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

Topic: Committee Decision for World Cup Team Selection

Author: Will Original Message Posted: Apr 26 2012 12:36PM

After much discussion and a vote, the following came to be the conclusion of Eric Dunn, Simon Edwards, Sean Lee, Chris Thomas, Laurent Paquin-Marcotte, Julien Beaumier-Ethier and Mario Iannuzzi:

Players interested in joining the 2013 Canadian World Cup team should fill out an application form with relevant information and experience and pay a non-refundable fee of $20. The fee will both ensure seriousness and will help to fund the eventual team.

A committee of 5-7 members, selected by Will Stranks, will be assembled. The restrictions on the committee members are that they should be well-informed citizens of the foosball community, and that they should be appropriately geographically distributed (e.g., one suggestion would be that there should be one from each major foosball area - B.C., Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City).

From the pooled applications, the committee shall independently form their own lists of 7 member teams (with 2 alternates). Each time an applicant's name is mentioned, they shall receive a point. An alternate mention will receive a half point. Those with the highest number of points shall be named to be the team. Any ties will be solved by a tiebreaking vote from the committee. At this point, a larger deposit (~$200) will be requested from the voted-upon team members to ensure their commitment. This deposit could be used to go towards team uniforms.

If a player decides to withdraw from the team, they will forfeit all paid deposits to the team.

The committee will be announced within one week, if you have a recommendation for a committee member please email will_stranks@hotmail dot com

Please re-post this on any relevant forums across the country if you see this here and know where to repost it.

Author: Sniff Reply #1 Posted: Apr 27 2012 12:05PM

How come BC is the only province, and every other location is listed as a city?

Author: Will Reply #2 Posted: Apr 27 2012 12:27PM

I suppose it could say "Vancouver" instead of "BC", but by listing it as BC we include players like Moya or Eric.

Author: Sniff Reply #3 Posted: Apr 27 2012 4:25PM

Yea exactly. Both of those players are not from Vancouver.

Author: PaulG Reply #4 Posted: Apr 27 2012 9:16PM

At least he listed BC as a major foosball area. Regina & Saskatoon are only minor foosball areas.

Author: Will Reply #5 Posted: Apr 27 2012 9:46PM

Sorry Paul... in my defence I didn't type that out, I just posted what the committee sent me.

Also on the committee there will be someone from Saskatchewan.

Author: perennial underdog Reply #6 Posted: Apr 28 2012 1:39AM

On an unrelated note our friend down south, Justin Shaw,has just beat out Billy Pappas at the U.S. Nationals.Well done, Justin!

Author: Will Reply #7 Posted: Apr 28 2012 2:50PM

Why not just start a new thread Joe?

Author: S. Edwards Reply #8 Posted: Apr 29 2012 10:18AM

I have a dirtbike for sale if anyone is interested

Author: Sniff Reply #9 Posted: Apr 30 2012 1:25PM


Author: Aged Whine & Cheese Reply #10 Posted: May 10 2012 10:12AM

And once again, we "democratically" choose a team. I know that it is impractical to hold tournaments given the size of the country. Still, voting for team members is a bad mechanism - to the point that it makes people think "why bother?".

So, let's take the proposal that one player comes from each major region and B.C. is a region (let's say). Why is a good player like Jeff or a washed-up has-been like Tim going to send in their $20 and application? When a voting system happens across the country, the "most known" players will win. In B.C. that will be Eric or Moya (or both if we have a woman's team too).

In other words, I see this proposal as deterring people from wanting to be considered for their national team. Deterrence is not the gerund form of the adjective nor is it the adjective one would want to have come to mind when trying to promote the game.

Just my thoughts. I will return to curling now ... oh, wait, it's summer.

Author: Darcy Reply #11 Posted: May 10 2012 10:58AM

Lets take any other sport where our nation needs representing. Saaaay, team Canada at the World Championships of Hockey.

Representetives were chosen (yzerman, lowe, armstrong, holland, nonis, chiarelli, nicholson, pascall) and they democratically chose the team. Yes the opportunity is there to allow bias to affect their decisions but those people were respected enough to be chosen as representetives and as such were held to a standard of trust.

Team Canada's hockey team doesn't hold a tournament every year in order to send over their best either, it doesn't apply because the representetives chosen to select them are also believed to have the best overall knowledge of each player (as best we can manage anyway) As such they should be allowed to base their choices based on player results for the year.

I agree with all of these things and think that this is a good step towards annual representation at the world cup, but i also have to agree that sending $20 as a deposit is neither a deterrant or a good way to make people go once they've committed.

We all know that sponsorships are the only way to make this thing fly but until we can get a solid body of work behind us our best alternative is to fundraise. I would suggest, with some of these regionals we're organizing we have some extra money (either through 50/50's or registration fees) suppliment the national team. It wont be enough to cover the whole trip for all members, but if a player can get a trip to france to play foosball at half price there may be a higher committal rate and remove the need for a $20 deposit, which would also give us a much larger pool of candidates to select from.

Author: Sniff Reply #12 Posted: May 10 2012 11:39AM

yea the $20 deposit is enough of a deterrent for to me apply. I don't understand the committee choices either. Eric and Moya both don't play in Vancouver, and really do not fully understand the Vancouver player base.

Author: Will Reply #13 Posted: May 10 2012 2:29PM

Jeff - the committee listed above was nominated to come up with the selection process. The committee to pick the team is a different committee, and has not yet been nominated.

Author: greg Reply #14 Posted: May 10 2012 8:38PM

No offence Darcy but I don't see the point of comparing the hockey team selection process with foosball. There is no singles in hockey so there's no other way for them to go. In games where there is singles competition between players, head to head, in games like swimming, track and field, martial arts, racket sports, in these games the idea to have a tournament of some sorts to determine the national team is a very well represented idea. Not 100% but I would hazard to guess the majority use a tourny of some sorts, like track and swimming all have time trials to determine the olympic team don't they? There is nobody crying about one player who might have a bad day or another who had to babysit and couldn't make it. You just go there at that time, win and you're on the team, lose and and you're out.

Anyways it is what it is, we aren't having any sort of qualifier. That's OK, it's not easy getting onto any national team, and if foosers have to play in the States on "Tornado", 2 or 3 times in a year just to get their name out there, so be it.

One thing I don't really like about this whole thing is when our best players are on the committees. A persons decision to "have the team selected" would have more credibility if they themselves were ineligible for selection.

I don't know if a top player would be allowed to sit on a committee that selects themselves to play, and yet what would we do without their advice?

Problems for sure and part of the reason most sports go with "Tournys" and "Points Races" whenever they can.


Author: foosghost Reply #15 Posted: May 10 2012 10:12PM

Greg, ya I raised this as a concern as well.
and for the record, what this committee voted in was not what I voted for.

Not that i think the committee made a mistake or anything, it's just in my opinion their were other options that we better - but as the results show - i was in the minority in that thinking.

Either way..

There will be a new committee formed that will actually form the team as described above - one of the options that was available for votes was that this committee should not contain any players that wish to go - but this was not voted in - likely for the reasons you state Greg,

If you're serious about going to France, then i'd recommend to send in your application - there's going to be a application form released very shortly - so everyone will have a chance to state their case as to why they think they should be able to represent Canada - so it's not going to be a popularity contest, the committee will have actual application data to consider, plus their own personal experience / knowledge of the players involved.

I personally will turn down the offer if i'm asked to join this next committee, as I am seriously considering entering an application to be considered to go - and want to avoid any appearance of possibly voting myself in.

Author: Darcy Reply #16 Posted: May 11 2012 12:52AM

So you're telling me that you think swimmers from all around the country get together at one tournament a year and all swim against each other in a double elimination format to determine who's on the national team? give your head a shake.

They use time qualifiers to determine who is on the team. They take results from all sorts of events, not just head to head meets between the players. Best times get in.

the same can be said for all of the sports you mentioned. None of these things have one singular qualifier tournament that gets you onto the team. They're all invited based on annual results.

Unfortunately foosball isn't so black and white as swimming or track and field and even if it was: our best players don't always have the luxury of making every event that some of the others might. That's why this is the only way we can really do it for now. It's not perfect, but it's really our only option.

Author: Darcy Reply #17 Posted: May 11 2012 1:02AM

hah that sounded a little harsh, not what i was intending.

Anyway, even if they did do qualifications that way, it would all be paid for and swimming becomes their job for that period and money becomes secondary, unfortunately with foosball it's always at the forefront.

Author: S. Edwards Reply #18 Posted: May 11 2012 6:20AM

>>And once again, we "democratically" choose a team. I know that it is impractical to hold tournaments given the size of the country. Still, voting for team members is a bad mechanism - to the point that it makes people think "why bother?".<<

There was a suggestion made to have a qualifying tournament to select the team. If this tournament was in the east then anyone wanting to go to the world cup would first have to pay for a trip to eastern Canada. If you couldn't afford it then to bad. With an already cash strapped team without any sponsorship this wasn't a good option in my opinion and I voted against it. Having a series of qualifiers and taking a few from the east and a few from the west did not satisfy the condition of sending the best team. Since we don't have a points system and a lot of very good players are somewhat inactive we had one option and that was to select the team based on credentials. I suggested the selection committee be made of players that have no intrest in going. That was voted down. However; I think Will is definitely considering doIng this.

The twenty dollar fee was an idea to weed out the tire kickers. We want players to apply that are very serious about going. I suggested it to be higher. So far Tim I think it's working.

Author: greg Reply #19 Posted: May 11 2012 2:53PM

It looks to me like one in a hundred swimmers qualify for the time trials, and at the time trials, a single tournament, the winners go to London.

"MacLean and King were among six swimmers to earn their nominations to Canada's 2012 Olympic team on the first night of finals."

No matter, my main point was that a comparison with Hockey was not the best.

Author: Will Reply #20 Posted: May 11 2012 3:11PM

Hockey makes a lot more sense as a comparison than swimming, in my opinion.

One is a race, the other you face off with team mates against opponents.

In one you do not benefit from a compatriot succeeding, in the other your success is based off your team mates efforts as well as your own.

Either way, we have a process in place for this year - and it will do a very good job of getting us an excellent team sent to the world cup.

Author: Viper Reply #21 Posted: May 14 2012 2:02AM

Foosball is a race, its the first person to score 5 goals in either 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 5 games.

Hockey is a horrible comparison, as one its a team of players that all have to be able to work together, players in different positions, and that aren't generally all that interchangeable.

Foosball, maximum a team of two at a time, if you are a solid singles player you will generally have strength in both positions and are interchangeable.

I don't have a problem with the voting per say, however it would very much depend on the location of the players, the last world cup team had 4 players from Edmonton, which to be fair has the largest base of players and is most active at the moment.

That said I myself have never seen one of those players play before. So how does a player in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City end up voting for a player from the west or vice versa.

Lets say for example this is what the applicants looks like.

2 from B.C.
1 from Calgary
4 from Edmonton
2 Toronto
1 Ottawa
1 Montreal
1 Quebec City

Now as you put it the votes will fall one per city so how many people from the east know the west players well there are only two I have ever seen consistently at events and actually caring even a little to watch others.

So the east players who will have seen each other will vote for themselves, and fill the last two spots with the names they know best.

So you have 5 votes for each player from the east, and 3 votes for each player from the west and the list gets randomly finished by guesses about skill level or name recognition.

All that said, I would venture a guess to say those numbers are high, as I am sure more than 9 people would like to go, however I don't think there are more than 9 people that have the funds or time to do it.

Oh and about the 20$ application fee, lets say you are on the cusp of thinking you'd make the team but you aren't sure, who's going to want to throw away 20$? The more applicants the better, whats the worst that can happen they get voted in and say no I cant make it.

Author: Darcy Reply #22 Posted: May 14 2012 7:34AM

I feel the same about the $20. I know it was meant with the best intentions but for someone like myself who isn't really established yet I know I'm not going to get voted in especially now that the team is in div 1 again. Maybe it doesn't matter in the long run but I don't really want to submit my $20 for someone elses trip.

In the end I really think that will hurt the competition for the last couple of spots on the team and if any backups are needed.

Author: S. Edwards Reply #23 Posted: May 14 2012 8:26AM

>>Maybe it doesn't matter in the long run but I don't really want to submit my $20 for someone elses trip.

Way to support Canadian Foosball Darcy. It's 20 bucks, I mean like really?

Author: Pixel Reply #24 Posted: May 14 2012 8:32AM

Okay, let's try to talk about this $20 thing for a second. Here's my take on it:

There's two reasons I'd imagine someone applying: A) Because they want to go to France to compete for their country, or B), because it'd be fun to see if they could make the team - but they have no real intention of going to France.

Scenario A) : If I'm applying to the team, it should mean that I intend to go to France, right? Because, if I'm not intending to go if I'm selected, then what is my application doing other than making the decision more difficult for the committee? Taking up their time, just so that, in the end, if I am selected, and I DON'T go, they have to spend more time to revise their choice?

So, with the assumption that an application submission (for the world cup team that is going to play in france) signifying that I'd actually be willing to go to france, let's look at the relative cost of the application against the trip. $20 vs roughly $2,000. If my calculations are correct (and I like to think that they are), that means the application fee is roughly 1% of the potential cost of the trip. One measly percent. And let's not forget that that 1% would then actually not be an "additional" cost if I make the team - as it would go back towards my trip!

If I DON'T make the team, then instead of spending $2,000 to go to France and compete, I've put $20 towards funding my country's selected team to go compete and represent us in France. I'm somehow okay with that. It gives Canadian foosers a reason to work on their games, to play better, to tour - that there's a light at the end of the tunnel. That there's (other than the passion that we have for the game, and the joy that we derive from playing it) a BENEFIT, an itty bitty, tiny reward for all this hard work.

They're gonna be doing a lot of tough preparations, and they're gonna have to pay a crapload of money in order to represent us. They don't get a payout if they win that would subsidize their costs. Potential sponsors aren't exactly hopping around everywhere, ready to help them out. The Canadian foosball base, the people that they're playing for - they're the only ones they have to support them at the moment.

If I'm in scenario B, however, and I'm just applying to see how I measure up against the potential in Canada; to see if I could actually be considered for the team, but wouldn't actually want to go if I was selected - then I might be a bit irked to have to pay $20 to apply.

Again, this is just my opinion on the matter - can someone explain, given my thought process above, why they would both A) want to apply with the intention to go to france if selected, but B) not want to pay the $20 application fee?

Author: Darcy Reply #25 Posted: May 14 2012 9:56AM

>>Way to support Canadian Foosball Darcy. It's 20 bucks, I mean like really?

Right, I forgot you were sponsoring team Canada this year.... just kidding.

It's not that I want to compare myself to everyone else and see if I get voted in, I think we all kind of have an idea of the pecking order in Canada. There are some fantastic players here that should be on the team ahead of me, I'm OK with that. My point is, for anyone who doesn't have a reasonable chance of being selected based on talent or reputation, should we still apply? Why?

Author: JeremyR Reply #26 Posted: May 14 2012 10:35AM

I think I kind of get where you're coming from, Darcy. You not one of the top 7 players in Canada, so you feel like you're just throwing money away by applying. But even though you're not in Canada's top 7, maybe you're in the top 7 of people who can afford to go to France?

Regardless, your $20 isn't wasted even if you aren't selected. Maybe you shouldn't think of the $20 as an application fee but instead just consider it a donation to Team Canada that is separate from your application. Surely you can afford to donate $20 to support Team Canada?

Author: subcult36 Reply #27 Posted: May 14 2012 1:01PM

Viper, have you looked at the application form? There is a section where applicants state their best results at major tournaments. Regardless of your geographic location, actual results should be able to support a player's selection to the team. There is also another section where players can state additional reasons why they would be a good choice... this will allow members of the selection committee to assist with their decisions even when they are not familiar with these players. However I'd say that most of the top players in Canada are relatively well-known already.

Darcy, remember that last year almost anyone who had the $$ to go got a spot on the team. The team did a great job winning and getting us to Pool 'A', but this alone doesn't mean that suddenly 20 more players will come up with the $$ (plus time and related effort) to go. It'd be great if 100 players pitched in $20 each but I think most foosers would rather spend that money on hockey pools or lottery tickets...

Author: Darcy Reply #28 Posted: May 14 2012 1:21PM

>>Darcy, remember that last year almost anyone who had the $$ to go got a spot on the team. The team did a great job winning and getting us to Pool 'A', but this alone doesn't mean that suddenly 20 more players will come up with the $$ (plus time and related effort) to go. It'd be great if 100 players pitched in $20 each but I think most foosers would rather spend that money on hockey pools or lottery tickets...

I remember I was a part of that team, and the last sub picked up. I really enjoyed my experience and would go again if able but I hope now that we're back in div 1 and there's a little more coordination involved we'll have more competition for those roster spots.

Anyway, I didn't intend for this to turn into anything more than a discussion as to how $20 may or may not limit registrations enterred this year. I'll support the team either way and wish them well.

Author: Will Reply #29 Posted: May 14 2012 2:47PM

Viper said:
"Foosball is a race, its the first person to score 5 goals in either 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 5 games.

Hockey is a horrible comparison, as one its a team of players that all have to be able to work together, players in different positions, and that aren't generally all that interchangeable"

Defense and Offense, team strategies, passing, shooting, possession times, stoppages in play, etc are all things that differentiate Foosball from a race. Hockey is not a perfect comparison either though, I'll give you that.

Maybe Tennis makes the most sense. Players can play Singles or Doubles, need to know different types of strategies and shot selections, need to know how to play on different surfaces, adjust to opponents, and have good mental strength. I don't know Tennis too well, but maybe there is a tournament that needs a national team and selection process for that - I'd be interested in knowing how they handle it if they do that in Tennis.

Followed by:
"I don't have a problem with the voting per say, however it would very much depend on the location of the players, the last world cup team had 4 players from Edmonton, which to be fair has the largest base of players and is most active at the moment."

What about two Open Doubles finals we played against eachother. Ben and Christian were also at that tournament in Washington and all 4 of us were at the one you came to in Edmonton. Also as subcult36 said, the decision must be based on results and not just skill level. You don't have to see a player play the game to know if they are good or not - results are very telling.

Author: Viper Reply #30 Posted: May 15 2012 1:00AM

Now since I will try to take these in order.

The 20$ fee, yes I understand the application of it being to keep people from seeing, hey can I make the team, but are you telling me that was a huge issue last time? I would think most players wouldn't waste the time of a committee to do that.

To answer your question as to why, because they are cheap like me.

Stating results at major tournaments isn't always a good judge either, my results for example would look pretty good on paper, but that wouldn't show that a lack of consistent tournament play lately has my game at nowhere near the level I want to be at.

Tennis from what I can see has a coach, but as far as canada goes we have a grand total of 12 pro tennis players and 6 make the team, 5 of the 6 are the top 4 singles players the top doubles player and one exception.

I'm not totally sure what you meant in the last paragraph, I didn't say there was anything wrong with 4 players going from Edmonton, or that I didn't know who most of the players on the team were.

All of this selection process is really a moot point anyways, how many people have 2000$ to spend on a Foosball trip, I'm guessing no more than 10.

Author: subcult36 Reply #31 Posted: May 15 2012 8:57AM


To me the application process and the $20 fee are an indication of how serious a player is in wanting to represent Canada at the ITSF World Cup. It forces each player to ask himself questions like:
- Is this something I want to invest time and effort in, as well as send $20? Am I willing to commit to the team relatively early, so that we can together plan, organize and work on fund-raising, as well as our training? Do I have the ability to pay for this trip, in case we don’t get significant funding?

Without this application process and fee, the question is more like:
- Maybe I should throw my name in the ring, I might get selected to the team, and between now and January maybe someone will come up with some funding and I’ll get a free trip AND get to play for Canada in January!! If not, then I’ll just let someone else take my spot later…

I’m generalizing here as I know there are other considerations too, but the process has a purpose. As you said, ‘most players wouldn't waste the time of a committee to do that’ but some or many still would.

Regarding the relevance of results at major tournaments, this is STILL the biggest consideration in my opinion. And if your previous results look good on paper, that’s probably a good indication that you would get yourself into ‘tournament shape’ so you would perform near your peak for the biggest foosball stage in the world.

The selection process may very well “be moot” for the reason you indicate, but it still warrants a fair and structured process.

Author: domi nate Reply #32 Posted: May 15 2012 11:38AM

Seems like the touring players put more weight on tour experience as a criterion, where as non-touring players think a qualifier would be a better way to go....generally speaking. Hopefully there is a good balance of touring vs. non-touring players, East vs. west people sitting on the picking committee.

Author: greg Reply #33 Posted: May 15 2012 1:46PM

!!! Rant Warning !!!
You'll proly be happier if you don't read this.

What makes this process moot is that such an elite few people are involved. I don't feel the needs of the average fooser are being addressed. It is not clear to any of them what they would have to do to make the team. If we trashed the committee and just went with USA Points straight up at least people would know what was required.

If we could use Canadian Points it would be better but but for some reason, if you could call it that, Canadians don't want those. At least what they do in Calgary is talk about "supporting Canadian foos" but plaster USA Points all over their web page and have nothing to do with Will's excellent effort to get a Canadian Points system up.

Qualifiers is what would make this relevant. It would involve the entire foos community, and be a place where dreams could be realized even for those who can't afford France. It would promote foos here in Canada and because of that, in the long run get us better players.

Exactly the same people might qualify as would have been selected so there is no way you can guarantee 100% one method or the other would assemble a stronger team.

The average fooser likes major tournies and we don't have enough of them in Canada. We don't and that itself is a problem. Over a year since one in Western Canada, over a decade for Vancouver and Regina's never had one. It's a chance for us to promote the game, raise interest and funds ...

Which brings us to the 20 buck fee. If we had that as a surcharge at a tourny there would be plenty, yes plenty of players who would be more then happy to pitch in for the team. At least they're getting something for their money. But charging somebody 20 bucks just to apply to be considered for membership to this elite group, well it might work for a ringer but for me it's more like "Fcuk U very much but no thanks" . There never has been a problem with too many applicants so what's the real reason for the 20 bucks? Don't forget it's sometimes the guy who just stopped by to "kick the tires" who ends up buying the car.

It's just that I don't feel the average fooser's needs have been met and without their satisfaction with the process foos will never get the respect/interest/sponsorship it deserves. The other sports have a satisfaction with the process among the average players. In foos the top players blow a lot of money going down to the States and don't want to be bothered with a Canadian tourny. We appease them, and that's all a vote does is appease them, and why not? they are the ones spending the money and time, but the average fooser is hung out to dry with no tourny, little idea how to get enough votes to make the team and a bill for 20 bucks.

The best thing for Canadian Foos would be to have the East/West Qualifier every year.

I'm sorry for this rant, and everyone involved is doing their best and with the best intentions. It is unfortunate when the criticism that's necessary for improvement hurts. I hope none of you take this personally, that certainly isn't my intent. Criticism tells you more about the critic then anything else.

For this year It is what it is and I still support it, but unfortunately it doesn't feel definitive.

(PS, In foos the forward is like the pitcher in baseball and the goalie like a boxer on the ropes, at least that's what I feel like)

Author: Darcy Reply #34 Posted: May 15 2012 3:14PM

I feel as though if we had more Canadian tour dates Canadians would support them... it's just hard to run a tour on plugs, I've seen what it takes to set up a tournament and what it takes to run one only to lose money at the end of the weekend. The way tournaments have to be run right now takes the life out of the promoter and once they're gone it takes the life out of the player base... and eventually the game.

I think once this Team Canada selection comes to a head maybe we should form another committee that's involved with TSAC to investigate alternative models for running tournaments. One that isn't reliant on table plugs because Greg is right in that we do need more Canadian tour dates if we're to start getting sponsorships at all.

Author: S. Edwards Reply #35 Posted: May 15 2012 5:24PM

>>>It's just that I don't feel the average fooser's needs have been met<<<

The world cup isn't for the average foosball player.

Author: greg Reply #36 Posted: May 15 2012 6:51PM


>>>without their satisfaction with the process foos will never get the respect/interest/sponsorship it deserves.<<<

Author: subcult36 Reply #37 Posted: May 16 2012 8:47AM

Greg, I agree with your general message but think we should stay focused here. Your post really contains several different issues which 1 selection process can't begin to address.

The average fooser isn't happy with the current foos scene... I don't think ANY fooser is happy with it. The major problem is that we don't have ENOUGH average (or other) foosers. Build up the base and the tournaments and sponsorship up more likely. The new 'club' system is meant to address this, and I'm starting to see this work. As part of this club system we now have monthly OD/OS tournaments in GTA, Ottawa and I believe Montreal.

The $20 fee issue was addressed in Pixel and my posts (among others). Let's agree to disagree then. And I know first-hand that the 'surcharge' idea would have more folks upset than this optional one ("why should I have to pay $20 when I don't even WANT to be part of the World Cup Team??!!"). I don't understand your tire-kicking metaphor.

Qualifiers have been discussed and I believe you are saying in an ideal situation winners would be funded for the team. This would offset the many disadvantages with the qualifier system (additional cost, travel and time away from work and family, likelihood that some top players wouldn't be able to attend, complex process to determine multi-table format, resolving different agendas on prize money and entry fees, resolving issues around tournament locations, reducing potential and perception that tournaments are being staged with bias to certain players / groups, resolving issues with set numbers of winners for West vs East tournaments, addressing likely small number of tournament attendees as most average foosers wouldn't participate if they have to pay $20 or more, plus the usual headaches related to any tournament). I agree with you, that if we had full funding for the team and full funding for the qualifiers, then it's possible that qualifiers would be a good solution.

(PS, totally agree with the pitcher / batter analogy)

Author: University of Foos Reply #38 Posted: May 16 2012 10:44AM

Are we seriously going to argue about this again.......?

Greg, if you were actively involved in the foos community right now, I might give your post most weight. However your lack of involvement in foosball over the last few years makes your post sound whiney.

If you truly want change, get involved. Organize a commitee, run an event, or even show up on Thursdays and play. We are a small community and I've never heard of someone being turned down from volunteering their time.

In summary:
Lead, follow, or get out of the way because all this complaining just takes the wind out of the sails of the few people who are still passionate about promoting the game.

This isn't meant to be mean spirited or a personal attack, just an invitation for you to help the community.

Author: Pixel Reply #39 Posted: May 16 2012 10:53AM

To whomever mentioned tennis up above:

Canadian players seem to be selected mainly according to World Rankings (from what I can gather from this document:

US Players: The USTA appoints one coach for each men and women's team, and the coach then chooses the players.

Author: Darcy Reply #40 Posted: May 16 2012 11:14AM

I like the analogy of Tennis to Table Soccer, we have similar scoring but I can't imagine playing four points per game, win by two each game and six games for 3 sets... that would be gruelling but alot of fun and it would definitely take the luck out of alot of games.

Anyway, good post Eric, I wish there were more people who were willing to stand up and help out, this sport could be so much bigger than it is if we were all pushing in the same direction.

Author: Pixel Reply #41 Posted: May 16 2012 12:34PM

Apparently that link I posted doesn't work: here's another try -- . Guess I forgot to take off the en bracket.

Author: Will Reply #42 Posted: May 16 2012 12:36PM

Fooser said:
">>>It's just that I don't feel the average fooser's needs have been met<<<

The world cup isn't for the average foosball player. "

Thats a very valid point, I couldn't stop thinking that the whole time I read the previous post to yours.

Greg said:

>>>without their satisfaction with the process foos will never get the respect/interest/sponsorship it deserves.<<<"

Respect, Interest, and Sponsorship all have virtually nothing to do with how we pick our national team.

If we want respect, we need better organized tournaments in high profile locations. We need to dress in a respectable way and carry ourselves in a respectable way.

If we want more interest in the game, we need to all help out in the grass roots efforts. Get real foosball tables out into the community, more vendors putting more tables in more locations, and visit them regularly. We need the pro's and good players to drop in and see some newbies playing, then go over and have fun playing with them.

If we want sponsorship we need more efforts like Mario's site. It is very professional, represents a unified point of view (instead of a message board where people argue incessantly), shows the positive aspects of Foos in Canada. We need a planned and coordinated marketing push, taking effect well in advance of the World Cup. We need to use alternate methods of sponsorship, such as having organizations sponsor events.

Whether our World Cup team is picked by a coach, a vote, a tournament, a points system, or drawing names out of a hat does not have influence on these things.

Author: greg Reply #43 Posted: May 16 2012 12:59PM


I like the club idea.

We sort of had a surcharge at the last major in Alberta, a large table fee to off set the cost of bringing Foos Productions up to shoot the video. I complained because apparently it's my nature, and I was only playing in one event while the fee covered two. I got the impression most people didn't mind but you could be right. Of course if less people came out it would be less of a head ache anyways.

The tire kicking thing, well at the end of the road we don't know who is going to have the money to go. Suppose some guy has the money but doesn't apply because he is only an average player and doesn't think he'll make the team and the 20 would be waisted. Then half the team bails out, we are only left with 6, but it's too late for this guy to go, he's made other plans. Discouraging anyone from applying could be counter productive.

The tourny you've got coming up in TO could easily be a qualifier so there's not that many extra head aches.

and University of Foos,

You're wrong, my posts were every bit as winey when I was more active.

And not that it's relevant to the discussion but I played in the last major in Alberta, and play as much as I can when I go up to Edmonton because it's fun to play in a tourny compared to the community of five, playing challenge table at the Castle.

Plus I have volunteered, as soon as that last tourny at the Castle was cancelled I fired off an e-mail to SML to see if they were interested in doing anything at the Blackfoot, and I offered to help. That club idea is interesting though and I'll contact them agian to see if they will put a second table in there and maybe we could have a tourny there once a month, or even weekly.

And about taking the wind out of peoples sails, I warned them not to read it.

Author: greg Reply #44 Posted: May 16 2012 1:14PM

Will do you really think it would have been possible for Adam to get respect, interest or sponsorship in that phony team he and his friends put together while the rest of the Canadian foos community rallied against him and the process that was used. I think not. I think that as soon as a prospective sponsor found out the vast majority of players across the country were offended by the corrupt team selection process that sponsor would pull out. I know there was money coming from europe for that trip but you get my point. Even if money for training was on the table, it would be pulled if the sponsor got wind that the player base didn't support the team selection, the sport looses respect and so on.

Author: Will Reply #45 Posted: May 16 2012 1:26PM

I wasn't around when Adam and the so called fiasco happened, but I think I understand enough of it from reading back in the messages to comment on it.

I do not feel that in any way the potential sponsor would care what the "average" fooser thinks about the selection committee. As far as "Interest, Respect, and Sponsorship" go, his approach was actually very good.

There is a really cool trailer out that is VERY professional showing the intensity and atmosphere of a professional foosball tournament. He has had a ton of exposure personally as well, probably more than almost any other foosball player on the planet. He's been on Off The Record on TSN, watched by about a hundred of thousand people across Canada. Whether or not the selection process is supported by people that didn't make the team is quite irrelevant compared to exposure and professionalism.

Author: greg Reply #46 Posted: May 16 2012 2:35PM

What about the olympics Will? If every olympic team was chosen by pulling names out of a hat do you think those games would get the respect/interest/sponsorship they currently do? I don't think so.

It's all in the process. What draws us to the olympics is the belief that these really are the best in the world. Honestly, if all of us were pulling names out of a hat to pick who we sent those games would get no respect no matter how much exposure or how professional they are presented.

Maybe I'm wrong, Maybe if we were pulling names out of a hat I could make the weight lifting team, and you all could enjoy how professionally I am represented on TV, and I might even beat that other old timer the Americans sent, and the olympics would get even more respect because every country would win about the same number of medals, I don't know, maybe you're right and the respect a sport gets nothing to do with who makes the national team.

Author: Darcy Reply #47 Posted: May 16 2012 3:19PM

I appreciate that you're playing devils advocate on damn near everything Greg, but you're really reaching here. They're not planning to draw names from a hat, they're planning to set up a committee with every intention on fielding the absolute best team possible, national bodies will respect that process.

Author: greg Reply #48 Posted: May 16 2012 3:32PM

Yes, I know, I'm sorry. I was just trying to make the point.

In my defence I would say that it is only through discussion and disagreement that progress is made. The idea to run a club out of the Blackfoot for example came from this.

Author: Will Reply #49 Posted: May 16 2012 5:14PM

My point is that no sponsor will ask how we picked the team, and of they did, they would be fine with the process chosen as it is created with the intention to select the best team possible.

Author: S. Edwards Reply #50 Posted: May 16 2012 6:25PM

I nominate Greg to be on the selection committee !

Author: C.A.L. Reply #51 Posted: May 16 2012 7:41PM

Greg is it true you are over 50 and could compete at the senior level of I.T.S.F Table Soccer?

Author: PaulG Reply #52 Posted: May 16 2012 8:14PM

Sorry i didnt read the entire thread on this - so my questions may be already answered in the various posts.

1) How many applications does the committee anticipate to get this year? (cuz previous years didnt seem to have alot of interest)

2) How do other countries pick their foos teams?

3) Do the members of last years team get some sort of 1st right of refusal on going to France this year? (if no, why not?)


Author: domi nate Reply #53 Posted: May 16 2012 8:58PM

How do I get on the selection committee? Is there an application? I think I'd be well-suited for the job as I'm not friends with any of the applicants (unless some of my friends who have never played foos have applied), I don't live anywhere near any of the applicants, in short I think I am an unbiased picker.


Author: domi nate Reply #54 Posted: May 16 2012 8:58PM

How do I get on the selection committee? Is there an application? I think I'd be well-suited for the job as I'm not friends with any of the applicants (unless some of my friends who have never played foos have applied), I don't live anywhere near any of the applicants, in short I think I am an unbiased picker.


Author: The Next One Reply #55 Posted: May 16 2012 9:03PM

I'm a little Tea Pot!

Author: Will Reply #56 Posted: May 16 2012 9:28PM

1) How many applications does the committee anticipate to get this year? (cuz previous years didnt seem to have alot of interest)

Somewhere between 5 and 10

2) How do other countries pick their foos teams?

A multitude of ways. Some nominate a coach that picks the team, some have a series of tournaments that work as qualifiers, some have a point system that they use the highest ranking players, and some have a vote of some sort.

3) Do the members of last years team get some sort of 1st right of refusal on going to France this year? (if no, why not?)

No, we don't. I'm not sure that we could agree that it would be fair, either. Although a lot of players wouldn't be interested in going if we didn't go and put in the hard work to move our way up to division 1, I feel a National team should be the players that give the best chance at winning every year.

Author: Will Reply #57 Posted: May 16 2012 9:29PM

Domi Nate - I'll do my best to pick players that have a good knowledge of all applicants, but I'll keep you in consideration for the committee. I'm going to wait and see if we actually need a committee. If we have 7 or less applicants it won't be too important to pick a committee.

Author: Aged Whine & Cheese Reply #58 Posted: May 17 2012 9:31AM

"I'm a little Tea Pot!" - The Next One

Finally a statement I can agree with.

Author: Pixel Reply #59 Posted: May 17 2012 10:31AM

"I'm a little Tea Pot!" - The Next One

4.5/5 stars.

A riveting performance by one of the foosball community's up and coming stars. Come for the drama, stay for the laughs - this performance will keep you on the edge of your seat!

Delving into the dark world of foosball politics, this breath of fresh air and comedic relief really brings something much needed to the table; a lightness, a sense of levity, that had previously been a gaping abyss.

Author: greg Reply #60 Posted: May 17 2012 6:12PM

Thank You Simon, I proudly accept the nomination and want you to know you'll be the first person I name to the team, Captain Edwards. It's your turn buddy, make us proud.

Yes C.A.L. I am over 50, and I still enjoy the game. For what I've gained in experience I've lost in stamina. There were a few great years in there when I had a little of both. Take advantage while you can.

Author: perennial underdog Reply #61 Posted: May 17 2012 8:18PM

Greg,let me be one of the first to say that to be appointed to the aforementioned committee,if the need for such a committee should arise,in your case,is both appropriate and richly deserved.

Let me also say to those who have been naysayers or who may not like the idea of being critiqued,every one and every thing should be and must be open to criticism.For without criticism,without dialogue,the eventual outcome is bound to be less than what it could have been.

Furthermore,I also recognize you,and the likes of Bob Ferris and Lee Murray,to be among the trailblazers of Canadian Foosball,playing in World Championships and Tourneys with greats like Wiswell.That recognition and respect,it seems to me,is often overlooked by many.

Author: S. Edwards Reply #62 Posted: May 18 2012 12:33AM

Greg, I have no intrest in going to the world cup

Author: greg Reply #63 Posted: May 18 2012 9:57PM

Hey Joey,

Thank You very much. That has to be one of the kindest comments anyone has ever directed towards me in my life. May the ball always roll towards your 3-bar.

Thank You very much,

Author: S. Edwards Reply #64 Posted: May 21 2012 4:47PM

Greg, once I said you had a nice bike

This thread does not accept replies because:

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