Tornado Tables Saskatoon Foosball (www.saskfoos.com)
Home Events Rules Advice Results Where To Play Links Message Board Contact Us

 

This thread also displays on the following board(s):
Calgary  &  Edmonton  &  Vancouver

Topic: World cup team selection

Author: Pixel Original Message Posted: Mar 29 2012 2:59PM

Hi all,

Do we have any selection process in mind for next year's world cup team? Anyone have any thoughts yet? I figure it's better to bring this up now rather than in September again...


Author: Will Reply #1 Posted: Mar 29 2012 5:58PM

I havn't started on anything yet. Any suggestions?


Author: greg Reply #2 Posted: Mar 31 2012 7:56PM

I suspect that if we want the strongest team we should find a way to play for the positions, as opposed to friends voting for each other, like when Adam and the posers from Quebec got their trip.

It's tuff for the East to play the West, but depending on who wants to go we could work out a lot of the positions in advance and maybe have a play off in Alberta where there'll proly be a whole bunch of lesser players with oil-bucks to burn on a trip.

Or not and just let a bunch of friends vote for each other because it's proly a better trip among friends.

Here's a question, If I'm not going is it any of my business who goes? I think it is, and I guess that's why Adam and the Quebec group were in such poor taste.


Author: SilentSam Reply #3 Posted: Apr 3 2012 12:30PM

I think it's reasonable to have 50% of the team made up from a West Coast qualifier, and 50% of the team made up from an east coast qualifier. It's hard enough to get time to travel to Europe for foos, let alone get travel time for a National qualifier + the World Cup. Where these qualifiers would be held is not an easy choice, but for an East Coast qualifier, Toronto ahs the only ITSF training center that I know of, so that would be a good bet.


Author: Sniff Reply #4 Posted: Apr 3 2012 12:41PM

Qualifiers don't work for Canada foosball. From experience, from logistics, they don't work.

And if one is held in Alberta, you guys will likely never hear the end of a Imanpoor comparison.


Author: Pixel Reply #5 Posted: Apr 3 2012 4:13PM

I was just checking out the Canadian Volleyball team's qualification process, and though it's slightly different (foosball is the only sport I know where individuals qualify in order to form a team that's never played together before), I think we could essentially use the same sort of idea. However, it's heavily reliant on a points system, which we've just thrown into place, and is not really meant for this purpose.

I'll summarize briefly my understanding below, but you can read through all of it yourself here:
http://www.curling.ca/ctrs-trials/olympic-qualification-process/

First, they take the leaders from the points system and invite them to a Canada Cup invitational. In order to gain points, you must attend and place in CTRS (Canadian Team Ranking System) tournaments around the world (see how points are calculated here: http://www.curling.ca/ctrs-trials/how-points-are-calculated/ ). Just like the system we have in place now, different points are awarded for different levels of tournaments. However, unlike us, they award points for events outside of the country.

Then, the Olympic qualifiers are chosen from the winners of that event, AND from the leaders of the points systems.

There's obvious differences as we need to worry about singles vs doubles, different table types, etc., but I think the important thing to get across is that this is a very unbiased way (no popular vote) of determining who is the best by rewarding people for A) attending tournaments and B) placing well at those tournaments.

Thoughts?



Author: Pixel Reply #6 Posted: Apr 3 2012 4:29PM

Edit: easier to explain like so --

Olympic Team
FROM
Canadian Curling Trials (8 teams)
FROM
CTSR (6 teams) OR Pre-Trials (2 teams) OR Canada Cup (1 from 2011, 1 from 2012)

Pre-Trials (2)
FROM
CTRS (12)
[The top 4 teams from the 2010-11 season
The top 4 teams from the 2011-12 season
The top 2 teams from the 2012-13 season
The final 2 teams will earn invitations based on their two-year CTRS points (2011-2013).]

This obviously isn't something we can implement straightaway (I don't think), but maybe an idea for the future?



Author: hardboiled Reply #7 Posted: Apr 9 2012 5:24PM

since the 'Canadian Tour' has given way to the US Tour for events, why not start from scratch, and call it using rock-paper-scissors?

it's not pretty when competitive air hockey has a better rating system - with 4,000 less players on the continent.

that's my thoughts.


Author: hardboiled Reply #8 Posted: Apr 9 2012 5:37PM

and one more thought....

Jeff: the round robin qualifier in Edmonchuk worked very well imho. One of the best formats I've seen.

Logistics are simply about choice: one either shows up, or they don't.




Author: Will Reply #9 Posted: Apr 9 2012 5:40PM

All I am sure of is that we better get a strong team over there again this year. After watching those live matches in the quarter finals like GB vs France etc it would be great to get to at least that far again. I wonder how many people would be willing to pay there way now that we are in division 1 - I bet there are some more people interested.


Author: Linda Reply #10 Posted: Apr 9 2012 5:47PM

Qualifiers...rankings...points...as of right now, IMHO none of this stuff makes a significant impact because TSAC doesn't actually sponsor the trips to the World Cup.

All the various methods we've used in the past, or suggested above will never truly work because even if the best people are qualified/selected to play, not all of them are willing to pay for the trip to Nantes (understandably so because it's expensive).

I'm not saying we should arbitrarily select people for the World Cup team. It should be as fair and unbiased as possible....but it's hard to do if only a couple of people are actually willing to fork out the money to go.


Author: Will Reply #11 Posted: Apr 9 2012 5:52PM

Yeah. The method we used last year where anyone that wanted to be involved in the process got to be a part of it worked really well. Players like Eric, Matt, and Jeff for instance were all important people in the selection process for the team. We ended up with a happy group of people, even the ones that didn't make the team at least were included. That way people that don't actually care at all can just stay out of it and people that are trying to improve/help the system can do that without being critizcised incessantly.

Last year we just got anyone with any interest in going (regardless of whether they could afford it) to email in and register. The people that were involved came up with a fair system and we put a list of our strongest possible team forward. Then we asked people for a deposit to be paid, and from there we ended up with a team.

If we select the team from all the canadian players by some competition/results based method, we will end up having to get in touch with 70 players to figure out who will end up on the team. Its easier to make a team/list based on those that would actually attend if they are selected(or qualify).


Author: greg Reply #12 Posted: Apr 9 2012 6:52PM

I didn't think last years method worked that well. The people that were willing to pay their own way voted on who should be on the team. It was only fair in the sense that the people who were footing the bill got to control who made the team. It was not fair in terms of giving all the players an equal chance to earn a spot on the team based on their skills.

At the end of the road if you feel you deserve a spot on the team but don't get the votes, you should have a chance to compete for that spot or else it just comes down to a popularity contest.

That's what I think, unless it's more important for friends to play with each other then it is to have the strongest players. It's a close call because in doubles it does take chemistry, but I'd say go with the strength.


Author: greg Reply #13 Posted: Apr 9 2012 6:54PM

but only because I'm so unpopular ho ho ho


Author: greg Reply #14 Posted: Apr 9 2012 7:10PM

I think Linda has a point too, except that qualifiers and a national points race are the types of things that could potentially draw in a company like Molsons to pay some costs. Until we get to that level of organization TSAC won't have the coin, so yea, but the organization comes first before the sponsorship.

Molsons would never pay the way for a bunch of friends who voted each other onto a team. Molsons has to see the numbers, how many people play in the qualifiers, how many people compete in the points race, how many people care. And I have no idea whether Molsons would ever be into it, but I'll bet that is the way a company looks at sponsorship opportunities. The more people involved, more organized we are, the more professional the selection process, the better the chances for sponsorship.


Author: greg Reply #15 Posted: Apr 9 2012 7:16PM

Which would be great if we could get it because it would open the door for some great Canadian players who don't want to spend their own cash on the trip. We would get a stronger team too, and really do a heck of a job promoting foos across Canada with the selection process and so on.


Author: Pixel Reply #16 Posted: Apr 10 2012 11:11AM

I don't think "we picked people that would be willing to pay to go" would sound very appealing to potential sponsors. And yes, we do potentially have sponsors on the line here. So, theoretically, if they WERE willing to put up some money towards the uniforms or trips or whatever...what sort of selection process would we show to them in order to illustrate that we truly are sending the best possible team?


Author: Darcy Reply #17 Posted: Apr 10 2012 11:26AM

I'm not really sure it's feesible to do something that would qualify the whole country at once, such as a nationals, but we could have a western canadian qualifier and an eastern canadian qualifier which could combine results as national results then use that to qualify the team?






Author: hardboiled Reply #18 Posted: Apr 11 2012 11:24PM

I think you are right Darcy. And Mario put up some great suggestions. As has Greg.

At he bottom of it is a vision.

One that lets players plan for tournaments. One that lets sponsors know that basements aren't where it is, and that there is a funding model. One where a Canadian Pro Tour actually exists, even if it is 4 stops nationally. One that has rankings based upon achievement, not ego. One where 3 hours of promotion a day is spent upon what we got, instead of humping weekend junkets to the states.

Whinging about there no solutions being around ain't gonna make them appear.

They've been there all along.

And until that high school 'wildcard' crap goes away, Airhockey will continue to eat our lunch.


Author: hardboiled Reply #19 Posted: Apr 11 2012 11:29PM

Solution #1: 'Canadian Nationals' award airfare to Dallas for top finishers in AM, Expert, Pro, ProMaster teams.

Tornado would work on package, as would sponsors.


Author: S. Edwards Reply #20 Posted: Apr 11 2012 11:38PM

Jees Andy you sound a little bitter.


Author: S. Edwards Reply #21 Posted: Apr 11 2012 11:53PM

Maybe Darcy should read some of the history on this board about world cup selection. Wait, maybe he did and that's where he got the idea

I personally love playing foosball in my basement. It's one of the best tables in the city.




Author: Darcy Reply #22 Posted: Apr 12 2012 12:35AM

I don't recall claiming that the idea was my own or that it was unique in any way. Maybe Simon should try adding to the conversation at hand.




Author: hardboiled Reply #23 Posted: Apr 12 2012 8:46AM

To add, I'd think suggestions likely apply to 2013 though.



Author: hardboiled Reply #24 Posted: Apr 12 2012 12:36PM

and once again, as I read what I posted last night, I realize this tone is un-helpful.

I apologize for the previous, inasmuch as I was cranky.




Author: Happyham Reply #25 Posted: Apr 12 2012 1:47PM

Hey guys,

Mario was talking to me about this so I thought I would just share the UK's selection process with you.

Its nothing groundbreaking, but I do think we have sent the best team every year (although of course there is always very tough decisions).

So taken from www.britfoos.com:

Dear All,

The BFA committee would kindly request that all those who would like to be captains or coaches for the National Team in Nantes 2013 read the following. The successful persons will be in position for whole of 2012 and responsible for selecting the WCS Teams as well as the World Cup Squad.

We are looking to have strong continuity this year coupled with a shared experience gained through competing at each WCS, group practices and a committed focus.

The successful captains and coaches will have two key responsibilities.

- Selecting teams for each WCS over the year and a squad for Nantes. (If not attending they can nominate a stand in captain for the event)
- Organising squad practicing sessions over the 3 months before Nantes 2013.

I will be working with the successful candidates to facilitate both these and to also ensure all players are prepared for any event they might be attending.

The application period will close at 23:59 on the 29th February 2012 and the applications should be sent to committee@britfoos.com

All applications will then be presented to the committee and a decision will be communicated by 9.30am 5th March 2012.

The application should be informal but accurate to what you bring to the role. Please include past experience, thoughts for the future and what your intentions would be.


Kind regards,

Ben Mason
National Teams Organiser




Obviously the WCS stuff doesn't apply to you guys, but I think the rest would work fine.

Get Will to appoint a 6 man committee (or however many you want), and then take applications for team captain. If vote is tied, then Will (president) has final decision.

Everyone then respects the team captain's selections.

Joe Hamilton


Author: Happyham Reply #26 Posted: Apr 12 2012 2:02PM

You have had a bad experience with a team captain picking the team in years past, but I think this would be a little different.

Am I right in thinking it was Adam (president at the time) who selected Mario as captain? By setting up a committee, it would reduce the risk of bias and 'politics'.

If the committee were worried that a certain candidate was going to pick the team poorly, he just wouldn't get the majority vote.

I get that there are 2 regions involved here and not many people (if any) know everyone well enough to select the team accurately. That's where the captain can use whatever resources he wants. In our situation, Atha talked with me all the time about who he should pick. There's no harm in that.


This is a completely hypothetical situation:


Mario Iannuzzi gets selected as team captain.

There are a few people who are 'core' selections for the team (Ariganello, Kane, Eric).

Mario can then get the opinions of those players when he's trying to make a tough decision between a Western player like Matt Botros, and an Eastern player like Olavo Tavares. They are less likely to offer a bias opinion because they are assured of their places and just want to win.

Ultimately it would be Mario's decision, but if he chooses to seek the advice from both the Eastern players and the Western players, then there's nothing wrong with that.


By having some sort of tournament for places, you won't take the best team. I can guarantee that.

You will have a really solid player who has an off day. Or even worse, not show up at all.


In the UK's situation, two of our best 7 players would not even show up to a tournament for places. They are busy people and can't commit that much time to foosball.


Author: Darcy Reply #27 Posted: Apr 12 2012 5:10PM

Hey Joe, good to see you on our boards, thanks for the write up.

That's sort of what we did for this past World Cup except Will was kind of the defacto Captain, which is good because he was the driving force behind getting a team out there. We asked everyone that wanted to go to submit their name and from the players who submitted names we all voted on the top seven.

Being that we were div 2 this year we didn't really get the interest we were looking for, and even from the group that did end up getting picked, some pulled their names out after they were voted in.

That said, now that the team is back in Div 1 hopefully there is more interest and that will open up options to try something more along the lines of what you're talking about. Even if we end up going with a vote or a captains choice, I still think it's important to have qualifiers, as it will help us justify who we're taking to potential sponsors. Not saying we'll get sponsors, but I think if the option is there to help with optics we should at least build something towards that for future efforts.

Either way, I think we did well for the pool we were provided with this year and hopefully 2013 will be more competetive and allow us to field a stronger team and build on the success we had.


Author: greg Reply #28 Posted: Apr 12 2012 5:51PM

Thanks for the input and that Joe, but since I don't have a hope of ever ever winning a popularity contest I might as well just speak up and say I don't like the idea for Canada.

The UK has 10 times our player base, a rating system, and already has sponsors, a clear choice for captain, a much smaller area and lower transportation costs, and we already got burnt bad with a "captain picks all" system.

AND your claim that "By having some sort of tournament for places, you won't take the best team. I can guarantee that." ... is close to about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Are you saying you can guarantee me that the guy who wins open singles at Worlds in Dallas this fall is not the best around because "You will have a really solid player who has an off day. Or even worse, not show up at all. " ?

To be honest we've already had this discussion years ago, rejected the "Captain picks all" system, and have made improvements but arn't there yet.


Author: greg Reply #29 Posted: Apr 12 2012 6:01PM


Here are two things we could do to assist in finding the best team and sponsors. And really, we need to get sponsors first or we donít have a hope of putting the best team out there, so it kind of has to look good more then it has to be good.

One, is maintain a national points race. We have had one in the past and several cities have points systems today. There is no reason we couldnít unite the various systems into one. We could rate the matches played between Canadians at tournaments in the States. It would be nice if every city that has a foos community could rate at least one singles and one doubles event every two months. It wouldnít be necessary to charge an entry fee to the rated events because you just want to get as many people involved as possible.

Whether or not this system is 100% accurate is irrelevant. No system is. The system will give us some idea of our relative strength, and more importantly give our sponsors an idea of our numbers and geographical distribution.

Two, the qualifiers.

What would be nice is to use City Championships as stepping stones to the final event. In Western Canada we have 6 cities that players come from so we could have each city hold a tourny where the top doubles team and top two singles players qualify for a spot in the Western Canadian Closed. (And if for example you played in Vancouver and had a bad day, head over to Victoria and spark it up). A couple players from the top of the points race could round out the field for the Closed event. The Western Canadian Open would be held the same weekend as the Closed so not only would having a spot in the Closed carry some prestige, but those players in the Closed would get to play in two singles events and two doubles events, encouraging them to come.

Do the same sort of thing in the East and send the top four players from each side, East and West, to the World Cup.

The upside is huge, Canadian pride, a lot of foos, we get to know we got close to the best team, and agian most importantly, impress our sponsor with how much exposure they get for the money.

The downside is itís a lot of work.



Author: greg Reply #30 Posted: Apr 12 2012 6:17PM

That is to say the four best players from each the Eastern Closed and Western Closed make the team. Granted the fifth best player from the one side might be better then the fourth best from the other side but it's a big country, what can you do?


Author: S. Edwards Reply #31 Posted: Apr 12 2012 6:29PM

>>impress our sponsor with how much exposure they get for the money

What kind of sponser and what exposure are you talking about. This is foosball. Edmonton has approximately 1 million people and we get 12 - 16 people out for a weekly DYP. Sorry but I can't see an upside for any sponser. Not unless they legalize marijuana


Author: greg Reply #32 Posted: Apr 12 2012 7:02PM

Well lets hope they do legalize it with with expense from health care at 20 bucks a year from a pot smoker and 165 a year for a drinker. (not including the increased violence, car accidents and criminality that comes only with drinking)

Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver all play their tournies in bars. If we ware shirts and stuff with a beer company logo on it, advertising that company on this web site, mentioning the company during the plethora of media coverage that came for example following the last performance of our team. It's not out of the question. What if we had a big Molsons sign up at the last tourny at West Ed. It's not the number of people who race nascar, it's the number of people who see it.

Shlitz once threw in for a $125,000 tourny in the States and for years we drank Shlitz when we went down there.

Fosters has its' logo up on the UK foos sight, I assume they pay for that.


Author: greg Reply #33 Posted: Apr 12 2012 7:08PM

I've been just itching to tell somebody that stat about the physical damage to a persons health caused by drinking compared to pot.


Author: S. Edwards Reply #34 Posted: Apr 12 2012 7:15PM

Maybe you're allergic to pot, go see a doctor about the itching


Author: greg Reply #35 Posted: Apr 12 2012 7:32PM

I wish, allergic to withdrawal if anything, ho ho ho


Author: .Garry Reply #36 Posted: Apr 12 2012 7:36PM

"Maybe you're allergic to pot, go see a doctor about the itching"

Just when I thought this thread was going sideways....








Author: greg Reply #37 Posted: Apr 12 2012 7:37PM

And to be honest I haven't got a clue whether we could ever get a sponsor or for that matter whether or not I'll ever play in another major tourny myself. Just kicking the bee hive.


Author: .Garry Reply #38 Posted: Apr 12 2012 7:49PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39EYga3eEWc&feature=related

lol


Author: perennial underdog Reply #39 Posted: Apr 12 2012 10:43PM

Seriously,Greg,"not including the increased violence,car accidents...that
comes only with drinking."You go too far,Greg.

While I know that these threads are normally meant for light hearted comments and topics,when a claim is made that is so egregious,so offensive,and, quite frankly,so ignorant,something has to be said in response.

Moreover,I noted your irritation at Mr.Hamilton's comments with respect to not having a tournament to determine who is given a spot on the national team,a point on which you and I agree,Greg.But your comments regarding dope and those who smoke it are both irresponsible and in poor taste.I have known you 30 years,Greg,but this
is a little much.While I may not be supported by others on this thread
by being critical of dope,a drug that is well known for being a gateway
to much harder drugs,the relationship between it and the violence and criminality that it precipitates is equally well known(i.e.the present and
ongoing drug war in Mexico,whose primary drug for export,for the most part to the U.S.,is dope,not cocaine.)

It is a fact that smoking dope impairs motor skills as much as alcohol and driving while high is equally dangerous to driving while drunk.Your
attack on drunks is appreciated but the narrow correlation you draw between alcohol and criminality is disingenuous and incomplete.As
anyone who has taken a first year criminology course knows,Canadian
prisons are occupied pervasively by those who have drug and or
alcohol dependencies,two things that often go hand in hand.Thus,if you
are going to be critical of one,you must be critical of the other--if you
are intellectually honest.

P.S.By way of explanation,my frustration and my annoyance stems from
an incident when my car was hit head on by an automobile operated
by an impaired driver.Before hitting my car,the impaired driver hit
another car,killing two teenagers.I witnessed firemen pulling these
two young men,who were just beginning their lives,from the wreckage,trying to revive them but their efforts were in vain.The impaired driver was found to be both drunk and high on dope and,incidentally,was not injured in the accident.



Author: Sniff Reply #40 Posted: Apr 13 2012 1:20AM

Now that was one *bleep*ed up post.

Don't get me wrong, personal shit like that is bound to sway any one persons opinion, but let's not get way ahead of ourselves.

Preventing anyone impaired from driving is the problem, not people being impaired. I think they are even trying to get breathalyzers in everyone's car to help prevent that.

Anyways, *bleep* qualifiers, maybe take points or best finishes as a consideration for all tour stops for the year, and use that as a base. It's hard enough to scrap money together to your, let alone more money for a qualifier. Yea it maybe rewards those who tour more, but it still rewards good results. And if you take a year from touring then maybe it's not so bad that you take a year off from team Canada if your in that upper bracket.

Just some thoughts.


Author: greg Reply #41 Posted: Apr 13 2012 3:44AM


Joey, I am really sorry you were hit by an impaired driver, seriously I am.

But hereís the thing. Cannabis contains carcinogens but itís a mistake to claim it causes cancer because surprisingly does not. A similar thing happens with driving. Yes cannabis effects various skills required to drive, I never said it didnít, but if you want to make the claim it causes accidents then it would be best if you could actually show it does statistically.

From the abstract (from Yale University 2009)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19340636

ďEpidemiological studies have been inconclusive regarding whether cannabis use causes an increased risk of accidents; in contrast, unanimity exists that alcohol use increases crash risk.Ē

Itís complicated, but in clinical studies cannabis has been shown to cause drivers to;
1. Drive slower.
2. Keep more distance between themselves and the car in front.
3. Be less likely to overtake or make a risky decision.

By and large the opposite of the effect of alcohol. Some accident culpability studies in the real world have actually shown stoned drivers were statistically less likely to be at fault then sober drivers. Other studies find different results and as a group the studies are as claimed above, ďinconclusiveĒ.

The whole question is complicated by things like the difficulty we have even determining whether or not somebody is/was high. Levels of THC in the urine remain for weeks after smoking, but peaks in the blood and begins to drop rapidly before youíve even finished smoking the joint, and long before the high peaks at about 12 to 17 minutes later. The peak lasts for about 15 minutes and then the high drops off. Because there is no real amount of THC in the blood for most of the high, about two hours, a user can bring himself down if needed, like for driving, or at least hold the high at a place they like. For different people and different strains of pot it varies.

I donít like driving while I first peak because it is more dangerous, and stoned drivers donít like making risky decisions, PLUS I WONíT GET AS HIGH AS I WANT !!! So why would anyone do it? Honestly drunk driving and stoned driving are totally different. Even the amount of increase in reaction time from a lot of pot is less then you get at .08 BAC.

The criminality in Mexico is not caused by the drugs, itís caused by the prohibition. (The kind of violence Harper is trying to bring to Canada). Even when a junky robs a store its not the drugs that make him do it, itís the lack of drugs heís craving, the expense of drugs. But before he robs the store he has a drink to get his courage up. Alcohol is the substance that when used will in an of itself increase a persons likelihood of committing a criminal act like assault, robbery, rape. Other drugs like caffeine or heroin donít generally do that, and cannabis users in particular will, high or not, in general break fewer laws then most people, except possession laws.

I am sorry you got hit Joey, I really am, but it was the booze that caused it, and booze with pot is particularly dangerous, but pot alone? Like Jay Leno said, ďif you want to crack down on stoned drivers itís easy enough to find them, theyíre the ones driving too slow.Ē

The claims I make about cannabis are 98% accurate,19 times out of 20. If you disagree with me you will be destroyed with all kinds of actual scientific research, just as often.

I honestly think legalizing pot would save the environment and economy, it's time.





Author: Darcy Reply #42 Posted: Apr 13 2012 8:52AM

I think lots of things that may or may not be relevant to team Canada's selection process.


Author: S. Edwards Reply #43 Posted: Apr 13 2012 8:57AM

>>The claims I make about cannabis are 98% accurate,19 times out of 20.

Marijuana must have an effect on math skills


Author: greg Reply #44 Posted: Apr 13 2012 1:46PM

Oh yeah, the "stepping stone" theory, ridiculous. After people smoke dope they don't want to try heroin, they want to eat a bag of chips.



About the selection process, having people go to the States to qualify increases my costs more then qualifiers do because I wasn't really planning to go down there anyways, plus qualifiers increase our chances of sponsorship, maybe. But if you do tour in the States it's different. None the less, it would be a shame to send a weaker player who tours over a stronger player who doesn't.

Anyways, one player likes qualifiers, another doesn't. I think we all know the issues well enough. If enough eastern players follow this board maybe it's time to have a vote and move on.


Author: greg Reply #45 Posted: Apr 13 2012 2:37PM

Do you want to have a secret ballot or not. Maybe we should have a vote on that. Democracy is a messy thing.

Just for the fun of it I'm going to start a vote,

Qualifers, Yes, No, Combination (core players get free pass and qualify the rest)

Intrested players can post

------

My vote, Y

Running total Y - 1 N - 0 C - 0


------
And we'll see if a pattern develops.
Hows that for math?


Author: greg Reply #46 Posted: Apr 13 2012 2:40PM

or ,

Y

Y-1
N-0
C-0


Author: Darcy Reply #47 Posted: Apr 13 2012 2:42PM

Yeah, but if the stronger player never tours or plays any foosball they're not going to the world cup.


Author: greg Reply #48 Posted: Apr 13 2012 2:52PM

I don't know about that, Joey doesn't tour but he won the last major in western Canada, against a pretty strong field.


Author: Darcy Reply #49 Posted: Apr 13 2012 2:58PM

Sorry, maybe my terminology is flawed. What's the difference between touring and driving up to Edmonton to play in a Major?


Author: Will Reply #50 Posted: Apr 13 2012 3:34PM

One difference is that Touring gets you much more valueable experience against top players in the world, as will be seen at the World Cup in France.


Author: Will Reply #51 Posted: Apr 13 2012 3:44PM

And a lot of posts have passed since this but... Darcy said:
"Hey Joe, good to see you on our boards, thanks for the write up.

That's sort of what we did for this past World Cup except Will was kind of the defacto Captain, which is good because he was the driving force behind getting a team out there. We asked everyone that wanted to go to submit their name and from the players who submitted names we all voted on the top seven."

To make things clear. I acted as President, not as Captain during the selection process. I was not a "defacto Captain". We asked anyone who had interest in going to join an email thread, then the 13 players that had interest in going voted on a team. It ended up being almost an exact list based on IFP Points, which is something worth mentioning.

Once the team was voted on and decided, the team members voted on a captain. Mario and I were tied in votes, so we "Co-Captained" the team. I have been a part of a LOT of teams (soccer for 20 years, hockey for 15 years) both at a very high level. The team chemistry that we had when discussing strategies and planning rosters etc was second to none that I have been a part of. I am sure that wihtout that chemistry we wouldn't have won.

Greg said:
"your claim that "By having some sort of tournament for places, you won't take the best team. I can guarantee that." ... is close to about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. "

I 100% agree with Joe on this one. Your point about open singles at Worlds is not good either. Look at worlds this year. Tony finished 7th I believe? lost to Kevin Walker and then to Ryan Moore. You think that Tony doesn't belong on Team USA before Kevin Walker? The best player doesn't always win, whoever plays best in that match always wins.

In our circumstance there is even more against a qualifier though. You think Jeff Allan is going to come to Edmonton for a qualifier? He has never come for anything, but he has represented our country very well at the world cup and on Team Canada at other events too. Out east, you need to get Domenic, Julien, Mario, Mario, Kane, and all the other strong quebec players to ONE event. Even then we need to agree on which table the event should be on, and on top of that all it takes is one person to get sick, have to work, or just not be able to play, and they are off the team... It is NOT the best way to pick a team.


Author: greg Reply #52 Posted: Apr 13 2012 5:01PM

I stand by what I said.

Yes. The best way to determine a persons ability to preform in a tournament is to actually have a tournament.

No, if Tony didn't win in Dallas and Kevin did then Kevin should be on the team, after all he didn't just play best in that match, he played best in that event. If he can do it once he can do it agian and deserves a shot. Things change.

A tour has more then one stop.

I don't remember saying the qualifier should be held in Alberta but if Jeff can't make it this year then maybe he can get out to the one in BC next year. We're talking about one player here, one of many, not a deal breaker for the system. If you've got the time to go to the World Cup you got the time to qualify, but if you would rather go to Vegas then a qualifier then go to Vegas, but don't come crying to me about not having the money to qualify, you had a choice. And certainly don't expect you deserve something extra like a seat on the National team just because the trip to Vegas was so expensive.

Yes Jeff represented us well but that doesn't mean Joey or somebody else couldn't do better, and if you think you could do better you definitely deserve a chance to prove it over a table. I remember after Jack won Semi Singles in Vegas, first thing I did when he got home is double dip him because I can't stand guys who think they're better then me because they beat somebody else.

The truth is that neither qualifiers or popularity contests guarantee a team that preforms the very best, there's no way to know.

And lastly but most importantly, all this discussion over how to pick the best team is in vain if we don't get sponsors, because it is expensive to go and our team of very best players will be decimated by the number of guys who are going to bail if they have to pay the full bit. Even if we don't get sponsors this year, maybe next year.

So which system, the qualifier or the popularity contest (like I'm going to win one of those), would appeal to potential sponsors. And the point is that if qualifiers appeal to sponsors more, then hands down it's going to get us the best team that actually attends.

Oh, and did I say,

The best way to determine a persons ability to preform in a tournament is to actually have a tournament.



Author: Darcy Reply #53 Posted: Apr 13 2012 5:10PM

Greg, not to be rude here but you speak in the first person like people are out to conspire against voting you in because you're a bad person.

That's not true at all. I have never once seen you play and have no idea what your game is like, how can i vote for you under those circumstances?

If you want to be on the team next year, I would highly recommend playing a bit more actively so we can see what you've got.


Author: tony Reply #54 Posted: Apr 13 2012 5:12PM


Keep the posts relevant. This post was to discuss the selection process for the World Cup, not to discuss your opinions on drugs. If you wanna talk shit I suggest you email each other instead of stirring the pot and subjecting the rest of us to it.

On another point, I think the best way is to have qualifiers. While it is important to recognize some past accomplishments and experience, Canadian foosball has become pretty diverse now and the only way to fairly assess talent is via qualification tournaments. That's also one of the only fair ways to get some of the older blood out. Today, anyone can win on any given day.





Author: Will Reply #55 Posted: Apr 13 2012 6:16PM

"The best way to determine a persons ability to preform in a tournament is to actually have a tournament."

I think this is more accurate:
The best way to determine a persons ability to perform in the World Cup is to review their past results against World Cup level players.


This thread isn't about whether you should be on the team or not, its about how to pick a team. You have made statements relating to just yourself making the team, and not specifically how the best way to pick a team is... so I'll go there too.

It doesn't matter whether you or I (and we both have) have won some of the bigger tournaments held in Western Canada over the past decade. If you or I had in the past beaten Billy Pappas, Tony, Ryan, Rico, etc. then you or I would get everyones votes to be on the team.

Mario, Kane, Mario, Matt, and Eric have all beaten one of those 4 elite players, and ALSO have won regional level events like you and I have.

Then there are up and coming palyers, Darcy beat Andreas Esterbauer (2nd in the World Championships), players like Tony Tong and Garry are hitting majors and proving their worth against the best. Beating players in a local event doesn't get you ready for the World Cup. Out East we have Quebec, now with SEVERAL very very strong MULTITABLE players. We also have a ton of people like myself now that have played in past world cups. The ability to adjust between tables and perform in that intense atmosphere is different from anything here. Since you keep talking about the best way for you to make the team, I just can't agree with that. It has to be about picking the best team possible.


Author: greg Reply #56 Posted: Apr 13 2012 7:55PM

Sorry guys but my comment "(like I'd win one of those)" is a joke, lighten up.

And I have made lots of specific suggestions about not just picking the best team but ensuring the best team attends by working to please sponsors. Resurrect the national rating system, city championships to qualify for Closed Qualifiers, Have a vote !?! on which way to go,

And very little reference to myself, though including a comment that I'm not sure I'd ever play in another major (which a qualifier would be for me) so I'm not sure characterizing my posts as "statements relating to just yourself making the team" is all that fair or accurate. To be honest "I'm not sure you even know what your complaining about now."

I mean with all the suggestions I've made about the selection process why not address those instead.

Do you think sponsors are necessary to ensure the best team actually attends?

If so, which system do you think would better our chances for that?

Do you want to have a vote or continue bickering till the court of public opinion caves one way or the other?

I honestly think it is unknowable whether or not one system or the other will pick the team that preforms the best.

Maybe last August and based on a review of past results you would have picked Tony to be on your team in Dallas, and your team would have lost. At what point does Ryan beat out Todd? The first time he beats Todd in a qualifier, or after his rating is higher? There is know way to know, both systems have merit, are we going to vote or bicker?








Author: Will Reply #57 Posted: Apr 14 2012 1:39AM

"Do you think sponsors are necessary to ensure the best team actually attends?"

Yes- it is unlikely that the best 7 players in Canada would be able to afford the trip and have the time off simultaneously.

"If so, which system do you think would better our chances for that?"

I don't think the system is relevant. Hockey Canada has a President that nominates a GM, then the GM picks a coach and a team, essentially. Most major sports national teams are put together in a similar message. Sponsors aren't asking how the team was picked, they care about the exposure and status of the sport.

"Do you want to have a vote or continue bickering till the court of public opinion caves one way or the other?"

This bickering has little or nothing to do with how the actual selection process will take place. Unfortunately I'm subjected to being both the President of TSAC and being a player that wants to be on the team at the same time, so it is a very delicate situation for me and for our countries player base.

The President of Hockey Canada doesn't sit and read message boards and respond to sometimes irate players that wish they had made the national team. Not everyone will be happy with how things will proceed, but the method chosen will be fair and equal. I won't be the person making the decision on how to pick the team, either.

A committee of of knowledgable players and promotes from different area's across the country has been assembled. This committee is not picking a team, but rather is discussing the options we have now. The committee will decide on a fair way for the team to be either chosen or selected in some manor. It might be based on results, a captain/coach choosing the team, a vote, a tournament to play ones way onto the team, etc. I'm not sure what they will chose or what they are discussing. They might choose to make it a public discussion or keep it behind closed doors until after. I'm not being a part of it though because it is a bit of a conflict of interest being the President, a player, and if I was on the committee too it would just be too much.


Author: C.A.L. Reply #58 Posted: Apr 14 2012 6:11PM

How about the selection process get even more basic than what is presently being bantered about.

Should every player need to be a member of the T.S.A.C. or the I.T.S.F. (both)?

Should any Junior, Womens or Seniors team group be decided by an individual whom is not of these groups?

Should any present(this year) or future sponsorship funding be allocated to any one group more than the others? Whom should decide?

What if one of the four groups (Mens included) achieve funding only set aside for themselves by their own efforts ...should only they decide How that should be spread around?

How should funding(s) be decided on for whom by whom or by committee ...or counsel.

When are the deadlines needed to be decided & understood as firm time lines so as to be required to make final decisions on selections for the groups or funding issues?
It is April now ...do selections need to be finalized say before November? Players will need time to secure travel and work Holiday arrangements too that could go.

Other thoughts here could apply to players wanting to get involved in regional or USA based tournaments so can easily serve a dual purpose or longer term stepping stone helps to those players as well.

I believe qualifiers should be established for Single day completion, like Saturdays in general. One event like singles could be run twice over the course of the day allowing 2 opportunities to play.

It would be helpful to ballpark travel costs to Europe for any player considering to go, so there is a knowledge base to start from that can be put into daily average basic cost and length of time from minimum to extended stay coverage.
Has the I.T.S.F. granted any funding coverage to Canada for their 1st place finish? Could they be any in the future should Canada finish high enough?

Presently most costs need to be covered by the players ,but in the future established efforts can bring useful funding on several levels and to certain groups as needed.



Author: domi nate Reply #59 Posted: Apr 16 2012 9:11AM

"We also have a ton of people like myself now that have played in past world cups."

I don't think the fact that a player has been on a previous world cup team should be used as one of the reasons to pick them again. You could run into the problem of always sending the same team because, "hey we went last year". I suppose it wouldn't be a problem for the players who were on last years team...


Author: domi nate Reply #60 Posted: Apr 16 2012 10:09AM

Picking the team...what we know for sure:
1. Some people will be pissed off that the team was picked.

Picking the team...what we don't know:
1. If we have the best team


Holding a qualifier...what we know for sure:
1. You can't be pissed off about the decision to go this route. Everybody given equal chance of making the team.

Holding a qualifier...what we don't know:
1. If we have the best team

Neither way guarantees the best team. The only difference is one way of doing it will piss some people off...I think.

The qualifier could rotate from city to city every year. Maybe it's at the same time as Nationals or based on Nationals results.

The players who will likely be selected to the team (you know who you are) should have no problem going the qualifier route, since they were going to be selected they are obviously Canada's best players, and so they should win the qualifier and they'll be on the team. If they didn't qualify at the qualifier maybe they had a bad day, or maybe they aren't one of the best players, and this would punch a hole in the idea that selecting players to the team will create the best team.

Oh and after being out of playing foosball for 6 years I'm gonna start playing again and make the National Team one day.


Author: Darcy Reply #61 Posted: Apr 16 2012 10:10AM

I'm having troubles discering whether that was sarcasm or jealousy.. either way, I feel like we represented our Country to the best of our ability and I don't think it's fair that anyone tries to belittle that with their little, after the fact, digs at us. We did things as fairly as possible to determine the members of the squad, and maybe the circumstances weren't ideal but we did our best to put together the most competetive team with what we had in the time we had.


Author: S. Edwards Reply #62 Posted: Apr 16 2012 12:06PM




Author: Will Reply #63 Posted: Apr 16 2012 3:54PM

If we have a qualifier, a lot of people will be pissed off.

I'd be pissed off if the qualifier was in a different city. I have used all my vacation time with this years world cup, portland, washington, and nationals in st. louis. I can't even take off one more weekend... Anyone would be upset about the qualifier being in another city if you want to go to the world cup. It costs a lot of money to go to france and just having to pay more to attend a qualifier would suck.

2nd point: You have no idea how difficult it is to play in the World Cup... transitioning between tables can only be learned from experience. Being on past teams is a HUGE asset to a current team. I don't just mean the team we just sent last year, but a lot of people (Matt, Jeff, Eric, Julien, Dom, Mario A, Moya etc) have past experience. Those players would be in much better shape playing in another world cup compared to a player of similar skill level without past experience.

Anyone who has been to a World Cup knows. We have things memorized that you need to know when switching between differnet tables. It is a different world over there, you are massively undervalueing the asset of past experience to a current team.


Author: domi nate Reply #64 Posted: Apr 16 2012 4:59PM

I agree with your points, Will.

I wasn't saying that having the same players isn't valuable and doesn't contribute to a better team, I was just saying I don't think that should be a criteria for selecting the players. A player who hasn't been there before might actually improve chemistry and therefore the team as a whole. You never know.

With respect to a qualifier in a different city every year, I think it would be easy for players like yourself to attend. All you would have to do is cut out 1 of the 4 tournaments you mentioned having attended last year and you bought yourself an extra weekend to attend World Cup Qualifiers. Simple. Also would anybody else in Canada have the drive to host a Qualifier besides you? I got a feeling you wouldn't have to travel very far...


Author: Will Reply #65 Posted: Apr 16 2012 5:27PM

I agree with that too. However I wouldn't want to cut one of the other tournaments out for a qualifier that I would have to run either though. The reason is that we will only have 7 or 8 people actually want to go to France anyway, so why waste a weekend of holiday time to do this?

Lets face it, 2009 we had 6 people instead of 7 like we needed for a team, we still did ok over there. 2010, no team, 2011, no team... That brings us to last year. We had 13 applications, but then once it got voted on 7 people dropped off. Then we had to add Nhu to our roster just to field a full team. He would have been voted onto the team anyway probably, but we still had to let every single person that wanted to go get to be on the team. I'm not sure why the last 4 years of evidence doesn't matter. We can't field a team if we go through a selection process and qualifiers and stuf. Whoever wants to go should just say they want to go, put some money down. If we have more than 7 we are lucky, and we can determine the team in a fair way at that time.


Author: TR Reply #66 Posted: Apr 16 2012 6:27PM

I don't play much anymore, but I thought I'd add my 2 cents. Lol, some topics never change! I briefly skimmed through this thread so hopefully I'm not duplicating what's been said.

I think local qualifiers to pick a team is a mistake. Look at golf, anyone can qualify for the US open if they have a handicap less than 1.4 and play through local qualifiers. How many local good players that aren't a touring pros actually make it to the event? Very few if any! It's the tour pro's that make the event as they are competing at the highest level and against the best players in the world. How many local players qualify for Ryder Cup? Or Davis Cup in tennis? None. It's earned from results on the respective pro tours. There is no Canadian tour and probably will never be, the bar for competitive foosball is the US tour/majors. Results on that tour should dictate the team, or the core of it. Why not designate a captain every year and use x amount of spots based on results from US touring and then leave some captains picks? (Same as Ryder/Presidents Cup in Golf)


Author: Sniff Reply #67 Posted: Apr 17 2012 12:56PM

I think that the last few posts make the most sense out of this thread. Hit's the problems and encapsulates the experiences we had in the past.

Todd - that's a good idea I think, not sure exactly how it would work when choosing that captain though.

On top of all that, last year's selection was done in the best matter given the scenario. There was a voting and then deadlines given to those to commit. I never saw a problem with it, and those that went, earned their spot without any drama or anything like (from what I witnessed).





Author: greg Reply #68 Posted: Apr 17 2012 4:10PM

Nice post Cary, sponsor ship is what we need the most.

Thanks for answering my questions Will, it's good to know about the committee. We elected you to lead, that's what you did, good on you.
I don't think prior experience is as important though, didn't Joey win the Friday Night DYP at Worlds the first time he played in the States? I'm not sure, something like that.

Todd that's a good post too, but it's kind of a circular argument. We shouldn't have tournaments in Canada because we don't have tournaments in Canada. You know there is a chance that if we had a national points race and more tournaments in Canada you wouldn't be saying "I don't play much anymore". Still a good post.

I too have been looking at how other sports teams are chosen and I tried to find sports like foos, with singles events, no money, exposure or prestige. The two most interesting were

Judo - Best 6 results in the last 24 months, and in the case of a tie take the 7th and then the 8th best.

Table Tennis - International points qualify a maximum of 3 members, National points qualify the rest.

There is also stuff like Chess with qualifiers and Swimming with time trials. The sports I've looked at all have one thing in common, a rule in place to do it just with math, no votes. I like that.

If we do it with US Points it becomes prohibitively expensive. Most people who play down there enough to get their points high enough to qualify don't have the money left to go to France. They are great players but we have other good players who might belong on our team but don't have the points just because they chose to spend their money differently.

And the system we used last time is open to abuse. Twenty guys from Quebec could hijack the whole team in a heartbeat. And if we did find sponsors, it's not likely but still, the wheels would come off that so fast with hundreds of players voting on others they haven't even seen play. That's one problem with voting, Foos doesn't get enough exposure, how on earth could one guy from Quebec ever convince the rest of the team he's good enough.

At the end of the road there's two things.

We need a definitive decision so players can make plans and approach potential sponsors.

If Will, Peter, Andy and Brian aren't going to hold qualifiers/majors or support a national points race then that's it, we aren't going to have them, and it's too bad because it's discouraging for all the players who want to play in those.





Author: TR Reply #69 Posted: Apr 17 2012 6:19PM

Greg

Gotta either chose the only ones that will pay to go to Europe (got $$?? wanna represent??) or the best from the best tourneys (US majors) as I don't believe there will ever be a Canadian Tour, the US one barely survives. We've been up and down this road for a long time. Very few are going to spend the $$ to travel to play in smaller Canadian events when they can spend pretty close to the same $$ to go play in an US major with more competition/prestige/events. When I played, that was my rational.

Just saying.....


Author: subcult36 Reply #70 Posted: Apr 18 2012 9:21AM

"Lets face it, 2009 we had 6 people instead of 7 like we needed for a team, we still did ok over there. 2010, no team, 2011, no team... That brings us to last year. We had 13 applications, but then once it got voted on 7 people dropped off. Then we had to add Nhu to our roster just to field a full team. He would have been voted onto the team anyway probably, but we still had to let every single person that wanted to go get to be on the team. I'm not sure why the last 4 years of evidence doesn't matter. We can't field a team if we go through a selection process and qualifiers and stuf. Whoever wants to go should just say they want to go, put some money down. If we have more than 7 we are lucky, and we can determine the team in a fair way at that time."

This should be our very next step in the process. Let's get official applications from every player who wants to be considered for the team (with a small application fee as suggested, to make sure they are serious). Let's set a deadline, then make public all the names of these players. Until we have an actual list of names, trying to move forward is like trying to solve a riddle without knowing the actual question.




Author: S. Edwards Reply #71 Posted: Apr 18 2012 10:31AM

Sean, I think that is a marvelous idea!


Author: subcult36 Reply #72 Posted: Apr 18 2012 1:12PM

I wish I could take credit! But someone older (oops I mean more experienced and smarter) than me came up with that one


Author: greg Reply #73 Posted: Apr 18 2012 3:44PM

I think it's a good idea too, but unnecessary at this point because I don't think we want to have this discussion every year. What I would like to see is a process we agree on that would identify the team every fall, no matter how many applicants we have, and when we all have a better idea whether we want to go.

Plus if we did do that I don't think we should have to put money in because I'm not planning on going to the States and would need to know whether US Points are going to be the only criterion first.

I do think the US Points are good to go for our top 8 players or so. It's when 6 of those 8 bail the points become problematic.


Author: greg Reply #74 Posted: Apr 18 2012 3:52PM

If we decide those US Points are all important, I'd support that. It is expensive and I'd rather see qualifiers but I like it better then a vote.


Author: perennial underdog Reply #75 Posted: Apr 18 2012 6:20PM

I would like Eric Dunn to weigh in on this discussion.Specifically,could you
speak to the method by which I was chosen to be on Canada's national team,which was,I believe,back in 2010?

Presumably,as the then President of TSAC,your decision was based on the results I had achieved in every tourney since 2008.If that's true,was their any other criteria on which your decision was based?If not,why not?

The inference being,at least from my point of view, is that there should not be any other criteria affecting such a decision.If the decision to designate someone as a member of our national team is anything but merit based,it necessarily impinges on the integrity of the
entire process and,further,calls into question the abilities of those who
are chosen.


I was following the board on TSAC'S website as the process was taking
place.There was a first tier team that I had been selected to and then there were second and third tiers,candidates that would be permitted to play on the national team if the first tier candidates opted out.

Moreover,let me say that it was a proud moment,Mr.Dunn,when you did select me.Your decision was not based on politics,not based on a committee of player's(that evidently we as Canada's foosballers are not privy to know the name's of,which smacks of a star chamber like organization that is almost Orwellian in nature.)

The underlying assumption I have been making throughout this post is one of objectivity.If TSAC cannot lead objectively,as was the case when
Eric was at the helm,the leadership should step down.




Author: S. Edwards Reply #76 Posted: Apr 18 2012 6:34PM

Before you go telling someone to step down, it would be a good idea to understand the difference between Canada's national singles champion and the world cup team. The singles and doubles event is played at the world cup but it has nothing to do with the team event.




Author: Will Reply #77 Posted: Apr 18 2012 7:31PM

Joe, you are confused on so many levels. The team that you are referring to I believe was for 2009. There was a committee in place for selecting that team. The committee I have put in place isn't picking a team or national champion, they are deciding on a method to pick a team.

The 2009 team selection process did not work as well as the one we had last year - so many people declined the invitation that it ended up getting opened up to a "anyone who wants to can attend" scenario. We still ended up short players.

On top of all that, as Simon pointed out the National Champion is not the same thing as the World Cup team. The National Champion this year is going to be determined by who wins the National Championships, as I informed everyone on many many web sites and posts. I'm not sure how much more transparent I could be with that, and it seems to make sense to determine our National Champion in that way.


Author: foosghost Reply #78 Posted: Apr 18 2012 9:15PM

From what i remember, the method to select Canada's National Champion for that year was determined long before that event you won Joe.

The method was decided that who ever won that singles event would be crowned that year's national champion.

It was not based on me selecting someone based on their past results or something.

It's very similar to what is occurring this year. The ITSF Canadian National Champion will be the Player and Team that win Open Singles and Open Doubles at the National Championships. The Player and Team that get to compete as the Wild Card at the ITSF World Championships will be the highest Singles players and Doubles Players based on the Points system. These will take effect for the ITSF World Championships in January 2013.

This discussion is about the World Cup Team - although it makes a great deal of sense that the national champions should be on the world cup team as well.


Author: foosghost Reply #79 Posted: Apr 19 2012 11:20PM

Sorry i was wrong it was not national champion it was the world cup team. I looked back in our posts, and in 2009, Joe, you earned a spot on that years world cup team by you placing high in Open Doubles at the Canadian National Championships that year.

You declined your spot, and eventually we were not able to form a team.

But again, no one picked anyone. We defined a few tournaments where the winners earned a spot on that year's world cup team.

This was the list of players that could of went (and how they earned their spot)
Players in ( ) are those that could still earn a spot if those above them do not claim it

2 From Open Doubles at Tornado Worlds
Eric D
Kane G
(Mario A, Brian L, Jeff A, Dave A, Tony T, Fred Q)

1 From Open Singles at AQBB Provincials
Larry P
(Julien B, Dominic A, Jean-Christophe G, ...)

2 From Open Singles at Tornado Worlds
Mario A
Dave A
(none)

2 From Open Doubles at Canadian Nationals
tie: Joseph R / Brian L / Andy U
(Matt B, Darrel P, Jack H, Nathan S, ...)

2 From Open Singles at Canadian Nationals
Mario I
Brian L
(Nhu T, Garry B, Tuan P, Nelson S, Paul G, Matt B, ...)

oh the good ol' days...


Author: perennial underdog Reply #80 Posted: Apr 20 2012 12:41AM

Thanks for your efforts.


This thread does not accept replies because:

The last post to this thread is more than 30 days old.