I guess that the FIE thinks that this is the fastest/easiest way that they
can seed the teams -- but it unfairly seeds a team like China who don't
have one of the team members in the Junior competition, only in the Cadet,
which gets penalized by the burden of excess points. I see why they do
this -- it is not like in the Seniors where you go by the team world
rankings, however, someone should consider using the points awarded on the
FIE ranking list for the individual event to seed the teams -- add up the
points earned in the competition, and if a person didn't earn points
because they weren't even IN the competition, nothing gets added, nobody
gets penalized, and highest points is highest seed.
I just quickly did that (it wouldn't take anymore time than what they do
currently, plus, they have several days to accomplish the seeding anyway),
and came up with this seeding:
1.USA 108
2.ITA 76
3.HUN 60
4.RUS 48
5.POL 44
6.KAZ 44
7.CHN 36
8.FRA 16
9.KOR 24
10.GBR 20
11.JPN 20
12.GER 16
13.ESP 12
14.CAN 8
15.UKR 8
In this manner, you give credit for each round the person went out in, and
better reflect a team's strength.
I think that the Senior World Championships were always seeded by
individual results in the individual competition prior to the institution
of the team world cup rankings so that is why they do it this way.
However, there is so much more variability in the Junior ranks, and by
seeding on FIE points awarded for the individual event, it gives a better
seeding.
Even on our division level, we can seed based on finish in the individual
event if the team competition follows it, or, if it is only a team event,
we seed based upon classification of the fencers. The seeding based on
classification is always the better seeding -- almost always by seeding
this way, the final results are the same as the seeding.
Surely, if you are a good team, no matter what your seeding is, you will
progress -- the system doesn't disadvantage you; however, a bad seeding
disadvantages the higher seeded team because they wind up meeting a team in
an earlier round than what is expected to happen.
Not to bring up the entire importance of seeding a competition properly
debate (well, OK, perhaps we can bring it up again -- traffic has been low
<g>) this does bring up the importance of seeding -- we see a difference
in how they seeded the Junior Worlds team competition, and how it would be
different if they went by the points awarded instead of placement, and the
impact to the US team.
In tennis, there are differences in the seeding amongst the Big 4 -- The
Australian Open, US Open and French Open all follow the rankings for
seeding (as all the minor and satellite competitions do). Wimbledon makes
their adjustments. The difference comes in that the French is clay and
Wimbledon is grass. Most of the minor and satellite competitions on these
surfaces attract the players profficient on these surfaces, so the seeding
by ranking works; of course, for the Big 4, all players are attracted, and
must adjust their game to the surface.
For the French Open, there are 2 camps of thought on this -- some people
think that the French Open is exciting entirely because there are so many
upsets; others think that when they seed, that they should take into
account the competitors record on clay and also use that to determine
seeding in order to have a more balanced and competitive competition --
that is what would make it more exciting.
For Wimbledon, they use the rankings to create the initial draw, and then
they look at the draw and see what part of the draw that major competitors
would meet. If they feel that 2 competitors strong in grass meet to soon
in the draw, they change the seeding position of the lower competitor up or
down 1 notch -- just swapping spots -- i.e. does it really matter if you
are seeded 26 or 27? -- no not really, but if we swap you, you have the
potential to meet so-and-so in the 8, but if we don't swap you, we have a
match that occurs in the 32 that should be occuring until the 8. I also
believe that they also do these swaps for protection of nationality -- in
fencing, we only protect nationalities in the pools and not the DEs.
Maybe after this example of the US team, the FIE will make a change for
seeding in Junior World team competitions.
Harold Buck wrote:
> Personally, I think such scoring is asinine *unless* they fence off for
> all places. Think about it: if I finish first, I had to beat the
> second-best fencer at the competition to gain that last point (1 point
> for first versus 2 for second).
>
> Meanwhile, someone in an relatively easy pool who went out in the round
> of 32 could move up 6 places--and do 6 points better--because he or she
> had an indicator that was a touch or two better than some other people.
>
> If you fence off for all places, then such a scoring system is fine. 
Linear Mode
