|
Post by guest2 on Sept 26, 2021 19:41:17 GMT -5
“As of Sep 20, 2021 Ranking of teams based on the 0 best results at all FIVB recognized events over the last 365 days.” Obviously that’s a typo. Is it 12 best finishes over the last 365 days? It should be best 8 of the last 12. The number played listed for many of these teams is significantly more than they have played in the last 365 days.
|
|
|
Post by tamz on Sept 26, 2021 19:50:24 GMT -5
It should be best 8 of the last 12. The number played listed for many of these teams is significantly more than they have played in the last 365 days. Probably still Covid backtrack for a certain time period? Not sure when these points will be sorted out to how it was pre-Covid.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Sept 26, 2021 22:18:26 GMT -5
The number played listed for many of these teams is significantly more than they have played in the last 365 days. Probably still Covid backtrack for a certain time period? Not sure when these points will be sorted out to how it was pre-Covid. Hopefully never. Im eager to see how the FIVB changes things. A lot of their regulations, policies etc. were a sloppy mess this qualifying period and I am hoping they will improve things. The star system, the way teams are ranked, the disparate points awarded for events with identical fields (4 star v 5 star etc.) Big opportunity for the FIVB to make the tour a lot better by picking some low hanging fruit. It may also be time to let one or two more teams from a given country get into some events. Very often the Qs aren't full and there are tons of good teams from the US and Brazil waiting for a chance. It would be nice if they raised the limit from 4 to 5 and made some allowance so if the Q isn't full any team with points, no matter the country, can get in
|
|
|
Post by tamz on Sept 26, 2021 22:21:48 GMT -5
Probably still Covid backtrack for a certain time period? Not sure when these points will be sorted out to how it was pre-Covid. Hopefully never. Im eager to see how the FIVB changes things. A lot of their regulations, policies etc. were a sloppy mess this qualifying period and I am hoping they will improve things. The star system, the way teams are ranked, the disparate points awarded for events with identical fields (4 star v 5 star etc.) Big opportunity for the FIVB to make the tour a lot better by picking some low hanging fruit. It may also be time to let one or two more teams from a given country get into some events. Very often the Qs aren't full and there are tons of good teams from the US and Brazil waiting for a chance. It would be nice if they raised the limit from 4 to 5 and made some allowance so if the Q isn't full any team with points, no matter the country, can get in I know there’s been talk about a new system but they haven’t announced anything yet so far. They have from now till the new season to make these changes and make it public, if that’s the case. In addition, they’ll have to decide how olympics qualifying would pan out.
|
|
|
Post by acrossthepond on Sept 27, 2021 9:23:53 GMT -5
Probably still Covid backtrack for a certain time period? Not sure when these points will be sorted out to how it was pre-Covid. Hopefully never. Im eager to see how the FIVB changes things. A lot of their regulations, policies etc. were a sloppy mess this qualifying period and I am hoping they will improve things. The star system, the way teams are ranked, the disparate points awarded for events with identical fields (4 star v 5 star etc.) Big opportunity for the FIVB to make the tour a lot better by picking some low hanging fruit. It may also be time to let one or two more teams from a given country get into some events. Very often the Qs aren't full and there are tons of good teams from the US and Brazil waiting for a chance. It would be nice if they raised the limit from 4 to 5 and made some allowance so if the Q isn't full any team with points, no matter the country, can get in I fully agree with your last point that country quota limitations should be lifted if the field is not full
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Sept 27, 2021 12:16:39 GMT -5
Hopefully never. Im eager to see how the FIVB changes things. A lot of their regulations, policies etc. were a sloppy mess this qualifying period and I am hoping they will improve things. The star system, the way teams are ranked, the disparate points awarded for events with identical fields (4 star v 5 star etc.) Big opportunity for the FIVB to make the tour a lot better by picking some low hanging fruit. It may also be time to let one or two more teams from a given country get into some events. Very often the Qs aren't full and there are tons of good teams from the US and Brazil waiting for a chance. It would be nice if they raised the limit from 4 to 5 and made some allowance so if the Q isn't full any team with points, no matter the country, can get in I fully agree with your last point that country quota limitations should be lifted if the field is not full Are the field sizes dictated by the FIVB or the local promoter? I would guess that the solution to unfilled fields would be to reduce the size of the field, not to allow more teams from the US or Brazil.
|
|
|
Post by larabeach on Sept 27, 2021 16:46:37 GMT -5
I fully agree with your last point that country quota limitations should be lifted if the field is not full Are the field sizes dictated by the FIVB or the local promoter? I would guess that the solution to unfilled fields would be to reduce the size of the field, not to allow more teams from the US or Brazil. Field sizes are defined in the FIVB's sport regulations. They are almost always the same: 32 + 32Q in 5,4 and 3 stars. 24+24Q in 2*s, 16+16Q in 1*s, 10 in WT finals, and 32+24Q in Age Group competitions.
But they have an exception that if an event organizer asks for it and the FIVB likes the proposal, then the number of teams may change "well in advance", so in principle they can't do that in the last days because not enough teams are signing up.
As examples of said exceptions I can think of the 2* in Prage this summer and the 2019 WT Finals.
I support country quotas as long as the are needed (I hope they soon won't be needed but the sport is not there yet). But I think that the way their regulations worked this last quad was far too strict. And this is a good example of that. Awarding byes instead of taking teams from the country quota to fill the field seems crazy to me. There are instances of the rule where CQ, really seem to cross the line between promoting diversity into punishing (new) teams of the countries that have the quota.
|
|
|
Post by tamz on Oct 2, 2021 13:18:16 GMT -5
Seeding is out.
1. Dudatha 2. Slaes 3. Russia 4. Huberli/Betschart 5. MHPavs 6. Dutch 7. Germany 8. ATeam 9. Joanouk (WC) 10. Italy (WC)
If they do the serpentine seeding for the two pools, then it’ll be: Pool A: Dudatha, Huberli/Betschart, MHPavs, ATeam, Joanouk Pool B: Slaes, Russia, Dutch, Germany, Italy
Pool A would be stacked and the harder pool.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Oct 2, 2021 13:38:34 GMT -5
I fully agree with your last point that country quota limitations should be lifted if the field is not full Are the field sizes dictated by the FIVB or the local promoter? I would guess that the solution to unfilled fields would be to reduce the size of the field, not to allow more teams from the US or Brazil. What purpose would that serve?
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Oct 2, 2021 13:43:20 GMT -5
Seeding is out. 1. Dudatha 2. Slaes 3. Russia 4. Huberli/Betschart 5. MHPavs 6. Dutch 7. Germany 8. ATeam 9. Joanouk (WC) 10. Italy (WC) If they do the serpentine seeding for the two pools, then it’ll be: Pool A: Dudatha, Huberli/Betschart, MHPavs, ATeam, Joanouk Pool B: Slaes, Russia, Dutch, Germany, Italy Pool A would be stacked and the harder pool. I thought the men's seeds were bad, but this is just preposterous. Pity the poor Swiss, I think either team, if swapped with Holland or Germany, would have a good chance to advance from Pool B, but in Pool A, assuming teams are in shape, its a suicide mission for those teams. Still the format and poor seeding have combined to make this exceptional. Round robin with the top 3 teams of the last four years is exciting. Also good news for Slaes fans. If they had ended up with the death pool it might aggravate their downward spiral, as it is they have an absolute walk to the semis.
|
|
|
Post by tamz on Oct 2, 2021 13:46:44 GMT -5
Seeding is out. 1. Dudatha 2. Slaes 3. Russia 4. Huberli/Betschart 5. MHPavs 6. Dutch 7. Germany 8. ATeam 9. Joanouk (WC) 10. Italy (WC) If they do the serpentine seeding for the two pools, then it’ll be: Pool A: Dudatha, Huberli/Betschart, MHPavs, ATeam, Joanouk Pool B: Slaes, Russia, Dutch, Germany, Italy Pool A would be stacked and the harder pool. I thought the men's seeds were bad, but this is just preposterous. Pity the poor Swiss, I think either team, if swapped with Holland or Germany, would have a good chance to advance from Pool B, but in Pool A, assuming teams are in shape, its a suicide mission for those teams. Still the format and poor seeding have combined to make this exceptional. Round robin with the top 3 teams of the last four years is exciting. Also good news for Slaes fans. If they had ended up with the death pool it might aggravate their downward spiral, as it is they have an absolute walk to the semis. Yeah I was trying not to be mean to laugh and say that Cribb are the 3 seed. But maybe they’re not doing serpentine. One can hope for the ATeam, right? If pools are doing the serpentine, then Slaes are once again in good hands from the volley gods.
|
|
|
Post by tamz on Oct 2, 2021 14:00:45 GMT -5
Based on seeding at the 2018 Hamburg WTF, host nation gets top seed in Pool A (round Robin anyways): Pool A: Italy, Russia, Huberli/Betschart, Germany, ATeam Pool B: Dudatha, Slaes, MHPavs, Dutch, Joanouk
Suddenly Pool B became the harder pool.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Oct 2, 2021 14:12:12 GMT -5
Based on seeding at the 2018 Hamburg WTF, host nation gets top seed in Pool A (round Robin anyways): Pool A: Italy, Russia, Huberli/Betschart, Germany, ATeam Pool B: Dudatha, Slaes, MHPavs, Dutch, Joanouk Suddenly Pool B became the harder pool. Still not super fair but more fair. I would like to see that death pool round robin with all the top teams though
|
|
|
Post by tamz on Oct 2, 2021 14:25:51 GMT -5
Based on the 2018 format, after round Robin pool play, the top team from each pool is automatically into the semifinals and the 2nd and 3rd ranked teams from each pool play in the QF, meaning the two bottom teams are eliminated from each pool after pool play.
With that said, any guesses on who will not make it out of pool play?
|
|
|
Post by larabeach on Oct 2, 2021 18:02:24 GMT -5
Based on the 2018 format, after round Robin pool play, the top team from each pool is automatically into the semifinals and the 2nd and 3rd ranked teams from each pool play in the QF, meaning the two bottom teams are eliminated from each pool after pool play. With that said, any guesses on who will not make it out of pool play? I looked what the regulations said, and if there's no last minute changes it should be: -1st home team gets 1st seed and is placed in pool A, second one is seeded normally (relevant for the men's). -Teams are placed in pools following serpentine except seeds 9 and 10 which are reversed.
-If two teams of the same country share pool, then the second one gets its seeding increased by one to prevent it. If that doesn't work, then it is decresed. No sharing pools by same country teams.
Advancing from Round Robin should be as Tamz explained.
I wouldn't dare to predict anything but I think there will be surprises with teams with uncertain future somewhat unfocused and more of one team quite out of form.
|
|