Newbury Park - is it the coach or the kids?

CU Buff wrote:

Take a look at the records/results page:

http://www.nptrackclub.org/

.

Their feeder program is their youth track club.

http://www.nptrackclub.org/Page.asp?n=102799&org=nptrackclub.org

.

Their Sophomore Dev Joshi, for instance, he ran some good times in the "Midget Boys" division but nothing out of this world yet still ran 14:59 5k as a sophomore. Coaching?

2:18 for 800 and 5:00 for 1600 as a 7th grader isn’t good?

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

mister chau wrote:

That’s the point. The current group of kids are studs (apples) and the rest of the world, like the 2021 freshman class are normal (oranges). It’s not the coach. Apples make the coach’s look good, oranges make the coach look like everyone else.

You really don't think this coach can turn some oranges into apples in a a few years? That is the big difference with this coach and other good coaches.

I don’t know. I’ll let you know when he actually does it.

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

mister chau wrote:

That’s the point. The current group of kids are studs (apples) and the rest of the world, like the 2021 freshman class are normal (oranges). It’s not the coach. Apples make the coach’s look good, oranges make the coach look like everyone else.

You really don't think this coach can turn some oranges into apples in a a few years? That is the big difference with this coach and other good coaches.

If an apple is an 8:40 2-miler, then no. These kids have one out of several million talent.

mister chau wrote:

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

You really don't think this coach can turn some oranges into apples in a a few years? That is the big difference with this coach and other good coaches.

I don’t know. I’ll let you know when he actually does it.

Do you think all of the consistently solid high school programs just recruit talent from other schools and never develop their own kids?

The consistently solid programs develop their own kids. Is Newbury consistently solid? Does three years qualify as consistently solid?

Bear Down wrote:

The consistently solid programs develop their own kids. Is Newbury consistently solid? Does three years qualify as consistently solid?

No. They appear to have continued to improve on both the guys and girls side.

Bear Down wrote:

The consistently solid programs develop their own kids. Is Newbury consistently solid? Does three years qualify as consistently solid?

It's hard to watch you post over and over looking for reasons to hate coach Brosnan and Newbury Park. By you posting all these negative things you don't realize it now, but you're actually giving a huge complement to Brosnan and Newbury Park. The best at what they do always get attacked. It's just the sad truth.

You should really look in the mirror and take a hard look at yourself. I wish I could send you some great books to get yourself out of this dark place you're in right now. it worked for me years ago.

It's Ok for others to have success. You can still be successful yourself. I promise it's not too late to change.

How do you define success?

Alum-MSU-97 wrote:

Bear Down wrote:

The consistently solid programs develop their own kids. Is Newbury consistently solid? Does three years qualify as consistently solid?

It's hard to watch you post over and over looking for reasons to hate coach Brosnan and Newbury Park. By you posting all these negative things you don't realize it now, but you're actually giving a huge complement to Brosnan and Newbury Park. The best at what they do always get attacked. It's just the sad truth.

You should really look in the mirror and take a hard look at yourself. I wish I could send you some great books to get yourself out of this dark place you're in right now. it worked for me years ago.

It's Ok for others to have success. You can still be successful yourself. I promise it's not too late to change.

Let me make sure I understand. If you claim the kids at Newbury Park are the reason for the success, you're in a dark place, are attacking the coach and hate the school where the kids attend? If you believe the coach is the reason for the success, you're all good? Giving the credit to the kids somehow makes you bad, but giving credit to the coach, makes you good. Gotcha. What a classic take.

Classic, but perfectly on brand.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

You really don't think this coach can turn some oranges into apples in a a few years? That is the big difference with this coach and other good coaches.

If an apple is an 8:40 2-miler, then no. These kids have one out of several million talent.

Sure 8:40 is a very golden apple, but that is unrealistic without some immense talent and a great work ethic AND a knowledgeable coach.

I'm guessing most coaches, even in California, would be happy with a stable of sub 10:00 3200m runners to work with to develop a scoring CC team, right?

No those kids aren't fast enough for CA. Our tracks are shorter and flatter than everyone else's. So only 9:30 guys are good enough because our tracks are like 25 meters short or 30 seconds or something. I knew a coach that saw another coaches brother wheel all the track in CA and they were 28.7 meters short.

mister chau wrote:

Bear Down wrote:

Let me make sure I understand. If you claim the kids at Newbury Park are the reason for the success, you're in a dark place, are attacking the coach and hate the school where the kids attend? If you believe the coach is the reason for the success, you're all good? Giving the credit to the kids somehow makes you bad, but giving credit to the coach, makes you good. Gotcha. What a classic take.

Classic, but perfectly on brand.

No, but I will explain it to you.

This person is saying posting negative things over and over about a very successful HS coach of the best cross country team in US history makes no sense at all. It's a complement to him because this is what happens when you're great at what you do. people like to ridicule others at the top.

They are also encouraging this person to seek inner help instead of being negative to others. Seems like good advise. We all can be more positive in life. Including myself

I can believe some short CC courses, they are everywhere.

But short tracks, off by 28.7 meters, nice attempt at humor!

Los Ang -1984 wrote:

mister chau wrote:

Classic, but perfectly on brand.

No, but I will explain it to you.

This person is saying posting negative things over and over about a very successful HS coach of the best cross country team in US history makes no sense at all. It's a complement to him because this is what happens when you're great at what you do. people like to ridicule others at the top.

They are also encouraging this person to seek inner help instead of being negative to others. Seems like good advise. We all can be more positive in life. Including myself

Why is providing information supporting the kids being the factor in Newbury's success saying negative things about the coach? The thread is asking if it't the coach or the kids responsible for the success. I'm saying it's the kids. Why is that negative and how am I ridiculing someone? Am I making fun of him or attacking him as a person? In my three replies, which I hardly call over and over again, show me where I said negative things. We can all be more positive of course, and while we're working on self help, some may consider being less sensitive and narcissistic to think everything is about them.

Yeah, lots of sensitive people on this site!

They ask for an opinion, then get made if it's different than their take...

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Did you compete in distance running in HS? If you had NP level talent would you need anymore direction than a kid in any other sport? My HS coach wasn't particularly personable but if the workout was 8 × 880 or he wanted us to go for an 8-mile run, it never occurred to me not do so.

I've never seen an answer to my question as to what the difference is between coaching 4 great runners instead of just one.

Having coached kids in the limelight, I know that the better they get the more their own parents, other parents of the team, the school trainer, private coaches, etc… attempt to derail them from the head coaches training plans. The better they get, the more people want to share a piece of that success, and the more the athlete gets pulled in several directions.

The coach deserves a lot of credit for keeping them training and recovering in the right direction.

I’m not sure what your question was about having four great athletes on the team was? Having 3 of the best runners in the country at the high school level on the same team and the fourth not far off is fairly impossible without an extremely strong team culture, great leadership, and knowledge of training. This all comes from the coach. Keep in mind this is not a college team that can recruit nationally and beyond.

Having one great runner in the team can happen most anywhere randomly. That is the difference which even further solidifies the argument and is evident that he has to be a good coach.

Why do you insist on a false dichotomy? It's not one or the other; it's a lot of both and they ALL deserve credit and respect for what they've done.

If just 2 families lived somewhere besides NP, there wouldn't even be a thread about Brosnan and the team. He won the lottery and many other coaches would have the same results if they were so blessed. He has the best three HS runners in the country so it is as if he recruited nationally. If NP is dependent on a random distribution of talent in the future, there will be years where no one breaks 9:00.