posted Aug 25, 2008

Im aware of specialist support staff being told to concentrate their efforts on the few at the top, and just give the basic information to the development athletes. Well none of those at the top ended up in Beijing and it was the likes of Martyn Rooney who became ourbest prospects - we need more resource at the earlier stages, rather than throwing good money after bad on the not so World Class athletes who had no long term prospects.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 25, 2008

Mike, Your personal vendetta with the Top Dogs at UKA is common knowledge. I for one am now thoroughly bored of you going onto every forum and posting to anyone that will listen - normally people who only watch the Olympics and suddenly are experts on how to improve - how terrible they are.

If you are so knowledgeable, why not give some actual ways forward - your points lack substance.

Please stop going on about the coaching system as if there's only one way to do it. T&F is a number of very different events, so should be treated as such. Not only that, but coaching is not something that is a one-size-fits-all area. A good coach knows what works for their athlete - simply shoving 5 athletes together as they're doing the same event is a recipe for disaster. Personally, I'm more involved on the track, but from what I gather from those more into field events, you are a more than capable coach. That said, your own athlete had a shocker at both the Olympic Trials and the Olympics themselves. My point is not to derise her, but to highlight that athletes have bad days, and a one off result is not always representative of the actual situation.

A number of athletes were expected to do better, but for a number of reasons, failed to deliver on this occasion (Sanders, Rimmer come to mind as suffering injury and illness).

Do we have the strength in depth of years gone by - not in some events, yes in others. Have the standards remained the same - no. It's all very easy people saying where are the Coes, Crams etc, but we didn't gain medals or even finalists across a full range of events in the late 80s, and there are now more countries than ever competing. Quite often, these emerging athletics nations are doing so because they have 'bought' athletes - a case in point is Bahrain. There would be a complete uprorar if GBR did this.

Equally, if we want to spread our 60 million population across so many events, let alone all the sports involved in the Olympics (which is the best way to gain medals), we must be willing to accept we are reducing the quality of athlete, as we are spreading the greatest athletes around all these sports.

Jamaica have had an excellent Games, for example, but have put all their energies into 5 events on the track. Again, if GBR did this, what would be the effect - outrage.

You can't have everything

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 25, 2008

Mike - I should point out not all of the points above are aimed at you, but those made by others on this thread, also

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 25, 2008

It may also be a case where certain countries can do well in certain sports, but not others. The US has put loads of money and talent into middle and long distance running, for example, and came away with one very fluky bronze.

If the goal is to get the best results for the money invested, I'd think the best thing would be to write off all the areas where GB doesn't do very well AND which are popular, and concentrate on the areas where GB does do well--rowing or boxing, for example--and see if you can make a good performance into a great one. Another idea, as many have pointed out, is to aim for the less-competitive sports--rhythmic gymnastics, anyone?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 26, 2008

Haven't we got more important things to spend money on?
Nobody cares about athletics at all. I live not too far from Crystal Palace and when they had meeting 100 people turned up. It's only the Olympics that draw crowds, and the tax payer is supposed to pay for people to enjoy their hobby!! Throwing thousands a year at no hopers like Craig Pickering and his like. Terrible waste of money.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 26, 2008

Perhaps UK Athletics needs to have a cull like UK Cycling did in 2001. Peter Keen & Dave Brailsford culled all the hangers on and never will be's. The cyclists were given a simple choice as follows.

If you want to be in the Team GB cycling team you must:-

1) Move to Manchester and train with the elite group. If you want to win an Olympic medal then this shouldn't be a real drag? If you can't be bothered to commit to that level then you won't be winning at World or Olympic level! Anyone who doesn't agree should have a word with Daley Thompson about why and how you train.

2) Accept that you are part of a team that works together. The rowers and cyclists do this as do the sailers. Which sports won the medals?

If you do 1) and 2) we will give you every possible support from technicians, coaches, nutricianists and psychologists.

Perhaps if UKA had four or five centres of excellence with the appropriate back up for fully committed athletes at each we would see the results start to come in.

It's nice to train and socialise with your mates but if you want to be Olympic champion you have to be totally committed to succeed.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 26, 2008

A few important points:

1. We have "a very small pool of talent to choose from" - Collins. Therefore, only tiny "elite" would qualify.

2. Those who could make it, given this kind of support, don't qualify. It's the Catch 22 situation.

3. Athletics is not cycling. Every event discipline has a different need for training. (Runners, throwers, sprinters, jummpers.) They're not all doing the same thing.

4. Unless the cycling idea included paying moving costs, job loss, family support, mortgage repayment and/or supplying on site school and universtity education then it is hardly going to have a path beaten to it's doors.

Cycling and swimming is only like athletics if you compare the similarities between 800m-10,000mts where essentially every athlete is doing the same thing and group training is far easier.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 26, 2008

James Montgomery to answer your points.

1) If athletics has a very small pool of talent just how much smaller must the pool be for cyclists and sailing which are much more minority sports which require a considerable investment in equipment as well as talent.

2) The aim is to identify talented youngsters and increase support for them not time servers at 28 who have never made a major final. If we supported fewer mediocre so called elite athletes the money could go to the youngsters.

3) You have obviously never watched the cycling as you will have seen the physique of Chris Hoy as a cycle sprinter is much bulkier and much more thigh dominated than the endurance cyclists such as Bradley Wiggins or Mark Cavendish or Nicole Cook. Hoy looks like a track sprinter much more muscle and explosive power whilst Wiggins, Cavendish and Cooke look like marathon runners. They are far from doing the same training either.

4) Most of the athletes involved will be young and already travel to train anyway. The cyclists upped sticks and moved as do rowers so why can't an athlete? How many 20 year old's do you know with familiies and mortgages? In order to compete at a world level now at whatever sport you need to be full time and supported.

Athletes are supported already so why shouldn't we as the people that pay them say we need to see a return on our lottery investment.

I'm sorry but point four you raise above just confirms why despite huge amounts of public funding, and massive financial support form Norwich Union / Aviva athletes still fail compared to other sports.

Another point don't people already relocate to train with a group of similar athletes already?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 27, 2008

Some valid points there Mike, but to start with the sport needs everyone pulling in the same direction, from the top right down to the enthusiastic athletics fan who loves the sport.
Another point i'd like to add would be to stop any athlete that wishes to represent this country going off on their own, as in paula Radcliffes case, training alone and declaring herself fit when obviously she wasn't. How can any performance director answer questions on people who knows little about as regards fitness etc etc. Sentiment has to be wiped away from the sport and room made for talented athletes coming through.
i also agree with what Mike Siva says about bringing in coaches from abroard to help with different events.
The commonwealth games will probably be the next mark as to how far we are along the line giving us 2 years. next years worlds maybe a little to close although i would like to see an improvement on 4 medals.
We cant compare athletics with rowing or cycling, but Athletics can learn so much from the way they prepare for events. Trouble is some people are too British to want to learn thinking they know it all already.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 27, 2008

i do not agree on directing funds to clubs.here in birmingham the clubs have failed,to incorporate talented inner city children.the numbers run into hundreds.funds should be in my opinion directed to schools themselves.then their is the question of facilities and use.development officers ie england athletics and power of ten are flawed.

add comment | complain about this comment