start squad

[awk]

The fact though Dids, is that tour coaches DON'T make that assessment. The selectors do. As I said, there is nothing in offspring's report assessing his suitability for the squad. It's a thoroughly sound review of physical and technical strengths and weaknesses, giving good guidance to him as to what he should do next. As a tool to help selectors, it seems fine.

No we didn't use tour reports in your day, but we certainly didn't rely on results. To be honest, the current system is a lot more transparent. But that brings its own problems: selection systems which are fair don't necessarily produce the best teams/squads. It depends what your objectives are.

[Peter B]

Dids, it's been made clear time and time again in this thread and in BOF official selection documentation that coaches provide a neutral review of the athletes for the selectors who then select the start squad (hence their title and presence). Reports never contain any references to potential selection. I don't understand why you're thinking differently.

Also, your gut feeling may have been that back in your day you didn't make a great coach on tour, but this is not to say that all young adults who coach on tour are inadequate to the job, regardless of their experience or qualifications.

Being in squad (especially the senior squad) cannot be about just getting results - it's also about the athlete's attitude to training and fitness on a day in, day out basis. If the athlete is not preparing adequtely then there is no point in them being in the squad because they are unlikely to perform to their maximum potential. If squads were selected on results only then you wouldn't be considering what the athlete does when he's not running.

[Gross]

If squads were selected on results only then you wouldn't be considering what the athlete does when he's not running.

Yes you would... because to achieve top results to get selected for squads & races you have to have gone through a process that includes adapting lifestyle, training etc etc on an ongoing basis...........

[Peter B]

I don't believe 100% of athletes necessarily do that, and certainly not necessarily kids.

[greywolf]

...because to achieve top results to get selected for squads & races you have to have gone through a process that includes adapting lifestyle, training etc etc on an ongoing basis...........

Shirley Strong?
not to mention George Best

[DIDSCO]

To be honest I don't think tour reports should have any impact upon selections. If a tour report is written it should only be for the athlete and their individual coach.

Selections should be based on results.

[Gross]

not to mention George Best

George Best was a World Class sportsman... he made choices in his life to become one... he made choices to handle the pressures that that brought... it is not for Greywolf or others to suggest the choices he made were right or wrong... only the sportsman can do that.

[greywolf]

my intention was not to criticise George Best (one of my childhood heroes), or Shirley Strong for that matter, but to disagree with the notion that to succeed at the highest level an athlete needs a monastic devotion to lifestyle, training, etc....

and i think this is particularly untrue when we're talking about 15 year olds, who probably have another ten years before they reach their peak - without a sense of proportion, and a sense of humour, they'll never make it - it's Start Squad after all, not the Stepford Wives

[awk]

Selections should be based on results.

Fine for senior elite teams. At junior squad level, particularly when referring to M/W14-16s, and unless one allows for different rates of maturation when considering the results, I think you're plain wrong. But it is certainly the easiest and most transparent route.

[Peter B]

During much of their time in contention for Start Squad, the focus of the athlete's lifestyles must be based around school and exams. It's particularly important, then that an athlete's training and skills are assessed - because at that age the athlete may be performing well in races but not getting the right quantity or quality of training, physical or technical that is required from someone in the squad - perhaps because they are under pressure elsewhere and lack the time to train on a quality level.

At senior squad level, orienteering and training is at the forefront of an athlete's lifestyle - so athletes are more able to prioritise this over other things. Also, at this time, there is more of an assumption from coaches that athletes are able to train well under much more of their own influence. The athletes should be able to look at planning, training, goals and ambitions in a more independant mature light - although, of course never ignoring the roll of the coach.

[bendover]

coaches provide a neutral review of the athletes for the selectors

is this humanly possible?

[Gross]

but to disagree with the notion that to succeed at the highest level an athlete needs a monastic devotion to lifestyle, training, etc....

I don't think anyone here has suggested you need a monastic devotion to lifestyle etc etc to succeed

[Patrick]

To be honest I don't think tour reports should have any impact upon selections. If a tour report is written it should only be for the athlete and their individual coach.

I quite agree. I also think it's disingenuous to say that reports are a "neutral assessment" when any report is going to be coloured - however honourable the intent - by the author's feelings towards the athlete being judged.

Awk, you say that your offspring's report doesn't assess suitablility for the squad. It seems odd, then, that it is to be used as the primary means of deciding exactly that! I also don't see much transparency in the system. Even if tour reports are visible to everyone (which they don't seem to be - the relevant page on the website has a text heading but no link), there is no indication of what the selectors are looking for in a report that would enable an athlete to be selected.

Peter B highlights this point by stating that "if the athlete is not preparing adequtely then there is no point in them being in the squad because they are unlikely to perform to their maximum potential". I would say that if an athlete is achieving good results while preparing poorly then they may well have huge potential, and should be brought into the squad in order to help them fulfil it! I may be right, Peter may be right, but does anyone know which of us the selectors would agree with?

Cheers,

Patrick

[Rich R]

While results are a good indicator of the potential of a junior the results of an M16 selection race does not mean that junior will be at WOCs in the years to come. On tour the coaches can see the Juniors ability to learn, enthusiasm for the sport, their strengths and their weaknesses. Immaturity can overshadow the abilities of some juniors potential and is something that you have to be careful not to confuse with lack of interest.

In the years past often coaches wouldn't be on a tour for more than a year in a row, these days most of them have been on many tours, seen the potential of juniors, made assessments, followed their progress, often going on tour with the same juniors year after year and seen who have made it to the top level.

I understand some of the comments of concern that tour coaches are picking squads, I can assure they are not; the reports are as much to help the juniors identify weaknesses and suggesteding ways to improve as well as focussing on their strengths. However, I have no doubt that the majority of the start squad coaches have the knowledge and experience that they could pick the most appropriate start squad if it was their job.

[graeme]

I've never been involved with the "squad" system but it seems hard to believe that a couple of training camps for few people can possibly be worth all the angst and bitterness here.

Part of the problem clearly lies in the failure to make it clear whether a squad place is a reward for
the best orienteers, or a recognition of unrealised potential which the squad can bring on.