Both Natalie and Rachael's separate reason's were posted two days after the SA declaration on Squashsite.

You can see their detailed responses at http://www.squashsite.co.uk/grinhams_opt_out.htm

Not a single part of their response even remotely refers to either of them wanting to concentrate on their own careers.

I suppose they could have told SA one thing and the public another. But  I think the likelihood of such a Machiavellian approach is zero

Back to top

did it occur to anyone that the grinhams may have told squash oz that they made themselves unavailable   to concentrate on their individual careers?  it won't have been the first time that players have done so.

just a thought.

Back to top

Viper - by reading the Squash News today it becomes obvious the standing down of the Grinham girls has given an opportunity to the local Aussie players to try out their skills and gain experience at the World top level.

Yes, this may not be any consolation to winning world team events, however in the long term it will groom some younger players wanting to break into the world circuit. What a great opportunity for them.

Back to top

Yes, this was a classic.

Quote:

"They are the ones who put out the statement on 3 june 06 alleging that the reason that Natalie and Rachael had pulled out was because: "... the Grinhams have decided to concentrate on their individual careers and have advised Squash Australia they are not available for Australian selection.""

Back to top

For me in this whole debate the saddest thing is the unprofessional performance of SA.

They are the ones who put out the statement on 3 june 06 alleging that the reason that Natalie and Rachael had pulled out was because: "... the Grinhams have decided to concentrate on their individual careers and have advised Squash Australia they are not available for Australian selection."

Two days later Rachael and Natalie took, in my view, the principled stand of in effect saying - No that wasn't why we are not available for selection - these are the reasons.

SA brought this embarassment upon themselves by attempting to put a completely false spin on the event.

And now in the last few days knowing full well that issues of team selection are in the spotlight they put out a set of Australian rankings and then within a matter of days have to change them.

Had they learnt their lesson about being truthful in press releases? Well at least they didn't give a bodgey reason - they just didn't give any reason at all.  This is Keystone Cops stuff

Back to top

Well done SA for taking on board feedback and being prepared to make a change.

Thanks Rita

Back to top

Viper - I think back to the drawing board they have gone.
The latest from SA is the introduction of a "Match Report Form" for players, parents, coaches etc to submit accurate and current information for consideration by National Selectors.
This, hopefully, will help prevent a recurrence of the above saga.

Back to top

Quote :

"Viper if the Selectors had done something wrong they would not have won the appeal, yeah?"

Could also just mean the appeal upheld a decision based on a flawed selection process, ie the selectors may well have followed the process to the letter but the criteria for selection could well be crap, in life innacted laws get  repealed on a regular basis when they were found to be flawed.

 

But I understand your point, change always hurts someone.

Back to top

Viper if the Selectors had done something wrong they would not have won the appeal, yeah?

From a Selector's point of view, it can be hard to give some young up and coming, on the way up, the experience and an opportunity to break through.   You know the story from the local pennant teams; some just sit there and do not improve and take up spots that prevents  young blood going forward, and to change things can upset the apple cart.

That is life......to be overtaken means someone has to drop back, or if they really think they are better, prove themselves against those odds.

Back to top

Vindicated, perhaps as I have said she sure looked out of form in the matches I saw her play.

That is one issue but the selection process is the nub of the problem according to the Grinham girls, yes ?

 

Back to top

Viper the results of the Australian Open Womens Champkonshkps in Adelaide must put a smile on the face of the Selectors with the win by 20 year old Kasey Brown.

It will be interesting to see how far this young player goes in the next couple of years.

Back to top

Kasey Brown (ranked lower)  just beat MM in 3 to take out the Naracoote Open  - 9/4, 9/5, 9/4

Back to top

Have to agree with Mark on that one. Ranking order isn't worth jack when it comes to getting the best team to win on the day! I'm now reaching a stage where I can beat the players who are above me in my club, and should in theory be moving up the ranking order, but I know that those players at the moment will get better results against other players than I will.

 

The same thing begins to happen in any team where players play each other or train with each other on a regular basis. You begin to learn each others little quirks in match play and you can adapt to that player's game better than people you play less often.

 

I think with some of the world teams a similar thing has happened where game styles come into play and players can get higher national rankings versus results over players on the world stage.

 

You also have to take into consideration the ranking points allocated to each tournament. In theory a player who has won 10 tournaments worth 10 points for a win would still be ranked behind a player who came runner-up in a tournament with 110 points for second place. 10 wins versus 1 second place? Ok this is a pretty extreme example, but I don't think any averaging is done in ranking points - perhaps Ray or Rita can give a bit more detail??

End result being, IMHO players should be picked based on the believed strength in team competition, not from a list on a piece of paper!

Adz

Back to top

I'll be the first to say I don't know much about the specifics surrounding this ordeal.
But on the note of selection based on ranking, I disagree. It should never be on ranking. The highest ranking players do not always make for the best team.

Back to top

Thanks for your input R&R.

We will watch with interest what comes of some very strong critisim from the sisters regarding Squash Australia.

Certainly many/most sports would not tolerate such public dressing down of their peak body without there being sanctions of some sort, regardless of how many km away they might be.

The initial submissive response from SA perhaps says something in itself ?

Back to top

hi viper

this one brings up a lot of old chestnuts. ever since moses was a boy athletes have been whingeing about the administration of their particular sport. if every  athlete decided not to compete on the basis of this disagreement, no one would ever represent their country.

the rules that were in place for selection were well known by all the athletes well before the team was chosen. while not knowing the intricacies of the policies themselves, i do know how the system works. the rules may have been changed, but the athletes would have had a chance to provide their input and i would be surprised if  squash oz did not make an attempt to contact the top players individually on important changes.

Whether or not they would have been contacted is another matter as they are usually extremely hard to contact. Not that i blame them, they are trying their best to make a living and there isn't exactly a pot of gold awaiting those who represent their country in squash. Teams championships usually carry very little prizemoney if any.

I would not read too much into this - they obviously feel strongly about the Martin issue - but it is easy to criticise anyone on a website or in a magzine when you are safely tucked 20,000 klms away.

As far as the connection with Geoff Hunt's resignation, there ain't any.  Although I have not spoken to Geoff since I went away, I know he has been gradually reducing his workload with Squash Oz to pursue other interests. Looks like this offer has come up at a good time and knowing how they work in that part of the world, it was probably in the "too good to refuse" category. It may also open up other opportunities for Geoff that he is interested in. Good Luck to him!

by the way for those confused - we are talking about the women's world teams championships

Back to top

Viper - I do not know.  I am not in a position to give such opinion.  I have not read the Rules/Regs for selection.  The matter was not successful with the appeal so the rules must have been adhered to or the result of that appeal would have been different.  The powers that be, according to one of the girls, did change the rules, but that was for the worse in her opinion.

If, the rules need to be revised it is now time to look at them again in light of all of the circumstances, including the Grinham's pulling out; funded players obligations to their affiliated body, residency, etc.  There will be flack coming from this since Australia will not win titles as easily of course without them, but it also means the new crop will be getting groomed for the future. 

It is the Grinham's decision basically.  If there are consequences for them not making themselves available to play they will have to wear that and I have no doubt they have already had advice in this regard.

. 

Back to top

But surely the question is are they right ?

We had a long discussion re MM being left out it seems the crux of the matter is the team was chosen on form going into the games not ranking is that right ?

As such the players were upset as they believe it should be on ranking first and foremost.

I lean towards form myself but I am sure the grinhams or Palmer would be far less likely to be left out due to a form slump than MM who is not a world beater.

I saw and number of MM games in the Australian Open and and as I said at the time she looked way out of form to me.

What is your opinion Rita should they choose ranking first and foremost ?

Back to top

Viper - yes.  The facts are in my mind.  It is hard to have the best of both worlds.

• these girls have paved a career for themselves out of squash.
• in the main are not resident in Australia.
• have received funding for a considerable time
• probably feel that they do not have a lot to lose at this stage of their squash careers
• will give the opportunities to others (and give their mates a chance maybe).

I guess I see things a bit differently too with further questions coming to mind, eg
 how long should a person be resident to represent, at what point is funding withdrawn, how many tournaments have to be played in a given period, what contribution are our overseas resident Aussie players doing to develop the game back home, and it goes on..............so that explains why I am not getting too worked up I guess. 

Back to top

I take on board what you are saying Rita, but the statements by the girls (in the cool light of day whats more) are very strong, very strong indeed :

ie 

"I want nothing more to do with those involved "

" Team selection for the 2006 Comm Games was very shady"

This virtually means our two best female players have cut ties with our peak body !

Back to top

Viper - that is an interesting read. However, it is also quite a familiar story regarding selection of teams, and criteria being met, etc..  And, having been a player and fighting for a spot, then a selector years later, abiding by rules and regs, is not an easy job and "someone always gets disappointed and misses out" as that is the nature of the process.

Yes, on the one hand I feel it is a pity the girls will not represent.   On the other hand, I feel it is a great chance for our up and coming crop to have the experience. 

Behind the scenes of all sport and business there is a lot of politics - and this time it has been exposed to a greater audience I guess is my gut reply.

Viper - I don't know about "unravelling at the top" - but suffice to say it takes something like this to get Board Members, etc to go back to the drawing board. 

Back to top