards/etc, it's worth it in my opinion, but I can see how others would feel differently.
  .
  

Following this thread with interest and am very supportive of the points Tiger makes regarding the vital post-tournament cascade-down and out of skills, enthusiasm and ambition that returning teams of lesser ability always bring home.

The debate around whether the leading but lesser team from Bulgaria displaces the fifth most brilliant team from Paris divides us, compounded by the implication that the tournament itself is somehow damaged or loses credibility in its search for a 'proper' champion by accommodating lesser teams.

Irrespective of the details of individual tournament selection processes, the number one element that polo needs to cherish and protect in this undeniable growth spurt, is its unique sense of open family. This is communicated largely through mixed ability teams congregating to celebrate and share the game - whether that's an Open format or a national or international Championship tournament - and returning to their regions to invigorate their scenes further.

Polo has thus far been inherently inclusive and therefore outreaching - the day it sells it's soul to become dedicated to serving only 'the best' in some relentless search for the elite is the day it becomes just like any other sport.

Neil

Good point Neil, but we're talking about the Euros in this instance, it's not about "inclusiveness", it's about finding the best team in Europe.

I believe Euro qualification tournaments will further polo growth and encourage scenes more than any inclusivity that we artificially add to the Euros event. I also see the flip side which is the national tournament becoming less important (somewhat), but London already steals the show at the UK champs (mostly), I don't see how that is particularly encouraging, etc? I could be wrong.

Again, +1 to Jono. I really think this is how it should be done in the future. ASAP, really.