Japan Top 12 and WTTC 2019 Trial, 3/2-3

NextLevel said:

Btw Zeio, on your analysis, maybe it is the translation but results after 2018 are results after 2018. And I think on the final analysis of potential, Hayata playing the way she did in a variety of situations including Portugal, T-league and the internal trials should have opened the coach's eyes.

I have no doubt that the coaches tried to be as fair as possible. And this is why I tell people that when selecting the best player, using one match rather than using all the evidence available will lead to worse decisions. After all, you can mandate that everyone play the trials but still make choices not based on trial rankings purely but using trials as one input amongst many.

In any case, I hope Hayata will at least enable the Japanese to rethink what is possible if the goal is to field the best team.

Click to expand...

倉嶋洋介 男子監督
「2018年1月以降の主要国際大会での実績と内容、国際競争力向上への高い潜在性、その2点を評価して吉村和弘を選出した。吉村は香港オープンで優勝したが、日本選手でワールドツアーで優勝したのは張本と吉村のみ。その実績を評価した。またワールドランキング30位以内に勝利した数が、張本が14勝、水谷が8勝、その次に吉村が4勝、その後に丹羽が3勝、大島祐哉（木下グループ）と吉村真晴（名古屋ダイハツ）が2勝。特筆すべきは、4勝のうち、トップ10の選手に2勝を上げている。これらが国際競争力への高いポテンシャルがあるというところに繋がっている。吉村和弘以外にも大島、吉村真晴も検討した。彼らにも出場してもらいたい気持ちはあったが、選考基準どおり、1年間の国際大会での実績、内容を総合的に評価した結果、吉村和弘とした」

Click to expand...

jawien said:

Ahh ... first of all, I think we are using words democracy and meritocracy a little bit incorrectly. I mean if anything a more "democratic" selection (well it wasn't really democratic senso stricto, so the word should not be used at all) was the one done by the CNT and meritocratic one, was more on the JNT side. In case of the CNT, it was up to the coaches to decide who gets selected, so I imagine they had to vote. Japan version was actually meritocratic, because it was purely your merit, your tournament results that decided if you were going to qualify or not.

Click to expand...

According to scholarly consensus, the earliest example of an administrative meritocracy, based on civil service examinations, dates back to Ancient China.[22][23][24][25][a] The concept originates, at least by the sixth century BC, when it was advocated by the Chinese philosopher Confucius, who "invented the notion that those who govern should do so because of merit, not of inherited status. This sets in motion the creation of the imperial examinations and bureaucracies open only to those who passed tests."[26]
...
According to the Princeton Encyclopedia on American History:[28]

One of the oldest examples of a merit-based civil service system existed in the imperial bureaucracy of China. Tracing back to 200 B.C., the Han Dynasty adopted Confucianism as the basis of its political philosophy and structure, which included the revolutionary idea of replacing nobility of blood with one of virtue and honesty, and thereby calling for administrative appointments to be based solely on merit. This system allowed anyone who passed an examination to become a government officer, a position that would bring wealth and honor to the whole family. In part due to Chinese influence, the first European civil service did not originate in Europe, but rather in India by the British-run East India Company... company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism.

Click to expand...

The Chinese system is by far the most fundamentally ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT governing systems out there. It’s designed as a peaceful periodic transfer of power - to people who are smarter, and more capable, than the current cohort. So there’s no way any ruling class in any country serious wants to adopt the Chinese system. If someone is serious about trying the “China model”, first they need to educate the citizens so that everybody is qualified to take the National Civil Service exam. Then they must recruit only from the very top 5% into government service. Then they must have everyone starts from the bottom, and only promote those who can hit KPIs based on hard numbers, like GDP growth + # of college graduates + lower crime statistics + renewable energy growth +… Is there anybody doing this? No? Well then, what “Chinese Model” are you talking about? And the hard-earned power you have, you can’t keep it in the family, you can’t pass it on to your children, you lose it as soon as you fail to perform at the highest level. Which political elite would advocate for such a system for himself?

When people say they want to try the “China model”, they are not talking about the real China. They are talking about this Authoritarian China Avatar that’s created by the Media, like you can be an unaccountable dictator or something. In reality, Xi can’t make any Politburo decision unless he can persuade at least 5 out of the other 6 Politburo members, who are all elected on their own merit and can not be fired by Xi. Because Politburo decisions require 7:0 or 6:1 consensus. Can you imagine if Mr. Trump has to persuade Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders to agree with him in order to get any decision out? Yeah, it’s like that. It would have been extremely painful for Mr. Trump. The other side of the coin is, if, say, Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sanders, all agree to push for a Campaign Reform plan, and work hard for it, that would be really powerful and will sail through the Congress too. You may even call that “authoritarian”, but that “authority” comes naturally from this level of political consensus.

Click to expand...