Just for reference, there was only one high shot out of the 150.
As for the 15's I think there's more chance of a random element affecting one target than if you have 6 on a course. If you planted 18/18 (or whatever we had in the 150) then you're measuring your ability to hit the target. But if you have one, then you have a 50-50 result, hit or miss, which if wound up to 18 would see you miss 9 (assuming it's random pot luck as to why you're missing).
I found that being asked the same question again did increase the pressure, because it wasn't "phew, that didn't cost me a point and now i'm done with them", it was "oh crap here's another one that I have to get just right". If you just have one of X type of target on a course, there's more chance of a random effect skewing the result. But repeated exposure to that type of target gives you a much better measure of the actual ability.
It's a bit like winning one game of poker, it doesn't mean you're going to win them all, and grinding and looking at your overall return on investment over 1000's of games gives you a much better idea as to if you are shark or fish. I missed one stander day 1 on red, the 40 odd yarder. I missed 3/4 day 2, and 4/4 day 3. The day 1 sample has me as a superb standing shot, yet the repeated exposure has me somewhat off par. 6/14 isn't as good as 5/6. Smaller sample sizes lead to much larger variations.
It's not a fluke test. It's a test of your continued ability to perform the same function better than your competitors. Otherwise we may as well have 1 day, or less targets. And while there was less wind than we're often used to, I'm not sure how the addition of wind makes you shoot better... it would be different if there were clears all around, but there is more to FT than just wind, just like there's more to FT than just hitting a target, but if you're missing them in still conditions then wind isn't going to make much difference. It perhaps allows some to mask a deficit in their game with a strength in another, but I don't think many would admit to that, even though i know two in that top ten did exactly just that.
I'm a bit perplexed how having kit setup badly isn't a test of skill though. Having correctly setup gear is part of the skill. You don't see Rossi on a bike where the wheel is loose anymore than you'd see an expert joiner with a chisel as sharp as a desert spoon. If someone turned up to work on your house with crap kit you wouldn't call them skilful would you?
BFTA/NSRA County Coach
CSFTA Chairman/BFTA Rep