Hard Truths
It is a truth universally acknowledged (except, apparently, at the British federation) that the more Olympic finalists that a country has the more medals it is likely to win.
Shortly after he took over as Performance Director of British athletics Dave Collins, a former marine and a sports psychologist with a robust personality, said that by the 2012 Olympics in London he wanted 50% of the team to reach finals. More mature heads nodded and smiled; Britain had never achieved such a feat at world level before but giving the newcomer the benefit of the doubt they thought that his ambitions were in the right direction.
The facts and figures since that pronouncement, however, indicate that the trend is almost the opposite. At the Athens Olympics in 2004 (Max Jones’ swansong) Britain had fourteen finalists (25% of the team) from fourteen of the forty-six events, winning four medals. In Helsinki in 2005 (Collins’ debut) Britain had seven finalists in seven of forty-seven events, winning three medals. Just 15% of the team reached finals.
What is worrying for the future of the sport in Britain is that the country had no competitors in almost 30% of the events in Helsinki, accelerating a trend that has been taking place over the last decade or more. But, as he has clearly stated Collins (as did Jones before him) has no concerns for the future of athletics in Britain; his concern is to satisfy what might be called the podium-fetishers in government and sports councils. This mesmeric allure can clearly be seen by the change in title of the top support programme from World Class Performance to World Class Podium.
Of the 41 athletes currently listed in the World Class Podium programme 66% are runners (of which 44% are sprinters and hurdlers). In the World Class Development programme 89 athletes are listed of whom 30% come under ‘sprints’. Only eight throwers are listed in both programmes (two in Podium and six in Development) just 6.1%.
And development in the jumps is limited. The only events in which Britain can be expected to produce finalists in the near future are the men’s long and triple jumps and the women’s long jump (anticipating Ashia Hansen’s retirement).
So as the options for finalists narrows Collins has to rely almost entirely on sprinters competing in only 22% of the 47 events to produce podium appearances. But even here the chances of individual success at present seem slim.
Critics of this somewhat Cassandra-like viewpoint may well point to the huge successes of the Kenyans and Ethiopians over a limited range of events for the past couple of decades. But whilst their success seems never-ending, that of our often over-hyped sprinters over the past decade has been spasmodic to the say the least. Britain’s men have won three individual sprint medals in seven global meetings (our women, one) and six relay medals (our women, one). Our last men’s individual sprint medal was won in the World Championships in Paris in 2003 by Darren Campbell. Katherine Merry was our last individual woman sprint medallist in 2000 but the last 200m winner of a medal came 23 years ago in the inaugural World Championships in Helsinki in the person of Kathy Cook.
It is Catch 22 isn’t it? Our government and sports councils demand podium places as an indication of a sport’s success but the system they put in place militates against gaining the requisite number of finalists to make that possible.
Not only that it also detrimental to the development of the sport as a whole.
All these statistics should concern those behind the drawbridge at Athletics House in Solihull but there are, in some ways, even worse figures for which the Performance Director, as a sports psychologist, should be held accountable (but won’t be). Leaving aside the crass awarding of points-out-of-ten to athletes for their performances in Gothenburg and the even crasser act of revealing them to the media there is the little matter of the work of a Finnish statistician, Mirko Jalava.
Jalava had a look at the way athletes from 32 of the competing countries at the European Championships performed in what was their major meeting of the year (and for some the major meeting of their lives). Only 9 British athletes out of a team of 75 achieved a season’s best in the Swedish port placing the country 30th out of the 32 listed with only Austria and Hungary in a worse position.
By my calculation, the year before in Helsinki, only eight athletes achieved a season’s best.
Most commentators put this down to poor technical preparation and coaching but, as far as preparing and peaking for a major championship are concerned, the mental approach of an athlete is of equal if not greater importance. This is Collins’ territory, this is where his expertise supposedly lies but from the above statistics he singularly failed to inspire anyone in Gothenburg or Helsinki. Indeed, in some cases, he seems to have achieved the opposite, as highlighted by the case of hammer thrower Shirley Webb in Sweden.
If he had done his homework properly or knew the sport at all Collins would have known about the generally poor performances down the years of our field event athletes (and throwers in particular) in major championships and surely planned accordingly. British shining stars like Steve Backley have been a rarity in the throwing firmament; mostly our throwers have been shooting stars, falling away almost upon arrival at a major championship.
This is a known fact and the reasons are mainly twofold. Firstly our throwers lack the necessary regular quality international competition for them to acclimatise to facing world-class throwers and secondly, as most coaches eschew mental preparation as being irrelevant, they are psychologically ill prepared.
Webb arrived in Gothenburg with two poor major international performances behind her this season, 18th in the Commonwealth Games in Montreal in March with 59.31m and a 60.70m in May at the renowned international throws meeting in Halle, Germany. However that she was physically ready for the European was evidenced by a 66.42m in Grangemouth, Scotland some two weeks before her qualifying competition. These are facts that the Performance Director should have surely noted. In the end Webb finished 18th in her qualifying pool with 60.30m – her poorest three throws of the year thus coming in her three major competitions.
To compound her disappointment and frustration Collins awarded her his equal lowest mark 2 out of 10 (the other 2 was awarded to Hammer thrower, Zoë Derham) and commented: “Poor. Way off the pace and below her PB.”
Carl Myerscough is no different from his British shot-putting peers in mostly not qualifying (except that he doesn’t kick chairs in frustration). He failed to qualify in Gothenburg and Collins awarded him 4 marks with the comment: “Poor. Needs to focus on performance under pressure.” Just like that?
What steps have UKA been taking to ensure that our top throwers get frequent opportunities to compete against the best and what steps has Collins in particular taken to ensure good one-to-one mental preparation sessions for the throwing and jumping fraternity?
Dave Collins seems to have attended the same charm school as the Australian swimming coach Bill Sweetenham. His tenure in office has been punctuated by threats to withdraw funding from those who are, in his eyes, not showing the right attitude and the enforcement of a contract on the top athletes (which Paula Radcliffe has not signed). Indeed enforcement appears to be the raison d’être of this branch of UKA. What he should know, as a psychologist, is that every individual is different and accordingly needs treating differently.
By next year’s World championships in Osaka Collins will have been in position long enough to take responsibility for what occurs there. The auguries are not good; his base is indeed narrow. Only two individual men make the world’s top ten in their event in 2006 – Phillips Idowu and Nathan Douglas in the triple jump. Only two women, Jo Pavey in the 5000m and Kelly Sotherton in the Heptathlon do likewise. As the song says, there may be trouble ahead.
Shortly after he took over as Performance Director of British athletics Dave Collins, a former marine and a sports psychologist with a robust personality, said that by the 2012 Olympics in London he wanted 50% of the team to reach finals. More mature heads nodded and smiled; Britain had never achieved such a feat at world level before but giving the newcomer the benefit of the doubt they thought that his ambitions were in the right direction.
The facts and figures since that pronouncement, however, indicate that the trend is almost the opposite. At the Athens Olympics in 2004 (Max Jones’ swansong) Britain had fourteen finalists (25% of the team) from fourteen of the forty-six events, winning four medals. In Helsinki in 2005 (Collins’ debut) Britain had seven finalists in seven of forty-seven events, winning three medals. Just 15% of the team reached finals.
What is worrying for the future of the sport in Britain is that the country had no competitors in almost 30% of the events in Helsinki, accelerating a trend that has been taking place over the last decade or more. But, as he has clearly stated Collins (as did Jones before him) has no concerns for the future of athletics in Britain; his concern is to satisfy what might be called the podium-fetishers in government and sports councils. This mesmeric allure can clearly be seen by the change in title of the top support programme from World Class Performance to World Class Podium.
Of the 41 athletes currently listed in the World Class Podium programme 66% are runners (of which 44% are sprinters and hurdlers). In the World Class Development programme 89 athletes are listed of whom 30% come under ‘sprints’. Only eight throwers are listed in both programmes (two in Podium and six in Development) just 6.1%.
And development in the jumps is limited. The only events in which Britain can be expected to produce finalists in the near future are the men’s long and triple jumps and the women’s long jump (anticipating Ashia Hansen’s retirement).
So as the options for finalists narrows Collins has to rely almost entirely on sprinters competing in only 22% of the 47 events to produce podium appearances. But even here the chances of individual success at present seem slim.
Critics of this somewhat Cassandra-like viewpoint may well point to the huge successes of the Kenyans and Ethiopians over a limited range of events for the past couple of decades. But whilst their success seems never-ending, that of our often over-hyped sprinters over the past decade has been spasmodic to the say the least. Britain’s men have won three individual sprint medals in seven global meetings (our women, one) and six relay medals (our women, one). Our last men’s individual sprint medal was won in the World Championships in Paris in 2003 by Darren Campbell. Katherine Merry was our last individual woman sprint medallist in 2000 but the last 200m winner of a medal came 23 years ago in the inaugural World Championships in Helsinki in the person of Kathy Cook.
It is Catch 22 isn’t it? Our government and sports councils demand podium places as an indication of a sport’s success but the system they put in place militates against gaining the requisite number of finalists to make that possible.
Not only that it also detrimental to the development of the sport as a whole.
All these statistics should concern those behind the drawbridge at Athletics House in Solihull but there are, in some ways, even worse figures for which the Performance Director, as a sports psychologist, should be held accountable (but won’t be). Leaving aside the crass awarding of points-out-of-ten to athletes for their performances in Gothenburg and the even crasser act of revealing them to the media there is the little matter of the work of a Finnish statistician, Mirko Jalava.
Jalava had a look at the way athletes from 32 of the competing countries at the European Championships performed in what was their major meeting of the year (and for some the major meeting of their lives). Only 9 British athletes out of a team of 75 achieved a season’s best in the Swedish port placing the country 30th out of the 32 listed with only Austria and Hungary in a worse position.
By my calculation, the year before in Helsinki, only eight athletes achieved a season’s best.
Most commentators put this down to poor technical preparation and coaching but, as far as preparing and peaking for a major championship are concerned, the mental approach of an athlete is of equal if not greater importance. This is Collins’ territory, this is where his expertise supposedly lies but from the above statistics he singularly failed to inspire anyone in Gothenburg or Helsinki. Indeed, in some cases, he seems to have achieved the opposite, as highlighted by the case of hammer thrower Shirley Webb in Sweden.
If he had done his homework properly or knew the sport at all Collins would have known about the generally poor performances down the years of our field event athletes (and throwers in particular) in major championships and surely planned accordingly. British shining stars like Steve Backley have been a rarity in the throwing firmament; mostly our throwers have been shooting stars, falling away almost upon arrival at a major championship.
This is a known fact and the reasons are mainly twofold. Firstly our throwers lack the necessary regular quality international competition for them to acclimatise to facing world-class throwers and secondly, as most coaches eschew mental preparation as being irrelevant, they are psychologically ill prepared.
Webb arrived in Gothenburg with two poor major international performances behind her this season, 18th in the Commonwealth Games in Montreal in March with 59.31m and a 60.70m in May at the renowned international throws meeting in Halle, Germany. However that she was physically ready for the European was evidenced by a 66.42m in Grangemouth, Scotland some two weeks before her qualifying competition. These are facts that the Performance Director should have surely noted. In the end Webb finished 18th in her qualifying pool with 60.30m – her poorest three throws of the year thus coming in her three major competitions.
To compound her disappointment and frustration Collins awarded her his equal lowest mark 2 out of 10 (the other 2 was awarded to Hammer thrower, Zoë Derham) and commented: “Poor. Way off the pace and below her PB.”
Carl Myerscough is no different from his British shot-putting peers in mostly not qualifying (except that he doesn’t kick chairs in frustration). He failed to qualify in Gothenburg and Collins awarded him 4 marks with the comment: “Poor. Needs to focus on performance under pressure.” Just like that?
What steps have UKA been taking to ensure that our top throwers get frequent opportunities to compete against the best and what steps has Collins in particular taken to ensure good one-to-one mental preparation sessions for the throwing and jumping fraternity?
Dave Collins seems to have attended the same charm school as the Australian swimming coach Bill Sweetenham. His tenure in office has been punctuated by threats to withdraw funding from those who are, in his eyes, not showing the right attitude and the enforcement of a contract on the top athletes (which Paula Radcliffe has not signed). Indeed enforcement appears to be the raison d’être of this branch of UKA. What he should know, as a psychologist, is that every individual is different and accordingly needs treating differently.
By next year’s World championships in Osaka Collins will have been in position long enough to take responsibility for what occurs there. The auguries are not good; his base is indeed narrow. Only two individual men make the world’s top ten in their event in 2006 – Phillips Idowu and Nathan Douglas in the triple jump. Only two women, Jo Pavey in the 5000m and Kelly Sotherton in the Heptathlon do likewise. As the song says, there may be trouble ahead.
posted by tonyward at 6:58 AM
1 comments
