start squad

[DIDSCO]

....so what we're saying here is basically that if 'little Johhny M14' beats 'little kiss ass Eddie M14' in Selection race 1, 2 and 3, 'little kiss ass Eddie' gets selected for the Start Squad because he's got a better attitude and kisses more ass than 'little Johnny'.

Ummm if I was an M14 and I was 'little Johnny' I'd think orienteering was jobbie and full of idiots, and start playing football with the rest of my mates.

[awk]

....so what we're saying here is basically that if 'little Johhny M14' beats 'little kiss ass Eddie M14' in Selection race 1, 2 and 3, 'little kiss ass Eddie' gets selected for the Start Squad because he's got a better attitude and kisses more ass than 'little Johnny'.

No we're not saying that, as you should well know. Who said anything about 'kissing more ass'. Having slagged off coaches, you now appear to have moved on to slagging off selectors and those who have been selected, all with very little foundation.

[richardm]

could there not be some clear cut points based system, incorporating both selection races and the ratings of coaches based on peformance, attitude... etc?
if there are problems with a system where squad members are picked from the opinions of coaches, surely a system where points were awarded based mostly on selection race results and to some extent the opinion of one consistent, experienced coach would solve the problem and make the whole thing fairer.

[awk]

No system is ever going to be totally 'fair', for one reason or another (start using results only with younger juniors, and you move into the realms of biasing towards early maturers - how's that 'fair' or indeed desirable?).

Personally, I always shudder when people talk about 'fair' systems, as they can all too easily tend to mediocrity, unless you've got so much choice that it doesn't really matter (e.g. US Athletics).

[DIDSCO]

awk > why don't you actually read what I've written instead of making false accusations. I've not slagged off coaches, I actually praised their efforts. I've not slagged off selecters either. What I do 'slag' off though is the system used to select the Start Squad - I think 'little johnny' and 'little kiss ass Eddie' demonstrate the flaws in the system you support in a simple but effective way.

[Peter B]

Dids, with all respect, I've read through all your posts and found at most one sentence which is actually in praise of coaches or doesn't hold them in a potentially bad light.

The system itself is not the best ever but it is better because more factors are taken into consideration during selection. For example, Johnny performs well in domestic races (that said, both do if they're both in contention for squad places) but on tour the coaches view that Johnny may not be able to perform under a bigger test, or alternatively may consider him to be too immature at the young age of 14 to be taking on extra demands. Meanwhile Eddie, while not kissing ass is able to show that he has the maturity and skill to be able to handle more complex terrain under his own steam successfully.

Johnny may well become successful when a year older and having done further work on his orienteering, but otherwise better luck next year kiddo.

[awk]

awk > why don't you actually read what I've written instead of making false accusations. I've not slagged off coaches, I actually praised their efforts. I've not slagged off selecters either.

Well I did have another go at reading what you've written. Saying that most don't have the right personality type to motivate youngsters, are not sufficiently experienced or knowledgeable and have previous attachments to favourites doesn't exactly seem to me to be praising coaches to the skies, even if you were partly focusing on their ability to assess youngsters for Start Squad (which I'm not quite sure why bothered you, as they don't) although I do agree that you balanced that later by saying that the coaches do a fantastic job. But I think you'll see why there was a distinct impression of slagging off.

As for selectors: you say that selectors make their selections based on an individual's ability to suck up to them. In my book, that's slagging them off, and try as I might, I can't see another way of looking at it; it's also slagging off those athletes who are in the Start Squad by implying (stating!) that this is what they had to do to get in. In fact, they represent some of the most talented juniors we've got.

Your two characters don't illustrate any flaws at all: to do so they would have to bear some resemblance to reality, and they don't.

[Tatty]

Hear Hear Andrew.

[DIDSCO]

Peter B wrote: Johnny may well become successful when a year older and having done further work on his orienteering, but otherwise better luck next year kiddo.

Thing is by next year Johnny's not orienteering, he thought the sport was full of idiots, and he's started playing football instead

......wouldn't it be better to praise 'little Eddie' for his attitude, skill level, and ability and suggest ways in which he can make improvements so he can get the results to get in the squad next year, and then select the talented 'little Johnny' based on results and give him the right coaching to make him a champ.

I've coached 14-16 year old's everyday for the last 9 years. When I select a team for an athletics championship I select the ones with the best results. Of course I see the potential in many others that don't quite have the results, but then it's my job to work with them to improve their results, so they can make the team for a championship in the future. My athletes would never accept an athlete with poorer results being selected ahead of them, and so they shouldn't. All athletes have different personalities, attitudes to training, life experiences - who are we to judge whats good / bad, normal/ not normal? My two best ever athletes both had very different attitudes to training, and to life in general. They followed different paths but both of them have become very successful international athletes.

[Peter B]

Peter B wrote: Johnny may well become successful when a year older and having done further work on his orienteering, but otherwise better luck next year kiddo.

Thing is by next year Johnny's not orienteering, he thought the sport was full of idiots, and he's started playing football instead

Tough titty. He hasn't got the grit or determination to work harder for next year - his loss if he had any potential in the sport.

[awk]

I've coached 14-16 year old's everyday for the last 9 years. When I select a team for an athletics championship I select the ones with the best results.

Yes, but you're selecting for a team. This is a squad. There is a difference, particularly at junior level. That's one of the reasons why junior international teams are not restricted to squad members.

All very well positive stroking little Eddie, but what if the only reason Johnny is winning is actually because he's an early maturer, and Eddie's later? From an elite racing perspective, the one you really don't want to lose is Eddie, and don't tell me that your positive stroking is going to have any different effect to positive stroking Johnny and telling him he's not selected.

Of course, it shouldn't be an either/or decision, and and that's why the real culprits are the cuts in funding.

[DIDSCO]

awk wrote> what if the only reason Johnny is winning is actually because he's an early maturer

how can you possibly make that judgement? there are far too many factors that come in to play in orienteering.

even if johnny gains from being an earlier maturer, why should the poor guy be penalised for that? you cannot possibly be sure Eddie will be a better senior elite than johnny just because he's a late maturer. The fairest way must be to use results as the means for selection.

Peter B> I don't know who you are but with your attitude I really hope you're not involved in coaching young juniors. I'd like you to come and say 'tough titty' to some of my athletes that are achieving top results and explain to them why you've selected someone with worse results. Guaranteed you'd be on the first Ryanair flight back to blighty quicker than Asafa Powell on speed.

[Mrs H]

I can absolutely confirm that Dids' scenario was correct as recently as 5 years ago. Selections for the start squad were made irrespective of results and on tour reports - and you should have seen those tour reports (we are talking about first year M/W14s here who may have been 12/13 years old - talk about damning - i know for a fact that official complaints were made and the tone of the tour reports were changed from the negative to the positive (ie how to improve) as a result.

As I pointed out in another vaguely controversial article of mine - the attrition rate of those selected for the start Squad was appallingly high (its hard to quantify as BOF perhaps sensibly doesn't archive the selections - you'd be surprised how many names have disappeared off the rresults sheets completely!) and yet some of those who were not selected are still there or there abouts - still enjoying the sport - and who knows what they will achieve in any aspect of the future not to mention the fact that a lot of our surrent top youngsters were not even in the sport at that time I actually think being selected for the Start Squad is a poisoned challice at that early age and have always advocated no squad until at least 2nd year 16s. by all means have the tours, learn the techniques and have some fun - wait and see who can take it further.

and no Peter - you don't tell 12 years olds to go out and work harder

[johnloguk]

As usual lots of pertinent comments, but things are getting a bit polarised and I suspect people's positions are well and truly cemented in place now.

In trying to find some middle ground, the complication is that all people, including kids, are very different and are motivated in different ways. I agree with Mrs H that telling a 12 year old to go away and work harder isn't exactly sensible or likely to succeed. But, it may well work with older teenagers, just as it does with some adults. We all know what pains in the a** some kids (and adults ) can be. Arrogance and big egos sadly sometimes come with ability in many aspects of life. But good coaches know how to work with that. Bad coaches get annoyed and frustrated, and probably write negative reports, because they prefer to work with well behaved compliant subjects.

I don't know any coaches who have crystal balls, and are able to predict at what stage kids will hit their full potential, that will always be an unknown. Being a selector must be a thankless task, just look at the flack football teams attract, Joe punter always has a view.

My final point is a bit devils advocate, but one to seriously consider. There are a lot of big personalities in orienteering, and not all of them get on with each other . I just hope that some of those personal likes and dislikes don't colour the opinions of the kids. If prospective future champions are being told how c**p BOF is all the time, whether we as adults believe it or not, then it can't be very productive.

[Gross]

There are a lot of big personalities in orienteering, and not all of them get on with each other .

The clash of all time came in the GB Senior Squad.... but what goes on tour stays on tour:)