European Qualifier Discussion - 2013 and onwards

Oh sorry you are right it was you: https://www.lfgss.com/post2876944-297.html

What if any one of those teams is no longer good enough to be sent to the Euros (through injury, a falling out, lack of progression, bike failure, they haven't played polo in months, etc)?

I reckon there's a 95% chance those 'top 4' will qualify, even with subs, injuries etc. The lower 4 (or so) all probably have a 50/50 chance of getting the bottom few spots. I'm arguing that it's more important for those bottom teams to have as fair a crack as possible, than it is for the top teams to needlessly validate their position in the top ten.

Of course, this is far from perfect: 2 day round robin, or maybe the French system would be better. I'm assuming it's too late for the latter though, and if the solution is the former, then let's do that and everyone's happy!

We have a whole 10+ months to make the system as fair as possible for next year, but this year we have to accept certain limitations (2-days seems unlikely?) and make it as fair as possible for as many teams as possible.

Disclaimer: I'm not playing, but I think RR would be fairer on my team, so that's the position I'm supporting.

I reckon there's a 95% chance those 'top 4' will qualify, even with subs, injuries etc. The lower 4 (or so) all probably have a 50/50 chance of getting the bottom few spots. I'm arguing that it's more important for those bottom teams to have as fair a crack as possible, than it is for the top teams to needlessly validate their position in the top ten.

At the risk of repeating myself, there will be a lot of teams at the Euros who are as good as, and better than, the Big 4. Therefore, the rest have to show that they can at least give the Big 4 a game, otherwise they have no business going to the Euros.

That's fair, but it doesn't address my point, which is that the qualifier's role is to determine who does and who doesn't get to go.

The UKHBPA has already asked for 'teams who don't think they have a realistic chance of qualifying' (paraphrasing) to not enter, on the grounds it makes it fairer for everyone else. He even went as far as naming the kinds of teams he'd expect to come along.

How is it different to say 'teams who are almost certainly going to qualify shouldn't enter to make it fairer for the people in the cut-off zone'?

I understand everyone wants to play, because it'll be a great tournament, and valuable practice, but it's different to other tournaments in that who wins is inconsequential, but the 10th/11th place cut off decides who gets to go. Moreover, it'll likely be a team who solely represents a city who narrowly misses out.

John H has already asked for 'teams who don't think they have a realistic chance of qualifying' (paraphrasing) to not enter, on the grounds it makes it fairer for everyone else.

I'd like to point out, this isn't me going off on one, this was agreed at the meeting.

And yes, I agree with Dan. If there was some way of creaming off the top teams, which was fair, then yes, I would support that (for example the winner of the biggest UK tournaments, or the French two part qualifier). It's too late for this year, but worth thinking about well in advance of next year.

I disagree with Bill that all the qualifiers need to show they can give the top 5 (let's not forget Gettin Wild) a game. We have been asked to send the best 10 teams in the UK and Ireland. I doubt team 10 would do that well in the main event, but they've still earned their right to go.

Some of the top players have argued why should they be deprived of a spot in the qualifers, what if they refused to go automatically. While it's a fair question, but with the greatest respect to those teams, I'd suggest this process isn't about them, and what their needs are, the priority should be on getting the most accurate representation of the top 7/10 teams, and therefore the priority needs to focus on getting spots 12-5 right, not 5-1.

I'd like to point out, this isn't me going off on one, this was agreed at the meeting.

Yeah, sorry if it seemed that way. I agree with you, but we're effectively asking weaker teams to self-identify themselves, so why can't we do the same with the stronger teams?

Next year: How about the UK Champs feeds a Euros Qualifier then? The top 12 (top 12 as then every team would have earnt 9th place or above in DE) play RR at a later date?

Personally I think the UK Champs results can (should?) be used.

There's one argument for RR for removing "unexpected" results, but the Euros and Worlds use SR and DE precisely because it relies on teams to be good under pressure and to try and work out their path to the final be placing high on the first day?

we're effectively asking weaker teams to self-identify themselves, so why can't we do the same with the stronger teams?

Both are far from ideal and although some teams may feel "pressured" not to try for the Euros Qualifier, who's to say who has been training enough (and worked out some new tactics) and which team hasn't? No-one knows the true ability of a team until the day of competition and I don't think anyone has ever been turned away from a Euros Qualifier?

That's fair, but it doesn't address my point, which is that the qualifier is about determining who does and who doesn't get to go.

John H has already asked for 'teams who don't think they have a realistic chance of qualifying' (paraphrasing) to not enter, on the grounds it makes it fairer for everyone else.

How is it different to say 'teams who are almost certainly going to qualify shouldn't enter to make it fairer for the people in the cut-off zone'?

I understand everyone wants to play, because it'll be a great tournament, and valuable practice, but it's different to other tournaments, in that the winner is largely irrelevant, but the 10th/11th place distinction is hugely important.

I don't agree with John's statement, as it goes. I think it's very difficult to judge whether you have a chance of qualifying or not. E.g. Passed It have not played a single tournament with our full line-up outside of London, so we have no idea where we are relative to other UK & I teams.

I haven't seen either of the Irish teams play for 6 months, and I haven't seen any of the 'new' UK teams play. How can I or anyone else realistically estimate what the standard is likely to be at the qualis? I would much rather see as many teams as possible at the qualis going for it, rather than the same old faces.

I'd argue that 4-6 weeks of hardcore team training would push any team above the threshold and would ensure they qualify for the Euros.

Teams: You have 5 weeks of training left.

Yeah, sorry if it seemed that way. I agree with you, but we're effectively asking weaker teams to self-identify themselves, so why can't we do the same with the stronger teams?

The only way to sort this out is for as many as want to play, come & play. Any other method is just guess-work, which is likely to be pretty inaccurate, given how much a novice can improve in 6 months in this sport, at the moment. E.g. Matt Cosmic went from novice to one of the best players in London in what seemed like weeks, Emmet likewise etc etc.

Or we could just decide based on who has the coolest stickers on their bike.

Jono, that sounds like a good plan. I'd go with that, includes the UK champs, all teams in the qualifiers are "winners", but the final order is accurate, ticks all the boxes.

Uk champs would then need to be in March/April next year.

Yep, let's also consider this though: Is RR actually fair? What if the team in 12th place has to play all of the top 4 teams (and gets knackered/injured/demoralised) before they get to play someone of a similar ability?

I jest, RR is very fair, despite being dull as dishwater.

Now you are just trolling.

I disagree with Bill that all the qualifiers need to show they can give the top 5 (let's not forget Gettin Wild) a game. We have been asked to send the best 10 teams in the UK and Ireland. I doubt team 10 would do that well in the main event, but they've still earned their right to go.

Well, 5 - 10 is likely to come down to who can get a result against one or more of the top 5, and who gets rinsed. That was my point. Degen got through the qualis last year by beating Cosmic. In my mind, that showed that we could live the best now & then, and deserved to be at the Euros and even though we didn't get through our group at the Euros, we didn't half give Hooks a shock.

Exactly, some teams know how to rise to the challenge (as they will need to do in Europe) and others don't (bad mental state going into games). You'd be removing their ability to show they can punch above their weight to everyone as the top teams are now "off limits"?

I'm totally behind the UK Champs being the 'feeder tournament' for the Euros. And I like Jono's idea of the top twelve (or however many...) then going on to an RR tournament. The main problems are logistical though - we'd need everyone to sign up to an early spring tournament, which, if outdoor and rainy would be grim, and if indoor, would probably skew results towards Cambridge teams/slippy floor specialists.

So you are saying if we have teams A, B, C, and they are ordered by ability, and B would generally beat C, but lose to A. But if C don't have the fear against A, and in a one-off game scrape an unexpected victory they deserve to go more than B?

It's an interesting way of looking at it, and goes against the principle of RR being the most accurate way of seeding, but I do see your point, judging teams by their ability to beat the best (cup teams), rather than their peers (league teams).

So you are saying if we have teams A, B, C, and they are ordered by ability, and B would generally beat C, but lose to A. But if C don't have the fear against A, and in a one-off game scrape an unexpected victory they deserve to go more than B?

It's an interesting way of looking at it, and goes against the principle of RR being the most accurate way of seeding, but I do see your point, judging teams by their ability to beat the best (cup teams), rather than their peers (league teams).

No, I don't think that Degen was a C team that got lucky, we were a solid B, which we proved by beating two of the best teams in Europe. If we were capable of nearly always beating the C teams, and winning more than we lost or drew against B teams, we would have been an A team, but, as we showed in the Euros, we weren't able to do that at tournaments.

So you are saying if we have teams A, B, C, and they are ordered by ability, and B would generally beat C, but lose to A. But if C don't have the fear against A, and in a one-off game scrape an unexpected victory they deserve to go more than B?

Well I didn't go statistical on it, but consider how taking off Cosmic, Spring Break and Nice Touch would affect Wet 'n' Wild? Now if they fuck up on a game with a team beneath them they're only moving downwards in the rankings...

Why not give Wet 'n' Wild an auto spot too, right? Well all you'll do is diminish the chances of the next best team securing the accurate ranking they deserve. You effectively give the middle-range of teams a narrower field of competition to play within, which may be good for finding the ranking between those teams, but is terrible for finding an overall ranking that deserve the Euros spots?

In the example above, you could easily end up with:

1. Cosmic
   
2. Nice Touch
   
3. Spring Break
   
4. Passed It
   
5. Kings
   6. Wet 'n' Wild
   
6. Etc
   
   

I'd argue they are easily capable of a top 3 placing, and denying them that opportunity (or any team) would be wrong, there are no definites in sport (more so in bike polo)?

Bill, Jon, I'm not talking about any specific teams, I'm just trying up with some sort of logical argument for doing the qualification process a certain way.

Taking off the top (or bottom teams) will have a negative impact on the next best teams (and a positive impact on the next worst teams)... narrowing the field only serves to skew the rankings.

Very true, but is that still relevant if you are say looking for 7 spots (as we are), and the "4th" team, might end up 6th. As long as the same teams qualify, it doesn't really matter in what order, so I'm not sure that argument really applies.

Of course you could argue removing the top 3 teams (for example), could still impact 7th/8th, but to a much lesser extent (at which point you have to consider would the increased accuracy make up for that).

And what if we are looking for 4 spots?

You said we need an accurate ranking of teams (yet now your final ranking is only good at finding the top X teams in a random order, in a couple given scenarios).

You're also forgetting that I also don't buy into the argument that you've successfully labelled the best and worst teams.

Your increased accuracy is imagined (you're actually searching for predictability).

Bill, Jon, I'm not talking about any specific teams, I'm just trying up with some sort of logical argument for doing the qualification process a certain way.

I agree with Jon. It seems like you are starting from a desired result (Cosmic, NT, SB, DR qualify), and working backwards to try and achieve it, rather than just putting on a tournament and letting the results sort it out. The only reason to restrict entry to the qualis is logistics, ie court-time available. If we have the time to do a RR, brilliant, if not, then do something else. But all the teams should have to play, in my view.