VMA T&F provisional Teams results
& top 10 estimated time/distance rankings
Post the event there has been a lot of feedback – mostly very good – but also some suggestions as to how to make it better. My motto is “all feedback is good feedback”. But of course many have been asking “when will we hear the results for the additional individual competitions we had (besides the medals), as well as the team results for the three competition groups.?” Well the good news is that what I am presenting here are what I will call the “provisional results”. I have decided that because what we are doing in relation to the scoring of the event is “brand new”, it is best to give everyone (who wants to !) the opportunity to see how things have been calculated. Of course this maybe of no interest to some and so those can just refer to the summary below. But for others who love getting into the detail there is a spreadsheet attached where you can dig in to all sorts of stuff – and if you wish, come back to me with questions, feedback. I’m regarding the spreadsheet as somewhat of a “prototype” and something which will see some refinement based on both feedback & experience. It took time to build and with that & the Pentathlon immediately after the States I had my hands full. In future with a resource like this already in place, the outcome of future competitions will be known in the days after. There are still some parts in the spreadsheet relating to the “athletes pools” for each team but I regard the data I have been able to source for this to be sufficiently accurate for me to release these provisional results. For the teams, this competition (& all others in future) will be scored on basis of 1,000 points/competition. Each competition in the new Vic. “Masters 30+” series will then be weighted according to the number of individual events competed in.
And so without further ado, here we go – the provisional winners of the (i) individual competitions based on estimated performance and (ii) teams in the three groups are :-
Estimated performance competition:
Based on three best event performances (pre-event estimate vs actual expressed, as an ‘absolute’ % deviation) from three or more events (results of best three counted):$100 – 1st, 2nd, 3rd; $50 – 3rd – 10th
1st: – Maggie Armstrong (Aberfeldie 30+): 0.38%;
2nd – Rob Italia (Casey 30+): 0.44%;
3rd – Greg Carstairs (Throwers 30+): 0.47%
4th – Christine Bridle (Waverley 30+): 0.50%;
5th – James Schroeter (Box Hill 30+): 0.56%;
6th – Cheryl Beveridge (Aberfeldie 30+): 0.58 %;
7th – Paul Mierisch (Doncaster 30+) 0.59%;
8th – Simon van Baalen (Throwers 30+); 0.60%;
9th – Pramesh Prasad (Casey 30+): 0.63%;
10th – Louise Muse (Aberfeldie 30+): 0.68%
Scored under 4 KPIs for the State Championship. (i) Participation (30%) – number of athletes from a team who competed in at least one event; (ii) Involvement (30%) – how many individual events each athlete competed in (iii) Estimated Performance (25%) – how well the athletes were able to judge how they would perform (iv) Age Graded (15%) – how well in actual / ability terms the athletes from each team performed. The three winning teams get a rebate of $50/athlete who competed from a team celebration dinner that they arrange.
As can be seen with the emphasis having shifted for all Masters competitions to individual AND participation, the KPIs for the State Championships unambiguously were promoting participation and were structured in a way that bigger teams &/or teams “stacked with talent” would not have any real advantage…and can I say that the results here back that up.
Group 1: Provisional Winner – Throwers 30+ (54 pts.); Runners up – Aberfeldie 30+ (40 pts.) & Box Hill (37 pts.)
Group 2: Provisional Winner – Croydon 30+ (38 pts.); Runners up – East Burwood 30+ (33 pts.) & Diamond Valley (33 pts.)
Group 3: Provisional Winner – Waverley 30+ (40 pts); Runners up – Shepparton 30+ (36 pts) & Sandringham (35 pts). Note: congratulations to the small but obviously effective Shepparton team who were the only country based team “to salute”.
And so OK, for those that just wanted the results…that’s it you can stop here. For those who want to “dig deeper” here is a quick overview of what is in the spreadsheet attached. I will briefly cover each tab:-
‘Teams Scoring’: This tab shows the summary level of detail of the scoring for each KPI across all teams. The total scores are shown in col. AB;
‘Teams Calculation’: In this tab individual events data is rolled up to Teams level.
‘Events Data & Calculations’: Probably the most interesting tab. It has filters which enable you to filter on a range of criteria eg. individual athlete. Included is the events that each athlete entered & competed in and the estimated & actual performances and also calculated items like estimated vs actual performance KPI & Age Grading %.
‘Age Graded Tables’. This is just data used for calculation of Age Grading.
‘Teams List’: this shows the list of all athletes who entered the State Championships.
Please forward any comments and feedback to me within a week. After that results will be declared as final. For a “first go around” at this I am satisfied that the results are a fair reflection of what was intended in terms of (a) the introduction of participation as a core element of this and all future Masters 30+ competition (ii) the introduction of the teams concept as a vehicle to bring Masters athletes of different “weekly backgrounds” together for quality competition. Anything can be improved, especially something as new as this, and this will happen through interest & engagement from all who have an interest in this.
So in closing thanks to everyone who entered & competed in what was a much different, and I believe much better State Championships. Next year I’m sure will be even bigger & better as we return to Lakeside with this now being the only venue capable of holding an event of this size and even bigger. And I think the potential is there for this event to get to 1,000 over time.
VMA Track & Field Teams results
Rob Mayston, President
Victorian Masters Athletics
M 0437 487 277