------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. writes
>I agree with
>his conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team
>(selecting English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player)  - with the
>exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made
>up of Great Britain and Ireland.

Two players from Northern Ireland have played for England/GB in the Mac.

John McMordie in 1937 and Colin Irwin.



--
Chris Williams

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. writes
>I agree with
>his conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team
>(selecting English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player)  - with the
>exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made
>up of Great Britain and Ireland.

Two players from Northern Ireland have played for England/GB in the Mac.

John McMordie in 1937 and Colin Irwin.



--
Chris Williams

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams (an
Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
things turned out he didn't make the team.

Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
agreed to the change.

Keith

PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
perspective.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Maugham" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> Gerard Healy wrote:
>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The
>> CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>> for this _composite_ team.
>>
>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>
> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country was
> broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient) and
> as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience than a
> genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in all
> cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born and/or
> lived all their lives in England.
>
> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all his
> croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a GB-only
> side.
>
> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
> tier of the WTC).
>
>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>
> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some memories
> of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I have been
> told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is complete
> speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level player in the
> mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have the opportunity
> to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen and had no
> residency qualification), and that was one of the driving forces behind
> the change to GB&I.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. writes
>I agree with
>his conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team
>(selecting English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player)  - with the
>exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made
>up of Great Britain and Ireland.

Two players from Northern Ireland have played for England/GB in the Mac.

John McMordie in 1937 and Colin Irwin.



--
Chris Williams

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams (an
Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
things turned out he didn't make the team.

Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
agreed to the change.

Keith

PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
perspective.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Maugham" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> Gerard Healy wrote:
>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The
>> CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>> for this _composite_ team.
>>
>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>
> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country was
> broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient) and
> as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience than a
> genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in all
> cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born and/or
> lived all their lives in England.
>
> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all his
> croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a GB-only
> side.
>
> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
> tier of the WTC).
>
>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>
> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some memories
> of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I have been
> told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is complete
> speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level player in the
> mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have the opportunity
> to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen and had no
> residency qualification), and that was one of the driving forces behind
> the change to GB&I.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Personally I believe one point is consistently missed whenever the
"defection" argument is raised, IMO due to thinking about the way things
have been rather than how they could be in the future. If an intergrated
Mac/WTC comes to fruition with a clear progression pathway through the tiers
in my opinion it becomes much more plausible for the potential defector to
take the view that actually what he would rather do is try to guide his
"real" (for want of a better word) country up through the tiers and
potentially into the Mac ie the player is provided with a motivation to
improve the playing standard within his country and also the other top
players have a motivation for improvement too.

Even though entry criteria for the Mac exist defecting is a far more likely
decision without an integrated WTC as whilst the the top player is seeking
to get his country up to the necessary standard there is no other event to
play in (an event which would also be assisting in the goal of developing
the standard of the country's top players).

Ian

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. writes
>I agree with
>his conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team
>(selecting English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player)  - with the
>exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made
>up of Great Britain and Ireland.

Two players from Northern Ireland have played for England/GB in the Mac.

John McMordie in 1937 and Colin Irwin.



--
Chris Williams

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams (an
Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
things turned out he didn't make the team.

Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
agreed to the change.

Keith

PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
perspective.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Maugham" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> Gerard Healy wrote:
>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The
>> CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>> for this _composite_ team.
>>
>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>
> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country was
> broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient) and
> as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience than a
> genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in all
> cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born and/or
> lived all their lives in England.
>
> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all his
> croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a GB-only
> side.
>
> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
> tier of the WTC).
>
>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>
> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some memories
> of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I have been
> told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is complete
> speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level player in the
> mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have the opportunity
> to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen and had no
> residency qualification), and that was one of the driving forces behind
> the change to GB&I.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Personally I believe one point is consistently missed whenever the
"defection" argument is raised, IMO due to thinking about the way things
have been rather than how they could be in the future. If an intergrated
Mac/WTC comes to fruition with a clear progression pathway through the tiers
in my opinion it becomes much more plausible for the potential defector to
take the view that actually what he would rather do is try to guide his
"real" (for want of a better word) country up through the tiers and
potentially into the Mac ie the player is provided with a motivation to
improve the playing standard within his country and also the other top
players have a motivation for improvement too.

Even though entry criteria for the Mac exist defecting is a far more likely
decision without an integrated WTC as whilst the the top player is seeking
to get his country up to the necessary standard there is no other event to
play in (an event which would also be assisting in the goal of developing
the standard of the country's top players).

Ian Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce

original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. writes
>I agree with
>his conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team
>(selecting English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player)  - with the
>exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made
>up of Great Britain and Ireland.

Two players from Northern Ireland have played for England/GB in the Mac.

John McMordie in 1937 and Colin Irwin.



--
Chris Williams

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams (an
Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
things turned out he didn't make the team.

Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
agreed to the change.

Keith

PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
perspective.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Maugham" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> Gerard Healy wrote:
>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The
>> CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>> for this _composite_ team.
>>
>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>
> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country was
> broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient) and
> as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience than a
> genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in all
> cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born and/or
> lived all their lives in England.
>
> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all his
> croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a GB-only
> side.
>
> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
> tier of the WTC).
>
>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>
> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some memories
> of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I have been
> told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is complete
> speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level player in the
> mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have the opportunity
> to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen and had no
> residency qualification), and that was one of the driving forces behind
> the change to GB&I.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Personally I believe one point is consistently missed whenever the
"defection" argument is raised, IMO due to thinking about the way things
have been rather than how they could be in the future. If an intergrated
Mac/WTC comes to fruition with a clear progression pathway through the tiers
in my opinion it becomes much more plausible for the potential defector to
take the view that actually what he would rather do is try to guide his
"real" (for want of a better word) country up through the tiers and
potentially into the Mac ie the player is provided with a motivation to
improve the playing standard within his country and also the other top
players have a motivation for improvement too.

Even though entry criteria for the Mac exist defecting is a far more likely
decision without an integrated WTC as whilst the the top player is seeking
to get his country up to the necessary standard there is no other event to
play in (an event which would also be assisting in the goal of developing
the standard of the country's top players).

Ian Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce

original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..." Bruce,

Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for the 4 existing MAC

countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?

Leo


From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability








Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce


original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.

SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF’s responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?

BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)

original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.

SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?

BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.

original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.

SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don’t think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.

BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?

original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.

SM: Please don’t be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.

BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."



_________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. writes
>I agree with
>his conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team
>(selecting English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player)  - with the
>exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made
>up of Great Britain and Ireland.

Two players from Northern Ireland have played for England/GB in the Mac.

John McMordie in 1937 and Colin Irwin.



--
Chris Williams

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams (an
Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
things turned out he didn't make the team.

Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
agreed to the change.

Keith

PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
perspective.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Maugham" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> Gerard Healy wrote:
>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The
>> CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>> for this _composite_ team.
>>
>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>
> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country was
> broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient) and
> as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience than a
> genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in all
> cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born and/or
> lived all their lives in England.
>
> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all his
> croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a GB-only
> side.
>
> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
> tier of the WTC).
>
>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>
> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some memories
> of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I have been
> told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is complete
> speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level player in the
> mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have the opportunity
> to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen and had no
> residency qualification), and that was one of the driving forces behind
> the change to GB&I.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Personally I believe one point is consistently missed whenever the
"defection" argument is raised, IMO due to thinking about the way things
have been rather than how they could be in the future. If an intergrated
Mac/WTC comes to fruition with a clear progression pathway through the tiers
in my opinion it becomes much more plausible for the potential defector to
take the view that actually what he would rather do is try to guide his
"real" (for want of a better word) country up through the tiers and
potentially into the Mac ie the player is provided with a motivation to
improve the playing standard within his country and also the other top
players have a motivation for improvement too.

Even though entry criteria for the Mac exist defecting is a far more likely
decision without an integrated WTC as whilst the the top player is seeking
to get his country up to the necessary standard there is no other event to
play in (an event which would also be assisting in the goal of developing
the standard of the country's top players).

Ian Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce

original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..." Bruce,

Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for the 4 existing MAC

countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?

Leo


From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability








Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce


original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.

SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF’s responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?

BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)

original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.

SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?

BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.

original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.

SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don’t think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.

BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?

original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.

SM: Please don’t be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.

BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."



_________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Quite right Keith we preferred beating the best you could come up with.

One of the most delightful players I met during my time playing in the Mac
was the late Douglas Strachan, a Scot who lived in Ireland played his
Croquet in Ireland and England, and was a member of your 1969 team.

John.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Aiton" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
> 1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
> Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams
> (an Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
> things turned out he didn't make the team.
>
> Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
> agreed to the change.
>
> Keith
>
> PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
> perspective.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> Gerard Healy wrote:
>>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
>>> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>>> for this _composite_ team.
>>>
>>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>>
>> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
>> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
>> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
>> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
>> was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient)
>> and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience
>> than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in
>> all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born
>> and/or lived all their lives in England.
>>
>> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
>> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
>> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
>> his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
>> GB-only side.
>>
>> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
>> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
>> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
>> tier of the WTC).
>>
>>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>>
>> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
>> memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
>> have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
>> complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
>> player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
>> the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
>> and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
>> forces behind the change to GB&I.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. writes
>I agree with
>his conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team
>(selecting English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player)  - with the
>exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made
>up of Great Britain and Ireland.

Two players from Northern Ireland have played for England/GB in the Mac.

John McMordie in 1937 and Colin Irwin.



--
Chris Williams

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams (an
Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
things turned out he didn't make the team.

Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
agreed to the change.

Keith

PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
perspective.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Maugham" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> Gerard Healy wrote:
>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The
>> CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>> for this _composite_ team.
>>
>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>
> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country was
> broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient) and
> as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience than a
> genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in all
> cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born and/or
> lived all their lives in England.
>
> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all his
> croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a GB-only
> side.
>
> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
> tier of the WTC).
>
>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>
> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some memories
> of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I have been
> told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is complete
> speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level player in the
> mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have the opportunity
> to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen and had no
> residency qualification), and that was one of the driving forces behind
> the change to GB&I.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Personally I believe one point is consistently missed whenever the
"defection" argument is raised, IMO due to thinking about the way things
have been rather than how they could be in the future. If an intergrated
Mac/WTC comes to fruition with a clear progression pathway through the tiers
in my opinion it becomes much more plausible for the potential defector to
take the view that actually what he would rather do is try to guide his
"real" (for want of a better word) country up through the tiers and
potentially into the Mac ie the player is provided with a motivation to
improve the playing standard within his country and also the other top
players have a motivation for improvement too.

Even though entry criteria for the Mac exist defecting is a far more likely
decision without an integrated WTC as whilst the the top player is seeking
to get his country up to the necessary standard there is no other event to
play in (an event which would also be assisting in the goal of developing
the standard of the country's top players).

Ian Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce

original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..." Bruce,

Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for the 4 existing MAC

countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?

Leo


From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability








Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce


original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.

SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF’s responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?

BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)

original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.

SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?

BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.

original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.

SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don’t think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.

BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?

original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.

SM: Please don’t be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.

BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."



_________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Quite right Keith we preferred beating the best you could come up with.

One of the most delightful players I met during my time playing in the Mac
was the late Douglas Strachan, a Scot who lived in Ireland played his
Croquet in Ireland and England, and was a member of your 1969 team.

John.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Aiton" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
> 1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
> Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams
> (an Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
> things turned out he didn't make the team.
>
> Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
> agreed to the change.
>
> Keith
>
> PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
> perspective.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> Gerard Healy wrote:
>>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
>>> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>>> for this _composite_ team.
>>>
>>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>>
>> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
>> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
>> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
>> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
>> was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient)
>> and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience
>> than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in
>> all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born
>> and/or lived all their lives in England.
>>
>> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
>> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
>> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
>> his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
>> GB-only side.
>>
>> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
>> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
>> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
>> tier of the WTC).
>>
>>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>>
>> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
>> memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
>> have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
>> complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
>> player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
>> the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
>> and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
>> forces behind the change to GB&I.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Leo,



The short answer is that the GB/England issue cannot be sensibly resolved
before it is known whether the WCF is prepared to accept composite teams in
the WTC. In other words, the first issue in time to be resolved is the
composite teams issue. This is because the CA regards it as important that
the Mac should be part of the WTC.



If the WCF is prepared to accept composite teams in the WTC, then the
GB/England issue comes down to whether the UK Blobs see more advantage in
being part of GB or playing in the WTC in their own right. If the WCF is
not prepared to accept composite teams in the WTC, the UK Blobs know they
enter their teams in the WTC in all circumstances.



To put it another way, assume an intelligent person is consulted by the CA
on the question of whether the CA team in the Mac should be GB (as at
present) or be changed to England. They ask "before I answer, what are the
consequences?" The CA says "We don't know - the WCF hasn't decided whether
GB will be allowed to enter the WTC". Might that person not reply "The
answer to that question is important - why don't you go away and get the
answer from the WCF and then come back and tell me? Then I can give you my
opinion".



Stephen

_____

From: croquet-.uk
[mailto:croquet-.uk] On Behalf Of leo mcbride
Sent: 11 April 2010 20:21
To: ;
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability



Bruce,
Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for
the 4 existing MAC
countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen
that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals
regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF
proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB
decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?
Leo

_____

From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Stephen,



My responses below,



Bruce



original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC
potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants
with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team
Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top
not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance
that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health
of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such
questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never
take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the
WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a
whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached
sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was
asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members
only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the
ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international
croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who
"speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC)
has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off
grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty
we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you
envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all
kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have
been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of
being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would
have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not
something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite
rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance
just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that
all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where
would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes
to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control
(the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined
- they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then
the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no
position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the
events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should
wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to
be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after
the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good
sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal
from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no
other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes
in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to
the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision
unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies
come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had
time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council
Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."









_____

Videos that have everyone talking! Now also in HD! MSN.ca Video.


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5018 (20100411) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. writes
>I agree with
>his conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team
>(selecting English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player)  - with the
>exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made
>up of Great Britain and Ireland.

Two players from Northern Ireland have played for England/GB in the Mac.

John McMordie in 1937 and Colin Irwin.



--
Chris Williams

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams (an
Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
things turned out he didn't make the team.

Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
agreed to the change.

Keith

PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
perspective.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Maugham" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> Gerard Healy wrote:
>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The
>> CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>> for this _composite_ team.
>>
>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>
> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country was
> broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient) and
> as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience than a
> genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in all
> cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born and/or
> lived all their lives in England.
>
> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all his
> croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a GB-only
> side.
>
> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
> tier of the WTC).
>
>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>
> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some memories
> of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I have been
> told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is complete
> speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level player in the
> mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have the opportunity
> to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen and had no
> residency qualification), and that was one of the driving forces behind
> the change to GB&I.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Personally I believe one point is consistently missed whenever the
"defection" argument is raised, IMO due to thinking about the way things
have been rather than how they could be in the future. If an intergrated
Mac/WTC comes to fruition with a clear progression pathway through the tiers
in my opinion it becomes much more plausible for the potential defector to
take the view that actually what he would rather do is try to guide his
"real" (for want of a better word) country up through the tiers and
potentially into the Mac ie the player is provided with a motivation to
improve the playing standard within his country and also the other top
players have a motivation for improvement too.

Even though entry criteria for the Mac exist defecting is a far more likely
decision without an integrated WTC as whilst the the top player is seeking
to get his country up to the necessary standard there is no other event to
play in (an event which would also be assisting in the goal of developing
the standard of the country's top players).

Ian Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce

original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..." Bruce,

Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for the 4 existing MAC

countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?

Leo


From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability








Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce


original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.

SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF’s responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?

BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)

original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.

SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?

BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.

original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.

SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don’t think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.

BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?

original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.

SM: Please don’t be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.

BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."



_________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Quite right Keith we preferred beating the best you could come up with.

One of the most delightful players I met during my time playing in the Mac
was the late Douglas Strachan, a Scot who lived in Ireland played his
Croquet in Ireland and England, and was a member of your 1969 team.

John.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Aiton" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
> 1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
> Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams
> (an Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
> things turned out he didn't make the team.
>
> Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
> agreed to the change.
>
> Keith
>
> PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
> perspective.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> Gerard Healy wrote:
>>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
>>> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>>> for this _composite_ team.
>>>
>>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>>
>> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
>> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
>> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
>> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
>> was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient)
>> and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience
>> than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in
>> all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born
>> and/or lived all their lives in England.
>>
>> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
>> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
>> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
>> his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
>> GB-only side.
>>
>> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
>> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
>> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
>> tier of the WTC).
>>
>>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>>
>> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
>> memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
>> have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
>> complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
>> player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
>> the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
>> and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
>> forces behind the change to GB&I.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Leo,



The short answer is that the GB/England issue cannot be sensibly resolved
before it is known whether the WCF is prepared to accept composite teams in
the WTC. In other words, the first issue in time to be resolved is the
composite teams issue. This is because the CA regards it as important that
the Mac should be part of the WTC.



If the WCF is prepared to accept composite teams in the WTC, then the
GB/England issue comes down to whether the UK Blobs see more advantage in
being part of GB or playing in the WTC in their own right. If the WCF is
not prepared to accept composite teams in the WTC, the UK Blobs know they
enter their teams in the WTC in all circumstances.



To put it another way, assume an intelligent person is consulted by the CA
on the question of whether the CA team in the Mac should be GB (as at
present) or be changed to England. They ask "before I answer, what are the
consequences?" The CA says "We don't know - the WCF hasn't decided whether
GB will be allowed to enter the WTC". Might that person not reply "The
answer to that question is important - why don't you go away and get the
answer from the WCF and then come back and tell me? Then I can give you my
opinion".



Stephen

_____

From: croquet-.uk
[mailto:croquet-.uk] On Behalf Of leo mcbride
Sent: 11 April 2010 20:21
To: ;
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability



Bruce,
Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for
the 4 existing MAC
countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen
that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals
regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF
proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB
decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?
Leo

_____

From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Stephen,



My responses below,



Bruce



original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC
potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants
with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team
Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top
not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance
that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health
of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such
questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never
take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the
WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a
whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached
sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was
asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members
only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the
ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international
croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who
"speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC)
has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off
grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty
we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you
envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all
kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have
been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of
being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would
have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not
something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite
rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance
just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that
all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where
would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes
to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control
(the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined
- they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then
the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no
position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the
events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should
wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to
be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after
the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good
sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal
from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no
other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes
in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to
the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision
unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies
come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had
time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council
Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."









_____

Videos that have everyone talking! Now also in HD! MSN.ca Video.


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5018 (20100411) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com Bruce,



Please see below. My comments are prefaced by "SM2".



Stephen



_____

From: croquet-.uk
[mailto:croquet-.uk] On Behalf Of Bruce Rannie
Sent: 11 April 2010 19:30
To: 'Nottingham List'
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability



Stephen,



My responses below,



Bruce



original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC
potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants
with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team
Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top
not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance
that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health
of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such
questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never
take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the
WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a
whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached
sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was
asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members
only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the
ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international
croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who
"speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC)
has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



SM2: Why do you think that "European croquet" should be spoken for? Why
is answering "FEC" not permitted? You appear to confuse "WCF" with "WCFMC".
The SCA is free to make its case to the WCF Council and can do so today by
e-mailing all 26 other WCF members (especially the 11 who have votes)
expressing the SCA position. It is the WCF who will decide and they will
not decide anything until August. You have plenty of time.



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off
grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty
we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you
envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all
kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



SM2: That is not my point. I was interested to know whether you thought
that the SCA should be aiming for financial independence in due course.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have
been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of
being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would
have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not
something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite
rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance
just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that
all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where
would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



SM2: I don't understand you. The ambition to have a multi-tier WTC and
the "no double-dipping" principle have nothing to do with the allegiance of
any individual. You must mean something else but please spell it out for
me.



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes
to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control
(the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined
- they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then
the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no
position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the
events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should
wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to
be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after
the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good
sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge.



SM2: The 2010 WTC is based on a compromise - or fudge if you prefer. So
what? Would you rather that Scotland (and Wales and Jersey) could NOT have
entered the 2010 WTC? Did not SCA protest at their proposed exclusion?



If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change
anything beforehand?

SM2: The proposal from the 4GB will be about the governance of the Mac,
not of the WTC.



There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any
WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position
(as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing
that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong.



SM2: Why wrong, let alone doubly wrong? The WCF is responsible for the
WTC, not the CA. The composite teams issue should be decided BEFORE the
GB/England issue is resolved or that decision will be taken in ignorance of
a material factor.



Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any
WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010,
and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support.
As that meercat says "Simples..."



SM2: Sorry, I don't understand you. What "any motion" had you in mind?









__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5018 (20100411) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. writes
>I agree with
>his conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team
>(selecting English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player)  - with the
>exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made
>up of Great Britain and Ireland.

Two players from Northern Ireland have played for England/GB in the Mac.

John McMordie in 1937 and Colin Irwin.



--
Chris Williams

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams (an
Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
things turned out he didn't make the team.

Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
agreed to the change.

Keith

PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
perspective.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Maugham" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> Gerard Healy wrote:
>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The
>> CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>> for this _composite_ team.
>>
>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>
> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country was
> broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient) and
> as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience than a
> genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in all
> cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born and/or
> lived all their lives in England.
>
> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all his
> croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a GB-only
> side.
>
> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
> tier of the WTC).
>
>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>
> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some memories
> of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I have been
> told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is complete
> speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level player in the
> mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have the opportunity
> to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen and had no
> residency qualification), and that was one of the driving forces behind
> the change to GB&I.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Personally I believe one point is consistently missed whenever the
"defection" argument is raised, IMO due to thinking about the way things
have been rather than how they could be in the future. If an intergrated
Mac/WTC comes to fruition with a clear progression pathway through the tiers
in my opinion it becomes much more plausible for the potential defector to
take the view that actually what he would rather do is try to guide his
"real" (for want of a better word) country up through the tiers and
potentially into the Mac ie the player is provided with a motivation to
improve the playing standard within his country and also the other top
players have a motivation for improvement too.

Even though entry criteria for the Mac exist defecting is a far more likely
decision without an integrated WTC as whilst the the top player is seeking
to get his country up to the necessary standard there is no other event to
play in (an event which would also be assisting in the goal of developing
the standard of the country's top players).

Ian Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce

original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..." Bruce,

Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for the 4 existing MAC

countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?

Leo


From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability








Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce


original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.

SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF’s responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?

BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)

original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.

SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?

BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.

original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.

SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don’t think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.

BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?

original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.

SM: Please don’t be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.

BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."



_________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Quite right Keith we preferred beating the best you could come up with.

One of the most delightful players I met during my time playing in the Mac
was the late Douglas Strachan, a Scot who lived in Ireland played his
Croquet in Ireland and England, and was a member of your 1969 team.

John.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Aiton" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
> 1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
> Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams
> (an Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
> things turned out he didn't make the team.
>
> Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
> agreed to the change.
>
> Keith
>
> PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
> perspective.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> Gerard Healy wrote:
>>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
>>> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>>> for this _composite_ team.
>>>
>>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>>
>> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
>> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
>> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
>> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
>> was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient)
>> and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience
>> than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in
>> all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born
>> and/or lived all their lives in England.
>>
>> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
>> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
>> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
>> his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
>> GB-only side.
>>
>> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
>> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
>> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
>> tier of the WTC).
>>
>>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>>
>> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
>> memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
>> have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
>> complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
>> player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
>> the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
>> and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
>> forces behind the change to GB&I.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Leo,



The short answer is that the GB/England issue cannot be sensibly resolved
before it is known whether the WCF is prepared to accept composite teams in
the WTC. In other words, the first issue in time to be resolved is the
composite teams issue. This is because the CA regards it as important that
the Mac should be part of the WTC.



If the WCF is prepared to accept composite teams in the WTC, then the
GB/England issue comes down to whether the UK Blobs see more advantage in
being part of GB or playing in the WTC in their own right. If the WCF is
not prepared to accept composite teams in the WTC, the UK Blobs know they
enter their teams in the WTC in all circumstances.



To put it another way, assume an intelligent person is consulted by the CA
on the question of whether the CA team in the Mac should be GB (as at
present) or be changed to England. They ask "before I answer, what are the
consequences?" The CA says "We don't know - the WCF hasn't decided whether
GB will be allowed to enter the WTC". Might that person not reply "The
answer to that question is important - why don't you go away and get the
answer from the WCF and then come back and tell me? Then I can give you my
opinion".



Stephen

_____

From: croquet-.uk
[mailto:croquet-.uk] On Behalf Of leo mcbride
Sent: 11 April 2010 20:21
To: ;
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability



Bruce,
Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for
the 4 existing MAC
countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen
that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals
regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF
proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB
decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?
Leo

_____

From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Stephen,



My responses below,



Bruce



original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC
potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants
with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team
Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top
not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance
that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health
of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such
questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never
take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the
WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a
whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached
sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was
asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members
only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the
ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international
croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who
"speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC)
has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off
grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty
we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you
envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all
kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have
been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of
being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would
have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not
something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite
rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance
just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that
all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where
would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes
to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control
(the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined
- they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then
the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no
position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the
events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should
wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to
be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after
the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good
sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal
from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no
other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes
in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to
the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision
unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies
come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had
time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council
Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."









_____

Videos that have everyone talking! Now also in HD! MSN.ca Video.


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5018 (20100411) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com Bruce,



Please see below. My comments are prefaced by "SM2".



Stephen



_____

From: croquet-.uk
[mailto:croquet-.uk] On Behalf Of Bruce Rannie
Sent: 11 April 2010 19:30
To: 'Nottingham List'
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability



Stephen,



My responses below,



Bruce



original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC
potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants
with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team
Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top
not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance
that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health
of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such
questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never
take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the
WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a
whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached
sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was
asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members
only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the
ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international
croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who
"speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC)
has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



SM2: Why do you think that "European croquet" should be spoken for? Why
is answering "FEC" not permitted? You appear to confuse "WCF" with "WCFMC".
The SCA is free to make its case to the WCF Council and can do so today by
e-mailing all 26 other WCF members (especially the 11 who have votes)
expressing the SCA position. It is the WCF who will decide and they will
not decide anything until August. You have plenty of time.



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off
grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty
we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you
envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all
kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



SM2: That is not my point. I was interested to know whether you thought
that the SCA should be aiming for financial independence in due course.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have
been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of
being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would
have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not
something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite
rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance
just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that
all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where
would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



SM2: I don't understand you. The ambition to have a multi-tier WTC and
the "no double-dipping" principle have nothing to do with the allegiance of
any individual. You must mean something else but please spell it out for
me.



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes
to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control
(the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined
- they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then
the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no
position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the
events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should
wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to
be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after
the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good
sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge.



SM2: The 2010 WTC is based on a compromise - or fudge if you prefer. So
what? Would you rather that Scotland (and Wales and Jersey) could NOT have
entered the 2010 WTC? Did not SCA protest at their proposed exclusion?



If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change
anything beforehand?

SM2: The proposal from the 4GB will be about the governance of the Mac,
not of the WTC.



There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any
WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position
(as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing
that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong.



SM2: Why wrong, let alone doubly wrong? The WCF is responsible for the
WTC, not the CA. The composite teams issue should be decided BEFORE the
GB/England issue is resolved or that decision will be taken in ignorance of
a material factor.



Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any
WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010,
and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support.
As that meercat says "Simples..."



SM2: Sorry, I don't understand you. What "any motion" had you in mind?









__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5018 (20100411) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com Leo and Keith,

Isn't the solution something along the lines of what I have suggested?

i.e. A player is eligible to play for the country in which he has
spent the most time during the past 4 years; with "composite"
countries not permiitted to enter either the Mac or the WTC. Then a
player could play for one country only. It should not depend on
place of birth, or parental ethnicity, or anything other than where
he lives.

The "right of veto" (all 4GB of the Mac needing to agree before a
change can be made) is a nonsense. If the other three Mac countries
said they would not play the Mac unless the GB team is changed to an
England team, they could force the issue easily enough, and the
problems would all be solved. Sometimes a big stick is needed when
people will not see sense.

It would be nice if separate Australian states could enter teams in
the lower tiers of the WTC, but I think the logistics would rule that
one out.

JR.

On 12/04/2010, at 12:57 AM, leo mcbride wrote:
Keith,
When do you expect the WCF will discuss and make decisions
regarding your (a) to (e)
list?
Leo



From:
To: .uk
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:20:11 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] Fw: World Team Championship

Michael,

The "problem" of players choosing to change country isn't caused by
the format of the WTC. It's caused by having rules that:-

(a) allow players to have more than one eligible country
(b) allow players to change country
(c) allow them to change country when their personal circumstances
haven't changed, eg they haven't moved to a different country
(d) allow them to change country in a fairly short space of time (13
month gap)
(e) allow them to change back again if they feel like it

I'd like to suggest that if players changing country is thought be a
problem then the qualification rules is the place to look for a
solution, rather than tinkering with the format of an event. The
format of the WTC is not perfect for 2010 (we know that), but in my
opinion once the format allows for entries only from individual WCF
members it'll be a lot closer to it than it would be if it had
multiple teams from some countries and other teams from parts of
countries etc etc.

Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Heap
To: .uk
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:29 PM
Subject: [Croquet] Fw: World Team Championship

I sent the following email back in November. It still seems to
provide practical answers to the issues being discussed. The first
point 3 is critical and a practical solution is given. The
structure of the tournament will need to be adjusted depending on the
number of entries received and the available lawns. Clearly if a
host country can provide several "state" teams, it will have the lawn
capacity, but the competition may have to be spread further around
the country, good for the game. Yes, it may cost the participants
more in internal travel - if that cost is too high there will be less
entrants, there will be less travel needed and the cost will come
down as a result.

Michael Heap


----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Heap
To: .uk
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 12:57 AM
Subject: [Croquet] World Team Championship

I have been doing a bit of catching up with my reading. In many
ways the solutions for a successful World Team Championship seem to
be coming to the surface amidst the many posts on the subject..

1. We need to create a strong second tier tournament.
2. There will be no possible absolute definition of nationhood that
will stand the test of time let alone be agreed upon now.
3. Whatever solution we come up with should not cause the players
from current second team countries to seek qualification for a Mac
country to the detriment of the second tier countries.
4. The CA's Inter Counties tournament has been very successful at
least in part because it has addressed principles of this type and
been flexible in its description of counties. It has changed the
formula as and when it has been necessary to ensure the continued
success of the event - note that I realise it does not have a perfect
qualification formula but it has been quite good in changing to meet
the requirements of the time.
5. This is an amateur sport and there are restrictions to what
players and associations can afford. It is a fact that the home
nation for any tournament could supply more teams than the other
associations.

Practical solution for 2010:

1. Mac players are not allowed to play in the WTC
2 Each of the separate states/parts of the UK enter the WTC
separately. This includes Channel Isles, IOM, Wales, Northern
Ireland, Scotland and England
3. If they wish, the other Mac countries may each send a second team
to the WTC

In future, if the WTC is held in another Mac country, that country
should be able to field (if they wish) up to ,say, six or seven state/
groups of states teams. The other Mac teams would only be able to
send a second team.

This formula should be adjusted as necessary for the good of the
tournament. If, for example, it is clear that one country's second
team will dominate the WTC then they could be encouraged to split
that team into two or more parts.

I don't pretend to being quite up to speed with everything current in
the sport but hope this might be a useful and constructive post to
assist the urgent resolution of a difficult issue.

Michael Heap



NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. writes
>I agree with
>his conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team
>(selecting English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player)  - with the
>exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made
>up of Great Britain and Ireland.

Two players from Northern Ireland have played for England/GB in the Mac.

John McMordie in 1937 and Colin Irwin.



--
Chris Williams

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams (an
Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
things turned out he didn't make the team.

Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
agreed to the change.

Keith

PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
perspective.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Maugham" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> Gerard Healy wrote:
>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The
>> CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>> for this _composite_ team.
>>
>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>
> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country was
> broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient) and
> as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience than a
> genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in all
> cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born and/or
> lived all their lives in England.
>
> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all his
> croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a GB-only
> side.
>
> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
> tier of the WTC).
>
>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>
> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some memories
> of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I have been
> told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is complete
> speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level player in the
> mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have the opportunity
> to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen and had no
> residency qualification), and that was one of the driving forces behind
> the change to GB&I.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Personally I believe one point is consistently missed whenever the
"defection" argument is raised, IMO due to thinking about the way things
have been rather than how they could be in the future. If an intergrated
Mac/WTC comes to fruition with a clear progression pathway through the tiers
in my opinion it becomes much more plausible for the potential defector to
take the view that actually what he would rather do is try to guide his
"real" (for want of a better word) country up through the tiers and
potentially into the Mac ie the player is provided with a motivation to
improve the playing standard within his country and also the other top
players have a motivation for improvement too.

Even though entry criteria for the Mac exist defecting is a far more likely
decision without an integrated WTC as whilst the the top player is seeking
to get his country up to the necessary standard there is no other event to
play in (an event which would also be assisting in the goal of developing
the standard of the country's top players).

Ian Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce

original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..." Bruce,

Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for the 4 existing MAC

countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?

Leo


From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability








Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce


original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.

SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF’s responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?

BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)

original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.

SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?

BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.

original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.

SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don’t think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.

BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?

original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.

SM: Please don’t be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.

BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."



_________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Quite right Keith we preferred beating the best you could come up with.

One of the most delightful players I met during my time playing in the Mac
was the late Douglas Strachan, a Scot who lived in Ireland played his
Croquet in Ireland and England, and was a member of your 1969 team.

John.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Aiton" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
> 1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
> Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams
> (an Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
> things turned out he didn't make the team.
>
> Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
> agreed to the change.
>
> Keith
>
> PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
> perspective.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> Gerard Healy wrote:
>>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
>>> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>>> for this _composite_ team.
>>>
>>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>>
>> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
>> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
>> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
>> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
>> was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient)
>> and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience
>> than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in
>> all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born
>> and/or lived all their lives in England.
>>
>> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
>> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
>> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
>> his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
>> GB-only side.
>>
>> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
>> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
>> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
>> tier of the WTC).
>>
>>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>>
>> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
>> memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
>> have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
>> complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
>> player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
>> the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
>> and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
>> forces behind the change to GB&I.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Leo,



The short answer is that the GB/England issue cannot be sensibly resolved
before it is known whether the WCF is prepared to accept composite teams in
the WTC. In other words, the first issue in time to be resolved is the
composite teams issue. This is because the CA regards it as important that
the Mac should be part of the WTC.



If the WCF is prepared to accept composite teams in the WTC, then the
GB/England issue comes down to whether the UK Blobs see more advantage in
being part of GB or playing in the WTC in their own right. If the WCF is
not prepared to accept composite teams in the WTC, the UK Blobs know they
enter their teams in the WTC in all circumstances.



To put it another way, assume an intelligent person is consulted by the CA
on the question of whether the CA team in the Mac should be GB (as at
present) or be changed to England. They ask "before I answer, what are the
consequences?" The CA says "We don't know - the WCF hasn't decided whether
GB will be allowed to enter the WTC". Might that person not reply "The
answer to that question is important - why don't you go away and get the
answer from the WCF and then come back and tell me? Then I can give you my
opinion".



Stephen

_____

From: croquet-.uk
[mailto:croquet-.uk] On Behalf Of leo mcbride
Sent: 11 April 2010 20:21
To: ;
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability



Bruce,
Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for
the 4 existing MAC
countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen
that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals
regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF
proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB
decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?
Leo

_____

From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Stephen,



My responses below,



Bruce



original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC
potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants
with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team
Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top
not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance
that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health
of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such
questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never
take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the
WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a
whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached
sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was
asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members
only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the
ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international
croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who
"speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC)
has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off
grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty
we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you
envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all
kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have
been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of
being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would
have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not
something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite
rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance
just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that
all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where
would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes
to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control
(the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined
- they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then
the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no
position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the
events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should
wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to
be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after
the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good
sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal
from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no
other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes
in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to
the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision
unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies
come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had
time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council
Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."









_____

Videos that have everyone talking! Now also in HD! MSN.ca Video.


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5018 (20100411) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com Bruce,



Please see below. My comments are prefaced by "SM2".



Stephen



_____

From: croquet-.uk
[mailto:croquet-.uk] On Behalf Of Bruce Rannie
Sent: 11 April 2010 19:30
To: 'Nottingham List'
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability



Stephen,



My responses below,



Bruce



original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC
potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants
with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team
Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top
not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance
that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health
of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such
questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never
take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the
WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a
whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached
sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was
asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members
only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the
ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international
croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who
"speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC)
has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



SM2: Why do you think that "European croquet" should be spoken for? Why
is answering "FEC" not permitted? You appear to confuse "WCF" with "WCFMC".
The SCA is free to make its case to the WCF Council and can do so today by
e-mailing all 26 other WCF members (especially the 11 who have votes)
expressing the SCA position. It is the WCF who will decide and they will
not decide anything until August. You have plenty of time.



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off
grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty
we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you
envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all
kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



SM2: That is not my point. I was interested to know whether you thought
that the SCA should be aiming for financial independence in due course.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have
been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of
being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would
have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not
something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite
rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance
just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that
all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where
would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



SM2: I don't understand you. The ambition to have a multi-tier WTC and
the "no double-dipping" principle have nothing to do with the allegiance of
any individual. You must mean something else but please spell it out for
me.



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes
to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control
(the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined
- they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then
the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no
position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the
events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should
wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to
be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after
the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good
sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge.



SM2: The 2010 WTC is based on a compromise - or fudge if you prefer. So
what? Would you rather that Scotland (and Wales and Jersey) could NOT have
entered the 2010 WTC? Did not SCA protest at their proposed exclusion?



If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change
anything beforehand?

SM2: The proposal from the 4GB will be about the governance of the Mac,
not of the WTC.



There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any
WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position
(as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing
that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong.



SM2: Why wrong, let alone doubly wrong? The WCF is responsible for the
WTC, not the CA. The composite teams issue should be decided BEFORE the
GB/England issue is resolved or that decision will be taken in ignorance of
a material factor.



Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any
WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010,
and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support.
As that meercat says "Simples..."



SM2: Sorry, I don't understand you. What "any motion" had you in mind?









__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5018 (20100411) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com Leo and Keith,

Isn't the solution something along the lines of what I have suggested?

i.e. A player is eligible to play for the country in which he has
spent the most time during the past 4 years; with "composite"
countries not permiitted to enter either the Mac or the WTC. Then a
player could play for one country only. It should not depend on
place of birth, or parental ethnicity, or anything other than where
he lives.

The "right of veto" (all 4GB of the Mac needing to agree before a
change can be made) is a nonsense. If the other three Mac countries
said they would not play the Mac unless the GB team is changed to an
England team, they could force the issue easily enough, and the
problems would all be solved. Sometimes a big stick is needed when
people will not see sense.

It would be nice if separate Australian states could enter teams in
the lower tiers of the WTC, but I think the logistics would rule that
one out.

JR.

On 12/04/2010, at 12:57 AM, leo mcbride wrote:
Keith,
When do you expect the WCF will discuss and make decisions
regarding your (a) to (e)
list?
Leo



From:
To: .uk
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:20:11 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] Fw: World Team Championship

Michael,

The "problem" of players choosing to change country isn't caused by
the format of the WTC. It's caused by having rules that:-

(a) allow players to have more than one eligible country
(b) allow players to change country
(c) allow them to change country when their personal circumstances
haven't changed, eg they haven't moved to a different country
(d) allow them to change country in a fairly short space of time (13
month gap)
(e) allow them to change back again if they feel like it

I'd like to suggest that if players changing country is thought be a
problem then the qualification rules is the place to look for a
solution, rather than tinkering with the format of an event. The
format of the WTC is not perfect for 2010 (we know that), but in my
opinion once the format allows for entries only from individual WCF
members it'll be a lot closer to it than it would be if it had
multiple teams from some countries and other teams from parts of
countries etc etc.

Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Heap
To: .uk
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:29 PM
Subject: [Croquet] Fw: World Team Championship

I sent the following email back in November. It still seems to
provide practical answers to the issues being discussed. The first
point 3 is critical and a practical solution is given. The
structure of the tournament will need to be adjusted depending on the
number of entries received and the available lawns. Clearly if a
host country can provide several "state" teams, it will have the lawn
capacity, but the competition may have to be spread further around
the country, good for the game. Yes, it may cost the participants
more in internal travel - if that cost is too high there will be less
entrants, there will be less travel needed and the cost will come
down as a result.

Michael Heap


----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Heap
To: .uk
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 12:57 AM
Subject: [Croquet] World Team Championship

I have been doing a bit of catching up with my reading. In many
ways the solutions for a successful World Team Championship seem to
be coming to the surface amidst the many posts on the subject..

1. We need to create a strong second tier tournament.
2. There will be no possible absolute definition of nationhood that
will stand the test of time let alone be agreed upon now.
3. Whatever solution we come up with should not cause the players
from current second team countries to seek qualification for a Mac
country to the detriment of the second tier countries.
4. The CA's Inter Counties tournament has been very successful at
least in part because it has addressed principles of this type and
been flexible in its description of counties. It has changed the
formula as and when it has been necessary to ensure the continued
success of the event - note that I realise it does not have a perfect
qualification formula but it has been quite good in changing to meet
the requirements of the time.
5. This is an amateur sport and there are restrictions to what
players and associations can afford. It is a fact that the home
nation for any tournament could supply more teams than the other
associations.

Practical solution for 2010:

1. Mac players are not allowed to play in the WTC
2 Each of the separate states/parts of the UK enter the WTC
separately. This includes Channel Isles, IOM, Wales, Northern
Ireland, Scotland and England
3. If they wish, the other Mac countries may each send a second team
to the WTC

In future, if the WTC is held in another Mac country, that country
should be able to field (if they wish) up to ,say, six or seven state/
groups of states teams. The other Mac teams would only be able to
send a second team.

This formula should be adjusted as necessary for the good of the
tournament. If, for example, it is clear that one country's second
team will dominate the WTC then they could be encouraged to split
that team into two or more parts.

I don't pretend to being quite up to speed with everything current in
the sport but hope this might be a useful and constructive post to
assist the urgent resolution of a difficult issue.

Michael Heap



NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
do not necessarily represent those of the ACA. Stephen Mulliner wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Thanks for your replay. It has prompted a few follow-up questions.
>

I can't answer them all, but I'll add a few points below. Sorry if the
quotes are getting a bit mixed up. Remember these are my personal ideas,
not SCA policy.

>
> SM: How
> much coaching have Keith and Jonathan been able to do during the team
> matches in which they have turned out for Scotland? Have they held coaching
> clinics for their team mates? If so, how often?

Keith has done so on at least two occasions, and is doing a third in
May. Jonathan has also been very supportive.

>>> SM: If you are referring to their contribution to Scottish croquet in
>>> the sense that they can to be described as Scottish members of a GB team,
>>> thereby favourably impressing SportScotland and thereby helping to
>>> maintain SGC grant funding, is it not possible that SportScotland would be
>>> as or more impressed by the participation of a Scottish team in the WTC?
>
>> Not if it does badly. I'm sure the recent Scottish victory in the ETC,
>> achieved by playing three non-residents, did far more to help the
>> Scottish case than coming fifth in Tier 2 might do.

>
> SM: But is there any hard evidence in support of your opinion? Would
> SportScotland be made aware of the relative significance of the ETC and the
> WTC?

Yes there is. James will tell you better that I can how sportScotland
were impressed by our victory in the ETC, and how he has to fill in
forms detailing Scottish achievements. Weakening the Scottish team isn't
going to make his job any easier.

>> I consider that a very short-sighted view, based on the fact that most
>> of the current Welsh team is, shall we say, mature, and unlikely to
>> compete for a Mac place in the future.

> SM: But, if they are "mature", why do you refer to this as a
> short-sighted view? Surely it is pragmatic and sensible? Do you not agree
> that having an active national team that competes in the World Team
> Championship is a good thing?

It is a short-sighted view because it is based on the current
composition of the Welsh team. It relies on the fact that the current
Welsh players are unlikely to defect to GB. It does not consider that in
the future Welsh players might do precisely that, weakening the pool
available for selection.

>> Scotland was in the very
>> different position of having two players in the current Mac team.
>>

> SM: But it cannot guarantee that into the future whereas it can
> guarantee to raise a national team to compete in the WTC, assuming that the
> rules of the WTC allow this to happen. Is not certainty of some value in
> this matter?

But what kind of a team will it be able to raise? Will it, for example,
be able to raise a competitive team in the Home Internationals, or in
the friendlies it currently plays against other nations?

>> For similar reasons, I find it unfortunate that Scotland would have been
>> excluded from Tier 2 if you [Keith] hadn't taken English nationality. It's
>> one thing saying Scotland can't play in any international event (in which
>> case they shouldn't have been granted WCF membership)
>
> SM: Scotland was granted WCF membership long before a WTC was
> considered. Are you suggesting that the WCF should terminate the SCA's
> membership if Scotland is not allowed to compete in the WTC in future?

Surely you can see that the WCF cannot allow Scotland to be a member and
not allow it to enter the WTC?

> SM: This suggests that you agree that Solution B (GB in the Mac, the Mac
> in the WTC and the Blobs excluded) is not a good option.

What I think is a poor option is that, if Keith had retained his
Scottish nomination, or Jonathan had been selected for GB, Scotland
would have been excluded from the WTC, whereas Wales would have been
admitted.

>> I think it's a logical conclusion of having GB in the Mac (and logical =
>> good), but I think it's unfortunate if a Scottish team is excluded from
>> the WTC.
>>

> SM: These are contradictory sentiments. There appears to be a universal
> view that double-dipping should not be allowed. So if GB is allowed to
> enter the WTC, Scotland will not be allowed to do so. Which do you prefer?

They aren't contradictory sentiments, since the first is a logical
conclusion, not a sentiment. And your question "which do you prefer" is
addressed to an "if" statement, not two alternatives.

Having said that, I'm coming (slowly and reluctantly) to the conclusion
that it is more important for Scotland to retain its position as part of
the Mac than to enter the WTC. I can't see Scotland sending a team to
New Zealand to compete in Div 2 of Tier 2 in 2014 (though I suspect the
event may be so poorly supported that we might well get into Div 1), and
I'd rather we retain our best players for the Home Internationals rather
than get reduced to a rump. Can you see James Hopgood turning down a
place in an English Mac team in 2014? And who knows, Keith might even
revert to Scotland if Scotland's place as part of GB is secure.

> Physical migration is not ruled out (look at Rutger), but virtual
> migration (change of affiliation) is the real danger. No-one needed to
> do it until last year, and it took only the hypothetical threat for
> Keith to be off like the proverbial rocket.

Interesting that you chose not to answer that point.

Martin Murray


_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. writes
>I agree with
>his conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team
>(selecting English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player)  - with the
>exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made
>up of Great Britain and Ireland.

Two players from Northern Ireland have played for England/GB in the Mac.

John McMordie in 1937 and Colin Irwin.



--
Chris Williams

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams (an
Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
things turned out he didn't make the team.

Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
agreed to the change.

Keith

PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
perspective.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Maugham" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> Gerard Healy wrote:
>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The
>> CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>> for this _composite_ team.
>>
>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>
> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country was
> broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient) and
> as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience than a
> genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in all
> cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born and/or
> lived all their lives in England.
>
> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all his
> croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a GB-only
> side.
>
> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
> tier of the WTC).
>
>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>
> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some memories
> of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I have been
> told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is complete
> speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level player in the
> mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have the opportunity
> to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen and had no
> residency qualification), and that was one of the driving forces behind
> the change to GB&I.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Personally I believe one point is consistently missed whenever the
"defection" argument is raised, IMO due to thinking about the way things
have been rather than how they could be in the future. If an intergrated
Mac/WTC comes to fruition with a clear progression pathway through the tiers
in my opinion it becomes much more plausible for the potential defector to
take the view that actually what he would rather do is try to guide his
"real" (for want of a better word) country up through the tiers and
potentially into the Mac ie the player is provided with a motivation to
improve the playing standard within his country and also the other top
players have a motivation for improvement too.

Even though entry criteria for the Mac exist defecting is a far more likely
decision without an integrated WTC as whilst the the top player is seeking
to get his country up to the necessary standard there is no other event to
play in (an event which would also be assisting in the goal of developing
the standard of the country's top players).

Ian Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce

original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..." Bruce,

Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for the 4 existing MAC

countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?

Leo


From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability








Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce


original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.

SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF’s responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?

BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)

original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.

SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?

BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.

original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.

SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don’t think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.

BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?

original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.

SM: Please don’t be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.

BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."



_________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Quite right Keith we preferred beating the best you could come up with.

One of the most delightful players I met during my time playing in the Mac
was the late Douglas Strachan, a Scot who lived in Ireland played his
Croquet in Ireland and England, and was a member of your 1969 team.

John.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Aiton" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
> 1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
> Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams
> (an Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
> things turned out he didn't make the team.
>
> Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
> agreed to the change.
>
> Keith
>
> PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
> perspective.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> Gerard Healy wrote:
>>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
>>> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>>> for this _composite_ team.
>>>
>>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>>
>> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
>> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
>> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
>> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
>> was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient)
>> and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience
>> than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in
>> all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born
>> and/or lived all their lives in England.
>>
>> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
>> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
>> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
>> his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
>> GB-only side.
>>
>> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
>> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
>> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
>> tier of the WTC).
>>
>>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>>
>> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
>> memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
>> have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
>> complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
>> player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
>> the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
>> and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
>> forces behind the change to GB&I.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Leo,



The short answer is that the GB/England issue cannot be sensibly resolved
before it is known whether the WCF is prepared to accept composite teams in
the WTC. In other words, the first issue in time to be resolved is the
composite teams issue. This is because the CA regards it as important that
the Mac should be part of the WTC.



If the WCF is prepared to accept composite teams in the WTC, then the
GB/England issue comes down to whether the UK Blobs see more advantage in
being part of GB or playing in the WTC in their own right. If the WCF is
not prepared to accept composite teams in the WTC, the UK Blobs know they
enter their teams in the WTC in all circumstances.



To put it another way, assume an intelligent person is consulted by the CA
on the question of whether the CA team in the Mac should be GB (as at
present) or be changed to England. They ask "before I answer, what are the
consequences?" The CA says "We don't know - the WCF hasn't decided whether
GB will be allowed to enter the WTC". Might that person not reply "The
answer to that question is important - why don't you go away and get the
answer from the WCF and then come back and tell me? Then I can give you my
opinion".



Stephen

_____

From: croquet-.uk
[mailto:croquet-.uk] On Behalf Of leo mcbride
Sent: 11 April 2010 20:21
To: ;
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability



Bruce,
Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for
the 4 existing MAC
countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen
that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals
regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF
proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB
decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?
Leo

_____

From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Stephen,



My responses below,



Bruce



original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC
potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants
with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team
Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top
not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance
that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health
of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such
questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never
take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the
WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a
whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached
sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was
asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members
only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the
ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international
croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who
"speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC)
has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off
grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty
we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you
envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all
kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have
been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of
being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would
have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not
something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite
rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance
just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that
all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where
would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes
to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control
(the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined
- they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then
the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no
position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the
events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should
wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to
be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after
the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good
sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal
from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no
other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes
in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to
the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision
unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies
come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had
time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council
Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."









_____

Videos that have everyone talking! Now also in HD! MSN.ca Video.


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5018 (20100411) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com Bruce,



Please see below. My comments are prefaced by "SM2".



Stephen



_____

From: croquet-.uk
[mailto:croquet-.uk] On Behalf Of Bruce Rannie
Sent: 11 April 2010 19:30
To: 'Nottingham List'
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability



Stephen,



My responses below,



Bruce



original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC
potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants
with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team
Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top
not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance
that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health
of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such
questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never
take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the
WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a
whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached
sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was
asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members
only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the
ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international
croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who
"speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC)
has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



SM2: Why do you think that "European croquet" should be spoken for? Why
is answering "FEC" not permitted? You appear to confuse "WCF" with "WCFMC".
The SCA is free to make its case to the WCF Council and can do so today by
e-mailing all 26 other WCF members (especially the 11 who have votes)
expressing the SCA position. It is the WCF who will decide and they will
not decide anything until August. You have plenty of time.



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off
grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty
we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you
envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all
kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



SM2: That is not my point. I was interested to know whether you thought
that the SCA should be aiming for financial independence in due course.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have
been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of
being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would
have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not
something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite
rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance
just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that
all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where
would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



SM2: I don't understand you. The ambition to have a multi-tier WTC and
the "no double-dipping" principle have nothing to do with the allegiance of
any individual. You must mean something else but please spell it out for
me.



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes
to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control
(the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined
- they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then
the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no
position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the
events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should
wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to
be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after
the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good
sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge.



SM2: The 2010 WTC is based on a compromise - or fudge if you prefer. So
what? Would you rather that Scotland (and Wales and Jersey) could NOT have
entered the 2010 WTC? Did not SCA protest at their proposed exclusion?



If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change
anything beforehand?

SM2: The proposal from the 4GB will be about the governance of the Mac,
not of the WTC.



There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any
WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position
(as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing
that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong.



SM2: Why wrong, let alone doubly wrong? The WCF is responsible for the
WTC, not the CA. The composite teams issue should be decided BEFORE the
GB/England issue is resolved or that decision will be taken in ignorance of
a material factor.



Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any
WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010,
and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support.
As that meercat says "Simples..."



SM2: Sorry, I don't understand you. What "any motion" had you in mind?









__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5018 (20100411) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com Leo and Keith,

Isn't the solution something along the lines of what I have suggested?

i.e. A player is eligible to play for the country in which he has
spent the most time during the past 4 years; with "composite"
countries not permiitted to enter either the Mac or the WTC. Then a
player could play for one country only. It should not depend on
place of birth, or parental ethnicity, or anything other than where
he lives.

The "right of veto" (all 4GB of the Mac needing to agree before a
change can be made) is a nonsense. If the other three Mac countries
said they would not play the Mac unless the GB team is changed to an
England team, they could force the issue easily enough, and the
problems would all be solved. Sometimes a big stick is needed when
people will not see sense.

It would be nice if separate Australian states could enter teams in
the lower tiers of the WTC, but I think the logistics would rule that
one out.

JR.

On 12/04/2010, at 12:57 AM, leo mcbride wrote:
Keith,
When do you expect the WCF will discuss and make decisions
regarding your (a) to (e)
list?
Leo



From:
To: .uk
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:20:11 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] Fw: World Team Championship

Michael,

The "problem" of players choosing to change country isn't caused by
the format of the WTC. It's caused by having rules that:-

(a) allow players to have more than one eligible country
(b) allow players to change country
(c) allow them to change country when their personal circumstances
haven't changed, eg they haven't moved to a different country
(d) allow them to change country in a fairly short space of time (13
month gap)
(e) allow them to change back again if they feel like it

I'd like to suggest that if players changing country is thought be a
problem then the qualification rules is the place to look for a
solution, rather than tinkering with the format of an event. The
format of the WTC is not perfect for 2010 (we know that), but in my
opinion once the format allows for entries only from individual WCF
members it'll be a lot closer to it than it would be if it had
multiple teams from some countries and other teams from parts of
countries etc etc.

Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Heap
To: .uk
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:29 PM
Subject: [Croquet] Fw: World Team Championship

I sent the following email back in November. It still seems to
provide practical answers to the issues being discussed. The first
point 3 is critical and a practical solution is given. The
structure of the tournament will need to be adjusted depending on the
number of entries received and the available lawns. Clearly if a
host country can provide several "state" teams, it will have the lawn
capacity, but the competition may have to be spread further around
the country, good for the game. Yes, it may cost the participants
more in internal travel - if that cost is too high there will be less
entrants, there will be less travel needed and the cost will come
down as a result.

Michael Heap


----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Heap
To: .uk
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 12:57 AM
Subject: [Croquet] World Team Championship

I have been doing a bit of catching up with my reading. In many
ways the solutions for a successful World Team Championship seem to
be coming to the surface amidst the many posts on the subject..

1. We need to create a strong second tier tournament.
2. There will be no possible absolute definition of nationhood that
will stand the test of time let alone be agreed upon now.
3. Whatever solution we come up with should not cause the players
from current second team countries to seek qualification for a Mac
country to the detriment of the second tier countries.
4. The CA's Inter Counties tournament has been very successful at
least in part because it has addressed principles of this type and
been flexible in its description of counties. It has changed the
formula as and when it has been necessary to ensure the continued
success of the event - note that I realise it does not have a perfect
qualification formula but it has been quite good in changing to meet
the requirements of the time.
5. This is an amateur sport and there are restrictions to what
players and associations can afford. It is a fact that the home
nation for any tournament could supply more teams than the other
associations.

Practical solution for 2010:

1. Mac players are not allowed to play in the WTC
2 Each of the separate states/parts of the UK enter the WTC
separately. This includes Channel Isles, IOM, Wales, Northern
Ireland, Scotland and England
3. If they wish, the other Mac countries may each send a second team
to the WTC

In future, if the WTC is held in another Mac country, that country
should be able to field (if they wish) up to ,say, six or seven state/
groups of states teams. The other Mac teams would only be able to
send a second team.

This formula should be adjusted as necessary for the good of the
tournament. If, for example, it is clear that one country's second
team will dominate the WTC then they could be encouraged to split
that team into two or more parts.

I don't pretend to being quite up to speed with everything current in
the sport but hope this might be a useful and constructive post to
assist the urgent resolution of a difficult issue.

Michael Heap



NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
do not necessarily represent those of the ACA. Stephen Mulliner wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Thanks for your replay. It has prompted a few follow-up questions.
>

I can't answer them all, but I'll add a few points below. Sorry if the
quotes are getting a bit mixed up. Remember these are my personal ideas,
not SCA policy.

>
> SM: How
> much coaching have Keith and Jonathan been able to do during the team
> matches in which they have turned out for Scotland? Have they held coaching
> clinics for their team mates? If so, how often?

Keith has done so on at least two occasions, and is doing a third in
May. Jonathan has also been very supportive.

>>> SM: If you are referring to their contribution to Scottish croquet in
>>> the sense that they can to be described as Scottish members of a GB team,
>>> thereby favourably impressing SportScotland and thereby helping to
>>> maintain SGC grant funding, is it not possible that SportScotland would be
>>> as or more impressed by the participation of a Scottish team in the WTC?
>
>> Not if it does badly. I'm sure the recent Scottish victory in the ETC,
>> achieved by playing three non-residents, did far more to help the
>> Scottish case than coming fifth in Tier 2 might do.

>
> SM: But is there any hard evidence in support of your opinion? Would
> SportScotland be made aware of the relative significance of the ETC and the
> WTC?

Yes there is. James will tell you better that I can how sportScotland
were impressed by our victory in the ETC, and how he has to fill in
forms detailing Scottish achievements. Weakening the Scottish team isn't
going to make his job any easier.

>> I consider that a very short-sighted view, based on the fact that most
>> of the current Welsh team is, shall we say, mature, and unlikely to
>> compete for a Mac place in the future.

> SM: But, if they are "mature", why do you refer to this as a
> short-sighted view? Surely it is pragmatic and sensible? Do you not agree
> that having an active national team that competes in the World Team
> Championship is a good thing?

It is a short-sighted view because it is based on the current
composition of the Welsh team. It relies on the fact that the current
Welsh players are unlikely to defect to GB. It does not consider that in
the future Welsh players might do precisely that, weakening the pool
available for selection.

>> Scotland was in the very
>> different position of having two players in the current Mac team.
>>

> SM: But it cannot guarantee that into the future whereas it can
> guarantee to raise a national team to compete in the WTC, assuming that the
> rules of the WTC allow this to happen. Is not certainty of some value in
> this matter?

But what kind of a team will it be able to raise? Will it, for example,
be able to raise a competitive team in the Home Internationals, or in
the friendlies it currently plays against other nations?

>> For similar reasons, I find it unfortunate that Scotland would have been
>> excluded from Tier 2 if you [Keith] hadn't taken English nationality. It's
>> one thing saying Scotland can't play in any international event (in which
>> case they shouldn't have been granted WCF membership)
>
> SM: Scotland was granted WCF membership long before a WTC was
> considered. Are you suggesting that the WCF should terminate the SCA's
> membership if Scotland is not allowed to compete in the WTC in future?

Surely you can see that the WCF cannot allow Scotland to be a member and
not allow it to enter the WTC?

> SM: This suggests that you agree that Solution B (GB in the Mac, the Mac
> in the WTC and the Blobs excluded) is not a good option.

What I think is a poor option is that, if Keith had retained his
Scottish nomination, or Jonathan had been selected for GB, Scotland
would have been excluded from the WTC, whereas Wales would have been
admitted.

>> I think it's a logical conclusion of having GB in the Mac (and logical =
>> good), but I think it's unfortunate if a Scottish team is excluded from
>> the WTC.
>>

> SM: These are contradictory sentiments. There appears to be a universal
> view that double-dipping should not be allowed. So if GB is allowed to
> enter the WTC, Scotland will not be allowed to do so. Which do you prefer?

They aren't contradictory sentiments, since the first is a logical
conclusion, not a sentiment. And your question "which do you prefer" is
addressed to an "if" statement, not two alternatives.

Having said that, I'm coming (slowly and reluctantly) to the conclusion
that it is more important for Scotland to retain its position as part of
the Mac than to enter the WTC. I can't see Scotland sending a team to
New Zealand to compete in Div 2 of Tier 2 in 2014 (though I suspect the
event may be so poorly supported that we might well get into Div 1), and
I'd rather we retain our best players for the Home Internationals rather
than get reduced to a rump. Can you see James Hopgood turning down a
place in an English Mac team in 2014? And who knows, Keith might even
revert to Scotland if Scotland's place as part of GB is secure.

> Physical migration is not ruled out (look at Rutger), but virtual
> migration (change of affiliation) is the real danger. No-one needed to
> do it until last year, and it took only the hypothetical threat for
> Keith to be off like the proverbial rocket.

Interesting that you chose not to answer that point.

Martin Murray


_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Bruce,

I can sympathize with your concern of losing support from the sports council as well as defection of players. However, your loss of players to the MAC or another country is not unique. Many athletes in other sports have had to make difficult decisions as to which entity to represent knowing that their choice may have adverse consequences upon the one not chosen. If Jonathan and Keith choose to represent Engalnd at some point in time, if not already, to further their croquet ambitions who are we to judge?

As was expressed earlier in this discussion, my concern, similar to others is that for the MAC competition, England on its own merit can presently submit 6 of the top 12 ranked players in the world as their team. So the question being asked again is why are Wales, Scotland, Jersey, Falkland Islands etc. being used as further talent resources and is this fair to the USA, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND? I understand quite well the history of the Mac and the Great Britain approach to sports and am not asking for further explanation in that area.

Are we tied to History or is this the time to make changes that no longer will require the convoluted explanations to all the other croquet entities outside of Great Britain as to why the MAC is the way it is? I personally encourage the WCF and Mac management council to consider changing the Country of GB back again to the Country of England for the Tier 1 competition.

Leo




From:
To:
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:24:31 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability




To add to Martin's comments about the effectiveness of having two (at that time) top players in the Scottish HI team. When I was playing, it made a great difference to me having a captain (Keith Aiton) who was positively encouraging and supportive (silently of course, before JR gets involved) during the matches, engendering the team spirit that is essential for a more lowly team to perform to its highest potential. Another example was when Northumberland won the Inter-Counties competition when Gail Curry was captain - seen more recently when Notts have won it (another Aiton triumph).

Although we did not have coaching clinics "during the team matches" as SM asked, Martin is correct in highlighting the efforts put in by Keith and Jonathan over the years - in fact Keith has done at least three (four if one counts a winter session at an Edinburgh college years ago), including one at Cheltenham, with another one due this May despite his change in allegiance, and Jonathan was involved in earlier years.

Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet. That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.

It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.

There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.

Bruce


----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Murray
To: Stephen Mulliner
Cc: 'Nottingham List'
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Stephen Mulliner wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Thanks for your replay. It has prompted a few follow-up questions.
>

I can't answer them all, but I'll add a few points below. Sorry if the
quotes are getting a bit mixed up. Remember these are my personal ideas,
not SCA policy.

>
> SM: How
> much coaching have Keith and Jonathan been able to do during the team
> matches in which they have turned out for Scotland? Have they held coaching
> clinics for their team mates? If so, how often?

Keith has done so on at least two occasions, and is doing a third in
May. Jonathan has also been very supportive.

>>> SM: If you are referring to their contribution to Scottish croquet in
>>> the sense that they can to be described as Scottish members of a GB team,
>>> thereby favourably impressing SportScotland and thereby helping to
>>> maintain SGC grant funding, is it not possible that SportScotland would be
>>> as or more impressed by the participation of a Scottish team in the WTC?
>
>> Not if it does badly. I'm sure the recent Scottish victory in the ETC,
>> achieved by playing three non-residents, did far more to help the
>> Scottish case than coming fifth in Tier 2 might do.

>
> SM: But is there any hard evidence in support of your opinion? Would
> SportScotland be made aware of the relative significance of the ETC and the
> WTC?

Yes there is. James will tell you better that I can how sportScotland
were impressed by our victory in the ETC, and how he has to fill in
forms detailing Scottish achievements. Weakening the Scottish team isn't
going to make his job any easier.

>> I consider that a very short-sighted view, based on the fact that most
>> of the current Welsh team is, shall we say, mature, and unlikely to
>> compete for a Mac place in the future.

> SM: But, if they are "mature", why do you refer to this as a
> short-sighted view? Surely it is pragmatic and sensible? Do you not agree
> that having an active national team that competes in the World Team
> Championship is a good thing?

It is a short-sighted view because it is based on the current
composition of the Welsh team. It relies on the fact that the current
Welsh players are unlikely to defect to GB. It does not consider that in
the future Welsh players might do precisely that, weakening the pool
available for selection.

>> Scotland was in the very
>> different position of having two players in the current Mac team.
>>

> SM: But it cannot guarantee that into the future whereas it can
> guarantee to raise a national team to compete in the WTC, assuming that the
> rules of the WTC allow this to happen. Is not certainty of some value in
> this matter?

But what kind of a team will it be able to raise? Will it, for example,
be able to raise a competitive team in the Home Internationals, or in
the friendlies it currently plays against other nations?

>> For similar reasons, I find it unfortunate that Scotland would have been
>> excluded from Tier 2 if you [Keith] hadn't taken English nationality. It's
>> one thing saying Scotland can't play in any international event (in which
>> case they shouldn't have been granted WCF membership)
>
> SM: Scotland was granted WCF membership long before a WTC was
> considered. Are you suggesting that the WCF should terminate the SCA's
> membership if Scotland is not allowed to compete in the WTC in future?

Surely you can see that the WCF cannot allow Scotland to be a member and
not allow it to enter the WTC?

> SM: This suggests that you agree that Solution B (GB in the Mac, the Mac
> in the WTC and the Blobs excluded) is not a good option.

What I think is a poor option is that, if Keith had retained his
Scottish nomination, or Jonathan had been selected for GB, Scotland
would have been excluded from the WTC, whereas Wales would have been
admitted.

>> I think it's a logical conclusion of having GB in the Mac (and logical =
>> good), but I think it's unfortunate if a Scottish team is excluded from
>> the WTC.
>>

> SM: These are contradictory sentiments. There appears to be a universal
> view that double-dipping should not be allowed. So if GB is allowed to
> enter the WTC, Scotland will not be allowed to do so. Which do you prefer?

They aren't contradictory sentiments, since the first is a logical
conclusion, not a sentiment. And your question "which do you prefer" is
addressed to an "if" statement, not two alternatives.

Having said that, I'm coming (slowly and reluctantly) to the conclusion
that it is more important for Scotland to retain its position as part of
the Mac than to enter the WTC. I can't see Scotland sending a team to
New Zealand to compete in Div 2 of Tier 2 in 2014 (though I suspect the
event may be so poorly supported that we might well get into Div 1), and
I'd rather we retain our best players for the Home Internationals rather
than get reduced to a rump. Can you see James Hopgood turning down a
place in an English Mac team in 2014? And who knows, Keith might even
revert to Scotland if Scotland's place as part of GB is secure.

> Physical migration is not ruled out (look at Rutger), but virtual
> migration (change of affiliation) is the real danger. No-one needed to
> do it until last year, and it took only the hypothetical threat for
> Keith to be off like the proverbial rocket.

Interesting that you chose not to answer that point.

Martin Murray


_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerard Healy <>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:16 +0100
To: Keith Aiton <>, <>
Conversation: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Keith,

To answer your queries relating to Irish participation in the MacRob:

1. Duff Matthews was indeed an Irishman who played in the 1925 team. He
was not resident in England and I do not believe that he had any
qualification for 'England' per se.

2. Up until April 12th 1927, the correct designation for the UK was the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From that date, the title
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into force (Royal
and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927). Thus the first Mac Team in 1925 should
be correctly titled "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and
Duff Matthews was entitled to play as a ŒBritish¹ citizen.

3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had played
in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The CAI
after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be re-designated
"Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the Ryder and Walker
cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play for this composite
team.

4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

5. In the mid 1990s the CAI went through a process of debate regarding the
best option for Irish croquet and its development - much as we are seeing
with Scotland and Wales now. We decided that we would no longer join with
the CA in forming the composite team of Great Britain and Ireland and
(amicably) separated. Our aim was ultimately to enter our own team in the
MacRob. We have been close to this but have not yet achieved a strong
enough playing pool. We still aspire to it.

Despite not agreeing with all of Dave Maugham¹s analysis , I agree with his
conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team (selecting
English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player) - with the exception of the
period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great Britain
and Ireland.


Gerard




On 11/04/2010 08:43, "Keith Aiton" <> wrote:

> Am I right in saying that the "England" team of 1925 included an Irishman,
> 'Duff' Matthews?
>
> As for the discussions leading to the appending of "& Ireland" to the name
> of the team in 1987/88 I am pretty sure CAI were being consulted. At the
> very least I believe the final name chosen was subject to their approval. I
> say that because some of the names suggested were rejected because they were
> considered to be unacceptable to the Irish.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> leo mcbride wrote:
>>> Historically, is it not true that Team England became Team GB due
>>> to the need to recruit players to fill out the team?
>>
>> No, it is not true.
>>
>> The team that was called "England" from 1927 was always representing (and
>> could be composed of people from) Great Britain (i.e. at the very least
>> England, Scotland & Wales). Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are
>> an issue unto themselves (which, to the best of my knowledge the WCF have
>> taken no stance on). Arguably, though, the team selected by the CA for the
>> Mac has always represented the (UN recognised) country of "the United
>> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
>>
>> In addition, in 1990, 1993 and 1996 then team represented the Irish
>> Republic as well. This was done (to the best of my knowledge) in order to
>> give Irish players the opportunity to play in the Mac (bearing in mind
>> that prior to the late 80s the Mac was the *only* international event). As
>> it was, no Irish player was selected (although players who had represented
>> Ireland in the Home Internationals were selected for the Mac, they were
>> also qualified for GB under residency rules anyway). I do not know whether
>> the CA was approached by the CAI in order to do this, or if the CA asked
>> the CAI if it was desirable, or even if the CA did it unilaterally. I
>> believe that the CAI requested not to be represented in the Mac after 1996
>> as there was a potential WTC on the horizon at that time in which they
>> would rather play...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Gerard Healy wrote:
> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
> for this _composite_ team.
>
> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.

I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was
sufficient) and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on
convenience than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that
this is true in all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players
had been born and/or lived all their lives in England.

Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
GB-only side.

This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac
aspirations may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
"defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
tier of the WTC).

> with the exception of
> the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made up of Great
> Britain and Ireland.

I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
forces behind the change to GB&I.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. writes
>I agree with
>his conclusion that the MacRob team has always been a UK team
>(selecting English, Welsh, Scottish and one Irish player)  - with the
>exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite team made
>up of Great Britain and Ireland.

Two players from Northern Ireland have played for England/GB in the Mac.

John McMordie in 1937 and Colin Irwin.



--
Chris Williams

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams (an
Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
things turned out he didn't make the team.

Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
agreed to the change.

Keith

PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
perspective.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Maugham" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> Gerard Healy wrote:
>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The
>> CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>> for this _composite_ team.
>>
>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>
> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country was
> broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient) and
> as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience than a
> genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in all
> cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born and/or
> lived all their lives in England.
>
> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all his
> croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a GB-only
> side.
>
> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
> tier of the WTC).
>
>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>
> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some memories
> of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I have been
> told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is complete
> speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level player in the
> mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have the opportunity
> to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen and had no
> residency qualification), and that was one of the driving forces behind
> the change to GB&I.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Personally I believe one point is consistently missed whenever the
"defection" argument is raised, IMO due to thinking about the way things
have been rather than how they could be in the future. If an intergrated
Mac/WTC comes to fruition with a clear progression pathway through the tiers
in my opinion it becomes much more plausible for the potential defector to
take the view that actually what he would rather do is try to guide his
"real" (for want of a better word) country up through the tiers and
potentially into the Mac ie the player is provided with a motivation to
improve the playing standard within his country and also the other top
players have a motivation for improvement too.

Even though entry criteria for the Mac exist defecting is a far more likely
decision without an integrated WTC as whilst the the top player is seeking
to get his country up to the necessary standard there is no other event to
play in (an event which would also be assisting in the goal of developing
the standard of the country's top players).

Ian Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce

original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..." Bruce,

Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for the 4 existing MAC

countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?

Leo


From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability








Stephen,

My responses below,

Bruce


original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet.

SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the WCF’s responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a whole?

BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who "speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC) has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)

original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.

SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?

BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.

original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.

SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don’t think it would have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite rightly.

BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?

original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.

SM: Please don’t be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good sense to me.

BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."



_________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Quite right Keith we preferred beating the best you could come up with.

One of the most delightful players I met during my time playing in the Mac
was the late Douglas Strachan, a Scot who lived in Ireland played his
Croquet in Ireland and England, and was a member of your 1969 team.

John.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Aiton" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability


> You're right, Dave. The discussions on CA Council were, I believe, in late
> 1987 and early 1988. The Mac team first had the title "GB & I" in the 1990
> Mac. I believe one of the motivating factors was to allow Simon Williams
> (an Irishman with no known English qualification) to be "pickable", but as
> things turned out he didn't make the team.
>
> Presumably Australia and New Zealand, accommodating chaps that they are,
> agreed to the change.
>
> Keith
>
> PS Thanks to Gerard for providing the information from the Irish
> perspective.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Maugham" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability
>
>
>> Gerard Healy wrote:
>>> 3. The issue arose again in 1986 when Colin Irwin was selected for the
>>> MacRob. Colin was an established Irish international player, who had
>>> played in the Home Internationals for Ireland in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
>>> The CAI after discussions with the CA agreed that the team should be
>>> re-designated "Great Britain and Ireland" as was done in golf with the
>>> Ryder and Walker cups and that Irish players should be permitted to play
>>> for this _composite_ team.
>>>
>>> 4. Subsequently, two further Irish internationals were selected for the
>>> MacRob - John McCullough and Mark Saurin.
>>
>> I think that it should be clarified that the international croquet scene
>> was much more limited, and ad hoc then than it is now. The Home
>> Internationals were formed in part to give British players the chance to
>> have match play in a team environment. The qualification for a country
>> was broader than it now is for the WCF (grandparent birth was sufficient)
>> and as a consequence players chose a "country" much more on convenience
>> than a genuine sense of affiliation. I'm not saying that this is true in
>> all cases, but a huge majority of the early HI players had been born
>> and/or lived all their lives in England.
>>
>> Irwin is British, having been born in NI, and had been living in England
>> since the late '70s. Saurin was born in England and had lived there all
>> his life. McCullough, I don't know, but had certainly been playing all
>> his croquet in England, so was qualified under residency rules for a
>> GB-only side.
>>
>> This touches on the points made by MM, that a player with Mac aspirations
>> may well be qualified for several Blobs, and would
>> "defect" to England if they though they would get in the Mac (or the top
>> tier of the WTC).
>>
>>> with the exception of the period 1986 to 1993 when it was a composite
>>> team made up of Great Britain and Ireland.
>>
>> I thought that the name change only came in in 1990. (I have some
>> memories of the Council decision being in a 1988ish gazette). I'm sure I
>> have been told (but this will be 3rd-or-so-hand, so at this point is
>> complete speculation) that Simon Williams was a potentially top level
>> player in the mid-late '80s and there was concern that he would not have
>> the opportunity to play in the Mac (since he was not a British citizen
>> and had no residency qualification), and that was one of the driving
>> forces behind the change to GB&I.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Leo,



The short answer is that the GB/England issue cannot be sensibly resolved
before it is known whether the WCF is prepared to accept composite teams in
the WTC. In other words, the first issue in time to be resolved is the
composite teams issue. This is because the CA regards it as important that
the Mac should be part of the WTC.



If the WCF is prepared to accept composite teams in the WTC, then the
GB/England issue comes down to whether the UK Blobs see more advantage in
being part of GB or playing in the WTC in their own right. If the WCF is
not prepared to accept composite teams in the WTC, the UK Blobs know they
enter their teams in the WTC in all circumstances.



To put it another way, assume an intelligent person is consulted by the CA
on the question of whether the CA team in the Mac should be GB (as at
present) or be changed to England. They ask "before I answer, what are the
consequences?" The CA says "We don't know - the WCF hasn't decided whether
GB will be allowed to enter the WTC". Might that person not reply "The
answer to that question is important - why don't you go away and get the
answer from the WCF and then come back and tell me? Then I can give you my
opinion".



Stephen

_____

From: croquet-.uk
[mailto:croquet-.uk] On Behalf Of leo mcbride
Sent: 11 April 2010 20:21
To: ;
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability



Bruce,
Would I be correct in assuming that the 4GB is your abbreviation for
the 4 existing MAC
countries governing bodies, If so, I would agree with both you and Stephen
that the GB/E needs to be resolved before the WCF should make proposals
regarding the WTC format. My question then Stephen is why are 2 WCF
proposals being put on the agenda for the August meeting before any 4GB
decisions which will have some affect upon those proposals?
Leo

_____

From:
To:
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:30:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Stephen,



My responses below,



Bruce



original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC
potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants
with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team
Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top
not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance
that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health
of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such
questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never
take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the
WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a
whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached
sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was
asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members
only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the
ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international
croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who
"speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC)
has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off
grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty
we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you
envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all
kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have
been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of
being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would
have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not
something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite
rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance
just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that
all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where
would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes
to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control
(the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined
- they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then
the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no
position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the
events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should
wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to
be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after
the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good
sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge. If there is to be a proposal
from the 4GB in due course, why change anything beforehand? There are no
other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any WCF-led changes
in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position (as opposed to
the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing that decision
unnecessarily is doubly wrong. Let the British National Governing Bodies
come to that decision before any WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had
time to evaluate the WTC in 2010, and then any motion to that WCF Council
Meeting will get positive support. As that meercat says "Simples..."









_____

Videos that have everyone talking! Now also in HD! MSN.ca Video.


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5018 (20100411) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com Bruce,



Please see below. My comments are prefaced by "SM2".



Stephen



_____

From: croquet-.uk
[mailto:croquet-.uk] On Behalf Of Bruce Rannie
Sent: 11 April 2010 19:30
To: 'Nottingham List'
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability



Stephen,



My responses below,



Bruce



original: Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC
potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants
with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team
Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top
not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance
that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health
of WCF members' croquet.



SM: This is little over-adversarial. Would you rather that such
questions were not asked? Or are you suggesting that the WCF should never
take a decision if it might adversely affect any one WCF member? Surely the
WCF's responsibility is to promoting the good of international croquet as a
whole?



BMR: My point was that the assumption was that SCA had not approached
sportScotland regarding the position, based on the way the question was
asked. WCF should take decisions affecting adversely any of its members
only after the members thus affected have had time to explore completely the
ways any adverse effect may be minimised. The "good of international
croquet as a whole" is so nebulous as to be immeasurable. For instance, who
"speaks" for European croquet, as only Italy (not participating in 2010 WTC)
has a vote on WCF Council? (Answering "FEC" is not permitted!)



SM2: Why do you think that "European croquet" should be spoken for? Why
is answering "FEC" not permitted? You appear to confuse "WCF" with "WCFMC".
The SCA is free to make its case to the WCF Council and can do so today by
e-mailing all 26 other WCF members (especially the 11 who have votes)
expressing the SCA position. It is the WCF who will decide and they will
not decide anything until August. You have plenty of time.



original: That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off
grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty
we continue to attract their support.



SM: This is good news. However, as a matter of interest, do you
envisage a future in which the SCA does not depend on government funding?



BMR: No - unless there is a massive change in direction for supporting all
kinds of sports in Scotland, which does not appear imminent.



SM2: That is not my point. I was interested to know whether you thought
that the SCA should be aiming for financial independence in due course.



original: It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have
been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of
being moved to 13 months.



SM: I assume you mean the WCF MC position and I don't think it would
have made any difference. The interests of individual players are not
something that I have ever seen referred to in WCF MC discussions, quite
rightly.



BMR: No, I meant the position re the Mac - Keith changed his allegiance
just over 13 months before the Mac, and this meant that it was likely that
all GB players available were "English". Had this not been possible, where
would the "WTC for non-Mac countries" have gone?



SM2: I don't understand you. The ambition to have a multi-tier WTC and
the "no double-dipping" principle have nothing to do with the allegiance of
any individual. You must mean something else but please spell it out for
me.



original: There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes
to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control
(the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined
- they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then
the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.



SM: Please don't be boneheaded about this, Bruce. The WCF is in no
position to do anything without the unanimous consent of the 4GB. After the
events of May 2009, I gather that the WCF MC took the view that it should
wait for the 4GB to make a proposal. This seems reasonable and is likely to
be rewarded by such a proposal from the 4GB in due course, but only after
the GB/England issue has been resolved. This order of events makes good
sense to me.



BMR: This position therefore remains a fudge.



SM2: The 2010 WTC is based on a compromise - or fudge if you prefer. So
what? Would you rather that Scotland (and Wales and Jersey) could NOT have
entered the 2010 WTC? Did not SCA protest at their proposed exclusion?



If there is to be a proposal from the 4GB in due course, why change
anything beforehand?

SM2: The proposal from the 4GB will be about the governance of the Mac,
not of the WTC.



There are no other TEAM World Championships before 2014, so why make any
WCF-led changes in 2010? If the sticking-point is the GB/England position
(as opposed to the veto, which is what stopped it in 2009), then rushing
that decision unnecessarily is doubly wrong.



SM2: Why wrong, let alone doubly wrong? The WCF is responsible for the
WTC, not the CA. The composite teams issue should be decided BEFORE the
GB/England issue is resolved or that decision will be taken in ignorance of
a material factor.



Let the British National Governing Bodies come to that decision before any
WCF Council Meeting in 2011, having had time to evaluate the WTC in 2010,
and then any motion to that WCF Council Meeting will get positive support.
As that meercat says "Simples..."



SM2: Sorry, I don't understand you. What "any motion" had you in mind?









__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5018 (20100411) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com Leo and Keith,

Isn't the solution something along the lines of what I have suggested?

i.e. A player is eligible to play for the country in which he has
spent the most time during the past 4 years; with "composite"
countries not permiitted to enter either the Mac or the WTC. Then a
player could play for one country only. It should not depend on
place of birth, or parental ethnicity, or anything other than where
he lives.

The "right of veto" (all 4GB of the Mac needing to agree before a
change can be made) is a nonsense. If the other three Mac countries
said they would not play the Mac unless the GB team is changed to an
England team, they could force the issue easily enough, and the
problems would all be solved. Sometimes a big stick is needed when
people will not see sense.

It would be nice if separate Australian states could enter teams in
the lower tiers of the WTC, but I think the logistics would rule that
one out.

JR.

On 12/04/2010, at 12:57 AM, leo mcbride wrote:
Keith,
When do you expect the WCF will discuss and make decisions
regarding your (a) to (e)
list?
Leo



From:
To: .uk
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:20:11 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] Fw: World Team Championship

Michael,

The "problem" of players choosing to change country isn't caused by
the format of the WTC. It's caused by having rules that:-

(a) allow players to have more than one eligible country
(b) allow players to change country
(c) allow them to change country when their personal circumstances
haven't changed, eg they haven't moved to a different country
(d) allow them to change country in a fairly short space of time (13
month gap)
(e) allow them to change back again if they feel like it

I'd like to suggest that if players changing country is thought be a
problem then the qualification rules is the place to look for a
solution, rather than tinkering with the format of an event. The
format of the WTC is not perfect for 2010 (we know that), but in my
opinion once the format allows for entries only from individual WCF
members it'll be a lot closer to it than it would be if it had
multiple teams from some countries and other teams from parts of
countries etc etc.

Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Heap
To: .uk
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:29 PM
Subject: [Croquet] Fw: World Team Championship

I sent the following email back in November. It still seems to
provide practical answers to the issues being discussed. The first
point 3 is critical and a practical solution is given. The
structure of the tournament will need to be adjusted depending on the
number of entries received and the available lawns. Clearly if a
host country can provide several "state" teams, it will have the lawn
capacity, but the competition may have to be spread further around
the country, good for the game. Yes, it may cost the participants
more in internal travel - if that cost is too high there will be less
entrants, there will be less travel needed and the cost will come
down as a result.

Michael Heap


----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Heap
To: .uk
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 12:57 AM
Subject: [Croquet] World Team Championship

I have been doing a bit of catching up with my reading. In many
ways the solutions for a successful World Team Championship seem to
be coming to the surface amidst the many posts on the subject..

1. We need to create a strong second tier tournament.
2. There will be no possible absolute definition of nationhood that
will stand the test of time let alone be agreed upon now.
3. Whatever solution we come up with should not cause the players
from current second team countries to seek qualification for a Mac
country to the detriment of the second tier countries.
4. The CA's Inter Counties tournament has been very successful at
least in part because it has addressed principles of this type and
been flexible in its description of counties. It has changed the
formula as and when it has been necessary to ensure the continued
success of the event - note that I realise it does not have a perfect
qualification formula but it has been quite good in changing to meet
the requirements of the time.
5. This is an amateur sport and there are restrictions to what
players and associations can afford. It is a fact that the home
nation for any tournament could supply more teams than the other
associations.

Practical solution for 2010:

1. Mac players are not allowed to play in the WTC
2 Each of the separate states/parts of the UK enter the WTC
separately. This includes Channel Isles, IOM, Wales, Northern
Ireland, Scotland and England
3. If they wish, the other Mac countries may each send a second team
to the WTC

In future, if the WTC is held in another Mac country, that country
should be able to field (if they wish) up to ,say, six or seven state/
groups of states teams. The other Mac teams would only be able to
send a second team.

This formula should be adjusted as necessary for the good of the
tournament. If, for example, it is clear that one country's second
team will dominate the WTC then they could be encouraged to split
that team into two or more parts.

I don't pretend to being quite up to speed with everything current in
the sport but hope this might be a useful and constructive post to
assist the urgent resolution of a difficult issue.

Michael Heap



NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
do not necessarily represent those of the ACA. Stephen Mulliner wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Thanks for your replay. It has prompted a few follow-up questions.
>

I can't answer them all, but I'll add a few points below. Sorry if the
quotes are getting a bit mixed up. Remember these are my personal ideas,
not SCA policy.

>
> SM: How
> much coaching have Keith and Jonathan been able to do during the team
> matches in which they have turned out for Scotland? Have they held coaching
> clinics for their team mates? If so, how often?

Keith has done so on at least two occasions, and is doing a third in
May. Jonathan has also been very supportive.

>>> SM: If you are referring to their contribution to Scottish croquet in
>>> the sense that they can to be described as Scottish members of a GB team,
>>> thereby favourably impressing SportScotland and thereby helping to
>>> maintain SGC grant funding, is it not possible that SportScotland would be
>>> as or more impressed by the participation of a Scottish team in the WTC?
>
>> Not if it does badly. I'm sure the recent Scottish victory in the ETC,
>> achieved by playing three non-residents, did far more to help the
>> Scottish case than coming fifth in Tier 2 might do.

>
> SM: But is there any hard evidence in support of your opinion? Would
> SportScotland be made aware of the relative significance of the ETC and the
> WTC?

Yes there is. James will tell you better that I can how sportScotland
were impressed by our victory in the ETC, and how he has to fill in
forms detailing Scottish achievements. Weakening the Scottish team isn't
going to make his job any easier.

>> I consider that a very short-sighted view, based on the fact that most
>> of the current Welsh team is, shall we say, mature, and unlikely to
>> compete for a Mac place in the future.

> SM: But, if they are "mature", why do you refer to this as a
> short-sighted view? Surely it is pragmatic and sensible? Do you not agree
> that having an active national team that competes in the World Team
> Championship is a good thing?

It is a short-sighted view because it is based on the current
composition of the Welsh team. It relies on the fact that the current
Welsh players are unlikely to defect to GB. It does not consider that in
the future Welsh players might do precisely that, weakening the pool
available for selection.

>> Scotland was in the very
>> different position of having two players in the current Mac team.
>>

> SM: But it cannot guarantee that into the future whereas it can
> guarantee to raise a national team to compete in the WTC, assuming that the
> rules of the WTC allow this to happen. Is not certainty of some value in
> this matter?

But what kind of a team will it be able to raise? Will it, for example,
be able to raise a competitive team in the Home Internationals, or in
the friendlies it currently plays against other nations?

>> For similar reasons, I find it unfortunate that Scotland would have been
>> excluded from Tier 2 if you [Keith] hadn't taken English nationality. It's
>> one thing saying Scotland can't play in any international event (in which
>> case they shouldn't have been granted WCF membership)
>
> SM: Scotland was granted WCF membership long before a WTC was
> considered. Are you suggesting that the WCF should terminate the SCA's
> membership if Scotland is not allowed to compete in the WTC in future?

Surely you can see that the WCF cannot allow Scotland to be a member and
not allow it to enter the WTC?

> SM: This suggests that you agree that Solution B (GB in the Mac, the Mac
> in the WTC and the Blobs excluded) is not a good option.

What I think is a poor option is that, if Keith had retained his
Scottish nomination, or Jonathan had been selected for GB, Scotland
would have been excluded from the WTC, whereas Wales would have been
admitted.

>> I think it's a logical conclusion of having GB in the Mac (and logical =
>> good), but I think it's unfortunate if a Scottish team is excluded from
>> the WTC.
>>

> SM: These are contradictory sentiments. There appears to be a universal
> view that double-dipping should not be allowed. So if GB is allowed to
> enter the WTC, Scotland will not be allowed to do so. Which do you prefer?

They aren't contradictory sentiments, since the first is a logical
conclusion, not a sentiment. And your question "which do you prefer" is
addressed to an "if" statement, not two alternatives.

Having said that, I'm coming (slowly and reluctantly) to the conclusion
that it is more important for Scotland to retain its position as part of
the Mac than to enter the WTC. I can't see Scotland sending a team to
New Zealand to compete in Div 2 of Tier 2 in 2014 (though I suspect the
event may be so poorly supported that we might well get into Div 1), and
I'd rather we retain our best players for the Home Internationals rather
than get reduced to a rump. Can you see James Hopgood turning down a
place in an English Mac team in 2014? And who knows, Keith might even
revert to Scotland if Scotland's place as part of GB is secure.

> Physical migration is not ruled out (look at Rutger), but virtual
> migration (change of affiliation) is the real danger. No-one needed to
> do it until last year, and it took only the hypothetical threat for
> Keith to be off like the proverbial rocket.

Interesting that you chose not to answer that point.

Martin Murray


_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Bruce,

I can sympathize with your concern of losing support from the sports council as well as defection of players. However, your loss of players to the MAC or another country is not unique. Many athletes in other sports have had to make difficult decisions as to which entity to represent knowing that their choice may have adverse consequences upon the one not chosen. If Jonathan and Keith choose to represent Engalnd at some point in time, if not already, to further their croquet ambitions who are we to judge?

As was expressed earlier in this discussion, my concern, similar to others is that for the MAC competition, England on its own merit can presently submit 6 of the top 12 ranked players in the world as their team. So the question being asked again is why are Wales, Scotland, Jersey, Falkland Islands etc. being used as further talent resources and is this fair to the USA, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND? I understand quite well the history of the Mac and the Great Britain approach to sports and am not asking for further explanation in that area.

Are we tied to History or is this the time to make changes that no longer will require the convoluted explanations to all the other croquet entities outside of Great Britain as to why the MAC is the way it is? I personally encourage the WCF and Mac management council to consider changing the Country of GB back again to the Country of England for the Tier 1 competition.

Leo




From:
To:
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:24:31 +0100
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability




To add to Martin's comments about the effectiveness of having two (at that time) top players in the Scottish HI team. When I was playing, it made a great difference to me having a captain (Keith Aiton) who was positively encouraging and supportive (silently of course, before JR gets involved) during the matches, engendering the team spirit that is essential for a more lowly team to perform to its highest potential. Another example was when Northumberland won the Inter-Counties competition when Gail Curry was captain - seen more recently when Notts have won it (another Aiton triumph).

Although we did not have coaching clinics "during the team matches" as SM asked, Martin is correct in highlighting the efforts put in by Keith and Jonathan over the years - in fact Keith has done at least three (four if one counts a winter session at an Edinburgh college years ago), including one at Cheltenham, with another one due this May despite his change in allegiance, and Jonathan was involved in earlier years.

Of course sportScotland has been informed about ETC and the WTC potential, it has been one of the main topics for discussion about grants with them because of the dilution of our claim to be high in the WCF Team Rankings (hammered when Keith changed) and have players in the top not-very-many (ditto). To ask such a question shows the level of ignorance that goes with WCFMC making decisions or suggestions that affect the health of WCF members' croquet. That sportScotland has actually granted SCA a further one-off grant in 2010 as well as the annual money shows that despite the uncertainty we continue to attract their support.

It would be interesting to know what the WTC position would have been had the time for changing allegiance remained unchanged, instead of being moved to 13 months.

There is still no adequate reason for WCFMC not proposing changes to the statutes that cover the incorporation of the Mac into WCF control (the last answer tied the Laws situation in as though the two were conjoined - they patently are not) rather than the fudge that is being proposed. Then the situation would indeed be brought to a head once-and-for-all.

Bruce


----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Murray
To: Stephen Mulliner
Cc: 'Nottingham List'
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] WTC and Mac: Sustainability

Stephen Mulliner wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Thanks for your replay. It has prompted a few follow-up questions.
>

I can't answer them all, but I'll add a few points below. Sorry if the
quotes are getting a bit mixed up. Remember these are my personal ideas,
not SCA policy.

>
> SM: How
> much coaching have Keith and Jonathan been able to do during the team
> matches in which they have turned out for Scotland? Have they held coaching
> clinics for their team mates? If so, how often?

Keith has done so on at least two occasions, and is doing a third in
May. Jonathan has also been very supportive.

>>> SM: If you are referring to their contribution to Scottish croquet in
>>> the sense that they can to be described as Scottish members of a GB team,
>>> thereby favourably impressing SportScotland and thereby helping to
>>> maintain SGC grant funding, is it not possible that SportScotland would be
>>> as or more impressed by the participation of a Scottish team in the WTC?
>
>> Not if it does badly. I'm sure the recent Scottish victory in the ETC,
>> achieved by playing three non-residents, did far more to help the
>> Scottish case than coming fifth in Tier 2 might do.

>
> SM: But is there any hard evidence in support of your opinion? Would
> SportScotland be made aware of the relative significance of the ETC and the
> WTC?

Yes there is. James will tell you better that I can how sportScotland
were impressed by our victory in the ETC, and how he has to fill in
forms detailing Scottish achievements. Weakening the Scottish team isn't
going to make his job any easier.

>> I consider that a very short-sighted view, based on the fact that most
>> of the current Welsh team is, shall we say, mature, and unlikely to
>> compete for a Mac place in the future.

> SM: But, if they are "mature", why do you refer to this as a
> short-sighted view? Surely it is pragmatic and sensible? Do you not agree
> that having an active national team that competes in the World Team
> Championship is a good thing?

It is a short-sighted view because it is based on the current
composition of the Welsh team. It relies on the fact that the current
Welsh players are unlikely to defect to GB. It does not consider that in
the future Welsh players might do precisely that, weakening the pool
available for selection.

>> Scotland was in the very
>> different position of having two players in the current Mac team.
>>

> SM: But it cannot guarantee that into the future whereas it can
> guarantee to raise a national team to compete in the WTC, assuming that the
> rules of the WTC allow this to happen. Is not certainty of some value in
> this matter?

But what kind of a team will it be able to raise? Will it, for example,
be able to raise a competitive team in the Home Internationals, or in
the friendlies it currently plays against other nations?

>> For similar reasons, I find it unfortunate that Scotland would have been
>> excluded from Tier 2 if you [Keith] hadn't taken English nationality. It's
>> one thing saying Scotland can't play in any international event (in which
>> case they shouldn't have been granted WCF membership)
>
> SM: Scotland was granted WCF membership long before a WTC was
> considered. Are you suggesting that the WCF should terminate the SCA's
> membership if Scotland is not allowed to compete in the WTC in future?

Surely you can see that the WCF cannot allow Scotland to be a member and
not allow it to enter the WTC?

> SM: This suggests that you agree that Solution B (GB in the Mac, the Mac
> in the WTC and the Blobs excluded) is not a good option.

What I think is a poor option is that, if Keith had retained his
Scottish nomination, or Jonathan had been selected for GB, Scotland
would have been excluded from the WTC, whereas Wales would have been
admitted.

>> I think it's a logical conclusion of having GB in the Mac (and logical =
>> good), but I think it's unfortunate if a Scottish team is excluded from
>> the WTC.
>>

> SM: These are contradictory sentiments. There appears to be a universal
> view that double-dipping should not be allowed. So if GB is allowed to
> enter the WTC, Scotland will not be allowed to do so. Which do you prefer?

They aren't contradictory sentiments, since the first is a logical
conclusion, not a sentiment. And your question "which do you prefer" is
addressed to an "if" statement, not two alternatives.

Having said that, I'm coming (slowly and reluctantly) to the conclusion
that it is more important for Scotland to retain its position as part of
the Mac than to enter the WTC. I can't see Scotland sending a team to
New Zealand to compete in Div 2 of Tier 2 in 2014 (though I suspect the
event may be so poorly supported that we might well get into Div 1), and
I'd rather we retain our best players for the Home Internationals rather
than get reduced to a rump. Can you see James Hopgood turning down a
place in an English Mac team in 2014? And who knows, Keith might even
revert to Scotland if Scotland's place as part of GB is secure.

> Physical migration is not ruled out (look at Rutger), but virtual
> migration (change of affiliation) is the real danger. No-one needed to
> do it until last year, and it took only the hypothetical threat for
> Keith to be off like the proverbial rocket.

Interesting that you chose not to answer that point.

Martin Murray


_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe. Martin,
Perhaps you didn't get my point. You have given reasons, which I
assumed you had some knowledge about. Now I realise it was just
guesswork!

William


On 10 Apr 2010, at 18:35, Martin Murray wrote:

>> On 10 Apr 2010, at 01:43, Martin Murray wrote:
>>> It is a short-sighted view

.... or long-sighted or medium term sighted?

>>> because it is based on the current composition of the Welsh team.

... or future composition or past composition?

>>> It relies on the fact that the current Welsh players are unlikely
>>> to defect to GB.

Does it?

>>> It does not consider that in the future Welsh players might do
>>> precisely that, weakening the pool available for selection.

It does and this was considered!!

William

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.