Men's Field Hockey FIH Olympic Games Qualifier 2019

[heywoodu 15,174]

15 hours ago, dcro said:

That's what you get for having the "fairest" qualification system.

 

The fairest qualification system should get the strongest teams at the Olympics, not the most diverse field. So yeah, nothing wrong with it.

[dcro 10,210]

Just now, heywoodu said:

 

The fairest qualification system should get the strongest teams at the Olympics, not the most diverse field. So yeah, nothing wrong with it.

 

Not really. Universality is one of the main Olympic principles. Without it, it becomes much harder for new nations (and regions) to emerge, as it has been proven again and again.

[heywoodu 15,174]

Just now, dcro said:

 

Not really. Universality is one of the main Olympic principles. Without it, it becomes much harder for new nations (and regions) to emerge, as it has been proven again and again.

Ok, maybe 'nothing wrong' was too much, but I really don't see any systems that are significantly better/more fair. Qualify the best of every continent, let the rest play each other based on rankings that are based on performances, and there you go. 

[phelps 7,706]

12 minutes ago, dcro said:

 

Not really. Universality is one of the main Olympic principles. Without it, it becomes much harder for new nations (and regions) to emerge, as it has been proven again and again.

 

universality could be pursuited when there was no limit to participation...

 

now that you have tournaments/races with only 6/8 starters (which is simply a shame, unacceptable), you have to put this concept aside...

 

I'm OK with reserving some spots here and there to not exactly the best in the field only in sports where you have a fair amount of those supposed "best" (teams/athletes), making the competition interesting for all the sports fans (especially the neutral ones)...

 

team sports definitely must not be annoyed by "universality", as they have too few participants at the actual Olympic tournaments...

[dcro 10,210]

4 minutes ago, phelps said:

 

universality could be pursuited when there was no limit to participation...

 

now that you have tournaments/races with only 6/8 starters (which is simply a shame, unacceptable), you have to put this concept aside...

 

I'm OK with reserving some spots here and there to not exactly the best in the field only in sports where you have a fair amount of those supposed "best" (teams/athletes), making the competition interesting for all the sports fans (especially the neutral ones)...

 

team sports definitely must not be annoyed by "universality", as they have too few participants at the actual Olympic tournaments...

 

But field hockey has 12 starters per gender?

 

I am not exactly proposing some madness here. I'm just saying that it would have been better for the sport if Malaysia had been given a spot based on AG final. Same goes for Ghana, if South Africa indeed withdraws its women's team. But no... We have to have more European teams instead.

Edited November 4, 2019 by dcro

[phelps 7,706]

Just now, dcro said:

 

But field hockey has 12 starters per gender?

 

I am not exactly proposing some madness here. I'm just saying that it would have been better for the sport if Malaysia had been given a spot based on AG final. Same goes for Ghana, if South Africa indeed withdraws its women's team. But no... We have to have more European teams instead.

 

while I could agree for Malaysia (they're good enough top keep up with all the other teams), I definitely not agree for Ghana, as they are not good enough...their games would just be unwatchable blowouts...

 

for this same reason, I like the rule they have in fencing...OK to universality/continental representation in the team events, but only if that continental team is good enough to be in the top 16 of the world overall...

 

all team sports should do the same...also for the Host Nation...

 

that's my point of view...

[heywoodu 15,174]

2 minutes ago, dcro said:

 

But field hockey has 12 starters per gender?

 

I am not exactly proposing some madness here. I'm just saying that it would have been better for the sport if Malaysia had been given a spot based on AG final. Same goes for Ghana, if South Africa indeed withdraws its women's team. But no... We have to have more European teams instead.

At least something we agree on. If South Africa withdraws, their African quota should go to an African nation.

[dcro 10,210]

Just now, phelps said:

while I could agree for Malaysia (they're good enough top keep up with all the other teams), I definitely not agree for Ghana, as they are not good enough...their games would just be unwatchable blowouts...

 

And with that any possible development of women's game in Africa stops...

And who will qualify instead...? South Korea. At last year's World Cup they were 12th, with one tied game and three losses. Then at the Asian Games they tied their worst ever result. In the play-offs they lost both games. And despite all of that, they will still go through based on rankings. If there ever was a federation who protected established nations beyond belief...

[Dunadan 1,103]

If South Africa withdraws, the quota goes to an African nation...provided that they are in the top 20 of the world ranking. 

 

If Ghana (on the women's side) cared about developing this sport, why didn't they even show up at the Hockey Series?

[Dolby 735]

1 minute ago, dcro said:

 

But field hockey has 12 starters per gender?

 

I am not exactly proposing some madness here. I'm just saying that it would have been better for the sport if Malaysia had been given a spot based on AG final. Same goes for Ghana, if South Africa indeed withdraws its women's team. But no... We have to have more European teams instead.

Malaysia didn't get the spot because Japan qualified as Continental Champions, releasing the host quota. Host quota reallocation has to be done in World tournament only. 

 

If South Africa indeed withdraws its women's team, its place will be taken by Korea and not another European team. 

 

Continental distribution of Olympic qualifiers:

Men's: Asia: 2, Europe: 5, Pan-Am: 2, Oceania: 2 and Africa: 1

Women's: Asia: 3 (or 4), Europe: 5, Pan-Am: 1, Oceania: 2 and Africa : 1 (or 0)

 

This is much more diverse than what we see in many other team sports. Except Africa, all other continents have a number of good teams. 

 

Also, I don't think having some sort of restriction regarding runner-up (or if needed even lower placed teams) of continental tournaments, to ensure that we don't have completely one-sided matches. For Rio, similar restriction were placed on Brazil getting host quota. We can argue whether the correct ranking cut-off should have been 20 or 25 or 30 or whatever, but that is just nitpicking.