2004 Trans Tasman Challenge,
Clareville, Masterton
-
New Zealand
Team
Denise Bavidge,
Sharon Cannon, Geoff Greer, Murray Porter,
Michael Rocks, Niau Ruta, Ron Sandilands,
Dirk Winnie
-
Australian
Team
Pierre
Bommarito, Patrick Dufresne, Jean-Claude
Dufroux, Clifford Edouard, Michael Lacase,
Karen Leconte, Ryma Terbah, Tatiana Terbah
Coach: Alan
Irwin
-
Results
Australia won the
2nd Trans Tasman
Challenge held on 7
& 8 June
at the Clareville,
Masterton.
At the end of the
first day Australia
lead by 27 points to
21 points. Australia
consolidated it's
position on the
second day going onto
win 54 points to 32
points.
Photographs: Brian Smith
2004 World Championships,
Grenoble, France
Report
Introduction
It is with
pleasure that I provide this
report on the World
Championships. The report shows
how the team was prepared for
the tournament, and individual
and team results at the Worlds.
Selection Process
The selection
process is quite well known. The
panel comprised myself,
Bernadette Lawton and Graeme
Morris. We conducted a selection
camp in Rotorua and the team was
announced shortly after this.
The nominated team was Ian
Baker, Christian Fouquet, Allan
Fletcher and Georgio Vakauta.
After about 8
weeks of training Georgio
Vakauta, our number one player
pulled out of the team citing
personal reasons. The selection
panel asked PNZ to nominate Niau
Ruta as a replacement for
Georgio. He was keen, but had
family and work commitments to
arrange.
Unfortunately
these could not be
satisfactorily arranged and he
could not accept the nomination.
This process took over 2 weeks
from the time he was first
asked. The selection panel asked
PNZ to confirm Richard Swaney as
the fourth player, and this was
accepted by PNZ and immediately
by Richard.
I believe that
the selection panel chose the
best it could, with the players
having rightly earned their
positions. After the first two
“selected” tournaments (Trans
Tasman and Worlds) I now believe
it is critical that the right
selections are made and right
processes are followed in the
future. The coaching process is
limited to the extent of the
limitations of the players
selected. Getting the selections
right is difficult, with
individual skills, mental and
personal characteristics, team
compatibility being just some of
the qualities needing to be
taken into account.
I certainly have
learnt more about the importance
of knowing combinations can work
together as a team. It is a risk
to select players not used to
playing together, or when some
have doubts about the ability or
compatibility of others.
Preparation &
Coaching
Before the
coaching period began I knew my
practical experience of coaching
petanque was limited. So I did
considerable research of similar
sports, got two French petanque
coaching books, the information
from Victor Nataf’s coaching
clinic in Melbourne, and the BPA,
WPA manuals.
The players were
expected to do 3 - 5 sessions a
week of personal training, and
one compulsory team training a
week. This they all undertook
very professionally. For the
last 10 weeks or so most of the
sessions were actually done as a
team, as all were from the same
club at Herne Bay.
I followed a
similar pattern to the
“periodisation” undertaken by
most sports - an initial period
of technique training, then a
repetitive period to make good
technique a habit. Then a period
of strength training, which in
petanque terms means throwing at
situations harder than a game
situation, then a
pre-competitive period with a
demand for more quality than
quantity, where actual
tournament habits are trained
for.
Most team
training sessions were 1 to 1.5
hours in length. The normal
format was a warm-up period, a
repetitive exercise with a
specific goal, a competitive
training exercise (where the
players competed against each
other) and usually a game or
part game, perhaps a particular
situation in a game. These
sessions commonly involve the
players throwing 100 to 180
balls, at least one part of the
training was a recorded
exercise. Each player had a
training book to record results.
We had compulsory
team meetings once a week, where
we did a full training session
and then a meeting. We discussed
the previous week’s training,
identified what more needed to
be done. We discussed practical
matters, usually where I had
relayed information from the
Manager Graeme Morris. Graeme
was able to meet with us at
these meetings two or three
times. We also set team and
individual goals at these
meetings.
As already stated
throughout the coaching period I
was very pleased with the effort
from the team. However I also
noted that in many of the
exercises and recorded games,
the team as a whole were not
making the progress I would have
liked, or expected. Recorded
games and exercises showed only
limited improvement. I did
consider hard how to make the
training more relevant. Some of
the players didn’t like training
exercises and quickly tired of
them, some really just wanted to
play games.
However this goes
against everything that occurs
in coaching other sports. Game
playing is important, but only
part of good preparation. In the
last four weeks before
departure, training was quite
badly affected by team player
illness and very poor weather.
So before leaving
I was not totally comfortable
with where the team was at. I
knew I had done everything I
could to prepare them well, and
the players had put in all the
effort they could to make it
work. But I believed the team
was struggling to really gel
well on the terrain. By the
standard of play in New Zealand
we were playing well, and as a
team we had virtually no losses
to other teams before leaving.
But progression
through the training period had
not been raised to the level I
would have wanted. Some players
were still experimenting with
their technique in the week
prior to departure. Such worries
should have been left on the
training ground weeks
beforehand.
Pre-Tournament
Preparation
In Paris we
played a number of times at a
terrain near the Gare de l’Est,
and once at a terrain a little
further out. In Grenoble we
played on terrains around the
Palais de Sports venue, and made
a trip to the Seyssins Club,
where indoor and outdoor
terrains gave us the chance to
play both local teams and other
visiting teams from the Worlds.
Upon arrival in
Paris Ian was quite sick with a
short flu, followed by a
cough/cold. He was not playing
as well as he normally does and
he did not look himself on the
terrain. The team was also
struggling to point consistently
on the very hard based terrains.
Other than this,
all the travel had gone well,
everyone was soon over any
jetlag and I really enjoyed
travelling with the group, with
a good combination of training
and social time.
The Tournament
Teams were put
into eight pools each of 6 or 7
teams. The top 4 from each pool
progressed. In each pool were
one team from last years 1 - 8,
and one team from 9 - 16. The
rest were drawn at random. From
the top 32, a barrage was played
to reduce to 16 teams, then
another barrage down to 8. Then
knockout from 8 - 4 - 2 teams.
Those teams not
making the top 32 were in the
coup de nations, and were joined
in the 2nd round by those
eliminated from 17 - 32 overall.
Other than the top 16, final
placings in the Worlds are based
on a country’s finishing place
after the first round of pool
play, and totally disregards
performances in the Coup de
Nations.
In our pool we
were drawn with Belgium,
Algeria, Benin, Andorra, Hungary
and Austria. We felt this was
quite a good draw, with us
having a fair chance of going to
the next round.
A note on the
Scoring
I used the game
record sheets for every game,
which I have used now for some
years, and recommended and
detailed by Victor Nataf at the
Melbourne seminar. I have
adjusted exactly how I score the
games, and believe it is now a
very fair and accurate way of
recording individual and team
performances.
Each ball played
is rated with a score from –2 to
+2. I score it in a way that
gives an objective view of the
ball played, so is pretty much
unaffected by other factors such
as the quality of the
oppositions play, length of the
end etc. By far the majority of
teams used the same or similar
scorecard, and discussing with
other coaches I have
considerable confidence in its
usefulness and accuracy. In
comparing team or individual
scores in different games it
does show the overall quality
played, and is little influenced
by the quality of the
oppositions play.
The scoring shows
the bare facts of what level the
team and each player performed
at. However there are other
factors that must also be taken
into account before a complete
picture of a player’s
contribution to a team can be
known. These factors include –
quality of communication with
other players and coaches –
particularly listening skills
and clear expressions of
opinion, confidence levels,
anxiety levels, support of
teammates, individual responses
to pressure, leadership,
adaptability and resilience.
These are very important
qualities in evaluating players
and a teams’ performance.
The Games
-
New Zealand v
Benin. Result: Lost 4 - 13
New Zealand
Team: Allan Fletcher,
Christian Fouquet, Ian Baker
Sub: Richard
Swaney. On when score at 2 –
8
Game
Comments:
Benin were an
unknown team in our pool,
but soon showed they were
very good, in particular
their first shooter, who
started very strong, went
off for a while, but
finished very strong. A big
problem for us was the lack
of shooting, with Ian
needing to be subbed with
such low success rate.
However no improvement from
Christian, Richard a little
better. Teamwork was as good
as could be expected,
considering the limitation
from lack of shooting.
Ian started
shooting, then Christian
when Ian subbed, then
Richard after little success
from Christian.
New Zealand
Team Statistics: Pointing:
36.5%; Shooting: 22.2%; Team
overall: 33%
-
New Zealand v
Belgium. Result: Lost 2 - 13
New Zealand
Team: Allan Fletcher,
Richard Swaney, Christian
Fouquet
Sub: Ian
Baker (not used)
Game
Comments:
Belgium were
always going to be a tough
team for us to compete
against. They set the ends
up with great accuracy on
the difficult terrain from
their pointer, then
eliminated with efficient
shooting any balls we
pointed close. They had one
slack end which gave us the
two points, where they
seemed more interested in
the Thailand/France game
going on nearby.
Again our
lack of shooting cost us the
chance to compete better.
However this is no excuse
for what was also quite a
low standard of pointing. It
is possible the team were a
little over-awed by their
opponents.
New Zealand
Statistics: Pointing: 37.5%;
Shooting: 30%; Team Overall:
37.5%
-
New Zealand v
Andorra. Result: Lost 11 -
13
New Zealand
Team: Christian Fouquet,
Richard Swaney, Ian Baker
Sub: Allan
Fletcher (not used)
Game
Comments:
After last
two losses we were very keen
to win this game. In
choosing the team for this
game I knew we had to have
more shooting success to
progress in the tournament.
Ian had shown little or no
shooting form to date,
similarly Christian, and
Allan in practice was not
shooting well. Richard was
not brought as a shooter,
but had had some success and
seemed at least to cope with
the pressure of this
tournament well. I decided
Christian had to point as he
was best to date. Ian
deserved another chance and
had looked a bit better in
warm ups and practice
between games. Richard
seemed the best millieu
option.
Andorra had
already had one good win and
pushed Algeria very close,
losing 11 - 13. Once we
started we knew we could
compete with this team, and
at times they looked quite
vulnerable. They started by
pointing quite poorly, but
their 1st shooter
was good.
The game was
tight throughout, with us
leading 8-7 after 8 ends.
They then led again at 10-11
after we pushed one of their
front balls up with our last
ball, while we were holding.
Last two ends our pointing
finally let us down, after
keeping us in it for most of
the game. Another game well
in excess of 2 hours, very
disappointing to finish the
day with no wins.
New Zealand
Statistics: Pointing: 50.8%;
Shooting: 36.4%; Team
Overall: 47.1 %
This was the
end of our first day, taking
from 1.30pm to 10pm. We knew
our chances of progressing
to the next round were slim,
as ourselves and Andorra
were likely to be competing
for the fourth spot.
-
New Zealand v
Algeria. Result: Lost 0 - 13
New Zealand
Team: Christian Fouquet,
Allan Fletcher, Ian Baker
Sub: Richard
Swaney (not used)
Game
Comments:
First game of
day two. Still disappointed
after the Andorra loss late
the night before. As the
score and statistics show,
NZ were never in this game,
finished in 6 ends. However
Algeria were really on their
game, as their statistics
show. Seeing some of their
other games they didn’t
always play to this
standard. Shot 15 out of 15,
with 2 spot carreaux, once
shot the cochonnet with our
ball, once shot our ball
`soft’ so it was still
holding.
New Zealand
Statistics: Pointing 31.2%;
Shooting 0%; Team Overall
27.8%
-
New Zealand v
Hungary. Result: Won 13 - 7
New Zealand
Team: Allan Fletcher,
Richard Swaney, Christian
Fouquet
Sub: Ian
Baker (not used)
Game
Comments:
After the
shooting problems we had had
to date Christian announced
before the game that he
wanted to take
responsibility for shooting.
Unfortunately it didn’t
work, but Richard shot well
when he took over. It
appears that Hungary is an
inconsistent team because
they had had some good wins
apparently in Europe in the
last year. But they weren’t
having a good tournament.
Our team knew
we had to win this to
salvage some pride, and it
was quite a hard fought
game. After a close start,
us leading 6-5 after 9 ends,
we finished very solidly, 12
ends in total.
New Zealand
Statistics: Pointing 55.4%;
Shooting 38.9%; Team overall
53%
-
New Zealand v
Austria. Result: Won 13 - 3
New Zealand
Team: Christian Fouquet,
Allan Fletcher, Richard
Swaney
Sub: Ian
Baker (not used)
Game
Comments:
The team’s
confidence was raised after
getting our first win.
Austria looked to be the
weakest team in the pool.
Game finished in 6 ends so
it was really quite a
convincing victory for us.
Christian started the game
very well, and Allan
finished strongly.
Satisfying to get our second
win. Coach is still trying
to get over losing to
Andorra….
New Zealand
Statistics: Pointing 55%;
Shooting 33%; Team overall
51.4%
While we
finished the pool play with
two good wins, it wasn’t
enough to go through. We
finished our pool in fifth
place. We then went to the
Coup de Nations, drawn in a
pool with Malaysia and
Russia, with us getting a
bye for the first game in
the barrage pool of 3.
Malaysia beat Russia very
easily and looked a very
good team.
-
New Zealand v
Malaysia. Result: Lost 10 -
13
New Zealand
Team: Christian Fouquet,
Allan Fletcher, Richard
Swaney
Sub: Ian
Baker (not used)
Game
Comments:
This game
started at 9.30pm, finished
at 12.35am – 3 hours and 5
minutes to play 14 ends. At
7 ends NZ were leading 10-1
our stats at 53% for the
team. Next 7 ends our stats
dropped to 39%. The team
visibly tired over the last
40 minutes or so. I believe
Malaysia were a strong team,
where we played close to our
potential to get the lead
that we did. However to not
finish the game from that
position showed our
fragility.
I feel in
hindsight that I should have
taken some of the shooting
load off Richard later in
the game. He’d had a big day
playing in most positions
and had done pretty well at
the shooting, a quite
unexpected role for him. I
still saw no benefit to
bringing Ian on, but
probably should have asked
Allan to do the shorter
shots (6-7.5m) and Richard
the longer ones.
It was a very
sad way to finish a very
long day. It also meant we
had to be back to the
terrains about 8am to play
the barrage game against
Russia.
New Zealand
Statistics: Pointing 52.7%;
Shooting 31%; Team overall
45.2%
This was the
beginning of day 3, with us
at the terrain at 8am, after
finishing at 12.30am the
night before. It was now
effectively knockout for us.
-
New Zealand v
Russia. Result: Won 13 - 4
New Zealand
Team: Christian Fouquet,
Allan Fletcher, Ian Baker
Sub: Richard
Swaney (not used)
Game
Comments:
The Russians
were a team of very young
players, who we should have
beaten easily, which we did.
Christian led
this game very strongly from
the front, a very good
performance. With the
shooting, Ian’s % is still
low. Allan was playing
millieu and his shooting was
after Ian each end. So we
didn’t swap positions, it
was just a number of times
Allan kept shooting after
Ian had played. Still
satisfying to get another
win under the belt.
New Zealand
Statistics: Pointing 54.5%;
Shooting 36.7%; Team overall
49%
This win got
us through to round two of
the Coup de Nations, where
we were with Comores,
Singapore and Estonia, all
whom came back to the Coup
de Nations after getting
into the top 32 overall.
-
New Zealand v
Comores. Result: Lost 9 - 13
New Zealand
Team: Christian Fouquet,
Allan Fletcher, Ian Baker
Sub: Richard
Swaney (not used)
Game
Comments:
Decided to
start with the team that won
the last game. I had thought
both before this and the
Russia game of bringing
Richard in in place of Allan
or Ian. While Richard had
filled a shooting gap, his
pointing had been lower than
Allan and Christian. Also I
still needed to give Ian the
chance to come right as
Richard’s shooting was the
best we had to date, but
still it wasn’t high. Ian
started this game well and
after 7 ends we were leading
8-7, Ian at about 65%
success. Unfortunately from
this point both the pointing
and shooting deteriorated
quickly, and the game was
soon over.
New Zealand
Statistics: Pointing 41.7 %;
Shooting 41.7 %;Team overall
41.7%
Back to the
knockout situation. We were
confident we could beat
Estonia.
-
New Zealand v
Estonia. Result: Lost 11 -
13
New Zealand
Team: Allan Fletcher,
Richard Swaney, Ian Baker
Sub:
Christian Fouquet (not used)
Game
Comments:
Estonia came
back into the Coup de
Nations after getting into
the top 32, but they looked
quite beatable. Their form
to date had been either very
good or very bad. Before the
game I was considering
whether to sub Christian or
Allan. Christian had been
our rock, but went off badly
at the end of the Comores
game. Allan had had average
but consistent performances
throughout. I decided to
start Allan, but with a view
to bringing Christian on
quite early, as the
re-assessment he might make
by being subbed could be
just what he needed.
I also had
confidence the 3 players
could beat Estonia if
needed. As it was, just
after the game started I
asked Christian to go to
another terrain to warm up.
This he did, but stayed away
too long, despite me trying
to get his attention. We had
gone to a very quick 11 - 2
lead (after 6 ends) but I
still wanted to sub because
Allan was lacking confidence
doing the first point.
Christian returned by about
11 - 6 and the game was
getting tense, not an ideal
time to substitute.
Everything
was changing quickly. The
terrain was breaking up,
becoming powdery and
enabling a different type of
shot to be played. Estonia
had their tails up and
suddenly started shooting
with a lot of confidence.
Ian was shooting well but
our pointing was not
consistent enough. To bring
Christian in now was also a
risk. In training we had
agreed that subs would only
be used in extreme cases
where a player was really
`gone’, as it is also very
hard to come right into the
middle of a tense game.
At 11 - 8 I
decided it was too late to
sub and the team on the
terrain had to finish the
job.
The
statistics for this game are
interesting as when the
score was 11 - 2, the
playing stats were NZ at
60%, Estonia 38%, from that
point on NZ played at 37%,
Estonia 60%. This confirms
what we could see watching
the game of both NZ dropping
off their game and Estonia
lifting their game.
New Zealand
Statistics: Pointing 47.7%;
Shooting 59%; Team overall
50.8 %
This was a
disappointing way to finish our
tournament, against a team we
believe we should have beaten,
where we had a lead we should
have finished from.
Tournament
Summary
Once again I can
only thank the players for their
approach and effort they put
into the tournament. We were
very aware and appreciative of
all the effort put in on our
behalf from many in the petanque
community in NZ. We had very
good support from the PNZ
Executive.
In finishing in
33rd= place, we didn’t reach our
primary goal of making the top
32. This was disappointing. Also
to lose 2 or 3 games with very
good leads was frustrating.
There was the knowledge that the
team was capable of playing
better. Some elusive ingredient
to the team was still missing.
One of the primary goals I had
as a coach was to get the
players feeling they’d performed
the best they could at the
tournament.
However, it was
still a good performance, equal
with what we did last year. In
winning 3 games we did better
than many New Zealand teams have
at the worlds.
The Worlds is a
very difficult environment for
players to perform at their
best. It is not always easy to
convey why this is. The terrain
was almost nightmarishly
difficult, but this was only
part of the pressure. Another
pressure is the unknown nature
of the teams we face, not being
sure what a team is capable of
can be a pressure. The weight of
expectation, after all the
selecting, fundraising and
coaching can also be a pressure.
The playing
statistics show that as a team
we matched most of our opponents
in pointing, but were well below
them in shooting.
Many years ago
now, Cam Calder once said to me
that for NZ to succeed at the
Worlds we had to have a team
where each player can control a
high point and shoot on the
full. He was pretty much right.
We have improved our pointing
but our player pool is still
short of good ball-to-ball
shooters.
Lastly can I
thank the Executive for giving
me the opportunity to be on the
selection panel and coaching the
national team.
Michael Emerson (Coach) |
