With the recent results of the rowing World Championships and the earlier successes of cycling, our two most successful Olympic sports have essentially re-invented themselves. With retirements and some taking a year off, neither "new" team missed a beat in maintaining the UK's position as the top of each sport. Other sports needed to make changes because of their lack of success (swimming comes to mind) but these two sports rang the changes while at the "top of their game".
And where is British Athletics as we enter the next Olympiad? With the resignation of CVC as Head Coach (and to those sceptics who thought he was "grandstanding" and had another job lined up - he is still unemployed in athletics), we were assured that a 10 year plan was already in place to accommodate such an eventuality. Some Canadian-Swede was appointed (he didn't stick around long enough for me to learn his name!) who claimed after a few months that he needed to go home for family reasons, and promptly walked into the top Canadian job! The ensuing transition at top appeared seamless, but what about at the "coal face" where the real coaching work is done?
Here is the "Independent Review of Coach Education Delivery"
http://www.theinsidetrack.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Review-of-Coach-Education-Delivery-21Dec2012-1-1.pdf
It will take some reading, but here are some "lowlights" (courtesy of Gwenda Ward);
“Forecasting is consistently over optimistic. It is not informed by appropriate insight from across the sport nor translated into appropriate delivery models. Forecasting appears to rely predominantly on reviewing and replicating the delivery from the previous 12 months.”
“There are no overarching coach workforce plans, identifying current and future coaching capacity, driving coach education and delivery. Instead coach education planning occurs as a discrete exercise.”
“The delivery model follows a rigid “one size fits all” approach that does not cater for “real life athletics”.
Coaching materials appeared to be delivered in isolation, where one would have thought that a basic tenet would be a connection between education and development.
And how about those coaching materials? The much pilloried "Elevating Athletics' and 'Athletics 365' (commissioned at extraordinary cost) are being used as ways of teaching athletics in clubs and schools despite almost universal condemnation.
What about the expected explosion of interest expected from the Olympics - UK:a (as it was then) did NOTHING! - there was a rumour of a position within London Athletics to "recruit and train" new coaches in the 2 years leading up to the Games, but nothing came of it. Even a sport like rugby (which is not in the Olympics till 2016) had/has a programme in place.
We bemoan the appointment of foreign coaches - but maybe they're better educated!
I realise that the nexus of skills involved in athletics is far more complex than in the 2 sports cited at the beginning of this piece, but the nation of Geoff Dyson, Wilf Paish, Tom McNab and Frank Dick should be showing more responsibility towards its coaches, and their development.
If you don't develop coaches how can you develop athletes!
And where is British Athletics as we enter the next Olympiad? With the resignation of CVC as Head Coach (and to those sceptics who thought he was "grandstanding" and had another job lined up - he is still unemployed in athletics), we were assured that a 10 year plan was already in place to accommodate such an eventuality. Some Canadian-Swede was appointed (he didn't stick around long enough for me to learn his name!) who claimed after a few months that he needed to go home for family reasons, and promptly walked into the top Canadian job! The ensuing transition at top appeared seamless, but what about at the "coal face" where the real coaching work is done?
Here is the "Independent Review of Coach Education Delivery"
http://www.theinsidetrack.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Review-of-Coach-Education-Delivery-21Dec2012-1-1.pdf
It will take some reading, but here are some "lowlights" (courtesy of Gwenda Ward);
“Forecasting is consistently over optimistic. It is not informed by appropriate insight from across the sport nor translated into appropriate delivery models. Forecasting appears to rely predominantly on reviewing and replicating the delivery from the previous 12 months.”
“There are no overarching coach workforce plans, identifying current and future coaching capacity, driving coach education and delivery. Instead coach education planning occurs as a discrete exercise.”
“The delivery model follows a rigid “one size fits all” approach that does not cater for “real life athletics”.
Coaching materials appeared to be delivered in isolation, where one would have thought that a basic tenet would be a connection between education and development.
And how about those coaching materials? The much pilloried "Elevating Athletics' and 'Athletics 365' (commissioned at extraordinary cost) are being used as ways of teaching athletics in clubs and schools despite almost universal condemnation.
What about the expected explosion of interest expected from the Olympics - UK:a (as it was then) did NOTHING! - there was a rumour of a position within London Athletics to "recruit and train" new coaches in the 2 years leading up to the Games, but nothing came of it. Even a sport like rugby (which is not in the Olympics till 2016) had/has a programme in place.
We bemoan the appointment of foreign coaches - but maybe they're better educated!
I realise that the nexus of skills involved in athletics is far more complex than in the 2 sports cited at the beginning of this piece, but the nation of Geoff Dyson, Wilf Paish, Tom McNab and Frank Dick should be showing more responsibility towards its coaches, and their development.
If you don't develop coaches how can you develop athletes!
No comments:
Post a Comment