Yes- no argument from me that we should be sending the winner of the Scottish Championship to the World CHampionships.
Personally, I would think about bringing the Scotish forward to late November, and send the winners to the Europeans as well as the Worlds, but I recognise that might cause difficulties.
In any case, and with the exception of the European Championships in an Olympic year, we are already doing that. Long may it continue. There are moves afoot, I believe, at the top of Scottish Curling, to introduce the concept of "picked" teams representing us at World and European Championships. My own view is that that move would be an absolute disaster for the Scottish competitive curler. Where would the incentive be for someone like a Dave Edwards or Alan Smith to carry on curling if he knew that, whatever he did, a picked team would be going out to representative competitions?
Listen, we need to face facts here - every team is picked! What we are arguing about is "who picks the teams"? And when the team is picked. But to think that a "picked" team could go to a World or European Championship without so much as a competition or play-off - well that's a step too far.
OK - so what about the Olympics? Why should things be different for the Olympics? Should not the same rules apply there? Well, the evidence suggests that it should! Although Rhona Martin's team (the only GB team ever to win an Olympic Medal) was "picked", it was picked as a result of the team's performance in World and European Championships. Note this well: they are the ONLY GB team to have won an Olympic Medal. Period. Although David Murdoch's team came a creditable fourth and went on to win the World Championships later that year, the fact is that, at the Olympic Games, they missed out on a medal - mind you - they missed out to a wonder shot from Mr Uusilpavalniemi!
Funny thing is though that I am more relaxed about the Olympic Squad system than I would be about Scotland's representatives. There is no logic to that position, by the way - it's just the way I feel about it. That having been said, surely the team has to be in place by mid September at the very latest - earlier if possible? Surely it has to have competitive mileage under its belt before going to the European Championships to fight for Scotland's place in the upcoming World Championships?
On the vexed question of funding, I would like to see a longer tail and - I think that is beginning to happen. I am not convinced by the "professional" funding that David and Euan are getting at the moment, though, and feel that that money could have been better spent. Don't get me wrong - were I them, I would probably have taken it! But I think that it is dangerous for a number of reasons. some of which have already been outlined in this thread already.
Re the mini tour, there used to be a "circuit" in Scotland. We are not far away from one now. Add the mini tour to the Masters and upgrade the Edinburgh International to the competition it used to be - and wham bam, thank you, Ma'am - you have your circuit. We need a sponsor, mind you. We need a sponsor!
Copy above is from a post that I put on the site on 11 June 2007.
Here is the one thing that we should build some bastions around: the primacy of the Sottish Championships - Mens and Womens; the fact that the Scottish Champions should be allowed to represent their country at (if we have qualified) the World Championships. I worry that at some time in the not-too-distant future, someone is going to suggest that we DON'T send the champions to the Worlds. Don't fancy that, I am afraid. Don't fancy that at all.
That was from 12 December 2007.
I got the impression from DA that he was suggesting that I am for "picked" teams for the World Championships. I am not.
As everyone knows, you will have to work quite hard to move me from that position and - I am nothing if not consistent.
Regarding the Vernon issue, I would like to put on record that I feel genuinely sorry for all concerned that what should have been a highlight in everyone involved's curling career has become 101 sad pages for the rest of us to gloat over.
Gorth, on the subject of the advisablilty, or otherwise, of an independent report, I wrote on 28 March 2008
In any case and all that having been said, it goes without saying that there needs to be a full and frank disclosure of what actually went on. There needs to be a report done. The report should be prepared NOT by the coaches, NOR by the players, NOR by anyone with any kind of vested interest. They should have input, of course they should and they should be interviewed away from the public eye to get to the bottom of what happened. Lessons should be learned and implemented. Dunoonrock is right - there was a similar incident a few years ago, but it was all so long ago now that the "corporate" bodies will have no memory of it. Shame. Things might have been handled differently.
For the record, I stand by that statement as well.
Can you imagine the stooshie on this board had there NOT been an independent review? There would have been dark mutterings about carpets, brushes and cries from all sides of "unfair"! Had to be done, I am afraid.
On the subject of the panel on which I have been asked to sit, I have precious little time to do anything else, but feel the need to "give something back". I certainly will not be going on as some kind of patsy as some have suggested.
Members
Total Members: 692
Stats
Users Online
Permissions
