JWOC/EYOC selections

[andy]

What I think a lot of people are objecting to (and no doubt they'll tell me if I'm wrong here...) is they think the policy should actually be to give as many aspiring junior orienteers as many opportunities as possible (i.e. fill all the places).

I think the policy is fine per se, obviously you select the athletes who you think are capable of a top 20 place (unless there are 6 capable of better, swiss men's WOC team springs to mind but we don't have that strength in depth in GB).

In my opinion the failing is not thinking beyond that, look ahead, some of these athletes with the right training, the right nurturing, the right confidence building could be the best in the world. I'm always surprised when some nations send 6 athletes who prop up the results table, but I don't think any of those who could have been selected would have been in that position. They are capable of top 30/40. Not an embarrassment by a long way, and some of them might be capable of so much more in their best disciplines. To orienteer at the top level you have to be fast, yes, you have to be accurate but most of all at the really top level you need to mitigate mistakes. Lots of mistakes are made from nerves and how do you overcome nerves in big competitions? You make competition more familiar.

[Spookster]

For those juniors who have missed out on selection for EYOC etc. who should they be approaching for feedback?

You'll probably get a wee graph with percentages. This day and age it's not so "good to talk" RIP Bob H.

I'd expect that if you ask Jackie or Sarah verbally for feedback, you would get some (and not just a list of race percentages). If all you do is send them an email, you'll probably just get an email back. It is good to talk. Of course it depends on whether the particular athlete is well known/being monitored as a potential candidate for selection, or not. But if the athlete is "close" or "very close", then there's a good chance they are among the 100 or so on which results are tracked, and about which some feedback ought to be available.

[Duncan]

In my opinion the failing is not thinking beyond that, look ahead, some of these athletes with the right training, the right nurturing, the right confidence building could be the best in the world.

I think that absolutely is considered. So let's take a hypothetical situation. Top year 18, reasonable results in the selection races (good enough that there aren't 6 others ahead of them), good attitude and potential for future. But if they went to JWOC this year, in all honesty they'd be way down the results. Whereas in EYOC 18's they would be pretty competitive. What you going to do? Send them to JWOC and in all likelihood watch their confidence take a knock as they finish well below mid table? Send them to EYOC with the potential of it getting hugely boosted if they get on the podium (which they have a genuine chance of doing)? Send them to both, tire them out, risk them getting injured from over competing, or performing well below par because they are tired or haven't had time to focus technically on the different demands of the two competitions? Or send them to EYOC plus a training camp, to get the best mix of training, nurturing and confidence building for their future development?

[BenM]

For those juniors who have missed out on selection for EYOC etc. who should they be approaching for feedback?

Yup Jackie and Sarah can give you feedback - although I think for EYOC Sarah is the person to talk to. Part of the selection policy entitles you to it, so don't be scared of asking for feedback (:

"Where an athlete or the coach of an athlete requires feedback on a selection decision, or on how the athlete’s progress is viewed by the programme staff, they should approach the Selector in the first instance"

[eddie]

Good man Ben

[eddie]

A note to say that Duncan is articulating the points very well here. Good man Duncan.

[housewife]

I'd have thought the best person to decide what an athlete is capable of is the athlete themselves. We are talking about 18/19/20 year olds, not kids.

[Urbanite]

Martin/BenM - thanks will contact Sarah

[Patrick]

Best JWOC individual results for the GB Women's team that went to WOC2013 (based on the World of O archive):

Hollie 14th
Tessa 26th
Helen 48th
Claire 51st (I think - results from the 1990s are less complete)
Cat and Sarah - none I could find

Note that this is the top place for each athlete, some of whom had 3 JWOCs with 2 or 3 races. A couple of those I looked at were down near the 100s on their first go. Also, while I was looking I was amazed at the number of people with top 20/30 positions who never showed at all as seniors.

Conclusions:
Treating likely JWOC success as a predictor of WOC potential is massively flawed - there are far too many other factors in play.

A determined athlete who performs badly (according to the stated criteria) on their first (or second, or third) JWOC can still make the WOC podium.

A talented athlete who never got selected for JWOC can still get an EOC medal.

Selectors telling juniors (at least by implication) that they are not mature enough to run the race they have been targeting strikes me as both arrogant and counterproductive.

Risking having an incomplete relay team for any of the stated reasons seems bizarre and irresponsible.

Like others above, I am disturbed at the fact that when selection places go unfilled it is so often on the female side (it isn't just the GB team that has form on this). I'm not sure how this ties in with all the equal opportunities stuff that the funders like to waffle on about.

Patrick

[andy]

I think that absolutely is considered. So let's take a hypothetical situation..............

You're absolutely right (and as Eddie says, thank you for being so open and level-headed about the selections, it's refreshing to get a response to a thread like this). So why the outcry from athletes/parents/clubmates/ex-international-athletes/punters? In the situation you point out I'd expect the athlete to know about it in advance. Yes they have a slim chance of JWOC but if they know their main aim is EYOC they wouldn't be disappointed.

But personally I'm not too fussed about that particular situation, it's the people who haven't been selected for any competition despite having pretty competitive results.

[Simon E]

Claire 51st (I think - results from the 1990s are less complete)
Cat and Sarah - none I could find

Claire was 38th at JWOC in Romania in 1996 but it doesn't change your argument.

Try the Maprunner database for a slightly easier way of searching.

[Mrs H]

I also think that Duncan has made a good case for certain selection scenarios but as it would be unacceptable to deal in specifics we don't know whether they actually apply on this occasion. The problem is trying to blend stated selection races with other criteria. How can it work in an obvious and satisfactory way?

The only way I can see is you give 2/3 places to the winners of the selection races and the others to the selectors' favourites. Chances are they will over lap anyway and if they don't where's the harm. If you are talking about the 'less committed being a distraction" surely firm management would take care of that. And as for those being crushed by a poor result - I'm fairly sure that being not selected when there are empty seats would be a deal more crushing.

I'm sure we are all keen to hear the rationale for no girls' relay reserve.

[andypat]

And as for those being crushed by a poor result - I'm fairly sure that being not selected when there are empty seats would be a deal more crushing.

and since this applies to "everyone else" its has far wider implications too.

I'm sure we are all keen to hear the rationale for no girls' relay reserve.

Whats the odds on a wee announcement on the BOF website in the next week or so...?

[King Penguin]

I'd expect that if you ask Jackie or Sarah verbally for feedback, you would get some (and not just a list of race percentages). If all you do is send them an email, you'll probably just get an email back. It is good to talk. Of course it depends on whether the particular athlete is well known/being monitored as a potential candidate for selection, or not. But if the athlete is "close" or "very close", then there's a good chance they are among the 100 or so on which results are tracked, and about which some feedback ought to be available.

....but for those who were in with a good chance / close in the results why should they have to ask at all ? Surely talent / pathway / squad management / development should include automatically providing feedback as a right of the athlete, not sitting back and waiting to be asked for it. In terms of motivation / building for the future this is far more important for those just missing out than for those actually selected.

Maybe I am being unfair, and proactive feedback has been provided, but reading all the comments here leads me towards thinking otherwise.

[BenM]

....but for those who were in with a good chance / close in the results why should they have to ask at all ? Surely talent / pathway / squad management / development should include automatically providing feedback as a right of the athlete, not sitting back and waiting to be asked for it.

The policy says that those who were close get that already: "In cases where a selection decision was close or marginal, the non-selected athlete(s) will normally receive feedback as part of the process surrounding announcement of the selected team." (: