Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.
Maybe you should go and buy a dictionary along with some Prozac
Exile wrote:I still don't understand the need to criticise individuals. Nobody sets out to run poorly or not make the Olympics. Even those on funding can hardly be expected to turn funding down if it is offered to them. If there were better athletes around then the funding would be directed towards them. At the end of the day, the sport is an individual one and the only person who loses out when a sprinter runs badly is the sprinter themself.
On a wider note about coaching, sprints and expectations, it has been suggested that young sprinters should be looking to the future and thinking about LTAD. While I wholeheartedly agree and do not think it wise to mention names, take a look at the top 10 all time lists for male and female U17 sprints (ignoring those that are there but are still juniors): -
M100m: Of the top 10, only MLF and Tyrone Edgar went on to break 10.10 as seniors (in MLF's case, in his first year).
M200m: Nobody went on to break 20.5. Tim Benjamin and Mark Richardson went on to be world class 400m runners. Darren Campbell is down in 20th.
M400m: Richardson is top and was truly world class. Nobody else broke 45. Hylton (9th) ran 45.24.
W100: Sonia Lannaman went on to break 11.3. Nobody else did. Kath Merry obviously went on to world class over 400m.
W200: Simmone Jacobs was the only one to break 23 as a senior. Vernicha James and Amy Spencer were outstanding juniors. Merry also appears.
W300: Nobody of note appears in the top 10.
My point is that when we see outstanding under 17s, we can certainly hope for the best, because the odd one goes on to world class (often in a different event), but we shouldn't be at all surprised if they don't progress much at all, because that is the norm. Expecting them to go on to Olympic games in the future and succeed is fine, but the odds are stacked heavily against. Of course, as Richardson, Merry and others have shown, it is not impossible.
The real questions are why this trend exists. Is it that the very best U17s are people who peak naturally early in life? Is it coaching? Is it that they get bored? Injuries from starting their careers too early? Has there been any research on what the very best elite athletes were doing as U17s? I can think of Roger Black, Iwan Thomas and even Linford who were probably doing very little at that age. Chambers and even Gemili were good but not outstanding under 17s.
I wonder whether the USA AT U17 lists feature household names? Ultimately, why do we have such promising talents at that age who rarely progress into outstanding seniors?
gruffalo wrote:What's happened to our sprinters?
Well nothing - they are all still mediocre (in world terms) as ever.
Lifelong coaching by UK Sprint coaches who are not world class, have no world class pedigree and no history of taking good juniors to the world class level.
The sport is professional now and with it should come professional responsibility.
Lets face it in the real world most of the coaches in the UK would have been fired by now - pity Alan Sugar doesn't work for UKA
It has been going on for years where there is "no plan" and where young talent's progress can be stifled by inadequate coaching. What's more the inadequate coaching can lead to the all too familiar excuses we hear time and again "niggling injuries" - cause and affect
World class athletes don't get niggling injuries
I feel for kids like Jodie Williams and Adam Gemili as I honestly believe they will never reach their true potential stuck in the system - what's worse if they chose their own way and chose a positive decision to say go abroad they can get ostracised by UKA for not "towing the party line". Are UKA there for the benefit of the athletes or the coaches?
The words I hate to hear when they are asked about whats next "I'll have to speak to my coach" - Tiger Woods may as well ask me to look at his swing.
A certain UK sprinter who went to the caribbean to train was accused of "not working hard enough" - endemic of the coaching he received in the UK?
Harry AA, Simeon etc despite their age have been in the game long enough to be able to take a true look at themselves and determine their future. Now is the time to make that decision if it means going elsewhere to progress or plod along for the rest of their careers.
Just want to see Adam G run
bevone wrote:Some have short memories, regarding injuries. Linford and the others in his day may have had injuries but they would show up to the major champs and produce. This is not happening now - uka are interfering rather than let some athletes get on with it. Tyrone edgar -btw is based in the US now and more and more UK athlete are seeking the us for the answer where they are improving. Most of our marquee athletes stay here but i wonder how the would have done if they' d go to the us under coaCHES who know how to coach full time.
With all the funding and interfering - uka has had a poor record of success and perhaps if they had employed people who were the right people for the job rather than hand picked their own - maybe the sport would be in a better place, \there is a strong argument to save lots of money and support out best to go to the top us unis and then support them properly when they come back at 23 - if that is what the athlete wants. Maybe get these unis to employ Uk coaches - or uk employ them to go on sabbaticals to learn how to coach properly, so they could see how to do it.
jeremy1 wrote:And if I say that I think that English footballers are second rate, I suppose posters will go into the same mode as they do on track and field.
mump boy wrote:The idea that i'm jingoistic is laughable
gruffalo wrote:Montell Douglas "british record holder" haha has only run 2 world class times in her entire career. Her personal achievements in world class terms reminds me of German Long jumper Sebastian Bayer who jumped 8.71 Indoors and 8.49 outdoors in 2009 -nothing before and nothing since.
gruffalo wrote:djlovesyou - get a grip
you are implying that athletes who run sub 10 are some how doping and "Team GB" are the real worlds best
Athletes from numerous countries are running sub-10 and you are implying that they are doping to get there.
gruffalo wrote:A certain UK sprinter who went to the caribbean to train was accused of "not working hard enough" - endemic of the coaching he received in the UK?
djhdjh wrote:Wouldn't it be more productive to develop our own collegiate system? I don't see that it couldn't be done - plenty of the top facilities that form the National or Regional Centres are based at or close to some of our top sporting universities.
bevone wrote:Tyrone Edgar, Tasha Danvers, Carl Myerscough, Proctor, Cox, Porter, Bingham, and several European top athletes come to mind as good athletes who went there [to the U.S.]...
I don't think this thing about Douglas is accurate. Montell lost funding when the relay team lost funding - its that simple. Only Kwakye was kept on presumably because she made an Olympic final and began showing signs she may return to her top form again (indoor performances).bevone wrote:I heard ms douglas lost her funding because of this! But then again there are the finding lists and the other list of money's given to athlete at the head coaches discretion!
Totally agree about the University system. Cannot see how you could create something in the UK that would match what our youngsters can access in the US FOR FREE without;
A) Spending millions per year to improve facilities and provide professional coaching and support at each of the Unis
B) Spending the majority of that money on foreign students in order to create sufficient depth of competition to make it worthwhile, you simply could not replicate the benefits of the NCAA with purely UK students
If it was funded via UKA you would also not be able to do it without;
C) Annoying so many people who would be up in arms that money was being spent on second rate students instead of higher class athletes who are older
D) Being accussed of poaching if the athletes were coached by the Uni coach rather that their original coach, without which much of the benefit is lost
E) Revisiting the whole argument about having to go to particular centres to benefit from support
It's all well and good people suggesting ideas, but they need to be fully thought through.
Geoff wrote:I thought it appropriate to add, as you all know, that our women's 4x100 relay team are now outside the world's top 16 and will not qualify for our home Olympics. And also to add I don't believe funding is the issue for this sad state of affairs.
Who to blame - everyone. Who should take responsibility - UKA. For fear of being being told to keep sport politics off this board it is down to policies and management plus it brings into question wider implications for our governing body as well as UK Sport.
iain wrote:I don't know about policies but the fault is that no relay races were organised by UKA despite the ever more probable threat of elimination from the olympics.
fangio wrote:Sorry, but I ma genuinely asking which policy, if someone says it is a policy whcih has resulted in this I woudl like to know which one. If there is a policy which has lead to this (apart from one of not forcing ahtletes to run races they choose not to) then i woudl like to know what it is. if there isn't I don't think that a review of policies is going to help. I don't see anythign unreasonable in that position, and I would like Geoff to let me know which policy he thinks was responsible, just saying it is a failure of policy and management doesn't really tell me what he thinks was at fault.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests