• Home
• Blog
• Lessons
• Ask The Coach
• About Us
• Contact Us
• DVDs
• Store

Read some similar posts

• Massive Defeat
• It’s not over till the fat lady sings
• William Henzell and Miao Miao Shine in Beijing

132 comments so far

1. bob tucket

   commented on April 8th, 2008 at 10:07 am

   Why Simon Gerada is playing for Malta!

   by Bob Tuckett

   A blog by Jeff Plumb on 3 December 2007 on the website Ping Skills has given an account as to why Simon Gerada is no longer playing for Australia. As I was the Head Coach of the National Team when Simon’s dispute with Table Tennis Australia (TTA) occurred, I believe I am in a position to give a more complete account of the matter .

   Simon returned to Australia from Poland sometime in January 2001. I accidentally met Simon at the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre on 20 January and he asked me about training. I advised him if I was appointed Coach of the National Team, the training requirement would be 5×2 hour sessions per week. Simon replied to me that he was clearly the number one player in Australia, that the other players were not up to his level and that he would only practise twice a week because if he practised with them more than that, his game would suffer.

   In late January 2001 I accepted the appointment as Head Coach for the National Team for the Commonwealth Championships and World Championships to be held in April - May 2001. I set a training requirement of 5×2 hour training sessions per week for players selected in the National Squad. This training requirement was approved by the TTA Board of Management. The training requirement represented an attempt by the TTA Board and myself to adopt a more disciplined approach to the training of our National players with the aim of having the players optimally prepared for the occasions on which they were to represent Australia. I considered the 10 hour training requirement to be a minimum and I expected the players to be training in the vicinity of 15-20 hours per week. The Melbourne based players were required to train under my supervision.

   On or about 6 February Simon agreed to join the National Training Squad under the terms detailed in a letter sent to him by TTA on 12 January, which included the following term: “TTA requires you to undergo such coaching and training at such times and venues as is required by the National Coaches appointed by the Board”. Simon signed the acceptance form attached to this letter and returned it to TTA.

   On various occasions between 20 January 2001 and 11 February 2001, Simon gave me the following reasons for not being able to train 5×2 hour sessions per week:
   the players were not up to his level;
   he had a back injury;
   he had study commitments;
   he was starting a technology business;
   he had coaching commitments.

   Simon requested a meeting with Wenda Donaldson, (the VIS Co-ordinator, Athlete Career and Education Program), and myself, which was subsequently held on 15 February . At this meeting Simon stated he could not train 5×2 hour sessions per week as he was mentally tired. This was the first time Simon had mentioned to me that he was mentally tired. I was dumbfounded by this as Simon had previously given 5 different reasons for being unable to fulfil the training requirement and none of these reasons involved mental tiredness.

   At the meeting on 15 February, it was agreed that Simon would attend 3×2 hour “on table” training sessions a week and attend 2×2 hour mental training sessions a week with a VIS sport psychologist.

   Simon attended the first on table training session (after the February 15 meeting) on 17 February. He did not attend the next training session on 18 February and I was advised by his father Joe that Simon would not be attending any more training sessions and that Simon only wanted to train for 2-3 weeks immediately prior to the Commonwealth and World Championships due to mental tiredness. I advised Joe that Simon could not remain in the National Squad on that basis and that if Simon was not in the National Squad he could not be considered for selection in the National Team for the Commonwealth and World Championships. Joe’s response was that the Selectors would not do that. On 19 February I spoke to Wenda Donaldson (VIS), who advised that Simon had informed her that he had withdrawn from the National Squad.

   The National Selectors announced the National Team for the 2001 Commonwealth and World Championships during the week commencing 19 February . Simon was not considered for selection in the Team as he had withdrawn from the National Training Squad and, therefore, was ineligible for selection.

   Simon attended the TTA Annual General Meeting on 25 February in an attempt to gain inclusion in the National Team. Simon stated that he was mentally tired and was having a month’s break and would train for the two weeks prior to the Commonwealth and World Championships. Simon also stated that he intended to play in three tournaments during his month’s break. The TTA Board agreed to hold a Board meeting immediately after the conclusion of the AGM to give Simon the opportunity to put his case for inclusion in the National Team. A Board meeting was convened and Simon presented his case to the Board.

   In a letter dated 12 March 2001, TTA President Brian Lauri advised Simon that the Board had unanimously resolved that no changes should be made to the National Team which had previously been selected.

   Yes, Simon could still be playing for Australia. It is detrimental to Australia and probably sad for Simon that he is not. However, this situation was not brought about by the intransigence of TTA or the National Coach. Simon breached a signed agreement with TTA and a verbal agreement with the National Coach and Wenda Donaldson (VIS). If, upon his return to Australia, Simon had immediately informed the National Coach or TTA of his mental tiredness, this situation would have been averted and Simon would have represented Australia at the 2001 Commonwealth and World Championships. Despite this, Simon could have played for Australia at any time after the 2001 Commonwealth and World Championships if he had not chosen to play for Malta. Jian Fang Lay also withdrew from the National Squad in 2001 and, consequently, was ineligible for selection in the Australian team. Jian has subsequently represented Australia by adhering to the relevant eligibility criteria as stipulated by TTA. Simon, in contrast, has chosen to represent Malta - he has not been forced out by TTA.

   Why is Simon Gerada playing for Malta? The reason is quite simple: it was a matter of choice - Simon’s choice.

2. bob tucket

   commented on April 8th, 2008 at 10:30 am

   Issues raised by Jeff

   Jeff stated that “…Simon came back from a hard slog in Europe and was burnt out and needed a rest”. As an experienced international player who has represented Australia on 120 occasions at 7 World Championships, 7 Commonwealth Championships and 5 Asian Championships, I understand the importance of players planning their season and taking appropriate breaks to ensure they remain fresh, motivated and avoid burnout. As Head Coach of the 2000 Olympic team I counselled Simon on this very issue at a training camp in Ballarat immediately prior to the Olympic Games - advice which Simon dismissed as unnecessary. At this same training camp Simon was also advised by the experienced New Zealand international Peter Jackson of the importance of planning his year to include rest breaks. As an experienced international player I find it incomprehensible that a player who is mentally tired would choose to play in tournaments while in that condition. Simon played in tournaments on 27/28 January, 3/4 February, 11 March, 25 March and 31 March/1 April. He did not need to play in any of these tournaments to satisfy TTA’s eligibility requirements for National selection.

   Jeff also stated that “Other sports recognise that players can get burnt out. In fact the Australian cricket team started the rotation policy under Steve Waugh to assist players in their recovery”. The Australian cricket team’s rotation policy rests players from competition, while they continue to train, ensuring they maintain freshness and motivation while also maintaining their skill level and fitness through training. Simon by contrast wished to rest from training and continue to participate in competition - a reversal of the cricket team’s approach.

   Jeff further stated in his blog that “… he was dropped from the National Team”. This is not true. Simon was not considered for selection in the team, as he had withdrawn from the National Training Squad and, therefore, was ineligible for selection.

   Jeff also stated: “It is not a light decision to switch countries as you must take 3 years out of international competition”. While this is a true statement of the ITTF’s requirements, it did not happen in Simon’s case. Simon did not take 3 years out of international competition. He represented Australia at the 2000 Olympic Games and then represented Malta at the 2001 Games of the Small States of Europe, at the 2002 European Championships, at the 2003 Games of the Small States of Europe, at the 2004 World Team Championships, at the 2005 World Individual Championships, at the 2005 Games of the Small States of Europe, at the 2006 Commonwealth Games and at the 2007 Games of the Small States of Europe.

   Jeff further stated that “…to switch back to Australia he would require another 3 years out, and so this is certainly not going to happen now”. That was the case when the blog was posted on 3 December 2007. However a subsequent decision by the ITTF at the 2008 World Team Championships in China means that Simon can only play for Malta in World Title events. World Title events include the World Individual Championships, the World Team Championships, the World Team Cup and the World Cup. This new rule does not apply to Olympic or Commonwealth Games.

   Jeff also stated in his blog : “With some careful management, both TTA and Simon Gerada could have come to an effective agreement”. That is exactly what TTA, the National Coach and Simon in liaison with Wenda Donaldson (VIS) did. It was Simon who subsequently breached this agreement.

   Jeff also stated: “The problem was that officials simply did not understand the pressures and burnout that Simon Gerada was facing. In fact a Victorian Institute of Sport official and sports psychologist had met with Simon and given him their support but TTA would not alter their stance”. When apprised of the situation of Simon’s “mental tiredness” at the meeting on 15 February, the National Coach and TTA were prepared to be flexible and modified their training requirements to accommodate Simon. It was Simon who subsequently showed he was not prepared to be flexible.

   It is worth noting that Simon had returned to Australia by 20 January 2001 (I do not know the exact date of his return to Australia) and attended the first National Squad training session on 12 February. This provided a minimum break of some 23 days if it had been utilised. In fact, Simon played two tournaments during this period.

3. Jeff Plumb

   commented on April 8th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

   Thanks for the interesting perspective Bob! Unfortunately I have to disagree with a lot of what you have said.

   Firstly you state that Simon did not need to play the tournaments he played to qualify for the Australian side. How did Simon go in these tournaments? Or do results not matter to Australian selectors?

   What were the training conditions that you were providing Simon like? What standard of players would he be practicing with at these sessions?

   You state that it was not true that Simon was dropped - this is just a play on words. TTA made the criteria that made Simon ineligible and therefore is still responsible for him not being in the team. I’m sure TTA had the powers to change this criteria if it thought it beneficial to Australian Table Tennis.

   You state that TTA, yourself and Simon came to an effective agreement. Well judging by the results, you and I have a different opinion on an effective agreement. Based on the results it certainly was not an ideal outcome.

   I do agree that it was a difficult situation and that Simon played his part in this saga. And you are right the end decision to play for Malta was one Simon made. However you miss the main point of the article.

   TTA invested time and money in Simon Gerada and had one of the most promising 18 year olds we have ever had and let him choose to play for Malta because Malta had a better offer. That’s right, Malta had a better offer. They were not concerned by all the points you raise. It is TTA that lost out on this deal not Simon Gerada. TTA is the loser. At the recent World Championships the Australian men finished 43rd. Although no one can predict exactly what would have happened, I would bet a lot of money that with Simon Gerada in the team, Australia would have finished considerably higher. A strong result at the Worlds is important for TTA.

   So please understand that all these poor decisions hurt TTA and not Simon Gerada. It is interesting to note that it is now Simon who is trying to help out TTA. He takes the coaching a couple of nights a week in Melbourne where the majority of our National Team train. An interesting turn of events.

4. bob tuckett

   commented on April 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

   Jeff, my “interesting perspective” as you put it is actually the truth. Are there any untruths or inaccuracies in any statements of fact I made? If yes, please point them out. If no, please acknowledge that there are no untruths or inaccuracies in any statements of fact I made. Truth and accuracy are important to me. I do not understand how you disagree with a lot of what I have said. The overwhelming majority of what I said are statements of fact - of which I have proof.

   You stated “TTA invested time and money in Simon Gerada and had one of the most promising 18 year olds we have ever had and let him choose to play for Malta because Malta had a better offer”. That is inaccurate. Simon was born on the 20/03/1981 and was almost 20 years old in the period January/February 2001. As to whether TTA let him choose to play for Malta because Malta had a better offer, I suggest you take that up with TTA. I do not speak on behalf of TTA.

   Simon was aware of the composition of the National Training Squad and the training conditions when he made the verbal agreement on 15 February 2001 - 3 days before he reneged on that agreement.

   You misquoted me when you said “Firstly you state that Simon did not need to play the tournaments he played to qualify for the Australian side”. I actually said: “He did not need to play in any of these tournaments to satisfy TTA’s eligibility requirements for National selection”. There is a difference! To be eligible for selection a player must satisfy the eligibility requirements. When a player is eligible for selection then relevant performances are considered for selection purposes. As Simon did not satisfy the eligibility requirements, he was ineligible for selection and was not considered for selection. His performances in these tournaments therefore had no bearing on the selection process.

   An agreement - effective or otherwise - ceases to be an agreement when a party to the agreement reneges on the terms of the agreement. If Simon had kept his word, it would have been an effective agreement. Simon reneged on two agreements. You judge the reasonableness of an agreement by examining its terms, not by seeing whether the parties have complied with those terms.

   I did not miss the main point of your article. Your main point is that Australia would have had a better team at the 2008 World Championships if Simon had been available. I said in my response that “Yes, Simon could still be playing for Australia. It is detrimental to Australia and probably sad for Simon that he is not”. I agree that with Simon in the team, Australia may have finished a few positions higher, but I think a bit of short term pain to achieve some long term gain by requiring a professional approach to training is beneficial for Australian table tennis.

   Jeff, Australia will always have its “best players”, but if they choose not to train their standard will be lower and their international achievements will also be lower. If the players have a professional/disciplined approach and prepare to their optimum then the Australian standard will improve and international results will be better. This is what TTA and myself as the National Coach were trying to achieve in 2001. From my understanding the younger brigade of players have this approach and Australia will be better for it.

   The reason I responded to your blog was that you gave an inaccurate account as to why Simon was not in the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships team. Truth and accuracy are important - at least to me.

5. Jeff Plumb

   commented on April 10th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

   Unfortunately what you and TTA were trying to achieve failed. You were trying to achieve a professional and disciplined approach to training but now I cannot name 10 players in the whole of Australia that train more than 10 hours per week. Can you? The environment is completely different from when I first moved to Melbourne in 1993. There is absolutely no comparison. TTA should be concentrating on providing the best training facilities and getting the best players training on a regular basis with a professional and disciplined approach. By doing this I’m sure they will get players training. By stamping their authority and forcing players to meet eligibility criteria they actually discourage it. People generally don’t like o be forced to do something. Make it available and there will be plenty of players who want to do it. Then you will have great professional players and they will be better than the likes of Simon if he is not as professional. Things will take care of themselves.

   You state Australia will always have it’s best players but that is inaccurate. If that is true we would have had Simon in the team and recently at the 2008 Worlds we would have had Stephanie Sang in the team. I disagree with your approach to selecting the National Team. I agree with your approach that players should be professional and disciplined. And I agree that in the long run the players that are professional and disciplined will generally be the ones who get the best results and therefore will be picked in the teams. Everyone wins. However by picking a player who cannot beat opponents who may not be training achieves nothing. It does not help the sport. It actually hurts the player picked. If you have to earn a spot on a team you respect that so much more. Who was the player that replaced Simon at the worlds? How have they progressed?

   I stated Simon was one the most promising 18 year olds Australia has had. I did not state he was 18 at the time. But just keep on thinking that you are accurate.

   I still don’t see how I misquoted you about the tournaments. From my understanding Simon did not need to play those tournaments for selection purposes. I asked how Simon went in those tournaments because I was interested in whether you thought results were important for selection. Do you believe results are important for selection? Or should we just keep a chart and pick the person who trains the most hours? The sport is about results. Let TTA set up the best environment possible so that people can get results. Then simply pick the players with the best results.

   The Ocenaia Olympic qualification tournament that was just played was a perfect way to select a team. Whoever wins goes. There can be no interference from selectors and no excuses from the players. Just as it should be.

   So although you don’t think so, I believe you still miss my point. I think the best team based on results should be picked for the World Championships. I am happy for younger talented players to be picked for some smaller tournaments but for the main ones, pick our best team and achieve the best results possible. I believe that getting good results at the important tournaments is very helpful for the sport. I believe that Simon Gerada should have been picked for the 2001 Worlds. I don’t believe you helped Table Tennis in Australia by not picking him. In fact I think Table Tennis in Australia would be better today if he had played. That is even after reading all the “accurate facts” you have provided. They still don’t change my mind.

   However I do agree with a lot of what you say. We should attempt to have the most professional and disciplined training available to our best players.

6. Bob Tuckett

   commented on April 11th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

   Jeff, I do not wish to enter a debate about team selection policy - it is obvious we have different views on this matter. I am happy to let history and other people judge whether TTA made the correct decision in 2001, but to do that they need to know the full story - they now have a much more complete picture of what happened than from your original blog.

   I will make just a few points about your latest comments. Simon may have been “…one of the most promising 18 year olds we have ever had …” but he was 20 when he went and played for Malta. Your statement was misleading as the inference could be drawn by those who did not know Simon’s age that Simon was 18 when he decided to play for Malta. In relation to results counting for selection you seem to misinterpret what I said. I said and I quote “When a player is eligible for selection then relevant performances are considered for selection purposes”. So, of course results do count - and are important - for team selection but only when a player is eligible for selection. Simon was not eligible for selection, therefore his results were not considered.

   I have not been involved in table tennis for over two years other than for playing one hour per week at a suburban club, so I have no idea how many hours players are training. If there are not 10 players training more than 10 hours per week then table tennis in Australia is in very poor shape. When I said “Australia will always have its “best players”, what I meant was: no matter what the standard is in Australia there will always be players who are ranked #1, #2,#3, #4 etc in Australia. The aim is to get that standard as high as possible and without a disciplined and professional approach this will not be achieved.

   If your point was that “the best team based on results should be picked for the World Championships” then I think - and this is my opinion - that point could have been better highlighted by discussing the contemporary issue of why Stephanie Sang was not included in the team for the 2008 World Team Championships, rather than inaccurately discussing a situation from 2001. If you had posted a blog about Stephanie Sang I would not have commented because I do not know the circumstances of that situation.

   I only responded to your blog because you were inaccurate in what you said. Yes Jeff, my facts are accurate and as you have not disputed any of them I can only assume that you also know that my statements of fact are accurate. I have no interest in debating the philosophy of team selection with you, but I can assure you that when any inaccurate statements are made about why Simon Gerada was not in the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships team I will correct them. It is important that people can judge for themselves the merits of the situation, but to do this they need to know the facts - I have provided readers with the facts. They can make up their own minds.

   Jeff, I have appreciated the opportunity to present the facts as to why Simon Gerada was not a member of the Australian team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships.

7. Jeff Plumb

   commented on April 12th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

   Thanks for putting up your facts on the matter. I believe they actually support my point of view. Now people can clearly see how Simon should have been picked for the team and that since that time the state of Table Tennis in Australia has not improved.

   Some of the reasons you gave for my initial post being inaccruate are not true. I said “Simon came back from a hard slog in Europe and was burnt out and needed a rest”. That statement is true regardless of whether you had previously tried to advise Simon on the matter. And even if you find it hard to believe that someone who is burnt out would play a tournament that just shows you don’t understand that different people have different needs.

   I stated “Other sports recognise that players can get burnt out. In fact the Australian cricket team started the rotation policy under Steve Waugh to assist players in their recovery.” That statement is true and players do not always continue to train. They often go home to their families.

   I also stated “With some careful management, both TTA and Simon Gerada could have come to an effective agreement”. That statement is true also. I know you disagree with me on that one but we’ll just have to let other people make up their mind.

   I also stated “he was dropped from the National Team”. This is a true statement. Simon was previously in the National Team and was not selected for this team. In the general public this means he was dropped. Thanks for taking the time to point out the reason he was dropped was because you and TTA set criteria which he did not meet. Under you thinking this means no one would ever be “dropped”. They would simply not meet the selection criteria.

   But thanks for putting up your “facts”. I agree they will help everyone judge the “merits of the situation” themselves.

8. Jeff Plumb

   commented on April 12th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

   Hi Bob,

   Who was the professional disciplined player that was selected because of Simon’s ineligibility? Who was the professional player that dedicated their lives to Table Tennis? Let me know because I sincerely doubt that they would have trained half the hours that Simon had to that point in their lives. Did they keep going afterwards and really take a disciplined approach to training?

   The eligibility requirements were harmful to Table Tennis in Australia.

   Who was the player Bob?

9. Charles

   commented on April 13th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

   Jeff,

   there are rules that apply to every sport. Rules that should not be disregarded to advantage any single player because they are presumed ’special’.

   The issue here is not that table tennis Australia did not accommodate Simon Gerada’s needs. In fact, Table Tennis Australia clearly made an effective agreement with Simon twice.

   The issue is that he refused to act in accordance to their effective agreement. If one party fails to act on the terms detailed in by contact. He is in breach of the contract. He should face the consequences of breach. Not get immunity because of his special status.

   Tian Liang is a famous Olympic gold medalist in diving for China. He achieved superstar status and posed as a figurehead for many advertisements. He was under agreement under the general administration of sport to dedicate sufficient time to preparation for the Athens Games. He breached this by taking part in too many civil outings. As a consequence he was demoted from the national team with no option of returning.

   Not long afterwards a famous sports official Li Hua was quoted saying “We hope the administration of the team can be strengthened through this case, especially the administration of excellent and top athletes.”

   Simon Gerada is no doubt a good player, however as with any good player, they must be disciplined at the very least to abide by the rules set by the governing sports committee. In fact many athletes do not have the privilege to negotiate about special rules that may apply to them.

   Overall Jeff, your argument rests on the fact there is no player at the moment that may replace Simon in skill. This is a problem that exists because of human resource capital, not a problem with administration. There is no link stating that these rules deter good players from entering the national team. Your comments about listing another person are therefore irrelevent to this argument.

   Simon, breached the rules set out in a very effective agreement which he completely agreed to and signed. He chose by his own will to not abide by the terms, he therefore chose on his own, not to be selected. This is identical to the fact that you cannot qualify for the pro tour grand finals unless you have competed in at least a certain number of events, regardless of whether you are the world champion.

   In the worst case, I think of the demotion of Simon Gerada as having a positive message and giving good precedent in future cases.

10. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 13th, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Thanks for the input Charles. Unfortunately Bob has given an incomplete account of what happened. He would like to give an accurate and complete account so that people can make up their own mind. Without stating the player that replaced Simon the account is incomplete. And apparently an incomplete account is something Bob does not want. So let us all have the facts.

    Who was the disciplined professional player that replaced Simon? How many hours per week did they train. What was the great disciplined approach they took to the sport that made them so worthy of your praise. How were they going to improve the sport and teach us all a lesson?

    Unfortunately they never were going to. And by not picking Simon it just confirmed that you did not need to put in much hard work to make the Australian team. This decision was definitely detrimental to Australian Table Tennis. Just look at how we have progressed since. The results speak for themselves.

    But regardless, Bob, would you please provide the missing details to your accurate facts. At the moment you have given an incomplete account and apparently that is something you do not like. After all the truth is important to you at least. I am looking forward to you providing the missing details so people can make up their own mind.

11. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 14th, 2008 at 8:59 am

    Hi Charles,

    I do not want special rules for talented players. I want sensible rules for all players.

    You state: “This is identical to the fact that you cannot qualify for the pro tour grand finals unless you have competed in at least a certain number of events, regardless of whether you are the world champion.”

    That is a sensible rule. Why do you think the criteria wasn’t “You must train at least 10 hours to qualify?”.

    The problem was with the eligibility requirements. They allowed a person to be selected who showed a lot less dedication to Table Tennis than Simon Gerada. Where is the person who got selected ahead of Simon now? Simon is still helping Table Tennis in Australia today!

    And Charles, you seem to have a lot of knowledge about the situation, why don’t you provide your full name or real name and how you are involved with Table Tennis?

    In the meantime I am still waiting for Bob to clarify the situation and provide the missing details along with his accurate facts.

12. Bob Tuckett

    commented on April 14th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    My intention was to present THE facts as to why Simon Gerada was not in the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships team. They are not my facts Jeff - they are THE facts. Who was selected in the team has no bearing on why Simon was not in the team, as Simon was INELIGIBLE for selection. You don’t seem to understand that fact Jeff. I will repeat it for your benefit. Simon was ineligible for selection. For the benefit of the readers Jeff - I am sure you know who the team was - the team selected was William Henzell, Trevor Brown, Kiet Tran and John Tawadrous. Kiet Tran subsequently withdrew and was replaced by Alex Swanson. I will repeat myself again and state the obvious; Simon was ineligible and was not considered as a replacement for Kiet Tran. The players involved are irrelevant as to why Simon was not in the team - if you cannot understand that then I cannot help you, and continuing this dialogue is pointless.

    The statements of fact in my comments posted at 10.07 AM on 8/4/2008 are true and accurate. Jeff, you still have not pointed out anything that is untrue or inaccurate in those facts.

    Your blog posted on 3 December 2007 is inaccurate. It was inaccurate when you stated “…..he was dropped from the National team”. For a player to be dropped from a team, a player must first be considered for selection for the team. A player who is injured, suspended or retired is not considered for selection, is not selected but is not dropped. Simon was ineligible for selection, he was not considered for selection, was not selected but was not dropped. I cannot put it more clearly than that. There is an important distinction between being ineligible for selection and being dropped - a player’s performances are only relevant to the issue of being dropped.

    You were also inaccurate when you said “”It is not a light decision to switch countries as you must take 3 years out of international competition”. While this is a true statement of the ITTF’s requirements, it did not happen in Simon’s case. Simon did not take 3 years out of international competition. He represented Australia at the 2000 Olympic Games and then represented Malta at the 2001 Games of the Small States of Europe, at the 2002 European Championships, at the 2003 Games of the Small States of Europe, at the 2004 World Team Championships, at the 2005 World Individual Championships, at the 2005 Games of the Small States of Europe, at the 2006 Commonwealth Games and at the 2007 Games of the Small States of Europe.

    Your blog of 3 December 2007 is also inaccurate by its omissions. You did not mention that:

    Simon reneged on 2 agreements. You also did not mention that Simon told TTA and the National Coach of 5 reasons why he could not train more than twice a week before he informed TTA and the National Coach that he was mentally tired.

    It may be true that “Simon came back from a hard slog in Europe and was burnt out and needed a rest”. I did not say it wasn’t true. I merely pointed out that I had counselled Simon on this very issue at a training camp in Ballarat and that Simon had dismissed the advice as unnecessary. I also gave my opinion based on considerable international experience that “I find it incomprehensible that a player who is mentally tired would choose to play in tournaments while in that condition”. It should be noted that Simon played in tournaments on 27/28 January, 3/4 February, 11 March, 25 March and 31 March/1 April.

    If it is true that Simon “was burnt out and needed a rest” when he returned to Australia, then readers of this blog should be asking the following questions:

    Why didn’t Simon advise me that he was mentally tired when we spoke on 20 January 2001?
    Why did it take Simon at least 26 days to advise TTA and/or the National Coach that he was mentally tired?
    Why did Simon give TTA and the National coach 5 other reasons for not being able to train more than twice a week before he informed TTA and the National coach he was mentally tired?

    Simon reneged on 2 agreements, one after the training component had been changed to accommodate his mental tiredness. An effective agreement cannot be fulfilled when one party reneges on the terms of the agreement.

    This is becoming repetitive, and in my opinion it is pointless continuing this dialogue. So Jeff, unless you or someone else can point out something that is untrue or inaccurate in my statements of fact in the comments posted at 10.07 AM on 8/4/2008, I will not be responding to any more of your or anyone else’s comments posted on this blog. I have appreciated the opportunity to present THE facts as to why Simon Gerada was not in the team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships. Let the readers of this blog judge for themselves. The statements of fact in my comments posted at 10.07 am on 8/4/2008 are:

    Simon returned to Australia from Poland sometime in January 2001. I accidentally met Simon at the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre on 20 January and he asked me about training. I advised him if I was appointed Coach of the National Team, the training requirement would be 5×2 hour sessions per week. Simon replied to me that he was clearly the number one player in Australia, that the other players were not up to his level and that he would only practise twice a week because if he practised with them more than that, his game would suffer.

    In late January 2001 I accepted the appointment as Head Coach for the National Team for the Commonwealth Championships and World Championships to be held in April - May 2001. I set a training requirement of 5×2 hour training sessions per week for players selected in the National Squad. This training requirement was approved by the TTA Board of Management. The Melbourne based players were required to train under my supervision.

    On or about 6 February Simon agreed to join the National Training Squad under the terms detailed in a letter sent to him by TTA on 12 January, which included the following term: “TTA requires you to undergo such coaching and training at such times and venues as is required by the National Coaches appointed by the Board”. Simon signed the acceptance form attached to this letter and returned it to TTA.

    On various occasions between 20 January 2001 and 11 February 2001, Simon gave me the following reasons for not being able to train 5×2 hour sessions per week:
    the players were not up to his level;
    he had a back injury;
    he had study commitments;
    he was starting a technology business;
    he had coaching commitments.

    Simon requested a meeting with Wenda Donaldson, (the VIS Co-ordinator, Athlete Career and Education Program), and myself, which was subsequently held on 15 February . At this meeting Simon stated he could not train 5×2 hour sessions per week as he was mentally tired. This was the first time Simon had mentioned to me that he was mentally tired. I was dumbfounded by this as Simon had previously given 5 different reasons for being unable to fulfil the training requirement and none of these reasons involved mental tiredness.

    At the meeting on 15 February, it was agreed that Simon would attend 3×2 hour “on table” training sessions a week and attend 2×2 hour mental training sessions a week with a VIS sport psychologist.

    Simon attended the first on table training session (after the February 15 meeting) on 17 February. He did not attend the next training session on 18 February and I was advised by his father Joe that Simon would not be attending any more training sessions and that Simon only wanted to train for 2-3 weeks immediately prior to the Commonwealth and World Championships due to mental tiredness. I advised Joe that Simon could not remain in the National Squad on that basis and that if Simon was not in the National Squad he could not be considered for selection in the National Team for the Commonwealth and World Championships. Joe’s response was that the Selectors would not do that. On 19 February I spoke to Wenda Donaldson (VIS), who advised that Simon had informed her that he had withdrawn from the National Squad.

    The National Selectors announced the National Team for the 2001 Commonwealth and World Championships during the week commencing 19 February . Simon was not considered for selection in the Team as he had withdrawn from the National Training Squad and, therefore, was ineligible for selection.

    Simon attended the TTA Annual General Meeting on 25 February in an attempt to gain inclusion in the National Team. Simon stated that he was mentally tired and was having a month’s break and would train for the two weeks prior to the Commonwealth and World Championships. Simon also stated that he intended to play in three tournaments during his month’s break. The TTA Board agreed to hold a Board meeting immediately after the conclusion of the AGM to give Simon the opportunity to put his case for inclusion in the National Team. A Board meeting was convened and Simon presented his case to the Board.
    In a letter dated 12 March 2001, TTA President Brian Lauri advised Simon that the Board had unanimously resolved that no changes should be made to the National Team which had previously been selected

13. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 14th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

    Hi Bob,

    I understand what you are saying, it is just that I disagree and that is why you can’t help me. It was harmful to Table Tennis in Australia that Simon Gerada was not picked for the 2001 Worlds team. It is that simple. The decision was the wrong one. The criteria for making Simon ineligible was the problem. TTA could have and should have had different criteria. Like “Charles” pointed out, the ITTF has some requirements to be eligible for making the grand finals but they do not include training a minimum number of hours per week.

    The reason that naming the players who were selected is important is because it shows how bad the eligibility criteria was. It shows how it was obviously not in the best interests of Table Tennis in Australia.

    If a player has shown dedication and commitment for a number of years and then is not training for a few months, aren’t they still more professional than someone who might train 10 hours per week over a small period of time just to meet some eligibility requirements?

    Your facts, whilst a highly interesting read, don’t make any difference to the fact that the eligibility criteria was wrong. I am not trying to find an inaccuracy in your facts - they simply don’t matter.

    I admit that it is not good that Simon didn’t meet the requirements of the agreement he signed. Now I have not talked with Simon about this and so the following is just my opinion and my opinion only. Why do you think Simon signed the initial agreement? Because he wanted to play for Australia and if he didn’t sign it he wouldn’t be playing. So in a way his hand was forced. He could either not represent Australia or he could sign the agreement and see if he could get through the period of the agreement and go to the Worlds. He obviously didn’t feel he could talk to you and TTA open and honestly about this without being dropped (”sorry made ineligible” - apparently it is an important distinction). Isn’t this a more woryying sign? Shouldn’t a coach and TTA be approachable? Have you ever thought that your attitude may have had something to do with it? I don’t know but perhaps you could give it some thought. Everyone can learn something out of a situation. It is hardly ever that only one party is to blame.

    You stated “I think a bit of short term pain to achieve some long term gain by requiring a professional approach to training is beneficial for Australian table tennis.” Did you really believe back then and do you still believe that the team you picked helped to promote a professional attitude? Simon would have trained more professionally over a number of years than some of the other team members.

    Simon did himself no favours but it was TTA that was the loser in this situation - no one else. Simon got to play for Malta, earned some money and TTA did not end up developing a more professional approach. TTA should have tried harder to understand the problems Simon was facing. I know you will say they did everything they could, but I disagree. It was TTA who stood to lose the most here and that is what you don’t understand and that is why I can’t help you. The results clearly show that the decision to not include Simon in the team was the wrong one.

    Now I know you said you weren’t going to respond anymore but come on Bob, don’t let me down, the conversation is only just getting started.

14. Charles

    commented on April 14th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

    Jeff,

    many sports have strict training criteria that are compulsary on their players. I have mentioned the example of diving above.

    Simon Gerada could not meet the qualification criteria that was necessary.

    Therefore whose fault is it? TTA that gave Simon the chance to be heard and accomodate his needs by giving him a modified contract?

    Or Simon who could not dedicate six hours a week to train with the Australian team?

15. Richard Lee

    commented on April 15th, 2008 at 2:31 am

    An interesting debate.
    One area I would like to comment on is the mental tiredness
    and the approach taken by Simon Gerada regarding it.
    I find it inconceivable that a player would play in that number of tournaments (5 or 6?) -if he didn’t have to,which I take was the case-if he was mentally tired.
    The nature of table tennis which is neurophysiological demands that a player be alert,quick and precise to play anywhere near their highest standard .If someone is genuinely mentally tired,stale or whatever words are used to describe it they simply could not play to their highest standard.For a player in this state ,match play is the worst possible scenario for them to regain their enthisiasm,zeat,love of playing-call it what you may-as they will play below their expectations which would exacerbate their mental staleness and confidence and make the solution of the problem even more difficult.
    And if they can play to their highest standard the only inference would be that they are not mentally tired.
    A far more sensible solution would be for a player in such a state to have a short break,and gradually increase their training load until reaching the required levels where they can regain their peak form and hopefully build on it.
    For a player of Simon’s standard I think this is the approach he should have taken rather than playing a tournament a week or so after returning from overseas.
    I would imagine if this had been stated clearly from the word go-his first meeting with the board or selectors- this unseemly situation could have been resolved without too much fuss.But playing a raft of tournaments while mentally tired and stale is certainly completely contrary to good peaking/periodisation practice.

16. Mary LeGassick

    commented on April 15th, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Jeff, it appears to be your opinion that Simon felt he could not talk to Bob or TTA “open and honestly” about his mental tiredness. In my opinion Bob is open and honest as well as being reasonable and approachable. He demonstrated his reasonableness by reducing the training requirement for Simon to 6 hours per week when informed of Simon’s mental tiredness. If Simon had been up-front about his mental tiredness when he returned to Australia, I am sure a simple solution would have been found and this situation averted.

17. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 15th, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    Hi Mary,

    Thanks for joining the discussion. Look, I agree that Simon made the situation worse for himself. And I must admit that I found Bob very approachable when he was my coach at the Sydney 2000 Olympics. As Bob has represented Australia over 100 times, it is clear that his opinion should be heard and listened to. That is why I am glad he has responded to my article and put across his point. I mostly agree with Bob’s approach to Table Tennis and training. Of course it makes sense that we should promote a professional disciplined attitude. However I do disagree with the eligibility requirements that were set. The other problem was that we did not have highly disciplined professional players to replace Simon so it made even less sense to make him ineligible and pick him with someone who would later withdraw. Do you still honestly think that was the right decision. Did that promote the National Team as a disciplined professional unit? Or did it make it look like any Tom, Dick or Harry could just walk up and represent Australia?

18. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 15th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    Charles,

    I think if you take a look at the training conditions, Simon was not in fact training with the National Team as you state. Perhaps Bob can help me out here. Bob, was there one other member of the eventual team that was picked present at these training sessions?

    Firstly William Henzell was most likely overseas, Trevor Brown may have been overseas at the time or he may have been at the sessions, Kiet Tran and John Tawadrous were both from NSW. Alex Swanson was from South Australia. Bob I know you are a guru with facts so would you please enlighten us to who was training at these sessions and how often?

    It is my understanding that most of these people were far below the National Team standard of the players at the 2000 Olympics. It has been made out throughout this debate that the training conditions that Simon was to attend were ideal but the truth is they were far from ideal. This is not a criticism of Bob here, as you can only work with what you’ve got - but it is important to remember that if you are trying to make out like you are a professional disciplined unit, you should be able to back it up with an environment that is such.

19. Charles

    commented on April 16th, 2008 at 2:18 am

    Jeff,

    I would like to ask you a hypothetical question:

    If a better player replaced Simon and met eligibility criteria, would that have made a difference in your opinion of the rules in place?

20. Richard Lee

    commented on April 16th, 2008 at 6:24 am

    I think the last comment by Charles is at the heart of the matter.
    Deductive thinking versus inductive thinking.
    If you keep changing rules/criteria depoending on specific cases there is really no point in having the criteria in the first place.Whether one agrees or disagrees with the criteira in place at least they are concrete and players know what they have to do. Once decided upon criteria should only be altered with very clear evidence they are wrong or don’t work.One case does not support a view they are wrong.
    From an outsiders point of view it would seem Simon should have fufilled the ( adapted ) criteria and if he thought they were completely wrong given his reasons and logic for that to be discussed after the World Championships -in particular the factors regarding his specific circumstances.
    In my opinion throwing out the baby with the bathwater very seldom,if ever, works and it does appear every opportunity was given to Simon to meet those criteria including fine-tuning them for him regarding the minimum he had to train to fufill criteria necassary to be eligible for selection.

21. Simon

    commented on April 16th, 2008 at 9:18 am

    I was 19 years old, an inexperienced age as a professional athlete. Although my results were of the most experienced players in Australia. I was training as hard as I could for 10 years, left Australia at 14 to live in China for 5 months at 14 years old, on my own and did not return till I was 24. Mr Tuckett, as National Coach of Australia you had a responsibility to get the best out of your team and you failed. I left the country after your tenor as coach. Facts are facts, if it was me in your position, I would not be defending my position. By the sounds of it, you would do the exact same thing again giving the same situation. Now I know why the sport is still in the same position if not worse for the last 15 years.
    By the way, I am still playing and winning, as an experianced coach such as your self, just imagine if you had of worked with me rather than kick me out because I did not want to train with any Tom, Dick or Harry.
    Well done mate.. well done to a job well done haha

22. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 16th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Excellent discussion.
    After just reading everything since conversation started, i’ll have my say.
    1. Given the rules/criteria for the Aust. Team in 2001 and with what occurred (as Bob stated) then Simon could not have made the Team.
    2. As a result of the criteria, the Aust. TT Team was, and still is, worse off - especially as Simon is still competing in t’ments and proving he is of Aust. Team standard (clearly no. 2, so it’s not like it’s a boarder line case).
    Let’s move onto another aspect now;
    3. Yes, we need rules/criteria in place but the sport in this country is in such a sad state of affairs (re: player numbers) that the rules/criteria need to be quite relaxed because we cannot afford to lose any top players. As a result of so few good/top players competiting, i believe we (the sport) are in a situation where the players are more important than the sport - this should never happen but the decision makers (National, State and Club) have let this occur.
    Using the current Aust. Men’s Team as an example, if we lose the no. 1 player (William Henzell) then the Team is much much weaker. This is the case due to lack of players playing over many years and has created less depth. Our Men’s Team results will drop dramatically if Henzell is not in the Team therefore he is more important to the sport than the sport is to him. If the approach is to drop (short term pain for long term gain) Henzell due to (hyperthetically) not abiding by whatever criteria is in place then it may never recover as he (in my mind) has made the most sacrifices of any player in Aust. TT history - living overseas for 12 years from age of 14 to improve his skills/standard. Keep in mind, Henzell has only reached a best world ranking of 120-130. He has done a great job but what is it going to take to become Top 100 or dare i say, Top 20. Most likely it will never happen unless we buy a proven international player but we don’t have that type of money so everyone please don’t worry about trying to become the best in the world; let’s try and keep the best in Aust. playing for as long as possible, make criteria easy to abide by and increase the amount of players playing.
    I’m happy to discuss this topic with anyone interested.

    I say the sports no. 1 priority should be about getting more players (mainly younger) competiting and hopefully training and in a situation where they can eary money which is at least equivalent to a part-time job.

23. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 16th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    I could not agree more with you Mark. You have hit the nail on the head. Finally some common sense.

24. Greg Linwood

    commented on April 16th, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    Australian Table Tennis won’t improve until you guys (the generation of recently retired players) get more involved in decision making committees. We all know that the sport has been run for far too long by bureaucratic committee members who have lacked the vision & passion necessary to make progress but nothing will change until new faces breath fresh ideas into the sport.

    I also disagreed strongly with Bob’s handling of the national squad at the time (too rigid & inflexible to the various needs of players) but I have always pointed out in discussions on thiis topic that he at least got involved & tried in his own way to improve things.

    In my opinion, the most unfortunate part of this whole affair was the lost opportunity. Bob started out widely respected by players & might have used that position to motivate the players into participation. Instead, he went down the dictatorial route & tried threatening players into action with oppressive rules & legal letters. You can still see this attitude today in his obsession with “facts” rather than questioning why no-one wanted to be involved in his squad. It could have been so much better if he had just focussed on putting together a high quality squad that players *wanted* to be a part of.

    Compare this with the squad run by Zhou Lan Sun in the ’90s. Sure there were rules imposed in Mr Zhou’s squad & players had the extra motivation of the Sydney Olympics but Mr Zhou’s training was always strongly attended because players WANTED to be there. Players admired their coach & even looked forward to the hard training. Table Tennis Australia / Victoria need to find their way back to this situation again somehow & it won’t be through authoritarian rule-making. Motivation is the crucial ingredient & it needs to be applied to more than the national squad.

    Again, I say you guys should try running for committees & start breathing new life into the sport. I’m sure many current committee members see themselves as care-takers to some degree & would welcome your involvement & make room for new blood. You’d be far more effective leading at the committee level than in blog discussions. Nothing will change until you guys make it happen.

25. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 17th, 2008 at 11:54 am

    Good comments Greg.
    For the last 2 yrs I have provided document after document to Board of Vic. and some to Board of Aust. TT but they usually fall of deaf ears as my proposals usually step on some people’s personal agendas; or if aspects of my proposals get implemented then they are manipulated to suit some decision makers.
    The most recent document I’ve done (Feb. 08) was a 9 page dicussion paper to Aust. TT Board re: National training programs and dealing with elite players. Anyone interested in reading it, then ask me.
    Last year I advised Victoria TT (TTV) that I’m available to assist where possible and couple months ago offered my services to Aust. TT (TTA) to help out where possible - all voluntarily. I’m yet to hear from them so I gather they think the sport has enough resources to get the job done in all areas.
    As i coach 7 days a week (mostly night times) I’m unable to sit on any National/State Board of Management.
    I’m doing what i can to assist the decision makers but unfortunatley there are some people who will do whatever they can to keep someone like myself away from Boards (and Board decisions) due to thier own agendas.
    I, along with 7-8 other well respected people within the sport have produced and submitted a discussion paper to TTV around 2 months ago but they are not in a hurry to have meetings and discuss the many issues we have raised as we may get the sport moving foward if proposals in our document were implemented - shame on TTV.
    If any readers here are willing to join me and keep trying to help then let me know, otherwise (as Greg has pointed out) nothing will change.

26. Richard Lee

    commented on April 18th, 2008 at 9:37 am

    Just a couple of points .
    -(1).From what has been written it would seem the main reason Simon didn’t want to train was mainly the standard of the training partners ,rather than mental tiredness.or have I interpreted this incorrectly?
    -(2)While it is off the subject I think Mark is absolutely correct about the number of players been the main concern in Australia.In opponent -based sports ,like table tennis ,playing numbers are absolutely critical to improve the playing standard -more than any other factor.
    Movement automation in an open-kinetic chain,non-cyclic sport like table tennis reaches a maximum of 40% wheras in sports like rowing,swimmimg etc it gets up to 95%.Thus the opponent is everything.Added to this you cannot train by yourself-basically-and it is impossible to quantify and compare your standard to the rest of the world unlike sports which are measurable by time etc. and the problem to reach world-class level becomes huge.
    it would seem that table tennis in countries like Australia ans N.Z. should concentrate on getting numbers as high as possible as this is the best way to narrow the gap in standard between players reaching the highest level they can in those countries and then going to live/play in Europe/Asia and make the transistion less of a shock to the system.

27. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    Yes, agree with Richard’s comments.
    We (this region of the TT world) are so far away from the strength of the world that it makes it unrealistic to think we can produce world class players with such few players participating in t’ments and playing in general.
    Having more players playing will create more depth and in turn create a higher standard at the top.
    It’s up to the administrators to do this. It’s very sad to see that our State (Vic) and National (Aust) bodies not seeing this area as a priority.
    This week the Aust. Under 21 C’ships is being played and the Men’s draw has a pitifull 28 players and Women’s an disastrous 15. Remember this is a National C’ships.
    Is this the same problem in NZ? Or other countries?
    I coach about 22 players (20 juniors) on an individual basis each week that play State T’ments. Most likely 12-15 of those juniors will qualify for Vic. Teams (about 10 in “A” Teams) this year and there are only a maximum 36 spots available. I think it’s an embarrassment to the sport that an individual coach can produce so many players to make a State Team - i think 5-8 is acceptable for the best coaches. Shame on the decision makers who govern the sport.

28. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 18th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

    Would like to clarity something. When i said “5-8 players is acceptable for the best coaches” i should add that is for the coaches who are doing it on regular basis and make a living from it.
    I have gone off track from the original statement “Aust. needs Simon Gerada”. The answer is YES.
    Maybe another statement/question can be formed and discussed, such as, what can be done to improve the sport (mainly elite but can be all levels) in this part of the world?

29. Dennis

    commented on April 18th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

    I have only one question?? Who is Charles??

30. Simon

    commented on April 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Charles?

31. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Hello Charles. Where and who are you?

32. Dennis

    commented on April 21st, 2008 at 7:11 pm

    Charles….. Wuvanich?? or Charles and the chocolate factory??

33. Charles

    commented on April 22nd, 2008 at 12:56 am

    Hi Dennis, I don’t usually like to divulge my personal details on the internet. But since you only have ONE question, I’ll make an exception.

    My full name is Charles Ma, and I come from Shanghai. Who are you Dennis?

34. Mary LeGassick

    commented on April 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 am

    It is sad that such a great debate has deteriorated into this.
    Not sure what the interest was in who people are, surely it is what they say.
    Let’s get back to the topic!

35. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    Yes, let’s get back to the topic.
    The reason why Aust. needs Simon is due to the lack of good players around. If Aust. had another 3-6 players of Simon’s standard then if a player such as Simon doesn’t abide by whatever criteria is in place then he shall not be considered for selection. If a player of Simon’s standard is selected in a Team then (after Team is selected) does not abide by the training and/or competition regime put in place then he/she should be withdrawn for the Team, regardless of how good the player is.
    I say this again, as the decision makers have neglected this area (player numbers and abilitly to earn reasonable money within the sport) for up to 10 years (or more), we are now in a situation where there a so few top players around that the those top players have become more important to the sport compared to the sport is more important to those top players.
    As previously mentioned, Simon is clearly the no. 2 player in Aust and as he continues to play t’ments he is also assisting the 2nd and 3rd tier players to improve their standard.
    This fact is for the readers who don’t understand the situation in Aust.; for t’ments, entry fees have gone up around 200-300% over the last 10 years (which is acceptable) but prizemoney has generally decreased by 50%. As a former top player, i say this is totally unacceptable and must change otherwise the sport will continue to struggle to attract players. I am one who’s career (stopped playing most t’ments in 2002) would’ve been extended if there was more money to be earned so god help the players now and in future.
    In today’s world where time and money is much more important/valueable than it used to be, there will be less people willing to make as many sacrifices (re: time and money) as past generations. I’m sure in China if top players could not earn as much money (directly or inderectly) then i’m very confident they would not be as dominant as they, have been, are, and will be.

36. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Further to my comments, if the sport has an abundance of good/top players then the criteria can be more strict but if the sport doesn’t then the criteria must be very relaxed and easy to abide by.
    I say, let all players be eligible for Team selection (not just the National Squad members which is currently the case) and see who is the best via competition.

37. Dennis

    commented on April 22nd, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    Sorry Charles if I have offended you in any way.With all the “heat” generating from this topic,I thought I’d cool things off by adding some silly and childish humour to it before all the parties involved start abusing each other..
    I’m Dennis from Australia and I used to be in the national team for ten years and I personally know the parties involved here.
    Anyway going back to a more serious note,I’d like to express my opinion about this topic.I’d just like to state that even though I know Bob and Simon very well,I have never discussed this with them whatsoever.So my opinion is very unbiased and have assessed this situation based on the facts that have been submitted here.
    Where do I start?? Firstly with Simon..I think what’s happened is that at the time,Simon was no 1 in Aus,if not top 3 at least I presume.Coming back from overseas and knowing that you are the best player in the country,you’d feel invincible..meaning you would think you would get your own way with everything back here in Aus because you feel you have earned it from doing all the hard work.So Simon comes back and faces Bob who is the current coach at the time.I know Bob quite well that he is “old school” meaning it doesn’t matter whether you are the world champion,or no 30 in Victoria,he would expect any player under him to practise like everyone else.He’s always believed in hard work ethics.Now if Simon was smart,instead of telling Bob exactly what he thought of the situation(i.e. no one is good enough here to practise with me) he should have just told Bob that he was mentally tired.No one has to know the real reason why he didn’t want to spend 15 hrs a week practising with the other players in the squad.As an elite player myself,I could see where Simon was coming from and he did have a point.He just went about it the wrong way because every player/person is different.When I was no 1 in Australia for about four years,I still practised with every player in the academy under Mr Zhou.For those who knew me,I never ever forfeited or backed out of a tournament because I was scared to “lose my points”..The only way for me to go was down the rankings however there was no point practising hard when I’m gonna be scared to lose to this player,or lose this tournament,so I played everytime I had the opportunity to..Basically If I was Simon,I would have just “lied” to Bob and say that I was mentally tired and adjust the program to suit my preference of practise hours.Every top player has some arrogance in them.Simon,Russell,Haberl,Pinkewich,maybe me at times,even Henzell and somehow this arrogance comes out in different ways.Simon’s came out in his attitude towards practising with the current squad players at the time.Bob saw this as unacceptable which is fair enough because if he made exceptions for Simon,he’d have to make exceptions for other players in the future squads and it wouldn’t be right.If Mr Zhou was the coach at the time and not Bob,maybe Simon would have got away with his intentions.Mr Zhou didn’t create a fuss if a player practised 5 or 15 hours a week.He just expected the workrate from the players.But like I said,everyone is different.Bob is completely different from Mr Zhou.If I was the coach,I don’t know how I would have handled the situation either.
    I guess how I assess the topic is that Simon was at the “wrong place at the wrong time”..or the reverse where Bob was also at “the wrong place at the wrong time”.There was definitely a clash of personalities,motives and intention for the good of the sport.There was definitely no winners,just a loser.And that is the status of the Australian mens team..

38. matt

    commented on April 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    okay, im not a top player or anything,
    but can we use PARAGRAPHS!

39. Richard Lee

    commented on April 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    One point I don’t quite understand is why Simon felt it necessary to change countries because he was not deemed eligible for the World Champs in 2001.
    Presumably that was the only tournament he was going to miss?-It is not like he was not going to be able to play for Australia for either a set ot indefinite period of time.
    Many elite players in the history of table tennis-or any sport for that matter-have missed important championships for reasons such as the one being discussed here and have come back to play for their country.
    The most famous of these players would be the famous Hungarian player,Tibor Klampar,who was suspended,for amongst other things,disparaging his coach and behaving disgracefully during preparations many times and missed at least 2 world championships and 1,possibly 2 European championships but still had a tremendous career lasting over 20 years.
    I can also recall players being sent home from World and European Championships for a variety of reasons often which may have seemed trivial to observers but ,again,those players came back to represent their country.
    It has been pointed out that Simon was young and inexperienced at the time.While he may have been young I would dispute that he was inexperienced.I have just checked the iTTF website and he had participated in 2 previous World Champs,and Olympic Games and an Oceania Champs for Australia amongst others.To me,that is not inexperienced.

40. Phil Boyle

    commented on April 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    What an interesting discussion………….’tis all sad, since the outcome has been so detrimental on so many fronts and obviously continues to be quite divisive.

    The bottom line has to be that Jeff is right - Australia needs and has needed Simon Gerada. The discussion above seems to focus on whether Bob was ‘right’ or Simon was ‘right’. Shouldn’t the discussion take out the personalities and focus on the question of whether the process or requirements were “right”?

    We should also give Simon credit for assisting & mentoring juniors of late, and giving back to the sport.

    Denis is right about Mr. Zhou (a personal hero of mine) and the academy (which he let me train in for 2 years) - it was a pretty unstructured and flexible environment. I suspect he had decided it was up to the players to choose if they wanted to work hard.

    I like the recent Olympic Qualification process. Cut throat competition and the best players getting through. Pick the best team and hang the rest, I say.

    And can anyone RATIONALLY explain how Stephanie didn’t get selected in the worlds team?

    PB

41. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 pm

    Great comments Phil.

    I too would love to hear from anyone who can RATIONALLY explain how Stephanie did not get selected in the worlds team!

42. Charles

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 1:33 am

    Jeff,

    did you see the question I had posted for you earlier? It’s repeated again for your reference. I’d appreciate it if you gave me a reply regarding your answer.

    The question was:

    If a better player replaced Simon and met eligibility criteria, would that have made a difference in your opinion of the rules in place?

43. Richard Lee

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 8:17 am

    Perhaps this discussion would be more relevant if the topic was why wasn’t Stephanie Sang selected for the world championships.
    The topic been debated is about 7 years too late and really seems irrelevant now.

44. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 9:47 am

    Hi Charles,

    I believe the best players should be selected based on their results not on the amount of time they train. I think the eligibility requirements should have been relaxed. So with regards to your question, if there was a player that was better than Simon, then I believe they should be selected above Simon. However as was the case, Simon’s results clearly indicated (based on results), he should have been in the team. I don’t believe anyone is arguing that. It is just that he was not eligible for selection which I think was wrong.

    That is why I like the Olympic Qualification tournament. Whoever is good enough to win the matches makes the team. Perfect!

45. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 am

    Hi Richard,

    Great idea. In the next few weeks I’ll try and find out some more information about why Stephanie Sang was not selected for the Worlds team and put together another post.

    In the meantime, I encourage people to read Mark Smythe’s discussion paper on a National Training Table Tennis Program and leave a comment to indicate their opinions on the matter. Mark submitted this document to Table Tennis Australia but has not received a reply. You would think some kind of reply would be warranted?

46. Richard Lee

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    While i agree qualifying tournaments results can’t be argued with and and lead no room for conjecture,they too have potential pitfalls.
    -What if easily the best player in the region fell sick or got injured while the tournament was on? What then?I seeem to remember the Australian selectors in swimming doing a backflip on this very subject -maybe last olympics-with Ian Thorpe failing to qualify for some reason in an event.
    Imagine if that happened to an Australian in table tennis who was clearly the best player.Worse still if he/she was a medal prospect.
    Though this scenario may not have happened yet it is only a matter of time till it does happen.
    Would the system seem so good then?
    - In an interview with former Chinese player Ching YinHua ,who is now resident in the United States,he climed that the same type of qualifying tournament system that the U.S.A. have used in table tennis was holding back their chance of developing and improving their world standing and results.He suggested a similar system to the Chinese selection policy for world champs whereby 3 places-or 2 in a 4 player team-are determined by selection tournament and 2 by the selectors.
    I will try and find the article.

47. Richard Lee

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    It was an article in the 2005 edition of USATT Magazine july/August 2005 between larry Hodges and Ching Ying hua-I spelt his name incorrectly in the last post.
    The website is masatenisi.org

48. Charles ma

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    Hi Jeff,

    the topic addressed in your article does not directly deal with national team selection policy. It deals with disputable facts that you have expressed in a biased manner about Simon not being able to qualify for the national team.

    Bob has given a clear account of why Simon could not qualify for the team. He also expressed how reasonable he was to accomodate Simon under the rules in place at the time.

    I don’t think Bob intended to discuss national team selection criteria with you. After all, this is a seperate topic which is far too complex to deal with in one or two comments.

49. Charles ma

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    In professional analysis, you have to consider two things:

    1.) Whether a particular decision was justified under the rules in place.

    2.) Whether these rules should be amended, if they are ineffective.

    This article deals with 1, why don’t you mention 2 in another article?

50. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    I agree with Charles’s comments when he says you have to consider the 2 points he mentioned.
    1. The correct decison was made by Bob to not consider Simon for selection - given the rules/crieteria at the time. Bad for Aust. TT but correct decison made!
    I was once withdrawn from a National Team (after being selected)for the same reason and this was the correct decision at the time (as a player i was not happy but had to live with it) so next time (6 months later) i abided by the same criteria and represented Aust. at the 1997 World and C’wealth C’ships.

    2. This (rules/criteria) is where the biggest problem is. I have discussed this issue in my discussion paper to our National Body which is posted on this website.

    Also, i have made mentioned Stephanie Sang’s non selection in my discussion paper and added some extra thoughts under the article in the “comments” area.

51. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    Hi Charles,

    I think you have missed the point once again (and when are you going to provide your real name? - no one else is afraid to). The point and title of the article is Australia Needs Simon Gerada. So it does deal with your point 2. In fact it does not really deal with point 1. I don’t care whether the decision was justified under the rules in place. I care the wrong decision was made to benefit Table Tennis.

    Bob mentioned he did not want to discuss National Selection but that is his decision. It doesn’t mean the article doesn’t hint that the eligibility requirements were wrong. And it doesn’t mean I can’t state that they were wrong and that they were harmful to Table Tennis in Australia.

52. Greg Linwood

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    The point of competing at world championships is to try & win the championships, not show how hard players have been training immediately proceeding championships.

    Given the objective, any un-biased, rationale line of reasoning should lead to the obvious - that players should be selected based on their recent results, not how many hours they put into training at the last minute prior to selection.

53. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    Hi Richard,

    Interesting feedback about the qualifying tournaments. I quite like the idea of having some places for selection and the remaining places up for grabs in a qualifying tournament. I also don’t think all events should be selected this way but for the Worlds and Olympics I think you want your best team. For smaller tournaments you may want to include a younger up and coming player for experience?

    With regards to a player being sick at a qualifying tournament, this could also happen at the actual event itself, so I admit it does pose a problem but I still like the system.

54. Charles Ma

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    Jeff,

    we have established that my name isn’t important in this discussion. In fact, if you read just less than ten posts back, I have already told you who I am. Why are you still enquiring about this? Do you also want my date of birth and my mothers maiden name?

55. Charles Ma

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    Jeff,

    it may be true that Australia needs new rules to amend existing ones. This is a matter you need to discuss with Table Tennis Australia.

    The issue that Bob had was whether your article was in fact giving the correct depiction of events. The stance in your article seems to direct most of the blame on Table Tennis Australia which seemed unfair given the leniency Simon was given under the rules in place.

56. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 pm

    Does Charles’s real name start with B?

57. Dennis

    commented on April 24th, 2008 at 1:15 am

    C’mon guys!Leave Charles alone now and get back to the original topic.!!!He already told us he’s Charles from Shanghai!

58. Richard Lee

    commented on April 24th, 2008 at 4:46 am

    With respect to some of the comments made by Jeff in his opening statement on this subject it was mentioned that Australia with simon could be a formidable force.
    With respect to Simon’s playing ability I think this is coming off the long run.
    At the 2000 World champs Australia ,with Simon,finished 45th.
    Without him,at the 2001 World Champs,Australia finished 45th also.
    I then worked out where Australi would be ranked in the world, , with Simon ,compared to their current world ranking of 48th and where they finished at the last world teams champs which was 43rd.
    With Simon added to the team they would be rated 41st splitting Turkey and Israel.Even allowing an exceptional performance they would be hard pressed to be higher than 36th or 37th.
    That is hardly a formidable force at world level.
    Of course,I believe that every effort should be made to finish as high as possible at major tournaments but the reality is,as the examples above show,that it would make little difference .
    Which really is only of interest to those people all-ready playing table tennis in Australia-and perhhaps to only a small percentage of those as is certainly the case in N.Z.
    I doubt if finishing 35/36 in thw world ,which would be Australi’s optimal performance,would have the media falling over themselves with praise and the general public taking up the game and following it in droves.
    Again I use the case of one of the most talented players ever in Tibor Klampar missing many major tournaments ,with
    his ill-discipline been at the core of his droppings.
    Hungary were a real force in World/European Championships and these droppings may have cost them and Klampar medals at these tournaments.
    However eventually the method paid dividends with Hungary dominating The 1978 European mens Championships and winning the 1979 World teams .
    Former players on this discussion have also made mention of
    themselves been dropped for similar reasons as Simon-but then playing again for Australia shortly afterwards.
    It would appear to me ,admittingly as an outsider and not knowing the full circumstances and not being there at the time,that perhaps Simon either got bad advice at the time or wasn’t thinking the long-term consequences when he made the decision to play for Malta.
    But that is the reason why he in’t playing for Australia -because he can’t .Not with the new rules that have come into place.
    The last thing I would mention is the implication that a player knows best what is good for their game.-particularly an international player.
    As an ex-International player and a coach for over 30 years I’m afraid I have to disagree with that line of thought.What a player wants and what a player needs are often 2 different things.Particularly a ‘young and inexperienced one’ as simon was described at the time.
    In table tennis ,as in any sport, the most successful nations/players are the ones that train the hardest and the least successful ones are the ones that train the least.
    The only way a country/player is going to give themselves a starter’s chance of being a formidable world force is to follow that line of thought.

59. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 24th, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Yes there are some flaws in Jeff’s original statements such as Aust. would be a formidable force on the World scene (as Richard pointed out) but i believe the overall message was that Aust. would’ve been better off with Simon in the Team.

    To me, it’s a no brainer, off course the National Team is better off.
    It’s the administrators (plus the coach if he has input to the rules/criteria) of the time that allowed this to occur with the rules/criteria that were in place. Unfortunately the administrators have not allowed the best Teams to represented the country for nearly 40 years so it appears they will never learn and actually truly respect the players. I believe the same issues have occured in NZ as well.

    It’s fine to have a great set of rules that may seem fair and reasonable, but when the sport has so few players around and absolutely no depth then the rules MUST be very relaxed for players to be considered for Team selection.

    The sport is in such a bad state at the moment! This is due to many years of the administrators neglecting the player numbers and finding ways to attract (via money) players to become better and extending their careers once they have reached the top in the country.

    Could Charles initials be BL?

60. Mary LeGassick

    commented on April 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Jeff/Mark
    Really annoying that you guys have this fixation with who Charles is. He has stated who he is. Leave him alone but read well what he says.
    The person I know as BL has the guts to write under his own name.

61. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 24th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    If Charles who is says he is then no problem with me.

    Wondering if any reader disputes my comments or disagrees with what i think are the main problems with the sport in this country? I believe this is where the real issue is and why someone like Simon may have chosen to play for another country. Am i correct Simon or was it something else?

62. Simon

    commented on April 24th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    “Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger.”

    I was taught to win, TTA should of let me keep winning.

    Simon

63. Danny Semmler

    commented on April 24th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    Thanks Theodore.

64. Dennis

    commented on April 24th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

    If they change the rules where the best players will be picked in national teams regardless of how many hours they train,I might seriously make a “proper” comeback to the sport considering I beat 6 of the top ten players last year in various tournaments…after taking 11 years off competition!!!

65. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 24th, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Well quoted Simon but you didn’t answer the question.

66. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    If more players did what Dennis has mentioned then we would have a stronger National Team as this would create more depth and competitive to make a Team. A win win situation for the players (more of them have opportuntiy to make a Team if they wish to try) and the sport.
    At the moment there is hardly any competition re:amount of players, around to make a Team plus the rules are such that only a handful of players can make a Team as only National Squad members can make a Team - this is OK in an ideal world but as i have pointed out we are far from an ideal tt world in this country.
    Someone get Henzell in on this discussion or maybe some decison makers/selectors of our National Body.

67. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 24th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Dennis, I think your point shows that the rules must be changed. I agree with Mark, if more players like yourself were pushing for National selection, it would push other players to become even better!

68. Dennis

    commented on April 25th, 2008 at 10:45 am

    Just read an update from TTV website re the national team having to pay their own costs for the upcoming Oceania Championships in Tahiti in June.This is actually sad now for the national players to pay to represent their own country..!!I’m glad that I played in a decade (in the 90’s) where all our trips were paid for while representing Australia.I retired at the right time!

69. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 25th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    On most occasions it comes down to money as the reason why the sport is in the sad state that it is and has been for years.

    Solution is simple, get more players playing! This creates more revenue for the sport so the financial pie becomes larger. End result for the elite players is free trips when representing the country and playing for more prizemoney at t’ments - this is best way to attract players to keep competing and training.

    I say this again, shame on the current and past (10-15 yrs ago)administrators from National to State and Club level.

70. Charles

    commented on April 25th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    Mark and Jeff,

    rather than confront the issue that I have brought forward about the content of the article, you accuse me of being some mysterious person named BL.

    Next you are continuing the debate about national team selection policy in the wrong forum.

    If you are keen on discussing selection policy, please post another article about this discussing justification. Include not just the benefits but the downfalls of such a policy and how it will promote a stronger team. I will be happy to share my views on the situation.

71. Charles

    commented on April 25th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    Jeff and Mark, the basis of your argument is that there are not enough good players to fill the national team. And that we should promote player sovereignty as opposed to having a uniform and standardised set of rules to promote training.

    And with a hint of sarcasm, may I add, you guys seem to believe a rule that promotes training will reduce Australia’s performance in the long run. Which I find confusing and contradictory to common sense.

72. Charles

    commented on April 25th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Now, this argument is flawed on so many facets, I don’t even know where to begin. The approach you have to selection policy is too superficial and simplistic. I’m trying to refrain on commenting on selection policy here as it not relevent to this article. However some of the comments made are so incomprehensibly inconsistent to logic, its hard not to comment.

73. Charles

    commented on April 25th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    I presume that Marks main argument is how to promote table tennis in Australia in the long term.

    That is only possible by increasing training requirements not by reducing it.

    As Richard mentioned, even if Simon was playing for Australia, the marginal benefit is of negligible value.

    However the overall effect the qualifying rules have enforced is to promote training ethic. Which is much more important in the long run.

74. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 26th, 2008 at 12:17 am

    Hi Charles
    I have previously mentioned that there are some flaws in Jeff’s article but it’s the overall message that needs to be observed.
    I agree when you say this is not the right foorum/article to discuss selection policy so i’ll transfer this chat to my discussion paper (it deals with selection policy and other related matters) and debate there.
    I’m happy to discuss this with you as Charles from Shanghai even though i’m not fully convinced, but let’s not let that get in the way of a healthy debate.

75. dennis

    commented on April 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    extremely funny stuff everyone- good entertainment !!!!!

76. Dennis

    commented on April 26th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Who’s this dennis??!!! are u impersonating me or do u just have the same first name??!

77. Jeff Plumb

    commented on April 26th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    Charles,

    Firstly this is simply a blog and as such the comments can lead from the topic of the article on to a related topic - that is OK. And I have the authority to say it is OK because it is my website. But I am also happy to move onto the other blog as Mark has done because I would like for people to comment on Mark’s discussion paper.

    Mark has asked you a question on the new blog entry about China’s eligibility requirements as this would be helpful to the discussion.

    And I would also like to point out here and I will re-iterate on the new blog entry how I am not saying that players shouldn’t train. The point is that players enter different stages of their careers. If you read the new blog entry you will see that Mark had his best international results when his training was reduced. He had previously trained very hard and without that previous training he could not have produced the results. But this shows that at a particular point in time - more is not necessarily better.

    I believe we should create the best possible environment where players will want to train. Then the results will look after themselves. However imposing rules on eligibility requirements in a country like Australia where Table Tennis is not professional does not work. History has proved that to be the case.

    So the administrators should stop wasting their time on these eligibility requirements and start focusing on getting more players involved and setting up a National Training Program which players want to be a part of. Right now in Australia it would be difficult to practice 15 hours a week because of the lack of players.

    It is great to see you showing so much enthusiasm for the topic and Table Tennis in Australia Charles.

78. Charles

    commented on April 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Thanks Jeff, I’m passionate about many things. Table Tennis is one of them. It’s good you have these ideas about trying to improve policy. I’m sure if you provided enough evidence to support your case, you may be able to influence future rule changes. As I said, I don’t have a problem discussing selection policy but not here. I will post in the other forum about these issues.

79. Charles

    commented on April 27th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    As far as this article goes however, I found it to be a disingenuous attempt to discredit Table Tennis Australia without giving the full facts of the matter. On a personal opinion, Australia does not need Simon Gerada anymore than Simon wants to be in the Australian team. This is why rules in any field can be enforced; that is both parties have interests to with. In this case, Simon believed that he was of such importance to the team, that rules need not apply to him. This in my own PERSONAL opinion based on what I would perceive after reading the facts. I think this is the true reason he is not playing for Australia. I also believe on personal grounds that 6 hours a week is a bare minimum any player should commit to a sport, even a hobby. Now leaving personal opinion aside for a second and being objective, this article still does not live up to it’s name. Australia does not need Simon Gerada, the reason why Australia needs or does not need Simon Gerada has also no direct correlation to whether Australia needs a rule change. However, as you and Mark point out, you believe there should be some rule changes. This is an issue worth debating, and given the time, I will comment in the other article that you have published.

80. Andrew Gilbert

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    I’ve been following this blog for a while. My 2 cents worth….

    *** The players that replaced Simon in the 2001 Worlds team were not training 10 hours a week and if the purpose of that decision (and a similar one to exclude Stefanie Sang) is to make more people train harder than I think it has clearly failed - There would not be 15 players in the country who would be training 10 hours a week today.

    *** I’m not against training hard - any little success I ever had in the sport only came because I put many hours in but the point both Jeff and Mark have made is that people have different stages of their career where training for an arbitrary, mandated period of time is at best not necessary and at worst leads to disharmony and weaker team selection.
    Obviously the work has to be done at some point but

    - Mark has illustrated how his best results occurred while he was training once a week.
    - Brett Clarke was National champion in 1997 and to the best of my knowledge did not train for the best part of a year.
    - Russell Lavale had excellent results in the last third of his career (winning his third National title and an Oceania Singles title) and was not training even 5 hours a week…(Happy to be corrected on all of these observations if I am wrong)

    The point is that if a player is good enough or talented enough to achieve top results with limited or even no training than so be it.

    With all due respect to Dennis (who was a great player and still plays a good game) the fact that he has beaten 6 out of the top 10 players in the last year says more about the sorry state of the sport then anything else…

    In summary when Simon was not considered for the 2001 Worlds the fact that he was not training over a 3 month period before the championships is in my opinion irrelevant as he was in the top 3 players in the country (as his tournament results indicated).

    How long will it be until William Henzell (Our greatest ever player? - Another BLOG entry Jeff!?) is told he must train 10 hours a week to qualify for a team (even though he has spent the last 14 years overseas as Simon spent 10 years himself doing nothing but playing table tennis.)

81. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    The examples Andrew provides is obviously for the Aust. level (also ocvering Oceania region).
    Working on the same concept, but for the top level in the world, i’m sure as a players enters the twilight of their career they would perform at a similar level by training up to 40% less than when they were younger and training their maximum hours. Off course this can very from player to player but generally what Jeff, Andrew and myself are saying would be the case for the majority.
    This discussion is interlocked with what my discussion paper is about.

82. Charles

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Hi Andrew,

    the only thing you have done in your post is to give an out of context example of when players have breached the rule of thumb in terms of training.

    You have either completely failed to tackle this objectively or have no knowledge of sports conditioning. If you did, you would also mention that there are many other factors that affect play including mental maturity, peaking cycles and the condition of other opponents at the time.

    The only way you can prove that training less has a direct link to better results if you held every other factor constant; which you cant. Ceterus paribus is not possible in a dynamic environment in which free will is exercised by the subjects of the model you are trying to prove.

83. Charles

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    In case you do not understand what I’m saying. I’ll give you an example. If I was drunk when I played table tennis and I played well. Does this mean that being drunk will make me play better? This is an obvious fallacy of your argument. It doesnt consider any other factors at all such as my opponent, my excitement level, luck, whether I was at my peak, and the list goes on.

84. Charles

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Did I mention that there are overwhelmingly more evidence that more training leads to better results? I don’t think I need to explain this.

85. Charles

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

    Lastly, whether or not the rules are being enforced are another issue. This is something you should discuss with TTA rather than using it as an excuse, which it clearly isnt.

86. Charles

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm

    You have therefore provided a few examples which have not really dealt with any of the issues I brought forth. Instead you bring a few anomalies in a justification for reducing training requirements. I’m confused why you did it. Whether rules are relevent or being enforced do not justify why Australia needs Simon Gerada.

87. Andrew Gilbert

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    Hi Charles,

    Thanks for the lesson in Latin but I think you should have spelt “Ceterus paribus” as “Ceteris paribus” - All things being equal.

    I agree that many other factors come into play - as you mentioned mental maturity, peaking cycles, level of opponents etc…

    I’m not making ‘out of context’ statements or saying that training is not required to achieve proficiency in any field. I never said (or believe that training less (in isolation) has a direct link to better results.

    My points are

    - It is pointless to replace any player for not training enough when his/her replacements were not training the required amount of hours especially if the player who is replaced has far superior results.
    - The examples I have given are statements of fact re player’s results and the amount they were training. Results that Mark/Simon/Brett/Russell achieved are only possible because they have at some point performed the intense training required to develop their skills to a level where they could win tournaments even though they did not train as much as their competitors at various stages of their careers.
    - My main argument (which is different to yours) is that when picking teams for National/World/Olympic teams I am concerned more with how good the player is as opposed to how hard they train.
    - Is Australian Table Tennis better off with Simon Gerada not having represented Australia since 2001 - The answer is obviously no.

88. Greg Linwood

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    I doubt anyone would argue that training is crucial to winning at any sport. What is in question is forced participation in mandatory coaching programs, organised by the national sporting association.
    _
    Other individual sports we succeed at in international competition such as Tennis, Golf & Swimming don’t have forced national coaching programs - they leave coaching to the individual & only require participation in team based coaching for short periods immediately prior to major events (eg Davis Cup team training or World Swimming Champs team training). Selection in these sports is generally based exclusively on results.
    _
    We win world championships & major international events in these other sports so it’s obvious mandatory mantional coaching programs aren’t a prerequisite to success at international sport.

89. dennis

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 7:32 pm

    you guys ( jeff,mark,mary,bob,charles,dennis makaling etc )really need to get a life !!!! and no this is not dennis makaling

90. Dennis

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    OK..there’s obviously another”Charles” feeding everyone on this blog..and his name is “dennis” who knows nothing about table-tennis and thinks this whole discussion is a joke!!!

91. Jan Ove-Waldner

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    I think Australia needs Simon Gerada as he has the second best forehand in the world…behind me of course.

92. Charles

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 11:10 pm

    Andrew, it’s certainly arguable that Australia would have been marginally better with Simon Gerada; However, it was his choice not to abide by rules of qualification. My only issue is against this disingenuous piece of journalism;
    If you wanted to question whether the rules of selection, there is a seperate forum for that made by Mark Smythe. Have a read.

93. Mark Smythe

    commented on April 28th, 2008 at 11:58 pm

    dennis with the small “d”, some of us like a chat about the sport and for me it has been and is my life.
    Keep enjoying the banter and hope it stays entertaining for ya.

94. Richard Lee

    commented on April 29th, 2008 at 3:26 am

    Just looking at the postings over the last few days and nothing seems to be resolved between people who have different views on compulsory training requirements for team events for national squads/teams.
    Perhaps as much as anything it is a generational gap between younger people who think the older generation are a bunch of anal old farts and the older generation who think the younger generation are a bunch of -hmmm ;can’t think of what exactly ,but the opposite of an anal old fart .
    The only thing that is clear is that Simon isn’t playing for Australia ,which I believe was his choice at the time,so that is reality and it’s time to move on.
    Another more interesting but ultimately unresolvable subject ,which Andrew (I think it was) mentioned is who is Australia’s greatest ever player.
    As Henzell’s career is not over it is unfair really to judge him against players who have retired but ,as a non-Australian,I would think he is perhaps at this stage number 3 on the list; Perhaps ???.
    I would rank Wuvanich at 1 and Knapp at 2 with Henzell very close to Knapp and will perhaps surpass him shortly.

95. Andrew Gilbert

    commented on April 29th, 2008 at 8:27 am

    Hi Richard - I’m not sure about what Wuvanich achieved…I’ve heard that he was a great player - Happy to hear more.
    Henzell I would put at number 1 due to his Commonwealth results (Silver Medal)/7 Austrralian Singles titles (Open & closed) and results in European League over the years (the standard of which I’m guessing has never been stronger)…

96. Richard Lee

    commented on April 29th, 2008 at 9:10 am

    Hi Andrew.
    Wuvanich was a great player in the 70s-He was from thiland originally-.
    His record in major champs-Worlds/Asian/Commonwealth champs was 92 wins/22 losses.
    He won 5 Austalian champs in 6 years from 1969-74 losing to Steve Knapp in the 1973 final.
    The Australian team reached division one when he was playing and it is probable that he was the main catalyst in them doing so.
    He beat the reigning world champ (Jonyer) and twice the reigning European champ (Orlowski) as well as winning 3/3 when Australia lost to England in the semi-finals of the 1973 commonwealth teams beating Denis Neale and Trevor Taylor both ranked in the top 40 of the world.
    In those days only 40 players were ranked-manually- and I would think Wuvanich was superior to many ranked from 30-40 but as Oceania didn’t exist at the time he wouldn’t have got the backing necessary.
    So i would say his record is still superior to Henzell’s at this stage.
    I would think Steve Knapp and Henzell are very close for the 2nd spot.
    Knapp got to the final of the 1975 commonwealth champs 9no Commonwealth games then ) which is a similar achievement to Henzells.
    Also when Australia were 12th in 1979 world’s in division one he had a 7win/10 loss record which is fantastic amongst that company.He won 3 Australian singles and was the only Australian player ever to beat Wuvanich in the Australian singles .His overall win/loss record in the major championships was 71 wins/53 losses which again was outstanding as it was when Australia was competing in division one.He beat
    I would think it is fairly hard to seperate Henzell or Knapp but i would put Knapp slightly ahead at this atage -probably because I am from that era and know his play and record a little better than Henzells.
    If anything this blog could have been -’Australia needed Steve Knapp’ as he retired at a young age -25 from memory and with his retirement Australia lost any chance of been able to retain their division one (Top 16) status.
    It would just be 29 years too late- just as this one is 7 years too late.
    I will just check Henzell’s record in those major champs-
    66 wins/26 losses.

97. dennis

    commented on April 29th, 2008 at 9:07 pm

    ok ill just check john bloggs record - 1 win and 10 losses !!!!

98. J.Wozniak

    commented on April 30th, 2008 at 11:09 am

    I think australia needs Joe Wozniak…..

99. dennis

    commented on May 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 am

    dennis makaling is one of the best players i have ever seen !!!- dont worry about wuvanich and henzell

100. patrick

     commented on May 3rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm

     its a shame you guys have resorted to this as i was enjoying mark smythes comments in particular !!!

101. Russell Lavale

     commented on May 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm

     I’m definitely the best player that Australia has ever seen….!!!!

102. Richard Lee

     commented on May 7th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

     i totally agree !!

103. Bob tuckett

     commented on May 7th, 2008 at 5:11 pm

     me too

104. Mary LeGassick

     commented on May 7th, 2008 at 5:11 pm

     its unanimous !!!

105. Mark Smythe

     commented on May 9th, 2008 at 7:03 pm

     I’m not really sure who is better out of Lavale and Gerada? Does anyone know their win/loss record…?? I think it’s 70/30 to Simon at least.

106. Milan Orlowski

     commented on May 9th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

     Russell Lavale is not the best Australian player of all time.

107. Mark Smythe

     commented on May 10th, 2008 at 12:10 am

     not sure who used my name but that was not me.
     i’m thinking you oppy (lavale) or hersh (makaling).
     hhmmmm, which one.

108. Jeff Plumb

     commented on May 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am

     Hi Mark,

     It was Hersh (Dennis) who used your name. In fact he used it for dennis, Dennis, Patrick, Russell Lavale, Richard Lee, Bob Tuckett and Mary LeGassick above. Nearly all of the last 10 comments. However Milan was not Dennis and really does think that Russell is not the best Australian player of all time.

     Pretty funny stuff Dennis!

109. Greg Linwood

     commented on May 10th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

     How do we know this was really you Jeff?

     For that matter, how do I know this is really me?

110. Dennis

     commented on May 12th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

     Who’s on first base?? what’s on second??

111. Brian Lauri

     commented on May 13th, 2008 at 6:33 am

     PRELIMINARY COMMENTS

     1.In his comments on 10th April at 6.20pm, Bob Tuckett stated that he did not speak on behalf of TTA. I do not speak on behalf of TTA either, but as I was the President of TTA in 2001, it may be appropriate for me to comment on Jeff Plumb’s blog and on some of the comments which it has elicited.

     2.I should state at the outset that I am not Charles Ma. The effect of the comments made as to Charles’ identity is to convey the imputation that I am using a fictitious name to portray falsely that there is third party support for the position taken by TTA in respect of Simon Gerada’s exclusion from consideration for selection in the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships.

     3.The comments also convey the imputation that I am a person who does not have the courage of my convictions to communicate my views using my own identity and that I am hiding behind a fictitious name.

     4.Both of those imputations are highly defamatory of me. After about 10 days of comments, there appeared to have been an acceptance, albeit belatedly, from some of the correspondents that Charles Ma really was who he said he was. However, I noticed that recently (8th May at 1.14am) on another blog on this web site entitled “Australian National Table Tennis Training Program”, Mark Smythe has commented that he is “Still pretty sure” that Charles’ initials are BL.

     5.I shall discuss the various comments relating to Charles Ma’s identity later because I think they are instructive, but first I shall deal with the substantive issues arising from Jeff’s blog. I shall divide my comments into the following topics:
     (1) Jeff Plumb’s Blog “Australia Needs Simon Gerada”;
     (2) Training Requirements;
     (3) Charles’ Identity; and
     (4) Australia Needs Bob Tuckett.

     6.Topic (1) is set out below. Topics (2), (3) and (4) will each be posted separately.

     7.I have written my comments in paragraphs and I have used italics and emboldening to add emphasis and clarity to my comments, but I understand that neither the paragraphs nor any of the italics or emboldening are likely to appear on the web site (although I note that when the comments are printed, at least the paragraphs appear). Anyway, as readers can see, I have numbered the paragraphs and put the headings in upper case.

     (1) JEFF PLUMB’S BLOG “AUSTRALIA NEEDS SIMON GERADA”
     (1.1) BURNT OUT
     1.A significant flaw in Jeff’s blog is that he makes statements of fact about matters which are not within his own knowledge and, in the case of some of these matters, which could never be within his own knowledge without disclosing the sources of his information. This would not matter if these alleged facts were not in issue or were not relevant, but they are in issue and they are crucial to Jeff’s argument. In particular, he states that:
     (a) Simon was “burnt out”; and
     (b) “officials simply did not understand the pressures and burnout (sic) that Simon Gerada was facing”.

     2.Simon’s alleged burn out is a state of mind. Only Simon knows whether he was burnt out. Similarly, only the officials concerned know the extent of their understanding. Jeff may have some extra-sensory powers, but the rest of us can only draw inferences as to other people’s states of mind from what those other people say and do. That is why the facts which Bob Tuckett has been at some pains to set out, and which have not been disputed (but for which he has been quite unfairly criticised – for example, on 16th April at 11.36pm Greg Linwood has referred to Bob’s “obsession with “facts”” and see my comments later under (4)) are so important.

     3.As to whether Simon was in fact burnt out, it is relevant that:
     (a) in the period between 20 January 2001 and 11 February 2001, Simon gave Bob 5 reasons for not being able or willing to train for 5 x 2 hour sessions per week and none of those reasons involved burn out or mental tiredness; and
     (b) Simon played in tournaments on 27/28 January, 3/4 February, 11 March, 25 March and 31 March/1 April when he did not need to play in any of these tournaments in order to satisfy TTA’s eligibility requirements for national selection.

     4.The following facts are also relevant to the issues of Simon’s credibility and whether he was burnt out:
     (a) a letter from TTV, expressly written on behalf of Simon, to TTA dated 23rd January 2001 stated inter alia: “Simon currently has a disc problem in his lower back which restricts his movements to the extent that on a bad day, he is unable to walk. He has been advised by his physiotherapist to limit his movements through his lower back (refer physio report attached ), which effectively means he is only able to do light training at this juncture, to the extent of two to three times per week.” - the attached report did not give any advice to the effect that Simon should limit his movements through his lower back and Simon played in a tournament 4 days after the date of the report and in 4 further tournaments over the following period of approximately 2 months (it should also be noted that the qualifications of the author of the report were not specified and he was not one of the 2 physiotherapists listed on the letterhead); and
     (b) when Simon appeared before the TTA Board on 25th February 2001 (see my discussion about this Board Meeting below), he stated that he wanted to have a break of one month from training, but that he intended to play in 3 tournaments during that month (and he spoke of being confident of performing well in those tournaments, which he did in due course – at least according to the letter which he subsequently wrote to me).
     5.A further significant flaw in Jeff’s blog is that some of the facts alleged in the blog are false. For example, in the fourth paragraph, Jeff states: “The trouble began in 2001 when Simon came back from a hard slog in Europe and was burnt out and needed a rest. He had been training and playing Table Tennis for 6 hours a day but Table Tennis Australia insisted that he must continue training.”. TTA did not insist that Simon continue training. According to the physiotherapeutical report referred to above, Simon was back in Australia by 12th January 2001, but the first training session of the national training squad was not held until 12th February 2001, thereby permitting Simon a break of one month – had he not played in 2 tournaments in that period.

     6.A further example of alleged facts in Jeff’s blog being false occurs in the sixth paragraph, where Jeff states inter alia: “In fact a Victorian Institute of Sport official and sports psychologist had met with Simon and given him their support but TTA would not alter their stance”. In fact, TTA was prepared to alter its stance, despite the very grave doubts which existed as to whether Simon was mentally tired, and did so by entering into an agreement with Simon to vary the training requirement for him from 5 “on table” sessions per week to 3 “on table” sessions per week and 2 mental training sessions per week with a VIS sports psychologist. I am informed by Bob, and as far as I am aware it has never been disputed, that the agreement to vary the training requirement in Simon’s case was facilitated and supported by the VIS official. As far as I am also aware, it has never been disputed that Simon entered into this new agreement voluntarily, without duress or undue influence. Within 3 days of entering into this agreement, Simon had repudiated it.

     7.I should also point out that although there was no item relating to Simon’s exclusion from the National Men’s Team on the agenda of the Annual General Meeting of TTA held on 25 February 2001 and although Simon had no right of audience at the AGM (as he was not a State Delegate or a TTA Board Member), I allowed submissions in respect of his exclusion to be made by him and on his behalf at the AGM. Similarly, although no TTA Board Meeting had been scheduled to be held following the conclusion of the AGM, I nevertheless convened such a Board Meeting in order inter alia to give Simon the opportunity to make further submissions in respect of his exclusion.

     8.It should be noted that although Jeff now says that the problem was the training requirements (see (1.2) below), at no stage during the AGM or the ensuing Board Meeting was it ever said by or on behalf of Simon that the training requirements should be abolished. At all times during those meetings, Simon’s case was put on the basis that due to his particular circumstances of mental tiredness, he should be excused from training for a month, but neither Simon nor anyone on his behalf ever provided any evidence to corroborate Simon’s bald assertion that he was mentally tired (which evidence could have been obtained readily and relatively cheaply had Simon been mentally tired). On the contrary, such evidence as there was, viz Simon’s participation in 2 tournaments in the period of 4 weeks preceding the AGM, Simon’s expressed intention to play in 3 tournaments during his proposed one month’s break and Simon’s expressed confidence of performing well in those tournaments, was probative of Simon not being mentally tired.

     9.Bob has commented on 8th April at 10.30am: “As an experienced international player I find it incomprehensible that a player who is mentally tired would choose to play in tournaments while in that condition.” Jeff, however, would have none of this. On 12th April at 2.43pm, Jeff replied to Bob: “And even if you find it hard to believe that someone who is burnt out would play a tournament that just shows you don’t understand that different people have different needs.” But Simon’s expressed need was rest. How does playing in 5 tournaments when he did not need to do so serve that need? No doubt Jeff would see Richard Lee as suffering from a similar lack of understanding to Bob because on 15th April 2008 at 2.31am, Richard commented as follows: “I find it inconceivable that a player would play in that number of tournaments (5 or 6?) – if he didn’t have to, which I take was the case – if he was mentally tired.”

     10.Richard then continued with the following comments, which I think are very important in this issue: “The nature of table tennis which is neurophysiological demands that a player be alert, quick and precise to play anywhere near their highest standard. If someone is genuinely mentally tired, stale or whatever words are used to describe it they simply could not play to their highest standard. For a player in this state, match play is the worst possible scenario for them to regain their enthusiasm, zeat (sic), love of playing – call it what you may – as they will play below their expectations which would exacerbate their mental staleness and confidence and make the solution of the problem even more difficult. And if they can play to their highest standard the only inference would be that they are not mentally tired.”.

     11.One might ask why Jeff is denying the undeniable – viz that players who are mentally burnt out do not play in tournaments if they do not need to do so. It may be because Jeff’s whole blog is based on the premise that Simon was burnt out. Jeff’s argument is crystallized in the following quotes:
     (a) Simon “was burnt out and needed a rest”;
     (b) “the officials simply did not understand the pressures and burnout Simon was facing”;
     (c) “With some careful management, both TTA and Simon Gerada could have come to an effective agreement”.

     12.Perhaps the most telling comment in this whole debate has come from Simon who, on 16th April at 9.18am, appears to have admitted that the reason he was not prepared to train with the national squad was not because he was suffering from burn out, but “because I did not want to train with any Tom, Dick or Harry”. This is the way that Richard (18th April at 9.37am) has interpreted Simon’s comment and, on the basis of the following passage, Dennis Makaling (22nd April at 8.09pm) certainly appears to believe that it was the quality of the training partners that was Simon’s real reason for not wanting to train with the national squad: “Now if Simon was smart, instead of telling Bob exactly what he thought of the situation (i.e. no one is good enough to practise with me) he should have just told Bob that he was mentally tired. No one has to know the real reason why he didn’t want to spend 15 hours a week practising with the other players in the squad.”. Of course, it does not appear to be in dispute that after giving 5 reasons which did not involve mental tiredness, Simon ultimately (at his meeting with Bob and the VIS official on 15th February 2001) did just tell Bob that he was mentally tired. Incidentally, Dennis, Simon was only required to practise with the other squad members for 10 hours per week and this was reduced to 6 hours per week at the 15th February meeting.

     13.In passing, it only takes a moment’s thought to realize that if players are not prepared to practise with other players who are below their standard, the only players who will ever practise together are those who perceive themselves as being of the same standard. While this approach might create a boom for manufacturers of robot machines, it is hardly in the national interest, particularly as there is a dearth of players who are competitive at international level (and see the passage quoted later in (2.2) from an article by William Henzell).

     14.In summary, I consider that:
     (a) the requirement of 5 x 2 hour “on table” training sessions per week for approximately 2 months was a reasonable one;
     (b) the amended requirement for Simon, which substituted 2 mental training sessions for 2 of the “on table” sessions per week, was a more than reasonable one;
     (c) the preparedness of TTA to allow submissions to be made by and on behalf of Simon at the 2001 AGM was reasonable; and
     (d) the preparedness of TTA to convene a Board Meeting at extremely short notice to allow Simon to make further submissions was more than reasonable.

     (1.2) THE SUBJECT MATTER OF JEFF’S BLOG
     15.Contrary to what Jeff now says, his blog is not about eligibility requirements or training requirements per se, but about TTA’s alleged failure to understand and deal adequately with Simon’s particular situation. Charles made this point on 23rd April at 2.49pm when he commented: “In professional analysis, you have to consider two things: 1.) Whether a particular decision was justified under the rules in place. 2.) Whether these rules should be amended, if they are ineffective. The article deals with 1, why don’t you mention 2 in another article?”

     16.In his reply to Charles on 23rd April at 5.34pm, Jeff has stated: “I think you have missed the point once again … The point and title of the article is Australia Needs Simon Gerada. So it does deal with your point 2. In fact it does not really deal with point 1.”

     17.With respect, I consider Jeff’s reply to be arrant nonsense. The title of the article does not remotely hint at eligibility requirements or training requirements. It is consistent with Simon having given up table tennis to pursue a monastic life or to further his education or with Simon being unavailable for selection due to illness or injury or with Simon having been excluded from selection as a result of the incorrect application of rules the validity and merit of which were not in dispute.
     18.It is important to observe what is and what is not said in the blog. There is no mention whatsoever of TTA’s eligibility requirements or training requirements anywhere in the blog. Rather, as I have noted above, the blog is all about TTA’s alleged failure to understand and deal with Simon’s particular circumstances: “The trouble began in 2001 when Simon came back from a hard slog in Europe and was burnt out and needed a rest. … The problem was that the officials simply did not understand the pressures and burnout that Simon was facing.” The answer to the problem, according to Jeff, was: “With some careful management, both TTA and Simon Gerada could have come to an effective agreement.”

     19.The dispute between TTA and Simon was wholly and solely in respect of the eligibility requirements. Accordingly, any “effective agreement” had to deal with the eligibility requirements and did not need to deal with anything other than the eligibility requirements. Jeff’s submission that an agreement should have been made between TTA and Simon is only consistent with Simon’s particular circumstances justifying a (further) variation of the eligibility requirements, i.e. beyond the variation to which TTA had agreed (this is Charles’ point 1). Jeff’s submission is inconsistent with the position which he has subsequently taken that the eligibility requirements should have been abolished (23rd April at 9.47am: “I believe the best players should be selected based on their results not on the amount of time they train.”) (this is Charles’ point 2). If the eligibility requirements were to be abolished, not only would there no longer be any need for an agreement with Simon in respect of the training requirements, there would no longer be any scope for such an agreement.

     20.If, as Jeff has subsequently argued, the problem was with the eligibility requirements (14th April at 8.59am: “The problem was with the eligibility requirements.”), then he should not have been submitting in his blog that TTA should have reached an “effective agreement” with Simon because this would have meant that the eligibility requirements would have continued to apply to the other players, which would have been an unfair and inequitable situation. Instead, he should have made the simple statement in his blog that the training requirements should have been abolished, in which case he need not have discussed Simon’s particular circumstances at all.

     21.No-one who makes even the most cursory perusal of Jeff’s original blog could reach the view that it deals with Charles’ point 2 rather than Charles’ point 1. I suggest that the reason Jeff has shifted his ground in respect of the subject matter of his blog is that in the light of some of the comments which have been posted, including Simon’s own comments, it would appear that there was nothing in Simon’s particular circumstances which would have justified a further variation of the training requirements (or even the variation which was agreed).

     (1.3) “A FORMIDABLE FORCE”?

     22.In the penultimate paragraph of his blog, Jeff states his belief that if Simon were playing for Australia at the 2008 World Teams Championships, “Australia would be a formidable force”. In a similar vein, Jeff has stated on 8th April at 10.02pm: “At the recent World Championships the Australian men finished 43rd. Although no one can predict exactly what would have happened, I would bet a lot of money that with Simon Gerada in the team, Australia would have finished considerably higher. A strong result at the Worlds is important for TTA.”

     23.Richard (24th April at 4.46am) has provided a calculation of the likely effect of Simon’s inclusion in the Australian Men’s Team for the 2008 World Championships and has concluded: “Even allowing (for) an exceptional performance they would be hard pressed to be higher than 36th or 37th. That is hardly a formidable force at world level. Of course, I believe that every effort should be made to finish as high as possible at major tournaments but the reality is, as the examples above show, that it would make little difference.” Mark Smythe (24th April at 10.54am) has agreed with Richard’s comment that it would be inaccurate to describe an Australian Men’s Team containing Simon as a formidable force at the 2008 World Championships. I concur with Richard and Mark in that regard and I also concur with Richard’s conclusion that Simon’s inclusion in the 2008 Australian Men’s Team would have made little difference to where the Team finished. In passing, I note that those charged with the responsibility of selecting the Australian Men’s Team for each of its matches at the 2008 World Championships do not appear to have been too bothered about the Team finishing a few places lower than its best possible finish because they omitted William Henzell for the last 2 matches.

     24.Returning to TTA’s decision in 2001 to exclude Simon from consideration for selection in the Men’s Team, Jeff has commented on 13th April at 8.00pm: “This decision was definitely detrimental to Australian Table Tennis. Just look at how we have progressed since. The results speak for themselves.” Similarly, on 14th April at 9.13pm, Jeff has said: “The results clearly show that the decision to not include Simon in the team was the wrong one.” But do the results speak for themselves? Do the results clearly show that the decision to not include Simon in the team was the wrong one? Let us have a look at the results. In the 2000 World Teams Championships, the Australian Men’s Team with Simon as a member finished 45th. They were the last World Championships in which Simon played for Australia. Since then, the Australian Men’s Team has finished in the following places at World Teams Championships: 45th in 2001; 37th in 2004; 37th in 2006 and 43rd in 2008. That is, since Simon last played for Australia in the World Teams Championships, the Australian Men’s Team has not finished any lower than when Simon last played for Australia in the World Teams Championships.

     25.I accept that had Simon been in the Australian Men’s Team for the World Teams Championships in 2001, 2004, 2006 and 2008, the Team may have finished a few places higher, but I am not aware of empirical evidence to establish that finishing a few places higher would have made any significant difference to the state of table tennis in Australia. As Richard (24th April at 4.46am) succinctly put it: “I doubt if finishing 35/36 in thw (sic) world, which would be Australi’s (sic) optimal performance, would have the media falling over themselves with praise and the general public taking up the game and following it in droves.”

     26.I think Richard’s comment would be equally apposite to the performances of the Australian Women’s Team in World Teams Championships in recent years. Since 2000, the Australian Women’s Team’s results have been as follows: 21st in 2000; 36th in 2001; 22nd in 2004; 21st in 2006; and 29th in 2008. Again, I am not aware of any empirical evidence to establish that either the substantial drop from 21st in 2000 to 36th in 2001 or the substantial rise from 36th in 2001 to 22nd in 2004 had any significant effect on the state of table tennis in Australia. I think the vast majority of TTA’s members neither know nor care where Australia’s Men’s or Women’s Teams have finished in World Championships – and the proportion of the general public with that mind set is even greater. Perhaps that might change if our players were serious contenders for World or Olympic titles, but with all due respect to our past and present national players, some of whom have shown quite extraordinary dedication, none of our players have ever seriously threatened World or Olympic titles.

     27.So, to return to a portion of Jeff’s comment on 8th April at 10.02pm to which I referred above (viz “I would bet a lot of money that with Simon Gerada in the team, Australia would have finished considerably higher. A strong result at the Worlds is important for TTA.”), I do not regard 35th or 36th position (which, as Richard has said, would be Australia’s optimal position with Simon in the Team) as “considerably higher” or as such a “strong result” that it would have any significant bearing on the state of Australian table tennis today. Similarly, although Jeff is of the view that “Table Tennis in Australia would be better today if he (Simon) had played (for Australia in the 2001 World Championships)” (10th April at 8.43pm), he does not provide any empirical evidence to support his view.

     28.In any event, the utility of a rule is not judged by examining the consequences of applying that rule in a particular case. I shall return to this point under (1.5) below and later under (2.7).

     (1.4) A BETTER OFFER FROM MALTA

     29.In Bob’s first comments on 8th April at 10.07am, he compared Simon’s position with that of Jian Fang Lay. Like Simon, Jian withdrew from the national squad in 2001 and thereby became ineligible for selection in the Australian Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships. However, unlike Simon, Jian adhered to the relevant eligibility requirements in some subsequent years and represented Australia on numerous occasions. Bob made the point that Simon could have represented Australia at any time after the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships had he complied with the relevant eligibility requirements and had he not chosen to play for Malta. Hence, Simon was not forced out by TTA – he simply chose to play for Malta.

     30.In reply to Bob, Jeff (8th April at 10.02pm) has said: “TTA invested time and money in Simon Gerada and had one of the most promising 18 year olds we have ever had and let him choose to play for Malta because Malta had a better offer. … It is TTA that lost out on this deal not Simon Gerada. ”. Similarly, on 14th April at 9.13pm, Jeff has said that “it was TTA that was the loser in this situation – no one else”.

     31.I should make 3 points in reply to Jeff’s statements. Firstly, short of enlisting the services of one of those gangland personalities recently portrayed on “Underbelly”, TTA could not prevent Simon from exercising his choice to play for Malta.

     32.Secondly, although I am not privy to the amount of money offered by Malta, it must have been more than TTA was offering because TTA was not offering any money to Simon. When I became Interim President in May 2001, TTA was insolvent. At the time of the relevant events in 2001, TTA’s liabilities still exceeded its assets. TTA simply was not in a position to offer to pay any players or any coaches - the most that TTA could afford to do at that time was to meet the reasonable travel and accommodation expenses of its players and coaches in attending and participating in the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships. Simon’s decision to play for Malta is explicable on purely financial grounds. Of course, only Simon knows why he decided to play for Malta, but I think it is significant that when he explained his decision in a letter to me in mid 2001, he made no mention of his exclusion from the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships.

     33.Thirdly, as to Jeff’s statement that it was not Simon who “lost out on this deal”, while I accept that Simon may have profited financially from his decision to play for Malta, there are other factors to consider. In February 2001, Simon was ranked equal 207th in the World. Currently, he is ranked 320th in the World. In table tennis terms, that does not sound like a win or even a draw – that sounds like a loss. Of course, Simon might possibly be ranked even lower now had he not chosen to play for Malta, but it is interesting to compare the change in World Rankings of William Henzell, who is almost exactly one year younger than Simon, during the same period. In February 2001, William was ranked equal 357th in the World. He is currently ranked 137th in the World.

     (1.5) THE TUCKETT - PLUMB DIALOGUE

     34.Jeff’s position in respect of Bob’s comments seems to alter during the course of their dialogue. Jeff begins on 8th April at 10.02pm by referring to Bob’s comments as an “interesting perspective” and he then continues: “Unfortunately I have to disagree with a lot of what you have said.” (In passing, I note that most of what Bob has said consisted of facts). Then on 12th April at 2.43pm, Jeff states: “Thanks for putting up your facts on the matter. I believe they actually support my point of view.” Next, on 14th April at 9.13pm, Jeff says: “I am not trying to find an inaccuracy in your facts - they simply don’t matter.” So, at first Jeff appears to consider that at least many of Bob’s facts are untrue, then he considers them to be true but supportive of his (Jeff’s) own position and, finally, he considers them to be true but irrelevant.

     35.A central feature of the dialogue between Jeff and Bob was Jeff ‘s enquiries of Bob (ad nauseam) as to who was the player who “replaced” Simon. An example of Jeff’s searching interrogation is contained in the following comments from Jeff on 12th April at 2.52pm: “Who was the professional disciplined player that was selected because of Simon’s ineligibility? Who was the professional player that dedicated their lives to Table Tennis? Let me know because I sincerely doubt that they would have trained half the hours that Simon had to that point in their lives. Did they keep going afterwards and really take a disciplined approach to training? … Who was the player Bob?” Jeff made similar enquiries in respect of one or more of these matters on 10th April at 8.43pm, 13th April at 8.00pm and 14th April at 8.59am.

     36.Jeff explains the reason for his enquiries as to the player(s) who “replaced” Simon as follows (10th April at 8.43pm): “The reason that naming the players who were selected is important is because it shows how bad the eligibility criteria was. It shows how it was obviously not in the best interests of Table Tennis in Australia.”

     37.With respect, it shows no such thing. Richard (16th April at 2.18am) made the point that the utility of a rule is not judged by its results in a particular case and Charles (16th April at 2.18am) asked Jeff whether it would make any difference to his opinion of the rules if Simon had been replaced by a better player. When Jeff failed to answer the question, Charles put it to him again (23rd April at 1.33am). Jeff purported to answer the question on 23rd April at 9.47am, but it should be apparent to anyone who reads his reply that he has not answered Charles’ question at all.

     38.I shall state my position on the matters which Jeff has raised because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about my position. With regard to Simon’s omission from the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships:
     (a) provided the players who were selected in the Team satisfied the eligibility requirements, and all of TTA’s enquiries indicated that those players did satisfy the eligibility requirements, then the identity of those players is irrelevant to the issue of Simon’s omission from the Team;
     (b) the number of hours which the selected players had trained prior to the commencement of the training requirement is irrelevant to the issue of Simon’s omission from the Team;
     (c) the approach (dedicated or otherwise) which the selected players took to training after the conclusion of the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships is irrelevant to the issue of Simon’s omission from the Team.

     39.Let me also state in unequivocal terms that naming the selected players does not in any way establish that the eligibility requirements were inappropriate or that they were not in the best interests of table tennis in Australia. Whenever any eligibility requirements are imposed, the possibility is created that some players will fail to satisfy them and that as a consequence the team which is ultimately selected is weaker than it would have been had the eligibility requirements not been imposed. However, the existence of that possibility does not justify the abolition of the eligibility requirements.

     40.The most recent occasion on which the State and Territory Associations formally considered the issue of eligibility requirements for national selection was at the 2006 Annual General Meeting of TTA when a motion proposing some very minor amendments to the eligibility requirements was moved by me, in my capacity as WATTA’s Delegate, and was carried without dissent.

     41.In my later comments under (2.6) , I have discussed the 2004 and 2008 Olympic Nomination Criteria for Table Tennis. Contrary to what Jeff (10th April at 8.43pm and 23rd April at 9.47am) and Phil Boyle (22nd April at 10.49pm) have stated, the Australian Olympic Committee’s 2008 Olympic Nomination Criteria (and also the AOC’s 2004 Olympic Nomination Criteria) contain a training requirement of 10 hours per week - precisely the same number of hours per week as TTA’s training requirement for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships.

     42.I know from my negotiations with the AOC over the 2004 Olympic Nomination Criteria that the AOC was well aware of the ITTF’s Olympic qualification system and was also well aware that the inevitable result of the failure by one of the Australian players who had qualified through the continental qualification events (in the case of Australian players, the Oceania Olympic Qualifying Tournament) to comply with the training requirement of 10 hours per week was the replacement of that player not by a “professional disciplined” (to use Jeff’s phrase) Australian player or any Australian player, but by a foreign player who would inevitably be of a lower standard (because he or she would have finished below the Australian player whom he or she was replacing at the Oceania Olympic Qualifying Tournament) and who might well have trained far less and be less professional and disciplined in his or her approach to table tennis than the Australian player whom he or she was replacing. That possibility did not persuade the AOC to exclude, or even to give any consideration to excluding, the training requirement from the Olympic Nomination Criteria because the AOC was of the view that unless our Olympic players trained at least 10 hours per week, there was no possibility of those players being optimally prepared for the Games - irrespective of the amount of training which those players had done prior to the imposition of the training requirement.

     43.[It should be noted that although the continental qualification process for the 2008 Olympic Games differs in some respects from that for the 2004 Olympic Games, due mainly to the Men’s and Women’s Doubles Events being replaced by Men’s and Women’s Teams Events, the possibility still remains that in the event of Australian players failing to comply with the training requirement of 10 hours per week, they may be replaced in the Men’s and Women’s Singles Events by foreign players and the Australian Men’s and Women’s Teams may be replaced in the Teams Events by foreign teams.]

     (1.6) THE PURPOSE OF THE PLUMB BLOG

     44.Finally, I should say something about the title of Jeff’s blog “Australia Needs Simon Gerada” and the purpose of the blog. If, as Jeff now claims, the purpose of his blog was to argue for the abolition of eligibility requirements, and in particular training requirements, so that the best players are selected for World Championships (and unless all of the eligibility requirements are abolished, the best players may not necessarily be selected), then, as Bob (11th April at 9.24pm) and Richard (23rd April at 8.17am) have pointed out, Stephanie Sang’s omission from the Australian Women’s Team for the 2008 World Teams Championships would have been a far better vehicle for the discussion. Unlike Simon, Stephanie was ranked No. 1 in Australia at the time of the selection of the Team and her World Ranking at that time (189) was much higher than that of Simon’s at that time (311). Most importantly, unlike Simon, Stephanie was eligible to represent Australia. Indeed, Jeff acknowledges in his blog that Simon is never going to represent Australia again in World Championships. Stephanie does not get a mention in Jeff’s blog.

     45.So what is the point of writing a blog about events which happened approximately 8 years ago and entitling it “Australia Needs Simon Gerada” ? Whatever problems St Kilda Football Club might have with their forward structure this season, I very much doubt whether we shall see a headline “St Kilda needs Barry Hall” because his departure from St Kilda to Sydney occurred at the end of 2001 and there is no likelihood of him returning to St Kilda in the foreseeable future.

     46.Jeff’s blog purports to provide some justification for returning to the events of 2001 under the heading “What Can We Learn?”. Contrary to what Jeff now states is the point of his blog, viz that eligibility requirements should be abolished and players with the best results should be picked for the World Championships (10th April at 8.43pm: “…I believe you still miss my point. I think the best team based on results should be picked for the World Championships.”), there is nothing at all under this heading about the abolition of eligibility requirements or selecting the players with the best results for the World Championships. Rather, the blog talks about TTA’s (alleged) failure to manage Simon’s (alleged) burn out, as the following passage demonstrates: “… after years of hard training he simply needed a break. Other sports recognise that players can get burnt out. In fact the Australian Cricket team started the rotation policy under Steve Waugh to assist the players in their recovery. At the time he thought if other sports are doing it why shouldn’t we. Table Tennis Australia also needs to learn from these other sports quickly before they make the same mistake again.”.

     47.But the events in question happened 8 years ago. Jeff did not write to TTA about this issue at the time or at any time prior to the end of my Presidency in April 2004 (I do not know whether he has written to TTA about this issue since April 2004). And even now, he does not provide any practical advice to administrators in his blog. He simply talks about “careful management”, “better athlete management” and “an effective agreement”. These are just motherhood statements. They contain no practical content. If, as he now says, his thesis is that eligibility requirements should be abolished for Australian Teams for World Championships, then he should just say that and, if he wishes, he could choose some contemporary examples (and there have been several in recent years) to support his thesis. He does not need to hark back to Simon’s case in 2001 and talk about “better athlete management” and TTA’s failure to understand Simon’s alleged burn out because those matters involve issues which are different to the issues concerning eligibility requirements.

     48.In passing, it should be noted that of the “other sports” to which Jeff refers, the only one he names is cricket. Relevantly, in preparation for the Ashes series in Australia in 2006-7, all members of the squad from which the Australian Cricket Team would be chosen were required to participate in a form of boot camp in the outback. One of the squad members was Shane Warne. The fact that he was universally regarded as the greatest leg spin bowler of his era and, arguably, of all time did not excuse him from attending the camp, nor did the fact that over his long career, he may have done much more training than some of his fellow squad members. Warne made it clear in several statements to the media that he did not wish to be participating in the camp and that the only reason he was doing so was because he would not be considered for selection in the team if he did not do so. Had he not participated in the camp, with the consequence that he would not have been considered for selection in the team, his replacement would inevitably have been an inferior player and the team would inevitably have been weakened by Warne’s absence. However, to enquire as to the quality of Warne’s replacement or as to the effect of Warne’s omission on the strength and balance of the team would be to miss the point of the rule requiring attendance at the camp and to miss the point of the camp. Of course, opinions may differ as to the efficacy of preparing for an Ashes series in the outback, but that is a debate about the mode of training rather than about whether training should be mandatory.

     49.To return to the issue of the subject matter of Jeff’s blog, it does not discuss eligibility requirements, nor does it provide any practical advice to administrators. Rather, it provides an inaccurate and incomplete account of the events relating to Simon’s exclusion from the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships and it exaggerates the likely effect of Simon’s (hypothetical) inclusion in the Australian Men’s Team for the 2008 World Championships. In my view, the blog only serves to open old wounds which would have been better left unopened.

112. Brian Lauri

     commented on May 13th, 2008 at 6:40 am

     (2) TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

     1.In my comments which follow, I shall endeavour to explain why the TTA Interim Board imposed eligibility requirements for selection in the Australian Men’s and Women’s Teams for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships and why I think the imposition of those requirements was, and still is, justified.
     (2.1) IN THE BEGINNING – THE NEED FOR ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND SELECTION CRITERIA
     2.When the Interim Board of TTA was appointed in May 2000, there were no eligibility requirements for national selection and no selection criteria for national selection. Before I continue, I should define what I mean by those two concepts. Eligibility requirements for national selection are those requirements which players are required to satisfy in order to be considered for national selection - in other words, eligibility requirements define the field of players from which a team can be selected. Selection criteria are the factors which are applied in selecting a team from the field of players which has been defined by the eligibility requirements.
     3.The effect of there being no eligibility requirements for national selection was that there were no requirements which players had to satisfy in order to be considered for national selection. Hence, the field of players from which a national team could be selected was limited only by ITTF Regulations for international eligibility and by the eligibility requirements of the international event for which the team was being selected (e.g. teams for the World Men’s Teams Event could only be composed of male players and teams for the World Women’s Teams Event could only be composed of female players).
     4.The effect of there being no selection criteria for national selection was that subject to the common law requirements not to act in a biased or irrational manner, the national selectors could take into account, or ignore, whatever factors they wished.
     5.The practical effect of there being no eligibility requirements for national selection was demonstrated at the National Senior Championships in Adelaide in July 2000. Only one of the 4 women who had been selected to represent Australia in the Sydney Olympic Games to be held in September 2000 competed in the Championships. The other 3 women, who were living in Melbourne at the time, did not compete in the Championships. I suggest that at least one of the reasons why they did not compete in the Championships was that they did not need to do so: either to be eligible for selection in the 2000 Olympic Games or the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships or to establish that they were good enough to be selected in the Women’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships - they were clearly the 4 best female Australian table tennis players. Their absence significantly detracted from the prestige, playing standard and spectator appeal of the Championships and it deprived the members of the State and Territory Women’s Teams of the opportunity to compete against those Olympic women. The TTA Interim Board did not think that the absence of the 3 Olympic women from the Championships was a good thing.
     6.The Interim Board noted that over the preceding 3 decades, and possibly longer, numerous Australian players had travelled abroad for varying durations in an endeavour to improve their standard of play. One of the ways in which those players hoped to improve their standard of play was to compete against better players and watch them in action. For the same reason, the Interim Board took the view that our leading players should be required to compete in a reasonable number of domestic events - so that the second tier and developing players had the opportunity to compete against and watch our leading players. The Interim Board also considered that it was important for the profile of table tennis and for attracting spectator and media interest that our leading players should participate in as many domestic events as could reasonably be required of them. Of course, what could reasonably be required of our leading players might vary from player to player, depending on each player’s particular circumstances. Accordingly, in setting the participation aspects of the eligibility requirements for national selection, the Interim Board made provision for players to be exempted from part or all of those participation requirements.
     7.The Interim Board was also mindful that:
     (a) Australia had never produced a World class table tennis player (for the purposes of this discussion, “World class” will be defined as being ranked in the top 20 men or women in the World); and, as far as the Interim Board was aware,
     (b) Australia had never produced a table tennis player who had made a reasonable income from playing the game (for the purposes of this discussion, “reasonable income” will be defined as an income at least as large as the player concerned could have earned had he or she worked assiduously in an alternative occupation).
     8.Although various correspondents on this blog have waxed lyrical about the halcyon days of Zhou Lan Sun’s squad in the 90s (Greg Linwood on 16th April at 11.36pm and Phil Boyle on 22nd April at 10.49pm), the harsh reality is that in the 1995 World Championships, the Australian Men’s Team finished 49th, the lowest position in which the Men’s Team has ever finished in a World Championship, and by the next World Championships (1997), Zhou Lan Sun had been replaced as the National Coach. This is not to say that there were not many positives from Zhou’s stint as National Coach, but the fact remained that we had not produced any players who were World class players or who, at their then current rate of development, appeared likely to become World class players.
     9.In addition, following the Sydney Olympic Games, our Olympic Head Coach Bob Tuckett had reported that not all of the Olympians were professional or disciplined in their training and that some of the Olympians did not want to train, and did not train properly, with some of the other Olympians. In Bob’s view, some of the Olympians were motivated to participate in the Games rather than to succeed in them.
     10.Jeff has stated (10th April at 8.43pm) that “TTA should be concentrating on providing the best training facilities and getting the best players training on a regular basis with a professional and disciplined approach”. Unfortunately, left to their own devices, not all of the best players trained on a regular basis with a professional and disciplined approach. However, table tennis players are not unique in that regard. In almost any team in any sport, there will be some players whose training ethic leaves something to be desired. That is one of the reasons why professional teams in most sports have rules which make it mandatory for the players to attend the team training sessions and to train properly at those sessions. I shall return to the subject of team rules in professional teams shortly.
     11.The Interim Board took the view that: (a) Australia should aim to perform as well as our players were capable of performing at the World Championships;
     (b) the level of competition at the World Championships was such that we could not hope to succeed in our aim at the Championships unless our players were optimally prepared for the Championships; and
     (c) optimal preparation for the Championships in the 2 month period leading up to the Championships involved inter alia at the very least 10 hours of “on table” training per week.

     12.Accordingly, the Interim Board determined that:
     (a) it would require those players who wished to be considered for selection in the Australian Men’s or Women’s Teams for the 2001 World Championships to take all steps which TTA could reasonably require of them to prepare themselves optimally for the Championships;
     (b) in the absence of exceptional circumstances, TTA could reasonably require each player in the national training squad to participate in 10 hours of “on table” training per week in the 2 month period leading up to the Championships;
     (c) in the event of there being exceptional circumstances relating to any player selected in the national training squad, the National Coach would have a discretion to vary the requirement of 10 hours of “on table” training per week in such manner as he deemed fit consistent with the objective of requiring the player to take all reasonable steps to prepare himself or herself optimally for the Championships.

     13.In essence, therefore, TTA’s philosophical position was that it would require each player to take all reasonable steps to prepare himself or herself to play as well as he or she was capable in the World Championships, taking into account that player’s ability and current level of development. The converse of this proposition was that TTA would not select a player who did not take all such reasonable steps, irrespective of whether that player would otherwise have been selected. This position is in stark contrast with the position advocated by Jeff Plumb, Mark Smythe et al, which is that the “best” players should be selected (leaving aside for the moment the issue of how “best” is defined), irrespective of their preparation, and (to adopt Phil Boyle’s phraseology - see below) “hang the rest”.

     (2.2) HENZELL’S THOUGHTS
     14.I think the following remarks, with which I concur, from an article “Henzell’s Thoughts” written by William Henzell in the February 2008 issue of the TTA Newsletter are relevant to the debate on training requirements:
     “What are the goals of our HP program and what is being expected of our HP players to receive the perks? Establishing Australia as a world table tennis force is a stated goal of the program and HP players are being expected to participate in an inclusive environment where commitment and contribution to the betterment of Australia’s HP program is paramount. That means the individual player loses some control of his/her own training and preparation and will inevitably mean that he/she will at times be required to do things that benefit someone else more than themself. … To reach a competitive international level we are talking about at least 10 years of constant application, sacrifice of social and professional advancement and hard work. Training in the vicinity of 20-25 dedicated hours per week is a minimum. … I believe our high goals are justified and aiming lower would be succumbing to a grey HP future for Australia.”
     15.Establishing Australia as a world table tennis force was also a goal of the Interim Board. In this regard, I agree with Greg Linwood’s comment (23rd April at 5.47pm) that: “The point of competing at world championships is to try & win the championships” (although it is one of the few of Greg’s comments with which I agree). Australia should be trying to win World Championships. We may not succeed initially (having attended World Championships on a regular basis since 1975, usually at my own expense, I have a fair idea of the challenge facing us), we may not succeed at our next attempt, we may never succeed, but I think we should be striving to succeed (and I do not consider that there is any genetic impediment to our success). In this regard, I must take issue with the following comment from Mark Smythe (16th April at 1.30pm): “… what is it going to take to become Top 100 or dare i (sic) say, Top 20. Most likely it will never happen unless we buy a proven international player but we don’t have that type of money so everyone please don’t worry about trying to become the best in the world”. With respect, I think that is a policy of pessimism, a recipe for the perpetuation of mediocrity.

     (2.3) “RELAXED” CRITERIA - NO CRITERIA
     16.Mark has argued in various comments on this blog that because Australia has so few good players, the “criteria” must be “quite relaxed” or “very relaxed” (I assume that by “criteria” he means eligibility requirements rather than selection criteria because it is nonsensical to speak of selection criteria as being relaxed or, for that matter, as being strict). Mark does not ever say what he means by “quite relaxed” or “very relaxed”, but it is apparent from the following statement (22nd April 2008 at 1.06pm) that he considers there should be no eligibility requirements: “ …if the sport has an abundance of good/top players then the criteria can be more strict but if the sport doesn’t then the criteria must be very relaxed and easy to abide by. I say, let all players be eligible for Team selection (not just the National Squad members which is currently the case) and see who is the best via competition.”. (In passing, I should point out that the current eligibility requirements for national selection do not require players to be members of a national squad. The situation is different for Olympic nomination, but that is an Australian Olympic Committee requirement.)

     17.I think that the true position is the converse of the position enunciated by Mark. I think that the fewer the number of good players, the greater is the need for a training requirement and, conversely, the greater the number of good players, the lesser is the need for a training requirement. Let me take the converse case first. In a country which has a great depth of players of a very high standard, such as China, competition for places in the national team will be so fierce that in order to be good enough to make the team, the players will have to be optimally prepared. They will train hard irrespective of any training requirement because the consequence of not doing so is likely to be that they will lose to other contenders. In contrast, in a country which has a dearth of good players, it will not be nearly as difficult for the established players to be good enough to make the national team. In the case of some of the established players, performing at, say, 70% to 80% of their capability might be good enough to enable them to make the national team, but not good enough to enable them to succeed in the World Championships.
     18.Furthermore, it is precisely because Australia lacks depth amongst its elite players that it is important for those players to train together. Unlike sports such as athletics, swimming, rowing and golf, in which there is no physical interaction, or virtually no physical interaction, with the opponent, table tennis is a sport in which, to use Richard Lee’s phrase(18th April at 9.37am), “the opponent is everything”. The quality of training partners is an important factor in preparation for competition.

     19.Left to their own devices, not all of our top players have trained together on a regular basis, even when it was practical for them to do so. On various occasions, some of our top players have complained to me that they could not find training partners of a reasonable standard in Australia, notwithstanding that they were living in the same city as other top players, and that the only way they could obtain a reasonable standard of training was to go abroad. Over the years, there have been numerous examples at both National and State levels of leading players not practising with each other. In some instances, it was simply a case of players not being motivated to train because they could make their National or State Team with a minimum of training using lower ranked training partners. In other instances, there were personality clashes between players or one player did not want a rival to become familiar with his or her rubber or his or her serves or some other aspect of his or her game. Mandatory training overcomes these problems and, if conducted properly, it can also promote team bonding.

     (2.4) “THE PLAYERS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SPORT”

     20.In arguing his thesis that the “rules/criteria” need to be “quite relaxed”, Mark Smythe (16th April at 1.30pm) puts the following general proposition: “As a result of so few good/top players competing, i (sic) believe we (the sport) are in a situation where the players are more important than the sport”. Pausing there, I am bound to say that this proposition is nonsensical: without the sport, there can be no players and without players, the sport will only exist as an idea.

     21.Mark then provides the following as an example of his general proposition: “ Our Men’s Team results will drop dramatically if Henzell is not in the Team therefore he is more important to the sport than the sport is to him. If the approach is to drop (short term pain for long term gain) Henzell due to (hyperthetically (sic)) not abiding by whatever criteria is in place then it may never recover as he (in my mind) has made the most sacrifices of any player in Aust. TT history – living overseas for 12 years from age of 14 to improve his skills/standard.”
     22.I do not think it is in issue that William is a dedicated and hard working player. I think the chances of him being ineligible for selection as a result of failing to comply with a training requirement are so slim as to be virtually negligible (particularly as TTA’s training requirements have always made provision for the requirements to be varied or waived completely in an appropriate case). He is far more likely to miss selection in a team because of illness or injury at the time of a qualifying tournament. I do not agree with Mark’s proposition that William is more important to table tennis than table tennis is important to him and I doubt whether William agrees with it either, but for those who do agree with Mark, the last thing that we should be doing is using the results in a qualifying tournament as the means of selecting the team - see my comments below under (2.6).

     (2.5) “MORE IS NOT NECESSARILY BETTER”

     23.In his blog “Australian National Training Program” (found elsewhere on this site), Mark Smythe refers to his playing career (full-time player (25-30 hours per week) March 1991 - October 1996; part-time player (15 hours per week) October 1996 - June 1997; casual player (training once per week and playing nearly all of the tournaments in Victoria) June 1997 - September 2000) and then comments that it was in his period as a casual player that he achieved his best results. Jeff Plumb (26th April at 11.26pm) has seized on this comment by Mark and stated: “…this shows that at a particular point in time - more is not necessarily better.”

     24.The clear implication in Jeff’s statement is that in the period June 1997 - September 2000, Mark was better off, or at least no worse off, training only once per week rather than 25 - 30 hours per week, when he was a full-time player, or 15 hours per week, when he was a part-time player. In my view, Mark’s results in the period June 1997 - September 2000 establish no such thing. Mark’s improved results during that period could be due to any number of factors, such as an improved temperament, an improved tactical awareness, an improved understanding of his own game or an improved knowledge of his opponents’ games. There is nothing to say that his results would not have been significantly better had he continued to train 25 - 30 hours per week (with due allowance for periodisation). It should also be noted that Mark has stated several times in his blog that senior players require 20 - 30 hours of training and competition per week to be competitive at an international level. These statements are inconsistent with the implication in Jeff’s statement (and note William Henzell’s comment, quoted above under (2.2), that to “reach a competitive international level”requires a minimum of 20-25 hours of training per week for at least 10 years).

     25.Incidentally, Mark states in his blog that he had the second best win of his career during his period as a casual player, defeating the World No. 58 at the Sydney Olympic Games (September 2000). However, he does not mention that in the 2 months leading up to the Games, his preparation involved training far more frequently than once per week and it included 2 training camps each of approximately 2 weeks. Arguably the best win of Mark’s career was against Yan Sen, the World No. 53 in 1995. However, Mark was a full-time player at this time.

     (2.6) “PICK THE BEST … AND HANG THE REST”

     26.In arguing against a requirement for mandatory training and in favour of a selection process based purely on results in a qualifying tournament, with no discretion left to selectors, Jeff (10th April at 8.43pm) has stated: “The Ocenaia (sic) Olympic qualification tournament that was played was a perfect way to select a team. Whoever wins goes. There can be no interference from selectors and no excuses from the players. Just as it should be.” Phil Boyle (22nd April at 10.49pm) also appears to be a fan of such a selection process: “I like the recent Olympic Qualification process. Cut throat competition and the best players getting through. Pick the best team and hang the rest, I say.”.
     27.On 23rd April at 9.47am, Jeff renewed his onslaught on mandatory training requirements and his support for qualifying tournaments as the sole means of selection, again citing the Olympic qualifying tournament (he does not say which one) as a perfect example: “I believe the best players should be selected based on their results not on the amount of time they train. … That is why I like the Olympic Qualification tournament. Whoever is good enough to win the matches makes the team. Perfect!” However, exactly 8 hours later (i.e. on 23rd April at 5.47pm), after Richard (23rd April at 12.20pm) had pointed out one of the obvious weaknesses of a selection process based solely on results in a qualifying tournament, viz that such a process does not allow for illness or injury, Jeff decided that a selection process based solely on results in a qualifying tournament was not so perfect after all. However, selection criteria are a separate issue, on which I may comment on Mark Smythe’s blog on a later date if I have the time and inclination. For now, I shall return to the issue of mandatory training requirements.

     28.Jeff could not have chosen a worse example than the Olympic nomination process to support his position on mandatory training. Contrary to what he has stated, Olympic nomination is not just a case of “Whoever wins goes”. The 2008 Olympic Team Nomination Criteria for Table Tennis (which is readily available on the respective AOC and TTA web sites) provides in clause 3(6)(c)(ii) inter alia that TTA will only nominate those athletes who have completed to the satisfaction of TTA during the period from 4 January 2008 to 3 July 2008 “a minimum of 10 hours training per week”, i.e. precisely the same number of hours of training per week as the requirement imposed by TTA in 2001 in respect of the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships.

     29.I should stress that the 2008 Olympic Team Nomination Criteria referred to above is an Australian Olympic Committee policy (because the Olympic Nomination Criteria apply to an AOC Team, not a TTA Team) and although TTA has a significant input into the Criteria, I know from having negotiated the 2004 Olympic Nomination Criteria (which also contained a requirement of a minimum of 10 hours training per week) with the AOC that the AOC does not simply rubber stamp TTA’s proposals. So with regard to Phil’s comment in respect of the Olympic qualification process of picking the best team and hanging the rest, he should not start assembling the scaffold just yet because some of the players whom he is proposing to hang might be nominated for selection in the Olympic Team if any of those players who performed best in the qualifying tournaments do not complete a minimum of 10 hours training per week to the satisfaction of TTA. A broken neck would be a serious impediment to optimal performance in Beijing.

     30.In a similar vein to the 2004 and 2008 Olympic Nomination Criteria, clause 3.6(b) of the 2006 Commonwealth Games Team Nomination Criteria for Table Tennis provided that TTA would only nominate those athletes who completed a minimum of 15 hours of on-table training, off-table training and competition per week from 1 September 2005 to 14 March 2006. Again, I note that the 2006 Commonwealth Games Team Nomination Criteria is ultimately an Australian Commonwealth Games Association policy (because the Commonwealth Games Nomination Criteria applied to an ACGA Team, not a TTA Team), although I am quite sure that TTA provided the substance of the Criteria. Accordingly, two of the peak sporting bodies in Australia have put their imprimatur on an eligibility requirement of mandatory training for at least as many hours per week as that laid down by TTA in 2001. So the answer to Andrew Gilbert’s question (28th April at 2.23pm) “How long will it be until William Henzell … is told he must train 10 hours a week to qualify for a team (even though he has spent the last 14 years overseas as Simon spent 10 years doing nothing but playing table tennis”) is that William has already been told by the AOC and the ACGA.

     31.Some of the correspondents on this blog may say that the AOC and the ACGA do not understand the table tennis situation in Australia. From my dealings with each of those bodies, I know that there are people within those bodies who are reasonably familiar with the table tennis situation in Australia, but more importantly, each of those bodies knows what is required to be successful in sport at an international level. The Australian Commonwealth Games Team is the most successful team in the history of the Commonwealth Games and the Australian Olympic Team has in recent Olympic Games been far more successful on a per capita basis than the Olympic teams of any of the other leading countries.

     (2.7) RULES OF PROFESSIONAL TEAMS
     32.When the subject of the training of professional teams is raised in table tennis circles, it is often said that the situation of professional teams is different to that of table tennis teams in Australia because in professional teams the players are paid to train, whereas no-one pays table tennis players in Australia to train. In professional teams, the players are usually paid to carry out a range of tasks, one of which is to attend training sessions punctually and to train in a disciplined manner at those sessions. However, the reason why the team has those rules in respect of training is not because the players are being paid, but because those rules are considered necessary to maximise the team’s chances of success. And that approach is adopted not only in sports where there is a significant amount of physical interaction between the players when they are performing their skills in match conditions, such as the football codes, but also in sports where the amount of physical interaction between the players when they are performing their skills in match conditions is minimal, such as cricket. Most professional sporting teams do not simply make their training facilities available to the players and leave it up to them as to whether they want to come down and roll their arm over in the nets or have a kick of the football.
     33.Jeff Plumb (10th April at 8.43pm) has stated: “We should attempt to have the most professional and disciplined training available to our best players.” But leaving it up to our players as to when, where, how and with whom they train is neither professional nor disciplined. The following comment from Richard Lee (24th April at 4.46am) is also relevant to this issue: “The last thing I would mention is the implication that a player knows best what is good for their game - particularly an international player. As an ex-International player and a coach for over 30 years I’m afraid I have to disagree with that line of thought. What a player wants and what a player needs are often 2 different things. Particularly a ‘young and inexperienced one’ as simon (sic) was described at the time.”
     34.The fact that players are paid is relevant not to the issue of the efficacy of mandatory training but to the issue of what can reasonably be demanded of the players in respect of mandatory training. If the players are being paid at a level such that they do not need to work for a living, then it is reasonable to demand more of their time than if they need to earn an income in some other manner.
     35.The rules of most professional sporting teams not only make it mandatory to attend the team training sessions punctually and to train properly at those sessions, they usually also cover a variety of other activities, such as alcohol consumption and drug taking. The purpose of the rules is to optimise the team’s performances and also to enhance the team’s public image. There will often be some players in a team who are talented enough to get a game without training as hard or as regularly as the rest of the team. To take an AFL example, Gary Ablett Snr in his prime years with Geelong was always worth his place in the team, irrespective of whether he attended training regularly or not. He was always likely to kick more goals and make a greater contribution to the team than his replacement. However, to allow him to miss training or be late for training with impunity would undermine the training ethic of the whole team and on at least one occasion he was omitted from the team for failing to attend a training session punctually.
     36.Some of the rules of professional teams prescribe a particular penalty for breaching the rule, but in the case of some other rules, the team management has a discretion as to the sanction to be imposed. In considering what sanction to impose, the 3 relevant considerations are: (a) the importance of the rule which has been breached; (b) the seriousness of the breach; and (c) the “record” of the offender (i.e. whether he or she has committed any previous breaches of the rules - in criminal law parlance, this is referred to as having “form”).
     37.It is not relevant to consider who will replace the player if the sanction to be imposed is suspension from competition nor is it relevant to consider how the player is likely to react to the suspension. For example, if a cricket team is contemplating suspending 2 of its players who turned up for a match hung over (taking their cue from Andrew Symonds), it would be wrong to suspend one of the players because he was an opening batsman who could be replaced with another opening batsman of similar quality while merely reprimanding the other offending player because he was the team’s wicketkeeper and could not easily be replaced.
     38.Similarly, it would be wrong to suspend one player because it was likely that he would “take it on the chin” and return a more disciplined player while merely reprimanding the other player because of concerns that he might react badly and be lost to the team or to the sport. To entertain those sorts of considerations is to misunderstand the purpose of the rules. Almost every rule admits of the possibility that its application in a particular case will not result in the maximisation of benefit (or, to put it conversely, that its application in a particular case will result in the diminution of benefit) , but it does not follow that it should not be applied in such a case.

     (2.8) ADHERENCE TO THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS BY OTHER TEAM MEMBERS
     39.Andrew Gilbert has alleged in a comment on 28th April 2008 at 2.23pm that: “The players that replaced Simon in the 2001 Worlds team were not training 10 hours a week”. I wish to make 4 points in respect of that allegation. Firstly, Andrew should specify the players to whom he is referring as only one member of the Men’s Team for the 2001 World Championships, Trevor Brown, had been a member of the Men’s Team for the 2000 World Championships. Is Andrew referring to the remaining members of the Men’s Team for the 2001 World Championships?

     40.Secondly, I do not know whether the allegation (to whomever it is referring) is true because it is not within my knowledge. It is also not within Andrew’s knowledge. The only way Andrew himself could know that those players were not training 10 hours a week would be if he followed the players around day and night and the players remained together while he was following them around (or, arguably, if he monitored them day and night with closed circuit cameras). As Andrew is unlikely to have followed the players around day and night (I note that none of the members of the 2001 Men’s Team were living in Andrew’s home State of Victoria during the training period of 2 months - not 3 months as Andrew has said), he must be relying on hearsay evidence and he should disclose his sources. Even if the players themselves have told him that they were not training 10 hours per week, that would still be hearsay, although it might be persuasive hearsay.

     41.Thirdly, from the TTA Board’s perspective, we could only act on evidence provided to us and there was not a scintilla of evidence provided to us to indicate that any of the members of the 2001 Men’s Team were not training at least 10 hours a week. On the contrary, Bob Tuckett informed me that he regularly spoke to all of the members of the Men’s and Women’ Teams who were based in Australia but outside Victoria, as well as to the coaches of those players, and they all informed him that the players were practising at least 10 hours a week.

     42.Fourthly, if any of the members of the 2001 Men’s Team were not training 10 hours a week, it would not follow that Simon should have been selected, or considered for selection, in the Men’s Team. That would be a non sequitur (and with the Latin skills which Andrew demonstrated on 28th April at 4.42pm, I am sure that I do not need to tell him what that means). If any of the players who were selected in the 2001 Men’s Team were not training 10 hours a week, what follows from that is that they also (along with Simon) should not have been considered for selection in the Team. And if the imposition and application of the training requirement ultimately had the consequence that no Men’s Team was sent to the World Championships, then so be it. The Australian Olympic Committee and the Australian Commonwealth Games Association were each aware that the imposition of the same or, in the case of the ACGA, a more onerous training requirement might have the consequence that there was not an Australian Table Tennis Team at the Olympic or Commonwealth Games or that there were fewer players in that Australian Table Tennis Team, but such awareness did not inhibit the AOC or the ACGA from imposing the training requirement. Additionally, although the absence of an Australian Men’s Team from the 2001 World Championships would not be a desirable state of affairs, I am not aware of any empirical evidence which establishes that such absence would cause any significant or long term damage to Australian table tennis.

     43.Andrew (28th April at 2.23pm) has also stated that “if the purpose of that decision (the exclusion of Simon from the 2001 Men’s Team) (and a similar one to exclude Stefanie (sic) Sang) is to make more people train harder than (sic) I think it has clearly failed - There would not be 15 players in the country who would be training 10 hours a week today.” I cannot speak for the decision to exclude Stephanie Sang, but the purpose of the decision to exclude Simon was not to make more people train harder. The purpose of the decision to exclude Simon was to maintain the integrity of the training requirement imposed by TTA and the purpose of the training requirement imposed by TTA was precisely the same as the training requirement imposed by the AOC and the ACGA, viz: to ensure, as far as it was reasonably possible, that the Australian Table Tennis Team was optimally prepared for the relevant competition. In practical terms, the purpose of the training requirement was to make the likely members of the Australian Team train harder and better (for example, by the provision of a National Coach to conduct the training) than some of them otherwise might train because, on their own admission, some national players had not trained for 10 hours a week in the lead up to various international competitions. Indeed, Andrew gives some (alleged) examples of what might be termed a minimalist training approach in his comments about Mark Smythe, Brett Clarke and Russell Lavale, although I should stress that I am not endorsing (nor am I challenging) the veracity of those comments. I do not know how Andrew is able to say that there would not be 15 players in the country who would be training 10 hours a week today (how does he have such an intimate knowledge of players across the length and breadth of the country?), but if he is correct, then that merely emphasises the need for mandatory training for our national squad members.

     44.Andrew (also on 28th April at 2.23pm) appears to support the proposition that “people have different stages of their career where training for an arbitrary, mandated period of time is at best not necessary and at worst leads to disharmony and weaker team selection”. I have 2 points to make in respect of that proposition. Firstly, the training requirement imposed by TTA in 2001 was not for an arbitrary period of time. Secondly, Andrew does not state what he means by “not necessary”. Not necessary for what? I shall make my position as clear as I can on this issue. Irrespective of the stage of a player’s career, a player cannot realistically be expected to perform at an optimal level or at “a competitive international level” (to use William Henzell’s phrase - see (2.2) above) in World Championships unless that player trains for at the very least 10 hours per week in the period of 2 months immediately preceding the Championships. I cannot imagine any responsible coach suggesting otherwise.

     45.Finally, Andrew (28th April at 4.42pm) poses the question: “Is Australian Table Tennis better off with Simon Gerada not having represented Australia since 2001”? However, for the purposes of this debate, that is the wrong question. Simon chose to refrain from training with the national squad. Given that Simon was playing in tournaments during the period when the national squad training was being conducted, any suggestion that Simon was unable to train with the national squad does not, in my view, bear serious consideration. The application of almost any rule can have detrimental consequences in a particular case, but it does not follow from those consequences that the rule should be abolished or that it should not be applied in the particular case.

     46.Accordingly, the appropriate questions to ask are:
     (a) Was the rule in respect of eligibility requirements applied properly in Simon’s case? and
     (b) Was the rule in respect of eligibility requirements justified?

     47.Little would be gained by re-visiting the arguments on these 2 issues. However, as I have mentioned elsewhere in my comments, both the Australian Olympic Committee and the Australian Commonwealth Games Association have supported a mandatory training requirement of at least 10 hours per week in preparation for the respective Games. I have also mentioned elsewhere that the most recent occasion on which the State and Territory Associations formally considered the issue of eligibility requirements for national selection was at the 2006 Annual General Meeting of TTA when a motion proposing some very minor amendments to the eligibility requirements (which made provision for mandatory training) was carried without dissent. Indeed, given that all of the State Associations have eligibility requirements for selection in their own State Teams (or at least they did when I investigated the matter last year) and most of the States’ eligibility requirements include some form of mandatory training, it would be surprising if the States did not support mandatory training for national selection. I doubt whether TTA will turn back the clock to the 1990s and abolish eligibility requirements or even the mandatory training aspects of the eligibility requirements. Rather, I think the future debate about this issue is likely to be limited to the content of the eligibility requirements.

     (2.9) THE GAP BETWEEN BEING AN AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATIVE AND A WORLD CLASS PLAYER

     48.In my view, one of the main problems which TTA faces in its endeavours to produce World class players or players who are capable of earning a reasonable income from playing table tennis (and, unless they are independently wealthy, players who do not earn a reasonable income from playing table tennis will struggle to become World class players because they will be unable to devote sufficient time to training and competing) is that the gap between the standard of play required to become an Australian representative and the standard of play required to become a World class player or a player who is capable of earning a reasonable income from playing table tennis is so substantial that many of our players do not think they can bridge it or are not prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to give themselves a realistic chance of bridging it. Accordingly, their aspirations are limited to being an Australian representative and they approach their training with that as their goal.

113. Brian Lauri

     commented on May 13th, 2008 at 6:42 am

     (3) CHARLES’ IDENTITY

     1.Jeff Plumb set the ball rolling on 14th April at 8.59am when he enquired as to Charles’ identity (“And Charles, you seem to have a lot of knowledge about the situation, why don’t you provide your full name or real name and how you are involved with Table Tennis?”). I watched with increasing incredulity as Dennis (18th April at 7.30pm: “I have only one question?? Who is Charles??”), Simon (21st April at 12.43pm:“Charles?”) and Mark Smythe (21st April at 2.16pm: “Hello Charles. Where and who are you?”) jumped on the band waggon, before Dennis returned to the fray with his rapier-like wit (21st April at 7.11pm: “Charles….. Wuvanich?? Or Charles and the chocolate factory??”), although an uncharitable person (and that is not me) might say that Dennis was only half way to becoming a wit. In passing, I note that Dennis did not provide his surname, but perhaps, like Madonna, he only uses one name.

     2.After Charles supplied his surname and place of origin, Dennis (22nd April at 8.09pm) at least had the good grace to apologize to Charles and to concede that his (Dennis’s) humour was silly and childish, but Jeff could not help himself, accusing Charles of being afraid to provide his real name as well as denigrating Charles’ comprehension ability (23rd April 2008 at 5.34pm: “I think you have missed the point once again (and when are you going to provide your real name? - no-one else is afraid to)”). Mark then also accused Charles of not providing his real name (23rd April at 11.15pm: “Does Charles real name start with B?”) and despite being admonished by Dennis (24th April at 1.15pm: “Leave Charles alone now and get back to the original topic.!!!”), Mark would not be drawn from the scent (24th April 2008: “Could Charles initials be BL? ”).

     3.After a further admonition from Mary Le Gassick (24th April 2008 at 1.52pm: “He has stated who he is. Leave him alone but read well what he says.”), I thought that the penny might finally have dropped for Mark, but even then he still had at least a lingering doubt as to Charles’ real identity (24th April at 2.40pm: “If Charles who is (sic.) says he is then no problem with me” and 26th April at 12.17am: “I’m happy to discuss this with you as Charles from Shanghai even though i’m (sic) not fully convinced”). However, more recently, it became clear from comments posted by Mark under his article “Australian National Table Tennis Training Program” on this web site that far from merely having a lingering doubt, Mark was “pretty sure” that Charles was not who he said he was (8th May at 1.14am: “Charles, Still pretty sure your initials are BL but that doesn’t matter, it’s the conversation that’s important.”). Then again, there are some people who are pretty sure that Elvis is not dead and that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did not walk on the Moon. And it does matter whether or not Charles’ initials are BL.

     4.Ironically, Mark has complained that the administrators have never respected the players (24th April at 10.54am: “Unfortunately the administrators have not allowed the best Teams to represented (sic) the country for nearly 40 years so it appears they will never learn and actually truly respect the players.”). The abovementioned comments by Mark, Jeff, Dennis and Simon are hardly likely to engender respect from the administrators or from anyone else.

114. Brian Lauri

     commented on May 13th, 2008 at 6:50 am

     (4)AUSTRALIA NEEDS BOB TUCKETT
     1.Various correspondents have praised Simon for the coaching which he has being carrying out in Australia, including his coaching at one of the National Training Centres. I do not wish to detract in any way from the merit of those activities, but it relevant to note that Simon has been paid for at least a substantial portion of that coaching. In contrast, Bob was not paid by TTA either for his coaching in preparation for the 2000 Olympic Games or for his coaching in preparation for or during the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships. The reason that he was not paid by TTA was that throughout the duration of those 2 coaching stints, TTA’s liabilities exceeded its assets. The 2000 Olympic Games preparation involved Bob coaching from early 2000 until the Games in September 2000 and it included 2 training camps each of approximately 2 weeks’ duration. Bob’s coaching stint for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships involved 5 sessions per week for approximately 2 months in Australia followed by the trip of approximately one month’s duration to India and Japan for the respective Championships.
     2.As a result of Simon’s omission from the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships, Bob was ostracised by a small section of the Victorian table tennis community. This ostracism was, in my view, quite unfair. It arose from Bob’s decision to require 5 x 2 hour “on table” training sessions per week (amended in Simon’s case to 3 x 2 “on table” training sessions and 2 mental training sessions per week) in the period of approximately 2 months immediately prior to the Team’s departure for the Championships. I do not consider that it can be seriously disputed that this requirement was a reasonable one in that: (a)it represented the absolute minimum requirement for the Australian Men’s and Women’s Teams to perform optimally at theChampionships;
     (b) on their own admission, some national players would not voluntarily undergo 5 x 2 hour training sessions per week; (c) some national players would not voluntarily train with some of the other national players (Bob reported on this aspect after the 2000 Olympic Games) and it was important that our national players train together in preparation for the Championships; and (d) the Australian Olympic Committee and the Australian Commonwealth Games Association have each subsequently supported a requirement of at least 10 hours training per week in preparation for the 2004 and the 2008 Olympic Games and the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

     3.When I mention this requirement to people from other sports, their usual reaction is to roll their eyes and say something like: “What’s so tough about that?” Of course, the end result of the application of this requirement was that the 2001 Men’s and Women’s Teams were weaker than they otherwise would have been but, as I have submitted in earlier postings, it does not follow that it was wrong to impose the requirement and, in any event, I am not aware of any empirical evidence to establish that the likely difference in the finishing positions of the Men’s and Women’s Teams would have had a significant or permanent effect on the state of table tennis in Australia. In the eyes of the wider sporting community in Australia, the difference between an Australian team finishing twenty something or thirty something or forty something in the World does not add up to a hill of beans - those positions are just varying levels of mediocrity. We need to adopt policies which may ultimately lift us out of that perceived mediocrity and that is what Bob and TTA were trying to do.
     4.I think the ostracism which Bob had to endure was, at the very least, a major contributing factor to his cessation of any significant involvement in table tennis and I think table tennis is poorer for it. He had the capacity to continue to make a major contribution in coaching and, perhaps more importantly, he had the capacity to make a major contribution to administration at a national level. Some correspondents of this blog have lamented the current state of the administration of table tennis in Australia and I agree that it leaves a lot to be desired. I am quite sure that Bob could have filled, more than capably, a position at a national level and in doing so, he could have made a much more significant improvement to the state of table tennis in Australia than anything that Simon might have achieved.
     5.Regrettably, the attacks on Bob are still continuing. On 16th April at 9.18am, Simon commented: “Mr Tuckett, as National Coach of Australia you had a responsibility to get the best out of your team and you failed. I left the country after your tenor (sic) as coach. Facts are facts, if it was me in your position, I would not be defending my position. By the sounds of it, you would do the exact same thing again giving (sic) the same situation. Now I know why the sport is still in the same position if not worse for the last 15 years. By the way, I am still playing and winning, as an experianced (sic) coach such as your self, just imagine if you had of worked with me rather than kick me out because I did not want to train with any Tom, Dick or Harry.”
     6.By the sounds of it, Simon would have done “the exact same thing again” today - and he is 27 now. He still does not appear to understand that as a member of a national training squad, you have to be prepared to practise with whichever players the National Coach directs you to practise, irrespective of the standard of those other players. And by the way, Bob did not kick Simon out of the squad. It has never been disputed, by Simon or anyone else, that Simon withdrew from the squad by informing Wenda Donaldson of the Victorian Institute of Sport that he had withdrawn from the squad - that does not constitute being kicked out of the squad. As a result of his withdrawal, Simon became ineligible for selection in the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships - but not ineligible for selection in any subsequent Australian Teams. He did not have to play for Malta.
     7.As for Bob not getting the best out of the team, it is worth observing that of the 5 male Olympians from the Sydney Games, only Simon was available for selection in the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Games and, as mentioned above, Simon made himself ineligible for selection in that Team. In fact, of the top 7 ranked men in Australia in 2000, only Trevor Brown (number 5) was available and eligible for selection in the 2001 Australian Men’s Team and he was the only member of that Team who had previously been a member of an Australian Men’s Team which had competed at World Championships. Despite this dearth of established players, the Australian Men’s Team finished in 45th position in the 2001 World Championships, precisely the same position as the Australian Men’s Team in the 2000 World Championships, of which Simon was a member.
     8.In his comments on 16th April at 11.36pm, Greg Linwood described Bob’s handling of the national squad as being “too rigid & inflexible to the various needs of players”. At the risk of stating the obvious, Greg was not a member of the national squad and to the extent that he is relying on other sources for his comment, he should disclose those sources. He should also say in what respects he alleges that Bob was too rigid and inflexible. As far as I am aware, the only requirement Bob imposed on the members of the squad was to attend 5 x 2 hour training sessions per week.
     9.Greg’s comments on 16th April at 11.36pm also include the following: “Bob started out widely respected by players & might have used that position to motivate the players into participation. Instead, he went down the dictatorial route & tried threatening players into action with oppressive rules & legal letters. You can still see this attitude today in his obsession with “facts” rather than questioning why no-one wanted to be involved in his squad.” Again, Greg does not specify what were the “oppressive rules”. As mentioned above, the only rule imposed by Bob as far as I am aware was that of attendance at 5 x 2 hour training sessions per week. If that is what Greg means by “oppressive”, then I am bound to say that the AOC and the ACGA have a different view of the matter. Bob has denied writing any “legal letters” or having any such letters written on his behalf and I am not aware of him ever having written such letters or having such letters written on his behalf. It is true that the then Acting CEO of TTA Jim Montgomery sent a letter to all national squad invitees, setting out the terms of their invitation to the national squad, but the letter was drafted by me - not by Bob. Such letters are a standard and sensible practice for any sporting organisation. In fact, it was Greg who wrote the “legal letters”, threatening the commencement of “formal grievance” proceedings against TTA. However, the letters were totally ineffectual and no grievance proceedings were ever commenced against TTA.
     10.Greg’s comment that no-one wanted to be involved in the squad is not true. It also needs to be borne in mind that most of those players selected in the national training squad for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships were either unavailable, due to retirement or for other reasons, or were based outside Melbourne.
     11.With regard to Greg’s reference to Bob’s “obsession with “facts” ”, at the risk of stating the obvious once more, a fact is by definition something that is true. If I were Bob, I would not be too concerned about being accused of having an obsession with the truth.
     12.It is worth noting that none of the statements of fact contained in Bob’s comments on 8th April at 10.07am have been refuted or even directly disputed by any of the other correspondents in the period of more than one month which has elapsed since the posting of those comments.
     13.Finally, in his comments on 16th April at 11.36pm, Greg also compares Bob’s squad in unfavourable terms with the squad run by Zhou Lan Sun in the 90s. I do not have a personal knowledge of Zhou Lan Sun’s squad and I do not wish to suggest that there were not benefits from that squad but, as I observed in my earlier comments under (2.1), the Australian Men’s Team finished in 49th position in the 1995 World Championships, the lowest position ever by an Australian Men’s Team in a World Championship, and by the next World Championships (1997) Zhou Lan Sun had been replaced as National Coach.

     CONCLUDING REMARKS

     Well, on the basis that Andrew Gilbert had his 2 cents worth, I suppose I have had a couple of dollars worth. I have neither the time nor the inclination to reply to all of the comments on this blog and I think it is unlikely that I shall be responding to any future comments on this blog, although if time permits I may write something about eligibility requirements and selection criteria on Mark Smythe’s blog elsewhere on this web site. Yes, dennis (28th April at 7.32pm), I do have a life and I need to get on with it. Thanks for the opportunity to provide some comments. Beam me up Scotty.

115. Mark Smythe

     commented on May 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

     Excellent to hear from you Brian. Obviously i haven’t read your comments yet as that will take a while to absord everthing (maybe a year hehe) but it appears i was wrong about the identity of Charles, so sorry Charles.

     Brian, i welcome any comments on selection and eligibility criteria when time suits you. On the other blog off course.

116. Mark Smythe

     commented on May 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

     Brian,
     I’ll make quick comment on your 4 headings
     1. Aust. Needs Gerada - agree with majority.
     2. Training Requirements - disagree with majority.
     3. Charles’s Indentity - sorry for thinking he was you.
     4. Aust. Needs Bob Tuckett - no strong opinion either way, although i lean towards yes.

     I will make further comments about Training Requirements (to do with Eligibility and Selection Criteria) on the discussion blog “Aust. National TT Training Program”.

117. Greg Linwood

     commented on May 13th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

     Brian,
     Do you think the restructuring of our national squad which occurred under your TTA Presidency provided any lasting benefits to Australian Table Tennis? Taking into account the fact that we lost two of our most promising players at the time (Simon Gerada & Shirley Zhou), did whatever accomplishments that can be attributed to the squad’s restructuring out-weigh these losses?
     Regards,
     Greg Linwood

118. Dennis

     commented on May 13th, 2008 at 11:20 pm

     Can i just say a very impressive piece of emails there Brian.By the way this is the real “Dennis Makaling” letting you know that there was another “dennis” that impersonated me that told you to get a life…I think I know who he is.

119. Madonna

     commented on May 14th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

     im glad to hear you will not be contributing any more Brian !!!!!!

120. Jeff Plumb

     commented on May 15th, 2008 at 10:45 pm

     Hi Mark,

     You guessed it was either Oppy (Lavale) or Hersh (Makaling) using your name and I said that it was Hersh (Makaling). Well sorry Dennis because now I know the truth - it was actually Oppy (Lavale). As it turns out they both posted from the same location, hence the reason I thought it was Makaling. So sorry Dennis. And well done Madonna, I mean Oppy, I mean whoever you are - pretty funny stuff!

121. briteney spears

     commented on May 16th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

     the cacks are and were on you plumby !!

122. Charles Ma

     commented on June 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 pm

     It seems to me that Brian has comprehensively exposed the fallacies in Jeff’s article and has demolished the subsequent attempts by Jeff and others to justify the article. On a personal note, with all the comments about my identity from Jeff, Mark, and the other perceptive commentators, I was really starting to believe I was this infamous “BL” character. At first, I ignored the suggestion, but I gradually found myself being overwhelmed by the collective intellect of Jeff, Mark, Dennis and Simon. A voice inside my head kept saying that 4 great minds could not all be wrong. Luckily, Brian’s response arrived just in time to snap me out of my identity crisis.

123. Jeff Plumb

     commented on July 6th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

     Hi Charles,

     Although the training requirements for Simon did not seem to be that tough, and one could argue that he should have been able to manage it, the fact is that not one other member of the National squad was at those training sessions! Not one! So why was Simon the only one subject to these conditions?

     In fact who was at these training sessions? No one that was anywhere near the standard of the Australian team, that is who!

     What they were asking Simon to do was pointless. He wasn’t being a part of a team by attending the sessions, all the other members were elsewhere. It would be like asking Lleyton Hewitt to come back and train with some local Melbourne B grade tennis players in order to be eligible to play Davis Cup for Australia. I’m pretty sure that Tennis Australia would ever put such a ridiculous condition to Hewitt.

     And all along I’ve never said Simon helped himself in this situation, but I just wish people could admit that it wasn’t entirely Simon’s fault. I guess sometimes people just have to disagree!

124. Bob Tuckett

     commented on September 8th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

     Andrew Symonds

125. Jeff Plumb

     commented on September 8th, 2008 at 11:25 pm

     I agree with the Andrew Symonds decision. However I would not agree with dropping Andrew Symonds from the team if the selectors had required him to attend 3 sessions a week training with my local cricket club and he had not bothered to do so. The Australian Table Tennis selectors were asking Simon Gerada to turn up and train with people that were not even close to being of the standard of the Australian team. No other member of the National squad was subjected to this requirement???

     And there are plenty of cricket players in Australia who can replace Symonds. We have great depth in our players. However the person selected to replace Simon in the Worlds team decided that Table Tennis was not a priority and they chose not to go to the Worlds. That’s right, they got selected and said thanks but no thanks, I’m busy. Yet the selectors still think they got it right? I just don’t understand how they can believe they were 100% right?

     So bring on the cricket season!

126. Brian Lauri

     commented on January 3rd, 2009 at 8:00 am

     PLUMBING NEW DEPTHS

     1. NEVER SAY “NEVER”

     1.1 In my concluding remarks on 13th May, I said that it was unlikely that I would be responding to any future comments on this blog. I left the commentary door slightly ajar in case some further false, misleading or unfair comment appeared and I had the time and inclination to respond. On 6th July, Jeff Plumb, displaying the meticulous fact-finding skills and irresistible logic which readers of this blog have come to know and love, provided just such a comment and he followed it up with a further gem on 8th September. Until now, I have not had the time to respond, nor have I had much inclination to do so because the debate is a stale one, but some people have been quite unfairly defamed (and I use the word advisedly) and their reputations should be defended.

     2. NO APOLOGY, NO RETRACTION

     2.1 In my preliminary comments on 13th May, I said that the effect of the comments as to Charles Ma’s identity was to convey certain imputations which were defamatory of me. Although some of those who made the comments have had the good grace (and good sense) to apologize for the comments, no apology has been forthcoming from the publishers of Pingskills, who are liable for any libel which appears on Pingskills (although I should add that the publishers are not the only parties liable for such libels). I note that on the “About Us” page of the Pingskills web site, Jeff Plumb and Alois Rosario are described as “the people behind Pingskills”.

     2.2 In addition, although in paragraphs 5 and 6 of my comments under the heading “(1) Jeff Plumb’s Blog “Australia Needs Simon Gerada””, I pointed out some material factual inaccuracies in Jeff’s original blog, there has been no retraction of the factual mis-statements, let alone any apology. These factual mis-statements go to the heart of Jeff’s criticisms of “the officials at Table Tennis Australia”, so it worth setting them out before I deal with Jeff’s latest factual mis-statements.

     2.3 In the fourth paragraph of his blog, Jeff stated: “The trouble began in 2001 when Simon came back from a hard slog in Europe and was burnt out and needed a rest. He had been training and playing Table Tennis for 6 hours a day but Table Tennis Australia insisted that he must continue training.” TTA did NOT insist that Simon continue training. The first training session of the National Training Squad was not held until 12th February 2001, THEREBY PERMITTING SIMON A BREAK OF AT LEAST ONE MONTH (had he not chosen to play in 2 tournaments in that period). It would have taken Jeff only one email or telephone enquiry to me to ascertain TTA’s true position, but Jeff did not bother to do so.

     2.4 In the sixth paragraph of his blog, Jeff stated: “With some careful management, both TTA and Simon Gerada could have come to an effective agreement. The problem was that the officials simply did not understand the pressures and burnout that Simon Gerada was facing. In fact a Victorian Institute of Sport official and sports psychologist had met with Simon and given him their support but TTA would not alter their stance.” In fact, TTA WAS PREPARED TO ALTER ITS STANCE, despite there being no evidence at all to support Simon’s assertion that he was mentally tired (all the available evidence being to the contrary), and TTA DID ALTER ITS STANCE by entering into an agreement with Simon to vary the training requirements for him from 5 “on table” training sessions per week to 3 “on table” training sessions per week and 2 mental training sessions per week with a VIS sports psychologist. The agreement to vary the training requirements was facilitated and supported by the VIS official. That VIS OFFICIAL DID NOT SUPPORT SIMON’S REPUDIATION OF THE AGREEMENT 3 days after he (Simon) had entered into it (indeed, it would have been inconsistent for the VIS official to have supported Simon’s repudiation of the agreement after that official had facilitated and supported the making of the agreement), but Jeff’s blog suggests that Simon’s repudiatory action was supported by the VIS official. Again, it would have taken only one email or telephone enquiry to Bob Tuckett or Jim Montgomery (who was a member of the TTA Interim Board of Management at the relevant time), both of whom were present with the VIS official when the agreement to vary Simon’s training requirements was made, to ascertain the true position of TTA and the VIS official, but Jeff did not bother to do so.

     3. A “RIDICULOUS CONDITION” ?

     3.1 In the space of a few short paragraphs on 6th July and 8th September, Jeff has managed to defame the National Coach and the National Selectors, and perhaps also the members of the Interim Board of Management of TTA and TTA. He has also unfairly denigrated the playing standard of some of the training partners of the National Squad members and the degree of discipline, professionalism and devotion to table tennis of one of the players who was initially selected in the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships.

     3.2 Jeff makes the following allegations:
     (a) no other member of the National Squad was required to attend, or did in fact attend, the training sessions of the National Squad (6th July at 8.48 pm: “…the fact is that not one other member of the National squad was at those training sessions! Not one! So why was Simon the only one subject to these conditions?” and 8th September at 11.25 pm: “No other member of the National squad was subjected to this requirement???”);
     (b) the requirement for Simon to attend the training sessions of the National Squad was pointless and a ridiculous condition because the other players who attended the training sessions of the National Squad were not of a sufficiently high standard to be of any benefit to Simon, in particular they were nowhere near the standard of the Australian Team (6th July at 8.48 pm: “In fact who was at these training sessions? No one that was anywhere near the standard of the Australian team, that is who! What they were asking Simon to do was pointless. He wasn’t being part of a team by attending the sessions, all the other members were elsewhere. It would be like asking Lleyton Hewitt to come back and train with some local Melbourne B grade tennis players in order to be eligible to play Davis Cup for Australia. I’m pretty sure that Tennis Australia would ever (sic) put such a ridiculous condition to Hewitt.” and 8th September at 11.25 pm: “The Australian Table Tennis selectors were asking Simon Gerada to turn up and train with people that were not even close to being of the standard of the Australian team.”).

     3.3 Allegation(a)(that no other member of the National Squad was required to attend, or did in fact attend, the training sessions of the National Squad) is false. All of the Melbourne-based members of the National Squad (Shirley Zhou, Jian Fang Lay, Tammy Gough and Simon Gerada) were required to attend the training sessions of the National Squad. Tammy Gough attended the training sessions on a regular basis and was selected in the National Team. Shirley Zhou attended the first few training sessions, but then ceased to attend the sessions and, accordingly, became ineligible for selection in the National Team. Jian Fang Lay withdrew from the Squad before the training began because she was only prepared to train 3 times per week and, accordingly, became ineligible for selection in the National Team.

     3.4 Allegation(b)(that the requirement for Simon to attend the training sessions of the National squad was pointless and a ridiculous condition because the other players who attended the training sessions of the National Squad were not of a sufficiently high standard to be of any benefit to Simon, in particular they were nowhere near the standard of the Australian Team) is also false. The players who attended the sessions as training partners for Simon were Chamara Fernando, who was ranked number 10 in the Australian Men’s Rankings at the time, Michael Belot, who was ranked number 7 in the Victorian Men’s Rankings at the time, and Danny Semmler. Significantly, only one member of the Australian Men’s Team which participated in the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships had an Australian Men’s Ranking at the time of those Championships, viz. Trevor Brown (ranked number 5 in 2000). In those circumstances, Jeff is quite wrong in saying that there was no-one who was “anywhere near the standard of the Australian team” at the training sessions.

     3.5 In case any readers of this blog are wondering why only one member of the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships had an Australian Men’s Ranking at the time, I should point out that the only players having an Australian Men’s Ranking at the time who were available for selection in the team were Trevor Brown, who was selected in the team, and Simon, who became ineligible for selection by failing to comply with the training requirements. Due to a variety of reasons, including retirement from international competition, none of the remaining players having an Australian Men’s Ranking made themselves available for selection. One of the unfortunate consequences of table tennis becoming a sport in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games was that some Australian players became less keen to represent Australia in World and Commonwealth Championships.

     3.6 I shall discuss the alleged pointlessness of requiring Simon to train with these players below. However, in passing, I wish to say that to compare the standing of Chamara Fernando, Michael Belot and Danny Semmler in Australian table tennis with that of “Melbourne B grade tennis players” in Australian tennis, as Jeff appears to do in his comments on 6th July, is to denigrate quite unfairly the standing and the playing standard of Fernando, Belot and Semmler.

     3.7 I also wish to observe that it was not the National Selectors who were imposing the requirement for Simon to attend the training sessions of the National Squad. Hence, even if Jeff were correct in his allegation that the requirement was “a ridiculous condition”, and I shall set out below the reasons why I consider his allegation to be wrong, he is defaming the National Selectors by alleging that they had imposed a ridiculous condition (“The Australian Table Tennis selectors were asking Simon Gerada to turn up and train with people that were not even close to being of the standard of the Australian team.”).

     3.8 It is important to bear in mind what TTA, through the authority which the Interim Board of Management had delegated to the National Head Coach Bob Tuckett, was requiring of Simon by way of preparation for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships over a period of about 6-7 weeks immediately prior to the Team’s departure for the Championships and what Simon was proposing by way of preparation for those Championships over that period. As a result of the agreement which TTA made with Simon to vary the standard training requirement, TTA required Simon to:
     (a) attend 3 “on table” training sessions per week under the coaching and supervision of Bob Tuckett; and
     (b) attend 2 mental training sessions per week with a VIS sports psychologist.

     3.9 By contrast, Simon proposed to do no training whatsoever (ie, neither the “on table” training with Bob Tuckett nor the mental training with a VIS sports psychologist) for a month and then train for the last 2-3 weeks immediately prior to the Team’s departure for the Championships.

     3.10 In my view, TTA’s requirements would have provided at least 3 forms of benefit which Simon would not have received had his request to do no training for a month been acceded to by TTA. Those 3 forms of benefit are as follows.

     3.11 (1)PSYCHOLOGICAL BENEFITS from 2 MENTAL TRAINING SESSIONS PER WEEK with a VIS SPORTS PSYCHOLOGIST.

     Relevantly, following the 2000 Olympic Games, Bob Tuckett (who was Australia’s Head Table Tennis Coach at those Games) advised TTA that Simon had suffered badly from nerves at the Games and Bob recommended that Simon seek help from a sports psychologist. Both Bob and the VIS official who facilitated the making of the agreement between TTA and Simon to vary Simon’s training requirements considered that Simon would benefit from some sessions with a sports psychologist. JEFF APPEARS TO HAVE OVERLOOKED THE MENTAL TRAINING REQUIREMENT (“WHAT THEY WERE ASKING SIMON TO DO WAS POINTLESS”) AND HE PROVIDES NO EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE MENTAL TRAINING SESSIONS WITH A VIS SPORTS PSYCHOLOGIST WOULD HAVE BEEN OF NO VALUE TO SIMON OR “POINTLESS”.

     3.12 (2)PHYSIOLOGICAL and PERCEPTUAL MOTOR SKILL BENEFITS from 3 “ON TABLE” TRAINING SESSIONS per week with FERNANDO, BELOT and SEMMLER.

     In essence, “on table” training provides the opportunity for both physiological conditioning and the honing of table tennis skills (which are perceptual motor skills). I have already dealt with Jeff’s comparison of the playing standard of Fernando, Belot and Semmler to that of Melbourne B Grade tennis players. In my view, that comparison does not merit serious consideration. However, even if the playing standard of Fernando, Belot and Semmler were equivalent to that of Melbourne B Grade tennis players (in table tennis terms, I think that would make Fernando, Belot and Semmler A2 pennant players), it would not follow that there would be no benefit to Simon in training with them. On various visits to Melbourne in the 1970s, I saw the great Charlie Wuvanich training with an A2 player and I was informed by reliable sources that he regularly trained with an A2 player. It all depends on how such training partners are utilised. [And digressing for a moment, allow me to have my 2 cents worth on the issue of Australia’s greatest ever player. While acknowledging that it is difficult to compare players from different generations, for my money it is Wuvanich first, Daylight second and after that I would have to think hard.]

     Significantly, in a report written just 4 days after the meeting at which the agreement between TTA and Simon varying Simon’s training requirements was made, Bob Tuckett advised that at that meeting, Simon had said that he could not undergo MORE THAN 3 x 2 hour “on table” training sessions per week.

     IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT SIMON WAS UNABLE TO DO 3 X 2 HOUR “ON TABLE” SESSIONS PER WEEK, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR JEFF’S ASSERTION THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN “POINTLESS” FOR SIMON TO TRAIN “ON TABLE” 3 TIMES PER WEEK WITH FERNANDO, BELOT AND SEMMLER.

     FURTHERMORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AS TO INCAPACITY TO TRAIN, I CANNOT IMAGINE ANY RESPONSIBLE INTERNATIONAL COACH WOULD WANT ONE OF HIS PLAYERS TO HAVE A MONTH’S BREAK FROM TRAINING IN THE LAST 6-7 WEEKS BEFORE THE TEAM DEPARTED FOR A MAJOR INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION.

     3.13 (3)TECHNICAL and TACTICAL BENEFITS from the COACHING and SUPERVISION of BOB TUCKETT at the 3 “ON TABLE” TRAINING SESSIONS PER WEEK.

     It should be borne in mind that at the time of the relevant events, Simon was, in his own words, at “an inexperienced age”. It is also worth noting that in the lead up to the 2000 Olympic Games, TTA sought, on an anonymous basis, the views of all 9 playing members of the Australian Olympic Table Tennis Team on the National Coaches under whom they had trained and played. Two of those members did not return the survey (they may have been out of Australia at the time) and a third member did not refer to Bob Tuckett in his/her reply, but the other 6 members all rated Bob very highly (at least 8 out of 10). One member chose to disclose his identity in his reply. That member was Simon, who rated Bob 9 out of 10.

     According to Karol Javor’s statistics, Bob represented Australia on 277 occasions, including 120 occasions in 7 World Championships, 7 Commonwealth Championships and 5 Asian Championships (table tennis was not a sport at the Olympic Games or the Commonwealth Games in Bob’s playing era). He has played table tennis more times for Australia than anyone else (male or female) except Paul Pinkewich. Bob has also coached Australian Teams in numerous World, Commonwealth, Asian and Oceania Championships, as well as the 2000 Olympic Games. There is a reference on the “About Us” page of this web site to the “years of international experience” of Jeff and Alois (under the heading “Need Some Advice”). Bob has had far more international experience than Jeff and Alois put together.

     The following comment from Richard Lee on 24th April at 4.46 am is relevant to this issue: “The last thing I would mention is the implication that a player knows best what is good for their game.- particularly an international player. As an ex-International player and a coach for over 30 years I’m afraid I have to disagree with that line of thought. What a player wants and what a player needs are often 2 different things. Particularly a ‘young and inexperienced one’ as simon (sic) was described at the time.”

     GIVEN SIMON’S RELATIVELY YOUNG AGE (HE WAS NOT QUITE 20 AT THE TIME) ON THE ONE HAND AND BOB’S VERY EXTENSIVE INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE AND HIGH RATINGS FROM THE SYDNEY OLYMPIANS (INCLUDING SIMON) ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS EXTRAORDINARY FOR JEFF TO ALLEGE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN “POINTLESS” FOR SIMON TO ATTEND 3 “ON TABLE” TRAINING SESSIONS PER WEEK UNDER BOB’S COACHING AND SUPERVISION.

     I note that on 16th April at 9.18 am, Simon wrote: “…as an experianced (sic) coach such as yourself, just imagine if you (Bob) had worked with me rather than kick me out because I did not want to train with any Tom, Dick or Harry.” Simon, it is very hard for Bob to work with you when you are not there – and you were the one who chose to have the month’s break from training.

     3.14 The terms of the training requirements were determined by Bob, pursuant to the authority delegated to him by TTA’s Interim Board. Jeff’s comments that the training requirements were “pointless” and “a ridiculous condition” convey the defamatory imputation that Bob was incompetent as a table tennis coach. Jeff’s comments may possibly also convey the defamatory imputation that the members of the Interim Board were incompetent administrators because it was the Interim Board which delegated its authority to Bob to determine the terms of the training requirements and which subsequently supported those terms at the Interim Board meeting held immediately after the 2001 TTA AGM.

     4. JEFF SHIFTS HIS GROUND YET AGAIN

     4.1 Jeff’s latest diatribe as to the (alleged) pointlessness of the training requirements imposed on Simon and as to the unfairness of (allegedly) imposing the “on table” training requirements on no other National Squad member except Simon represents yet another shift in his ground in his attempt to establish that Simon should have been selected in the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 Commonwealth and World Championships.

     4.2 As I have pointed out in an earlier posting (paragraph 18 of my comments posted on 13th May at 6.33 am under the heading “(1.2) The Subject Matter of Jeff’s Blog”), Jeff’s original blog was all about TTA’s alleged failure to understand and deal with Simon’s alleged burn out: “The trouble began in 2001 when Simon came back from a hard slog in Europe and was burnt out and needed a rest. … The problem was that the officials simply did not understand the pressures and burnout that Simon was facing.” According to Jeff, the answer to the problem was: “With some careful management, both TTA and Simon Gerada could have come to an effective agreement.”

     4.3 Subsequently, Richard Lee commented (15th April at 2.31 am) that he found it “inconceivable” that Simon would play in 5 or 6 tournaments when he was not required to do so if he was mentally tired and that if Simon was playing to his highest standard, the only inference was that he was not mentally tired. Simon appeared to indicate (16th April at 9.18 am) that the reason why he ceased to attend the training sessions was that he “did not want to train with any Tom, Dick or Harry”. Then on 23rd April at 2.49 pm, Charles Ma (yes, Jeff, that is his real name) drew a distinction between two issues: (1) whether a particular decision was justified by the existing rules; and (2) whether the existing rules themselves were justified or required amendment. Charles stated that Jeff’s blog dealt with (1) and he suggested that Jeff deal with (2) in another blog. On 23rd April at 5.34 pm, Jeff made the extraordinary claim that his blog dealt with issue (2), but not issue (1) (“The point and title of the article is Australia Needs Simon Gerada. So it does deal with your point 2. In fact it does not really deal with point 1.”). That is, JEFF IS CLAIMING THAT HIS BLOG DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF THE MERITS OR DEMERITS OF THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND NOT THE ISSUE OF WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR DECISION (SUCH AS THE DECISION NOT TO CONSIDER SIMON FOR SELECTION IN THE AUSTRALIAN MEN’S TEAM FOR THE 2001 WORLD AND COMMONWEALTH CHAMPIONSHIPS) WAS JUSTIFIED BY THEM. THAT IS AN ASTONISHING CLAIM AND ONE THAT INSULTS THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE READERS OF THIS BLOG. THERE IS NO MENTION WHATSOEVER OF ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ANYWHERE IN JEFF’S ORIGINAL BLOG, WHICH IS ALL ABOUT TTA’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND AND DEAL WITH SIMON’S PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, IE HIS ALLEGED BURN OUT.

     4.4 In Jeff’s latest 2 sets of comments (6th July at 8.48 pm and 8th September at 11.25 pm), he has attempted to establish that Simon should have been selected in the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 Commonwealth and World Championships not on his (Jeff’s) original premise that Simon was burnt out and that “with some careful management, both TTA and Simon Gerada could have come to an effective agreement”, nor on his subsequent premise that eligibility requirements are wrong per se and that the composition of the team should have been determined purely on results (10th April at 8.43 pm: “I think the best team based on results should be picked for the World Championships”), but on the joint premises that no other member of the National Squad was being required to attend the National Squad training sessions and that what Simon was being required to do was pointless because none of the other players attending the training sessions were “even close to being of the standard of the Australian team”.

     4.5 HOWEVER, JUST AS THERE IS NO MENTION OF ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS IN JEFF’S ORIGINAL BLOG, SO THERE IS ALSO NO SUGGESTION IN HIS ORIGINAL BLOG EITHER THAT THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL SQUAD ON WHOM THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS WERE BEING IMPOSED WAS SIMON OR THAT WHAT SIMON WAS BEING REQUIRED TO DO WAS POINTLESS BECAUSE NONE OF THE OTHER PLAYERS ATTENDING THE TRAINING SESSIONS WERE CLOSE TO THE STANDARD OF THE AUSTRALIAN TEAM.

     4.6 So, in summary, according to Jeff, the problem was:
     (a) BURN OUT: “The problem was that the officials simply did not understand the pressures and burnout that Simon Gerada was facing” (original blog); then
     (b) ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PER SE: “The problem was with the eligibility requirements” (14th April at 8.59 am) in that they were wrong because “the best team based on results should be picked for the World Championships” (10th April at 8.43 pm) – which is a completely separate issue from Simon’s alleged burn out; and finally
     (c) INEQUITABLE AND POINTLESS TRAINING REQUIREMENTS:
     (i) “No other member of the National squad was subjected to this (training) requirement” (8th September at 11.25 pm); and
     (ii) “What they were asking Simon to do was pointless” because there was “No one that was anywhere near the standard of the Australian team” at the training sessions (6th July at 8.48 pm);
     which, again, are completely separate issues from Simon’s alleged burn out.

     5. ANDREW SYMONDS

     5.1 Cricket Australia’s decision to suspend Andrew Symonds as a Test Cricketer, as a consequence of his failure to attend a team meeting, and to rule him ineligible for Test selection until CA was satisfied that he had a more dedicated and disciplined approach to his cricket is an example of team rules operating as eligibility requirements. The most significant consequence of Symonds’ suspension was that he was not considered for selection for the recent tour of India.

     5.2 Jeff, somewhat surprisingly, given his earlier comments about basing the selection of Australian Table Tennis Teams for the major international competitions solely on results, ie without having any eligibility requirements (10th April at 8.43 pm: “I think the best team based on results should be picked for the World Championships. I am happy for younger talented players to be selected for some smaller tournaments but for the main ones, pick our best team and achieve the best results possible.”) has stated on 8th September at 11.25 pm that he agrees with “the Andrew Symonds decision”.

     5.3 No doubt, James Sutherland and all at Cricket Australia will be relieved to know that Jeff has given his imprimatur to their decision, but they may be puzzled as to why he has done so, given the view which Jeff has expressed above that team selections for major competitions should be based purely on results. There cannot be much room for argument that a Test Series against India in India is, currently, about as tough as it gets for the Australian Test Team (as shown by Australia’s 2-0 loss, although, heaven forbid, South Africa may be about to go one better). Accordingly, it cannot seriously be disputed that the Indian Test Series was a major competition for the Australian Cricket Team.

     5.4 Jeff appears to distinguish his position on the Andrew Symonds decision from his position on Australian table tennis selections on the basis that “there are plenty of cricket players in Australia who can replace Symonds. We have great depth in our players.” (8th September at 11.25 pm). In my submission, in distinguishing the position in Australian cricket from the position in Australian table tennis on this basis, Jeff is erring factually and, more importantly for this blog, logically. I shall deal with each of those errors below.

     5.5 For the moment (but see paragraph 5.11 below), I shall proceed on the basis that Jeff is factually correct in his assertion that, currently, Australian cricket has great depth in its players and that there are plenty of cricketers who can replace Andrew Symonds - and by “replace”, I am assuming that Jeff means “adequately replace” rather than simply making up the numbers.
     Jeff’s thesis appears to be that it is acceptable to impose eligibility requirements in the form of what I shall call “preparation requirements”, ie requirements to attend training sessions, requirements to attend team meetings and other team requirements directed towards achieving the optimal performance of the team in competition, provided there is an adequate replacement for a player who becomes ineligible for selection as a result of breaching the preparation requirements, but it is not acceptable to impose preparation requirements when such imposition will result in the omission of a player who cannot be adequately replaced. This appears to be a re-run of Mark Smythe’s argument that if a sport has an abundance of top players, then strict eligibility requirements can be imposed, but if the sport does not have an abundance of top players, then the composition of the team should be determined solely on the basis of competition results (22nd April at 1.06 pm).

     5.6 I have discussed Mark’s view in paragraphs 16 to 19 inclusive of my comments posted on 13th May at 6.40 am under the heading “(2.3) ‘Relaxed’ Criteria – No Criteria”. They are equally applicable to Jeff’s view about the Andrew Symonds decision. For ease of reference, I shall repeat some of my comments here. I think the true position is the converse of the position espoused by Mark and, apparently now, by Jeff. I think the fewer the number of good players (ie, the lesser the depth in playing standard), the greater is the need for preparation requirements and, conversely, the greater the number of good players (ie, the greater the depth in playing standard), the lesser is the need for preparation requirements. I shall take the converse case first. In a country which has a great depth of players of a very high standard, such as China, competition for places in the national team will be so fierce that in order to be good enough to make the team, the players will have to be optimally prepared. They will train hard irrespective of any training requirement because the consequence of not doing so is likely to be that they will lose to other contenders and fail to make the national team. In contrast, in a country which has a dearth of good players, it will not be nearly as difficult for the established players to be good enough to make the national team. In the case of some of the established players, performing at, say, 70% to 80% of their capability might be good enough to enable them to make the national team, but not good enough to enable them to succeed in the World Championships.

     5.7 The startling and anomalous consequence of Jeff’s thesis is that if the cricketer who missed the Australian Team meeting had not been Andrew Symonds, but another cricketer who could not be adequately replaced (for example, if it had been the Team’s wicketkeeper and there was no other Australian wicketkeeper of Test standard), then it would have been wrong (according to Jeff) to suspend that player from Test cricket or rule him ineligible for Test selection. Similarly, if both Andrew Symonds and the Team’s wicketkeeper missed the same Team meeting, then, according to Jeff, it would be acceptable to suspend Andrew Symonds and rule him ineligible for Test selection, but it would be wrong to suspend the Team’s wicketkeeper or rule him ineligible for Test selection. Relevantly and perhaps somewhat prophetically, I provided the following example in my comments posted on 13th May at 6.40 am in paragraph 37 under the heading “(2.7) Rules of Professional Teams”: “if a cricket team is contemplating suspending 2 of its players who turned up for a match hung over (taking their cue from Andrew Symonds), it would be wrong to suspend one of the players because he was an opening batsman who could be replaced with another opening batsman of similar quality while merely reprimanding the other offending player because he was the team’s wicketkeeper and could not easily be replaced.”

     5.8 IN SUMMARY, IF THE TEAM RULES (OR THE TRAINING OR PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS) PROVIDE THAT PLAYERS ARE REQUIRED TO ATTEND TRAINING SESSIONS AND TEAM MEETINGS IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR SELECTION, BUT THOSE RULES ARE ONLY APPLIED TO THE PLAYERS WHO CAN BE ADEQUATELY REPLACED, THEN THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE WILL BE THAT MANY OF THE BETTER PLAYERS WILL, IN EFFECT, BE EXEMPTED FROM THOSE RULES BECAUSE IT IS THE BETTER PLAYERS WHO, IN GENERAL, CANNOT ADEQUATELY BE REPLACED. SUCH A RESULT WOULD UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF THE RULES AND DEFEAT THEIR PURPOSE, WHICH IS TO ENSURE, AS FAR AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE, THAT EACH PLAYER IS OPTIMALLY PREPARED FOR THE COMPETITION - THAT IS, PREPARED TO PERFORM AS WELL AS THAT PLAYER IS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING, GIVEN THE PLAYER’S ABILITY AND CURRENT LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT.

     5.9 Although Jeff has said that he agrees with the Andrew Symonds decision, he has also said (8th September at 11.25 pm) that he “would not agree with dropping Andrew Symonds from the team if the selectors had required him to attend 3 sessions a week with my (Jeff’s) local cricket club and he had not bothered to do so.” Once again, Jeff has denigrated Simon’s National Squad training partners by impliedly comparing their playing standard (in table tennis) with the playing standard (in cricket) of the members of his local cricket club.

     5.10 However, Jeff has also impliedly expressed the opinion that Andrew Symonds would gain no benefit, or no significant benefit, from training with his local cricket club for 3 sessions per week. The expression of that opinion, if it is to carry any weight, requires a knowledge of cricket training. I do not claim to know everything about cricket training, but I suspect I know as much as Jeff, so I shall give you my 2 cents worth. If the Australian Test Cricket Team was 6 - 7 weeks away from departing for a major Test Series and the choice with regard to Andrew Symonds’ preparation for the next month was between having him do no training at all or having him train 3 sessions a week with a local cricket club, then, unless Symonds was ill or injured, I would have him train 3 sessions a week with a local cricket club. He would not need to have a Test batsman facing up to him in the nets in order to practise his bowling. He would not need to have a Test player hitting the ball to him to practise his fielding - most club cricketers would be capable of hitting the ball in the air and along the ground to him - and he could practise his throwing without having a Test wicketkeeper standing over the stumps. Obviously, having Test bowlers bowling to him would be of more benefit to his batting than having local club cricketers bowling to him, but there have been various examples of batsman from international teams touring Australia hiring local club bowlers, some of whom had not even played Sheffield Shield cricket, to bowl to them in the nets for extra batting practice or to work on particular technical weaknesses. All that such bowlers needed to be able to do for the batting practice to be of some benefit was to bowl a certain line and length with a degree of consistency.

     5.11 In paragraph 5.5 above, I said that I would proceed on the basis that Jeff was factually correct in his assertion that, currently, Australian cricket has great depth in its players and that there are plenty of cricketers who can replace Andrew Symonds. I proceeded on that basis because I wanted to demonstrate the logical error which Jeff was making. In fact, however, I consider Jeff’s assertion to be factually incorrect. (Of course, both Jeff’s assertion and the view which I am about to express require a knowledge of Test cricket and, once again, I acknowledge that I do not know everything about Test cricket, but I shall again give you my 2 cents worth.) It is acknowledged almost universally (I cannot speak for Jeff) that, currently, Australia has an acute shortage of Test quality spin bowlers. Additionally, Australia has only one established Test quality spin bowling allrounder: Symonds, who is also a superb fieldsman - probably the best of the Australian Test Cricketers. In my opinion, on the slow, turning Indian wickets and in a series in which Australia was likely to struggle to score enough runs (as confirmed by the 2 Tests in which Australia failed to score enough runs to avoid defeat), Andrew Symonds would have been a valuable inclusion in the Australian Team, provided he was fit (which he apparently was at the time of the selection of the Australian Team to tour India, although he has been playing with an injury of late). It is worth noting that once his suspension was lifted, Symonds was rushed back into the Australian Team to play New Zealand, notwithstanding his mediocre form in the Sheffield Shield. It appeared to be the almost universal view amongst cricket experts and the press that Symonds’ suspension significantly weakened the Australian Team which toured India because there was no adequate replacement for him. However, it also appeared to be the almost universal view amongst cricket experts and the press that notwithstanding Symonds’ value to the Australian Team on the Indian tour and the lack of an adequate replacement for him, the decision to suspend him from Test cricket for missing a Team meeting was the correct one because to have refrained from imposing a suspension would have undermined the discipline and professionalism which was needed for the Australian Team to have a realistic chance of remaining one of the top teams in international cricket.

     6. THE REPLACEMENT PLAYER FALLACY

     6.1 In the penultimate paragraph of his comments on 8th September at 11.25 pm, Jeff has stated: “the person selected to replace Simon in the Worlds team decided that Table Tennis was not a priority and they chose not to go to the Worlds. That’s right, they got selected and said thanks but no thanks, I’m busy. Yet the selectors still think they got it right? I just don’t understand how they can believe they were 100% right?” This short passage contains numerous factual and logical errors (although it is difficult to argue with Jeff when he says “I just don’t understand”), it unfairly denigrates one of the players who was initially selected in the 2001 Australian Men’s Team for the World and Commonwealth Championships (see below) and it manifests, yet again, a fundamental misconception of the nature of eligibility requirements on the part of Jeff.

     6.2 In order to deal with the issues raised by the abovementioned passage, it may be helpful to define and distinguish the concepts of eligibility requirements and selection criteria.

     6.3 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE THOSE REQUIREMENTS WHICH PLAYERS ARE REQUIRED TO SATISFY IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE SELECTORS FOR SELECTION IN A TEAM. IN OTHER WORDS, ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS DEFINE OR DELINEATE THE FIELD OF PLAYERS FROM WHICH THE SELECTORS MAY SELECT A TEAM.

     6.4 SELECTION CRITERIA ARE THE RULES OR PRINCIPLES WHICH THE SELECTORS ARE REQUIRED TO APPLY IN SELECTING A TEAM FROM THE FIELD OF PLAYERS WHICH HAS BEEN DEFINED BY THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. There is an important distinction between rules and principles, but for the purposes of this discussion, I do not need to deal with that.

     6.5 Quite often, selection criteria give the selectors a discretion to “weigh up” various factors in selecting a team. For example, the selection criteria may give the selectors a discretion to weigh up one player’s outstanding results in recent national events against another player’s exceptional record in international events. HOWEVER, THE FULFILMENT OF, OR THE FAILURE TO FULFIL, ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS CAN NEVER BE A FACTOR WHICH THE SELECTORS ARE ENTITLED TO WEIGH UP IN SELECTING A TEAM. IF A PLAYER HAS NOT FULFILLED THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, THE SELECTORS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CONSIDER THAT PLAYER FOR SELECTION, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHATEVER FACTORS THERE MAY BE WHICH COUNT IN FAVOUR OF THAT PLAYER’S SELECTION. Simon did not appear to understand this because shortly before the Australian Team was about to depart for the 2001 Commonwealth and World Championships, he wrote a letter to TTA in which, inter alia, he informed TTA that he had played in and won (convincingly) two recent tournaments and, in the light of Kiet Tran’s withdrawal from the Australian Men’s Team (as to which, see paragraph 6.14 and section 8 below), he requested TTA to consider “reinstating my (Simon’s) position on the National Team”. By this stage, Simon had missed well over a month of National Squad training and was therefore ineligible for national selection. He could not compensate for missing the training by performing well in tournaments.

     6.6 Accordingly, when Jeff says “Yet the selectors still think they got it right? I just don’t understand how they can believe they were 100% right?”, he is making a fundamental mistake and unfairly criticising the selectors because Simon’s omission from the team had nothing whatsoever to do with the selectors. Simon had failed to fulfil the eligibility requirements (in particular, the training requirements) and, accordingly, the selectors were not entitled to consider Simon for selection. Had the selectors selected Simon, they would have exposed themselves and TTA to legal action by the player who would have been selected had the selectors carried out their duties correctly.

     6.7 Incidentally, in suggesting that the selectors were partially wrong, Jeff is making another logical mistake. A player is either in or out of the team. He cannot be partially in and partially out. As I mentioned in paragraph 6.5 above, quite often the selection criteria give the selectors a discretion to weigh up various factors in making their selections. There may be factors which count for a player’s selection and factors which count against that player’s selection, but ultimately the selectors have to weigh up these factors and make a decision – to select the player or omit the player – and that decision will either be 100% right or 100% wrong. So even if Simon had satisfied the eligibility requirements and was thereby entitled to be considered for selection, the selectors could not have been partially wrong if they omitted him – they would have been either 100% right or 100% wrong – and when Jeff suggests that the selectors may have been partially wrong in omitting Simon, he is talking nonsense, 100% nonsense.

     6.8 Jeff’s comments about “the person selected to replace Simon” represent a return by Jeff to what I have termed “the replacement player fallacy”. I dealt with this fallacy at some length in paragraphs 35 to 39 inclusive of my comments posted on 13th May at 6.33 am under the heading “(1.5) The Tuckett-Plumb Dialogue”. However, Jeff has neither rebutted my comments nor taken them on board – he has simply continued to commit the replacement player fallacy as though my comments had never been made. Accordingly, for ease of reference, I shall set out below some of my previous comments.

     6.9 A central feature of the Tuckett - Plumb dialogue was Jeff’s enquiries of Bob (ad nauseam) as to the identity of the player who “replaced” Simon (see Jeff’s comments on 10th April at 8.43 pm, 12th April at 2.52 pm, 13th April at 8.00 pm and 14th April at 8.59 am). Jeff explained the reason for his enquiries as follows (10th April at 8.43 pm): “The reason that naming the players who were selected is important is because it shows how bad the eligibility criteria was (sic). It shows how it was obviously not in the best interests of Table Tennis in Australia.” In my view, it shows no such thing. Richard Lee (16th April at 6.24 am) made the valid point that the utility of a rule is not judged by its results in a particular case. Charles Ma (16th April at 2.18 am) asked Jeff whether it would make any difference to his opinion of the rules if Simon had been replaced by a better player. When Jeff failed to answer the question, Charles put it to him again (23rd April at 1.33 am). Jeff purported to answer the question on 23rd April at 9.47 am: “So with regards to your question, if there was a player that was better than Simon, then I believe they should be selected above Simon.” However, that comment does not come within a bull’s roar of answering Charles’ question. On the contrary, it misses the whole point of Charles’ question, that point being the same as the one made by Richard: viz., the utility of a rule is not judged by its results in a particular case.

     6.10 In my comments posted on 13th May at 6.40 am, I discussed the topic of rules of professional teams (see paragraphs 32 to 38 inclusive under the heading “(2.7) Rules of Professional Teams”). I noted that most professional sporting teams have mandatory team rules. The following comments which I made are relevant to the current discussion:
     “ Most professional sporting teams do not simply make their training facilities available to the players and leave it up to them as to whether they want to come down and roll their arm over in the nets or have a kick of the football (paragraph 32). … The rules of most professional sporting teams not only make it mandatory to attend the team training sessions punctually and to train properly at those sessions, they usually also cover a variety of other activities, such as alcohol consumption and drug taking. The purpose of the rules is to optimise the team’s performances and also to enhance the team’s public image (paragraph 35).”

     6.11 In passing, I should make the point that enhancing the team’s public image has several objectives, one of which is to assist in optimising the team’s performances because enhancing the team’s public image is conducive to obtaining sponsorship, which pays or assists in paying the salaries of the players, coaching staff and support staff (eg, medical practitioners, psychologists, physiotherapists, physical trainers) and in paying for the training facilities.

     6.12 I then gave the following example from the AFL:
     “ There will often be some players in a team who are talented enough to get a game without training as hard or as regularly as the rest of the team. To take an AFL example, Gary Ablett Snr in his prime years with Geelong was always worth his place in the team, irrespective of whether he attended training regularly or not. He was always likely to kick more goals and make a greater contribution to the team than his replacement. However, to allow him to miss training or be late for training with impunity would undermine the training ethic of the whole team and on at least one occasion he was omitted from the team for failing to attend a training session punctually (paragraph 35).”

     6.13 During the AFL season, rarely a month passes without at least one AFL Club suspending one or more of its players and declaring them ineligible for selection for a certain period for breaching the team rules. Quite often, the suspended players are good enough to be selected in the team (ie, they are in the Club’s best 22 players), so that by suspending those players (ie, by applying the team rules), the Club will be fielding a weaker team than would otherwise have been the case. However, the fact that the application of the team rules results in a weaker team being fielded does not mean that there is anything wrong with the team rules. In my comments posted on 13th May at 6.33 am, I expressed this point as follows:
     “WHENEVER ANY ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE IMPOSED, THE POSSIBILITY IS CREATED THAT SOME PLAYERS WILL FAIL TO SATISFY THEM AND THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE THE TEAM WHICH IS ULTIMATELY SELECTED IS WEAKER THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS NOT BEEN IMPOSED. HOWEVER, THE EXISTENCE OF THAT POSSIBILITY DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE ABOLITION OF THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.” (paragraph 39, under the heading “(1.5) The Tuckett - Plumb Dialogue”).

     6.14 The point is a fundamental one and, as I have noted above, it is one that has previously been made by Charles Ma and Richard Lee. IN ESSENCE, THE POINT IS THAT THE REASONABLENESS OF A RULE IS DETERMINED NOT BY EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS APPLICATION IN A PARTICULAR CASE, BUT BY EXAMINING ITS TERMS. However, fundamental as the point may be, it is not one which has been grasped by Jeff, as evidenced by his frequent and painful enquiries about “the player” who allegedly replaced Simon in the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 Commonwealth and World Championships. For example: 10th April at 8.43 pm: “Who was the player that replaced Simon at the worlds?”; 12th April at 2.52 pm: “Who was the professional and disciplined player that was selected because of Simon’s ineligibility?”; 13th April at 8.00 pm: “Who was the disciplined professional player that replaced Simon?”; 14th April at 8.59 am: “Where is the person who got selected ahead of Simon now?”; and finally on 8th September at 11.25 pm: “the person selected to replace Simon in the Worlds team decided that Table Tennis was not a priority and they chose not to go to the Worlds. That’s right, they got selected and said thanks but no thanks, I’m busy.”

     6.15 Incidentally, it is apparent that the person to whom Jeff is referring is Kiet Tran. The effect of these comments is to convey the imputations that Kiet was not disciplined or professional in his approach to table tennis and that table tennis was not a priority for him. Those imputations are denigratory and unfair. And the answer to Jeff’s question as to where is the person who was selected ahead of Simon now is that the person to whom Jeff is referring (Kiet Tran) has been ranked number 5 in the 2008 Australian Men’s Rankings and has recently been selected in the Australian Men’s Training Squad (yet again). Interestingly, Simon was only ranked number 7 in the 2008 Australian Men’s Rankings and, as far as I am aware, Simon is not a member of any national senior training squad at the current time. However, the issue is not one of comparing Kiet’s current standing with that of Simon. The issue is that Jeff’s question as to where is Kiet now conveys the imputation that Kiet is nowhere significant in table tennis terms now and that imputation is denigratory and unfair. I return to this subject in section 8 below.

     7. THE PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

     7.1 There are various sorts of eligibility requirements and these various sorts have differing purposes. I need not consider all of the various sorts of eligibility requirements now. For the purpose of this blog, I need only consider those eligibility requirements which are preparation requirements, ie requirements relating to preparation for performance in competition (which requirements include training requirements). I acknowledged in paragraph 6.13 above that the imposition of eligibility requirements creates the possibility that the team which is ultimately selected is weaker than the team would have been had the eligibility requirements not been imposed. This raises the question as to why should eligibility requirements (and I am now referring solely to those eligibility requirements which are preparation requirements) be imposed at all if they may result in weaker teams being selected. It might be suggested that if the objective is to win the competition and the imposition of eligibility requirements results in a weaker team being selected, then the eligibility requirements have defeated the very purpose for which they were imposed. That appears to be the thrust of the following comment from Greg Linwood (23rd April at 5.47 pm): “The point of competing at world championships is to try & win the championships, not show how hard players have been training immediately proceeding (sic) championships. Given the objective, any un-biased, rationale (sic) line of reasoning should lead to the obvious – that players should be selected based on their results, not how many hours they put into training at the last minute prior to selection.” In a similar vein, Jeff has stated (23rd April at 9.47 am): “I believe the best players should be selected based on their results not on the amount of time they train.” Ditto Mark Smythe (22nd April at 1.06 pm): “I say, let all players be eligible for Team selection (not just the National Squad members which is currently the case) and see who is the best via competition.”

     7.2 In passing, I should note that Greg’s comment conveys the imputation that those persons who were responsible for imposing TTA’s eligibility requirements, viz. the members of TTA’s Interim Board of Management and the National Head Coach Bob Tuckett, were either biased or irrational or both. That imputation is unfair and defamatory of the Interim Board members and of Bob. It follows from Greg’s comment that the Australian Olympic Committee and the Australian Commonwealth Games Association were also either biased or irrational or both because each of those bodies imposed eligibility requirements (for selection in the Australian Table Tennis Teams for the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games respectively) of at least 10 hours of training per week in the lead up to the Games.

     7.3 Given that the objective of most professional sporting teams is to win the competition in which they are participating, why are eligibility requirements so prevalent among professional sporting teams if the imposition of those eligibility requirements may have the effect of weakening the team and decreasing its chances of doing well in the competition? Rarely a month passes when there is not an instance of a leading professional sportsman somewhere in the world being suspended by his club for failing to attend a team training session or a team meeting or for consuming alcohol at a stage in the week when he was not permitted to do so or for some other breach of the team’s preparation requirements. Why doesn’t the club simply select the team based on the performances of its players in competition? If a player can perform well enough in competition to justify his place in the team week after week, should it matter whether he attends all of the training sessions or team meetings or whether he has a drink the night before a match?

     7.4 To answer the abovementioned questions, I shall return to the example of the AFL because every AFL Club has team rules and at some stage in every season, at least some AFL Clubs have to field a team weakened by the suspension of one or more of their players as a result of a breach of the team rules. It is generally accepted that winning an AFL Premiership, which is the ultimate aim of every AFL Club, is a difficult feat and for a Club to achieve that feat a number of matters usually need to happen together. The Club needs to have a good playing list, a competent coach and, at least during the finals, most of the key players being injury and suspension free. Above all else, a Club needs to have most of its best players available for, AND playing close to their best in, the crucial matches. It is not enough just to have most of the Club’s best players available. If most of the best players are not playing close to their best, the Club will probably not win the premiership. Geelong was undoubtedly the best team over the course of the 2008 AFL season and most of the Club’s best players were available for the Grand Final, but many of the Geelong players were not at their best in the Grand Final, a lot of scoring opportunities were wasted and, ultimately, Geelong lost to Hawthorn. In the final analysis, Hawthorn was the better team on the one day which really counted, but it was not the better team over the season.

     7.5 The reason why all AFL Clubs have team rules is because they recognize that in order to win a Premiership, they need to have their players optimally prepared for competition and they regard team rules as being necessary for the optimal preparation of their players for competition. Human nature being what it is, not all players will prepare themselves optimally for competition if left to their own devices – some players will simply be motivated to do enough to make the team – and even the players who do have the motivation to prepare themselves optimally may not have the knowledge to do so. By way of example, a player may be talented enough to kick 75 goals in home and away matches in a season, ie an average of 3-4 goals per match if he plays in every match, without doing a large amount of training. However, if that player prepared himself optimally for his matches, he might kick 120 goals in home and away matches, ie an average of 5-6 goals per match. If selection were based solely on results, kicking 75 goals per season would probably be enough to ensure that player’s selection on a regular basis. It might well be the case that there was no other player in the Club capable of kicking 50 goals in a season, even with optimal preparation. However, the difference between our talented player kicking 5-6 goals per match rather than 3-4 goals per match might be the difference between the Club winning a Premiership and merely being a Premiership contender. Why shouldn’t the Club require our talented player to prepare himself optimally for competition, even though he might be worth his place without such optimal preparation? A similar argument could be made in respect of a batsman who averaged 50 runs per innings with minimal preparation, but who might average 75 runs per innings with optimal preparation. Why shouldn’t his Club require him to prepare himself optimally for matches (because those extra runs might be the difference between winning and losing some of those matches)?

     7.6 Of course, one likely consequence of an AFL Club having team rules is that on some occasions, the Club will have to field a weaker team than would have been the case if there were no team rules – ie, far from enhancing the team’s performance (which was the aim of the team rules), the team rules may cause a lowering of the team’s performance on some occasions. However, that is a consequence which all AFL Clubs are prepared to accept because they recognize that without team rules they are unlikely to succeed at the highest level, ie they are unlikely to win a Premiership. And it is generally accepted in most sports that in order to succeed in the highest levels of international competition, players must be optimally prepared for that competition. That is why there are team rules for the Australian Cricket Team. Even though Australia has had the most talented pool of cricketers in the world over the last decade or so (sadly, that now seems to have come to an end), Cricket Australia recognized that for Australia to remain at the top of international cricket, there was a need for team rules to ensure, as far as possible, that the Australian players were optimally prepared for their matches.

     7.7 Although all of the professional sporting teams which have team rules accept the consequence that on occasions those rules may result in a weaker team being selected, that is not a consequence which Jeff seems able to accept. The clearest example of Jeff’s position on this aspect occurs in his comments on 14th April at 9.13 pm (to which I have referred above): “The reason that naming the players who were selected is important is because it shows how bad the eligibility criteria was (sic).” Jeff’s reasoning in respect of Simon’s case appears to be: (1) Simon’s omission from the team was a consequence of the eligibility criteria; (2) Simon’s omission resulted in a weaker player being selected in the team; (3) therefore, the eligibility criteria are bad. As I have previously said, that conclusion does not follow.

     7.8 I previously commented (13th May at 6.40 am, paragraph 32 under the heading “(2.7) Rules of Professional Teams”) that when the subject of the training of professional teams is raised in table tennis circles, it is often said that the situation of professional teams is different to that of table tennis teams in Australia because in professional teams the players are paid to train, whereas no-one pays table tennis players in Australia to train. However, the reason why professional teams have mandatory rules in respect of training is not because the players are being paid, but because those rules are considered necessary to maximize the team’s chances of success. Mandatory training rules are adopted not only in sports where there is a significant amount of physical interaction between the players when they are performing their skills in match conditions, such as the football codes, but also in sports where the amount of physical interaction between the players when they are performing their skills in match conditions is minimal, such as cricket.

     7.9 THE FACT THAT PLAYERS ARE PAID TO TRAIN IS RELEVANT NOT TO THE ISSUE OF THE EFFICACY OF MANDATORY TRAINING BUT TO THE ISSUE OF WHAT CAN REASONABLY BE DEMANDED OF THE PLAYERS IN RESPECT OF MANDATORY TRAINING. IF THE PLAYERS ARE BEING PAID AT A LEVEL SUCH THAT THEY DO NOT NEED TO WORK ELSEWHERE FOR A LIVING, THEN IT IS REASONABLE TO DEMAND MORE OF THEIR TIME THAN IF THEY NEED TO EARN AN INCOME IN SOME OTHER MANNER.

     8. KIET TRAN

     8.1 In paragraphs 6.14 and 6.15 above, I briefly discussed a comment by Jeff on 8th September at 11.25 pm which alluded to Kiet Tran and I said that I would return to the subject. I shall now do so. For ease of reference, the quote from Jeff was as follows: “the person selected to replace Simon in the Worlds team decided that Table Tennis was not a priority and they chose not to go to the Worlds. That’s right, they got selected and said thanks but no thanks, I’m busy.”

     8.2 As a preliminary point, I should note that in one sense, no-one replaced Simon in the Australian Team for the 2001 World Championships because Simon was never selected in that team. Australian Table Tennis Teams do not exist on a more or less continuous basis over several months in the way that some touring cricket teams do, nor do Australian Table Tennis Teams exist on a week to week basis over several months in the way that football teams do during the football season. Australian Table Tennis Teams are more akin to Olympic Games Teams and Commonwealth Games Teams in that they are selected for a specific international table tennis tournament, or sometimes two tournaments, and then dissolved. If an athlete who was selected in the 2008 Olympic Games Team fails to make the 2012 Olympic Games Team, that athlete is not “replaced” (nor is that athlete “dropped”) – the athlete is simply said not to have been selected in the 2012 Olympic Games Team. The 2008 Olympic Games Team is a separate entity from the 2012 Olympic Games Team.

     8.3 However, this is a semantic argument. The more important point is that if the composition of the Australian Men’s Table Tennis Team for the 2001 World Championships is compared with the composition of the Australian Men’s Table Tennis Team for the 2000 World Championships, there is only one player who was in both teams: viz. Trevor Brown. Kiet Tran, William Henzell, John Tawadrous and Alex Swanson (who replaced Kiet – see paragraph 8.3 below) were all selected for their first World Championships in 2001. Hence, it is nonsense for Jeff to talk about “the player” who replaced Simon because there were 4 members of the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World Championships who were not members of the Australian Men’s Team for the 2000 World Championships.

     8.4 Kiet Tran was selected in the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships, but then withdrew from the Team for the 2001 World Championships. The circumstances of his withdrawal were as follows. An examination in Kiet’s University course (my recollection was that the course was physiotherapy, but I am not certain of that) was set for a date during the 2001 World Championships. The Interim Board of TTA was advised that the examination date had not been set when Kiet was selected in the Team and that following the setting of the examination date, extensive efforts had been made on Kiet’s behalf to persuade his faculty to permit him to sit the examination on another date, but those efforts had been unsuccessful. As he was unable to change the date of the examination, Kiet withdrew from the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World Championships, but he still remained available for, and keen to participate in, the 2001 Commonwealth Championships. However, it would have cost TTA nearly $2,000 extra in air fares if Kiet had played in the 2001 Commonwealth Championships and then been replaced by another player for the 2001 World Championships (rather than having the same player participate in both Championships) and at that time, TTA’s liabilities still exceeded its assets. Accordingly, the Interim Board decided that Kiet should be replaced in the Australian Men’s Team for both the 2001 World Championships and the 2001 Commonwealth Championships. The National Selectors selected Alex Swanson to replace Kiet.

     8.5 In the circumstances, it is quite unfair and denigratory for Jeff to state that table tennis was not a priority for Kiet. As far as I am aware, no Australian table tennis player has ever earned a reasonable income from playing table tennis (and by “reasonable income”, I mean an income at least as large as the player concerned could have earned had he or she worked assiduously in an alternative occupation). Accordingly, Kiet’s decision to sit his University examination in preference to playing for the Australian Men’s Team in the 2001 World Championships was not only understandable, it was also eminently sensible. Although Kiet’s withdrawal weakened the Australian Men’s Team (apart from Trevor Brown, Kiet was the only member of the Men’s Team with a National Men’s Ranking: number 8), it was unlikely to make a huge amount of difference to the Team’s performances and it was certainly not going to cause any long term damage to Australian table tennis. Equally, Kiet’s withdrawal was not going to cause any significant damage to his table tennis career.

     9. THREE QUESTIONS

     9.1 The whole debate about Simon’s omission from the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships comes down to three questions, as follows.

     9.2(1)WAS THE TRAINING REQUIREMENT OF 5 x 2 HOUR “ON TABLE” TRAINING SESSIONS PER WEEK IN THE PERIOD OF APPROXIMATELY 2 MONTHS PRECEDING THE NATIONAL TEAM’S DEPARTURE FOR THE 2001 WORLD AND COMMONWEALTH CHAMPIONSHIPS A REASONABLE ONE?

     9.3 The Interim Board took the view that:
     (a) Australia should aim to perform as well as our players were capable of performing at the World and Commonwealth Championships;
     (b) the level of competition at those Championships was such that we could not hope to succeed in our aim unless our players were optimally prepared for the Championships; and
     (c) optimal preparation for the Cham

127. Brian Lauri

     commented on January 3rd, 2009 at 8:21 am

     PLUMBING NEW DEPTHS (cont.)

     Unfortunately, part of section 9 and all of section 10 of my comments were chopped off by some mechanism on the Pingskills web site. Accordingly, sections 9 and 10 are set out below.

     9. THREE QUESTIONS

     9.1 The whole debate about Simon’s omission from the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships comes down to three questions, as follows.

     9.2 (1) WAS THE TRAINING REQUIREMENT OF 5 x 2 HOUR “ON TABLE” TRAINING SESSIONS PER WEEK IN THE PERIOD OF APPROXIMATELY 2 MONTHS PRECEDING THE NATIONAL TEAM’S DEPARTURE FOR THE 2001 WORLD AND COMMONWEALTH CHAMPIONSHIPS A REASONABLE ONE?

     9.3 The Interim Board took the view that:
     (a) Australia should aim to perform as well as our players were capable of performing at the World and Commonwealth Championships;
     (b) the level of competition at those Championships was such that we could not hope to succeed in our aim unless our players were optimally prepared for the Championships; and
     (c) optimal preparation for the Championships in the 2 month period leading up to the Team’s departure for the Championships involved at the very least 10 hours of “on table” training per week.
     I am astonished that anyone would suggest that it was not reasonable to require the players to undergo 5 x 2 hour “on table” training sessions per week in the 2 month period leading up to the Team’s departure.

     9.4 (2) HAVING NEGOTIATED ON BEHALF OF TTA AN AGREEMENT WITH SIMON ON 15TH FEBRUARY 2001, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE TRAINING REQUIREMENT OF 5 “ON TABLE” TRAINING SESSIONS PER WEEK WAS VARIED TO 3 “ON TABLE” TRAINING SESSIONS PER WEEK AND 2 MENTAL TRAINING SESSIONS PER WEEK WITH A VIS SPORTS PSYCHOLOGIST, SHOULD BOB TUCKETT ON 18TH FEBRUARY 2001 HAVE ALLOWED SIMON TO REPUDIATE THAT AGREEMENT WITH IMPUNITY AND HAVE ACCEDED TO SIMON’S WISH TO BE REQUIRED TO TRAIN ONLY FOR THE LAST 2-3 WEEKS BEFORE THE TEAM’S DEPARTURE?

     9.5 The agreement made with Simon at a meeting on 15th February 2001 had been facilitated and supported by a VIS official. A report of that meeting prepared by Bob 4 days after the meeting advised that Simon had stated at that meeting that he could not undergo more than 3×2 hour “on table” training sessions per week. The inference was that Simon was able to undergo 3×2 hour “on table” training sessions per week and Simon agreed to do so, along with 2×2 hour mental training sessions per week with a sports psychologist. There has never been any suggestion by Simon or anyone on his behalf that Simon’s circumstances changed in any way between the meeting on 15th February 2001 and when he repudiated the agreement 3 days later (on 18th February 2001). Had Bob allowed Simon to repudiate the agreement with impunity and acceded to Simon’s wish that he only be required to train for the last 2-3 weeks before the Team’s departure, it would have made a mockery of the whole process of negotiating a variation of the training requirements to cater for Simon’s alleged special circumstance (burn out).

     9.6 (3) SHOULD TTA’S INTERIM BOARD ON 25TH FEBRUARY 2001 HAVE ACCEDED TO SIMON’S REQUEST TO BE PERMITTED A MONTH’S BREAK FROM TRAINING AND TO BE REQUIRED TO TRAIN FOR ONLY THE LAST 2 WEEKS BEFORE THE TEAM’S DEPARTURE?

     9.7 It is important to remember what Simon said and what he did not say when he came before the Interim Board on 25th February 2001. Simon:
     (a) made no complaints about the eligibility requirements;
     (b) made no complaints about his training partners; and
     (c) made no complaints about the training conditions.

     9.8 Simon based his request for a month’s break solely on his alleged mental tiredness, but he provided no evidence to corroborate his bald assertion that he was mentally tired. When asked by various members of the Interim Board what he intended to do during his month’s break, he said that he intended to play in 3 tournaments (which he was not required by the eligibility requirements to do) and he expressed confidence that he would perform well in those tournaments. It is also worthy of note that in the period of 4 weeks preceding the Interim Board meeting, Simon had played in 2 tournaments.

     9.9 When asked by an Interim Board member whether he would be prepared to resume training if he was re-included in the National Training Squad, Simon replied that he was not prepared to train for the next month, but he would train as much as the National Coaches required him to train in the 2 weeks prior to the Team’s departure.

     9.10 Hence, the stark choice facing the Interim Board was whether to accede to Simon’s request for a month’s break from training because of alleged mental tiredness when there was no evidence of mental tiredness (other than Simon’s bald assertion that he was mentally tired) and such evidence as there was (Simon’s participation in 2 tournaments in the 4 weeks preceding the Interim Board meeting, Simon’s expressed intention to play in 3 tournaments during his proposed one month’s break and Simon’s expressed confidence that he would perform well in those tournaments) was probative of Simon not being mentally tired.

     9.11 So when Jeff alleges that “with better athlete management from the officials at Table Tennis Australia, Simon could still be playing for Australia”, this is just waffle. What Jeff refers to as “athlete management” comes down to nothing more than deciding whether to allow Simon a month’s break from training (because Simon was quite adamant that he was not going to train at all for the next month). I think that if the Interim Board members had acceded to Simon’s request, they would have been a laughing stock around Australia.

     10. “BRITENEY (SIC) SPEARS” WAS RIGHT

     10.1 On 16th May at 3.51 pm, “Briteney (sic) Spears” said: “the cacks are and were on you plumby !!” (which I understand to mean that the joke is on you, Jeff). I agree with “Briteney”. In my view, Jeff’s original article was poorly researched and poorly argued. It was based solely on Simon’s alleged burn out and made no mention of eligibility requirements or of the quality of Simon’s training partners or of the quality of the training conditions. Jeff has shifted his ground in his subsequent comments in an apparent endeavour to defend the conclusion, or at least one of the conclusions, of his original article (viz., that Simon should have been selected in the Australian Men’s Team for the 2001 World and Commonwealth Championships), but his subsequent comments have defamed and denigrated various people and have provided no support for the conclusion of his original article.

     10.2 IT IS NOW 2009. IT IS TIME FOR JEFF TO STOP TRYING TO DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE. IT IS TIME TO LET GO OF THE EVENTS OF 2001. RAISING THE ISSUE AGAIN HAS NOT DONE SIMON ANY GOOD, HAS NOT DONE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PINGSKILLS WEB SITE ANY GOOD, HAS NOT DONE SPORTING JOURNALISM ANY GOOD AND HAS NOT DONE TABLE TENNIS ANY GOOD.

     Happy New Year Everyone.

     Regards,

     Brian Lauri

128. Jeff Tran

     commented on January 7th, 2009 at 9:35 am

     I have perused the above comments with interest. However, I must at first declare that I am a huge Simon Gerada fan and therefore my comments may be construed as bias.
     There are mainly two reasons why I am a fan of Simon. First, Simon has talents that I don’t possess. To give you an idea of how much I appreciate talented people, I would trade in my job to play table tennis like Simon can. There are plenty of ordinary players, but there are not many talented ones.
     Secondly, I met Simon for a few times and can say that although Simon has a temper like a tiger, he is a great bloke.
     Some of the above comments (and I won’t mention any names)fail to recognise two things:

     1. We, as Australia, have been missing out on Simon’s services. Regardless of which version of event is correct, the bucket must stop with TTA and the selectors in 2001. I always believe that problems are there to be solved not shelved or put in a hard basket. Obviously there was a problem regarding Simon’s eligibility for selection. It was for TTA and the selectors to work through that problem and make sure that at the end of the day we do not lose a player of Simon’s calibre: believe me, they don’t come around that often. Even if Simon was at fault, TTA and the selectors must put Australia’s interest first and worked through the problem with him. Blaming things on a young man is an easy way out. Just examine how the Greeks nurture Kalinikos Kreanga. Simon reminds me of Kreanga: very hot temper but very talented.

     2. We fail to take note and listen to our talented athletes. We make up rules and want them to be concrete. Well, in my experience, rules are there to be followed. But if necessary, those rules should be bent. Simon would know himself better than TTA or the selectors would. Why not listen to him and try to accommodate him? No, that would show a sign of weakness. Well, taking a step backwards at the right time can be seen as a giant leap!

     I just hope that we, the table tennis community, learn from the Gerada experience and nurture the next super-talented kid that comes our way. Otherwise we will lose him/her like we did with Simon.
     Thanks for reading.
     Jeff

129. Danny Semmler

     commented on January 8th, 2009 at 10:29 pm

     Jeff
     Throughout the blog you have kept moving the goal posts in
     an abysmal attempt to support that Simon should have been picked in the 2001 team.At the same time digging a deeper hole for yourself and avoiding the arguments mounted against you.Anyone who can not train 6 hours a week is not worthy of representing their country in any sport.You said you would put up a post as why Stephanie Sang was not selected for the worlds in China.What happened to that post?

130. Richard Lee

     commented on January 12th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

     Further to the most recent comments on this subject there are a few points I would like to make ,some of which have been made before but I think need to be reiterated.
     1) Squad training has been a tried and proven formula for success for every major ,successful table tennis nation in the world for at least the last 50 years.
     To say it is pointless is basically saying countries like China,Sweden ,Korea,Germany etc. are incorrect in their approach .In every squad there will be fluctuations in playing standard ,but a smart player can utilise and adapt a training exercise so both parties can benfit even if there is a marked difference in playing standard.
     From what I can gather from previous posts the players training were of Australian and Victorian ranking standard.I think any player should be able to utilise players of that ability to their advantage without any problem.
     2)As the previous poster Danny Semmler mentioned ,6 hours per week for anyone playing international sport should be no problem.
     It is actually below what I would have thought a minimum,particularly in the last few months before major international tournaments .I would have thought 10-12 hours is probaly more realistic,which indeed ,was the initial criteria I believe.
     From what I have read this 10 hours was then cut back to 6 for Simon with 2 mental training sessions weekly ,by the Head Coach Bob Tuckett backed by the ATTA board .
     Thus for people to assert that both the Head Coach /ATTA Board were inflexible and over-zealous in their dealings with Simon is patently incortrect Indeed from the evidence given it appears they bent over backwards to accommodate Simon.
     3) Mental tiredness as an excuse is a hoary old chestnut often brought up by players when they simply can’t be bothered training/playing.As has been pointed out before I find it incoceivable that a player suffering from genuine mental tiredness would compete in match-play/tournament play when not required to do so.
     If they do and they play well the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are not mentally tired .
     This been the case training 10 hours weekly should be no problem for any international player in any sport.
     4) As has also been pointed out before what a player wants and thinks he needs is often very different from what they actually do need.
     As Simon pointed out himself he was an inexperienced 20(?) year old player at the tinme.Thus for him not to take notice and listen to a person of Bob Tuckett’s enormous playing and coaching experience and knowledge is simply ludicrous and beggars belief.
     Again it appears that Simon thought he knew better than the Head Coach/ATTA Board what he required and needed ,when all the evidence says he didn’t.
     From my experience in this field it is very seldom that a 20 year old player would know what he/she really needs in terms of preparation in order to play at one’s top standard in international competition .
     5) The word talent is mentioned in dispatches throughout the blog.Well as the old saying goes nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.It is what you do with the talent you have that is important.Factors like discipline,hard work,tactical nous,ability to play at one’s best under pressure are the important ingredients whereby one can maximise one’s talent to the utmost.Or to quote the great Yugoslavian player Dragutin Surbek who succintly sais “I don’t respect talent just hard work”
     6) Lastly the impression is given by Jeff et al that it is Table tennis Australia’a /Bob Tucketts fault that perhaps
     Simon hasn’t reached the heights as a player that he could have and that Australian table tennis has suffered as a result.
     To me this is misleading,finger pointing and not taking responsibility for one’s actions.One sign of maturity is looking at oneself when things don’t go as planned instead of blaming all and sundry around .Simon was not eligible for the team ,he didn’t get selected in ,because he did not fufill the criteria that every other player had to in order to get selected.
     However surely that did not need to end his playing days for Australia ?As has been pointed out in previos postings , many-even some of the greatest -table tennis players and sportsmen in other codes have been dropped for various reasons for similar reasons as in this case.If ,,as Simon obviously did choose to turn his back on playing for australia internationally and play for Malta then he and he alone is responsible for the reason why he is not playing for Australia.

131. Steve Reilly

     commented on April 27th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

     Firstly; no-one knows me, i’m not a famous TT player (even in my own legends!) but I’ve been around the TT World since ‘75 in Scotland & England; left the sport (for some of the above reasons) and came back recently to try reviving the sport in Fiji as a coach.
     Well done to all contributors of the above discussions, which occasionally drifted from the original blog focus, but nonetheless, many lessons can be learned by all!!!

     MY SIMPLE SOLUTION to the above selection criteria is;

     1. Follow the example set by ITTF in the selection for the Olympic Games and “Pro-tour” finals!!!
     How complicated is that scenario?????

     The ITTF Board of Directors is made up of experienced World representatives who bring to the Table thier good/bad past experiences after having made all of the above mistakes and tried/tested various solutions at some time or other.
     If we are ALL on the same page (as Richard Lee so often points out), then the sport will grow within Oceania.

132. Steve Reilly

     commented on April 27th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

     I only found this blog because i “googled” Dragutin Surbek whilst researching the full results of the 1980 1st World Cup in Kong Kong where i was a guest of the HKTTA through thier Japanese coach.
     I trained with the HK National team for 6 months in 1979/80, before the British Military banned me from training at a “Communist China” backed club!!

     Unfortunately politics and “self agendas” are still all too prevalent in our sport.

     I got back into Table Tennis becuase Fiji was the 1st place in the World I had visited where racial & political dicrimination was not obvious among the school children/younger generation, in spite of the countries renowned “coup-culture”
     Our sport can teach many things at all levels to absolutely anyone……. we just need to recognise and learn from our mistakes and join the Table Tennis rEVOLUTION (not a COUP!!)

Add your comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Search all posts

• Topics

  • Coaching (33)
  • Competitions (19)
  • Discussions (13)
  • Equipment (8)
  • General (36)
  • Happy Customers (25)
  • PingSkillers (23)
  • Players (6)
  • Rules (22)
  • Store (11)
  • Training Camps (2)
  • Website (8)

• Recent Posts

  • Choosing the right Sponge
  • Thank you for all the teachings
  • Ready Position and Drop Shot Lessons
  • “Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell - Book Review
  • Table Tennis - A Great Spectator Sport

• Archives

  Select Month March 2010  (1) February 2010  (3) January 2010  (2) December 2009  (4) November 2009  (2) October 2009  (2) September 2009  (3) August 2009  (3) July 2009  (5) June 2009  (3) May 2009  (10) April 2009  (10) March 2009  (6) February 2009  (4) January 2009  (9) December 2008  (13) November 2008  (11) October 2008  (17) September 2008  (12) August 2008  (25) July 2008  (4) June 2008  (4) May 2008  (2) April 2008  (5) March 2008  (10) February 2008  (2) January 2008  (9) December 2007  (4) November 2007  (9) October 2007  (2) September 2007  (2) August 2007  (5) July 2007  (1)

• Current Popular Posts

  • Australia Needs Simon Gerada
  • It's not over till the fat lady sings
  • Ping Skills Joins Facebook
  • Merry Christmas

Keep up to date

Prefer email updates?

Every month or so we send our latest Table Tennis tips and the best bits from our blog.

Name:

Email: