World junior Standards

Rocket Science

I see that AI have set the bar really high with the standards for the World Junior Championships. All the marks are significantly higher than the IAAF standard and the B standard seems a very grey area. A bit harsh on junior athletes?

thirstywork2

No one is ever going to be happy with standards.Thye don't want to send people anymore just for the sake of it.
On one hand soem junior athletes are missing out on the experience but on the other hand it keeps them hungry to meet these standards.

SeanKenny

thirstywork2 wrote: »

No one is ever going to be happy with standards.Thye don't want to send people anymore just for the sake of it.
On one hand soem junior athletes are missing out on the experience but on the other hand it keeps them hungry to meet these standards.

I think that is a very poorly thought out arguement and the defence of the standards and the policy is quite weak.

It is inaccurate to suggest that nobody will ever be happy with the standards applied. If they are close to the IAAF standards they will be deemed fair. Transparency around selection is also required. I just read the policy document and it is unclear how many times the B standard is required.

Bear in mind the the current B standard is the A standard from 2010!! Now its required multiple times. How is this feasible or sensible for events such as the 5000m, 10000m and 10000m walk? Where would you even get three steeplechases in Ireland with electronic timing prior to the deadline?

Have a look back at how some of our best seniors performed at these championships? They were lucy to be there but the experience served them well. People who come to mind here are Gillian O'Sullivan, Robert Heffernan, David Gillick. None of those would be sent now based on the new criteria. But I'm sure they'd have been hungrier if they weren't sent!!:rolleyes:

thirstywork2

Sure where would you find a steeplechase water Jump that is full in Ireland never mind electronic timing.

thirtyfoot

I would like to know the rationale behind it. If it's to raise standards, I am not sure, it's probably too much of a jump, probably halfway between the A and B would be better. If it's finance and to ensure money is less spread around and directed to those most likely to be successfull, then leaving aside the effect this will have on athletes I know then I think it is a right move.

I would probably have gone lighter, increase the standard but have it definite with no ambiguity.

downthemiddle

As I posted in another thread;

I have looked at the standards and the number of Irish athletes at all levels who achieved these standards this year. It makes for interesting reading.

Male Standards
100m 10.60 (2 athletes) fastest junior 10.88
200m 21.20 (5) 21.58
400m 46.95 (3) 48.02
800m 1.48.35 (5) 1.47.09*
1500m 3.46.30 (13) 3.45.93*
3000m 8.09.00 (13) 8.15.20
5000m 14.00.00 (8) no time available
10000m 29.40.00 (5) 31.20
3000 s/c 8.51.00 (0) 9.54.34
110h 14.23 (2) 15.60
400h 51.40 (3) 50.06*
10k walk 43.05 (1) 47.08
Decathlon 7160 (1) no junior score
HJ 2.17 (1) 1.95
PV 5.10 (0) 4.45
LJ 7.60 (1) 6.85
TJ 15.80 (0) 14.05
Shot 17.10 (0) 16.02
Discus 53.00 (1) 42.70
Hammer 63.95 (0) 59.05
Javelin 69.00 (0) 52.14

Women's Standards
100m 11.74 (3) 11.86
200m 23.95 (3) 24.46
400m 53.75 (4) 53.89
800m 2.06.25 ( 4 two of which in mixed race) 2.06.57 (mixed)
1500m 4.19.85 (10) 4.07.45*
3000m 9.25.00 (3) 10.15.10
5000m 16.28 (4) 18.39.24
3000 s/c 10.15 (3) 12.14.68
100h 13.80 (2) 14.04
400h 58.60 (2) 60.44
10k walk 48.00 (2) 46.32*
Heptathlon 5350 no mark registered
HJ 1.85 (1) 1.76
LJ 6.17 (1) 5.86
TJ 13.10 (0) 12.63
Shot 15.10 (0) 12.67
Discus 49.00 (1) 40.62
Hammer 56.30 (1) 58.26*
Javelin 50.00 (0) 40.96

Based on these standards 6 athletes would have qualified this year. Thomas Barr,Mark English,Liam Markham,Ciara Mageean,Kate Veale and Cara Kennedy. An elite squad but with many promising athletes left behind and disillusioned.

IRL_Sinister

That's actually very interesting. Thank you. Been falling behind in my athletic coverage since I emigrated.

EDIT: downthemiddle do you know the names of the people eligible for each event/achieved the standards (or a link to where you found those statistics?)? A couple of distances in particular interest me.

SeanKenny

thirtyfoot wrote: »

I would like to know the rationale behind it. If it's to raise standards, I am not sure, it's probably too much of a jump, probably halfway between the A and B would be better. If it's finance and to ensure money is less spread around and directed to those most likely to be successfull, then leaving aside the effect this will have on athletes I know then I think it is a right move.

I would probably have gone lighter, increase the standard but have it definite with no ambiguity.

Lets park the severity of the A standard for the moment. It may be ok for some shorter distances to achieve multiple B standards as they can race more frequently by the nature of their event. However it certainly militates against endurance athletes. Would anyone like to explain to me how a junior athlete not capable of the A standard but well capable of the B is supposed to run multiple B standards and then perform at a championships over a distance like 5k/10k/walk/steeplechase?? It is absurd and clearly poorly thought out.

Your arguement that it directs money to those most likely to be successful is also flawed and poorly thought out. Were Derval, Rob Heffernan, Olive Loughnane, David Gillick, Paul Hession or Gillian O'Sullivan names that would have been on any such shortlist as juniors? Certainly not!! Yet they have delivered on the senior stage. Being an elite junior is not always the path to elite senior success.

The only aspect of your comment that I would agree with is that the policy is ambiguous.

Thats a good piece of work by Downthemiddle to show the impact of the standards.

MacSwifty

SeanKenny wrote: »

Lets park the severity of the A standard for the moment. It may be ok for some shorter distances to achieve multiple B standards as they can race more frequently by the nature of their event. However it certainly militates against endurance athletes. Would anyone like to explain to me how a junior athlete not capable of the A standard but well capable of the B is supposed to run multiple B standards and then perform at a championships over a distance like 5k/10k/walk/steeplechase?? It is absurd and clearly poorly thought out.

Your arguement that it directs money to those most likely to be successful is also flawed and poorly thought out. Were Derval, Rob Heffernan, Olive Loughnane, David Gillick, Paul Hession or Gillian O'Sullivan names that would have been on any such shortlist as juniors? Certainly not!! Yet they have delivered on the senior stage. Being an elite junior is not always the path to elite senior success.

The only aspect of your comment that I would agree with is that the policy is ambiguous.

Thats a good piece of work by Downthemiddle to show the impact of the standards.

The iaaf standards reflect the ability of the athlete to race and how often

The girls 5000m "A" standard equates to 999 iaaf points
The girls 100m "A" standard equates to 1059 iaaf points

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/33/41/20110124082825_httppostedfile_IAAF_Scoring_Tables_of_Athletics_2011_23299.pdf

Not sure that it makes it fairer for one or the other but the spinters etc will certaintly argue the case that they have to attain a higher "scoring" standard to qualifiy

SeanKenny

MacSwifty wrote: »

The iaaf standards reflect the ability of the athlete to race and how often

The girls 5000m "A" standard equates to 999 iaaf points
The girls 100m "A" standard equates to 1059 iaaf points

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/33/41/20110124082825_httppostedfile_IAAF_Scoring_Tables_of_Athletics_2011_23299.pdf

Not sure that it makes it fairer for one or the other but the spinters etc will certaintly argue the case that they have to attain a higher "scoring" standard to qualifiy

Others will claim that the scoring tables are judicious too so where do you stop? The IAAF make the call on their standards and we have no control over that. AAI high performance do have control on any alterations to those and that is the issue here.

Common sense should prevail, There was no issue with the previous standards, we didn't fill a plane on the way to any major junior event yet!!

thirtyfoot

SeanKenny wrote: »

Your arguement that it directs money to those most likely to be successful is also flawed and poorly thought out. Were Derval, Rob Heffernan, Olive Loughnane, David Gillick, Paul Hession or Gillian O'Sullivan names that would have been on any such shortlist as juniors? Certainly not!! Yet they have delivered on the senior stage. Being an elite junior is not always the path to elite senior success.

For the craic, imagine you are the HP Director for a day. You have €10k left in the HP kitty. It comes down to two options, Derval O' Rourke needs €10k to get treatment in Germany for an injury that could rule her out of London. We also have 5 kids who have just got inside the 'B' standard for World juniors. You have to choose one, which would it be? Option A - O' Rourke, Option B - the Juniors.

SeanKenny

thirtyfoot wrote: »

For the craic, imagine you are the HP Director for a day. You have €10k left in the HP kitty. It comes down to two options, Derval O' Rourke needs €10k to get treatment in Germany for an injury that could rule her out of London. We also have 5 kids who have just got inside the 'B' standard for World juniors. You have to choose one, which would it be? Option A - O' Rourke, Option B - the Juniors.

I notice you completely ignore my reasoned arguement and instead invent a hypothetical scenario.

Life is not that simple. There are a huge number of options - cancel the trip to Mannheim for the Juniors, use the budget put aside for the cross country trip to Bristol three weeks ago. The list of possibilities is endless. Its not that simple as A v B.

I really don't think this is down to money. Would the clubs of those 5 athletes in your hypothetical scenario be prepared to raise €700 each to send their athlete to a World Juniors? I think many of the progressive ones would! There is always a way but is there the willingness from some quarters is not so plentiful!

thirtyfoot

SeanKenny wrote: »

I notice you completely ignore my reasoned arguement and instead invent a hypothetical scenario.

I am fully aware of the needs for supporting younger athletes and also aware we have many athletes who develop late. Derval didn't run sub 14 prior to a world juniors. You have a reasoned argument, it makes sense.

I am asking you a simple question but alas you won't answer it.

SeanKenny wrote: »

Life is not that simple. There are a huge number of options - cancel the trip to Mannheim for the Juniors, use the budget put aside for the cross country trip to Bristol three weeks ago. The list of possibilities is endless. Its not that simple as A v B.

In the harsh realities of life yes it is. To provide the necessary support to those at the top, you may need to cut some fat.

SeanKenny wrote: »

I really don't think this is down to money. Would the clubs of those 5 athletes in your hypothetical scenario be prepared to raise €700 each to send their athlete to a World Juniors? I think many of the progressive ones would! There is always a way but is there the willingness from some quarters is not so plentiful!

So, what's your theory then if its not money? Why is the HP setup not wanting so many juniors going to a Worlds, are they trying to kill the sport? Should they stick to the HP plan that we have in place for the past 20 odd years? Are you happy with how we have done at senior world/european level, medals wise, in the past 20 years? Take the Cork girls out are we doing well? How would you run a HP unit? You have many reasoned arguments but little solutions. I'm sure you have solutions, I'd like to hear them. So far, it seems you'd like status quo as regards HP.

SeanKenny

thirtyfoot wrote: »

I am asking you a simple question but alas you won't answer it.

I already answered it.Cut the budget from elsewhere. Significant amounts could be saved without depriving a small number of valuable experience on the world stage. What figure are we talking about here? €3000? Its nominal in terms of the overall annual budget.


In the harsh realities of life yes it is. To provide the necessary support to those at the top, you may need to cut some fat.

Cut an alternative slice of fat as outlined above!!



So, what's your theory then if its not money? Why is the HP setup not wanting so many juniors going to a Worlds, are they trying to kill the sport? Should they stick to the HP plan that we have in place for the past 20 odd years? Are you happy with how we have done at senior world/european level, medals wise, in the past 20 years? Take the Cork girls out are we doing well? How would you run a HP unit? You have many reasoned arguments but little solutions. I'm sure you have solutions, I'd like to hear them. So far, it seems you'd like status quo as regards HP.

There are always ways to improve. Overall I think we have done ok on the world stage in the past 20 years. Ok Sonia was a major part of that having a vast amount of our success. However I don't envisage us having 10-20 genuine world class athletes at the same time. Any time we take a medal home from a majors its a good championships.

Rather than engage in off topic ramblings about how I'd run a HP unit, we could just stick to the topic? I'm sure nobody really cares how I would run it.

fiddy3

Option C: don't employ retards who, due to personality clashes and egos and emails, end up costing the association €200,000 in legal fees, money which could instead fund dozens more training camps, medical backup, and general funding for our elite athletes. Jokers.

thirtyfoot

Good point fiddy, good point!

Sean Kenny - what else is to discuss on topic. HP raised standards on Junior. It's crap, we would all like to see more juniors travel. Don't agree with decision. No more to discuss.

How shall we stay on topic, keep offering opinions as opposed to solutions. That's the problem with livelineman, boardsman etc, all opinions no solutions.

If you wish to revert to topic and continue complaining, please do, sorry for trying to dig a little deeper and go off topic and look at solutions instead of opinions.

SeanKenny

The solution is very simple. You leave the standards alone and send those who run them once rather that demanding multiple efforts thus reducing the chances of a decent performance at the championships.

You stop this non-sense of sending 5 top Euro cross and send the sixth member for experience as you don't know who will come through as seniors and benefit most. You send as many as you can to majors because thats what fuels ambition within the sport.

We ask why participation is low in Juniors and U23's - the reasons become obvious if standards are virtually unobtainable and selection policy is as variable as your bosses mood.

Use international competition to gain experience rather than as a tool to beat people with. Maximise the potential thats there and try to keep as many people competing at a high level where possible. Be positive in our approach rather than the negativity of not sending someone unless they are a proven world beater.

thirtyfoot

So your HP solution is to keep it as is and don't make changes. A model that in the past 20 years has seen us, in your own words, do merely "ok". Shall we keep accepting ok as the standard? Keep spreading the resources widely to cover as many as possible?

The solution is a tough one. Maybe reward the highest achievers more through world class support. If you look at the top minority sport, boxing. The athletes they send to majors are all medal contenders, by and large. Don't know the underage setup there but I assume at underage they will only send one per weight. I assume they are all massively competitive. It doesn't seem to affect the morale of those who don't make these teams or affect the conveyor belt of talent coming through. I wonder are our boxers so lethal because it is viciously competitive to even get on Irish teams underage and go to majors, possibly.

Instead of burying our heads in the sand and keeping doing what we are doing maybe we should start looking at things differently or else start talking about it.

Drop the Euro Team Champs? Send only A to majors? Send only top 16 potentials to juniors? Only send teams to cross when they are top 6 potential? All controversial. Not saying do it. Create a proper competition scene at home, how about a Belgian style circuit in Ireland.

SeanKenny

You are making plenty of assumptions there about boxing and confess in the same sentence to knowing nothing about their structures and practices. I also know very little about the political workings of the Boxing association so will not engage in a game of if's and maybe's.

In the last 20 years Ireland has taken one Olympic silver medal in athletics, one world championship gold and three silvers, at World Indoors we have taken 2 gold, one silver and two bronze medals, at World Cross Country we have taken two gold and four silvers individually and two team bronze medals. At the European championships we have taken three gold, one silver and three bronze medals. At european indoors we have taken four gold , one silver and three bronze medals. At euro cross we have had one individual gold and a team silver. These are all at senior level and do not include medal taken at World Universities, Euro U23 or any Junior competions.

To be honest I think that is quite a list and if asked will we do better in the next 20 years with a new HP strategy I would doubt it. Anybody in the real world would too because we need to park idealistic nonsense and deal with reality. Admittedly Sonia was a massive contributor in that time butwe will always rely on a small number of outstanding achievers to deliver medals.
Thats the nature of such a global sport. When our soccer team reaches the last 16 of a world cup we all take the weekoff and go on the lash and celebrate.

The new proposed Junior system is regressive. David McCarthy won a Euro U23 5000m medal in 2009 with a time that would not satisfy AAI that he should be selected for a Junior competition. Incidently that time would get him a medal most years so lets not engage in "tactical championship" nonsense talk.

thirtyfoot

SeanKenny wrote: »

You are making plenty of assumptions there about boxing and confess in the same sentence to knowing nothing about their structures and practices. I also know very little about the political workings of the Boxing association so will not engage in a game of if's and maybe's.

One point about boxing which is not an assumption is that they have one athlete per event and when that athlete goes to a majors, they are a real contender. Fact. We get into assumptions as to why that is. I assume its because that model of championship selection will apply all through the ages. Pretty decent assumption seeing its weight driven and only one boxer can box in a division. For a man who craves reasoned argument, you seem to be sidestepping that point of mine that I have argued quite reasonably, the success of the boxers that is and whether we can learn anything from them. Would you think its worthwhile to see what they do?

SeanKenny wrote: »

In the last 20 years Ireland has taken one Olympic silver medal in athletics, one world championship gold and three silvers, at World Indoors we have taken 2 gold, one silver and two bronze medals, at World Cross Country we have taken two gold and four silvers individually and two team bronze medals. At the European championships we have taken three gold, one silver and three bronze medals. At european indoors we have taken four gold , one silver and three bronze medals. At euro cross we have had one individual gold and a team silver. These are all at senior level and do not include medal taken at World Universities, Euro U23 or any Junior competions.

To be honest I think that is quite a list and if asked will we do better in the next 20 years with a new HP strategy I would doubt it

.

I am confused by your argument now. You said we did "ok". Now you seem to be saying we did pretty well. I am confused or are you saying its ok to settle for "ok"?

SeanKenny wrote: »

To be honest I think that is quite a list and if asked will we do better in the next 20 years with a new HP strategy I would doubt it. .

Now you are regressing to my tactic of hypothesis, how do you know the HP plan will not be successfull? Have you seen it? I haven't, I'd love to see the full picture and the rationale behind the approach.

SeanKenny wrote: »

Anybody in the real world would too because we need to park idealistic nonsense and deal with reality.

I am sorry Sean Kenny, this is where you lose credibility in my eyes. This sounds like you are settling for the same same. I am in the real world. I coach athletes. One of them who is carded is likely to lose that next year in the tough new environment. It will affect us, no doubt. But to accept the same process due to proximity bias is very small minded. I would be willing to accept a tough new funding and qualification criteria for athletes I coach if I felt in the long term that the sport will be much stronger in 10 years. I am not convinced that it will be but I know change is needed. Our sport is built on "idealistic nonsense". When kids we all aspire to be Olympians. When Olympians they aspire to be a finalist. When a finalist they aspire to be a medalist. Change Olympics to Nationals or County to a sub 3 marathon for a 3:45, the ideals and aspirations are the same. To resist change because you feel you live in reality as opposed to some idealistic world is missing the point of the sport.

SeanKenny wrote: »

The new proposed Junior system is regressive. David McCarthy won a Euro U23 5000m medal in 2009 with a time that would not satisfy AAI that he should be selected for a Junior competition. Incidently that time would get him a medal most years so lets not engage in "tactical championship" nonsense talk.

Not sure what who mentioned tactical championship

Just to clarify, I don't agree with the hardened standards but mainly because I don't know the rationale. If I fully understood what the big picture is then I might be able to agree its regressive, until I (we) know the full picture then its all hypothesis.

SeanKenny

Credit where credit is due Thirtyfoot, you have over three and a half thousand posts and are a great man for a debate where you offer no point of view except lets give this a try and see what happens? And you add the safety net that you don't think it will work? You ask for clarification from me on all topics but have not offered one single solution here apart from look at boxing. You correctly identify that they are successful and also correctly identify that one boxer goes to a major? Can you give me a detailed description on why this is? Facts now please for the sake of credibility!

Perhaps there is something to be learned from boxing. It is the job of HP to determine if so.

I think we have done well over the past 20 years when you look at the medal haul. You are foccussing on one word in a previous post and now attempt to bring us away on a tangent!

Our sport at HP leve is not built on idealistic nonsense. There is where I lose all respect for your post. It is built on effective planning that is suitable for the current situation. It is about providing structure, support and competitive opportunity for established and emerging athletes. I am all for change if it is positive. I don't believe in change for the sake of it with the "lets see what happens" approach that you seem to accept.

I have pointed out several flaws in the thinking of the Junior standards. What have you got to offer on the subject apart from idle speculation and lets see what happens? You are at pains to point out that the current proposals won't work so what will?

thirtyfoot

Within HP I would focus on the following areas:

Elite support. Identify what is elite. Probably the currently contracted athletes, Derval, Heffernan, Gillick, Loughnane. Create an environment where they have whatever they want, nothing short of world class if possible. Ensure their coaches also have all they want, not necessarily paid but resources in other ways. Create a similar ‘elite’ crew at U23, Junior and Youth. Very aggressive standards, top 4 in each category but only if they meet these standards. Gregan and Barr at U23, Barr, Mageean, English at Junior, Veale etc at Youth. Give them world class support. Give their coaches world class support. Commit to 4 elites in each of these areas each year. That’s 16 elite each year. As you move from one age group to next you need to maintain your standard to be in the top 4 of that category. This is funding that is laid down each year and ringfenced. If it takes up the vast majority of HP funding then that would be ok. If athletes are in elite one year and drop they will still receive the following year (for one year only) but at a reduced rate, say 50%. This will help if there is a bad year through injury, loss of form etc. If they are still out the next year, they drop to 0%.

What would you give to those beneath that? Reduced funding but improved services from a medical and coaching perspective. The medical and coaching expertise at the services of the 16 elites could be leveraged to support the 2nd tier also without too much extra cost.

Competition. This needs improvement. This would be even more important if the carrot of international competition is taken away from the fringe athletes. Create a proper domestic circuit. The logic here is that if you are going to make standards at the top harder and more exclusive then you need something to backfill that. A thriving domestic calendar could do that. Like the races in Belgium for example. 3 to 4 EAP style meets that would see some UK and European athletes coming over. This would need the support of the HP unit though and be part of the overall plan. This would maintain the ‘interest’ of the fringe athletes as well as raising standards in a competitive environment.

Qualification. On the assumption that the A only criteria is likely to be the case from now on at Olympics, reflect this down to all other competitions. Don’t make this A as tough as say has been in the Juniors, maybe in the context of the junior standards somewhere between the current A and B. Make this the case in Seniors, U23, Juniors, Youth.

Coaching. Our coaches need to be coached. There was an IAAF Level 4 this year so that was good. You start to get elite coaches as well as elite athletes. So a great youth comes along and is elite. Their coach also gets support. As that athlete moves through the ages, staying as elite, so will their coach as they progress with the athlete. This means there isn’t a requirement for the coach to ultimately lose their athlete to an already established elite coach. This coach can then apply their learnings to more and more athletes. This way, you have not only brought an athlete through their whole career but their progression as an athlete will have left a legacy as their coach will have learned a lot and be able to apply this to more athletes in years to come.

That’s just a quick thought. Money, personnel and patience to implement would be the key thing.

thirtyfoot

SeanKenny wrote: »

You correctly identify that they are successful and also correctly identify that one boxer goes to a major? Can you give me a detailed description on why this is?

Yes, one boxer goes to majors because that's the rule, one per weight division. There is an advantage of course because then there is only one Cuban etc as opposed to an athlete competing against three Kenyans or three Americans.

Why are they so successful? They have a plan. They have money/support to back it up as they are the darlings of the ISC (my Money argument), they have the man to deliver the plan in Billy Walsh (my Personnel argument) and they had the belief and patience* to deliver it (my Patience argument).



* Remember pre-Beijing, they had a few rough years but they stuck at it.

Pisco Sour

fiddy3 wrote: »

Option C: don't employ retards who, due to personality clashes and egos and emails, end up costing the association €200,000 in legal fees, money which could instead fund dozens more training camps, medical backup, and general funding for our elite athletes. Jokers.

It's a crying shame that such a good post would get stuck at the very end of the page, so I thought I would quote it to ensure maximum exposure.

ecoli

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Within HP I would focus on the following areas:

Elite support. Identify what is elite. Probably the currently contracted athletes, Derval, Heffernan, Gillick, Loughnane. Create an environment where they have whatever they want, nothing short of world class if possible. Ensure their coaches also have all they want, not necessarily paid but resources in other ways. Create a similar ‘elite’ crew at U23, Junior and Youth. Very aggressive standards, top 4 in each category but only if they meet these standards. Gregan and Barr at U23, Barr, Mageean, English at Junior, Veale etc at Youth. Give them world class support. Give their coaches world class support. Commit to 4 elites in each of these areas each year. That’s 16 elite each year. As you move from one age group to next you need to maintain your standard to be in the top 4 of that category. This is funding that is laid down each year and ringfenced. If it takes up the vast majority of HP funding then that would be ok. If athletes are in elite one year and drop they will still receive the following year (for one year only) but at a reduced rate, say 50%. This will help if there is a bad year through injury, loss of form etc. If they are still out the next year, they drop to 0%.

What would you give to those beneath that? Reduced funding but improved services from a medical and coaching perspective. The medical and coaching expertise at the services of the 16 elites could be leveraged to support the 2nd tier also without too much extra cost.

That’s just a quick thought. Money, personnel and patience to implement would be the key thing.

I think there are some very good points here. I like the idea of honing in on athletes and providing support environment around them. I think from here would also aim to build groups around the individual. In terms of providing top class facilities/service/coaching for the athlete initially this would be costly but once the setup cost has been made the price of supporting each subsequent athlete within that same environment reduces.

This is similar to the idea of center's of excellence but building them from the ground up. A long process but one that could yield greater benefits both in development of athletes and minimizing cost per athlete taken to help develop them

Start with Say Derval (just an example) and building on her success and funding and developing other hurdlers around her support. The money invested initially is viewed positively as supporting one of our world class athletes yet from there you build a suitable enviroment of the success of one athlete. Ultimately creating group for say perhaps the Barr's or Mairead Murphy where the cost per athlete to fund dramatically decreases without compromising the service being provided.

Also the idea of coach development along with the athlete I think is one that would yield exponential benefits in the overall development of athletes in this country rather than it being taken as a given that many of the coaches in Ireland can only take us so far.

We need to be making setting up base in Ireland more attractive to our athletes to help provide a more conveyor belt style production of athletes at the highest level. One where the investment in each athlete extends past their own career but contributes back to the development of the sport in the long term

Rocket Science

Some excellent points being made here overall.
I feel that the junior standards as outlined are too high. At junior level we should be encouraging athletes and to reach a major games is what drives athletes. If the bar is set too high it can be discouraging.The message being sent out is that AI are only interested in world medal chances and at junior level hardly the best way forward? Also we have an excellent group of youth / junior athletes at present and to be honest how much support is actually being provided to them and their coaches by AI? I don't know but I would assume that kate Veale is being supported and rightly so but how much is being done for the rest? Has anyone contacted all the youth and junior medal winners and finalists from last Summer to offer support to them and their coaches?

MacSwifty

http://hp.athleticsireland.ie/images/spolicy/2012/WJC/12_IAAF_World_Junior_Champs_F_201211.pdf

3.5.1 Any eligible athlete who achieves one (1) “A” or two (2) “B” Performance Standard(s) within the Qualifying Period for the particular event will be considered for selection. 3.5.2 In the 3000m, 3000m SC, 5000m, 10000m, 10000m RW, and CE: because of the restricted nature of the performance period and qualifying opportunities, athletes will be considered for selection who have achieved one (1) “B” Performance Standard and will be favourably considered (close to/over) the “A” Performance Standard.

thirtyfoot

A welcome clarification on the B standard. Get the standard twice and you go, not bad. Obviously listened to the feedback and suggestions. Complaining with a solution as opposed to just complaining gets better results.

Dan man

thirtyfoot wrote: »

A welcome clarification on the B standard. Get the standard twice and you go, not bad. Obviously listened to the feedback and suggestions. Complaining with a solution as opposed to just complaining gets better results.

I'm not sure it is as clear cut as this. If an athlete achieves the A standard or twice hits the B-standard then they will be considered for selection, not automatically on the plane.
3.5.1 " Any eligible athlete who achieves one (1) “A” or two (2) “B” Performance Standard(s) within the Qualifying Period for the
particular event will be considered for selection."

They are still maintaining that the athlete in question is thought to be capable of attaining a top-12 finish at the championships. Having said that, I would imagine that athletes in that scenario will in the end be sent to the champs.

SeanKenny

Its a very limited clarification. I expect that if you achieve the B standard on two occasions you will be sent. However, it is far from certain.

It was worthwhile in the sense that they realised that it was not feasible to achieve multiple standards in distance events - steeplechase, walk, 5000m, 10000m.

However I wonder why the criteria can't be clearer. In the distance events, what are the chances of being sent if an athlete just manages the B standard? Will they really be "considered" for selection? What are the dependent factors?

For me it would be very simple. The fastest two go in each event, subject to achieving the B standard. That way, everybody knows what they must do and the ambiguity is removed.

So what if they don't come in the top 12 - neither did Derval, Gillian O'Sullivan, Gillick, Hession, Olive Loughnane.

The last few years have seen good progress, larger junior teams leading to larger and more competitive U23 teams. Lets not halt the progress.

MacSwifty

SeanKenny wrote: »

Its a very limited clarification. I expect that if you achieve the B standard on two occasions you will be sent. However, it is far from certain.

It was worthwhile in the sense that they realised that it was not feasible to achieve multiple standards in distance events - steeplechase, walk, 5000m, 10000m.

However I wonder why the criteria can't be clearer. In the distance events, what are the chances of being sent if an athlete just manages the B standard? Will they really be "considered" for selection? What are the dependent factors?

For me it would be very simple. The fastest two go in each event, subject to achieving the B standard. That way, everybody knows what they must do and the ambiguity is removed.

So what if they don't come in the top 12 - neither did Derval, Gillian O'Sullivan, Gillick, Hession, Olive Loughnane.

The last few years have seen good progress, larger junior teams leading to larger and more competitive U23 teams. Lets not halt the progress.

Agreed!!