Discussion: Except of course that candidat...

Except of course that candidates will be picked on their chances to reach a benchmark performance in any of the individual disciplines (most likely the sprint or middle in this case), their ability to compete in the long race could be irrelevent. If we only have one athlete capable of being competitive in the long race then we'll have only one athlete competing in the long race whilst we'll have almost certainly the full complement of athletes in the middle and sprint races.

Thats a joke you had to wake up the units - that must be 30-40sec min, (doesnt it take about 2 sec extra?), theres that spot up to craig.

yeah Blair you should know that no one, including OA gives a shit about the long distance race.

I think it would be a pretty boring world champs if every nation adopted the selection policy of Australia. There'd only be about 40 runners in every race, and from a handful of the nations that would otherwise compete.

And bring on the long!!

It seems like the OA policy here is good in the short run (the best set of results in the here and now come from selecting only those with the ability to do well this year, which presumably looks better to the ASC). But given that our sprint and middle performances have been substantially better than our long performances for some years now, you have to wonder whether as a development strategy, this policy doesn't amount to shooting ourselves in the foot a little.

why do we have such strict performance based selection criteria for the WOC team and not for the MTBO team, when, as far as i know team members of each team receive simillar levels of funding? (correct me if im wrong)

big ev you're wrong. WOC team is a lot better funded than MTBO team.

MTBO selection IS meant to be just as tough its up to the selectors to follow the guidelines.

I think if we selected more long race specialists in the WOC team and less sprint/middle athletes the average age of the team would be increased substantially - I don't really see how that would be a good development strategy. Athletes will be picked on their 'potential' to achieve benchmark performances, initially that is more likely to be in the sprint and/or middle but hopefully they can also develop into long race performers. I really don't see the point in picking an athlete just to fill a long race spot.

The fact is we are at the stage where we need to bring younger less experienced athletes into the team and throwing them straight into a long race is not going to help their development. I think the onus should be put on our more experienced proven performers to step up into the most challenging and prestigious race.

In comparison our womens team has an abundance of more experienced long distance performers and will almost certainly have a full complement of long race entries.

When you talk about a development strategy, does that take account of the different development cycles for sprint and long... ie the likely age peak for sprint performance will be a lot earlier than for long. Sp picking a 25 year old for sprint would be an 'experience' option, but a 25 year old for the long might still be a development option?

Look I was mainly talking about development because Wild Bill brought it up I don't think development is a major function of our WOC team.

I do think that development should be taken into account in the way that there is often a lag in an athlete's ability to be competitive in the long race in comparison with the sprint or middle (although not in all circumstances - ie Hanny).

Our major development pathways are not our WOC team but our JWOC, Bushrangers and NOL teams, by the time they progress into the WOC team we expect (hope?) that our athletes have the relevent experience and ability to make and run successfully in finals.

I think it would be a mistake to think that athletes can not continue to develop in sprint or middle from 25 onwards (or even 30). Of course there would need to be evidence of this. If an athlete's performances are improving and they show that they are capable of competing at the highest level then they should be picked regardless of age and regardless of discipline.

I would happily select a 30, 35, 40 or even 45 year old if they were matching it with Jules, Craney, Troy and Shep in the long races (or sprint or middle for that matter).

Is OA just going to forget the long and not hold any long distance NOLs?
What's the point in a Long WOC Trial? seems that the decision is already made

Not whinging, just curious. I don't think I'll be up for WOC selection anytime soon.

I wouldnt say its OA's descision to forget or ignore the long - i would say its the runners who are ignoring it for one reason or another, maybe cos its a brutal race in the middle of a tough week or maybe cos its easier to have a sook on attackpoint than do some real training.

Ouch.

I wasn't claiming that WOC was about development, more that the lack of people getting better at long might have something to do with their lack of motivation from a perceived bias on the part of OA's selection policy. Chicken and egg problem. Of course, it could be this is completely wrong and the real reason is like Rob says - the long is just harder in terms of training required and people are lazy. My guess is a bit of both.

(FWIW, and in case it isn't clear, this is not a sook on my part either - I don't have the running speed to be competitive at WOC, nor the time to train at serious levels these days. Nor even the time to go to the trials - or WOC for that matter. I'm just as much an interested outsider as Pensioner these days.)

of course the decision is not made, i would be hopeful that the runners who have performed in the long trials are interested in running the long race, we do have enough athletes with enough talent and proven ability to fill three long spots at WOC but recently few have seemed to be interested. In any case if somebody is 15-20% behind the winner in the long trial they won't be selected just because they are the only person interested in running the long race.

Shit I don't know why any of you would be taking my opinion as gospel, as of Sunday I'm not even a selector any more! and I didn't play any major role in writing the selection policy for this year. If its not clear to you the OA selection policy is clearly written and has been posted on the OA website.

You can be pretty sure that at this stage Blair has not quite done enough to justify selection in the WOC team for the long race, however if he comes out and dominates at the WOC trials perhaps he could run himself into the team!

I like the debate that is getting stirred up and would be interested to know what people think OA should do to improve the depth in the long race?

Ha ha, that did sound a bit harsh esp since i realise that most people writing on this arent interested in running woc as you say feet.
I think it isnt just australians that are focussing more on the middle and sprint at the expense of the classic. If a country has 2 or 3 really good runners like most woc countries do then it is a better use of them to run them in the 3 physically easiest races, ie middle sprint and relay then kill em off in one brutal classic race with the possibility of them being able to run maybe one other. On the other hand if you have got the legs then the classic is a great chance to get a good result since a lot of the good guys skip it now, of course the absolute best still run it so if you are aiming for top 10 then it is going to be hard in any race.

Just to clarify what I said a bit, the 'benchmark performance' criterion applies to selecting anyone beyond a team of 4 - 4 is essentially a minimum (otherwise you take a big risk that you might find yourself without a relay team). In that situation, if we have to take a 4th person from outside the lead group, their most significant job (whatever individual race(s) they might run) is to be the relay reserve. Our problem at the moment is that (unless some people change their mind about nominating) there is a risk we might have to go to someone a long way below world class to get that fourth person if we lose any of the top four. I don't pretend to be remotely close to world class myself, and think it's a serious worry that we're so lacking in fallback options.

My major comment on long distance development is that it's an area that a lot of people have shied away from. A lot of younger orienteers have tended to concentrate on the middle and sprint. For some this is because of real talents in this area, or because it's a stepping stone whilst they develop the base they need for the long (for example, I think Julian is planning to become a long distance orienteer over the next few years, but doesn't feel ready for it yet). However, I think that too many are rejecting the long distance too early because they see it as the most difficult option, and aren't returning to it at the stage (say mid-20s) where they could reasonably be expected to have the sort of base required. It's something that can't be fixed overnight, but I've certainly been encouraging the younger ones coming in to at least consider trying to build a career in the long distance - not least because for the foreseeable future, as long as you can meet the benchmark requirements, it will be a lot easier to make a team in the long distance than it will be competing with the likes of Julian and Troy for middle and sprint spots.

what an awesome thread! we need more discussion like this.
I agree with most points put forward. I consider it is more our top athletes that see Long distance as a lower priority rather than OA. And Rob makes all the points as to why this is. Of course it is preferable to run 3 easier disciplines than one hard one.
But OA also has done little to encourage Long distance participation. I really like lazydaves point about the WOC trials. There really is no point in running it (except for the girls) since there don't seem to be any contenders and are the expected teammembers going to be there anyway (heard some might still be in europe)?

It is disappointing that we have only had one guy finish the Long distance final in the last 3 WOC's. Especially sad when we had no one to support last year (with such great online coverage!)
I really like Rambos comment about the sport becoming really boring if countries only sent runners expecting to make top 16 or whatever a benchmark performace is. They wouldn't even need heats anymore.

Rob, are you interested in Long this year?

great to see you guys haven't lost your passion while I've been away from AP. Nice thread. I'm sure the interest in classic racing will come back but I think the way to stimulate that interest is from the NOL up not from WOC down.

> I think the way to stimulate that interest is from the NOL > up not from WOC down.
Why did some 21E competitors withdraw from Day 2 of easter? Keep themselves fresh for a world ranking event the next day? Tactical decision to maximise the chance of points for state teams? Pull of wineries? Common sense?
Seems the NOL preferences match the WOC preferences.

For those who want to brush up on the WOC selection criteria they are here http://www.orienteering.asn.au/highperf/?ItemID=11... debates are most useful when they are informed.

Witht representation in the HPMG and an Elite Councillor in the OA Council all of you actually have a pathway where you can try to make changes in WOC selection, NOL guidelines etc. So If you have a good idea and think things can be improved then put it down on paper and pass it on to Ecmo or the Elite Councillor. I reckon the Council would be so shocked if the Elites actually put a paper to the Annual Conference that it would pass for sure.

As far as I am aware the only reasons for athletes withdrawing from Day 2 were legitimate injury concerns. Having said that I think it would be beneficial to promote a better attitude towards long races in the NOL, how to do that I'm not really that sure. More long mass start races? More points for long races?

How good is attackpoint!
from my personal point of view, The classic does have more prestige but it SEEMS easier to get results in the shorter distances, seems being the operative word. As previuosly said, many of the top runners worldwide dont run the long. It just requires a lot hard training and work.
We do need more long tough classic races in Australia though as we try to fit the NOL lengths in one weekend the classic ends up being something along the line of 70% length.
Maybe some could just past me a glass of harden the f**k up so i get off the lounge, put on some running clothes and do something about it!

yeah if you had got of the couch and got down to SA you would have been able to experience a real classic race, tough conditions, lots of climb and only Jules, Craney and Troy under 90 minutes. Great preparation for WOC on the other hand not sure how running Middle races on 1:15000 maps is gonna help our runners prepare for success in the shorter distances....

Not that I can talk, could do with tall frosty glass of harden the f**k up myself.

As I sit here scoffing Lindt Chocolat suisse au lait fouree pistache variety of harden the f**k up, I am chuckling about that comparison between a superb long event and a somewhat absurd 'middle distance' event. The problem with Easter is that it is often constrained to one terrain type, which we try to mix with a competition format that requires quite varied terrains. A mismatch like this year is probably inevitable whenever Easter is in a locality with no granite or gold terrain. The event can't always satisfy both a WOC try-out format and a three day for the masses format. I suspect that over the next 10 years there will be a gradual parting of the ways between orienteering events for the older masses and the NOL series that tries to provide a pathway to elite international competition. I'l be an M60 by then, so probably won't be worried about it.

The terrain is certainly one constraint but trying to set a good middle on 1:15000 is a lot tougher than on 1:10000. Don't get me wrong though I think the organisation of Easter by OASA was superb and I have also been told that they were given guidance on the 1:15000 decision by others outside of OASA who probably should have known better.

I hope my comment isn't seen as a criticism of OASA. Never criticise organisers! It was more a comment on our attempts to achieve too much out of an event.

does OA or IOF policy really affect how we approach the different races? i chose to concentrate on the middle because thats the style of orienteering i like best, it has nothing to do with NOL or WOC formats/programs.

NSW Stinger, "OA also has done little to encourage Long distance participation" - what could the OA do differently to encourage you to take advantage of the spots that are wide open in the national team? isnt it up to you to be committed and train hard and earn a spot?

i dont understand this attitude that the reason there are so few men concentrating on the long is because OA is doing something wrong. nor do i agree with the general belief that the sprint + middle are stepping stones to the long. for one thing it is harder to qualify in the middle and sprint, and old guys (eg hakan ericsson at 45 in 2004, and wingstedt isnt young) keep winning medals in the sprint while young blokes (eg rostrup at 22 in 2001) win medals in the long. we all have our reasons for choosing our races, if theres depth there and you cant make the team in the middle or sprint then you have a choice to make. stop blaming the OA etc and earn yourself a spot in the long, or stop blaming the OA etc and earn yourself a spot in the middle/sprint.

Shep, I think your point is that it doesn't matter to the individual orienteer what OA thinks or doesn't think — you should train for what you're interested in. I think there is an issue from OA's perspective though.

OA is interested in getting good ('benchmark') performances at the world level. Having 6 good sprint or middle specialists is no different to having 2 specialists in each of the 3 disciplines, in terms of the number of benchmark performances which can be achieved at an event, but being able to record benchmark performances in each of the 3 disciplines would surely interest OA and makes the latter configuration of runners desirable for them.

Wouldn't it be in OA's best interest then to aim have competitors in each discipline. In order to do this without resorting to picking sub-world-class competitors for the long (unless they want to pick me ;) there would need to be at least some world-class orienteers in Australia focused on each discipline. Perhaps OA should try to ensure that each discipline attracts that level of interest. That might mean promoting the long a bit more.

Also, if as Shep says, it's harder to qualify in the sprint and middle, then an Australian world-class long distance specialist would have a greater chance of a good result in the long. Another reason for OA to promote the long distance. Don't ask me how they would do that though …

I think there is a role for selectors and coaches in helping to determine the best make up and balance of the team. Whilst an athlete's 'favourite' discipline may be middle or sprint that doesn't mean that it is best for the team if they run that race.

Perhaps allowing the athletes to have too much say in selection (ie what races they want to run) has been a mistake in the past?

As Shep said it is tougher to qualify in the sprint and middle so perhaps we should be ensuring that some of our best athletes are selected in the long race to give Australia the best chance of the best results overall.

Thanks Gareth, my sentiments exactly.
And thanks Shep for bearing your claws like you always do, and for expressing your view that i'm a lazy whinger.

I never said it was OA's fault, just that they haven't tried to prevent it.
A few suggestions for what OA could/could have done to promote Long distance.
a. Coach can talk with current team members 6-9months prior to WOC to see what their preferences/thoughts are for the upcoming WOC.
b. If everyone wants to run sprint/middle/relay, then consider who has most potential in Long and encourage them.
c. Look at athletes in the team for many years who fail to improve on their results in sprint/middle and suggest a change of discipline.
d. Look at athletes on fringe of team and discuss with them opportunities for specialising in Long. Preferably with enough time to make adequate changes in training.
e. scrap the 'benchmark performance' selection criteria.It is better to support someone to finish 30th, rather than having no representative at all.

For the record, my favourite discipline is Middle. But with an abundance of quality sprint/middle runners in Aus I made the decision a few years ago to concentrate on Long in a bid to make the team in my non-prefered distance rather than not making the team at all.

So to answer Shep's question "what could the OA do differently to encourage you to take advantage of the spots that are wide open in the national team?"
Here are some specifics that would have changed my current priorities:
- Have the coach show some interest to those on the fringe of the team
- To select me to race the Long last year (remember it was the first time only 5men have been selected) rather than wasting the slot on a sprint specialist with no hope of qualifying.
- Had selectors/coach given me a chance there was a good chance Australia would have had someone to support in the final even if it was unlikely I would have gained a 'benchmark performance'
- If I had have run WOC last year, rather than go thru the negative emotions of a missing out (AGAIN), I would have been much more motivated to go again this year. Rather I have decided to avoid the annual disappointment in May, and decided in Jan I wouldn't nominate and concentrate my training on other races.

Shep, you seem to think it should be easy to overcome the disappointment of missing the team, and that it should make me more motivated. But how would you know seeing as you've never missed the team?

I think most people (especially me) respond much better to positive re-enforcement rather than negative. It would be great if future Head coaches realise this.

Acejace- perhaps we need a long overview chat.
Now I need a beer...

That was pretty much what I had in mind, except better said by someone closer connected to the exact pitfalls of OA's current practice. NSW Stinger, well said, and pretty moderately expressed given the situation.

Wow, this is a fantastic thread.

I don't think scrapping the benchmark performance criteria is a good idea. Athletes should be able to develop enough through JWOC, NOL, bushrangers, world cups and other overseas races if they choose to. WOC should not be seen as a testing ground to send people who realistically cannot achieve benchmark performances. That said the selection policy is suitably vauge enough to still select someone who has only a very slim chance of a benchmark.

Let me congratulate Blair on the magic that started this. Unfortunately, its going to disappear soon. Either it migrates, or ends.

Last year I think the right people were selected in the team but perhaps for the wrong races. We had an athlete who had outstanding races at the trials in the Sprint and Middle and should have been picked for those events. I agree that he never should have been picked for the long race and I don't think that there is any justification in the selection guidelines as to why he was. However his results at the trials clearly justified his selection.

Perhaps part of the problem has been that athletes have been under the impression that if they are amongst the top three athletes who 'want' to run the classic then they will be an automatic selection regardless of how far behind they are, obviously then if they are not selected they would feel hard done by and lose motivation.

The model we have is that we want athletes to show that they are competitive, we want them to be within 5% (or better) of athletes who have been WOC finalists and shown that they are competitive at the international level. If an athlete falls short than i guess that shows that they need to try and improve, need to look at their training and preparation and work out what they need to do to make the next step.

Performing well in a middle or sprint trial is also going to help being selected for the long race, apart from in exceptional cirumstances or with exceptional performances nobody should expect to be picked in the WOC team on the strength of one trial.

Also in terms of the first year that only 5 men had been picked to put it in perspective it was also the first year that our funding from the ASC had been cut in half and the WOC budget had necessarily been cut.

Funding shouldn't be an issue - pick the athletes, tell them how much it will cost and it's up to them if they can handle the number of fundraiser BBQs that are required to fill the shortfall.

Have OA thought of offering spots un-funded?

Again I come to the fact the the Elites have a Councillor on the OA Council and representatives on the HPMG who are the ones who make those decisions. SO if you want things like that to change put it to Council or the HPMG.

i agree funding shouldn't be an issue but it is and always will be until we get a rich benefactor or the ASC turns around its current philosophy on 'minor' sports.

Whats the problem with setting goals and performance expectations for our team, surely it helps our team to perform better if they have to work harder to earn selection. If we are just going to pick people anyway where is the motivation to improve.

Whats the point of whinging on a somebodies blog when you could actually do something and try to change something for the better?

Over the last few years the standard of the group ranked from about 5-15 in Australia has definitely dropped away - I'm now ranked about where I was in 1999 and I'm definitely slower than I was in 1999. Our depth in this range used to be very impressive (we came 7th in a World Cup relay in 2000 with a team which had two of its three members ranked outside the national top 10).

I think a lack of international opportunities has been a contributing factor to this decline, mostly as a product of changes in the international program. When WOC was every second year, there were good second-tier international opportunities in the off years through World Cup and World University Championships (both of which still exist but have a much lower profile), and if you were, say, a 23-year-old ranked 8th in Australia, you could expect to get a few opportunities there without having to crack the WOC team. Around 2001 the group we had in the WOC team was so strong (and mostly young) that I suspect a lot of people who might have had aspirations thought there were going to be no openings for years.

The Bushrangers is an attempt to replicate this, and I think it's a positive one, but it can only achieve so much in replacing the chances that were available 10 years ago. If we had the funds I'd definitely be wanting to send a Bushrangers squad to Europe, but unfortunately we're not likely to have the funds for that any time soon. (Whilst speaking of funds, the current policy on team size dates, at least in theory, from 2003 - it isn't a response to the 2005 funding cuts, although the likelihood that it will be more vigorously followed may be).

AUS WOC team is made up of our best athletes competing in the events that will get AUS the best possible results at the very highest level of world orienteering, that is WOC.

It is pointless sending athletes we full well know will not a) qualify or b) acheive benchmark results that are the objective of the AUS WOC team and OA.

The limited funding should be directed exclusively to those athletes who have the potential of acheiving these results and then again after they do acheive these results.

As mentioned earlier (again and again) go run w.cup, european champs, nordic champs, nol etc. if you want to run in big races and against the best competition... fund your own way and let your results do the talking, not some crack in the woc selection policy.

One strategy that might help with developing good long distance runners might be to try having long distance races in Australia. The women's long distance race at WOC is 80mins, but I can't remember running a long distance race in Aus that was won in more than 70mins and most are won in low to mid 60s (ok, maybe woc trial 2001?). There's a big difference between racing for an hour and racing for 80mins.

Are course setters scared of giving us proper long courses (like anything over 10km), or are they (and controllers, and OA) just not bothered enough to figure out what the right course lengths should be?