Ahmen.....
How to shatter a bowlers ambition
- Thread starter mannah
- Start date
Ahmen.....
I have had some very positive feedback from some bowlers who have personal experience of their disappointment and how they coped. thanks to those. I only asked on how they felt. I dont need negativity just thoughts on how others coped in the same position.
Unfortunately so many read so much into what is saidl. I am not questioning the managers/coach decisions, they did what they thought was best for the team. Just looking on coping mechanisms and how others did it.
Some responses have never bowled Rachuig again. But hopefully this wont be the case.
Thanks for the positive suggestions. I'll ignore the negative ones.
Unfortunately so many read so much into what is saidl. I am not questioning the managers/coach decisions, they did what they thought was best for the team. Just looking on coping mechanisms and how others did it.
Some responses have never bowled Rachuig again. But hopefully this wont be the case.
Thanks for the positive suggestions. I'll ignore the negative ones.
Brenton_Davy
900Global bowler
Lyn,
Every player goes away to Rachuig knowing that they may possibly sit on the bench for the entire 18 games. I have seen it happen, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. It is the risk that you take from the moment you nominate for the roll-offs. Some players are totally shattered, never recover and eventually disappear from the sport totally. Some others go back home, armed with a greater knowledge and a greater determination to do whatever is necessary to perform well enough to be able to make a greater contribution to the team effort.
Time alone will tell how he reacts.
Every player goes away to Rachuig knowing that they may possibly sit on the bench for the entire 18 games. I have seen it happen, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. It is the risk that you take from the moment you nominate for the roll-offs. Some players are totally shattered, never recover and eventually disappear from the sport totally. Some others go back home, armed with a greater knowledge and a greater determination to do whatever is necessary to perform well enough to be able to make a greater contribution to the team effort.
Time alone will tell how he reacts.
bitchy lil brunette
New Member
I've always been told that hundreds of people bowl rachuig and never get medals. So if you are lucky enough to get one you should be happy that you were apart of a winning team.
And in my eyes the people who are sitting on the bench are my biggest competition.Because more then likely if i bowl bad im going to be dropped and replaced with someone on the bench. Nobody wants that.
And in my eyes the people who are sitting on the bench are my biggest competition.Because more then likely if i bowl bad im going to be dropped and replaced with someone on the bench. Nobody wants that.
Deadman Inc
1990 − 2011. Retired 2012 − 2013. Back Again 2014
Rachuig should be capped at a maximum of 12 games per bowler so everyone gets a roll. It would definitely make the competition much more interesting. Captains, coaches, managers would then have to strategize which combinations to use on certain lane conditions, when to use their best performing player, when to use the worst performing player etc. A bit like one day cricket where a each bowler can only bowl a max of 10 overs, and the captain has to strategize on how and when to utilize his bowlers.
doddzy
Bring it on!
I for one would love to see Rachuig introduce minimum games to be bowled by all bowlers who have successfully made their states side...It's just crazy to expect people to dish out 1,500+ and not bowl games...after all if they made their state team then they are good enough to bowl...lets be fair.
I know so many people who simply just wont bowl Rachuig for that reason alone...look at how states are struggling to even put full teams together...something needs to be done to fix these nagging problems before more and more bowlers decide it's just not worth it....
Mary Dodds
I know so many people who simply just wont bowl Rachuig for that reason alone...look at how states are struggling to even put full teams together...something needs to be done to fix these nagging problems before more and more bowlers decide it's just not worth it....
Mary Dodds
Easy Tiger
Active Member
This is possibly a large part of the reason why Rachuig struggles to get bowlers nominating in some states/teams.
Introduce a minimum games rule eg 10 games or whatever it works out to be, can't be bothered doing the maths behind it to ensure everyone bowls at least that many games.
7 (assuming you have 7 bowlers) x 12 games = 84. What about the other 6 games? (90 games played during Rachuig per team)
Min 10 games would work. Is it right? Who knows, good debate.
Brenton ... most constructive response ... will this bowler turn out to be the better person / bowler for his experience? Time will tell.
Peter Coburn
Sponsor
I had this very same conversation with a TBA Board member only a few nights ago. I was asked why the ATBSO and Holt Challenges were so successful and my thoughts on why Rachuig was floundering. I did make the point that the minimum game rule is certainly a factor in the formula towards the success of both the ATBSO and Holt Challenges.
The ATBSO and Holt challenges are basically very similar to Rachuig aside from this rule and yet both ATBSO and Holt have experienced double digit growth in participation over the past few years.
Not only do the bowlers in these events know that they will get better value for their dollar, there are very few teams requiring a draft selection as all roll offs are well supported. Holt Challenge was so popular this year that there were 64 bowlers on the draft list hoping to be selected as a draft or for the makeup team.
BTW, ATBSO require each bowler to complete 10 games of the 21 rounds, while Holt is 9 of the 18 games.
The only other difference I can see is that the bowlers themselves get to have a say in the ATBSO and Holt rules at the respective AGMs and as such these rules have been added at the request of the bowlers. If you wish this rule to be added I'd suggest you attend the forum after the TBA AGM and put this forward.
There were two Rachuig bowlers who only got a game each in 2003. After quite some convincing, one went on to win national rankings and to my best knowledge the other left the game. The recovery from such a negative is proportional to the support given by others. I know that this bowler in question loves the sport, so please give him your best support to get over this.
The ATBSO and Holt challenges are basically very similar to Rachuig aside from this rule and yet both ATBSO and Holt have experienced double digit growth in participation over the past few years.
Not only do the bowlers in these events know that they will get better value for their dollar, there are very few teams requiring a draft selection as all roll offs are well supported. Holt Challenge was so popular this year that there were 64 bowlers on the draft list hoping to be selected as a draft or for the makeup team.
BTW, ATBSO require each bowler to complete 10 games of the 21 rounds, while Holt is 9 of the 18 games.
The only other difference I can see is that the bowlers themselves get to have a say in the ATBSO and Holt rules at the respective AGMs and as such these rules have been added at the request of the bowlers. If you wish this rule to be added I'd suggest you attend the forum after the TBA AGM and put this forward.
There were two Rachuig bowlers who only got a game each in 2003. After quite some convincing, one went on to win national rankings and to my best knowledge the other left the game. The recovery from such a negative is proportional to the support given by others. I know that this bowler in question loves the sport, so please give him your best support to get over this.
Taya04
300 x 3
Mannah, I can see exactly where you are coming from. The first year I made the Junior Brisbane Team I got a total of 2 games out of 22. I was absolutely shattered because at that time, making the Brisbane team was such an achievement for many young bowlers. The next year I refused to bowl because of what happened the year before...but because I had somewhat "improved" in the year leading up to the next, I was begged to roll off. In the end I did and being 1 out of 4 that had “previous experience” in this event (not like 2 games the year before was what you would call experience), I ended up bowling 20 out of 22 games. I was happy sure, but I felt terrible for the 2 people that spent most of the 3 days on the bench. I know these tournaments are completely different, but never the less, it still leaves you questioning whether or not it’s worth trying for something like that in the future.
In these team events, there will always be someone who ends up sitting out the most. And usually, it’s the people who are competing in the tournament for the first time. What I think should be done is not to make teams up of 7 bowlers. Leave them as 5 with 1 or 2 reserves. That way, everyone wins. Because, how can you bench someone for say 2, 3 or even 4 games, then bring them in cold because someone else is bowling bad? Of course the person benched is going to bowl just as bad as the person who has been pulled out because they don't know what the current condition is like.
If I am correct, Youth Nationals take a team of 4 with 1 or 2 reserves. Those 4 bowlers come out in the end happy as larry. Why? Because they have got their monies worth and have had the chance to also make Allstars for themselves. Bowling is too expensive now days to do things like this. I looked at the scores from Rachuig yesterday and saw people with 205+ averages who only got 6 or so games. Unfortunately, that’s the risk you take getting in to these team events. But it still doesn’t make it any easier to deal with.
When the team is bowling well as a team, you can't really do anything about it. You need to leave the line up how it is to try and keep winning points. But for the people on the bench, it leaves their team spirit shattered. Therefore, bringing in a rule of every player needing to bowl 10 games as a minimum is a fantastic idea. At least then everyone gets their monies worth and will continue to try out for their respective teams in the years to come.
In these team events, there will always be someone who ends up sitting out the most. And usually, it’s the people who are competing in the tournament for the first time. What I think should be done is not to make teams up of 7 bowlers. Leave them as 5 with 1 or 2 reserves. That way, everyone wins. Because, how can you bench someone for say 2, 3 or even 4 games, then bring them in cold because someone else is bowling bad? Of course the person benched is going to bowl just as bad as the person who has been pulled out because they don't know what the current condition is like.
If I am correct, Youth Nationals take a team of 4 with 1 or 2 reserves. Those 4 bowlers come out in the end happy as larry. Why? Because they have got their monies worth and have had the chance to also make Allstars for themselves. Bowling is too expensive now days to do things like this. I looked at the scores from Rachuig yesterday and saw people with 205+ averages who only got 6 or so games. Unfortunately, that’s the risk you take getting in to these team events. But it still doesn’t make it any easier to deal with.
When the team is bowling well as a team, you can't really do anything about it. You need to leave the line up how it is to try and keep winning points. But for the people on the bench, it leaves their team spirit shattered. Therefore, bringing in a rule of every player needing to bowl 10 games as a minimum is a fantastic idea. At least then everyone gets their monies worth and will continue to try out for their respective teams in the years to come.
das1604
Trippin' 4s
You just need a perspective change. Bowling is, more often then not, a solo sport. When individual bowlers come into a team environment it's a very different monster.
You didn't see the Lakers benching Kobe in the finals series 'cause they wanted to make sure everyone got a run (unless they were up by 40
) . In a team game you play whoever gives you the best chance to win, period.
How often do you see an Australia cricket team take a player on a touring squad for experience? It's happening right now for the India tour.
You didn't see the Lakers benching Kobe in the finals series 'cause they wanted to make sure everyone got a run (unless they were up by 40
) . In a team game you play whoever gives you the best chance to win, period.How often do you see an Australia cricket team take a player on a touring squad for experience? It's happening right now for the India tour.
I have also been sat out for large portions of a team tournament. Most recently the College Nationals where my team mates had a look that was simply phenomenal and they took us all the way to the TV Show and eventually won it for us. There were 3 guys who bowled maybe 10 frames in a very very long format. All of us came back. We understood our job and what was happening. Our job was to support and watch. We were 3 extra eyes that many other teams didn't have watching the transition, as well never ending support for the guys who were bowling. Not bowling doesn't mean not caring. Thats the fastest way to ensuring you don't bowl. We found that by watching our team mates so intensely when we were given a fill ball to throw we actually threw it great and played the right part of the lane, having seen so many shots in that area previously.
For the minimum game requirement I am absolutely totally against it. Would you like it if the NRL or the A-League did this? All the players in the squad are required to play 10 games during the season? No, Rachuig is currently our highest level of competition and it deserves respect. I honestly believe that the lower level tournaments (Holt, etc) should look at a restriction of total appearances. Then the bowlers truly have to improve to continue to represent their state. However, in our current climate it's not reasonable. I believe if anything Rachuig should drop the players from 7 to 5 and make it truly cut throat. You know your bowling 18 games, and you know all your team mates are bowling 18 games, make it happen and support them all the way. It would also make states look longer and harder at their selection process and how early they select teams. Rachuig should be the top of the table in Australian Tenpin bowling. I personally don't believe a game restriction is giving the tournament the respect it deserves.
For the minimum game requirement I am absolutely totally against it. Would you like it if the NRL or the A-League did this? All the players in the squad are required to play 10 games during the season? No, Rachuig is currently our highest level of competition and it deserves respect. I honestly believe that the lower level tournaments (Holt, etc) should look at a restriction of total appearances. Then the bowlers truly have to improve to continue to represent their state. However, in our current climate it's not reasonable. I believe if anything Rachuig should drop the players from 7 to 5 and make it truly cut throat. You know your bowling 18 games, and you know all your team mates are bowling 18 games, make it happen and support them all the way. It would also make states look longer and harder at their selection process and how early they select teams. Rachuig should be the top of the table in Australian Tenpin bowling. I personally don't believe a game restriction is giving the tournament the respect it deserves.
There have been some great points made both for and against having a minimum number of games, but Stephen I don't think it's fair to compare Rachuig with the NRL or A league. Why? Because the other two sports pay their participants extremely well, where ours have to pay to participate.
I don't necessarilly have an opinion either way on this one as I don't have the experience, but I have considered nominating for Rachuig, although I have yet to do so, so I find this thread very interesting.
I understand that point, but see them both from a spectator and competitor point of view. How would you like to go and see your favourite team and miss out on seeing their best player, who in full fitness and form must be sat out due to other players requirements? It's just not sport to me. From the competitor point of view, it's almost as insulting if your played only against the somewhat lower ranked teams. My current knowledge of the NRL and unfortunately the A-league is pretty bad right now, so imagine being a Manchester United player that only got played against the newly promoted teams, or Portsmouth, currently bottom of the league with only 1 win. A game restriction isn't the answer for Rachuig. It need sponsors to make it affordable to for the states best to compete, from every state. To get sponsors it has to be good to watch, and I'd rather watch 5 guys slug it out against all odds to come through and win it. I would have loved to have seen the Tassie men this year, bowling for them in January in Youth showed me how much they love it down there and having Chris Commane actually shed a tear when we won doubles was a big moment for me, I can only imagine how ecstatic him and the other members were when they won this year. It's the finishes like this years that we need to get out into the public forum, it would have been perfect for TV. But not yet, not this year. We gotta keep hoping but...
Wow, I went off track.
Anyway, basically, just try to forget the money aspect for now. Ideally, our guys would be getting paid too. Will a game requirement be the right move for that too happen? Honestly, no. Would a game requirement really make it fairer? Honestly, no. This isn't handicap, where everyone (SHOULD BE) off around a score of 190-200. It's RACHUIG!
Wow, I went off track.
Anyway, basically, just try to forget the money aspect for now. Ideally, our guys would be getting paid too. Will a game requirement be the right move for that too happen? Honestly, no. Would a game requirement really make it fairer? Honestly, no. This isn't handicap, where everyone (SHOULD BE) off around a score of 190-200. It's RACHUIG!
Minimum games will only help the bigger states win Rachuig even more often than they already do. Bigger states, with more depth and potentially stronger teams to rotate games through.
Everyone who nominates for Rachuig realises if they dont perform then the amount of games you will get will be minimal. Most who have bowled a few Rachuigs or more have been on both sides of the coin. The better bowler you make yourself the harder it is to be dropped!
Everyone who nominates for Rachuig realises if they dont perform then the amount of games you will get will be minimal. Most who have bowled a few Rachuigs or more have been on both sides of the coin. The better bowler you make yourself the harder it is to be dropped!
No disrespect to Geoff Ott, he's a legend of the game but Taya, I'm sure him only getting 6 games has something to do with his ENTERING average being 216 however in the event he managed to average only in the 160's and win only 2 points from 7 games ... hence I'd say without a doubt he understands why he spent 2/3 of the games on the bench.
Brenton_Davy
900Global bowler
I agree entirely. Perform or perish!
Rachuig is an adults game. It's not about fairness, it's about WINNING! If you are not performing then you can't expect to get a game. It's as simple as that. As I stated in my first post, everyone understands the format when they nominate. This tournament rewards those who perform the best over the 3 days and teams have to play their best possible combination. If you are not prepared to risk the possibility of sitting on the bench for 18 games THEN DON'T NOMINATE!!!
