Discussion: The Team?

Soooo...who's on the team?!

See the photo thread!

Men: Eric Bone, Ethan Childs, Giacomo Barbone (by petition), Wyatt Riley, Ross Smith (by petition). First alternate: Eddie Bergeron; 2nd alt: Matej Sebo; 3rd alt: Ken Walker Jr.

Women: Ali Crocker, Alex Jospe, Samantha Saeger (by Petition), Tori Borish, Hannah Culberg. First alternate: Cristina Luis; 2nd alternate: Alison Campbell (by petition); 3rd alternate: Kseniya Popova

Men's WOC team: Eric, Ethan, Giacomo, Wyatt, and Ross. Alts: Eddie, Matej, Ken.

Women's: Ali, Alex, Sam, Tori, Hannah. Alts: Cristina, Alison, Kseniya.

Thanks Peggy, just beat me to the paste.

I can't believe Matej isn't in the team after some cracking races this weekend. Is that because of his pre trials score? If so can I reiterate that I hate this scoring system? Disregarding exciting new talent is a very poor way to develop your team.

Congratulations to all those selected. Can this scoring system be reviewed please? Because this issue with Juniors is going to keep coming thanks to the great job that Erin is doing.

It's curious to me that there seem to be some 0.32 points separating Wyatt and Eddie, yet two places and a yes/no on the WOC Team.

Indeed Matej's situation seems to be the lack of a representative Blue ranking... that's understandable since the emphasis for Juniors has been on getting a Red ranking. Even more curiously, Matej ran a number of races that we put on in which Blue and Red were the same, and he would have scored more Blue points than Red points with his time in at least one of them...

I can't explain the selection committee's exact thinking but can offer up that the rules state that a second petitioner cannot be inserted above 5th place in the scoring list, which could create an artificial weirdness around the 4-5-6 positions.

Right. And with this, I kinda question that both petitions should have been granted on the men's side, but that's my own opinion unsubstantiated by thorough review of relevant performance.

And, again, I put this out there as I do after every Team selection and the comments begin…If you would like to be on the Team selection committee for the 2015 WOC Team, please let the ESC know.

Thank you…this has been a PSA.

With the limit on the number of US athletes who can compete at WOC races, there is a strong argument for seeking specialists. To not have the winner of the long trials race on the team seems counter-productive. Moreover, he came in 2nd in the sprint relay, so he proved himself in two formats. I understand that the selection committee had to use the scoring system, but this result suggests to me that it should be revisited.

I would think, especially with the new system, that one runner should be picked based on their long distance ability, one for the middle, one for the sprint, and then others as necessary. If a single person happens to be the best at more than one distance, then it would make sense to have them be the one to compete in both at WOC. If we only have one (perhaps two) shots at each event, we should pick whichever athletes can put their best foot forward for that event, not based on their overall ability at several distances. For example, the best sprinter should be selected for the team with the intent they shall run the sprint. If the best sprinter is also the best long runner, they should be the person to compete for both the sprint and the long.

At least that's how I would do it.

In the future, I think that we will need to revisit our selection process based upon the changing composition of WOC itself.

I, unfortunately, do not have enough time to go to a WOC for just one race. If and when I try for the team in the future this will be a major deciding factor in my participation.

EChild right on! That's the way national teams are selected in most other sports. Maybe someone can explain why the US Orienteering selection process is different.

The selection process is the way it is not because there aren't people who want it to be different but because people are resistant to change.

Also, if/when the selection process changes again, I guarantee there will still be people unhappy with it. No selection system will please everyone.

Following up on JLaughlin's comment, you also have to consider that if someone gets chosen to run the sprint because that's what they're good at, that means paying a substantial amount of money and taking vacation days from work for what could turn out to be about 15 minutes of running. That has been a difficult proposal for some people. OUSA funds some of the costs to WOC, but not everything.

I agree with EChild. WOC has changed and so the selection process needs to change. At the moment USA athletes have to be the all around runner. This does not suite training plans and actually getting good at the distance the athlete likes the most because they won't get to run that race at WOC if they can't make the team and they can't make the team unless they are the all around best.

And to follow on kissy and JLaughlin comments... If we change the system to how EChilds proposes then the Athlete knows what disapline they are going to run at WOC. They again train for that from the start and then it is their choice from the start that they might be going to WOC for only a 15mins race. But i think it is worse at this moment to be named to the team and you find out about a month or so before hand your only picked to run the sprint. But this is after you booked flights and everything. Surely that is even more unfair?

That being said Congratulations to the team that was selected. You raced hard and so keep training and best of luck at WOC!

The current selection system in US makes some sense for the case when we are selecting for 3 starts in each discipline, as was the case until last year. A well rounded runner good in all disciplines is a good option when you send people to run 2 or 3 disciplines with qualifications and hopefully finals. Runners could end up running 5 - 6 or more races during the course of the WOC week in different disciplines. Consistency and diversity is a big factor in that scenario. With the new WOC programme and the starts quota for the US (the men for example: 1 middle, 1 long, 3 relay and bunch of sprints) the selection process needs to be changed.


"taking vacation days" "what could turn out to be about 15 minutes of running" I sometimes feel the same way, but we should stop thinking that WOC is a vacation, or get your money's worth trip. World championships competition is the highest honor for an athlete to qualify and race. No country's selection process should be based on those arguments of convenience. Those should be left to individual athletes to decide whether a single race at world championships is worth the trouble to attending.

I would like to point out that the selection process *was* changed in consideration of the new format. A committee of interested and qualified people got together, explored various alternatives, and suggested some changes to our current system (adding a sprint relay and making the scoring list best 3 of 5 to allow for some amount of "specialization"). Is everyone happy with it? Of course not! But it's not like the people who are in charge of making these decisions aren't basically constantly talking about these issues and thinking about what to do. There's no obvious "right" way to do it. Concrete suggestions are welcome.

I find the idea that it's "not worth it" to travel to WOC for "just one race" to be a bit strange, but that's just me.

Good points, C.

I agree totally with Nikolay. To be selected to represent your country at the World Championships is indeed the highest honor for an athlete. As Cristina points out no system will be perfect, though I think Ethan raises points that definitely deserve further discussion. WOC set up has changed and the selection should be tailored more to align with it.
Meanwhile congrats to those selected , we'll be routing for you.

Curious what people think about the Canadian selection process.

my point about traveling for one race is more that it isn't fair to train for one distance and then told your running another one. You are not as prepared as you want to be to do your best when it is that way.
I agree with Nikolay though that no matter what it is the biggest honor and privilege to race at the World Championships. I would take any race I could get just to say I have raced at that level, and I have! I just think the USA can do a better job at allowing athletes to prepare for the distances they are racing. But that involves time and possibly selecting for each distance separately.

Speaking as someone who was involved in this years selection format as well as someone who earnestly wants us to have the best team at WOC in each and every event (I'm guessing everyone is in the latter boat, although we'll have some different ideas of how to do it!):

We wanted to adapt our selection process to the new format, but also not totally upend the way we've been doing things. Being based on multiple races allows for some contribution of consistency, instead of everything being determined by one race. There is some merit in that, although sure, WOC is one race, it matters to have athletes who perform well under pressure... what trumps?

I'll mention that we had a strong contention of a system where athletes were at least separately selected for sprint and forest running (don't forget, you need 3 forest runners for a relay, even if the same person is selected for middle and long!) What do people who are thinking about selection now think of that? Or everyone is really dedicated to a system of selecting exactly for each race? If the latter, how do you see relay selections working?

I don't necessarily agree that the "winner" of each of the trials races should constitute the team. i.e. winner of Trials Long runs the WOC Long, etc. If there is a clear winner than maybe it make sense but what if the winner is only a couple seconds ahead does that make them the best choice? I mean, there are lots of things that can influence a race by a few seconds or even minutes that just boil down to luck. It would be better to consider how someone does on a consistent basis than make a decision on the outcome of just one race which could be influenced by any number of things.

Consider Will Hubsch who won the first sprint and Eric Bone who won the second. Which should automatically make the team if you want to select the winners? The same could be said for the middle and long. Of course there was only one each of these at the trials but if there would have been two, I think very possible/likely that there would have been two different winners (Ali Crocker excepted)

Here are some suggestions:
1. Split the US rankings scores for sprints from the middle/long scores. (at least for the TT selection purposes) In the current rankings system a sprint race win could not give a scores comparable to a middle or long distance win given the same participants. A good sprinter is going to be always handicapped by coming into TT with low ranking score. A great sprinter doesn't have to be a great long distance runner. A great sprinter doesn't have to be a good forest technical terrain navigator. Athletes speed in running usually peaks by the time they are 20 - 25 years old. Expecting expert forest navigation skills by that age is unreasonable for athletes starting orienteering so late at age 16 -18 in the school leagues where most of our youth comes from (not counting the o-family kids). But excellent sprint habits and performance are much easier to teach and achieve, which Erin's program begins to show.


2. Use this separate sprint ranking score plus the TT sprint race results to select the US sprint team. Set a minimum forest ranking score for a sprint member to be considered for the sprint team. (this year's inclusion of a second sprint race is a great decision by the selection committee)

3. Consider putting on a separate sprint race trials selection event with 3 or even 4 sprints over a weekend. The sprint starts at WOC are currently 50% of all starts for US men. That is 4 out of 8 starts with potential of 3 more sprints: the sprint finals. And for women 4 out of 11 with good chances of at least 2 extra sprint finals. I feel those facts warrant at least the consideration of separate TT for sprints. And from reading the news Urban WOC might be just around the corner so one more good reason for separate sprint TT.

Edit: some style changes. and couple more points :)

Thanks to everyone on the ESC who did their best to come up with this year's scoring system. Not an easy task, and I know they worked hard on it.

Looking at the scoring list for the men, a few observations:

1. After having two petitions inserted into the top 5, making the team required putting together 3 near-perfect scores: Wyatt's total score was 295.45, an average of 98.48 points (!). With such a high cutoff, while allowing for the discard of two races, the rules would seem to select for a mix of scoring potential and consistency.

2. Of the 5 men named to the team, only Eric and Wyatt used their pre-trials ranking to do so. So, I would say that Matej's lack of a blue course ranking was not decisive in his being an alternate. His total score was 291.33, so he would have needed a pre-trials ranking of at least 99.71, which is a good deal better than he averaged at the trials. Basically, Matej's runs just weren't quite cracking enough.

3. On the other hand, Eddie just needed to improve his ranking score by 0.84 points to beat out Wyatt. Looking through his results for 2013, it's hard to understand how he didn't manage to do that, but it's also hard to overlook the fact that his results were consistently well below his apparent potential. Maybe that was a consideration, I dunno. I have to say, though, Eddie came to trials and performed.

4. With this year's rules - best 3 of 5 scores - there are really a lot of different ways of making the team. It's possible to put together 3 top scores without even starting in two of the races. I can well imagine a scenario where a sprinter enters the trials with a top ranking and skips the middle and/or long entirely, or, as Ken did this year, get a pretty good result in the middle and then skip the long. The possibilities are myriad.


Selecting a team is inevitably an unsatisfactory process when you get to the point of having enough talent to need to make a choice. One thing is for sure, though: Eric and Ali crushed their respective fields. So, if you want to make the team, just be more like Eric and Ali.

a sprinter enters the trials with a top ranking

The argument that is being made is that this is essentially impossible because Sprint ranking points end up being depressed at the top and raised at the bottom. The slowerfolk are proportionally faster if the course is shorter. (Unless the Sprint is an unusual or a really well set one, which are rare.)

is the team selection scoring list available someplace?

Carl, Wyatt posted a copy on the Team Yahoo Group, and once it's been verified it will be on the OUSA website.

I believe that Team selection will always be a problem. There will be no perfect system. If someone is selected based on one race, there are issues of chance that come in to that race. Was there a control that was difficult for many but the winner happened by good fortune to arrive in the area of the control when someone was leaving? If so, their time would obviously be lower than normal. In a sprint, one bad route choice could make a real difference, maybe only 20 seconds but that could determine if you are on the team. (Note that on the junior sprint that there were three girls within one second of each other.) A mathematician might want to deal with the decision statistically looking at a number of races and use the ranking to find the average and also look at the standard deviation from that average. Some people sometimes have really good runs and sometimes they are very poor. If that person has a good day at the WOC, then great but you probably want for people with smaller deviations from the mean which is why using more than one race is probably better. I would also suggest that if there is a large deviation, the person often has trouble orienteering well. Also, the reason for a good run might just be that a "fan" cheered loudly and encouraged "a little more" effort. I believe that Sam Saeger said that the fans helped her make a finals by a few seconds one time and that without the cheering, she might not have made it. As I said, there will probably never be a perfect system.

But that's just how sport works? I've never seen another group who does team selection in such a rigid way, because the reasons you talk about are entirely why you should have human selectors making decisions, and not algorithms.

The only real difference between our system and a completely subjective system is that with our system people can be pissed at the algorithm instead of at a coach or selection committee.

Oh wait, just kidding, our system is only half objective, so people already get angry at the selection committee. Seems to me that negates the #1 objection people have with a subjective selection and we may as well switch. (ha, if only it were that easy!)

I've seen the selections for the senior team, and lots of discussion about why the selections were right or wrong. Have the selections for the JWOC team been made yet? Isn't this also the event for the junior team selection? I'm not quite so sure what the criteria are for that process, but I would be interested in knowing when we will hear about who gets chosen. And of course it will then also be interesting to read the ensuing discussion on AP!

USATF is pretty rigid. Do or die, recent foul protest fiascos notwithstanding.

There is some info on JWOC selection on the orienteeringUSA website, under US Teams > Junior. Yes, the selection races for JWOC were this weekend; selection will not be done until after the Flying Pig, which is the last race in the ranking period.

I see comments like this over and over again :
There will be no perfect system.


I guarantee there will still be people unhappy with it. No selection system will please everyone.
It is like saying to an athlete you will not be a world champion, why bother getting off your coach

Those are not reason to stop trying to improve.
Lets agree first whether the current system needs change. If so, then lets get specific feedback to the selection committee of what we think works and what doesn't.

Nikolay, you quote me there but I agree with you in that the system should change. But mostly based on the principle of it, not because I think it would make a big practical difference. And people will have reasons to hate whatever we do because there is no such thing as a perfect system.

An objective ranking system is fair, but has a hard time taking into account subjective data. But a subjective ranking system is not the answer, as it more prone to being unfair, as well as corrupt.

So really, team selection will always be sticky, since it has to be fairly objective, but we will always want to mess with it subjectively.

Nothing personal Cristina :) It was easier to paste it than type it myself. Believe me I am a do it right, perfectly or don't bother person, but perfectionism doesn't work or even have space in any reasonably complex system. There are all shades of gray, and any switch of hue in the correct direction is a positive accomplishment.

I believe that the real issue is that my "perfect" isn't "perfect" for someone else. If people see there is a problem, then modifying the present system may be completely appropriate. The problem is that if you go completely with numbers, some people will think that the system that derives the numbers is faulty. If you go with a completely subjective process, the various opinions of the committee will always show. Easy to say who is number 1, harder to say who is the last member chosen and who is the first alternate.

A person can give real feedback though. So, if Derek Exampleperson missed out by 0.2 points, what does that mean in a computed system? If he was picked as first alternate, he can go to the selection committee and say - why did you make that decision? And they can respond. "Your fitness was lacking over long distances," "Fred Sampleperson was more consistent," "We think you need to work on XY technique and you will make it next year," "We picked an awesome junior instead because we think he has ten years of potential A Final ability ahead of him."

Edit: I should add that I feel I have been subject to many dubious selection decisions over the years, but I still strongly feel the personal approach is the right one.

Edit number 2: I should add that I think it is an awesome thing that we are having this discussion, because the whole reason the algorithm isn't really working now is because there is a greater depth of field and people who have moved abroad with O' as a primary purpose...it's a really good situation with a currently imperfect solution.

Is the selection method influenced by what you're trying to achieve with the team?

It could be argued the new WOC rules for middle/long make it more sensible for those disciplines to pick the seasoned, guaranteed performers over those who are more erratic, as you want to maintain your spots. But perhaps only if you already have more than one spot, as there's something to lose there.

If you're always selecting 5 men, now it's for 2 forest, 3 sprint, 2 sprint relay and 3 forest relay runs, you're going to have someone running sprint and forest anyway...

At JWOC, where you've more picks, it is easier to justify choosing someone who could have a flyer. Risk vs reward. Taking account of specialism more/less relevant in this case?

I've never seen another group who does team selection in such a rigid way

I'd argue that is because orienteering is so different than all these other sports. We have about 20 athletes who could make the team that get together a few times a year. There is no coach, no training camps, no assistant coaches, no statisticians, and in short no resources. And then we people who have moved abroad with O' as a primary purpose. Somehow, an omniscient selection committee would have to make sense of all of this. I just don't see how that is tenable or could be fair.

It is so different than the little league team, the track team, or whatever team, where even short of all the other nice to have things, you can see an athlete every day, look into their eyes, gauge their drive and assess their commitment. How can a selection committee confidently decide to include someone no one has seen or spoken to in months over someone who is seen regularly, who generates a lot of results data, etc? I wouldn't want to do that job. I'm certainly not qualified either by aptitude or disposition.

This has been a big struggle for me in the Junior selection. I like using the numbers to make informed decisions. There are things you just can't weigh with a formula. For example how an athletes comes back from injury, if someone gets injured leading up to a race, the emotional state of person, how a stint of training will go, who will peek at the right time, who has a good head on their shoulders and will train smart, and who shows up when it counts. A good coach can sense this and observe it in athletes, keep track of the data for all of this, and use those observations and data to make a clear decision.

The trials is a great way to see who is prepared, and can perform under pressure. It can also be a nice indicator of where a person is at in their training. For example the juniors are just finishing their first training period of building a base and strength with the goal to peek in late July at JWOC. Trials can show what needs to be worked on and what looks good. Depending on when trials are, training and racing can be tailored appropriately.

The junior rankings from this race laid out just about the way I would have thought based on the rankings and what I know of the athletes. I was pleasantly surprised at how well Katrina competed in the sprints. The current standings are no surprise. There will be a few hard decisions to make at the end of the list due to petitions but for the most part all of that is justifiable based on what is going on with each athlete because there is a lot of simple data if put together by someone who knows what it means can be used to make a very good decision.

Some suggestions to the ESC would be to consider performance as a key factor. In the example of Matej he finished 3rd 3rd and 4th and 8th in the US team trials. If the two petitioners are put in front of Matej that is 5th 5th and 6th with one dropped race where he would be 10th. In this case Matej performances would at least merit him a spot on the relay team since he was third in all the woods races. If the two petitioners are inserted ahead of Matej it makes sense that the team does not need another long, middle relay runner since the men only get one entry and Eric is the clear favorite for at least the long if not both the long and middle. Because the way the points laid out these place finishes are basically irrelevant. Those place finishes show consistency and being able to get it done. At WOC or any race the people who are in place 1-6 get on the podium regardless of how much time separates 7th from 6th you are still in 7th place. That is not going to change no matter how much math you do. Looking at Head to head competition is very important because I think that is the point of the trials. Evidence for the petitioners being better than someone in the trials would help.

In the case of Will Hubsch he performed very well in the sprint. I think 1 win and a solid relay merits consistency especially if you then look further back into his history, Will does very well in sprints. The team needs more sprinters to fill spots in the sprint races so it would make sense in this case that Will be considered to fill a needed sprint spot.

I don't think the juniors should necessarily run WOC I am very happy with how things turned out. A suggestion to the ESC would be to use the facts to make an informed decision. It would be nice to see justification for why the petitions where accepted. Personally I would like to see current racing, training evidence, and health to justify putting a person on a team who does not show up. For example why is Alison Campbel at second alternate? There may be perfectly good reasons but they should be made public. Where is the justified comparison to the athletes at the team trials. These are very important decision that go into putting a team together and even if its, we do not have enough data to make a comparison an athlete who did not make the team knows what they have to do to get better.

I would like to understand from the group why these terms subjective and objective keep coming up as a reason for having a certain kind of selection. Its seems to me that it takes both. For example if a person gets angry a lot that is a recordable fact. Someone with a little experience can take that data and say this person gets angry during these times, if nothing has changed the likely hood that the person gets angry in the given situation again is high. If a person has 3 stress fractures in their leg that's a fact. A person can infer that if that person does not change any thing they are doing the likely hood of them getting another stress fracture is high. If a person runs three good races and has a history of running good races based on the ranking, basic logic would dictate that the likely hood of that person running more good races is high. This process uses very objective data and allows a person who has experience and understands the data to make an informed decision.
My suggestion to the ESC would be to choose the team using the team trials and the numbers generated by it and other information that they have to make a decision. This decision is guided by the goal. This goal could be putting the most competitive team as possible at WOC, putting the most consistent team at WOC, putting a team at WOC to get experience that will lead to long term performance. This final goal is a contentious one. I think evidence shows that most people don't show up at WOC and win or perform optimally especially when they come from an undeveloped program the first time. This means that they need experience to get to a place where they might be able to perform to the expectation of the team goals and OUSA organization. Regardless of who accepts or declines to go, I think its very important for the ESC to choose a direction that they want to pursue and select accordingly. With the current selection format it is clear that the ESC has selected the best team. The question is did the outcome of the selection put the best people in the right races for this years WOC? Definitely more clarity in the future I think would help guide athletes in their training. For example if the Women have 2 middle and long entries and I am a 3rd or 4th spot at best on the team, it makes no sense for me to focus my training on middle or long if I could be 1st or 2nd in a sprint. I could tailor my training all year towards that end and present evidence of specific sprint races and training's that back up a team trials performance. A possible idea idea would be to have athletes declare what disciplines they will be training for and would like to race at WOC. The committee could then evaluate them specifically on that discipline or on two of the 4. While some of the best in the world can compete in all 4 and win that's rare. I think right now in the US it might even make sense to really focus on certain races to get best results. A selection process which allows the committee to put the best athletes in the right races would I think produce the results we are looking for.

I hope my suggestions are clear. Not easy to be on any committee where you have to make hard decision. Thanks everyone for great racing and a fun weekend and putting together what I think is a strong team.

While I share misgivings about the current system, it does give good motivation as an athlete to actually turn up. If one does turn up and one runs well enough, one is guaranteed a spot on the team, and the selector can't take that away from you because you are too experienced or not experienced enough or haven't shown potential. So turnout is, I believe, increased.

I totally agree turning up is ideal and increases your chances, but it is not always feasible. Erin, are you saying that Sam, Ross etc should not have been selected because they did not run at the trials? You mentioned 'undeveloped program'. It is interesting to see over the years the number of USA orienteers who have made the team or alternates moved to in Europe where they can train and race with other top athletes. There is no doubt this experience has raised their game. As correctly mentioned the intent is to get the best team to compete at WOC and unfortunately at this time we do not have the frequent high level competition here in the US.
Erin- I am interested in your comment about Alison Campbell being listed as 2nd alternate especially when you comment 'I would like to see current racing, training evidence, and health to justify putting a person on a team who does not show up".
This data is available to anyone on attackpoint and race results can be verified through the web. In her case she has put in substantially more orienteering hours competing against and training with members of the GB orienteering squad (who have won WOC medals) than when she last competed against the top US orienteers at the NA and compared pretty nicely against them then. Sure that is 18 months ago, but she has not been competing in a vacuum. She made a legitimate petition and was selected on her record as second alternate. Sure it would have been better for her to come over and compete in the team trials, but on a student budget and the term schedule did not permit it. I'm not sure you want to punish someone who is endeavoring to get them selves to the next level just because they were unable to make the trials. If you do that for one you must ne consistent for everyone. BTW: Alison is looking forward to coming over for the NA in the Fall when the college schedule permits it.
I would like to note that even though Alison is my daughter I would say the same comment for anyone else in the same situation. In fact anyone living in a developed orienteering country is at a disadvantage even if they do show up to the team trials as they do not have the rankings to count so have to run well, even if they have much stiffer competition on a regular basis in the country they live in. I suspect that hurt Cristina.
The team selection process will only get tougher as Erin continues to build the juniors to feed into the seniors. Long may this happen and raise the level of competition within the USA.

I agree Erin I would LOVE to know the justification! That way when I go to my coach, Andy Kitchen, in the next week or so we know exactly what the USA think I have to work on and see if it is also what we think. Basically be able to fully assess what happened this last year and make sure I'm on track for WOC 2015! I know that competition was tough this year and that I was at a slight disadvantage for not being able to go to the trails but that was a choice I made when moving to Scotland. And I'm enjoying Scotland and all the training opportunities I'm getting! and that is the main reason we train so hard right? We have to enjoy it! But it is also hard to take in why I didn't make the team when I haven't even been given a reason. There is no way to know what I need to improve on, and I'm set on making the WOC 2015 team!

Hey John,
I think you are arguing my point. I am not suggesting that the petitioners should not be selected. It's also not my job to keep track of athletes on the senior team. I agree with the petitioners being selected. I think they are definitely deserving of the spots they where given if not higher on the list. My question is how can anyone get better if they do not know why someone was put on the list over them. Ya I can go on attackpoint and look at training and racing but that is meaningless unless its tied into or correlated to the people at the trials. That is something the ESC does when they select the team. Good practice for the ESC to establish credibility, is to release an explanation whatever it is for their decision. For example I want to know why Alison is not in the top 5 after all her hard work in Europe and racing at WOC last year? So to be clear I am with what you are saying, I think in the Future it would help to have justified explanations for what is being done so that everyone can improve and get better from it. With clear explanation the sport remains credible to an outside eye. Someone who walked into the sport might say why did that person get on the team? With a statement reasoning the committees decision that is an answerable question.

Erin, Thank-you for the clarification - you are right, we are in agreement.
I agree that you are not expected to keep track of athletes on the senior team, you are focused on the next generation and OUSA is fortunate to have you as the junior coach. We sorely lack the same for the senior team.

A brief answer to some questions posed above (from a member of the Review Panel) --

Our mission was to evaluate petitions and insert each petitioner into a place on the scoring list. That's it. We could not move anyone else.

It is by definition a subjective process.

There were five members of the Review Panel. We each reached our opinions and then tried to reach a consensus.

I was the only member not at the event. I spoke at length with another member on Saturday evening about the possibilities (with two races still to go).

I understand the other RP members had ongoing discussions throughout the trials.

All 5 of us talked after the final race, the sprint relay. Where to insert three of the 4 petitioners was unanimous. The split decision was where to place Sam Saeger, either ahead of or after Alex Jospe. We decided on putting Sam third.

-----------------------

As to the justification for our choices and what any particular person needs to do, the answer is simple (and I'm not being snide) -- get better. Actually, get a lot better.

For the women in general, you are in Division 2 for the 2014 WOC. It will take some effort to stay there, which you will hopefully do, and hopefully with some margin to spare. In the past in all events, and for the sprint this time where there is still a qualifying race, it has taken a world ranking of about 1050 points, roughly, to have a good shot at qualifying. If you are not at that level, then that's a good goal. If you are far from that level, then you have a lot of work to do.

For the men in general, you are in Division 3 for the 2014 WOC, and certainly closer to the bottom of division 3 than the top. For you the relevant world ranking number is about 1150. None of our men is close to that, which is why we haven't been making finals. Whether you made the team this time or not, you need to have a plan to get a lot better so that at some not too distant point in the future we have some possibility of moving out of division 3.

To repeat, and this is true of everyone, you need to get a lot better. That's the reality.

-----------------------

I have found it very distressing that there is so much discussion about how, or how not, to pick a team, and so little discussion about how to get better. At least the juniors have a plan and are doing things.

------------------------------

Perhaps after a little time this will die down and there will be some focus on what for the team should be the most important event of the year -- the North Americans and the BK Cup (and FC Cup for the juniors).

You don't have to qualify to go, but you do have to show up ready to run really well. And we have one cup to defend and another to claim.

How many are planning on going to the training weekend? Not many, it seems. How about it. That would seem to be a good first step.

There was a lot of good will generated for both the senior and the junior teams at the last North Americans, based on both the excellent results and the good team spirit shown. That pays dividends when things such as budgets are decided. Putting in the effort to repeat (and improve) on those results should be the highest priority.

"To repeat, and this is true of everyone, you need to get a lot better. That's the reality. "

Is there much time to get better if you're 35+ versus 19+ ?

We all love Alison here in Edinburgh, and we are gutted she didn't make the team. I certainly see a plan: new coach, hard work, and a decent training group (we have two WOC top-10 women living in town). With genuinely top-quality fields at our races, progress is easy to assess, and I can see why selectors felt the results aren't there yet.

Fact is, you have a couple of people who forced their way onto the team. After that a group of similar ability, for whom selection is essentially random. Nobody is coming on here saying "X shouldn't go", and I suggest if you don't have the courage to do that, you should lay off moaning at the selectors

(AFAIK This last paragraph applies to all teams and all nations)

I do find it a bit odd you didn't say who is running what, especially with the new format which means you get more people running the WOC final than ever before, but some will be sprint-only.

On the theme of "getting a lot better" here's some "self-selection questions" that I believe every athlete should ask of themselves.

What is my motivation for the TTs- eg just making the team (aka big fish in little pond) or performing at an elite level in the big pond?
What is my level of commitment to get to perform at a truly elite level?
Am I investing the time and energy for running performance (eg guys should be aiming for sub 9 3k, circa 15 for 5k and 32 for 10k- these aren't elite running stds by any means but are the price for entry into the global game), investing in general conditioning, not to forget the absolute O need for technical training and lastly psychological preparation to compete in the international pressure cooker?

I pose these somewhat rhetorically, and in doing so commend Erin and the junior squad on tackling these performance elements. For the seniors, much tougher without coaching support, however honest answers would be informative!
BTW there are no right or wrong answers, it's perfectly fine to have O as a hobby- beyond that......, well you get my drift!

What a thought-provoking discussion, with interesting--and I would say very insightful--comments from so many posters. As an athlete, it's great to see that people care so deeply about this and have given it so much thought!

Also as an athlete, my mind has been most on PG's point: the need to get a lot better. Having won the trials has me under no illusions about the fact that I am behind my own training plan, thanks to my hamstring injury (which seems no longer acute but still holds me back some.) I know what I want it to feel like to run up hills, and I'm not there yet. My yardstick is a WOC long final and what it would mean to be mentally and especially physically prepared for that.

As someone who was partly responsible for driving the process that came up with the current selection process (it has evolved a bit over the years, but not too much), I admit to feeling somewhat protective of it, principally because of what j-man said about the relative opacity of the problem and because I am so wary of the importance of bias or the perception of bias in destroying credibility and buy-in.

Given that no one has been able and willing to put their finger on anything that should have been different this year, and there is certainly no sign of consensus about it, I would chalk up the apparent rumbles about the process to orienteers being orienteers. Can you imagine the din if there was even more discretion involved?

On schirminator's point about how people are using the words "objective" and "subjective", I agree, and I think perhaps what people are really concerned with is a different distinction: transparent and predictable versus opaque or unpredictable. There is a lot to be said for having a system where an athlete knows that if they perform well enough--achieve a high enough placement, high enough ranking points, whatever--they will be guaranteed a spot on the team. There is an arbitrariness to selectors using other info (whether based on objective data or not) to come up with a decision, as it can't be prepared for or controlled by the athlete in the same way that race results can.

I've seen a lot of support and no disagreement with the idea of providing a rationale that is either public or at least delivered to the athletes involved. This makes a lot of sense to me, as it allows an athlete to better accept their position in the scoring list and take positive steps to improve. Feedback is tremendously important, so why not offer some here.

This year's system almost allows a sprint specialist to qualify for the team on the basis of their sprint performance, and I think that is a good thing. With Nikolay's suggested adoption of a sprint-only ranking, we'd be there. Whether that would constitute a sixth score making it best 3 of 6 or whether the scoring list framework would change in another way is a topic for discussion. Anyway, I think it is good that the ESC was restrained in their changes to the process for this year.

Eddie's situation pains me. He came out and ran extremely well in two races and solidly in a third. His ranking was just a bit too low. I view this as bad luck and not a problem with the system, per se. It was so competitive this year!

Finally, I loved having the juniors and seniors racing together! It increases competition all-around and raises the physical bar for the juniors. I'm not sure I'd be such a fan if we didn't have such a great junior program and coach in place.

Thank you Eric. Great comments.

This whole conversation seems a bit stinky to me, particularly when we should be celebrating the selection of the new WOC team. Even some of the suggestions about how to improve the process seem to be thin veils for complaints about the selection. I'm not on the selection committee or the ESC but, nevertheless, here is my opinion.

I am generally in agreement with ebone's comments but I would like to pick on one theme he brings up. I am unclear on where there is lack of transparency. The results for those who made the team are there for people to find. The results for those who did not make the team are there to find. Obviously, the selection committee deemed one set of results a higher quality than another. It's that simple. Are we asking the committee to go point by point, race by race and ultimately justify their selection by some quantitative scoring of these past results? That can't be done. And even if they tried, the argument would simply shift to the micro level of weighting one result against another but still be unresolvable. After all, selection or not by those who petition is, by definition, an opinion. If an athlete wants to avoid being at the mercy of that process, then be at the trials to run. That's not being harsh, that is simply unavoidable reality.

Regarding the question about what athlete need to do to make the team, Peter answered. Go faster. It doesn't matter if someone has a coach or doesn't. It doesn't matter if someone has a plan or doesn't. It doesn't matter if someone worked hard or didn't. Results matter. The selection committee cannot tell a person, "train more hours, and you will be on the team," "improve your sprinting and you will be on the team," "travel to more international events and you will be on the team," etc. All they can say is, "Run faster than those people, and you will be on the team." If that is not possible due to other life choices, my suggestion to those who plan to petition would be to focus on explaining and documenting how their results demonstrate quality and suggestions for how their results can be compared against domestic results. Help the selection committee to better contextualize your accomplishments. But know if you go that route that you are putting yourself at the mercy of an evaluation process and no amount of training is going to change that.

It seems that petitioning doesn't seem to be an impediment to being on the team. This year all but one were named to the team, and the other was an alternative.

I'm not sure how that compares historically, but my feeling is that a lot of petitions in recent years have been approved. I'd be curious to see the numbers…

The following is a statistically misleading statement, but even at face value, I'd submit it is of interest, and can be assessed in different ways: your odds are better of making the team through petition rather than by showing up at the trials.

I know, I know there is more to it than that, but even so, I wonder if it is an ideal situation?

There is absolutely no way that was the case for Alison.

FWIW, the Scoring List is available as a link from the OUSA website news article --

http://www.orienteeringusa.org/news/2014/us-teams/...

Iamstillhungry: while I agree conceptually with your response it is a little simplistic. We need to raise the standard of our athletes in the USA, just 'saying' get better is the first step. Unfortunately we lack the funding in OUSA for a full time senior level coach which would go a long way to help focus specific training programs to help develop and hone the specific skills to drive to the next level.

@j-man, if petitioners didn't think they had a good chance of being on the team through petitioning, they might either not petition or turn up to trials to improve their case. So I would expect the majority of petitions to be approved.

@nobbs I think you are bolstering @j-man's point. If a runner is sure he / she will get in by petition, why would they show up at the trials and risk a bad performance.

My response pertained to selection process and associated criticisms. I was not at all commenting on how we develop better orienteers. Regarding the latter, in my opinion, pointing at lack of funding for a senior level coach or otherwise is a well worn argument but ultimately futile because the funding isn't there, won't be there and, if someone is waiting for it to be there, then they just won't get anywhere.

Going back to Becks' question: "Is there much time to get better if you're 35+ versus 19+ ?" Yes, for sure. If you don't have the legs now, then not much time. If you have the legs, then more time... until your eyes start failing. When you find yourself looking for knolls that are really just specks of dirt on the map, you'll know it's over.

Futile or not, it is a part of the problem we have in the USA. The sad situation is some other countries behind us a few years ago are now surpassing us at WOC.

j man - an interesting view on petitions and probably true. I would add that most of those petitioning are living in developed orienteering countries where they are regularly competing at a much higher level than those living in the USA, so I would contend that most would perform well enough at the team trials to be selected anyway.
It was interesting to read Cristina's attackpoint log where she said this had been her best team trial performance - I would suggest her living in Norway has helped. It was not her performance at the team trials that affected her final selection score, it was the lack of a good USA ranking score.

To catch up to the other countries, let's consider introducing 10,000 kids age 6-10 to fun orienteering games over the next few years. (Yes, that's our proposed focus for the new OUSA strategy.)

I am convinced by you all saying details of selection method don't matter so much, and what's important is to focus on the preparation you do all year. If you are clearly the best you will get on the team. So it's important to think about how to get better.

I love how the preparation the juniors did for trials paid off. One focused on consistency, and came in 7th every single day. One has been training to minimize 20-30 minute legs, and they did that. On the flip side, where someone clearly had chosen not to train some skill (say, for endurance), they struggled (in longer races, in this case). I love how they were disappointed but inspired by some of their races.

...

Switzerland: sCOOL program. Much smaller country; > 20,000 kids/year.
WIOL: Anne Wilkinson. Katrina Weinmann. Mathew Rogers. Eric Bone?
Georgia: Sholonda. Quran. Matt. Austin. Connor.
JROTC/W Point/N Academy
Victoria's Space Race Program, and the Australian National Schools Champs
Brazil's SCHOOL NATURE project.
Denmark: 150 maps, 350 teachers, increase in clubs' junior numbers.
China: 30 maps, > 20,000 students in 1999 championship, > 500 Chinese at Sweden's 2000 5-Day
Canada: ARK - 600-1000? in 3 local programs.

Well said

@Barb: Well said indeed. Adventure Running Kids just went over 700 kids (in 7 communities) for this spring.

10,000 is a great goal and totally achievable.

WIOL: Anne Wilkinson. Katrina Weinmann. Mathew Rogers. Eric Bone?

And Holly Kuestner, Kelsey Breseman, Danielle Spencer, Leif Anderson, Will Enger, and Nicholas Bone if you're looking for other WIOL juniors who have been to JWOC. And Tori Borish now joins Eric Bone as a WIOL alumnus who will be going to WOC.

It was interesting to read Cristina's attackpoint log where she said this had been her best team trial performance - I would suggest her living in Norway has helped. It was not her performance at the team trials that affected her final selection score, it was the lack of a good USA ranking score.

Cristina may well be improving while living in Norway (though it would be nice if people making such assertions could provide a quantitative analysis; as a casual observer these claims are far from obviously true, and yet their perceived truth seems to be accepted by the community), however the second assertion is well and truly false, and so badly so that it's almost as if you never even looked at the results:

Cristina Luis
Middle - 89.56
Long - 93.37
Sprint - 91.93
Relay - 92.57
Ranking - 0.00
Trials score (best 3 of 5) - 277.86

In order to displace Hannah (283.59), Cristina would have needed a ranking score of 97.67 or more, which is really a lot higher than any of her race scores at the trials, much less their average. So her final place in the trials would almost certainly not have improved with a US ranking.

Furthermore, of the 5 people on the team, only 1 of them actually needed to use a ranking score (Alex could drop her ranking score and still be in the top 5). Clearly, it is possible to make the team without a ranking score.

Brendan - I would despute your assertion. I did indeed read the results and the facts are:
Hannah's best 3 scores at the team trials 93.79+ 92.89+ 90.39= 277.07
Christina best 3 scores at the team trials 93.37 + 91.93 + 92.57 = 277.87.
Unless mathematics have changed since I learned basic arithmetic in elementary school, Christina performed a tiny fraction better, so for what it is worth it was Hannah's ranking score that put her over the top.

This is not to criticize Hannah in any way, she earned her spot and congratulations to her and we all want and wish her and everyone selected to perform well at WOC.

Brendan, also if you want to look at the power rankings can have to help, you only have to look at your team trial results.

... I didn't make the team. Evidently my superior ranking did not come to the rescue.

The lack of a ranking going into US trials for foreign-based competitors has long been recognized as a problem that we'd love to fix. Consensus on how to fix seems to have been harder, from what I've heard. I guess the biggest problem is (probably particularly on women's side) having enough runners with both a US ranking and WRE ranking. But maybe we can again try to figure out how to make that happen. (Anyone feel like number crunching?)

But, this year, with 3/5 races counting instead of the previous norm of 3/4, we are at least a bit more friendly to those without a US ranking. (Downside: 4 races in 3 days was really quite a lot!!)

Add me to that list of WIOL products who went to JWOC.

Wow, yeah, I'm a moron. I added you up there. Right in front my face all weekend, haha.

That's not a problem you're going to solve until you drop the use of the rankings from any strictly formulaic selection system. For that purpose, it is a fatally flawed number. It's not just a problem for foreign based competitors. It is also a problem for folks who were injured or ill during the prior year. And for juniors. And for anyone else who didn't have a ranking or a close to representative ranking, for any other reason.

Presumably the intent behind the selection process is to select the best possible team, however that might be defined.

And presumably most would agree that the selectors and/or system should be as objective as possible and use the best possible information for basing the selections upon.

Surely it is not too hard to see the striking inconsistency in the way petitioners and the way Team Trialers (people competing at the Team Trials) are handled.

In the case of a petitioner, the selectors are free to use the best and most relevant information available--say, outstanding international race results against strong fields--and give less weight or entirely ignore items with little informational content such as the lack of a US ranking for an overseas runner who never made it back for any US races, etc. They presumably wouldn't say "oh, no US ranking, guess they didn't care enough about WOC to make sure they had a good US ranking, too bad about all these great WRE races they had in WOC-like terrain."

Yet in the case of a Team Trialer who has no ranking--for whatever reason--or where the ranking is obviously unrepresentative--again, for whatever reason--that (garbage) information is considered vital, so much so that it *must* be used in the selection process.

Never mind the fact that when you look at the scoring lists from this year, less than half of either the men or women had any sort of ranking at all. Most people had no ranking whatsoever, and yet that number is considered as important as an actual Team Trials race??? That is a weird way to do things.

Take away the rankings, compare the actual head-to-head Team Trials race results, and see if you come up with the same names for the teams (accepted petitions aside.) And if you do come up with different names--any differences at all--then ask yourself why rankings should trump those race results. Does it really make sense that it should be so?

One further observation: why should it be assumed that only the best 2 scoring Team Trials races (in the case where a runner's 3rd score comes from their ranking) or 3 scoring races (in the case where the ranking isn't used) contain information important enough to be considered, whereas the worst race(s) is considered to contain no selectional information value? Is that the way they do it at WOC, just counting your best 3 of 4 results? Do you get do-overs at WOC these days if you have a bad race?

less than half of either the men or women had any sort of ranking at all

That's because they were juniors and raced Red throughout the year.

@jcampbell
The UK has recently lost its National Elite Coach, and there are no plans to replace him. It was no panacea, his relaxed and laid-back style was hugely popular with some team members, much less so with others. I think every athlete has to find a coach who suits them.

Rankings are problematic, I'll give you that. But in most cases that I've seen, people want to assign undue weight to the simple lack of a ranking in the outcome for an athlete. For example, Eddie had a ranking, but didn't make team despite some great races at the trials. Matej didn't have a ranking, but he would have needed a really remarkable ranking to make the team. The simple existence or lack of existence of a ranking doesn't make up for what happens at the trials. That's my main point.

To return to the Cristina/Hannah example, their trials results were indeed similar, and Hannah's ranking ended up being the deciding factor. Does that mean Cristina would have been in a better position if she'd had a ranking? All we can say is she would have needed a really good one. Looking backwards and picking a different metric for judging two similar results (best 3 of 4 trials races? why use that? why not best 2 of 4?), then claiming that the outcome would have been different if xyz athlete had had a ranking, is speculative. I apologize for taking a more incendiary tone on that point earlier.

Actually, I do think the rankings are problematic, but for a very different reason. In this particular case, the ranking score was overinflated relative to the trials scores, because of Tori, of all people. Tori scored in the top 3 in 3 of her 4 trials races, driving down everyone else's scores. But, she had no ranking, so anyone with a ranking got a comparative boost for that score.

Anyway, as Peter noted, anyone who's going to do well at WOC should waltz onto the team. The ranking is only going to make a difference in the marginal cases.

I'm sure there is, I just don't know where - is there long term records of ranking scores somewhere? In a way that would show improvement of individuals over the years? Or is this data skewed by people like Ali (no offence intended), as in, when she moved back, did that drive down women's scores in general?

All genuine questions, nothing offensive intended.

Team trials scoring lists are available here.

Ranking data going back to 1994 is available at the ranking website.

It's kind of hard to compare year-to-year, because things change at the top. Even in the case of Ali, her performance has improved considerably while living in the US, so it's not a step-function kind of effect.

Yeah, exactly. I might plot some graphs and see if it's possible to discern anything all all trendwise from them. Thanks for the links.

Based on Ali and Eric's continued dominance, it would seem that you would be better off refining your orienteering skills in the US, rather than abroad. No?

It would be interesting to see a more detailed analysis.

you would be better off refining your orienteering skills in the US

I thoroughly support this. You need more money in the U.S., and the flip side is that you get access to many more types of well-mapped terrain than you would in a random corner of Europe.

Unless you are in a random corner of the US.

Like Toledo?

In that case T/D, the UK beats all of these places. Enormous amount of terrain variability, exceptionally well mapped, in a tiny tiny space (in US terms). It's where Ali first earned her stripes, after all.

Interesting, I didn't know that Ali got introduced to the sport in the UK. My useless piece of trivia for the day!

Isn't the issue with the ranking system at least two fold?

In terms of tracking improvement, it is a relative system, so there is nothing absolute to judge against (except maybe world rankings, for those who have enough to scale against).

In terms of performance, its rejection of poor scores means that a ranking is almost always going to be inflated with respect to an on-the-day score, which is highly variable/field-dependent.

How do ranking scores vs on-the-day scores for the Team Trials compare, out of interest?

I think Ali did it a couple of times growing up here, but was really hooked when she moved to Oxford as there wasn't much in the way of skiing!