Discussion: WOC - who's missing?

I have memories of 35+ men's teams in the relay in years gone by. Only 30 this year. In Finland 2013 there were 32. Progress?

In the past Israel, Brazil, Romania, China, Slovakia have all had relay teams. Not sure why they were missing this year. I am probably forgetting some other too.

RSA sometimes.

Is the thinking that they should not bother sending teams if they are going to be considered as second-class nations? Or is the thinking that they are so out-classed that they should save their money for other initiatives?

Part of the thinking may be that with just one forest spot per country, the second- and third-best runners might be traveling a long way for just a single forest race.

Part of Scotland's bid pitch was to bring in as many countries as possible. We had entries from 51, though not all of them showed up, partly due to visa issues. I think this was a record, so the problem isn't with the new format.

So compared with last year, there was some consolidation within Europe,

Women - China, Japan, Slovenia, Portugal + Belarus
Men - RSA, China, Slovakia, Korea + Turkey

(30 women/34 men) http://www.woc2015.org/print/relay-start-list
(27/31) https://eventor.orienteering.org/Events/StartList?...

I agree with Boris.

WOC is expensive when you are self-funding. Worth it if you can get in 3 qualifications and a relay. Maybe not worth it if you are a Div 3 nation's 2nd or 3rd best runner and all you're gonna get is a relay run.

It is also good to know that the points system was designed to give more credit to relay. Without qual races we will probably see a slowly decrease towards 22 relay teams.

Serbia, Croatia, Kaz, Slovenia... http://www.o-l.ch/olwm2003/static/lists/rl_relay_m... 37 in 2003

38/39/36 in 2006/7/8 eg http://lazarus.elte.hu/tajfutas/history/2006.htm

Let's not mention 2005.

Maybe IOF could poll those countries who send relays before to ask what the reason was. Maybe some reasons could be helped out better (for example offering some countries with financiel troubles accomodation at people from organisation)

Or, you know, reinstating the qualifying races for the forest disciplines, while simultaneously solving the problems of the ridiculously long start lists in the finals leading to shorter start intervals leading to pack formation...

What he said

Looking at IOF Congress Binder pdf. There is a proposal to have only 1 qualification race. And a new rule that each country has at least 1 runner in the middle final if nobody qualify. What are the arguments for not having 2 qualification races? Previously there were 7 races at WOC (sprint-middle-long Q+F, relay).... now we have 6 races and Forest WOC will start with 4 races. As it looks now there is no room to have 5th race and an old waterproof model but everything else stay the same....long start list, shorter start interval.... I don't get it.

I had thought the same applied to WMTBOC. My first one was Hungary 2012 where there were over 100 participants in the M21 field and that was also the last year they had long qualification races. The following year the field was reduced to around 80 after they got rid of the qualification race (everyone is still able to enter the middle, sprint and relay, if you have enough people to field a team).

The rules for the long final became so convoluted that I struggled to understand them after that but in effect, there are 30 spots already decided before anyone even thinks about sending teams across so that only leaves 30 spots to be handed out during event week (give or take a few spots, depending on who shows up), based on your performance in the sprint and middle races (plus every country gets one guaranteed entry if it fails to have a qualifier under the other methods).

However looking at previous and subsequent field sizes, it seems it was always the case that ~80 attendees, at least in M21, was the norm so I would assume Hungary was the exception with participant numbers and that the change in rule didn't have that great an effect.

ridiculously long start lists in the finals leading to shorter start intervals
Nope. The too-short start interval is entirely to ensure the main contenders run during the TV window. How many punters get set off on early starts is irrelevant. In fact, in Italy they even sent punters out late AFTER the TV window and prizegiving.

Muddled thinking by the IOF. How do they expect to expand the sport's appeal, if they do not allow qualifying races encouraging reasonable team sizes (or any
team) with the separate forest format?

@Graeme, I'd almost forgotten about Italy! Amazing really, they just do what they want.