Mark, you know that I respect you..
I have read this whole thread and have a couple of things to say. I cannot get into any banter because I am gong to be driving out of town in an hour BUT -----
Here is my opinion.
I believe that the concept was to build a TEAM - and I think Mark Wilson was probably pretty clear on the team concept.
I also believe the MC 8 were all aware of the 'deal' and I am sure they originally agree to go over and show support.
I also believe there is a fair amount of value to the 3 players and to the US team - and to MatchRoom if that were to happen. The learning experience to the 3 players would be valuable in future years.
I think the US is just not grasping what a TEAM is - all this gibberish about you don't make the cut - you aren't on the team is the wrong type of thinking!
I am not calling the 3 players wrong - but I am telling them that I think they are being short sighted. This misses the whole point in team building.
Now to a few other items: CJ - I would offer to front the money to the traveling players IF they cannot wait for MatchRoom to reimburse them. All MatchRoom has to do is agree to send the checks to me.
To Kid - the thought that the 8 were going to have a 'shootout' is ridiculous and shows that you don't get 'team building' either.
Every person has to make up their mind for their own reasons. And they must also pay the future consequences. I also feel that if a man's word is no good, then he should expect to be scrutinized in the future.
Too much has been written on this whole topic. Too many are taking it way too seriously. But please also remember that this is a big production event. I am quite sure that MatchRoom and Mark Wilson are not too thrilled with this last minute change.
Will they go public - I don't think so - but I will bet you that it will be remembered.
I just think it is a shame that a lot of hard work and preparation went into this plan - and to have it tossed out the window seems a little disappointing.
Mark Griffin
Mark, I respect you, but I have to disagree with this idea.
As the decision maker, you have to know that if you ask the players a question that a no answer to could mean they aren't selected, they're going to say yes. This would also greatly depend on how the question was worded also..
"Do you think you guys would be willing to go if you don't make the team", is a WHOLE lot different than say "I need to know you will ALL be willing to go regardless of who is chosen to play".
Or, if you ask them a question about a situation that they have no way of knowing how they would feel about it until put into it.
It's like asking someone who has never been in war, how it would feel to kill someone, or asking a single person with no children, what it would feel like to lose their child and or spouse of ten years. They can't possibly answer honestly because they don't really know and they want to come off a certain way based on the reasoning for the question.
When there is no set criteria for the selection to be made, it turns everyone into kiss ass mode and that's no way to build a team.
Picking eight people and KNOWING that 3 of those people aren't going to be able to compete, is no way to build a team, not if you want to include those 3.
People do have feelings and egos, that is a part of every person, egos, more so in top pool players than most walks of life.
You can't build a team without keeping that in mind.
So if the idea of bringing the 3 people not playing along was supposed to help build team comradery that just doesn't make sense. You're going to have the 3 not playing team members upset, jealous, whatever and the 5 team members that ARE playing secretly upset that they're giving away some of their winnings to the people not on the team.
Top that off with no clear criteria for playing team member selection and you have feelings of favoritism, or special consideration from ALL team members, that's the way to create a LACK of team cohesiveness if you ask me.
I don't know, then when people make a decision that best suits (at least in their minds) their situation and or the team as a whole and you have people jumping all over them for their decision.
If they would've gone, then people would've jumped all over them for taking away from the playing members team and taking a free ride.
They were put in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
I know that team cohesiveness is important in team building and winning a team sport. Football has shown time and time again that if you have a bunch of star athletes that don't work as a team, you are going to lose.
THIS was not organized in a way to build team cohesiveness at all from what is apparent from the decisions that were made.
If they wanted the players to go regardless, then it should've been an all or nothing. They should've split the prizes evenly, or not. This, well you can get 10% because we want you to be a part of the team, but not a full part because you won't be playing for reasons that I'm not even going to disclose and didn't specify before hand.
I mean, I think that would be the biggest problem I have with this. Everyone knew that Shane would get picked, that was a given, so to even bring him up in this is ridiculous. Not knowing whether you're supposed to play superbly in everything, kiss MW's ass or hope that there would be some type of playoff had to be HUGELY anti team building if we're talking about building a cohesive team.
Or why not just wait until you get over there and THEN tell the players who would be playing. You can't because promotional materials need to be prepared in advance.
I don't know, the only thing I know in this is that it's ridiculous to blame the three players for deciding not to go based on all the circumstances.
Jaden
, probably scarred for life. Oh, the humanity!
