The inaugural PNZ Representative process concluded at Herne Bay with the second selection camp in March.

The full process is available on the PNZ website, but essentially comprised individual baseline skills assessments and assessment camps where players were scored in doubles or triples combinations, in their preferred positions.

It is a good time to reflect on the process, to look at what went well, what could be improved and where to from here.

The remainder of the article is transcribed comments from players whom registered in the process, the Technical Directors involved in the development of the process and the coaches, and scorers involved in Camps 1 & 2.

Technical Directors

The Technical Directors (TDs) felt that overall the implementation of the process went very well. The aim of the process was to move to a more structured and professional approach to turn petanque into a competitive sport as well as a pastime game in New Zealand.

The TDs wanted to ensure that the process was available to every player and transparent throughout, so that players could see where they were tracking. Based on the French system, the TDs devised the triangle system whereby players went through a series of skills assessments and game play, the results of which form their ranking, in their preferred position.

The TDs believe that process played out pretty much as most people expected regarding the selected squad. Those players, most people would predict to ‘make it’, did. These players consistently hovered towards the top of the ranking all the way through, whilst others went to the wire with the last couple of positions down to one or two people.

There are some lessons to learn from the process for next year including:

• Ensuring quality control over the regional skills assessment to ensure the application of a standardised approach, as much as possible

   

• Clarification of players preferred positions early on in the process so that player ranking reflects their level in preferred position compared to their peers i.e. pointers with pointers vs. with everyone else

   

• Consolidation of team combinations at camp two as a squad rather than still vying for position

   

• More involvement of the coaches in camp two, in particular with teams of four and how to use the impact player

   

• Expect a 20-30% withdrawal rate. Most players cited personal reasons or change in circumstances as the reason for withdrawal. Some simply decided to withdraw as the process progressed

The TDs are keen to run the system for two years to obtain good data before PNZ make any changes. Notwithstanding this, some minor modifications as bulleted above will be made.

The overall impression and feedback to the TDs is that players recognise the process was well thought through, well structured, and serves to improve the performance of NZ players by putting together compatible teams and supporting those teams with ongoing coaching.

The TDs maintain that this process will not reach its desired state in the first year, rather it is likely to take five years, but they are delighted with the results of the first year and encourage players to put their name down next year.

The players involved in the process offer the following feedback

The majority of players acknowledged that this representative process is by the far the most comprehensive, professional and transparent process petanque in NZ has had. Players appreciated being in a process, where their individual actions and team results spoke the loudest

Some initially felt the process saw the sport going backwards as it came down to simply measuring skills (on the day) and boules thrown rather than the other, equally important stuff – team work, application, character.

Players wanted to know – would the process elicit those players with all round ability, who can play in different positions, are good strategists, mentally tough and who add value to the team, other than skills?

The answer to this question will probably be different for every player. However, irrespective of peoples concerns, most players recognised that it did achieve its objective - To select our best performing players to represent New Zealand

Of course, our ‘best performing players’ are those who are in the system and therefore available.

Some players first challenge was whether to try for the Senior or the Open team. However, when players suggested that seniors shouldn't go for the Open, they did!

“If those boys and girls wanted to be in the Open then they had to show they could beat all comers even the seniors.”  Good fighting spirit from the outset!

For others, the first challenge was the Regional Assessment Day when they realised they had to point over a ‘wooden wall 2 metres high’ (or so it seemed at the time) and stop in a circle on the other side. Some admit they made a mess of that, but now it's "what piece of wood."

It was actually a 4"X4" beam.

Players agreed they had no idea how tough it would be. People think it is easy to point to the cochonnet but when you have one boule to throw and this is scored - it is tough. No doubt, you will hear players say how easy it must be - well let them try!

The camps were deemed a great concept - "Toughest games I have ever played, and every game counted"

Most agreed that it was a great experience and they practiced hard. Some practiced once or twice a day and improved their overall fitness. But on the day "couldn't hit the side of a barn with a blunderbuss (for the young ones it's a type of gun)"

"Why is it that I can shoot a boule perfectly in practice, yet throw a wowser in the game?"

"and why does the biggest stone always greet my boule!"

Can you have too much practice and too much petanque?

Coaches - can you answer that?

One player played the shot of the weekend - The Plombe Spin-Back Carreau Shot

"At the time we were down 9 - 0 to David, Andre & Maurice and in danger of being fannied. With their last boule, they snuck inside my first point, 500mm to the side and behind the cochonnet.

I chose to plombe inside this gap. Misjudging my landing spot, my plombe cracked down on their holding boule, sending it flying. My boule spun back to rest on a group of boule in front of the cochonnet. The upshot of this incredible shot was we took 4 off the end, & saved face.

Unbelievably, my skilful shot was greeted with an immediate outbreak of hysterical laughter from scorer Sue Nielsen and I think she scored me an ‘F’ for Flippin’ hilarious!!”

Players enjoyed the opportunity to play with other players whom they would ordinarily not get to play with.

Some were quite nervous at the start, playing with such ‘high caliber’ players. However, they felt that they gained good experience playing with these players and learnt so much more about the tactics and great teamwork. 

It was also good competing in a tense and serious atmosphere and often there wasn’t a sound as people focused on every boule. Even Mr Porter was nervous as he called out the partners for the skills assessment at Camp 1. Michael Rocks was partnered with Joanne Rocks!

Everyone was very focused and friendly and kind and despite the constant competing against each other, players conducted themselves with decorum and professionalism. The Herne Bay terrain is very testing, however, there was some very good petanque played over the weekend. Everyone seemed to be in good spirits, and the whole weekend went well.

At the end of this process, there was greater respect for each other amongst all the players and officials.

Players felt this process was more comprehensive than previous endeavours, in terms of the skills assessment and scoring individual’s performance. However, it was noted that a standardised approach to the regional skills assessment needs to occur next time as the variances could have affected player’s results.

One player – who did not make the cut, acknowledged, "the outcome is the strongest team selected, and we will do well against the Aussies"

Most players acknowledged the hard work and thinking that had gone into the development of this process. They appreciate the effort and commitment of all the volunteers, the TDs, especially Murray Porter who ran the whole process very efficiently and without a glitch – well done Muzza!

The $50 registration fee

Money well spent, to participate in a process that others chose not to be involved with, and that was a cost to PNZ. Given the amount of work involved in the end, $50 was cheap!  

The $50 registration fee was value for money as it enabled a skills ranking, which was worthwhile. The time and effort, which went into the whole programme, was very much appreciated.

One player noted that when they first heard of a new selection process where each player had to pay $50.00 and do some exercises, they were not convinced it was the best way to find the top NZ team for international representation.

However, after having been through the full process they are now satisfied that the top men and women had to perform consistently over 2 weekends at Herne Bay. There was a lot of pressure on each player as scorers recorded each boule you played and by the end of the 2 weekends, each player knew how they performed in each game with different partners and over the whole process.

The player now firmly believes that there will be a lot more players who aspire to represent NZ next year and the competition will be even harder.

Others compared this process to past selections by either a coach/selectors or becoming the National Triples Champions. They conclude that these processes were not popular or robust. The first was too subjective and unclear. Players didn’t know how ‘you made it’ and felt there was never a chance to break in. The latter was too biased towards one-chance elements and reliant on a random draw.

Any gripes?

Not really, other than prior to the 2nd camp some were feeling pretty exhausted mentally. So much commitment and still one more camp to go.  It was good to finish on the Saturday and relax on the Sunday with the mixed teams.

The process was tough, but it was fair and most were very happy with the outcome, not just for themselves, but also for the New Zealand Team

Some felt that the camps were too close together which was hard on the pocket; particularly given both camps were in Auckland. However, others acknowledged that this was balanced by having all the qualifying tournaments outside of Auckland.

How do we strike a balance?

Scorers’ comments

At the end of each game, it was interesting to see very quickly, how a player had done eg. 12 ends; pointing first boule consistently at Bs but second boule at Ds. Therefore, in a minute you can sum up how someone performed.

The marks for the middle player were somewhat lower than a pointer because the end is crowded and harder to point in or they played a defensive boule. The shooter also scored zero if they miss, even if the miss is very close.

Some scores were more difficult to determine. For example, a first point scores a B, if it is say 50cm from the cochonnet - this is deemed a good boule. The opposition however, may consistently out point the boule, yet these boules score the same  - B. Perhaps the first boule would be scored differently.

Another example is a boule pointed right on the cochonnet. The shooter misses twice and then their pointer sits on the inside of the boule and takes the point. This boule should have been an A but was only scored a B.

As scorers become more experienced and confident in the scoring, it will better reflect the game. It was an astute tactic by Murray to have each scorer, score every team over the weekends, to even out any variances in the scoring.

Irrespective of our learning, the statistics do tend to reflect a player’s performance and are a very useful measure to use. As scorers, we could see which player performed compared to their peers and which teams were compatible and performing. Some players played a similar tactical game, which reflected in their scores and performance.

The scores may not identify total team performance, as someone could be off for the game and the players change around to give that person some breathing space.

However, over a series of games the scores probably do elicit the compatible player combinations. It is also important to observe the team’s demeanor and interaction during the game.

So, we all lick our wounds of battle and lament on the missed carreau for game, the crucial point that hit the stone.

Some of us can enjoy the taste of achievement as we toiled through the process and made it all the way.

Others will no doubt feel disappointed. Some will blame the system and look for ways it did not work for them, while others will reflect on their performance and re-focus even harder for next year

Whatever a player’s disposition, everyone will undoubtedly get behind and support our players going to the Trans Tasman this year. It’s a great team, all very dedicated to the sport and we are well represented by them. We all will want the NZ Trans Tasman team to achieve the hitherto unachievable – win in Australia!

David Lippard

Technical Director of Coaching

Murray Porter

Technical Director of Representation

April 2009