Team England Charter Proposals *VOTING ENDED — SEE RESULTS*

[nazgob]

I've been reading this thread and finding the whole thing very interesting. I do want to comment, but I thought I ought to start by explaining my position. I'm a coach who would like to be considered for TE.

Historically, that has been a little tricky. I'll admit that I've only been interested in the last eighteen months or so, and I know I have some way to go, but until recently, I wouldn't have known how to go about it. I use TFF, and do not go near Facebook or other forums. I am a huge supporter of anything which gives a more formal selection process and avoids the 'decisions in a backroom' mentality.

The current system has obviously been very successful, and from conversations with quite a few people on Team England (past and current), I know that you are inclusive and friendly (albeit a bit strange at times), but I do worry that in certain parts of this community, my perspective might not be shared - a public, semi rigid set of selection rules will help avoid this problem.

It seems that the intent of the committee is to broaden the support for TE and encourage new coaches. Providing a clear route in is a clear positive for this; I now have some idea of what I need to do to get into TE.

* * * * * * * *

On the rankings themselves, I doubt they are perfect. I for one would prefer to include stunties, or possibly include stunties with a positive record. I'm rather proud of my halfling record (Maverick's recent run of form with Ogres might provide a less biased example)!

The thing is that this is not a final document. I expect it to change semi regularly (probably in the aftermath of Malta, or before the next World Cup), and I'd hope it is a starting place. I think that if we do not have a starting place, we won't ever have a formal selection process.

I also recognise that this will encourage some coaches to power game. However, i don't think we will face a sudden sea of Wood Elves and Undead. TE is the height of competitiveness for a lot of us; if you aspire to TE you are likely to tend towards a bit of healthy competitiveness yourself (no evidence of this, just applying logic). By extension, competitive coaches tend to already play the top tier teams. While it might encourage me to play Wood Elves more often, i don't think this selection document is going to do anything to affect Angryhobbit's play style. He gets his fun out of using different races; I never have. In short, I think that this document will encourage powergaming amongst coaches already predisposed to powergaming.

* * * * * * * *

Lastly, i think it is really important that the Captain will still be able to select wild cards. I do not think that any team should simply be the strongest players on paper. This is a squad, and we need to be able to choose people who can use races. Goo might be able to use Humans without practice, but I suck with Undead even with practice.

TLDR: never ask me to use Undead dofor TE. I will lose.

[Skitters]

Interesting discussion, I think it is a very good initiative that I think could be beneficial to Team England in the longer term if it can help promote new talent to what is already an extraordinarily strong team (no danger of me being part of that new talent)

"Team fit" is important, so would agree that a Team Captain should always have some control over the final line-up...but it does strike me that most people are creatures of habit who naturally favour people they know


I presume it has been discussed, but has thought been given to having one of the team spots filled by winning a qualification tournament? I think at that this would couple as both an opportunity to have an event where all players would know to take their strongest team but also a time for players who perhaps feel on the fringe (or the fringe of the fringe) to network

[Wobert]

For me, I'm not sure how much water the argument against doc B holds because it will force people into playing top tier teams. It may do, but will that really have that big an impact for the people likely to change their habits because of this?

Read your own signature if you would like an indication of how much people care about and chase the numbers. Or look at the comments from people who haven't yet played for TE in this thread. Or think about the times you have heard people talk about how chuffed they are to be 5th best Chaos Pact coach in their region, or to have finished 74th at the NAFC. People care about their numbers.

Agreed people care about numbers, I like to win a stunty cup or what have you and am trying (badly) to get all my teams over 150 ranking. I remain one of the great unwashed masses however in that I know my limitations and have zero expectations that I'll ever be in TE. Despite that I remain interested in the process.

Will doc B impact the teams I use? Not in the slightest (you'll note I don't figure in the top 40 listed). I honestly don't think it will impact the vast majority either as the vast majority won't even read this thread most likely.

Until there is a better solution, there needs to be a way fringe players can be noticed and be given consideration. That is the purpose of this right - to open up the access?
If it means a few more people play wood elfs then so be it.

After this is implemented, does anyone think TE will change wholesale? I can't imagine it will, it will mostly be the usuals and rightly so, they are there for a reason already. If this helps a couple of new faces come through then all well and good.

[nazgob]

I feel Wobert made my points better and more succinctly.

[Wilf]

As a former TE player and a bit of a fringe figure in Blood Bowl tournaments as a whole at the moment I have concerns with Document B. To be honest I've always had concerns with the minimum criteria for selection from my earliest interest in TE as someone who could never get to that many events in a year, but that's an old gripe of my own.

I very much agree with Joemanji's comment below:

My concern here is not Team England. Frankly even the worst case scenario of picking a rubbish TE pales in comparison to the larger consequences of having such an overarching framework to the English tournament scene. It isn't about the weekend of the Eurobowl itself, but how it will impact behaviour and enjoyment for the other 51 weekends of the year. Particularly - and this is the really key bit for me - for people who have no interest in Team England and even those who have no idea that the qualification system exists. Others have made more detailed points above, but there will be a race towards Tier 0 teams. People are going to care about this ranking, even those who haven't previously expressed any interest in playing for TE. You can see that already in this thread: people love their numbers. Many, many more people than just the TE regulars will be playing with the qualification ranking in mind. It will hang over ever game, every turn, every dice roll all year round. In March, in June, in September. Nobody will get a weekend off, there will be no more fun tourneys with Nurgle or a funky star player. Or at least there will be a lot fewer.

And this will have an impact on everyone, even the people not bothered by the rankings. Suddenly every tournament they go to will be packed to the gills with Undead and Wood Elves, Dark Elves and Lizardmen[/b]

My specific concern would be for those who are not in the TE mindset, and whether this qualification criteria will have a negative impact on those players and the events they attend. Will a newer player who gets an unlucky draw at a smaller event and faces a number of TE hopefuls be negatively affected and decide that perhaps tournament Blood Bowl isn't for them? Of course I'm not suggesting anyone in or around the TE set up is anything other than a delight to play against - and they (past and present) all are, love you all - but when it matters that little bit more because you need a good finish and the stakes are high.

I think playing down the possibility of more players taking Team 0 teams is risky. It might not happen, but it might, especially as crunch times of the year just before the qualification deadline. That surely will have an impact on the tournaments taking place at that time.

It will be hard to get into that top 10 without having played well consistently over a long period, perhaps for several years in a row.

Think of it from the point of view of someone looking to break in, unsure of what needs to be done.

I've taken these lines out of one of Bren's comments, as this is a crucial thing for me. We are trying to encourage people interested in TE to get involved, try and qualify for the team, we all as a group surely want more coaches vying for a place.

If they need to play well for several years in a row to get into that top 10, will we achieve that? That's something I'd have to question.

I don't get to many tournaments at the moment- so if I have 5 a year I'll choose a top race at a competitive tournament.

Nick alludes to my worries about the impact on tournaments here I think. Now when I started playing 5 events in a year was a distant dream so I typically took a fairly strong team because I wanted to do well, and therefore overlooked lower tier teams.

When I was playing a bit more I would vary my race choice, but I think if I was hoping to get back into TE - and I very much am when I have more time for tournaments in the future - then I'd be Tier 0 to the max. Part of the strength of TE for me, and the reason we've done so well for so long, is the ability of our better coaches to play many of the races Tier 0/1/2 to a very high standard. I think we want that to continue, who knows what future rulesets will hold?


I would like to echo comments from above about the very high standard of work that has gone into these documents. Truly impressive. My concern is I'm not sure they are expanding the level of inclusion/engagement in TE which I think was the core reason for setting up the committee and this process.

[Darkson]

Surprisingly, I find myself in much agreement with Joemanji and others that have said similar (and as a has-been/never-will and mainly a former BB player now, I don't really have a dog in this fight).

Also, I know many TOs, to a varying degree of success, have tried to encourage roster diversity in their tournaments over the years, via tiers, bonuses etc. If TE then pushes more players towards T0/T1 teams then it's going tpo have the opposite effect, which then may force TOs to give even more bonuses to lower tier teams etc..

[nazgob]

But, what it actually rewards is good, winning coaches. If the ruleset allows wider race selection (e.g. all teams viable) then I can still choose a lower tier team and be in with a chance.

[Pipey]

I’ll just quickly respond to one of Will’s points.

I wrote: “It will be hard to get into that top 10 without having played well consistently over a long period, perhaps for several years in a row.”

As far I am concerned this just reflects a continuation of the current climate. Making a case over several years is by no means a requirement, nor would the ranking system necessarily require you to excel over that duration to hit top 10, just that this has in practice often been the way. I would point to several new caps in recent years who had all been very good for a very long time before they were picked: PeteW (26) and Nippylongskar (25) had both been consistent performers for nearly a decade before they got the nod; Don_Vito (19), Winkle_Picka (20), yourself Wil (23) and others, all made their case over more than one season before being picked.

We will try to answer everything so don’t fret if your specific question hasn’t been addressed just yet.

[PeteW]

Thanks Brendan. In fact, I was actually contacted in 2008 or 2009 by a TE captain who asked me if I might be able to play for TE, but at that time I could only do 3 tournaments per year, and so couldn't meet the minimum criteria needed (which I believe was 5). I only started playing in 2007, so it didn't take me long to get noticed! In fact, the first year that I made it to 5 tournaments, I was called up, which was nice.

There is still a requirement in place for coaches to have played a certain amount of games, and I think this is a good thing and needs to stick. (Although it grated at the time!) However, I don't think a new coach would need more than 2 years of consistently good play to raise people's awarenesses. AndyDavo only really started in 2014, and was on Team Wales in 2016.

[Pipey]

Agree with you Pete.

Just saying that the Doc B proposal requires consistent performance to get noticed. And in that way it's no different to what's been going on for years.

This was mainly in response to Besters query re why the measures don't reset every 12 months.

[Itchen Masack]

With the example of AndyDavo above, he had long been an established online player & non-naf TT winner with an impressive track record before playing at naf events.

His inclusion on Team Wales was on my recommendation after I pulled out of journeymanning for them, if you can believe such a thing

He was recruited (at least partially) by word of mouth, and Team Wales have since changed to a results based selection. Maybe interesting to know their thoughts on how it is working out?

[Wulfyn]

What would my score be without the results of the 2 joke underworld teams I played last year? One was a double ball and chain star team at NAF, and the other was an All-the-skills team at Pearlies. I didn't realise these two decisions to blow off some steam would affect my TE chances for the rest of time.

I did all 5 big European team tournaments and went 16/7/6. I did 2 smaller UK tournaments and went 7/3/0. And that only just offset the 2 joke tournaments.

I'm sure others are in the same position.

[PeteW]

What would my score be without the results of the 2 joke underworld teams I played last year? One was a double ball and chain star team at NAF, and the other was an All-the-skills team at Pearlies. I didn't realise these two decisions to blow off some steam would affect my TE chances for the rest of time.

I did all 5 big European team tournaments and went 16/7/6. I did 2 smaller UK tournaments and went 7/3/0. And that only just offset the 2 joke tournaments.

I'm sure others are in the same position.

This. +1.

Doc B penalises people who have made 'fun' decisions in the past, and limits future 'fun' to uncounted stunties... if you have tournies to spare.

Vote 'No' to doc B!

(But thanks to the committee for their hard work.)

[besters]

Perhaps we should be looking at this on a race by race basis, allowing people to have fun on races they don't expect to be competitive anyway?

You could then pick the top 10 after excluding duplications and allow the captain to pick from them?

Alternatively start afresh, it's harsh to penalise people for decisions they made without knowing implications.

Is there any way of putting together amendments to either document before the voting?

I appreciate the hard work people have put into this process, but as yet I am not convinced the result moves us forward.

[Wagz]

I haven't really looked through this thread so I apologise if this has been raised and dismissed before. Is there a sensible way of comparing each coach's race stats to the average for that race? Also clearly sample size should be a consideration. That way you're unlikely to be punished very hard for having a few "fun" events.