HISTORICAL WOC RESULTS?

[Gross]

Anyone know where you can find the historical results from previous WOC's? I tried looking on the BOF pages but if it's there it's not that obvious....

I want to see how our relay results fit with past performances?

[Scott]

On the IOF website, or (easier if you want to compare between years) in Simon Errington's databases.

[Gross]

Ta.... from looking at Simon's listing WOC 2011 can go down as preety poor from the Relays with the women preventing a combined worst performance by finishing 15th (16th in 2007). Men's was worst position recorded.

That's the facts.... lots of reasons behind it I'm sure...

Did BOF have any targets for WOC? I know there used to be some well published targets & measurements based on top 10, top 20's etc etc... but these seem to have disappeared from obvious view over the last few years....

Reading through some of the responses from the BOF Questionaires there were many not interested in elite or performance orienteering... maybe it would help to bring back some visability to the International Programme.... like where were the GBR results at the World Cups and so on....

[Taybank]

Gross raises a very good point.
When the team manager is writing the BOF news on WOC you don't really expect to see the necessary questions being raised. But noticeably, on several occasions, he was very neutral.
Are the results from France all that were expected?
Maybe we should start by asking the British competitors if they are happy with their results and if they did as well as they expected?
If they did then we should ask why?... and why is it that apart from in the sprint, Britain does not seem to be building on its past record? Is there something wrong with preparation? Is there something wrong with the coaching programme? Is there something wrong with the competition programme?
There is a lot of money going into performance orienteering yet other countries are passing Britain by. Are the British just as good as ever and is it just that other countries are getting better.
I can remember a time when the British elite used to laugh up their sleeves at the French. They don't now.
Maybe a few past masters can throw some light on the matter.

[jjjl]

http://runners.worldofo.com/WOChistory_country.html

A very good overview of historic results at WOC for every country.
At a quick glance 2007 was the only time with GBR finishing below 15th in the relay...

[Becks]

Relay aside, GG has his best international performance, and a 4th, no less, Scott and Murray both placed top 12 that day - Murray thinks he's the best worst GBR person ever most likely (I love that phrase!). We had strong starts from Hollie and Tess - both qualifying well and running steady finals, very promising for the future. Sarah is always solid in the sprint, and Helen P had a great run from first start in the long, and did a good job in the relay. There were some personal disasters and the relay was poor, but we weren't the only biggish guns out there making big errors by a long way. Minna never found number one on the middle, for crying out loud.

I think we need to take a step back. We know how the French Men do it - they basically give up everything to move together and train together. Thierry at least, has a pretty much honorary police career, where he can focus on orienteering and be paid for it. Many of the Swiss men have a similar set up with the military (although Marc L is a dentist).

What do we give our athletes aside from training? We kind of support do they have? To perform like Thierry, you have to sacrifice everything, including any future career you might have been planning outside of the sport. Our best girls in particular, almost all have that career. Do you want them to drop them to live in a forest and do nothing but train? When people make a decision to do that, there should be as much support as possible - finding them an income, helping them make contact with associations who'll need mappers and coaches once they're done with their competitive career. Because what do you do with your life when you've done nothing but orienteer?

Helen P and Hollie have shown what moving abroad and working reduced hours in the run up to WOC can do, something that JD has done in the past too. Both girls have gained extra consistency this year compared to previous years. But what support did they get from anyone to do this? Having to make these larger sacrifices is the next step, and no one can ask athletes to do that. If they make these decisions, GBR can support them all the way. But if they choose not to, which considering they'll need a job for 40 odd years once they're done is also a damn good choice to make, then we can't whinge on Nopesport about how they're underperforming. They are the best we have, and we should let them get out there and do as well as they can. But we can't expect Thierrys or Billstams.

I was also disappointed to see the relay results, but these things happen. Let's not forget that prior to that there was a lot of success this week.

[Gross]

I was also disappointed to see the relay results, but these things happen. Let's not forget that prior to that there was a lot of success this week.

Pull the other one [sprint aside!]. How many top 10, how many top 20, how many top 30... and so on? These are the targets that GBR used to be measured by... there is no obvious indication of any targetting by the present GBR Team set up.... except that our 'top' (arguably) forest runner decided not to run middle & long and concentrate on the relay... suggesting that GBR were putting a lot of faith into a world class relay performance (or why was he allowed to do that... injury, illness?)

[Taybank]

Becks is right - you have got to step back and look at the results.
That is what I was suggesting.
You have got to step back and forget who the competitors are and the fact that you know them, stop making excuses, look at the results, and find out the reasons without jumping to conclusions. Give it time. Ask questions.
Only by doing that can the sport in GBR move forward at this level.

[AndyO]

Taybank asks the right questions, and also in the right way. What do the team think of their performances? are they satisfied? how do they feel they can improve next year and in future?

Becks (and Pippa elsewhere) have given us an insight into how the French have transformed their results - can we follow that example? it would need commitment by the athletes to set "career" aside for a few years, and also support to help them with a "job" that allows them to train and compete (as opposed to lottery funding for the top competitors in Olympic sports), but is that achievable? it would be nice if Government would help by giving public bodies a little extra funding to support athletes in this way

[andypat]

Helen P and Hollie have shown what moving abroad and working reduced hours in the run up to WOC can do, something that JD has done in the past too.

Becks makes some good points about commitment and support on an individual level paying dividends. But you might also look at Scott and say that giving up the onerous SOA profesional officers job and moving to Scandinavia hasnt had the same effect you might have expected.

The plain fact is we dont have sufficient orienteers in total to allow enough good elites to come through. If we rely on the performances of a few top quality individuals, then performances year on year will be sporadic, dependent on training, injury etc of the few who are good enough, with noone there to fill the place.

That said. I've been gripped by the coverage of the WOC and very impressed by the overall perfomance of this GB team. When you know some of the individuals performing it is very inspiring and you can see that they are performing at a top level. Theres a mix of old heads and delevoping talent and its probably unrealistic to expect great results from everyone.

[Mrs H]

Well Gross here are the targets for next year

The team had 2 individual top 10s and 6 individual top 20s, with the highlight being Graham Gristwood's 4th place in the sprint distance. Next year the team will be looking to improve the top 20s to top 10s, the top 10s to podiums and the podiums to medals.

Seems pretty clearly stated to me - looking forward to it already

[Gross]

In 2010 there were 4 top 20's in the sprint distance, 2 in the long and 1 in the middle (a quick look tells me...)

In 2011 there were 4 top 20's in the sprint, 0 in the long and 2 in the middle

So actually not a great improvement or a great drop in performance... it's the relay that makes a big difference....

[King Penguin]

Has there been a previous WOC where so many world-class orienteers have made so many big mistakes ?
Or do we just know more about them with increased use of GPS tracking and radio controls ?
Does the very high percentage of big mistakes mean this WOC was "different" to others ? Does it mean, looking at it in retrospect, that a more cautious approach would have produced higher positions ? Conversely, to win you still need to be more agressive, so there's a dilemma - run cautiously and possibly get a higher placing but accept there's no chance of a podium / medal, or "go for it" ?
It seems this year the aggressive approach had a greater risk attached to it.

[RS]

Andypat said:
The plain fact is we dont have sufficient orienteers in total to allow enough good elites to come through. If we rely on the performances of a few top quality individuals, then performances year on year will be sporadic, dependent on training, injury etc of the few who are good enough, with noone there to fill the place.

I would say the reason we don't have enough coming through is that the base is too narrow - I remember saying this in the days of the Start programme when juniors often became disaffected because they weren't thought to be in the top 6 or 8 of the age group to be chosen. Some stuck at it and proved the selectors wrong, many of the chosen few disappeared for various reasons. We need a very broad base.
Perhaps, with WOC 2015 in mind, it's time to revamp, focus on the younger talent and look at other training methods with aims for podiums in 2015. For starters, I believe Thierry never runs without a map in hand...

[andypat]

I thought that's what I was saying

The total number of orienteers is your base (of the pyramid). The broader it is (in general) the higher the top will get and the more athletes at or near the top.

What you seem to be describing is judicious use of resources at a defined level. Theres nothing wrong with that - you just need lots and lots of it going on and at different levels.