ENGLAND V SCOTLAND

[ianfenton]

Ok so the scottish have been claiming how much better they are than the english. I dont want this to turn into a slagging off match. I want FACT not FICTION. Ill start of by saying yes scotland have won the last 2 quadrangulars and well done. But if you ask any english player they will say the Quads is the lowest type of international event. The choice between Quad V's Junior Worlds there is no contest. England this year have won well over 30 medals at Junior European level! Scotland?

[jamesd20]

If you want to compare england v scotland at Junior world level, then england and scotland are equal in there medal count:

ENGLAND-0
SCOTLAND-0

the fact is is matters little at junior level who is better than who, what matters is whether they manage to develop into world class players.

[Daveybwoy69]

well the English rule over the Scottish by far. COME ON THE ENGLISH

[Thumb]

Very mature comment dave with lots of logic in your note to support your view.

England has 10 times the population of Scotland but approximately 100 times the funding.

There is absolutely no doubt England should always win, Scotland can not afford to compete at the same level. They can not enter the number of European tournaments the English send with massive squads.

Basically the best Scotland can hope for is to produce the odd top individual such as Wales have in the past with Kelly Morgan and Richard Vaughan.

Let's be realistic, Scotland are aiming to do their best with limited resources and numbers. They have done exceptionally well to win two quads but even within these competitions they have their limitations.

While England can afford to switch their teams about within the matches as they have strength in depth, Scotland generally have to stick with the same team and the same players end up playing in two disciplines in each match. At the time of the individuals they in some cases have been overplayed.

I am sure they are not bothered so much about that as the satisfaction in winning the team event outweighs the individuals when it is Scotland v England.

As it is team GB that is competing at the Olympics, to maximise strength in the future surely the funding should be reexamined amongst the four countries and split according to population.

[Stonecold]

Great post Arthur. Fully agree.

[Phil McBride]

Dare I say it? I agree with Jamie!

Arthur, your post does make lots of sense and although I wouldn't totally agree with the splitting of funding per capita per say, the funding issue does have to be looked at.

If Scotland for example has 80% of its population playing whereas England had 1% of its population playing the money would go much much further in England because of the population density and the low participation rate.

OK so participation at a high level is limited to the small number that have worked hard through junior level and are into senior level and have the chances of getting results, it would still seem somewhat lopsided funding wise.

What about a UK wide programme irrespective of the home country of origin?

Ludicrous or feasible?

[JohnEllis]

To date funding has been allocated based on potential success. Olympic squad 9/11 English and no Scots. So it is perhaps not a surprise funding is limited.
My son is on the WCP programme and is funded as a result he gets excellent training twice a week and entry to European competition. However he also trains two or more times a week and enters domestic competitions most weekends. The funding does not cover this cost, nor should it.
If you want to succeed players (and parents (and even counties)) have to invest time and money.
My son is not alone in England, far from it there are large numbers of dedicated players and parents who as a result i see more of than the neighbours (lucky neighbours!!).
Stop moaning about lack of funding in Scotland. Funding does not lead to improvement but improvement will lead to increased funding.

[Daveybwoy69]

Well said John I fully agree

[Stonecold]

John, this season, my 1st season as a senior, was my 1st season having funding. This funding, for equipment, domestic travel and international expenses ran out a couple of months ago.

Your son is 3 years younger than me, and im sure many more people his age and younger are on funding similar to the amount im on up here in the senior national squad. With all due respect, some people up here, who are at the moment, better than your son, and younger than me, have no funding and are in no national squads. My doubles partner is 1, who had 2 fund his way to many EBU's, but he can only afford so many. So a couple of times i was going into a tournament not knowing if i would have a partner.

It is not a moan, but a thought, that more funding in this country, similar to the huge amounts being given to youngsters in England, would help. People here still train hard, and improve, but the funding isn't there because there isn't enough, so talented players coming up, similar to your son, go the opposite way or stay at the same level because they can't go places etc. England have more on their under 19 programme than Scotland do altogether.

Sending under 15's or under 16's to under 19 EBU's is not a luxury we can afford to do with many players.

I suppose my point is that funding could help.

[Phil McBride]

John, how can monies be awarded based on “potential” there must be a more scientific way to allocate funding to individuals and squads.

Funding does not lead to improvement? How so? Surely if a player is funded then they can afford that little bit more: to get more coaching and time using facilities they need to progress.

Jamie, if your funding is allocated for certain things then you will have to manage your funds better, how is your funding given? Is it to fully cover certain areas that you have mentioned or like a student grant or loan only to partially cover a certain area of your badminton needs?

I would have thought all our senior national squad members would have most things paid for them with either monies from the lottery sports fund or the S.B.U. itself and would not be struggling but this is apparently not the case!

Of course more funding would help, to suggest otherwise is just sheer stupidity, but this raises the question who should and who should not receive funding and how much!

[JohnEllis]

It is my belief that the funding is to gain medals at World and European level. Funding is allocated to juniors who are seen to have potential to achieve this in the future.
I state again that the funding in England does not go anywhere near covering the costs. Last year the gap was around £6000 in Andrew's case. Some may find this too much but you only get one chance like this and i am not going to stop him taking it as far as he can.
So i don't think managing funding better is the issue. My point is that there is never enough funding if there was more funding in Scotland should it go to Jamie or to bring more players in?
There is no right or fair answer.
Jamie i understand your problem and do sympathise with you. My comments were aimed more at the juniors in the lotto squad and pushing to join it, who can enter good competitions in England but will have to do this themselves.
As for the "better than him" players in Scotland i will not get involved in a debate based on opinions but will just say that he will be aching to meet Gordon Thomson again next season because he does hate losing to you Scots.
I also find it hard to understand why Scotland would take five non squad players to U17 6 Nations. This is not a criticism of the players involved who are all good players but if funding is so tight shouldn't priority be given to those in the squad?
That said every system that involves funding, selection or grading is going to be seen as unfair.
In England there is an "observation" level for players which allows access to training cells without funding. This is either a stepping stone into the programme or a warning to improve or be taken off it.

[Stonecold]

i see your point there John that should extra funding be given to people like myself, or the youngsters coming up. thats a tricky one.

the under 17 6 nations players from scotland......this is how it works:

Right now in Scotland there is almost 2 separate divisions. Im in the Scottish Institute of Sport, along with several others- full senior players, im 1 of the youngest. This is coached by Dan Travers and Assistant coach Ray Stevens. However, Ray is fully in charge of his elite 8 players, whom h picked, who make up the Junior Institute of Sport. They get funded by similar means to me, with Ray's aim to make them top players 1 day.

On the other hand, recently started up is the Junior Lottery Group Squads. This is the 16 that everyone knows about, and various Regional and National sqauds underneath this, run with help from the Scottish Badminton Union. The 16 and 8 are different, not much has been said of any rivalries or anything, they do often train together, however Ray is in charge of the 8, and the coaches appointed are in charge of the 16. So 5 out of the 8 you saw John are not outside the National Lottery Squad, they were already members of the Junior Institute of Sport a while back.

As for my funding, it is split three ways for equipment, travel and overseas. my comments about running out of money was only to show that even with some sort of funding up here, it runs out very quickly when you use it for things you need i.e rackets, petrol costs, shoes. It was nothing to do with managing it, i didnt go mad with it and buy everything in the shop etc, just stating that this country could do with more because the nature of the sport is pretty expensive and a lot of kids down south are being aided by funding early on, whereas some up here breaking into the senior squad are not on any, which surely hinders them at some point? The main thing i could think of would be playing abroad. But even stuff like not having to worry about 'breaking a string' because you cant afford to cover it. I suppose a greater response could come from someone like Thomson or Anderson who have no funding, but still aim high.

[Phil McBride]

Of course funding is not going to cover the complete costs, but maybee with added sponsorships etc. there may be a way to break even or indeed make a smaller loss (I'm not meaning loss as in nothing to show for it)

My question to Jamie and since you have answered. Is the funding given to support specific costs ie. Transport and tournament entry only? Or do the players have a certain amount to spend on what they will as long as they provide receipts?

In other words who manages the funds, player or set criteria?

What is the criteria for funding?

I think you are right John, as every parent would be to have their child play the sport they love and if they could afford it I'm sure there would be more badminton players in Scotland and in turn every country, but you have quite rightly pointed out not everyone has and for many it may indeed be too much of a sacrifice.

[Stonecold]

ok...it is a tough criteria to make, i tried for 3 seasons before being given the minimum. which i am grateful for.the booklet takes hours to fill in, with results needed for the last 5 years and ambitions etc, quite enduring. and to meet it in future i had to reach targets set by the Lottery. players manage the funds, i.e buy a racket, keep the receipt, send the recepit to the lottery, the cost of the racket comes of their equipment allowance and the money returned to their bank. same for petrol- recording all journeys. and same for overseas training and tournament costs- keeping receipts and sending back before money returns.

hope that answers??

[free]

my issue is not with the funds to players but how much of the overall pot is allocated to officials, trips, admin which could be saved by careful scrutiny and reallocated.

not talking about coaches who are in the front line but the hangers on.

will carling I remember had a name for them (which cannot be printed) but applies to most sports

how many hangers on did each country take to the last european juniors??

who pays for the officials/delegates to attend all the major events (in Scotland's case when not even playing)

reallocate some of these funds and we might improve playing funds

[JohnEllis]

Jamie

Many thanks for your detailed response which has allowed me to understand more about the system in Scotland. I can now make more sense of it.

I paid a brief visit to York RI yesterday and was pleased to see an independant Scottish entry in the Yorkshire Under 14 Open together with the team from Lothian who attend regularly. This sort of experience can only help the youngsters development.

[think]

agree John, good experience for all.

Yorkshire always attracts a good entry and the Scots are willing to travel as they seem to be to our challengers.

Would it not be fairer if one of the main tournaments at Challenger level was held in Yorkshire which would be easier for the more Northern players and the Scots to travel to compete. They always seem to be the players incurring the costs, let's be a bit more hospitable.

[JohnEllis]

Robin
I agree with you on this one. There is a meeting in MK at the end of the month to discuss the calendar if i can get there i will ask the question.
Does anybody else agree with Robin?

[Thumb]

John

Definite agreement on this one, the same players have the additional travelling time and costs most tournaments. Let's spread this around and have a tournament in the North of some significance for juniors - say a challenger at each age group

[mrmagoo]

england actually have 3 medals from world juniors if i remember.james anderson/ian pearson.john quinn/jo goode(gold) and nathan robertson/gail emms.

the only time it matters to be a good junior is right at the end when your making the transition to senior and this is where england have succeeded far better than scotland.

usually england have done well at u19 level and this encourages players to further their career due to the success they have.
scottish players have traditionally struggled and fallen by the side and given up.how many players have finished over the years right at the end of juniors because they wern't having the success they were at u15/17?

look at some of the scottish national champs they are in their late 30's and there has been no-one challenging them for years!in fact the only player for years to come along for scotland is now playing for england!

correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think england has ever lost to scotland at senior level?

england V scotland isn't really a serious debate on the court,but at least scotland now have the structure in place to try and find the talent out there.

[Connelly]

But why did Robert Blair move to England. Is it maybe because he will get more money playing for England rather than Scotland. Well if it is, does that not prove the statements earlier on that England has more money than Scotland.

[Phil McBride]

It's not the whole England has more money than Scotland debate but I think it was due to the fact Robert was feeling he would progress further in England and the facilities and coaching were better (well for him anyway).

And I don't actually think he is paid a great amount to play, as most players in the UK are in the same boat.

It's probably just due to the slightly warmer summers down your way, he wanted to improve his tan ;)

[mrmagoo]

i was most probably to further his career and he has a better chance to develop in england playing against better players than in scotland.
not a decision for the purists to like but as he is a doubles player i can fully understand it as there is no-one for him to play with.
and i don't think he was treated to well by some people up there
you've got to give him enormous credit for coming to england and fitting in amongst the players considering how young he was and where he was coming from.it couldn't have been easy