London has the Olympics in 2012. If they dont know how or arent trying to identify talent now, then they never will.
London has the Olympics in 2012. If they dont know how or arent trying to identify talent now, then they never will.
AC wrote:
One of the main reasons the US has revived in recent years is that it gives athletes the opportunity to pursue the sport as a professional. In the UK if you haven't "made it" by 23, you're left to your own devices.
If the UK is serious about distance running they need to give people a future in the sport. Currently that does not exist and things will not progress until it does.
Fair enough, but where does the money come from? It's hard to justify tax or lottery money going on male distance runners when they have virtually no chance of making it at a world level. For all of Mo's brilliance he's still going to struggle to make a world final. I wouldn't want to see my taxes pay for Brits to make up the numbers in other sports, so it can't really be justified in athletics either.
Since we're the ones that are keen perhaps we should have a bit of whip round to pay for Frank Tickner to go pro?
The sport is rolling in money! Just a question of whether you want to spend it on administration salaries or athletes. We have far more full-time staff employed in Scottish, UK, English, Welsh, and NI athletics than professional athletes. Finally, more sponsorship could be brought in than currently happens, perhaps using the Hanson model.
AC wrote:
perhaps using the Hanson model.
what is the the hanson model?
The Hanson's are two brothers that own a chain of running shoe stores in the Michigan area of the US. They sponsored their own team, bought a couple of homes for the athletes (about 6 per house), supplied them with jobs in the stores and paid for their travel to races. They are also coaching the team.
The athletes they attracted are good runners about 29 minutes for 10k, but not great. They are turning these runners into 2:10 to 2:14 minute marathoners.
Now they have added a women's team and acquired corporate sponsorship from Brooks. They have also guaranteed $100k a year to any of their runners who can run under 2:10.
What needs to be pointed out is this group was started and funded with money that came out of the pockets of the Hanson brothers.
Trying Brit! wrote:
Are we not training hard enough?
Are we doing the wrong training?
Is it the collegiate system?
Are our coaches bad?
What is the answer??????
Obviously the answer is to ask "wellnow", he's british and as he has demonstrated on other threads that he knows all the answers, he also knows a guy who trained with Jonesy and even runs races without the chip in order to go unnoticed.
Voice of Reason wrote:
It could be argued that financial reasons make it difficult for distance runners to succeed in Britain. However, I think the fundamental problem is one of training. The emphasis in the US seems to be very much based on building a good aerobic base ie. alot of milage and tempo runs. This approach is resulting in some very encouraging results for American athletes.
Unfortunatly, the prevailing attitude in the UK seems to be one of quality over quantity. How many times to we see a profile of a promising youngster emphasising that they are achieving whatever off only 20-30 miles a week. The athletes concerned normally then break down with injuries because their bodies can not take all the hard anaerobic type work that their coaches prescribe.
Back in the 70s and 80s when distance ruuning was a lot healthier in Britain, a typical club night, particularly in the winter, would involve a hard 10mile run. Quicker track sessions were then then introduced in the latter part of the winter in preparation for the big cross country events and the forthcoming track season. How many British distance runners,of all ages, are hammering out 3 hard sessions a week in october.
One only has to look at the relative success that a number of promising young Brits have had in the US recently compared to what there were achieving in the UK to see what can be achieved with the appropriate training. It might seem harsh to say but a lot of Uk coaches, and often those with 'reputations', do not really know what they are doing.
There are obviously issues of lifestyle (particularly at universities), of less talent coming into, and remaining, in the sport, the differences in financial support between the two countries. However, the biggest problem is one of coaching.
Agree with all of this except the reputable UK coaches, on which I don't know to comment. The article on Liz McColgan on the front page seems to back up this view as well:
"When I was a kid, I ran everywhere. I even ran to races. I was training the Kenyan way without knowing it. If we are going to produce champions, we have to get volume fitness into children, some decent mileage, and stop over-protecting and pampering them.
"If we don't, Britain is never going to produce another Paula Radcliffe the world marathon record-holder.
"I think a lot of athletes don't have that kind of drive. They do not get down to the nitty gritty of what training is about."
She criticises coaches for not sharing information, and questions the work ethic. "I'm not saying that all athletes aren't training hard. Some are bursting a gut, doing sessions. But I wonder about the structure, and the context of their training. Some just want to get on the Great Britain team, and do only what needs to be done for that. But don't dream the dream and then not do the work. Some of them just haven't got the drive.''
The pampering of kids, 'don't run too much mileage or you'll burn out', but hammer 3-4 high intensity sessions a week instead. Many American high schoolers and college athletes seem to run a lot more mileage, especially for certain periods (ie. 'base' as they call it, we seem to race year-round). Covering the ground and laying the foundations for the future doesn't seem to harm the Kenyans or Ethiopians either. It was probably more like this back in the day in Britain as well, when the 1970s/80s crew where growing up. This quality over quantity approach seems to continue to senior athletics as well, as espoused by Frank Horwill and the BMC mag.
I get the impression many Americans WANT to train hard and run 100mpw, like its part of who they are. Their whole attitude to sport seems to encourage this.
Maybe we need to look out our type of training we are doing, and see if we can learn a thing or two from the Americans. Greater aerobic work - more mileage and 'tempo/threshold' work and longer sessions, with more limited periods of faster high intensity sessions, seems to be one difference. Also, I've a heard a couple of shocking stories about sessions given by club 'coaches', like turning up and doing exactly the same sessions every week.
Voice of Reason wrote:
It could be argued that financial reasons make it difficult for distance runners to succeed in Britain. However, I think the fundamental problem is one of training. The emphasis in the US seems to be very much based on building a good aerobic base ie. alot of milage and tempo runs. This approach is resulting in some very encouraging results for American athletes.
Unfortunatly, the prevailing attitude in the UK seems to be one of quality over quantity. How many times to we see a profile of a promising youngster emphasising that they are achieving whatever off only 20-30 miles a week. The athletes concerned normally then break down with injuries because their bodies can not take all the hard anaerobic type work that their coaches prescribe.
Back in the 70s and 80s when distance ruuning was a lot healthier in Britain, a typical club night, particularly in the winter, would involve a hard 10mile run. Quicker track sessions were then then introduced in the latter part of the winter in preparation for the big cross country events and the forthcoming track season. How many British distance runners,of all ages, are hammering out 3 hard sessions a week in october.
One only has to look at the relative success that a number of promising young Brits have had in the US recently compared to what there were achieving in the UK to see what can be achieved with the appropriate training. It might seem harsh to say but a lot of Uk coaches, and often those with 'reputations', do not really know what they are doing.
There are obviously issues of lifestyle (particularly at universities), of less talent coming into, and remaining, in the sport, the differences in financial support between the two countries. However, the biggest problem is one of coaching.
Agree with all of this except the reputable UK coaches, on which I don't know to comment. The article on Liz McColgan on the front page seems to back up this view as well:
"When I was a kid, I ran everywhere. I even ran to races. I was training the Kenyan way without knowing it. If we are going to produce champions, we have to get volume fitness into children, some decent mileage, and stop over-protecting and pampering them.
"If we don't, Britain is never going to produce another Paula Radcliffe the world marathon record-holder.
"I think a lot of athletes don't have that kind of drive. They do not get down to the nitty gritty of what training is about."
She criticises coaches for not sharing information, and questions the work ethic. "I'm not saying that all athletes aren't training hard. Some are bursting a gut, doing sessions. But I wonder about the structure, and the context of their training. Some just want to get on the Great Britain team, and do only what needs to be done for that. But don't dream the dream and then not do the work. Some of them just haven't got the drive.''
The pampering of kids, 'don't run too much mileage or you'll burn out', but hammer 3-4 high intensity sessions a week instead. Many American high schoolers and college athletes seem to run a lot more mileage, especially for certain periods (ie. 'base' as they call it, we seem to race year-round). Covering the ground and laying the foundations for the future doesn't seem to harm the Kenyans or Ethiopians either. It was probably more like this back in the day in Britain as well, when the 1970s/80s crew where growing up. This quality over quantity approach seems to continue to senior athletics as well, as espoused by Frank Horwill and the BMC mag.
I get the impression many Americans WANT to train hard and run 100mpw, like its part of who they are. Their whole attitude to sport seems to encourage this.
Maybe we need to look out our type of training we are doing, and see if we can learn a thing or two from the Americans. Greater aerobic work - more mileage and 'tempo/threshold' work and longer sessions, with more limited periods of faster high intensity sessions, seems to be one difference. Also, I've a heard a couple of shocking stories about sessions given by club 'coaches', like turning up and doing exactly the same sessions every week.
There are two commercial running organisations that come to mind that have some highly proven endurance expertise heading them and , perhaps, might be ideally placed to increase their investment into the 'best of British' but increasingly the evidence is that they give almost total priority to 'best in the world'. That's not to say they don't do anything to help UK endurance but they could certainly plug some gaps.
oops gremlins
Those manual jobs are now all taken by eastern european workers ....
Totally agree with what yoiuve said RE training. Personally i feel very lucky to be part of a set up that encourages exactly what youve suggested re more milage/tempo anfd longer sessins with smaller ammunts of high intensity stuff at what we deem to be the correct times of the year. I am also aware of at least a few other set ups who are heeding this message and doing the same. I wont name names but there are poeple in my group who are improving massively off the back of this type of work and some who are now reaping the rewards with high standard international results. However, unfortunately there are still many groups who insist on banging out session after session neglecting basic areobic conditioning.
My friends were recently talking to a local female 800m runner who showed some real talent as a young athlete. She has staled badly in the last few years and is going absolutely nowhere at the moment. They asked her about her training and discovered she runs a total of 8 miles a week inclusive of warm up and downs over 4 track sessions (longest rep being 300m-average about 100m)
Obviously an extreme case but how many of the current youngesters train like this and will subsequently fade and lose interest at 17/18? and how many 20 somethings are no quicker than they were 5/10 years ago because they don't have any aroebic base behind them?
Athletics official wrote:
blah blah brick wall blah blah abysmal blah blah stuck in the 1800's blah blah 6 month ban blah blah Drogba transfer overnight
Never heard of the transfer window in football ?!
Athletics official" You are a real idiot.
rudi skacel wrote:
but there are poeple in my group who are improving massively off the back of this type of work and some who are now reaping the rewards with high standard international results. However, unfortunately there are still many groups who insist on banging out session after session neglecting basic areobic conditioning.
You can say this diatribe but who is exactly having high standard international results?? name names and enlighten us. Face the facts, British distance running is in the bin apart from Mo. 12 men under 14 mins last year and 10 under 30 mins for 10k. Few of them respect the words of high standard international results. I would say sub 13.30 for 5k and sub 28 for 10k so please correct me...
In France the French Federation takes care of athletes who show good promise (National Standard) and for those athletes not good enough for National standard funding, regional aid and club help is available.
Look, for example at a North African guy who comes to France with times of 29:00 and 64 minutes. A club will often recruit that guy (Olympique de Marseille, etc..) and then the runner is often housed with other North Africans in a flat in town (taken care of by the club). The North African will often receive help to sort out his paper work ('permis de sejour') so that he can become a permanent resident with a goal of French citizenship.
French athletes are taken care of in a professional way by the clubs, and the Federation provides many 'stages' which are training camps throughout the year.
Also, the racing calendar in France is organized in a much better way compared with Britain. Sorry - but in France you do not have 55 year old guys running 3:00 mins for 800 in 'Southern League' matches......or the equivalent of.
The result of this, however, is that in distance running, many French white youths (not of N.African origin) have been discouraged from competing in distance running because they tend to be so far behind the Maghreb runners.
Look at the results of any 'National' competition in France and the top results are filled with maghreb runners, with only a handful of non-maghreb runners in the show.
I have no problem with maghreb runners, and many of them were born in France, but it is still difficult to motivate the youth of France to run distance.
The French Foreign Legion has recently been attracting 'B squad' type Kenyan runners (James Theuri) who have also acquired French citizenship in a couple of years (as the loophole allows!) and the first Frenchman in the World Cross was in fact a Kenyan who had joined the Legion just a couple of years before!
Ghost
I never said they were male. and no i will not be posting exact times or names. I doubt my training partners would want me writing about them on the internet without them knowing, but as your so clued up go and work it out for yourself as yes i would class it as as good as those times youve posted.
BUt in most cases here I have personally classed international competitions as high class (ie world cross, euro cross, euro track champs.) If someone reaches this level I have classed them as high class international results. So yes under your criteria they are still rubbish, but the point I was making is that there they have developed from far lower levels of performance up to this level due to the training they are doing.
think how many uk athletes get loved by Ukathletics and all the 'staff' they have on the pay roll, then as soon as the milk turns sour and someone gets an injury they don't want to know anymore.
yeah of course there's athletes out there that while they go to uni get distracted and lose the interest, its always going to happen to a few. but there's probably more that got injured and all those smiling faces with an interest in how they were before, suddenly don't want to know.
British athletics just forgets about these people. How many years did Nicholls or Tickner spend injured without anyone giving a damn. What about Chris Davies, is someone keeping involved with him? Mat Lole? these guys may not have set the world alight but they were GB team members through all the age groups, and i'd be interested to know what kind of support or interest from the UK athletics hierachy they got while they were injured.
I think that you are right to a certain extent in that Nichols and Tickner will have had little support form UKA if and when they were injured, but that is how the 'system' is set up. UK Sport do not see cross country as any value and do not fund athletes to run on that surface. So Nichols, Lole Tickner cant be Lottery funded and will only have telephone calls from an event coach, and squad weekends a few times per year as support.
Davies is still being helped with his medical treatment, and is receiving support from a UKA budget i.e. not lottery money.
Young athletes can agin lottery support, but if they fail to perform as they progress through the age groups they will be dropped by UKA/UK Sport on the basis that they are not showing the form that will get them on the podium at a major games. Eventually virtually all athletes will reach that situation as there are very few UK senior athletes who can really claim they can podium.
UKA staff are paid and directed to work with podium athletes, and only podium athletes - we might not like it but that is the current policy from both UKA and UK Sport.
Chris
You know far more than others here about the French development/support system below world class but in that context it's relevant that:-
- the French endurance teams at international level are now almost entirely composed of Maghreb origin runners. Whether or not they were born in France or not, that means that the vast majority of French citizens, who aren't of Magreb origin, are developing very little in the way of high level endurance performers
- the numerous doping bans imposed on French maghreb distance runners - and indeed on other maghreb runners representing other nations - in the last year or so suggests that for all their ability and drive a worrying number seem to have problems on the ethics side.
You are right about the cheating aspect involving certain French maghreb runners, but truth be told, the talent is there (with the French maghreb runners) even those who are second or third generation French and born in France of Moroccan/Algerian/Tunisian parents or grandparents.
If you go to any schools distance competition in France, the distance races are always dominated by the 'beurs' (French kids of North African descent)- they have natural ability that is for sure. They seem to have naturally lithe builds (genetics for sure) and natural resistance and endurance (even in untrained individuals). Many of these youngsters also love soccer, and develop their running ability and resistance on the soccer fields. Boxing is another activity where the maghreb/French do well - they have a natural aggression brought on by a number of factors, including a state of doubt about their real role in French society, feeling neither completely French nor North African - this produces frustration, and they can express their rage in sport - it is a vindication of their worth in the eyes of the world and France. They love to be recognized.....because normally stereotypes about 'maghrbins' exist in France, and most of thoses are not pretty.
Mehdi Baala and Boubdallah Tahri both from Strasbourg (North Eastern France) were both born in France (please forgive error if that is the case) and were discovered in schools competitions and then joined one of the local Strasbourg clubs. Michel Dirringer has been coaching Baala since he took up the sport as a youth, and I believe, by the way, that Baala is 'clean' - quite a bit of damage might have resulted from the EPO discovered runner Fouad Chouki who used to train a lot with Baala.
One thing France has on Britain, is expert coaches in the clubs who undergo a pretty comprehensive training course to allow them to coach.
Also interesting is that in France (unlike Britain) French child runners are not allowed to just train for distance races until they are in the 'cadet' category (age 15-16), before that when they are 'benjamins' and 'minimes' (age 10-14) they have to 'touch' all events in the Athletics area, and that includes technical events. This, in French philosophy of athletics, prevents burnout, staleness and injury prevention.
The child runners (age 10-14) may race distances of 1-5km on occasion, but their training is much more multi-faceted compared with British child athletes who are trained in a way which is more one dimensional and limited.
The result is that French young runners spend a lot of time training with PPG (preparation physique generale) and that comprises many aspects related to technical work of foot placements, strides, jumping over small barriers and other stuff, presented in a fun way. This makes for a better all round athlete. It is professional.
However, there is a huge attrition rate of young runners in France not because of the training system per se, but rather because the French Bac. final exams demand a lot of time and memorization compared with the Brit. Educ. system which is much more flexible and less dependent on memorization and reproduction of facts (most of which will never be used again!).
Ghost