http://korfball.org/ikf/tournaments/121-u23-world-championship/1814-ikf-u23-world-korfball-championship-2012-pools-drawing-known

What are peoples thoughts?

Looks like a tough pool for England.

The sentence 'The pools were drawn with each set of two teams based on the current IKF Ranking' suggests that the pools should be 1,4,6,7,10,11 and 2,3,5,8,9,12. Which would have England in pool 1 and Catalonia in pool 2.

Or was there some kind of random draw to it as well?

Could you explain it please Graham?

The pool containing the hosts was called Pool A so that the hosts would 'appear' as the 'home' team in later rounds, e.g. 4th Pool A vs 3rd Pool B.

Quite simple really!

The way it is at the moment the teams ranked 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the world are in the same pool presumably meaning one will not reach a semi-final.

This means that in the other pool one of the teams ranked 5th, 6th or 7th in the world looks likely to reach a semi-final.

Doesn't seem the most obvious option to me.

On recent form there seems no question that these two pools appear unbalanced with England's group being the far tougher of the two.

Maybe there is a need for a world U12/U23 ranking?

It is basically allowing a team that is not doing great(low raning) to get into a semi final and therefor increase there ranking!

also what does this do for the competion. holland get no serious games until the semi final and there 3 closest rivals are all tired having had to play atleast 2 other top teams.

Having played these other top teams alot of coaches will maybe take a risk agaist the weakest team in the group possibly meaning they lose that game through tiredness?

I thought the idea was to improve the sport and make it more likely that other teams can challenge holland but this is just giving it to them

If one was to take the points awarded from the Continental u21/23 events last year that were used in the overall ranking table and place teams into pools using a draw, then England and India would swap places. Pool A would still have CZE, GER and CAT and pool B BEL, TPE and POR. Instead the pools were drawn by Continent so as to avoid too many Asia/Oceania teams being in the same Pool. This has to be taken into consideration as much as the overall ranking.

One should not place teams into pools for a Youth event using the overall World ranking. However, if one did then swapping NED with BEL and CAT with TPE would give the same pools as what we have got.

Steve is quite right that the draw certainly makes for an easier than normal tournament for the Dutch who will not be challenged until the semi finals, while Belgium could well face tough challenges in the earlier rounds from Chinese Taipei and England making any potential challenge to the Dutch more difficult.

Based on recent form the top four nations at this age group are the Netherlands, Belgium, Chinese Taipei and England which is in line with the World rankings and it is certainly a shame that one will miss out on the semi finals.

Finding a more effective means of determining pools is clearly a challenge as Graham outlines and I agree with Steve that it does not seem to make sense to have a structure that so clearly favors the team that dominates the sport

If you would get cross finals between the numbers one and two of the pools, then you may get the same four countries as in China, which sounds quite 'fair' or 'accurate'. Where can I see the playing schedule after the first pool phase?

Consider that, with currently three 'A' countries, you are always lucky to be in the pool with one of those, and out of luck when in the pool with two. This of course depending on what happens after the first phase. And, in a system like the World Championships, you are lucky when you are in the pool without one of those three.

In this light I am really curious when the KNKV reveals its development support plan with the six countries it will assist in becoming real competitors to The Netherlands and Belgium. This should change these discussions as at lease one more true medallist candidate must emerge.

It's clearly helpful if pools can be balanced, but particularly below senior level it shouldn't be the be all and end all.

The way the pools have been drawn also means that to have a chance of reaching the Semi finals England will need to beat either Chinese Taipei or Belgium, something that we have never done at this level and is something that may well motivate us work even harder in our preparation to have a chance of doing so.

We have the players capable at this age group and the key will be to enable them to continue the development of their technical, tactical, athletic and mental skills to give us a chance of achieving success in this tournament

It certainly represents a great challenge for the English players but one that many have trained for a long long time for and we should not forget that the squad will quite likely be made up of many of the players who were part of the U19 squad that came second in the Korfball Junior challenge in recent years

Graham, it seems strange that the overall world rankings should not be used for youth tournaments when I'm pretty sure that the results from the U23 world championships are used in the calculation of the overall rankings.

If deemed not useful by the IKF in this circumstance then why include youth championships in the calculations?

I also understand that it is important to split teams up from the same continent but this could easily have been done more in line with world rankings by swapping England with Catalonia.

The way this tournament has been drawn creates, in my opinion, some incentive to not achieve your full potential in continental U21 qualifiers in order to get a favourable draw in the U23 world championships. If Catalonia had achieved a bronze medal at the U21 European Championships (as England did) then presumably it would be them placed in a pool with two 'A' countries rather than one.

I think this is a scenario that needs to be avoided at all costs

Had the pools been drawn using the world ranking (as the IKF site tells us they have) then would not the pools would be;

Netherlands, Chinese Taipei, Catalonia, Germany, Australia and India

Belgium, England, Czech Republic, Portugal, Hong Kong and South Africa.

quote:

---

Instead the pools were drawn by Continent so as to avoid too many Asia/Oceania teams being in the same Pool. This has to be taken into consideration as much as the overall ranking.

---

• Australia


• Hong Kong


• India


• Taiwan

Your suggestion puts three of the four in one group. Perhaps you forgot Australia as Oceania? I can only guess there.

Now, when you look at the current world ranking, these countries participate, grouped in pairs:
1) Netherlands
2) Belgium

3) Taiwan
4) England

5) Catalunya
6) Czech Republic

7) Germany
8) Portugal

11) Australia
13) Hong Kong

14) India
15) South Africa

As the drawing is done in pairs, you would get one of each pair in a group. With Australia and Hong Kong sharing a pair, the group of India would be determined by the draw of Taiwan, assuming that the draw of the highest ranked country takes precedence. But, I think the pain is not there for the English people here. You want England to be seen as 'top 4'. Now I take as comparison the results of the World Championship 2011, the most recent world event that may be used to see current strength of national teams:

1) Netherlands
2) Belgium

3) Taiwan
4) Catalunya

5) England
7) Portugal

8) Czech Republic
9) Germany

12) Australia
13) India

14) Hong Kong
16) South Africa

There, 'dark horse' Catalunya does take fourth place, and so would make it arguably correct for them to be in the position they are now, in the group with just Netherlands as A-grade country. Also Portugal could have some complaints, looking at that ranking compared to the world ranking.

Now of course the world ranking is intended to look at the longer perspective, considering a number of parameters, like organisation and duration of IKF membership. This should both prevent countries from a temporary on-court setback, as well as prevent 'underachieving' by long term members. Something I doubt is interesting for most countries, as usually at least part of their financing depends on their championship results. I know it works that way at least in countries like Netherlands and Russia.

The pain when using the world ranking is in pairs 2 and 3. Both countries in pair 2 (Taiwan, England) are in group B and both of pair 3 (Catalunya, Czech Republic) in group A. Looking at the 2011 World Championships, you see this issue with pair 3 (England, Portugal) both in group B and pair 4 (Czech Republic, Germany) both in group A. When the world ranking would have been used purely and the draw had been top down, then or Taiwan or England would have been switched with Czech Republic or Catalunya. And, based on what happened with Taiwan, India may have switched as well to ensure the continental balance.

What to me is interesting, is the placing of Taiwan in the groups. They now have a direct opportunity to take on Belgium, without being worn down by a game against Netherlands. So the groups you suggest, Steve, may be undesirable from that fact alone. Otherwise, your proposal fits the pairs used in the World ranking. You would just change South Africa and India to balance the Asia/Oceania countries.

It was because unlike england they had a lower ranking and was not in a pool with ct or belgium.

it seems to me that the countries that work hard to close the gap witht the top 3 and achive some good results get punished at the next event(S)

england u16 have been killed by the pools/format since there 2nd place 3 years ago.

last year the germany come 4th and england 5th based soley on ur groups( having played all the same teams expect holland englands results were better)

now based on this england now have to again beat ct or belgium to make the top 4

I agree with Steve that under the current system achieving a higher ranking can work against you as it certainly does with England. Once again Catalonia looks set to enjoy an easy passage to the semi finals and that makes no sense

Drawing the pools using the World rankings would have created a much more fairer and better balanced set of pools for sure

Other Steve, I think you forget in your frustration, that Catalunya is also working hard to close the gap with the higher level countries. They have support from high level coaches for some time now, and they have had at least one coach do a high level team in The Netherlands (Fortuna 2 or 3). Looking at younger age groups, you can say that the focus of Catalunya is more on the adult squad, and that has paid off. England took another route and that also looks to pay off. I think it will pay off more, but that is something time will tell.

Now, Catalunya started in the world championship in the group with Czech Republic as head. That basically gave them the same starting position as Russia and England, that is to become second after the group head. Portugal and Germany basically had the toughest challenge, as both were able to play for the top 8, but one of them wouldn't make it. That the Czechs are clearly a level weaker than Netherlands, Belgium and Taiwan, gave Catalunya the opportunity to beat the group leader. To me this has nothing to do with their ranking, but with the lack of a fourth level A country.

As England has now moved itself into the position held by the Czechs, you will benefit from this at the World Games and, possibly, also with the next World Championships. So I think thumbs up for England, who has worked hard and now sees the result of that in the general world ranking. If you can keep this position as long as the Czechs did, 2015 you will be group leader at the World Championships.

having played and coached in these multi game events i can tell you the pools make a massive difference to the level you can compete to by the end of an event.

When was the last time a top 3 team got beat by a team outside the top 3?

i think its happened once or twice in 15 years so its not very likely to happen now.

and all this because they dont want to many teams from 1 region in 1 pool, well how many european teams are in 1 pool? 3?

However, suppose you put 3 Asia/Oceania in one pool and one in the other, it would depend on where AFR is placed. If you put them in with the 3 AOKF teams that would leave 2 from EUR there and 5 in the other pool. If they are put in the other pool you would still have a 3, 4 split for EUR. It's never easy!

In retrospect, maybe it would have been better to draw teams in pairs by taking the top 3 in Europe (2011) and the top Asia team (2011), rather than by continent but what occurred was one of several options that the IKF considered in order to place teams in pools.

I do agree that Catalonia has been very progressive in its development and will be force for the future but as has been pointed out the way the pools have been drawn inadvertently penalises England for its progress and success in recent years,

The reality is that at present there are three 'A' nations, the Netherlands, Belgium and Taiwan and as Steve points out England is in a pool with two of those A nations while the B has a much easier route to the semi finals

Graham is right that finding the most effective solution to determining pools and finding the right balance is always a challenge at younger age groups, and the suggestion about taking the top three from Europe and top from Asia really makes sense and would have the greatest chance of allowing for the possibility of the strongest 4 teams to reach the semi finals

The current draw means that if England wants to make the semi finals then it will need to step up to A status to have any chance of doing so

quote:

---

Marc I do read your posts and just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I am 'frustrated'. I have long given up being frustrated by things that go on in the world of Korfball.

---

--
http://www.glasgowkorfball.co.uk/
http://www.scotlandkorfball.co.uk

If I understand Graham right, it's due to (partly) using a youth ranking (where can we find this particular one?) that the difference is compared to the world ranking. Otherwise there was no need with the information given, to come to the groups as they are now. That some countries don't participate in (some) youth championships is correct, I would say that willingly not participating at an U23 championship is from another order than in an U16 or U19 event, when you look at the senior squads. I feel that you should be able to field an U23 squad when you want to play at adult championships. So for me the weight of U23 championships may increase in the world ranking and the influence of the world ranking on the groups in a U23 event may be big.

these events need to be looked at so that we can get even pools and give everyone a far chance.

the IKF need to understand that there is 3 countries way ahead of the rest and it makes sense for all the rest to avoid the group with 2 in and there current way of drawing gpools is asking for teams to do worst in order to gain for the next event!

I always wounder how no matter how many changes there is to the way pools get drawn the dutch never seem to get belgium or ct in there group.

belgium and ct always seem to meetbefore the semi and holland just walk on rotating and keeping players fresh

i always thought the 1,4,5,8 and 2,3,6,7 pools where fair as that always gave the best team outside the top four the best chance to get into the top four and it gave numbers6 and 7a chance to improve there ranking enough to get to 5th place and try for 4th at the next event.

Marc i agree that in normal pools ie the way the world games was drawn it gave the benefit to the 4th rank county as it should and that england would benefit now being the 4th rank country that is until they have now changed they way the pools have been drawn and england probably wont be the 4th ranked teamafter this event so will not get the benefit

Now, with that 4 ranking spot, you can work on getting closer to the 'big 3'. For that it is waiting for the start of the plans of the KNKV to work on six A countries. I think you are one of the most logical candidates for that.

For the U16s this year you're in the same situation, by the way. Today I got the announcement of the pools though the German korfball site:
A: Belarus, Czech Republic, Germany, Netherlands, Russia
B: Belgium, England, Hungary, Pakistan, Hungary

Notice: the Catalans and Portuguese are NOT there...

quote:

---

A: Belarus, Czech Republic, Germany, Netherlands, Russia
B: Belgium, England, Hungary, Pakistan, Hungary

Notice: the Catalans and Portuguese are NOT there...

---

www.croydonkorfball.com
www.sv-velocitas.nl

I heard this weekend in Belarus that the groups have changed and this is also to be seen on the official website of the tournament: http://www.u16talentworldcup.nl

So the group of England got stronger (I think), as Hungary and Czech Republic switched. So now it's:
A: Belarus, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Russia
B: Belgium, Czech Republic, England, Pakistan, Taiwan

As past
events have proved they tend to make the rules up as they go along at the youth Talent World cup

Ever since the problems of 5 or more years ago the organisers tend to use the overall u16 ranking to place teams in pools. (The u19 event does the same but often there the teams are drawn in pairs according to the ranking).

The current u16 ranking is NED, TPE, ENG, RUS, GER, BEL, RSA, CZE, CAT, POL, HUN, BLR, SVK, ARM, AUS, POR

Which gives pools
NED TPE
RUS ENG
GER BEL
HUN CZE
BLR PAK

since RSA, CAT, POL, SVK, ARM, AUS and POR aren't playing.

i.e. exactly what the organisers have announced. BEL is ranked 6th due to not taking part a couple of years ago. Once that drops out of the three year cycle used for u16 rankings then maybe things will be different but as it stands the pools match the ranking exactly.

Whilst I can see the logic, I do not necessarily think it is fair.

A: Belarus, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Russia
B: Belgium, Czech Republic, England, Pakistan, Taiwan

a) Netherlands wont get tested until the final - and the other teams would be exhausted by then
b) the next best four teams after NEL (on senior rankings (i think BEL, ENG, CZE and TAI) are in the same pool.

What distorts the rankings is the fact that if a team fails to enter they score 0 points and therefore drop well down (as has happened with Belgium not entering a couple of years ago). European teams not entering get 0 whilst those from outside Europe get points and maintain them for 3 years (due to the cost of travel to the Netherlands every time for these events.

By the way, the rankings for these age groups came about because it seemed that the pool groups were unfair a few years ago. Pressure from Steve Barker was incidental in bringing these in and they have been used ever since by the hosts.

After facing a barrage of complaints from the other competing nations they backed down and as many remember the Netherlands South went on to intentionally lose their next game against a weak opponent to allow them to find a back door way of reaching the final, which the ultimately did.

Those same organizers even took the unprecedented step of overruling the referee's decision and awarding a red car (and a one match ban) against one of the England players in their meeting with the home side.

So on this occasion the organizers did indeed 'make things up as they went along' although Graham is right that the statement should have been 'they have in the past made things up as they go along' and that pressure surrounding these unfortunate incidents did lead to establishing the junior rankings so that it was not left to personal whims to decide how pools were structured

Hopefully those days are behind us.

I agree with Al in terms of the obvious unfairness of the pools and it doesn't seem to make sense for the 2nd strongest nation in the world (for the moment at least) to drop so far down the rankings because they didn't take part in one tournament.

Al is also right about the fact that the Netherlands will remain unchallenged until the semi finals, possibly even the final, and reach that final far fresher than whoever their opponents might be.

This does seem to be the case with most international tournaments if the Dutch truly do want to be challenged then maybe it is time for us to re-think the structure of these competitions to ensure greater opportunity for the top teams to compete with each other in the early stages of the tournament?

Russia has earned a high U16 ranking, but will be much weaker this year. The good players have all become too old for the U16 squad and also the Russian representation has gone to the 'other camp' this year, which has weaker players. There will be some players of the camp that were at the U16s the previous years. There is a chance that Russia will be 4th or 5th in this group.

That leaves just the Germans of reasonable strength in group A. I have no idea of the progress of Hungary, but last year they were also not strong in scoring, despite playing pretty organised.

Now the Czechs may still have a fairly weak team compared to England, Taiwan and Belgium, but that doesn't make England's issue go away. So they will have to beat either Taiwan or Belgium to get into the top part of the tournament. I reviewed the schedule for day 2 and the first 2 teams of the groups play cross finals for the first 4 places, where the others play all 3 opponents of the other group. So you want to be first or second on day 1.

I am not familiar with the exact duration of points awarded in the U16 ranking, but this group sees more fluctuation in level, depending on the stability in the country. Of course, different strategies don't help either. That Portugal just doesn't show up for years to me is a bad thing, where weaker and poorer countries like Poland and Belarus try to get there whenever possible. Perhaps increasing the influence of the U16 achievements in the global ranking may persuade countries to make an appearance at this Talent cup. Maybe in 2013, when the IKF has the year of youth korfball, steps will be taken to work on this.

That sounds like it was Belgium's fault for not sending a team to the tournament. Whether or not that was down to England does not really matter. And if it was the case, it sounds like you are portraying Belgium as poor losers.

I think, if it is not already done, that a weighting is provided to a country's U16 rankings based upon higher age group ranking points. Maybe this will eliminate the effect of countries not entering.

So the 'fault' is meant jokingly. I thought I wouldn't have to explain that to people from a country famed for its humour... Why blame a country for improving itself to the extent that they can beat the competition?

A few years back there had been talk of including the likes of England and Germany into the Annual Inter land event between The Netherlands and Belgium at the junior age groups which made a lot of sense but it never transpired sadly.

The inclusion of England into the Junior Korfball challenge event was in recognition of the talent development work done over the last 10 years and England went on to finish 2nd above Belgium and all the other Dutch regions at the U19 level a couple of years ago.

England needs to competing more often with The Netherlands and Belgium far more than is currently the case at all levels but both the Dutch and Belgians will only be interested in doing so if we can compete with them and that relies heavily on whether we have been able to keep the momentum of our talent development to ensure we are continuing to develop the quality of players that took second place at the challenge.

Far too many of the games in current competitions are pointless exercises in terms of pushing us to higher levels, and in that way facing a stronger group is of benefit

These was talk of running a two tier structure for the JWC a couple of years back but this never materialized. Had it we would have faced a tournament where every game was a competitive challenge which is what we need.

The problem is consistency in terms of each nation's talent development programs and it is only the Dutch, Belgians and Taiwan (and in recent years England) that consistently produce good quality players at the younger age groups.

The two sides that top their respective groups will feature in the 1st Qualifying Final at the Dubai International Cricket Stadium on March 22 with the winner progressing to the World Twenty20 in Sri Lanka

The sides that finish second and third in the two groups will play cross-over matches. The two winners will progress to the Preliminary Final to be played on March 23 at the Dubai International Cricket Stadium. The 2nd Qualifying Final - for the second spot in the World Twenty20- will take place on the morning of March 24 between the loser of the 1st Qualifying Final and the winner of the Preliminary Final.

But it's not that I'm criticising the format (in which case my criticism would be that not enough associate nations get to play in the final tournament), simply pointing out that most sports tie themselves up in knots trying to get a balance between widening participation, maximising quality matches and maintaining fairness.

Seems like the IKF may have seen the error in their ways and used the withdrawal of the Czechs to make the pools more even?

Certainly good news for England.

Seems like the IKF may have seen the error in their ways and used the withdrawal of the Czechs to make the pools more even?

Certainly good news for England.

Did you not read Graham's explanation on earlier pages?
New pools, same ranking system used, makes complete sense to me.

A better chance for England? Maybe? But that was probably Ikf's least concern!

What I see as worrying is that the Czechs aren't able to visit what I think is one of the more prestigious events in korfball, when it is fairly close (Barcelona). For me this is not a good development for global korfball. On the other hand I am happy to see China participate and will follow their performance with great interest.

I share Marc's concerns about the Czech republic and it is disturbing to see a nation ranked so highly not being able to attend such a major championships, especially when so close.
It will certainly be interesting to see how China does.

quote:

---

It's also interesting when teams withdraws due to a loss of financial support, it's a reminder that our players finance their own attendance.

www.nomadskorf.com

---

Possibly people should now start to worry now about the World Games with some countries' dire finances. 15 players are paid for with respect to accommodation and meals but teams have to pay accommodation costs for officials and then everyone has to get there.