JWOC/EYOC selections

[NeilC]

My own view is that Junior athletes (teenagers) are by their very nature inconsistent in their performance due to growing up. So is the 15% performance measure across several events an appropriate tool for including/excluding athletes? This may be just one example . . .

I'm not sure I really understand from the published selection criteria what relative performance was expected from the athletes for JWOC selection.

The Selection Schedule (pg 12) has no specific comments other than minimum standards as per Section 8 will be applied.

Section 8 quotes various metrics including % behind winners, and refers to Appendix 3 for a scoring mechanism.

Appendix 3 defines gold, silver and bronze bands for various age groups and relates these to squads.

What is not clear is how these bands relate to JWOC selection - if indeed they do. Were all athletes expected to be in the Silver band?

Have I missed something somewhere?

[graeme]

Good questions.

What is your view on the aim of the performance programme?

I do not think the performance programme should be defined without reference to the rest of the sport. The aim to produce a tiny number of superstars who we can all admire is a good one, though I also support sending deserving team members who we know will finish mid-pack.

2. If you agree with British Orienteering's ambition then what do you think is the best way to get there?

Top-10 WOC requires really exceptional running ability. Most of our current squad simply don't have the natural talent, so despite their dedicated and near-optimal training they can't get fast enough. No mistakes is enough to win in the UK, even get to WOC, but it won't get you WOC top-10. We can't rely on existing orienteers kids, we need to go out and recruit from a bigger pool.

'orienteering is different'...

because even a WOC-top 10 athlete cannot make a living out of it, and because unlike physiological measures, there are no simple tests of who has an aptitude to learn how to navigate under pressure.

edit: I'm assuming top-10 individual is the target. The weakest link in a top-10 relay team could be much slower, possibly outside the world top-100. At my best (about 30th ranked in the UK) I was easily fast enough that in a relay team with the UK's top-3 I could have got WOC-top-10. There's no way the talent programme should have been aimed at people like me, so the policy should exclude relay top-10 potential.

[SeanC]

This links nicely with the other thread's about Xplorer and junior development.

We've got two juniors who are fast enough runners to be winning Kent athletics meetings at under 14 level. Both are members of my orienteering club and a local athletics club. The problem is that the athletics clubs offer them so much more than my club does: regular coaching (every week compared to once per year), regular junior competitions (most weeks, compared to 11 times a year (in Kent)), other juniors to socialise with (20+ at every meet compared to 2 or 3 who they might not even see). One of these juniors has chosen to concentrate on athletics, and is now rarely seen. There is some hope for the other as he has made it into the South East Squad.

Perhaps as a club we should be honest if we see a promising junior, and ask them to join a club with a decent junior setup but then the nearest such club is a lot further than the local athletics clubs.

[eddie]

Good answers

It's always interesting the comments about linking performance and the rest of the sport. This could potentially be the nub of it all in reality.

Vast majority of Top 10 athletes in the vast majority of sports don't make a living out of it.

[buzz]

I do not think the performance programme should be defined without reference to the rest of the sport.

Absolutely - a medal winning programme is meaningless on its own - it should both contribute to the participation and coaching programmes and benefit from them.

Top-10 WOC requires really exceptional running ability. Most of our current squad simply don't have the natural talent, so despite their dedicated and near-optimal training they can't get fast enough.

This is a bold statement. Do you have any evidence that 'most' of our current squad don't have sufficient 'natural talent' to develop the 'exceptional running ability' required for WOC top 10?

and because unlike physiological measures, there are no simple tests of who has an aptitude to learn how to navigate under pressure.

Agreed. Nor do physiological measures give you an indication of whether the athlete is prepared to commit to the physical and technical training regimes necessary to achieve a top 10 at WOC.

[andypat]

Top-10 WOC requires really exceptional running ability. Most of our current squad simply don't have the natural talent, so despite their dedicated and near-optimal training they can't get fast enough.

This is a bold statement. Do you have any evidence that 'most' of our current squad don't have sufficient 'natural talent' to develop the 'exceptional running ability' required for WOC top 10?

Its interesting that whenever anyone mentions using "running ability" eg 3000m times as a measure of potential in orienteering it seems to get shot down.

Tend to agree with Graeme that you must have exceptional running ability to be able to excel in orienteering at that level, although I cant comment on the capabilities of the current squad! Just to be clear that doesnt mean that having exceptional running ability means you will excel at WOC. Its one factor though.

[eddie]

I do not think the performance programme should be defined without reference to the rest of the sport.

Absolutely - a medal winning programme is meaningless on its own - it should both contribute to the participation and coaching programmes and benefit from them.

Interesting viewpoint. Taking performance sport in general in the UK I don't think the link exists (case in point the two gov't agencies dealing with both are separate. Yes I know it's different in Scotland/Wales/NI). You might not like it to be this way and to be the way that you've described.

[graeme]

This is a bold statement. Do you have any evidence that 'most' of our current squad don't have sufficient 'natural talent' to develop the 'exceptional running ability' required for WOC top 10?

At WOC level sprint, there aren't many errors being made (source: winsplits): running speed is the main determinant. Where errors are made, they don't seem correlated to particular runners.

It's not quite the same as 5k speed because there much more acceleration required, but 5k speed is a good proxy (source: our men's best ever sprint results correlate very well with peoples' 5k times).

So running speed is a good proxy, and if Scott is 25 sec faster over 5k than Murray, (source: runbritain rankings) he's going to win unless he makes an error. The maximum role of "luck" can be determine from consistency - it is there but small (source: the ladies forest WOC team are the 5 with the highest average ranking points).

Lack of talent Results are a matter of record, and are a combination of natural talent and preparation. My claim implies that our top athletes are highly committed, and they prepare well and optimally. So the difference comes from "natural talent". The only alternative is that the slower team members are equally talented, but dont prepare properly. Do you have evidence for that?

[greywolf]

Its interesting that whenever anyone mentions using "running ability" eg 3000m times as a measure of potential in orienteering it seems to get shot down.

Maybe that's because those doing the shooting seem to be objecting to the idea of picking the team on 3k PBs, rather than what's usually actually being suggested, i.e. using 3k times as one of the criteria for squad membership

Whenever the subject has come up the sort of times being mentioned aren't extreme: e.g. 10 mins for 3k is a sharp time for 14 year old girls but ought not to be too demanding for an M20 with international aspirations

[Scott]

there are no simple tests of who has an aptitude to learn how to navigate under pressure.

Anybody know what is going on here - i.e. what the "written test" and "400m - O test" actually involve?

[EddieH]

I don't believe that Graeme's assertion that in the event of making no mistakes the fastest runner will necessarily win a sprint (unless the course is trivial).

Surely not even the best run at the speed that they would if it were taped. The time taken to make decisions, including the reduced speed required to make them must be significant - it most certainly is for us lesser mortals.

I have my doubts that simple 50:50 left or right legs slow the elite as they make an instant decision, but add in irregular shapes, uncrossable features, contours, and rapid changes of direction must involve thinking that results in running at less than optimum pace.

[BenM]

there are no simple tests of who has an aptitude to learn how to navigate under pressure.

Anybody know what is going on here - i.e. what the "written test" and "400m - O test" actually involve?

Yes - we did these at the Talent Development Camp last summer. Both were really good I thought.
400m O Test = Go, you are given a map with ~4 controls on it, run a ~400m lap as fast as you can, whilst remembering where on the map the controls are. When you finish you quickly draw these controls onto a blank map and repeat. We did this for 2km if I remember rightly, with time penalties for every control in the wrong place. Maps got progressively harder - start with a easy sprint area and ended up on td5 terrain. Good challenge!

Written Test = Various things, I especially remember the ones where you were given a contour profile for a leg, and then had to match this to one of 4/5 legs on a map. Generally had about 10/20s for 5'ish questions.

[rocky]

I think that depends on your definition of mistake. If, as I do, you include unneccesary hesitation as a mistake then Graeme's near tautological assertion holds true.

With sufficient forward planning you shouldn't need to lose time due to navigation.

Interestingly, when I tried to re-run the Perth PWT course, having fully studied it and worked out where I had lost time I was actually slower than in the race: the adrenaline of the race and positive confirmation of the control locations gives more of a boost than the benefit of knowing the course.

That said, it's an experiment I should probably repeat. Now that I've got a brand new top secret never been used sprint map on my doorstep I can probably test it pretty easily.

-m

[maprun]

I'm not sure I really understand from the published selection criteria what relative performance was expected from the athletes for JWOC selection.

The Selection Schedule (pg 12) has no specific comments other than minimum standards as per Section 8 will be applied.

Section 8 quotes various metrics including % behind winners, and refers to Appendix 3 for a scoring mechanism.

Appendix 3 defines gold, silver and bronze bands for various age groups and relates these to squads.

What is not clear is how these bands relate to JWOC selection - if indeed they do. Were all athletes expected to be in the Silver band?

Have I missed something somewhere?

Yes, you need to look at 10.4 of the BOF Selection Policy for some of the answer at least. "The NTP Manager will determine the balance of selection for a competition or camp and will communicate this to the Selector as appropriate."

For transparency it would be helpful for everyone if the Selectors published "the balance of selection" determined by the NTP Manager for each competition. Athletes and BOF members might not always agree with the "balance", but at least we would know what it is.

[andypat]

For transparency it would be helpful for everyone if the Selectors published "the balance of selection" determined by the NTP Manager for each competition. Athletes and BOF members might not always agree with the "balance", but at least we would know what it is.

Agree whats stoking all of the arguments on here appears to be a lack of transparency of the bigger picture of reasons for selection in various events/squads. However I suppose there's an argument that we "the members" dont necessarily need to know the bigger picture, so long as those that it affects directly are aware. The analogy would be football fans arguing over team selection before a game. So long as the players in the squad know why they are being picked or not?

Anybody know what is going on here - i.e. what the "written test" and "400m - O test" actually involve?

You mean with the guy running in Union Jack Y fronts?