Senior squad announced

[distracted]

As expected quite a major cutback in numbers.

The following athletes have been chosen for the 2008 British Senior Squad:

David Brickhill-Jones
Jon Duncan
Matt Crane
Scott Fraser
Graham Gristwood
Oli Johnson
Matt Speake
Jamie Stevenson

Helen Bridle
Rachael Elder
Mhairi Mackenzie
Sarah Rollins
Helen Winskill
Pippa Whitehouse

[JennyJ]

and as expected a distinct lack of equity.

[Becks]

Think that's a bit unfair to say, there's an obvious line in the female athletes and they've simply picked it. I'd challenge you to pick two more women without there being an uproar!

[JennyJ]

You've got to be joking and if you can't stick up for yourselves that's a problem!
Women's orienteering is NOT men's orienteering. We don't have to race them we don't even have to race like them. It is two separate sports there are separate events at every international. It is about time this was acknowledged by all concerned.
More women qualified for the British Team at World Champs this year despite the fact that there are consistently fewer women/girls picked for squads, teams and training camps year in year out.
A bit of encouragement of the women as a whole wouldn't go amiss.
I think it's fair to say that you wouldn't argue if I was in that squad and I know it's fair to say that I would not have retired from international orienteering and resigned from the squad if this lack of equity had not been around for the last few years.

[mat-d]

I'd challenge you to pick two more women without there being an uproar!

ok... Helen Palmer, Lizzie Adams, Karen Heppenstall, Aislinn Austin, Tess Hill... etc.

[Gross]

Bit much if you are in this year's WOC Team but don't get in the Squad!

[Duncan]

I'd challenge you to pick two more women without there being an uproar!

ok... Helen Palmer, Lizzie Adams, Karen Heppenstall, Aislinn Austin, Tess Hill... etc.

I think you've missed the point there Mat. The challenge was to pick two, not five. Of course if you can pick that long list you won't upset any of them.

[Duncan]

I think it is a fair squad, and wish them all luck in 2008.

When picking the squad I'm sure the selectors have to first work out what their goals are, and then look at who has the potential to help them achieve those goals.

In previous years I'd say we had enough money to fund people in the squad who had the potential to get into World Cup or World Champs teams. What about this year? We don't have as much money, so you have to draw the bar higher.

Can we fund everyone who has the potential to make the World Champs team? No (contrary to what Gross would like to see).

Can we fund everyone who has the potential to make an A final? No (contrary to what Jenny uses as an argument).

Can we fund everyone who has the potential to get a top 10 at World Champs or World Cup? From what I've heard that is what has been decided are the key goals with the GB team in the coming years, and that to me would appear to be where they have drawn the bar. I'd say all those picked in the squad have that potential, and I'd be hard pushed to pick some others for the squad that are in that league. men or women (sorry if that upsets anyone).

The only tough call would seem to be not picking anyone coming up from M/W20. I'm sure some do have the potential for the years to come, and I hope they get some support until they come to realise that potential.

[mat-d]

I'd challenge you to pick two more women without there being an uproar!

ok... Helen Palmer, Lizzie Adams, Karen Heppenstall, Aislinn Austin, Tess Hill... etc.

I think you've missed the point there Mat. The challenge was to pick two, not five. Of course if you can pick that long list you won't upset any of them.

Of course people are going to be upset when they aren't picked.

- ok i agree i named 5 people...(who all in my opinion had a good female shout of why they aren't in the squad) - the fact is that there are still only 6 women vs 8 men.

No one seems to notice that we aren't trying to talk about any of these 'buzz words' but just plain EQUALITY. I wasn't trying to mention specific selections, that's not my beef...and I too wish them all the luck!

An Example:
Does England women's football team not select a full squad because they aren't as good as the mens? No. They don't - it's not the same competition - much like in our sport. Lot less funding but still the same numbers.

[J.Tullster]

Mat...football, not a good example. You're picking a team of 11 plus reserves every time, so of course you pick that number. I think the squad is quite fair. There are some good girls who have missed out and a lot of good guys too, but obviously funding has been the decider. Harsh reality. I think Duncan and Beckys responses sum it up. They both had a good chance of selection but I don't see either of them complaining.

[DIDSCO]

A top 10 position at WOC this year was far 'easier' to achieve as a woman than a man. In the middle a woman could be 6½ mins behind, a man 3 mins. In the classic a woman could be 9 mins behind, a man 6 mins over a much longer course. In the sprint the woman could be 1½ mins behind, the men just 40 seconds.

So if we want top 10 places, and thats all that matters, I'd pump all the money into british womens orienteering. The whole squad would be women + Jamie (as he can get a top 10 without breaking a sweat).

If we do get rid of all the guys and bring in more girls can I be head coach?

[King Penguin]

Sadly, I believe we are being forced down a route that I have seen thrust upon another (smaller) minority sport. It appears that UK Sport (or whatever they are called these days - the lot that provide the funding) would rather have no GB representation at internationals than have people competing who don't feature as high up the results as they (UK Sport) would like. Maybe this threshold is top 10; I don't know.
However, if every nation took this approach international competitions would very quickly die - who would be prepared to run a World Championships with only 10 competitors in each event, for example ?
I believe a much better approach would be to aim to send a full team and compete as best as we can, the only cut-off short of a full team being if there is a very big and obvious gap in performance and potential between e.g. 4th and 5th, or 5th and 6th. However, that requires the money that won't be there because it's all being used to pay for some big event in London in a few years time.

[Rach]

there are fewer people in the squad, not the world champs team. In fact the letter sent to all 2007 squad members said that they intend to send full teams to woc, and world students next year. It also said that people not in the squad who perform in races will get selected for training camps etc.
The lower funding means the squad can't be as big. All the people selected have real potential for woc next year.

Seems fair to me.

Plus with EDS starting up there will be lots of opportunities for good training for non squad members.

[greywolf]

However, that requires the money that won't be there because it's all being used to pay for some big event in London in a few years time.

So there wasn't any orienteering before the lottery? *makes wavy gestures and sound effects* ...it was all a dream...

the reality is that orienteering has done well to get so much lottery funding to date, and there was always, sooner or later, going to be a squeeze and a tighter focus on Olympic medals, regardless of where the Games were being held. (think i'm right in saying that after athletics, the next 3 highest funded sports are rowing, sailing and cycling - our big Olympic medal sports)

i've a deal of sympathy for those missing out, but as discussion on the "start squad" thread suggests, these things aren't the be-all and end-all. Meanwhile, we all can settle down for 5 years of blaming London2012 for every funding knockback anyone receives, when there's dozens of other more stupid, irresponsible and violent ways the government fritters away money which would be better spent on orienteering

[awk]

and as expected a distinct lack of equity.

I don't know enough about the senior squad scene, so can't comment on the selections. However, do bear in mind that there are more girls in the start squad than boys this year, which perhaps belies the argument about lack of equity. Indeed if you look at senior/start together, there are exactly the same number of males and females. Purely coincidental I'm sure, but given the varied numbers at each level, perhaps indicative that selectors looked at people as individuals achieving a certain standard or with certain potential, rather than what gender they are.

In the case of the senior squad, maybe the selectors decided that there was enough money for 14 places, and that the cut off points came more neatly with an 8-6 split than a 7-7 split?

Whatever, the real problem is surely the prominent role of the sports councils and our dependence on them when it comes to funding.