Jump to content


Searching times for TNZ


  • Please log in to reply
256 replies to this topic

#1 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 11 February 2014 - 08:29 PM

In a candid interview on why Team New Zealand blew an 8-1 lead - and eventually lost the Cup regatta 8-9 to Oracle Team USA - Barker told TV3's Paul Henry: "There's a lot of things we'd do differently".

 

Go here: http://www.nzherald....jectid=11200293

 

Searching times for TNZ.



#2 Titan Uranus

Titan Uranus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:challenging idiots since 1993

Posted 11 February 2014 - 08:52 PM

"BLAME STORMING" more like it.

 

Typical Barker transferring the blame.... again.

 

He had a voice and he never "manned up" to Dalton.

 

Barker is one big "SOFT COCK"....

 

... and still crying! :rolleyes:



#3 forss

forss

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 09:06 PM

Americas Cup is passionate TNZ hater.

Ignore him



#4 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Location:Wellington
  • Interests:Sailing, AC,

Posted 11 February 2014 - 09:43 PM

Good interview by Henry. Dean has some good points there. I think there will be more to come out tonight

#5 Finnfart

Finnfart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,690 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 11 February 2014 - 09:44 PM

I'd say that Dean showed a huge amount of integrity in that interview.

 

He didn't second guess Grant's call on the 'lay day'.  He said it was a mistake in hindsight, but he was very clear that given what they knew then, and that they were up by 7-1, it didn't seem like a mistake then.   The interviewer too was able to grasp that distinction.

 

In this world, people all too often judge the quality of decisions by the outcomes they get.  This is fundamentally wrong.

 

As long as there is uncertainty, the quality of the decision is measured in probability of the desired outcome and how well that probability is understood.  Not whether the player drew snake eyes.

 

Otherwise, we would say someone made a bad decision to go 'all in' with 4 kings only to be beaten by someone with 4 aces.  Good decision, bad outcome.

 

There is a difference between the quality of decisions and of outcomes and Dean gets it.



#6 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,129 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 10:20 PM

Good analysis of decisions.

 

Another key point not necessarily spelled out in the interviews is the ET decision making process and who made the calls. Grumpy openly admitted the decision process was too autocratic and most every key decision rested with him. That's one way to structure a team, but it also has fundamental flaws - people don't have to be accountable if one person signs all the checks. Not really a functional team in that regard.

 

Note Jimmy's interview where he says delegation is a key part of how OR operates, from the top down, which allows people to develop.



#7 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 10:41 PM

It is the first time I have seen Dean not wearing ETNZ branded clothing. On the ETNZ chase boat yesterday he was also not wearing RTNZ gear. Can't imagine Dalts being too happy and will be interesting to see what else comes out on tonight's show



#8 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,329 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 11:13 PM

What is going wrong in the forum, how can I partly agree with both FF and SWS at the same time ? :)

 

The quality of a decision is based on the good understanding of the situation and the quality of the decision. The outcome plays later to tell you where you were right or wrong.

 

Delegation is generally the best management style because 10 heads are most often better than one.

 

The exception is if the general is a genius, like Napoleon. That is what he says about decision making in the fog of war, it tells it all :

"Il n'y a que deux espèces de plans de campagne, les bons et le mauvais. Les bons échouent presque toujours par des circonstances imprévues qui font souvent réussir les mauvais"

 

The art of a good general is to understand the situation well enough to guess the improbable.

 


 



#9 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,055 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 11 February 2014 - 11:22 PM

I am confused by one thing in the interview. Barker speaks as if ETNZ could have vetoed OR calling the lay day. I thought each team had the right to do it once and that it didn't need ETNZ's agreement.



#10 Calico Jack

Calico Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Location:At Sea

Posted 11 February 2014 - 11:32 PM

^I think a different occasion, they were not talking about the day the OR played their 'no race day' card, they are talking about a day later in the regatta when IM suggested a layday as there had been a few days of consecutive races and the forecast was poor for the following day, both teams had to agree to IM's proposal and they both did



#11 knarly34

knarly34

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,263 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 11 February 2014 - 11:37 PM

Tensions within the team given the pressure led to some fatal mistakes and decisions. I would honestly have loathed being DB during this campaign especially when it came to crunch time...the whole nation was expecting him to deliver.

 

Whatever happens, shit needs to change within the team. I would love to see Butterworth in the Team NZ structure somehow but we all know for that to happen there has to be a major purge of the old guard and Shoebridge doesn't seem like he is going to go anywhere.

 

The future is in the balance.



#12 brian weslake

brian weslake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,520 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 11:55 PM

When asked to comment on the article, Grant Dalton's only response was "Et tu, Brute?"

#13 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,212 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 12:01 AM

ETNZ at the time probably had good reason to think that a one-day break to rest up would enable them to nail the coffin shut on OR the follwing race day.

I forget, what did the conditions turn out to be on that off-day, in the course area?

#14 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,329 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 12:15 AM

Dalton was too nice on 3 occasions:

- accepting easily the lower speed limit which resulted in a cancelled race that could have made the difference

- accepting IM race organization, which resulted in a race cancelled with 10kts of wind

- accepting the lay day.

 

Overconfidence I guess, wrong lecture of the situation.



#15 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,329 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 12:18 AM



I forget, what did the conditions turn out to be on that off-day, in the course area?

I remember that day pretty well as I was sipping a glass of Champagne with Finnfart in front of the St Francis, watching OR training.

Foggy, medium wind, I guess between 12 to 16, slowly building up.



#16 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 12:27 AM

Tornado cat, remind us again how you were celebrating two sweet victories, ET winning the Cup and you winning your bet.

 

Happy times indeed.



#17 Enzedel 92

Enzedel 92

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,859 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 12:48 AM

Look ETNZ snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  It is the greatest comeback in sports history.  I challenge anyone to prove a more worthy comeback in any sport.

 

It was devastating for the Cup as it simply reinforced the stereotype that the rich guys always win - which is true most of the time, but the "little guy" (though ETNZ's budget was just as bloated as Larry's) had a chance to ground the Cup (less money, more national spirit) It was the chance to breathe life back into Auckland.  What could have been.  Certainly New Zealand is tired of playing second fiddle.



#18 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,212 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 01:09 AM

A great series takes two great teams to tango. ETNZ fans should be proud of that good campaign.

#19 See LEVEL

See LEVEL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Location:The far side of the Bend

Posted 12 February 2014 - 01:13 AM

I don't think New Zealand is playing second fiddle to anyone in the sailing world. So you lost this round,I think it's only going to release the beast in the next round. If you guy's can get over triing to lay blame to one person or issue and start focusing on the future you may really have something.
Your spirit for sailing is immense compared to us here in the
U.S.

#20 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 01:20 AM

When asked to comment on the article, Grant Dalton's only response was "Et tu, Brute?"

Really. If so that IS telling.



#21 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 01:23 AM

Tornado cat, remind us again how you were celebrating two sweet victories, ET winning the Cup and you winning your bet.

 

Happy times indeed.

Must we be reminded? I certainly haven't forgotten the outcome.  :angry:



#22 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 01:27 AM

Look ETNZ snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  It is the greatest comeback in sports history.  I challenge anyone to prove a more worthy comeback in any sport.

 

It was devastating for the Cup as it simply reinforced the stereotype that the rich guys always win - which is true most of the time, but the "little guy" (though ETNZ's budget was just as bloated as Larry's) had a chance to ground the Cup (less money, more national spirit) It was the chance to breathe life back into Auckland.  What could have been.  Certainly New Zealand is tired of playing second fiddle.

Some truth in what you say, Enzedel.

 

Unless we make changes in the camp, we'll probably keep getting 2nd place. 

 

Sounds to me like this is a good thing - as long as we make the right changes.



#23 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 01:29 AM

A great series takes two great teams to tango. ETNZ fans should be proud of that good campaign.

I think we generally are, Stinger. But we also understand coming second sucks and there's no way we're happy to just make up the numbers.



#24 CheekyMonkey

CheekyMonkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 02:04 AM

One of the largest downsides of ET not claiming the Cup was that NZ would have made a good, enthusiastic host for it.

 

Understandably, SF has budgetary concerns as a potential AC35 host, but between the City's apathy, RC's posturing and the mercenarius attitude of this era of the Cup, it degrades the stature of the event (even if it is the harsh truth).

 

Only Oracle's comeback prevented AC34 from being a complete disaster, but how many times can that be counted on?

 

Unfortunately, it seems that the same big players think they they're negotiating from an inflated position of strength.

 

AC34 succeed on the water.  Off the water, it succeed in spite of, not because of, those in charge.



#25 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,212 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 02:21 AM

That comeback had good decision-making behind it. RC's input (why can't we turn this around?) included, for certain.

#26 Finnfart

Finnfart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,690 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 12 February 2014 - 02:36 AM

What is going wrong in the forum, how can I partly agree with both FF and SWS at the same time ? :)

 

The quality of a decision is based on the good understanding of the situation and the quality of the decision. The outcome plays later to tell you where you were right or wrong.

 

Delegation is generally the best management style because 10 heads are most often better than one.

 

The exception is if the general is a genius, like Napoleon. That is what he says about decision making in the fog of war, it tells it all :

"Il n'y a que deux espèces de plans de campagne, les bons et le mauvais. Les bons échouent presque toujours par des circonstances imprévues qui font souvent réussir les mauvais"

 

The art of a good general is to understand the situation well enough to guess the improbable.

 


 

I know i may be splitting hairs here, but he outcome later does not tell you whether you were right or wrong.  You are absolutely right to bet on 4 kings.  RIGHT!   But there are some incredibly improbable outcomes... like someone with 4 aces that make you lose.  But you would surely be called a fool for not betting everything with 4 kings.  If it comes up that someone pulls 4 aces, you lose, you get a bad outcome, but you made a good decision when you bet.  And you should take comfort and pride in that decision even if you lose the pot.

 

The zen of this is profound, and almost always lost in our blame-someone world.

 

Good decisions are not measured by the outcomes... but rather what we know, or can estimate, about the future when we make them.



#27 Finnfart

Finnfart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,690 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 12 February 2014 - 02:43 AM



I forget, what did the conditions turn out to be on that off-day, in the course area?

I remember that day pretty well as I was sipping a glass of Champagne with Finnfart in front of the St Francis, watching OR training.

Foggy, medium wind, I guess between 12 to 16, slowly building up.

C'etait superbe!   And I wish I hadn't had a meeting a 3pm or we would have polished the other bottle too.

 

It definitely was a marginal day, but one where TNZ stood a great chance.  Right in the middle between light, and stormy.  Quite foggy though.

 

But given how performance was changing at the time, I don't think the day's conditions were key to anyone's victory.

 

In a nutshell...  OR figured out their boat...  and OR got really really really lucky.   Together... hard to beat.   But this doesn't make GD's decisions bad.

 

In terms of bad outcomes...  They could have insisted on racing that day, and flipped the boat!   Low probability event, but if it had happened, the folk that are skewering GD would also be saying it was a bad decision even with the minuscule probability.

 

Get it?



#28 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 02:53 AM

This isn't about one decision, it is about getting rid of Dalton. Barker is making a play..............



#29 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,329 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 02:59 AM

What is going wrong in the forum, how can I partly agree with both FF and SWS at the same time ? :)

 

The quality of a decision is based on the good understanding of the situation and the quality of the decision. The outcome plays later to tell you where you were right or wrong.

 

Delegation is generally the best management style because 10 heads are most often better than one.

 

The exception is if the general is a genius, like Napoleon. That is what he says about decision making in the fog of war, it tells it all :

"Il n'y a que deux espèces de plans de campagne, les bons et le mauvais. Les bons échouent presque toujours par des circonstances imprévues qui font souvent réussir les mauvais"

 

The art of a good general is to understand the situation well enough to guess the improbable.

 


 

I know i may be splitting hairs here, but he outcome later does not tell you whether you were right or wrong.  You are absolutely right to bet on 4 kings.  RIGHT!   But there are some incredibly improbable outcomes... like someone with 4 aces that make you lose.  But you would surely be called a fool for not betting everything with 4 kings.  If it comes up that someone pulls 4 aces, you lose, you get a bad outcome, but you made a good decision when you bet.  And you should take comfort and pride in that decision even if you lose the pot.

 

The zen of this is profound, and almost always lost in our blame-someone world.

 

Good decisions are not measured by the outcomes... but rather what we know, or can estimate, about the future when we make them.

Hummm....

 

As Napoleon was saying, best rational decision based on what we know are often the worst. 

 

The outcome is the only measure and we don't care being right with the wrong data.

 

In the fog of war a general never knows the reality of a battlefield, he has to guess what he does not know and the improbable new developments.

 

There is a part of guess, intuition, chance.

 

In the french navy there was a old saying :" he is an excellent captain, but not a lucky one" = his carreer is finished.

In the business there is another one :" there are two kind of managers, those with good results, those with good excuses, we only keep the first ones".

 

A good decision is worthless is not successful.



#30 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,329 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 03:29 AM

In terms of bad outcomes...  They could have insisted on racing that day, and flipped the boat!   Low probability event, but if it had happened, the folk that are skewering GD would also be saying it was a bad decision even with the minuscule probability.

Good exemple, right decision based on perceived probabilities.

 

However these probabilities were based on the wrong assumption that OR could not make a faster boat.

 

I am sure most of us would have done the same decision, it would still be a wrong one.



#31 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 12 February 2014 - 03:40 AM

I think there are a few areas where ETNZ fell over. First, was the boat design, as someone stated earlier, Grant Dalton was hell-bent on designing their 72 around the wind limits set down in the protocol instead of the conditions San Francisco sees at that time of year. Aotearoa was designed to withstand the top end of the wind limits set out in the protocol, hence the bow volume and sturdyness of the structure. Grant had said in an earlier interview that they had learned a few lessons from the 07 campaign that they were going to implement into this campaign, yet it would seem the same mistake which was made in Valencia was made again in San Francisco. That mistake being the "Match" boat reaching its peak speed and performance by the start of the Americas Cup. There was no room left for speed enhancements come AC time. We saw this with NZL92 and SUI100. Alinghi was able to make fine changes to the way they sailed their boat to improve its performance over 92, the same way USA17 was able to be "Dramatically" improved to improve performance over Aotearoa. In my opinion the idea of a team being able to "play" a we wish not to race card without having to prove a breakage or valid reason is absurd also, and seemingly goes against the whole idea of good sportsmanship.

Apart from the obvious points raised earlier about alterations to wind limits, laydays etc stopping ETNZ in their tracks, the one thing that stands out in my mind is the subtle change made to the regatta format after OTUSA had been deducted 2 points for "cheating" in the ACWS. OTUSA were (punished) deducted 2 points but were also effectively given a reprieve as the regatta had now been lengthened from a traditional "Best of" 17 races to a "First to" 9 races. This is important because even though it may seem a small change, the regatta had gone from 17 races to 19 races. 2 points deducted, 2 races added. This is the biggest thing that allowed OTUSA to retain the Cup. If the regatta had been kept at its original "Best of" format, the cheating punishment would have come into play and OTUSA would have run out of races in which to win the Cup because by pure math, ETNZ would have got to a point where they had won the best of 17 races.



#32 Life Buoy 15

Life Buoy 15

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,247 posts
  • Location:The great southern land

Posted 12 February 2014 - 03:43 AM

"BLAME STORMING" more like it.
 
Typical Barker transferring the blame.... again.
 
He had a voice and he never "manned up" to Dalton.
 
Barker is one big "SOFT COCK"....
 
... and still crying! :rolleyes:


Well, well look who's back. How was your latest little 'holiday' from SA mate? What have you been up whilst you were banned?
Sailing your wally 80 around the Aegean? Closing a few international business deals? Renew your extensive passport collection? Hangin at your SF waterfront villa with Larry and Russ? Flew your Lear jet up to Nova Scotia to watch the total eclipse of the sun?

#33 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 04:01 AM



 

"BLAME STORMING" more like it.
 
Typical Barker transferring the blame.... again.
 
He had a voice and he never "manned up" to Dalton.
 
Barker is one big "SOFT COCK"....
 
... and still crying! :rolleyes:



0qJ3dZq.gif



#34 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 04:05 AM

In terms of bad outcomes...  They could have insisted on racing that day, and flipped the boat!   Low probability event, but if it had happened, the folk that are skewering GD would also be saying it was a bad decision even with the minuscule probability.

Good exemple, right decision based on perceived probabilities.

 

However these probabilities were based on the wrong assumption that OR could not make a faster boat.

 

I am sure most of us would have done the same decision, it would still be a wrong one.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.



#35 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 04:20 AM

No bad blood between Team New Zealand duo
"There will be no bad blood between Dean Barker and Grant Dalton arising from the Team New Zealand skipper's revelations about his boss during the last America's Cup."
 

 

Go to: http://www.stuff.co....New-Zealand-duo



#36 MrSurly

MrSurly

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 12 February 2014 - 05:05 AM

I think there are a few areas where ETNZ fell over. First, was the boat design, as someone stated earlier, Grant Dalton was hell-bent on designing their 72 around the wind limits set down in the protocol instead of the conditions San Francisco sees at that time of year. Aotearoa was designed to withstand the top end of the wind limits set out in the protocol, hence the bow volume and sturdyness of the structure. Grant had said in an earlier interview that they had learned a few lessons from the 07 campaign that they were going to implement into this campaign, yet it would seem the same mistake which was made in Valencia was made again in San Francisco. That mistake being the "Match" boat reaching its peak speed and performance by the start of the Americas Cup. There was no room left for speed enhancements come AC time. We saw this with NZL92 and SUI100. Alinghi was able to make fine changes to the way they sailed their boat to improve its performance over 92, the same way USA17 was able to be "Dramatically" improved to improve performance over Aotearoa. In my opinion the idea of a team being able to "play" a we wish not to race card without having to prove a breakage or valid reason is absurd also, and seemingly goes against the whole idea of good sportsmanship.
Apart from the obvious points raised earlier about alterations to wind limits, laydays etc stopping ETNZ in their tracks, the one thing that stands out in my mind is the subtle change made to the regatta format after OTUSA had been deducted 2 points for "cheating" in the ACWS. OTUSA were (punished) deducted 2 points but were also effectively given a reprieve as the regatta had now been lengthened from a traditional "Best of" 17 races to a "First to" 9 races. This is important because even though it may seem a small change, the regatta had gone from 17 races to 19 races. 2 points deducted, 2 races added. This is the biggest thing that allowed OTUSA to retain the Cup. If the regatta had been kept at its original "Best of" format, the cheating punishment would have come into play and OTUSA would have run out of races in which to win the Cup because by pure math, ETNZ would have got to a point where they had won the best of 17 races.


Are you really suggesting that when OR won race 17, making the score 7-8(but really 9-8), that NZ should have been awarded cup? Cause, as messed up as some want to think things are, that would have been truly be fucked up. Hope I counted right.

I think the jury made a wise decision. They imposed a penalty that would make it harder for OR, but not easier for NZ.

I don't see how OR was granted a reprieve, please explain. Should they have been awarded the cup when they scored 7?

#37 coaster1

coaster1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Location:left coast

Posted 12 February 2014 - 05:20 AM

http://www.3news.co....26/Default.aspx

 

 

Cracks are appearing among the Team New Zealand top brass after skipper Dean Barker questioned the tactics of team boss Grant Dalton at a crucial point of their failed America's Cup campaign.

Barker was surprisingly blunt in his criticism of Dalton's decision to agree to a lay day midway through the 9-8 loss to US defenders Oracle in San Francisco.

Five months on from the galling loss, in which Team NZ squandered an 8-1 lead, Barker says Dalton's agreement with an Oracle request that the teams have a rest day on September 16 was an error.

He also says Dalton was wrong to do so without consulting others at Team NZ.

"That was clearly a mistake. It was a decision that was made outside of our knowledge," Barker told The Paul Henry Show.

"There was a lot going on at the time. I think it was one of those things that we obviously, on reflection, we would had done differently."

The lay day came at a time when Oracle trailed 7-1 but were starting to increase their boat speed.

An extra day gave them time to make further improvements and swing momentum, Barker said.

Barker also confirmed there were "questions asked" by some within the team about Dalton's position on the boat instead of specialist grinder Winston Macfarlane for some races at the regatta.

However, Barker says he wasn't concerned by 56-year-old Dalton's presence.

"Grant was there for reasons other than his physical presence," Barker said.

"He was there for leadership and everything else."


Read more: http://www.3news.co....x#ixzz2t59yAbkB



#38 Finnfart

Finnfart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,690 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 12 February 2014 - 05:52 AM

In terms of bad outcomes...  They could have insisted on racing that day, and flipped the boat!   Low probability event, but if it had happened, the folk that are skewering GD would also be saying it was a bad decision even with the minuscule probability.

Good exemple, right decision based on perceived probabilities.

 

However these probabilities were based on the wrong assumption that OR could not make a faster boat.

 

I am sure most of us would have done the same decision, it would still be a wrong one.

The decision's quality is poor if it is based on bad data.  But I don't think it reasonable to say they had bad data at the time.

 

The question hence,  is whether it was a reasonable estimate to think that OR would get any particular speed advantage GREATER than the one TNZ got from the lay day.  We don't know what TNZ was doing that day in the shed.  So the question is what the decision maker should have known at the time.

 

Neither you nor I had any idea this was a bad idea when it happened.   I was making a "bad decision" and pre-paying our bet as I saw nothing in the practice runs, or last races, that would have ever made me think it likely they could win.  

 

The point is that standing on that day with the info we had, it didn't seem like a bad decision.

 

So to wrap up with semantics...   My point is that they made a good enough decision that none of us thought it in ANY way questionable when it happened.  I certainly don't remember anybody here saying it was a bad idea AT THE TIME.

 

You call it a "wrong decision" but I say the decision was good.  The outcome was bad.    

 

They could have rejected the lay day, and flipped the boat that day.  Would that random event have changed the quality of the decision?

 

If we let outcomes define the quality of a decision, then we have to accept that people that play Russian Roulette, and don't kill themselves, made a good decision in playing that game.



#39 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 06:17 AM

Well at least we have some good replacements if this all turns to shit.......................

 

http://www.sailingev...mation/results/



#40 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 06:18 AM

Maybe 'that decision' itself is neither good nor bad, nor even critical to the outcome  - but rather symptomatic of the way 'autocratic' decisions had been made? 



#41 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 06:20 AM

Well at least we have some good replacements if this all turns to shit.......................

 

http://www.sailingev...mation/results/

Not really. The loss was never about a lack of sailing ability. 

 

But good to see the new sailing talent coming through.



#42 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 12 February 2014 - 06:53 AM

I think there are a few areas where ETNZ fell over. First, was the boat design, as someone stated earlier, Grant Dalton was hell-bent on designing their 72 around the wind limits set down in the protocol instead of the conditions San Francisco sees at that time of year. Aotearoa was designed to withstand the top end of the wind limits set out in the protocol, hence the bow volume and sturdyness of the structure. Grant had said in an earlier interview that they had learned a few lessons from the 07 campaign that they were going to implement into this campaign, yet it would seem the same mistake which was made in Valencia was made again in San Francisco. That mistake being the "Match" boat reaching its peak speed and performance by the start of the Americas Cup. There was no room left for speed enhancements come AC time. We saw this with NZL92 and SUI100. Alinghi was able to make fine changes to the way they sailed their boat to improve its performance over 92, the same way USA17 was able to be "Dramatically" improved to improve performance over Aotearoa. In my opinion the idea of a team being able to "play" a we wish not to race card without having to prove a breakage or valid reason is absurd also, and seemingly goes against the whole idea of good sportsmanship.
Apart from the obvious points raised earlier about alterations to wind limits, laydays etc stopping ETNZ in their tracks, the one thing that stands out in my mind is the subtle change made to the regatta format after OTUSA had been deducted 2 points for "cheating" in the ACWS. OTUSA were (punished) deducted 2 points but were also effectively given a reprieve as the regatta had now been lengthened from a traditional "Best of" 17 races to a "First to" 9 races. This is important because even though it may seem a small change, the regatta had gone from 17 races to 19 races. 2 points deducted, 2 races added. This is the biggest thing that allowed OTUSA to retain the Cup. If the regatta had been kept at its original "Best of" format, the cheating punishment would have come into play and OTUSA would have run out of races in which to win the Cup because by pure math, ETNZ would have got to a point where they had won the best of 17 races.


Are you really suggesting that when OR won race 17, making the score 7-8(but really 9-8), that NZ should have been awarded cup? Cause, as messed up as some want to think things are, that would have been truly be fucked up. Hope I counted right.

I think the jury made a wise decision. They imposed a penalty that would make it harder for OR, but not easier for NZ.

I don't see how OR was granted a reprieve, please explain. Should they have been awarded the cup when they scored 7?

What it should've reflected was a PENALTY to OTUSA. It is a reprieve in terms of receiving a chance regain the two points that they were deducted. By changing the regatta format from best of to first to, they effectively said, we're taking 2 points away and giving you 2 extra races from the original format. The fact is, the regatta format change only suited one team, OTUSA. ETNZ never at any time, needed the regatta to go any longer than it originally was scheduled to go (17 races). If OTUSA won 8 races of the first 17, it gives ETNZ 9 races which are must win to achieve best of 17, a pretty hard situation, but gettable for ETNZ. The way it ended up, if ETNZ won the first 8 races, that gave OTUSA an UNLIMITED amount of races to negate the penalty and win 9 races on top of that, hence the reprieve. Its a subtle but important point. OTUSA should've been told if they wanted to win the Cup, they needed to start well and win 11 races (2 penalty races + 9 on top) to win the Cup. Thats how a penalty works.



#43 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,280 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:10 AM


I think there are a few areas where ETNZ fell over. First, was the boat design, as someone stated earlier, Grant Dalton was hell-bent on designing their 72 around the wind limits set down in the protocol instead of the conditions San Francisco sees at that time of year. Aotearoa was designed to withstand the top end of the wind limits set out in the protocol, hence the bow volume and sturdyness of the structure. Grant had said in an earlier interview that they had learned a few lessons from the 07 campaign that they were going to implement into this campaign, yet it would seem the same mistake which was made in Valencia was made again in San Francisco. That mistake being the "Match" boat reaching its peak speed and performance by the start of the Americas Cup. There was no room left for speed enhancements come AC time. We saw this with NZL92 and SUI100. Alinghi was able to make fine changes to the way they sailed their boat to improve its performance over 92, the same way USA17 was able to be "Dramatically" improved to improve performance over Aotearoa. In my opinion the idea of a team being able to "play" a we wish not to race card without having to prove a breakage or valid reason is absurd also, and seemingly goes against the whole idea of good sportsmanship.
Apart from the obvious points raised earlier about alterations to wind limits, laydays etc stopping ETNZ in their tracks, the one thing that stands out in my mind is the subtle change made to the regatta format after OTUSA had been deducted 2 points for "cheating" in the ACWS. OTUSA were (punished) deducted 2 points but were also effectively given a reprieve as the regatta had now been lengthened from a traditional "Best of" 17 races to a "First to" 9 races. This is important because even though it may seem a small change, the regatta had gone from 17 races to 19 races. 2 points deducted, 2 races added. This is the biggest thing that allowed OTUSA to retain the Cup. If the regatta had been kept at its original "Best of" format, the cheating punishment would have come into play and OTUSA would have run out of races in which to win the Cup because by pure math, ETNZ would have got to a point where they had won the best of 17 races.


Are you really suggesting that when OR won race 17, making the score 7-8(but really 9-8), that NZ should have been awarded cup? Cause, as messed up as some want to think things are, that would have been truly be fucked up. Hope I counted right.
I think the jury made a wise decision. They imposed a penalty that would make it harder for OR, but not easier for NZ.
I don't see how OR was granted a reprieve, please explain. Should they have been awarded the cup when they scored 7?
What it should've reflected was a PENALTY to OTUSA. It is a reprieve in terms of receiving a chance regain the two points that they were deducted. By changing the regatta format from best of to first to, they effectively said, we're taking 2 points away and giving you 2 extra races from the original format. The fact is, the regatta format change only suited one team, OTUSA. ETNZ never at any time, needed the regatta to go any longer than it originally was scheduled to go (17 races). If OTUSA won 8 races of the first 17, it gives ETNZ 9 races which are must win to achieve best of 17, a pretty hard situation, but gettable for ETNZ. The way it ended up, if ETNZ won the first 8 races, that gave OTUSA an UNLIMITED amount of races to negate the penalty and win 9 races on top of that, hence the reprieve. Its a subtle but important point. OTUSA should've been told if they wanted to win the Cup, they needed to start well and win 11 races (2 penalty races + 9 on top) to win the Cup. Thats how a penalty works.

The penalty fit the " crime " .

#44 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:18 AM

Why would you want the stupid Cup anyway?

 

Deeper Red Ink
San Francisco's red ink from the 34th America's Cup doubled Monday, with updated figures showing the city lost $11.5 million hosting the event.

Preliminary figures released in December showed the regatta had cost taxpayers at least $5.5 million, but that number did not include expenses for the Port of San Francisco, a city department with its own budget funded by rent revenue from its property, not taxes.

The Cup and two related exhibition matches in 2012 had a net cost to the port of $5.5 million, and their cost to the general fund, the city's main spending account, was revised upward to $6 million, according to a new report by the Board of Supervisors budget and legislative analyst. That meant the event cost the city a total of $11.5 million.

The latest analysis, requested by Supervisor John Avalos, a critic of the regatta, also presented a mixed picture on the economic benefits for San Franciscans, finding that officials failed to track local hiring and the inclusion of small businesses during the 2012 events. During the 2013 competitions, however, more than half of the 953 people hired under contracts with race organizers were San Franciscans.

The new findings come as Mayor Ed Lee's administration has reached an impasse in negotiations with software billionaire Larry Ellison's Oracle Team USA sailing club about hosting the next Cup in 2017.

www.sfgate.com



#45 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:22 AM


The penalty fit the " crime " .

Maybe... depends on which perspective. Yes ETNZ made mistakes, I know that, everyone knows that. However, there are other factors to "The comeback" which never get discussed. This is one. Thats all...I mean Im not a big Nascar or F1 fan, but Im pretty sure that if you qualify at the back of the starting grid, correct if Im wrong, but the race does not get extended by a few laps so you can have a little more of a chance of winning the race??



#46 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:29 AM

Part two of the Barker interview. Barker very uncomfortable but back in team gear............................

 

http://www.3news.co....82/Default.aspx



#47 Chris UK

Chris UK

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Sailing.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 09:17 AM

Re whether the team would have allowed the lay day if it had been discussed/decided by the whole team, i think that Dean has previously said (in an interview months ago before the focus came on to the lay day) that they got to 6 points ok, but from there getting the next 2 was hard and from 6 they could see Oracle getting faster.....seems to suggest that they would have sailed and limited Oracles time to develop if they had discussed it. 

 

Obviously,,,,,if they had sailed (no lay day) and then suffered a mechanical failure related to a maintenance issue what would people be saying then?

 

I love the reference to the french navy btw...

 

Sail World says that they will be publishing the finidings of its analysis re 4 key mistakes.



#48 MrSurly

MrSurly

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 12 February 2014 - 02:30 PM



I think there are a few areas where ETNZ fell over. First, was the boat design, as someone stated earlier, Grant Dalton was hell-bent on designing their 72 around the wind limits set down in the protocol instead of the conditions San Francisco sees at that time of year. Aotearoa was designed to withstand the top end of the wind limits set out in the protocol, hence the bow volume and sturdyness of the structure. Grant had said in an earlier interview that they had learned a few lessons from the 07 campaign that they were going to implement into this campaign, yet it would seem the same mistake which was made in Valencia was made again in San Francisco. That mistake being the "Match" boat reaching its peak speed and performance by the start of the Americas Cup. There was no room left for speed enhancements come AC time. We saw this with NZL92 and SUI100. Alinghi was able to make fine changes to the way they sailed their boat to improve its performance over 92, the same way USA17 was able to be "Dramatically" improved to improve performance over Aotearoa. In my opinion the idea of a team being able to "play" a we wish not to race card without having to prove a breakage or valid reason is absurd also, and seemingly goes against the whole idea of good sportsmanship.
Apart from the obvious points raised earlier about alterations to wind limits, laydays etc stopping ETNZ in their tracks, the one thing that stands out in my mind is the subtle change made to the regatta format after OTUSA had been deducted 2 points for "cheating" in the ACWS. OTUSA were (punished) deducted 2 points but were also effectively given a reprieve as the regatta had now been lengthened from a traditional "Best of" 17 races to a "First to" 9 races. This is important because even though it may seem a small change, the regatta had gone from 17 races to 19 races. 2 points deducted, 2 races added. This is the biggest thing that allowed OTUSA to retain the Cup. If the regatta had been kept at its original "Best of" format, the cheating punishment would have come into play and OTUSA would have run out of races in which to win the Cup because by pure math, ETNZ would have got to a point where they had won the best of 17 races.

Are you really suggesting that when OR won race 17, making the score 7-8(but really 9-8), that NZ should have been awarded cup? Cause, as messed up as some want to think things are, that would have been truly be fucked up. Hope I counted right.

I think the jury made a wise decision. They imposed a penalty that would make it harder for OR, but not easier for NZ.

I don't see how OR was granted a reprieve, please explain. Should they have been awarded the cup when they scored 7?
What it should've reflected was a PENALTY to OTUSA. It is a reprieve in terms of receiving a chance regain the two points that they were deducted. By changing the regatta format from best of to first to, they effectively said, we're taking 2 points away and giving you 2 extra races from the original format. The fact is, the regatta format change only suited one team, OTUSA. ETNZ never at any time, needed the regatta to go any longer than it originally was scheduled to go (17 races). If OTUSA won 8 races of the first 17, it gives ETNZ 9 races which are must win to achieve best of 17, a pretty hard situation, but gettable for ETNZ. The way it ended up, if ETNZ won the first 8 races, that gave OTUSA an UNLIMITED amount of races to negate the penalty and win 9 races on top of that, hence the reprieve. Its a subtle but important point. OTUSA should've been told if they wanted to win the Cup, they needed to start well and win 11 races (2 penalty races + 9 on top) to win the Cup. Thats how a penalty works.
With respect...I don't get it. The criteria to win was always defined as first to 9, not best of 17. That's in the protocol from the start. I think the one thing the IJ did not want to do was to shorten the regatta, what a great way to cap off the summer of not so much racing. And OR we're not givin unlimited opportunities to negate their penalty, had to do it before NZ got to 9. Which they did, incredibly. NZ was not robbed, they failed to win 9 races as required. In fact, they were afforded two extra races to do that. Which they didn't, incredibly.

#49 Wet Spreaders

Wet Spreaders

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 02:44 PM

I'd say that Dean showed a huge amount of integrity in that interview.
 
He didn't second guess Grant's call on the 'lay day'.  He said it was a mistake in hindsight, but he was very clear that given what they knew then, and that they were up by 7-1, it didn't seem like a mistake then.   The interviewer too was able to grasp that distinction.
 
In this world, people all too often judge the quality of decisions by the outcomes they get.  This is fundamentally wrong.
 
As long as there is uncertainty, the quality of the decision is measured in probability of the desired outcome and how well that probability is understood.  Not whether the player drew snake eyes.
 
Otherwise, we would say someone made a bad decision to go 'all in' with 4 kings only to be beaten by someone with 4 aces.  Good decision, bad outcome.
 
There is a difference between the quality of decisions and of outcomes and Dean gets it.


+1. Dean acquitted himself well in that interview. The written comments are taken out of context and really trashy journalism - the interviewer is an ass.

#50 Grrr...

Grrr...

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,430 posts
  • Location:Detroit

Posted 12 February 2014 - 04:50 PM

I think there are a few areas where ETNZ fell over. First, was the boat design, as someone stated earlier, Grant Dalton was hell-bent on designing their 72 around the wind limits set down in the protocol instead of the conditions San Francisco sees at that time of year. Aotearoa was designed to withstand the top end of the wind limits set out in the protocol, hence the bow volume and sturdyness of the structure. Grant had said in an earlier interview that they had learned a few lessons from the 07 campaign that they were going to implement into this campaign, yet it would seem the same mistake which was made in Valencia was made again in San Francisco. That mistake being the "Match" boat reaching its peak speed and performance by the start of the Americas Cup. There was no room left for speed enhancements come AC time. We saw this with NZL92 and SUI100. Alinghi was able to make fine changes to the way they sailed their boat to improve its performance over 92, the same way USA17 was able to be "Dramatically" improved to improve performance over Aotearoa. In my opinion the idea of a team being able to "play" a we wish not to race card without having to prove a breakage or valid reason is absurd also, and seemingly goes against the whole idea of good sportsmanship.

Apart from the obvious points raised earlier about alterations to wind limits, laydays etc stopping ETNZ in their tracks, the one thing that stands out in my mind is the subtle change made to the regatta format after OTUSA had been deducted 2 points for "cheating" in the ACWS. OTUSA were (punished) deducted 2 points but were also effectively given a reprieve as the regatta had now been lengthened from a traditional "Best of" 17 races to a "First to" 9 races. This is important because even though it may seem a small change, the regatta had gone from 17 races to 19 races. 2 points deducted, 2 races added. This is the biggest thing that allowed OTUSA to retain the Cup. If the regatta had been kept at its original "Best of" format, the cheating punishment would have come into play and OTUSA would have run out of races in which to win the Cup because by pure math, ETNZ would have got to a point where they had won the best of 17 races.

 

No one chooses when to 'peak'.  It's a myth created by folks who don't compete.  TNZ designed a boat for the conditions they planned on racing in.  They maximized that boat in every way that they could as quickly as they could.  Oracle was the virtually the same speed as TNZ (except upwind!) before they got their foiling working.  That was the ONE aspect that broke TNZ's back.  One advantage.  Minus that advantage, TNZ appeared to out-engineer oracle.

 

Whole lot of sour grapes in your post.

 

Dean did very well in that interview, and frankly I've never seen him do poorly.  He appears to speak his mind and speak truthfully, win or lose.  I have a lot of respect for him.



#51 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,832 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 05:15 PM

Well at least we have some good replacements if this all turns to shit.......................

 

http://www.sailingev...mation/results/

 

Are there somewhere videos posted or a good picture collection?

BTW, Ray Davies' results are rather impressive, him being a flintstone and all...



#52 Speed demon

Speed demon

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Athens

Posted 12 February 2014 - 06:28 PM

JC... you really should be over this kind of "child like " behaviour.

 

you should use your hands for something else



#53 Speed demon

Speed demon

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Athens

Posted 12 February 2014 - 06:32 PM

What all you people here fail to recognise is the absolute stupidity Barker showed in actually accepting to do this interview.

 

the money must have been good.

 

also what did Barker achieve that was positive for ETNZ (BY AGREEING TO THIS INTERVIEW AND THE QUESTIONS ASKED)

 

PJ Montgomery has sugested that Paul henry was given the questions by barker.



#54 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 06:37 PM

 

Well at least we have some good replacements if this all turns to shit.......................

 

http://www.sailingev...mation/results/

 

Are there somewhere videos posted or a good picture collection?

BTW, Ray Davies' results are rather impressive, him being a flintstone and all...

Quite a few 'flinstones' in the top 10 at the moment.



#55 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 06:39 PM

What all you people here fail to recognise is the absolute stupidity Barker showed in actually accepting to do this interview.

 

the money must have been good.

 

also what did Barker achieve that was positive for ETNZ (BY AGREEING TO THIS INTERVIEW AND THE QUESTIONS ASKED)

 

PJ Montgomery has sugested that Paul henry was given the questions by barker.

Maybe he's looking to move GD on, so he can take the CEO role himself? 



#56 Finnfart

Finnfart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,690 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:39 PM

 

What is going wrong in the forum, how can I partly agree with both FF and SWS at the same time ? :)

 

The quality of a decision is based on the good understanding of the situation and the quality of the decision. The outcome plays later to tell you where you were right or wrong.

 

Delegation is generally the best management style because 10 heads are most often better than one.

 

The exception is if the general is a genius, like Napoleon. That is what he says about decision making in the fog of war, it tells it all :

"Il n'y a que deux espèces de plans de campagne, les bons et le mauvais. Les bons échouent presque toujours par des circonstances imprévues qui font souvent réussir les mauvais"

 

The art of a good general is to understand the situation well enough to guess the improbable.

 


 

I know i may be splitting hairs here, but he outcome later does not tell you whether you were right or wrong.  You are absolutely right to bet on 4 kings.  RIGHT!   But there are some incredibly improbable outcomes... like someone with 4 aces that make you lose.  But you would surely be called a fool for not betting everything with 4 kings.  If it comes up that someone pulls 4 aces, you lose, you get a bad outcome, but you made a good decision when you bet.  And you should take comfort and pride in that decision even if you lose the pot.

 

The zen of this is profound, and almost always lost in our blame-someone world.

 

Good decisions are not measured by the outcomes... but rather what we know, or can estimate, about the future when we make them.

Hummm....

 

As Napoleon was saying, best rational decision based on what we know are often the worst. 

 

The outcome is the only measure and we don't care being right with the wrong data.

 

In the fog of war a general never knows the reality of a battlefield, he has to guess what he does not know and the improbable new developments.

 

There is a part of guess, intuition, chance.

 

In the french navy there was a old saying :" he is an excellent captain, but not a lucky one" = his carreer is finished.

In the business there is another one :" there are two kind of managers, those with good results, those with good excuses, we only keep the first ones".

 

A good decision is worthless is not successful.

These are slow days for me so I'll take on another philosophical point here...   Good results, vs good excuses and we only keep the managers with the former.

 

This is one of those very misused business truisms...

 

In an operational context, those that proffer excuses instead of results indeed must be let go.

 

But in a Strategic context, those that do the same must be kept so they learn from the failure and can apply those lessons to future success.

 

There is plenty of research about the effectiveness of M&A and how companies rarely achieve real effectiveness in the 'roll up' game until they reach their 6th or 7th transaction.  The reason is that they need to learn about uncertain outcomes from the difficulties in the initial transactions.   Under the truism, you would shoot yourself in the foot by firing the folks that were learning what the issues really are and mastering the unknown unknowns.

 

But in an operational context, you get to learn when you are still a subordinate, and should be expected to perform when you take charge.

 

Sailboat racing at this scale is a fundamentally strategic endeavor and to shoot your staff and start again is a good way to lose again.  

 

Obviously, you try for the best of both worlds, which i think TNZ is doing by keeping GD, but modifying his role.  Same seems to go for DB.



#57 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:51 PM

 

 

What is going wrong in the forum, how can I partly agree with both FF and SWS at the same time ? :)

 

The quality of a decision is based on the good understanding of the situation and the quality of the decision. The outcome plays later to tell you where you were right or wrong.

 

Delegation is generally the best management style because 10 heads are most often better than one.

 

The exception is if the general is a genius, like Napoleon. That is what he says about decision making in the fog of war, it tells it all :

"Il n'y a que deux espèces de plans de campagne, les bons et le mauvais. Les bons échouent presque toujours par des circonstances imprévues qui font souvent réussir les mauvais"

 

The art of a good general is to understand the situation well enough to guess the improbable.

 


 

I know i may be splitting hairs here, but he outcome later does not tell you whether you were right or wrong.  You are absolutely right to bet on 4 kings.  RIGHT!   But there are some incredibly improbable outcomes... like someone with 4 aces that make you lose.  But you would surely be called a fool for not betting everything with 4 kings.  If it comes up that someone pulls 4 aces, you lose, you get a bad outcome, but you made a good decision when you bet.  And you should take comfort and pride in that decision even if you lose the pot.

 

The zen of this is profound, and almost always lost in our blame-someone world.

 

Good decisions are not measured by the outcomes... but rather what we know, or can estimate, about the future when we make them.

Hummm....

 

As Napoleon was saying, best rational decision based on what we know are often the worst. 

 

The outcome is the only measure and we don't care being right with the wrong data.

 

In the fog of war a general never knows the reality of a battlefield, he has to guess what he does not know and the improbable new developments.

 

There is a part of guess, intuition, chance.

 

In the french navy there was a old saying :" he is an excellent captain, but not a lucky one" = his carreer is finished.

In the business there is another one :" there are two kind of managers, those with good results, those with good excuses, we only keep the first ones".

 

A good decision is worthless is not successful.

These are slow days for me so I'll take on another philosophical point here...   Good results, vs good excuses and we only keep the managers with the former.

 

This is one of those very misused business truisms...

 

In an operational context, those that proffer excuses instead of results indeed must be let go.

 

But in a Strategic context, those that do the same must be kept so they learn from the failure and can apply those lessons to future success.

 

There is plenty of research about the effectiveness of M&A and how companies rarely achieve real effectiveness in the 'roll up' game until they reach their 6th or 7th transaction.  The reason is that they need to learn about uncertain outcomes from the difficulties in the initial transactions.   Under the truism, you would shoot yourself in the foot by firing the folks that were learning what the issues really are and mastering the unknown unknowns.

 

But in an operational context, you get to learn when you are still a subordinate, and should be expected to perform when you take charge.

 

Sailboat racing at this scale is a fundamentally strategic endeavor and to shoot your staff and start again is a good way to lose again.  

 

Obviously, you try for the best of both worlds, which i think TNZ is doing by keeping GD, but modifying his role.  Same seems to go for DB.

Sounds rational to me.



#58 Panoramix

Panoramix

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Location:Rennes, Brittany, France

Posted 12 February 2014 - 08:15 PM

IMHO very poor journalism. The interviewer just had an axe to grind and was trying to create a split in the team to get his headline.

 

With hindsight it is really easy to say that it was a mistake... with revolutionary boats like this, there are necessarily performance leaps as they understand, he should have asked about this and why they didn't realise that OR wasn't about to improve so much their speed.



#59 jzk

jzk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 08:24 PM

The interviewer had an axe to grind, but why shouldn't he?  Dean was a bit of a wuss being led around like that.  It is one thing to be polite, but another to just let this guy speak for you.



#60 pcraig

pcraig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 08:49 PM

I dont understand all the criticism being flung here.

 

As the ETNZ campaign was largely funded by the New Zealand public, its no surprise that the team is being called to explain what happened with all the money their devoted public threw into the pot (willingly or not). Its not even inconceivable that this interview session is a contractual obligation for the team in order to open up closing payments for the campaign.

 

I also dont believe Dean is out to get Grant, he's clearly not happy in being coerced into admitting that Grants position on the boat was questioned and nor was he keen to admit that Grant had made the call on the layday.

 

I think he was trying to hide some of this to protect the team, hence the pauses and uncertainty in his voice. In the end telling the truth prevents you getting embaressingly found out later on, so I'm guessing that while pausing he was weighing this up.



#61 Bunchofgrapes

Bunchofgrapes

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 09:23 PM

As usual Barker handles himself with class and dignity. In the end it is a a beat up by Henry trying to make tsunamis out of ripples. That said it must have irked the ETNZ boys a little having Dalts on board in a grinding role....must have....just sayn'.



#62 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,055 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 12 February 2014 - 09:39 PM

The follow up interview is very telling. It suggests to me that there was some judicious editing of the first interview. For instance. the "mistake" of agreeing to the lay day turns out to have been as much to do with keeping sponsors happy and while the sailing team might have wished to sail, there were other factors at play. The first interview managed to gloss over that. And IMO, DB supported a continued role for GD in the team. I would expect that every team involved with the last AC will evolve their organisational structure and that is exactly what DB has alluded to with ETNZ. I expect to see both still in the team going forward.



#63 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 12 February 2014 - 09:44 PM

The follow up interview is very telling. It suggests to me that there was some judicious editing of the first interview. For instance. the "mistake" of agreeing to the lay day turns out to have been as much to do with keeping sponsors happy and while the sailing team might have wished to sail, there were other factors at play. The first interview managed to gloss over that. And IMO, DB supported a continued role for GD in the team. I would expect that every team involved with the last AC will evolve their organisational structure and that is exactly what DB has alluded to with ETNZ. I expect to see both still in the team going forward.

Agree. But their roles could be quite different too.



#64 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,212 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 11:03 PM

A couple of good articles that respond well, already posted above (thanks for those links)

http://i.stuff.co.nz...New-Zealand-duo

http://m.nzherald.co...jectid=11201210

The second is especially good; it refers also to a radio interview by GD, does anyone maybe have that link?
"Speaking for the first time since the interview, Dalton told Newstalk ZB he was not completely across what had happened.

"But from what I can gather ... I think he just got ambushed by Paul Henry, frankly,'' he said. "

#65 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,212 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 11:22 PM

Posted yet? The same Paul Henry, this time trying to fry Steven Joyce.

Video http://www.3news.co....97/Default.aspx

#66 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,212 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 11:30 PM

One of several interesting paras in this decent article:

"Core Builders Composites, Larry Ellisons Warkworth-based composites tooling and manufacturing facility that made much of Oracles winning cat, has built a roof for a visitors centre in Kerikeri, a solar car, and is the construction company behind the proposed $31 million SkyPath cycleway to be clipped under the Auckland Harbour Bridge."

Winning Off The Water http://i.stuff.co.nz...g-off-the-water

#67 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,329 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 11:55 PM

Neither you nor I had any idea this was a bad idea when it happened.   I was making a "bad decision" and pre-paying our bet as I saw nothing in the practice runs, or last races, that would have ever made me think it likely they could win.  

 

The point is that standing on that day with the info we had, it didn't seem like a bad decision.

 

So to wrap up with semantics...   My point is that they made a good enough decision that none of us thought it in ANY way questionable when it happened.  I certainly don't remember anybody here saying it was a bad idea AT THE TIME.

 

You call it a "wrong decision" but I say the decision was good.  The outcome was bad.    

 

They could have rejected the lay day, and flipped the boat that day.  Would that random event have changed the quality of the decision?

 

If we let outcomes define the quality of a decision, then we have to accept that people that play Russian Roulette, and don't kill themselves, made a good decision in playing that game.

Yes, it did not seem a bad decision at the time.

If : understanding of the situation + proper decision + chance = outcome, then if the outcome is wrong and the decision correct, then something else must be wrong.

The russian roulette is not a good example as the more you play the more the outcome will be bad.

At the end TNZ fucked up, and that is pretty much what Dean Barker is saying.



#68 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,212 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 11:59 PM

A couple of good articles that respond well, already posted above (thanks for those links)

http://i.stuff.co.nz...New-Zealand-duo

http://m.nzherald.co...jectid=11201210

The second is especially good; it refers also to a radio interview by GD, does anyone maybe have that link?
"Speaking for the first time since the interview, Dalton told Newstalk ZB he was not completely across what had happened.

"But from what I can gather ... I think he just got ambushed by Paul Henry, frankly,'' he said. "

The GD radio interview, from Russia where maybe he was meeting with Skyy
http://www.newstalkz...rift-in-team-nz

#69 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,329 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:00 AM

These are slow days for me so I'll take on another philosophical point here...   Good results, vs good excuses and we only keep the managers with the former.

 

This is one of those very misused business truisms...

 

In an operational context, those that proffer excuses instead of results indeed must be let go.

 

But in a Strategic context, those that do the same must be kept so they learn from the failure and can apply those lessons to future success.

 

There is plenty of research about the effectiveness of M&A and how companies rarely achieve real effectiveness in the 'roll up' game until they reach their 6th or 7th transaction.  The reason is that they need to learn about uncertain outcomes from the difficulties in the initial transactions.   Under the truism, you would shoot yourself in the foot by firing the folks that were learning what the issues really are and mastering the unknown unknowns.

 

But in an operational context, you get to learn when you are still a subordinate, and should be expected to perform when you take charge.

 

Sailboat racing at this scale is a fundamentally strategic endeavor and to shoot your staff and start again is a good way to lose again.  

 

Obviously, you try for the best of both worlds, which i think TNZ is doing by keeping GD, but modifying his role.  Same seems to go for DB.

In fact you are making my point. The example you give is about training, or "warm up", when your focus more on the process than the outcome in order to master the known unknown. The objective is to succeed when the outcome matters.

This is the reason given for the ACWS before the match.



#70 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,329 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:08 AM

Back to the interview. DG was  cornered by the journo to get Grant's name, he could hardly behave differently.

However, if I understood correctly, he made the point that there were different opinions in the team.

Then, either he is stupid if GD stays, or he is preparing for the next team leader. I would chose the second option



#71 HKG1997

HKG1997

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Location:auckland
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:12 AM

A few things being overlooked are the fact that the boat performed better with dalts on board in the early stages of the regatta and most likely his leadership helped the team. anyone remember black magic's only loss was when Sir Peter Blake was not on the boat?

 



#72 HKG1997

HKG1997

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Location:auckland
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:14 AM

i think a good management structure will have barker in charge and hopefully burling can take over as skipper in the next few years



#73 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,212 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:31 AM

There is no better leader to make the big calls on that team than GD. BB is a crafty one who might benefit a governance board but it's a highly unlikely possibility.

GD fucked up with creating the ridiculous Ruddergate fiasco but it didn't hurt his team except for in maybe bad JuJu. But ultimately OR just made the better design early decisions.

The references by Joyce, and GD before this week, to a new technology partner to make the team better able to make late improvements are a touch intriguing, I wonder who that is?

#74 Finnfart

Finnfart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,690 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:33 AM

Neither you nor I had any idea this was a bad idea when it happened.   I was making a "bad decision" and pre-paying our bet as I saw nothing in the practice runs, or last races, that would have ever made me think it likely they could win.  

 

The point is that standing on that day with the info we had, it didn't seem like a bad decision.

 

So to wrap up with semantics...   My point is that they made a good enough decision that none of us thought it in ANY way questionable when it happened.  I certainly don't remember anybody here saying it was a bad idea AT THE TIME.

 

You call it a "wrong decision" but I say the decision was good.  The outcome was bad.    

 

They could have rejected the lay day, and flipped the boat that day.  Would that random event have changed the quality of the decision?

 

If we let outcomes define the quality of a decision, then we have to accept that people that play Russian Roulette, and don't kill themselves, made a good decision in playing that game.

Yes, it did not seem a bad decision at the time.

If : understanding of the situation + proper decision + chance = outcome, then if the outcome is wrong and the decision correct, then something else must be wrong.

The russian roulette is not a good example as the more you play the more the outcome will be bad.

At the end TNZ fucked up, and that is pretty much what Dean Barker is saying.

The point is that the quality of a decision is independent of the outcome in "one off bets".  You can make great decisions and still lose (get bad outcomes) as in the 4 kings example,  and you can make bad decisions and get good outcomes "win" as in the russian roulette example.

 

If it is a game you can play repeatedly, then the question is one of statistics, not of decision theory.

 

But in this case of 19 races, I think decision theory is more applicable than statistics as each start was a new situation, and the frame was moving so fast as they learned the boats.



#75 Glitter In The Eye

Glitter In The Eye

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 762 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:38 AM

Its clear to me that team and country cant believe they are not the best and when they lose instead of saying the other team was better they fine fault.

 

YOU GOT BEAT...the end.

 

see you at the next regatta



#76 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,329 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:48 AM

 

Neither you nor I had any idea this was a bad idea when it happened.   I was making a "bad decision" and pre-paying our bet as I saw nothing in the practice runs, or last races, that would have ever made me think it likely they could win.  

 

The point is that standing on that day with the info we had, it didn't seem like a bad decision.

 

So to wrap up with semantics...   My point is that they made a good enough decision that none of us thought it in ANY way questionable when it happened.  I certainly don't remember anybody here saying it was a bad idea AT THE TIME.

 

You call it a "wrong decision" but I say the decision was good.  The outcome was bad.    

 

They could have rejected the lay day, and flipped the boat that day.  Would that random event have changed the quality of the decision?

 

If we let outcomes define the quality of a decision, then we have to accept that people that play Russian Roulette, and don't kill themselves, made a good decision in playing that game.

Yes, it did not seem a bad decision at the time.

If : understanding of the situation + proper decision + chance = outcome, then if the outcome is wrong and the decision correct, then something else must be wrong.

The russian roulette is not a good example as the more you play the more the outcome will be bad.

At the end TNZ fucked up, and that is pretty much what Dean Barker is saying.

The point is that the quality of a decision is independent of the outcome in "one off bets".  You can make great decisions and still lose (get bad outcomes) as in the 4 kings example,  and you can make bad decisions and get good outcomes "win" as in the russian roulette example.

 

If it is a game you can play repeatedly, then the question is one of statistics, not of decision theory.

 

But in this case of 19 races, I think decision theory is more applicable than statistics as each start was a new situation, and the frame was moving so fast as they learned the boats.

I think the difference between your terminology and mine is that your definition of "quality decision" does not take into account the reading of the situation and the chance.

 

Your definition is purely rational, while the outcome needs more, like reading the unknown or assessing chance.

I have to aknowledge I was wrong guessing TNZ would win. However my risk was small, 2 bottles of Champagne.

 

GD had all the reason to believe he would win, faster boat, positive statistics, but he knew more than us, it seems the two last wins were more difficult.

 

Regarding the lay day I thought any team could ask for it, if it is not the case, then I see 3 possibilities:

 

- the boat had a serious problem: right decision

- GD was willing to give more days of exposure to their sponsors: wrong decision

- GD was willing to let the crew rest: wrong decision

 

Basically GD made the wrong decision than Hannibal and a lot of other generals. Overconfident, Hannibal decided to let his troops rest in Capua. He had a stronger army, he won all previous battles. At the same time, against all odds, Romans raised a new army and..........beat Hannibal.

 

VAE VICTIS....



#77 Titan Uranus

Titan Uranus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:challenging idiots since 1993

Posted 13 February 2014 - 02:06 AM

To all the "SOFT COCK" Barker supporters...

 

 

He was the skipper of the boat and part of the decision making team.

 

don't you think he would, for one moment, had the balls and guts to challenge Dalton to anything he did not agree with???

 

this is why he is a pathetic skipper and leader.

 

he does DUMB "wimp ass" stuff.... like crying instead of fighting

 

like dumb arse interviews bagging the boss behind his back.

 

Kiwis get what they deserve with Barker! :rolleyes:



#78 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,329 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 02:09 AM

Amusing, this seems to confirm my hypothesis 2, if that is confirmed it was a WRONG DECISION:

 

On the September 16 - when Team New Zealand were leading Oracle seven races to one - Dalton took what would turn out to be a crucial decision.

The managing director agreed not to sail on a lay day - at Oracle’s request.

One team member characterised the decision as Team New Zealand taking its foot off Oracle’s throat at a crucial time.

Remember, Team New Zealand's biggest advantage in early racing was time on the water and time in development.

We now know that decision was taken by Dalton - without consultation.

We're told that members of Team New Zealand were furious – Dalton had given away its last advantage and Jimmy Spithill and Oracale were on the charge.

Last night on the Paul Henry Show it emerged the pressure of corporate sponsorship also played a part.

It's understood the sponsors wanted to have 300 VIP's out on a boat to witness our victory.

They were worried that couldn't be organised in time, which was another factor in Dalton agreeing to the lay day.

Immediately after the Cup Dalton decided he was out.




#79 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 13 February 2014 - 02:15 AM

Its clear to me that team and country cant believe they are not the best and when they lose instead of saying the other team was better they fine fault.

 

YOU GOT BEAT...the end.

 

see you at the next regatta

If we don't find out why we were not fast enough, there's no point in coming back. Period.

 

Pretty simple really.

 

We aren't there to make up the numbers.



#80 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 13 February 2014 - 02:43 AM


 

No one chooses when to 'peak'.  It's a myth created by folks who don't compete.  TNZ designed a boat for the conditions they planned on racing in.  They maximized that boat in every way that they could as quickly as they could.  Oracle was the virtually the same speed as TNZ (except upwind!) before they got their foiling working.  That was the ONE aspect that broke TNZ's back.  One advantage.  Minus that advantage, TNZ appeared to out-engineer oracle.

 

Whole lot of sour grapes in your post.

 

Dean did very well in that interview, and frankly I've never seen him do poorly.  He appears to speak his mind and speak truthfully, win or lose.  I have a lot of respect for him.

No sour Grapes here at all. Its about asking the question why. I am a proud ETNZ supporter. Always have since 87. I have the utmost respect for Dean Barker, he has had 3 campaigns now where he has shouldered the weight of a country. Gotta be tough for the best of them.

 

However, when it comes to a programme like the Americas Cup, of course you choose when to peak! Like any other sport, you want to be at your peak performance at the right time. Especially given the fact that the LVC was so lack lustre. You don't want to show your best hand too early. Thats why they had modified the boat when they did (in between the LVC finals and the AC). Thats a big reason why ETNZ weren't able to get faster like Oracle did. They had gotten every little bit of speed out of the boat during the last training/ modification time before the Cup started, Dean had admitted that in the interviews after the races. Oracle were able to alter their boat and the way they sailed it during the AC finals, ETNZ weren't able to because it wasn't part of their design and sailing programme. The boat was at its peak by AC time, and it was at its peak then because they had planned it to be at its peak then.

 

I never said Dean didn't do well in the interview, he was goaded acouple of times but he did well to answer truthfully.



#81 Titan Uranus

Titan Uranus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:challenging idiots since 1993

Posted 13 February 2014 - 02:58 AM

You are a complete dork TC.
 
Just search ...

http://nz.sports.yah...ll-says-dalton/

read the 2nd to last paragraph and you will see that Dalton had complete consultancy with the crew re the lay day!!!

your lies are never ending!

Amusing, this seems to confirm my hypothesis 2, if that is confirmed it was a WRONG DECISION:
 
On the September 16 - when Team New Zealand were leading Oracle seven races to one - Dalton took what would turn out to be a crucial decision.
The managing director agreed not to sail on a lay day - at Oracle’s request.
One team member characterised the decision as Team New Zealand taking its foot off Oracle’s throat at a crucial time.
Remember, Team New Zealand's biggest advantage in early racing was time on the water and time in development.
We now know that decision was taken by Dalton - without consultation.
We're told that members of Team New Zealand were furious – Dalton had given away its last advantage and Jimmy Spithill and Oracale were on the charge.
Last night on the Paul Henry Show it emerged the pressure of corporate sponsorship also played a part.
It's understood the sponsors wanted to have 300 VIP's out on a boat to witness our victory.
They were worried that couldn't be organised in time, which was another factor in Dalton agreeing to the lay day.
Immediately after the Cup Dalton decided he was out.

Read more: http://www.3news.co....x#ixzz2tADstqFK

You are a complete dork TC.

Just search ...

http://nz.sports.yah...ll-says-dalton/

read the 2nd to last paragraph and you will see that Dalton had complete consultancy with the crew re the lay day!!!

your lies are never ending!

#82 nroose

nroose

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,575 posts
  • Location:Berkeley

Posted 13 February 2014 - 03:05 AM

To me it was a case of O winning it, rather than TNZ losing it.  The whole attitude of TNZ and many in the press in NZ seems to be the opposite, in spite of all the evidence.  I think TNZ did a good thing in this last cup for NZ, represented very well.  But now it seems that many people there are hell bent on finding bottom before coming back.  Not sure that is healthy.  Oh, and didn't O win the first 2 races Dalts sat out?

 

My take on how O won was that they learned how to sail the boat, and that the best way to sail it was very aggressive, and their youth (avg age 10 years younger than TNZ!) and level of strength (although I sometimes worry that some of it was due to possible PEDs) and fitness (They were ramping up and working all summer on peaking in late September, while TNZ had to go through 2 rounds of the LVC) served them very well.  This is consistent with what I saw and with what Jimmy and other O team members have said.



#83 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,329 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 03:11 AM

^^ Thanks for the adjective AC.

Both accounts may not be that contradictory, both say GD decided himself. IF he was that autocratic why would or could anyone contradict him ?

As an assumed Kiwi perhaps you could tell us about his management style as i can only rely on NZ reports.



#84 MoMP

MoMP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,997 posts
  • Location:Boston, USA

Posted 13 February 2014 - 03:33 AM

To me it was a case of O winning it, rather than TNZ losing it.  The whole attitude of TNZ and many in the press in NZ seems to be the opposite, in spite of all the evidence.  I think TNZ did a good thing in this last cup for NZ, represented very well.  But now it seems that many people there are hell bent on finding bottom before coming back.  Not sure that is healthy.  Oh, and didn't O win the first 2 races Dalts sat out?
 
My take on how O won was that they learned how to sail the boat, and that the best way to sail it was very aggressive, and their youth (avg age 10 years younger than TNZ!) and level of strength (although I sometimes worry that some of it was due to possible PEDs) and fitness (They were ramping up and working all summer on peaking in late September, while TNZ had to go through 2 rounds of the LVC) served them very well.  This is consistent with what I saw and with what Jimmy and other O team members have said.


What makes you think there was doping going on? I don't remember hearing rumors.

#85 Finnfart

Finnfart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,690 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 13 February 2014 - 05:33 AM

 

 

Neither you nor I had any idea this was a bad idea when it happened.   I was making a "bad decision" and pre-paying our bet as I saw nothing in the practice runs, or last races, that would have ever made me think it likely they could win.  

 

The point is that standing on that day with the info we had, it didn't seem like a bad decision.

 

So to wrap up with semantics...   My point is that they made a good enough decision that none of us thought it in ANY way questionable when it happened.  I certainly don't remember anybody here saying it was a bad idea AT THE TIME.

 

You call it a "wrong decision" but I say the decision was good.  The outcome was bad.    

 

They could have rejected the lay day, and flipped the boat that day.  Would that random event have changed the quality of the decision?

 

If we let outcomes define the quality of a decision, then we have to accept that people that play Russian Roulette, and don't kill themselves, made a good decision in playing that game.

Yes, it did not seem a bad decision at the time.

If : understanding of the situation + proper decision + chance = outcome, then if the outcome is wrong and the decision correct, then something else must be wrong.

The russian roulette is not a good example as the more you play the more the outcome will be bad.

At the end TNZ fucked up, and that is pretty much what Dean Barker is saying.

The point is that the quality of a decision is independent of the outcome in "one off bets".  You can make great decisions and still lose (get bad outcomes) as in the 4 kings example,  and you can make bad decisions and get good outcomes "win" as in the russian roulette example.

 

If it is a game you can play repeatedly, then the question is one of statistics, not of decision theory.

 

But in this case of 19 races, I think decision theory is more applicable than statistics as each start was a new situation, and the frame was moving so fast as they learned the boats.

I think the difference between your terminology and mine is that your definition of "quality decision" does not take into account the reading of the situation and the chance.

 

Your definition is purely rational, while the outcome needs more, like reading the unknown or assessing chance.

I have to aknowledge I was wrong guessing TNZ would win. However my risk was small, 2 bottles of Champagne.

 

GD had all the reason to believe he would win, faster boat, positive statistics, but he knew more than us, it seems the two last wins were more difficult.

 

Regarding the lay day I thought any team could ask for it, if it is not the case, then I see 3 possibilities:

 

- the boat had a serious problem: right decision

- GD was willing to give more days of exposure to their sponsors: wrong decision

- GD was willing to let the crew rest: wrong decision

 

Basically GD made the wrong decision than Hannibal and a lot of other generals. Overconfident, Hannibal decided to let his troops rest in Capua. He had a stronger army, he won all previous battles. At the same time, against all odds, Romans raised a new army and..........beat Hannibal.

 

VAE VICTIS....

Exactly.   The quality has to do with the quality of the assessment of the chance, otherwise known as the probability.   And that is why we were all misled to think the lay day was OK.  Up by 7-1 made the probabilities that OR could win extremely low.  There was a time when the betting houses closed the book it was deemed that their winning was that low a probability!!!!   And how conveniently we now forget that that is what the future looked like on that day.

 

We were all wrong at guessing the exact future, but I insist, a rational assessment at the time said that the chances were so so low that the expected value (cost) of the granting the lay day was almost zero, but the value was being able to race once more on the weekend, and possibly win on the weekend.  Both things that at the time reasonable people assessed as very probable, and with a high value to sponsor driven TNZ.   So a decision with an extremely low expected cost and that would yield a very high expected value.   That is what we call a good decision.

 

But they got a bad outcome.



#86 nroose

nroose

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,575 posts
  • Location:Berkeley

Posted 13 February 2014 - 05:34 AM

To me it was a case of O winning it, rather than TNZ losing it.  The whole attitude of TNZ and many in the press in NZ seems to be the opposite, in spite of all the evidence.  I think TNZ did a good thing in this last cup for NZ, represented very well.  But now it seems that many people there are hell bent on finding bottom before coming back.  Not sure that is healthy.  Oh, and didn't O win the first 2 races Dalts sat out?
 
My take on how O won was that they learned how to sail the boat, and that the best way to sail it was very aggressive, and their youth (avg age 10 years younger than TNZ!) and level of strength (although I sometimes worry that some of it was due to possible PEDs) and fitness (They were ramping up and working all summer on peaking in late September, while TNZ had to go through 2 rounds of the LVC) served them very well.  This is consistent with what I saw and with what Jimmy and other O team members have said.


What makes you think there was doping going on? I don't remember hearing rumors.

I didn't hear any rumors either.  But...

 

- I am under the impression that there was no testing

- There was a huge premium on stamina - recovery so that you can sail for 6 hours a day for weeks on end

 

This is exactly the situation that the drugs work best.  Tour de France.  Baseball.  These drugs enhance your performance, but more importantly, they help you recover very quickly.

 

I don't want to accuse.  I think it is only natural.  And I have absolutely no evidence.  I just worry.  And I think there should be testing, and I think we should rethink the trend toward putting a premium on huge levels of fitness and a grueling schedule.



#87 TKR

TKR

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 05:52 AM

Dalton out Butterworth in.

Seriously.

#88 moon unit

moon unit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 06:44 AM

 

To me it was a case of O winning it, rather than TNZ losing it.  The whole attitude of TNZ and many in the press in NZ seems to be the opposite, in spite of all the evidence.  I think TNZ did a good thing in this last cup for NZ, represented very well.  But now it seems that many people there are hell bent on finding bottom before coming back.  Not sure that is healthy.  Oh, and didn't O win the first 2 races Dalts sat out?
 
My take on how O won was that they learned how to sail the boat, and that the best way to sail it was very aggressive, and their youth (avg age 10 years younger than TNZ!) and level of strength (although I sometimes worry that some of it was due to possible PEDs) and fitness (They were ramping up and working all summer on peaking in late September, while TNZ had to go through 2 rounds of the LVC) served them very well.  This is consistent with what I saw and with what Jimmy and other O team members have said.


What makes you think there was doping going on? I don't remember hearing rumors.

I didn't hear any rumors either.  But...

 

- I am under the impression that there was no testing

- There was a huge premium on stamina - recovery so that you can sail for 6 hours a day for weeks on end

 

This is exactly the situation that the drugs work best.  Tour de France.  Baseball.  These drugs enhance your performance, but more importantly, they help you recover very quickly.

 

I don't want to accuse.  I think it is only natural.  And I have absolutely no evidence.  I just worry.  And I think there should be testing, and I think we should rethink the trend toward putting a premium on huge levels of fitness and a grueling schedule.

 

 

There is testing for all teams all year round.. the sailors have to make themselves available at any time and inform the testers whenever they travel as to where they will be..



#89 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,842 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 13 February 2014 - 06:53 AM

I think we should rethink the trend toward putting a premium on huge levels of fitness and a grueling schedule.

Why? It's a sport. Even at my mediocre level, I hit the gym and ride a bike for cardio fitness.

#90 Sailbydate

Sailbydate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts
  • Location:Wellington NZL
  • Interests:Sailing. Classic Yachts. Following what's happening in development classes.

Posted 13 February 2014 - 07:14 AM

Dalton out Butterworth in.

Seriously.

IFO could be comfortable with that scenario. 



#91 Bill R

Bill R

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Location:NZ
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 13 February 2014 - 07:26 AM

Barker and Dalts out, the expert flying fifteen sailor " Americas Cup" in



#92 TKR

TKR

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:59 PM

Dalton out Butterworth in.
Seriously.

IFO could be comfortable with that scenario. 

I've been listening to BB interviewed a couple of times and reading between the lines I got the impression he's at least interested.

#93 vij

vij

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Interests:Born Swedish. Lives in Switzerland

Posted 13 February 2014 - 03:18 PM

Barker and Dalts out, the expert flying fifteen sailor " Americas Cup" in

 

 

Yes we want him and he should team up with his friends yankee doodle and speed demon. What the management the team would. With them in charge they would not even need a design team as they are capable of designing the boat and the wing and they don't need sailors as they are also superior to most Americas cup sailors.



#94 nroose

nroose

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,575 posts
  • Location:Berkeley

Posted 13 February 2014 - 03:54 PM

 

 

To me it was a case of O winning it, rather than TNZ losing it.  The whole attitude of TNZ and many in the press in NZ seems to be the opposite, in spite of all the evidence.  I think TNZ did a good thing in this last cup for NZ, represented very well.  But now it seems that many people there are hell bent on finding bottom before coming back.  Not sure that is healthy.  Oh, and didn't O win the first 2 races Dalts sat out?
 
My take on how O won was that they learned how to sail the boat, and that the best way to sail it was very aggressive, and their youth (avg age 10 years younger than TNZ!) and level of strength (although I sometimes worry that some of it was due to possible PEDs) and fitness (They were ramping up and working all summer on peaking in late September, while TNZ had to go through 2 rounds of the LVC) served them very well.  This is consistent with what I saw and with what Jimmy and other O team members have said.


What makes you think there was doping going on? I don't remember hearing rumors.

I didn't hear any rumors either.  But...

 

- I am under the impression that there was no testing

- There was a huge premium on stamina - recovery so that you can sail for 6 hours a day for weeks on end

 

This is exactly the situation that the drugs work best.  Tour de France.  Baseball.  These drugs enhance your performance, but more importantly, they help you recover very quickly.

 

I don't want to accuse.  I think it is only natural.  And I have absolutely no evidence.  I just worry.  And I think there should be testing, and I think we should rethink the trend toward putting a premium on huge levels of fitness and a grueling schedule.

 

 

There is testing for all teams all year round.. the sailors have to make themselves available at any time and inform the testers whenever they travel as to where they will be..

Didn't know that.  When I google "Americas cup drug testing" I get a page of stuff that is old.



#95 DaveRen

DaveRen

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 13 February 2014 - 08:42 PM

 

I think there are a few areas where ETNZ fell over. First, was the boat design, as someone stated earlier, Grant Dalton was hell-bent on designing their 72 around the wind limits set down in the protocol instead of the conditions San Francisco sees at that time of year. Aotearoa was designed to withstand the top end of the wind limits set out in the protocol, hence the bow volume and sturdyness of the structure. Grant had said in an earlier interview that they had learned a few lessons from the 07 campaign that they were going to implement into this campaign, yet it would seem the same mistake which was made in Valencia was made again in San Francisco. That mistake being the "Match" boat reaching its peak speed and performance by the start of the Americas Cup. There was no room left for speed enhancements come AC time. We saw this with NZL92 and SUI100. Alinghi was able to make fine changes to the way they sailed their boat to improve its performance over 92, the same way USA17 was able to be "Dramatically" improved to improve performance over Aotearoa. In my opinion the idea of a team being able to "play" a we wish not to race card without having to prove a breakage or valid reason is absurd also, and seemingly goes against the whole idea of good sportsmanship.
Apart from the obvious points raised earlier about alterations to wind limits, laydays etc stopping ETNZ in their tracks, the one thing that stands out in my mind is the subtle change made to the regatta format after OTUSA had been deducted 2 points for "cheating" in the ACWS. OTUSA were (punished) deducted 2 points but were also effectively given a reprieve as the regatta had now been lengthened from a traditional "Best of" 17 races to a "First to" 9 races. This is important because even though it may seem a small change, the regatta had gone from 17 races to 19 races. 2 points deducted, 2 races added. This is the biggest thing that allowed OTUSA to retain the Cup. If the regatta had been kept at its original "Best of" format, the cheating punishment would have come into play and OTUSA would have run out of races in which to win the Cup because by pure math, ETNZ would have got to a point where they had won the best of 17 races.


Are you really suggesting that when OR won race 17, making the score 7-8(but really 9-8), that NZ should have been awarded cup? Cause, as messed up as some want to think things are, that would have been truly be fucked up. Hope I counted right.

I think the jury made a wise decision. They imposed a penalty that would make it harder for OR, but not easier for NZ.

I don't see how OR was granted a reprieve, please explain. Should they have been awarded the cup when they scored 7?

What it should've reflected was a PENALTY to OTUSA. It is a reprieve in terms of receiving a chance regain the two points that they were deducted. By changing the regatta format from best of to first to, they effectively said, we're taking 2 points away and giving you 2 extra races from the original format. The fact is, the regatta format change only suited one team, OTUSA. ETNZ never at any time, needed the regatta to go any longer than it originally was scheduled to go (17 races). If OTUSA won 8 races of the first 17, it gives ETNZ 9 races which are must win to achieve best of 17, a pretty hard situation, but gettable for ETNZ. The way it ended up, if ETNZ won the first 8 races, that gave OTUSA an UNLIMITED amount of races to negate the penalty and win 9 races on top of that, hence the reprieve. Its a subtle but important point. OTUSA should've been told if they wanted to win the Cup, they needed to start well and win 11 races (2 penalty races + 9 on top) to win the Cup. Thats how a penalty works.

 

With all due respect, you are overcomplicated this issue. It was clearly a penalty, not a reprieve. Oracle had to win 2 more races than ENTZ with any losses counting against them. The original best of 17 format did not change for ENTZ. They still had to win 9 races - that's what best of 17 means. If you simply look at the results, you see that Oracle won the Best of 17 (9 wins, but was still behind 7-8 on points due to the penalty), Best of 18 (10 wins, but was tied 8-8 on points due to the penalty), and Best of 19 (11 wins, but only 9 points) formats. That's not a reprieve, that's a penalty.



#96 Lord Rumpunch

Lord Rumpunch

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Location:Glencairn

Posted 13 February 2014 - 09:34 PM

 

 

I think there are a few areas where ETNZ fell over. First, was the boat design, as someone stated earlier, Grant Dalton was hell-bent on designing their 72 around the wind limits set down in the protocol instead of the conditions San Francisco sees at that time of year. Aotearoa was designed to withstand the top end of the wind limits set out in the protocol, hence the bow volume and sturdyness of the structure. Grant had said in an earlier interview that they had learned a few lessons from the 07 campaign that they were going to implement into this campaign, yet it would seem the same mistake which was made in Valencia was made again in San Francisco. That mistake being the "Match" boat reaching its peak speed and performance by the start of the Americas Cup. There was no room left for speed enhancements come AC time. We saw this with NZL92 and SUI100. Alinghi was able to make fine changes to the way they sailed their boat to improve its performance over 92, the same way USA17 was able to be "Dramatically" improved to improve performance over Aotearoa. In my opinion the idea of a team being able to "play" a we wish not to race card without having to prove a breakage or valid reason is absurd also, and seemingly goes against the whole idea of good sportsmanship.
Apart from the obvious points raised earlier about alterations to wind limits, laydays etc stopping ETNZ in their tracks, the one thing that stands out in my mind is the subtle change made to the regatta format after OTUSA had been deducted 2 points for "cheating" in the ACWS. OTUSA were (punished) deducted 2 points but were also effectively given a reprieve as the regatta had now been lengthened from a traditional "Best of" 17 races to a "First to" 9 races. This is important because even though it may seem a small change, the regatta had gone from 17 races to 19 races. 2 points deducted, 2 races added. This is the biggest thing that allowed OTUSA to retain the Cup. If the regatta had been kept at its original "Best of" format, the cheating punishment would have come into play and OTUSA would have run out of races in which to win the Cup because by pure math, ETNZ would have got to a point where they had won the best of 17 races.


Are you really suggesting that when OR won race 17, making the score 7-8(but really 9-8), that NZ should have been awarded cup? Cause, as messed up as some want to think things are, that would have been truly be fucked up. Hope I counted right.

I think the jury made a wise decision. They imposed a penalty that would make it harder for OR, but not easier for NZ.

I don't see how OR was granted a reprieve, please explain. Should they have been awarded the cup when they scored 7?

What it should've reflected was a PENALTY to OTUSA. It is a reprieve in terms of receiving a chance regain the two points that they were deducted. By changing the regatta format from best of to first to, they effectively said, we're taking 2 points away and giving you 2 extra races from the original format. The fact is, the regatta format change only suited one team, OTUSA. ETNZ never at any time, needed the regatta to go any longer than it originally was scheduled to go (17 races). If OTUSA won 8 races of the first 17, it gives ETNZ 9 races which are must win to achieve best of 17, a pretty hard situation, but gettable for ETNZ. The way it ended up, if ETNZ won the first 8 races, that gave OTUSA an UNLIMITED amount of races to negate the penalty and win 9 races on top of that, hence the reprieve. Its a subtle but important point. OTUSA should've been told if they wanted to win the Cup, they needed to start well and win 11 races (2 penalty races + 9 on top) to win the Cup. Thats how a penalty works.

 

With all due respect, you are overcomplicated this issue. It was clearly a penalty, not a reprieve. Oracle had to win 2 more races than ENTZ with any losses counting against them. The original best of 17 format did not change for ENTZ. They still had to win 9 races - that's what best of 17 means. If you simply look at the results, you see that Oracle won the Best of 17 (9 wins, but was still behind 7-8 on points due to the penalty), Best of 18 (10 wins, but was tied 8-8 on points due to the penalty), and Best of 19 (11 wins, but only 9 points) formats. That's not a reprieve, that's a penalty.

Dear scarke,

Not since 2000 has a knockout series in the LVC or the Match described the regatta as a "best of" series.

 

It was the semi finals of the LVC in Auckland 2000 when Stars and Stripes were penalised a point for using a non compliant rudder.  The result was that after 5 races (a best of 5 series) the score was 2-2.  That went to the Jury with claims that tie breaks should be used to break the tie vs the need for another race (off memory - they raced another).

 

Since then the wording has effectively been that that the winner is "...the first yacht to score at least X points after applying any penalties ..."  That covers fraction of point penalties and claims that you must score the exact number as well as covers the situation when a penalty is applied after a yacht scores the required points.

 

So sorry scarke, your conspiracy theory fails ..... the penalty simply made it harder for OTUSA to win while keeping the requirement the same on ETNZ.



#97 Life Buoy 15

Life Buoy 15

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,247 posts
  • Location:The great southern land

Posted 14 February 2014 - 05:37 AM

To all the "SOFT COCK" Barker supporters...
 
 
Kiwis get what they deserve with Barker! :rolleyes:


Maybe so but what did they do wrong to have a cocksucking fucktard like you as a countryman?

#98 Bob Truman

Bob Truman

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 14 February 2014 - 02:08 PM

I'd say that Dean showed a huge amount of integrity in that interview.

 

He didn't second guess Grant's call on the 'lay day'.  He said it was a mistake in hindsight, but he was very clear that given what they knew then, and that they were up by 7-1, it didn't seem like a mistake then.   The interviewer too was able to grasp that distinction.

 

In this world, people all too often judge the quality of decisions by the outcomes they get.  This is fundamentally wrong.

 

As long as there is uncertainty, the quality of the decision is measured in probability of the desired outcome and how well that probability is understood.  Not whether the player drew snake eyes.

 

Otherwise, we would say someone made a bad decision to go 'all in' with 4 kings only to be beaten by someone with 4 aces.  Good decision, bad outcome.

 

There is a difference between the quality of decisions and of outcomes and Dean gets it.

 

Can I use that quote? Very well stated and applies to a variety of situations where people often say "it was a mistake" or "the performance was unsatisfactory" when in reality it was the best course of action at the time.   



#99 floater

floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,478 posts
  • Location:Berkeley - California

Posted 14 February 2014 - 03:53 PM


 


 


I think there are a few areas where ETNZ fell over. First, was the boat design, as someone stated earlier, Grant Dalton was hell-bent on designing their 72 around the wind limits set down in the protocol instead of the conditions San Francisco sees at that time of year. Aotearoa was designed to withstand the top end of the wind limits set out in the protocol, hence the bow volume and sturdyness of the structure. Grant had said in an earlier interview that they had learned a few lessons from the 07 campaign that they were going to implement into this campaign, yet it would seem the same mistake which was made in Valencia was made again in San Francisco. That mistake being the "Match" boat reaching its peak speed and performance by the start of the Americas Cup. There was no room left for speed enhancements come AC time. We saw this with NZL92 and SUI100. Alinghi was able to make fine changes to the way they sailed their boat to improve its performance over 92, the same way USA17 was able to be "Dramatically" improved to improve performance over Aotearoa. In my opinion the idea of a team being able to "play" a we wish not to race card without having to prove a breakage or valid reason is absurd also, and seemingly goes against the whole idea of good sportsmanship.
Apart from the obvious points raised earlier about alterations to wind limits, laydays etc stopping ETNZ in their tracks, the one thing that stands out in my mind is the subtle change made to the regatta format after OTUSA had been deducted 2 points for "cheating" in the ACWS. OTUSA were (punished) deducted 2 points but were also effectively given a reprieve as the regatta had now been lengthened from a traditional "Best of" 17 races to a "First to" 9 races. This is important because even though it may seem a small change, the regatta had gone from 17 races to 19 races. 2 points deducted, 2 races added. This is the biggest thing that allowed OTUSA to retain the Cup. If the regatta had been kept at its original "Best of" format, the cheating punishment would have come into play and OTUSA would have run out of races in which to win the Cup because by pure math, ETNZ would have got to a point where they had won the best of 17 races.

Are you really suggesting that when OR won race 17, making the score 7-8(but really 9-8), that NZ should have been awarded cup? Cause, as messed up as some want to think things are, that would have been truly be fucked up. Hope I counted right.

I think the jury made a wise decision. They imposed a penalty that would make it harder for OR, but not easier for NZ.

I don't see how OR was granted a reprieve, please explain. Should they have been awarded the cup when they scored 7?
What it should've reflected was a PENALTY to OTUSA. It is a reprieve in terms of receiving a chance regain the two points that they were deducted. By changing the regatta format from best of to first to, they effectively said, we're taking 2 points away and giving you 2 extra races from the original format. The fact is, the regatta format change only suited one team, OTUSA. ETNZ never at any time, needed the regatta to go any longer than it originally was scheduled to go (17 races). If OTUSA won 8 races of the first 17, it gives ETNZ 9 races which are must win to achieve best of 17, a pretty hard situation, but gettable for ETNZ. The way it ended up, if ETNZ won the first 8 races, that gave OTUSA an UNLIMITED amount of races to negate the penalty and win 9 races on top of that, hence the reprieve. Its a subtle but important point. OTUSA should've been told if they wanted to win the Cup, they needed to start well and win 11 races (2 penalty races + 9 on top) to win the Cup. Thats how a penalty works.
 
With all due respect, you are overcomplicated this issue. It was clearly a penalty, not a reprieve. Oracle had to win 2 more races than ENTZ with any losses counting against them. The original best of 17 format did not change for ENTZ. They still had to win 9 races - that's what best of 17 means. If you simply look at the results, you see that Oracle won the Best of 17 (9 wins, but was still behind 7-8 on points due to the penalty), Best of 18 (10 wins, but was tied 8-8 on points due to the penalty), and Best of 19 (11 wins, but only 9 points) formats. That's not a reprieve, that's a penalty.
Dear scarke,
Not since 2000 has a knockout series in the LVC or the Match described the regatta as a "best of" series.
 
It was the semi finals of the LVC in Auckland 2000 when Stars and Stripes were penalised a point for using a non compliant rudder.  The result was that after 5 races (a best of 5 series) the score was 2-2.  That went to the Jury with claims that tie breaks should be used to break the tie vs the need for another race (off memory - they raced another).
 
Since then the wording has effectively been that that the winner is "...the first yacht to score at least X points after applying any penalties ..."  That covers fraction of point penalties and claims that you must score the exact number as well as covers the situation when a penalty is applied after a yacht scores the required points.
 
So sorry scarke, your conspiracy theory fails ..... the penalty simply made it harder for OTUSA to win while keeping the requirement the same on ETNZ.
not entirely true - as Surly points out - ETNZ got rewarded two additional chances to win. The last two races were "gifts" to ETNZ.

#100 Finnfart

Finnfart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,690 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 14 February 2014 - 06:40 PM

I'd say that Dean showed a huge amount of integrity in that interview.

 

He didn't second guess Grant's call on the 'lay day'.  He said it was a mistake in hindsight, but he was very clear that given what they knew then, and that they were up by 7-1, it didn't seem like a mistake then.   The interviewer too was able to grasp that distinction.

 

In this world, people all too often judge the quality of decisions by the outcomes they get.  This is fundamentally wrong.

 

As long as there is uncertainty, the quality of the decision is measured in probability of the desired outcome and how well that probability is understood.  Not whether the player drew snake eyes.

 

Otherwise, we would say someone made a bad decision to go 'all in' with 4 kings only to be beaten by someone with 4 aces.  Good decision, bad outcome.

 

There is a difference between the quality of decisions and of outcomes and Dean gets it.

 

Can I use that quote? Very well stated and applies to a variety of situations where people often say "it was a mistake" or "the performance was unsatisfactory" when in reality it was the best course of action at the time.   

Bob:

 

You are absolutely welcome to use it and push it in the defense of the cause of intellectual integrity.

 

As a way of pedigree, this is the fundamental concept that we teach in decision theory at a certain university next to Palo Alto.

 

Our opponent in this mission is the press...   that loves to make geniuses out of irrational risk takers, and fools out of someone so that there is someone to blame when things go south.

 

Cheers.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users