National Cross Country- Sunderland

Andy Barber wrote:

Why do so many people think the national has to be in their backyard? For sure it has to be accessible but its the National champs. It could be anywhere in the country. As someone else has said you have to question the commitment level/fitness of anyone thinking 'That looks a long way, I won't bother.' If you've trained like a dog all winter is an extra couple of hours journey going to keep you away?

The point that seems to be missed here is that whilst the "hardcore" - and that probably includes many people looking and posting on Letsrun.com - will go virtually anywhere, not all runners are brought up in the tradition of the National as their number one priority. Somehow these runners need to be engaged and encouraged that this should be part of their race plan, if not necessarily their main target. Even those running marathons should consider including it - a number of the top 20 on Saturday will be targeting London so why not mor club runners too.

From 2006 to 2007, numbers in the senior mens race reduced by over 25%, in the womens it is 33%. If I was running a business where my sales declined like that I would be pretty concerned and look at all aspects to take remedial action.

If this decline is not addressed then the alternative could be a race in 5-10 years time for a hardcore of say 500 men/150 women, with an increasing age profile.

In an ideal world, all areas of the country would have a turn at hosting. However, if the aim is to turn the event round over, say, the next three years, you need to make things as simple as possible. Many people simply cannot/do not want to give up two days to travel to an event. Perhaps when they find out just how worthwhile an event it is they may be persuaded.

There have been some excellent ideas about improving promotion. To some extent this is look at what big road runs do and follow that with some modifications. With so much tradition the opportunities to "play" on this are endless.

It is a shame if UKA care little for the event/tradition as it really should be the showpiece of winter running and surely they would ultimately benefit from its success/higher profile. I wonder if they have been approached to help? Perhaps their PR Dept or Fastrack could give some support? Also, wasn't our middle/long distance tradition built on cross country so surely it has a role to play in trying to rebuild success at the top as well.

controversial - but I think it should be in same venue every year. Somewhere in the midlands probably. It works for the road relays.

Midlands Mud Lover wrote:

controversial - but I think it should be in same venue every year. Somewhere in the midlands probably. It works for the road relays.

I think relay fields are struggling too in the 12 stage at least. Allowing b teams in has falsely inflated the numbers.

I dont think this would be a good idea. Would make it more boring and repetitive, rotating the event round NE/NW/SE/SW/MD Etc would gather more local interest. We dont live in a big country, travelling is not the issue, the appeal to run the race is the issue. As people consider training for London, or whatever their priority is for the year to be more important. I dont think guests should be allowed as this would be degrading if say the national champion came 4th. But i do think more prize money should be offered to the winners. It is upto clubs to promote the events, as im unsure what all clubs are like...but mine although they enter relays, regional events etc the main focus of the club seems to be on the 'club championship' (best total score from so many selected road races a year, transport provided) and the local cross country championship. After this you have to use your own initiative to enter events such as the national and regional events. The lack of recognition the national gets in the local press does not help either. At the top end i think maybe a sponsorship deal for the winner, world xc place, if it was marketed a bit better it really could be a spectacle.

i agree with some of your points but I thinkly clearly travel IS an issue for many people.

I think it would be helpful if we understood the position of the National in the whole scheme of things before we jump to the comclusion that it is all UKA's fault again.

The National is organised by the English Cross Country Association, a body comprised of hard working amateur officials who do their best to maintain the tradition that the National established over decades. UKA is not part of that operation, never was, and never needs to be. The clubs are the lifeblood of the event and I think you will find that the ECCA promote the event for the good of the clubs, and no more.

Each year there is a conference to discuss all of the cross country dates. UKA host it, and most of the groups who promote events send representatives - Schools, CAU, Home Countries etc etc. The job for the meeting is to fit in all of the proposed events in a way that gives the athletes the best programme.

It starts by accepting there are dates that are fixed internationally, Euro Cross, World Cross - then makes dates available for the appropriate Trials. Then other dates are slotted in that are fixed well in advance i.e. National Schools, and also televised events that are fixed that UKA cannot influence.

Then other Championships take dates that fit their ambitions, trying wherever possible to fit a pattern of two weeks between each major fixture, with smaller events on the weeks between i.e. leagues.

This takes quite a while, some discussion, negotiation, and can only reach a sucessful outcome if everyone is flexible. Please note that UKA cannot and does not allocate dates - it is involved in the process, but if the CAU or ECCA decide that they want a particular date for their championship then UKA cannot deny them that right.

So the National.

When it was the Trial for the England World Cross team it was the event I looked forward to the most in the calendar.

After the amalgamation of the Home Countries teams, it was a different race, but it still has a special place in England.

UKA needs two Trials - Euro and World Cross. They have to be open to all UK runners, and the venues should be fairly central i.e. Margate is a bit too far south.

The dates are agreed at the annual fixtures meeting, then venues arranged by whichever UK committee now makes that decision.

These events are nearly worthy of TV coverage. That means if somebody pays a TV company to film the events, then TV will show them as long as it doesnt cost them anything. No TV company will film and show either Trial unless somebody pays them.

So UKA funds, or part funds the TV you see. It also secures some modest sponsorship to help cover costs.

I think that ECCA would probably like to incorporate the World Trials in their annual championships, but that would require some slight adjustments to their programme and the financing of the whole event. What would happen the the Welsh, Scottish and N Irish Champs - would they still exist ? If so why shouldnt England have its own Champs ? It does at the moment and unless there is a major re-think the situation wont change.

It leaves the National as an English Club Champs, with a great history. What it doesnt do is restore the event to its former glory, whcih I dont think is going to happen for a number of reasons - and none of those reasons is that UKA doesnt care about it or cross country in general.

Thanks for a very informed reply on some of the background to the National, fixture setting process, etc.

A few points to make:

- I was certainly not saying it was all UKA fault but rather suggesting that perhaps they could provide some logistical help as they had a vested - if indirect interest - in its continued success. A earlier posted commented on how they had struggled to find the results in the National press and my suggestion was that perhaps UKA PR/media team could provide some assistance/guidance.

- The explanation of the UK Trials being the reason for the decline in the National is something of a red herring. The home countries teams last competed in the 1988 World Champs. The UK trials have been running since 1989. In 1998 - long after the UK trials were established we had over 1650 in the mens National - now it is just over 900. The two events ran hand in hand for a number of years.

- The Trial/Inter Counties may take away those selected for World Champs and one or two more, but I don't think it is taking many of the "sub elite" away most of whom run both National and Inter Counties/Trial. The serious decline is amongst the solid club runners not the "sub elite". I suspect that your comment that it is run for the clubs explains some of this - most successful events are run with the athletes as first priority. The clubs are used as the main point of contact and as has been said by other posters other advertising, promotion, etc is virtually non-existant. The club athletes need to be inspired to feel that this is an event they really should be doing.

I am sure we all appreciate that the hard work that the officials put into running the event. It would be nice to see that hard work rewarded with increasing rather than declining fields. To do so, they may need to adopt some new ideas or bring on some more help.

What about if the national champion of england, wales, scotland, & n ireland were automatically given a place with the remaining 5 reserved another event if necessary such as the inter counties. I know we may not see the best four selected from the various national championships but it would atleast promote the events in all the areas, and hopefully raise standards in the future.

As a first aside I believe '98 was the first year that the national was completely open, the 9 per club max rule was scrapped so that year was artificially high, probably as a result of the novelty value. The decline since is a bit of a worry and whilst this years field was a few hundred smaller than last it may not be panic stations just yet.

I think the national needs to be marketed as THE pre-eminent cross country experience in the country. This is unlikely to be achieved by the ECCA without the necessary buy-in from the media (UKA included).

Andy Barber might be able to help here. Would Running/Fitness and other magazines be likely to make a song and dance about the national - e.g. large article detailing the history, past winner interviews, legendary races etc? If not, why not?

Obviously a magazine publisher is in it to make money so would this sort of article fit with the reader profile or are they more interested in road running? Would this go some way to raising numbers again? This sort of thing could surely help but I doubt it could be left to the commercial sector.

Andy Barber might be able to help here. Would Running/Fitness and other magazines be likely to make a song and dance about the national - e.g. large article detailing the history, past winner interviews, legendary races etc? If not, why not?

-------------------------------------

Running fitness did such an article last year and had input from Goater, Clarke, Bedford, Moorcroft, McLeod etc

time to combine the inter-counties/National into one event that also serves at the World-Trial. Keep the National Distance at 12k (same as World Cross) and the field won't then be so diluted- it will be the main goal for every ambitious athlete for the winter (hopefully).

Get rid of the inter-counties

I'm not sure that would be the answer in terms of getting the masses out again.

I think a big part of it is to make the clubs feel they have ownership of the event again.

The national is a great chance to meet a stack of runners, run as hard as your little legs will carry you in a race full of people to slug it out with (whatever your level) and then to head for a night out and banter with mates you don't often see.

Pete did the RF article last year, I did a similar thing the year before.

But a lot of people still see the National as 'not for them'.

Fairly large numbers of people still do regular XC. leaving aside age groups (ie loads of vets in 'senior' races) and performance levels, there are still I think thousands who compete in a load of XC leagues thru the season. Clearly the vast majority don't wish to add the National to their annual race prog. So maybe there is a case that, amidst any other changes, the National could be a much more exclusive event - based on some combo of leading clubs based on Regional XC Champs and 'wild card' entries, say based on Top 100 individuals per region. Vets have their own National XC separately. Senior mens field thus perhaps c 300/400, and prob vast majority would be sub 35 10k types.

Clearly not a suggestion for the traditionalists - but its been, what, 20 years at least since there was an objective case for the Natioanl to be seen as'the greatest XC event in the world', and changing it along the above lines would, based on current figures, be depriving only a very small number of senior runners a racing opportunity. It would end the debate on declining numbers as well by effectively having a capped limit.

The thing that always used to amaze me when I posted on the RW boards, was that threads on say the Silverstone marathon would receive hundreds of posts by different people, yet the only threads on the major XC championships were started by one of about three people generally.

There's a whole generation of runners out there, that just don't seem to know about the national- or more specifically, just don't care about it. In the old system, people knew about the national because they joined a club and did it as a senior.

Now the juniors have many different options of which the national is the least prestigious (because anyone can enter, ESAA and I/C you need to qualify) so they don't grow up thinking that the national is the big race.

The seniors that are entering the sport now in their 20s/30s/40s are either running independently or running for clubs that aren't prioritising the national. The national needs to become the focus again of the clubs if its going to suceed.

Interestingly on the wider debate about selection races and their importace, I read a piece about the Kenyan trials recently and the outrage that someone who didn't run the trials was given a place. If the Kenyans who have many better runners than us (which I admit is part of the reason why they can force them to go to the trials) can force the big names to come out and compete for a spot then why can't we? If you're good enough that you deserve automatic selection then a trial race shouldn't be a hinderence surely? Just thinking that the more top runners turn up to these races the more likely other runners will enter as well.

Good observations on where the national is now seen.

But with regards to the trials we don't have the depth of the Kenyans and so need to hit a balance in terms of making the trials a true trial and making sure our big hitters get to the World XC in shape. Making someone like Paula or Mo fit a trial race into their schedule of racing, training, going to and coming back from altitide as they prepare for the big champs is counter-productive. The issues for the Kenyans are also different in terms of the geography and physiologically (their top athletes aren't having to fly back from the other side of the world or taking so long to adjust to altitude differences).

We didn't take Coe to the 88 Olympics because of a first past the post selection policy and him mistiming a return from altitude. Whether you agree with that decision that year or not it highlights the 'dangers' of that system.

The Kenyans I also think have an issue with flying back from the otherside of the world as a number of them are running for Japanese teams, some of whom are top class athletes (e.g. Wanjiru) and the top athletes with fitting it into their training schedule have the same problem, though the altitude issue is still there.

There are obviously dangers with having a trial that the big hitters won't qualify, but with a team of 9, I'd argue that any athlete that would be "eligibile" for pre-selection should be able to waltz through the trial fairly comfortably. If they aren't then should they really be considered for pre-selection? If you can't finish in the top 9 domestically, are you really going to have a substantial impact on the team in a month or so? I'm not sure, just how much does the altitude slow athletes down if they have a bad transition?

But that wasn't really the point, if you want the best team possible it may or may not be useful to have a first past the post system, if you want to improve the quality of domestic trial races then it's definitely worth it.

The aim of the selection process should be to get the strongest possible team. Trial races are a means to an end rather than an end themselves. The "quality" of the race is irrelevant as long as the purpose of the trial race (and, by definition, the whole selection process) is met.

Id be interested to see if having the trial race a 6 weeks before the event has the desired effect, surely the closer the trial is to the champs the more chance of selecting in form athletes. Does anyone else think that having the trial at the BUSAs was a big mistake? It seemed pointless as most of those picked ran the inter-counties, i thought everyone would be away training and thats why it was moved to the BUSAs or was it just self interest from those involved in UKa and university athletics! Either way its one of the reasons that the races have been devalued, how can you have three major races and each one be special, something has to give and it appears that this year they have all been a bit diluted as a result.

From a personal point of view i think the national is by far the best race, it has tradition, as well as the team interest, is normally held at great courses as it was this year and has a great atmosphere. I would put the trial in the national, with the first nine past the post selected. I enjoyed this years national far more than any other race this winter, proper cross country with club runners who love the sport!

I think the rationale for having the trial in bath was to allow people the chance to make the necessary arrrangements to go away for the camp, time off work, jabs etc. etc. as from an athletic point of view I can't see the point either.

It has to be remembered that the national is the ENGLISH championships so the only way for it to be the trial is for it to become the BRITISH champs and presumably relegate the scots/welsh champs to a similar status to the english area champs.

But we have an effective british champs already with Intercounties and I for one think that is a fantastic event too. The national offers something different (often in terms of the type of course and the sheer numbers competing) and this needs to be protected and/or enhanced if possible.

Also, FWIW I think i detected an improvement in national fields when it comes before the Inter Counties/world trial than after. Presumably the big runners using it as prep. This adds to the draw of the event. This year it seems like many regarded it as an afterthought.