AGB new national ranking system?

[T101]

What ya think? seems massively flawed to me, favouring T1 events most of which are southern/pricey and limited spaces (2 more yet to be allocated), UKRS events not eligible, not even based on your actual scores.

https://www.archerygb.org/2018-national-rankings/

 

[bimble]

the closest thing I've seen to a positive comment was,

It is a wet dream for elite archers.

but as it was part of a post pointing out that it's a lazy system on behalf of AGB to pander to the Elite archers as opposed to a NATIONAL ranking system...

Under the old system were there many "top" ranked archers that didn't make it towards the the top of the ranking list? I mean sure, I no longer have to shoot the most boring round in the frigging world (the 720) to get a ranking which is a yay , but the 1440 is only a "tier 3" round. So in theory you could shoot 6x +1400 scores and be miles down in the ranking against someone who goes to smaller, local WRS 720/H2H shoots and wins them...

 

[bimble]

PLUS - longbows and barebows, three 1440s + two York/Herefords... but unlike the other disciplines, they have to submit their scores themselves at the end of the season, as opposed to a running ranking for recurve/compounds, as the TOs have to now submit their scores within 72hrs...

 

[Johnh159]

AGB website now states:

"Archery GB National Ranking System for 2018.Archery GB acknowledges that there is an error in the recently published 2018 National Ranking pilot document.
We will be reviewing the document and an update will be published as soon as possible."

What was the proposal?

 

[Johnh159]

Found it:

https://www.archerygb.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Announcement-for-2018-rankingsv2-1-1.pdf

 

[bimble]

Let's see if I can get it up here....

For 2018 we are launching a new National Ranking system. This is a pilot system for 2018 with some elements that will not be released until 2019. This replaces and updates both the existing National Ranking System and the National Series.
The new system will be more representative of your results and performances, as well as allowing you to follow your progress and National Ranking through out the year.
General Info
?All WRS Competitions will be classified under one of the 3 sections, and qualify for National Ranking points for the top 64 finishers in each discipline for the Tier 1 and 2 events.
?Results must be submitted by the competition organiser to AGB within 72 hours of the end of the competition in the required format including AGB Numbers. The organiser of the rankings is not responsible for the collection of data.
?An athlete?s best 6 finishes will count towards your rolling ranking score. Results last no longer than the corresponding competition the following year.

?Points are awarded for your qualification position, and final head-to-headposition, with a
ratio of 40:60 with greater points awarded on your final position.
?After the Oxford Stage of the year the top 8 ranked will shoot in the Finals*. (Grand Finals carry extra for ranking)
?After the last World Record Status outdoor competition to be held in the UK each year, the final ranking of the year will be announced. The final event of season will be made clear in advance. Certificates are awarded to the top 50.
?Rankings will be published from 7 June 2018 to give time for results to settle down. After this the ranking will be updated every Thursday giving a rolling ranking system.

2018 National Ranking

(going down to 50th getting 1 point)


Longbow and Barebow
*To obtain a National Ranking, Longbows and Barebows, need to compete at 3 record status WA 1440 rounds and 2 rose status York/Hereford rounds.
Scores to be submitted to Archery GB before the end of September 2018 using the appropriate form that will be available on the website for download.
Junior rankings will remain the same at previous years.

 

[Johnh159]

Looks like H2H is king and the "old" national series events king with an extra crown!

The ABG Tournament diary is next to useless at the moment, not updated.
Looking at the Brighton Bowmen website (always good for tournaments throughout the Country) there are currently three (Tier 2) H2H tournaments.

Maybe AGB should see if there is the national infrastructure for tournaments before proposing a system that relies heavily on H2H comps.

 

[bimble]

Maybe AGB should see if there is the national infrastructure for tournaments before proposing a system that relies heavily on H2H comps.

There were complaints when they switched from two 720s to three 720s because there weren't enough... but demand gave rise to an increase in the number of 720s held. AGB can't tell clubs what rounds to host, but if they increase the interest in the archers wanting to shoot a particular round there will be TO's who will take note and figure out that there would be more interest in changing their double 720 or 1440 to a 720/H2H.

 

[Johnh159]

The trouble with changing the double 720 to a 720 & H2H is half the archers and half the income

 

[Johnh159]

I missed that adouble 720 is included as a tier 3 event.
So you can get a ranking by shooting 1440 & double 720s - but only half point!

 

[Timid Toad]

I think I'll go shoot field.

 

[bimble]

The trouble with changing the double 720 to a 720 & H2H is half the archers and half the income

I suspect there are very few single round archers at a double 720 and shooting the double round rarely costs more than shooting a 1440 or 720/H2H

 

[Senlac]

All too complicated.... I'll stop doing the National Rankings

 

[Rog600]

The great thing about the national rankings system as last year, to me as a newcomer, was that I could shoot five rounds, anywhere I could, as an amateur and effectively chuck my hat in the ring with similar amateurs at the other end of the country (prob have a little moan about meteorological variation along the way) and then see how I've faired against the elite. It was a level playing field in that regard. As far as I can see, the new method benefits those archers who are financially secure enough to travel and stay over at the top tier events or those affording to live in the south, thus introducing a social bias and also an age bias, and/or those archers already funded, semi-funded, on performance programs, etc.

Seems to be a harmful agenda which alienates the competitive amateur archer, particularly those not living in a specific geographical area. If the purpose is to improve the country's competitiveness how will this happen if the pool of participant archers reduces due to the non-inclusive nature of the new ranking system?

 

[Timid Toad]

You are absolutely right.

In the past outsiders have showed up and kicked the @rses of squad and performance archers, to the point of being able to force their inclusion in some world events. It has been perceived that this caused a few problems for management, along the lines of "why have we been giving you all this money for a few elite archers but someone from outwith the structure ranks number one?" These unfunded archers work their backsides off too, with all expense coming out of their and their coach's pockets, but will now go unrecognised, not for want of talent or hard work, but because the deck is stacked most effectively against them.

Now it is safely arranged so that *only* squad and performance pathway archers stand any kind of a chance. In fact any kind of a chance to actually get a place at most of the high scoring events. You are effectively handicapped before you get your bow out the case.

Super job AGB.

 

[Rog600]

Was there any consultation?

Surely casting the net widest over a population will turn up the best of anything rather than taking a small sample and trying to make the best of a bad bunch.

So whilst the intention to improve our international standing in archery is correct, the flaws in the methodology will surely be spotted by even primary school archers...

 

[bimble]

Presumably, if you took two Tier Two 720/H2H events, one poorly attended where someone of my level could win, and one much better attended, where an archer of my level might make the top sixteen. I would "earn" more ranking points than better archers than myself by going to the poorly attended shoot and finishing well there...

 

[T101]

Yup your right Bimble, just one of the many flaws. probably end up with many Archers tied for 64th after maxing out t2 and t3, t1 being not doable for whatever reason, some managing it with 2 or 3 high finishes, some with 6 mid/low finishes, but ranked the same. The only possible plus, "Live" monthly scores, but with this system really they mean virtually nothing.

Also as someone mentioned, was this big change an agenda item at last AGM? I heard nothing about a change, and certainly would have been opposed.
We want real scores that reflect an archers true ability not something that caters more for the elite and certain types of competition, supposed to be all inclusive sport

 

[Eluned]

The great thing about the national rankings system as last year, to me as a newcomer, was that I could shoot five rounds, anywhere I could, as an amateur and effectively chuck my hat in the ring with similar amateurs at the other end of the country (prob have a little moan about meteorological variation along the way) and then see how I've faired against the elite. It was a level playing field in that regard. As far as I can see, the new method benefits those archers who are financially secure enough to travel and stay over at the top tier events or those affording to live in the south, thus introducing a social bias and also an age bias, and/or those archers already funded, semi-funded, on performance programs, etc.

Seems to be a harmful agenda which alienates the competitive amateur archer, particularly those not living in a specific geographical area. If the purpose is to improve the country's competitiveness how will this happen if the pool of participant archers reduces due to the non-inclusive nature of the new ranking system?

Hmmm; Rog600 your post echoes similar observations within this forum concerning AGB ranking systems that go back many years. If your description of the latest AGB device is accurate then it is merely more of the same. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Same old same old. The ideas will not change unless the collective AGB mind-set and culture changes. It would seem that the lessons upon the importance of inclusion that should have been learned from the loss of Sport UK funding continues to elude AGB as they once again recreate what is effectively a two tier system. Let's face it, the sport of target archery in the UK is predisposed against a universal and inclusive competition structure open to all. Perhaps it even fears such a thing. It is the only explanation left that accounts for the continued failure to put together a structure that is accessible to all members around the UK that is without any bias favouring the South and Midlands and allowing the only advantage to any archer, "elite" or otherwise, to be that of their own ability with bow in hand. But then, they could not even publicise the scheme without errors. Once again AGB has missed the target. Chuckle.

 

[bimble]

blah blah ramble ramble

ahhh, the complaints of a non-archer about something that will only affect actual archers... part of me had hoped you'd ###### off you've been away for so long...