Discussion: Junior Team Selection Process for JWOC

Hi All,
The Junior Steering committee has been working long and hard to put together a new JWOC selection Process that is fair, chooses the best possible athletes who are most prepared leading up to the JWOC races. After long debate it was felt that the current rankings do not provided the means or incentive to get juniors to train hard and be prepared well in advance and leading up to JWOC races. We played with many different ways to do this, and finally I have proposed we move to a selection race. Below I have pasted in what I would like to propose to the board as a new selection process, but I wanted some feedback.

There are some strong arguments against this approach for juniors. The main ones are the issue of juniors getting to the race due to travel, financial issues, personal issues etc.

I am also proposing individuals who win their discipline be selected to the team, to move in a more focused discipline direction. This may bring up some issues as to who the quality over all of who is being brought to to race at JWOC.

I am also proposing that the section committee at their desecration not select an athlete who has not been preparing over the last 6 months no mater how well they do at the trials.

Finally I am suggesting that the Junior selection races be on M/F 21. One because they are very close to JWOC competition lengths, two because it will offer better competition all around, and 3 because I would like juniors capable of making the WOC team to do so, or at least see how close or far away they are to start bridging the gap between the junior and senior teams.

So please if you would give me some good feedback that would be great. Personal opinions are great to here however they are hard to justify when it comes to making changes. Below is the proposal.



2014 JWOC Selection Process

The JWOC Team will be selected from a selection race. The race will be the same as the Senior Team trials with a sprint, middle, long format, and juniors will compete on M21 and F21 courses. Juniors that cannot make it to the trials due to extenuating circumstances and are intent on making the JWOC team must submit a petition to the selection committee before the first race of the trials. (Those dates will be determined specifically as more details arise.)

The team will be made up of the Winner in each discipline, and the next three overall athletes. Petitioning athletes will be chosen from the overall spots. In the event that a winner declines or has not sufficiently prepared themselves over the last 6 months, a 4th over all place will be chosen instead of the winner. Any athlete who is insufficiently prepared from the overall standings will not be selected. (For preparedness, please reference Junior Standing Team running standards, and weekly training hours. Committee will also be looking at races in the last 6 months, specifically at terrain, Min per K of races, splits, Place, and who athlete was competing against.

Any petitions should include evidence of the above references for preparedness. The selection committee will use the above references at their discretion to determine whether an athlete is prepared. Juniors should have active training logs that the section committee can access and reference.

Bellow is the scoring system for trials to determine overall placing.

1st - 20 points
2nd - 16 points
3rd - 12 points
4th - 10 points
5th - 8Points
6th - 6 points
7th - 4 Points
8th - 3 points
9th - 2 points
10th -1point

Note: an athlete who finishes 2nd in the sprint, 4th in the middle, and 3rd in the long would have 16+10+12= 38 points total.

Please note: The 3 at large individuals chosen will be in descending order of points scored in the above fashion, provided they have met the above preparedness requirements. If the top three over all did not win a race they will be the 3 at large selectees. If the second place athlete has won a race 1st, 3rd, and 4th will be the three chosen over all. Petitioning athletes may be supplemented in at the discretion of the selection committee.

Note: each athlete must participate in every race unless extenuating circumstances prevent them from doing so. A petition must be submitted to the selection committee if that is the case before the next race describing the reasoning and circumstances for not racing.

Rankings vs. Selection Race
I'm curious what they do for juniors in other individual sports that have international competitions. Do we know what they do in cycling, track, golf, tennis? I wonder if they do rankings or selection competitions.

Insufficiently Prepared
Will the selection committee determine preparedness before or after the races?

Scoring System
Seems arbitrary? I guess any scoring system is arbitrary, but I'm wondering how this specific system was determined. It's possible for unprepared runners to "steal" some points away from prepared runners, which could affect overall rankings and selection.

Multiple Winners
Is it a team of six? If you have an athlete who wins more than one discipline, then the "and the next three overall athletes" may need to change to up to five athletes.

Selections are always a tricky business. I´ve had some issues with the selection process for the US senior teams to WOC being strictly point/rankings based - even if they are mainly calculated from the Team Trials. On some occasions I feel the "average Joe" approach (using year old rankings) has missed out on some Discipline specialists... My feeling is that this seems to have been the "easy way out" since noone has to make those hard decisions and make runners disappointed for not being selected.

A scoring/ranking system is always arbitrary and will give you the result the system is made for - be it the overall best runners or even the "winners". If the objective is to get runners into the finals I feel the "winner approach" is the right way to go.

Rankings - without Selection races - would definitely not be the best way in my opinion. Rankings are never used for final selections in Sweden even if they may be a help to identify interesting prospects.

A more subjective selection process should give a better result based on what Erin has stated above (Patrick has pointed out some minor glitches though). Of course it´s good if the selection process can be known in advance, but you don´t want to paint yourself into a corner with to strict rules. Still the final decision would come down to the "fingerspitzengefühl" of the Selection Committee who by the time of the trials should know more about the athletes to support a wise decision even if their ranking points wouldn´t be sufficient on that specific occasion.

I am very much opposed to selection races as the basis for the US JWOC team selection. I think it's fine for the senior team but not the juniors. In no particular order, here are the reasons why I don't think it's a good idea. First though, I should say that I'm speaking as a parent who has had juniors on the team for the previous 4 years and I hope the trend continues for the next two:

1. Cost--the US is big enough that many (most?), juniors trying to make the team will have to fly if there is going to be a single selectio race. That can be quite expensive. Some people are lucky and get good airfares but that isn't true for everyone. Just trying to fly my son to the IC/IS was going to be over $800. In comparison, the flights to Europe for the summer junior trip were $1100. I might also add that the cost isn't just for the junior but could invovle a parent too since there will be needs for transportation (juniors can't rent cars), accommodations (sometimes juniors can't check into accommodations), etc. all of which can up the cost for making the team considerable. Than of course, there is the decison--"do we spend the money to go to the selection race knowing that we may not make the team and if we do, there will be a lot more expense to follow"?

2. Timing--Not sure when these selection races would be but my guess is the spring. If it's late spring (mid-April or May), fine. If it's March, the juniors from up north could be at a distinct disadvantage depening on the winter weather. Some years, we can't even get into the woods until mid-march or later so some juniors could be going to the selection races with no opportunity for actual orienteering before hand. I suspect a similar but inverted situation could affect juniors from the south. The point is though that you will have this issue with a single selection race.

3. Timing (again)---Don't forget, these are juniors who are in school and don't have control over when they can take off. When my kids were in high school it wasn't so difficult but College is a different story. There are exams, papers, labs, etc. and they just can't take off. Granted the selection race will probably be on a weekend but could easily include a Friday so when you consider travel time, it could involve missing 3 days of school. Some professors may be sympathetic but others will not.

4. Selection races will favor the juniors that have experience in that type of terrain. If the terrain is similar to JWOC, that could be a good thing but given the likely need to host the selection race in the spring, I suspect the race will be held where ever there is a club willing to do it. And, it could be on maps that local/regional juniors have trained on/competed on numerous times while the maps will be completely new to those from away. I can hear the argument that the juniors need to be able to go to new areas and do well but that's just my point. Local juniors may do very well at the selction race and make the JWOC team but could have difficulties when faced with different terrains away from their own regions.

My last point is that the current seleciton process based on ranking is not broken and doesn't need fixing. I say that becasue in the four years that I have closely followed the juniors, I can't think of a single junior that deserved to go but didn't. Now, there were some borderline case but that is even more likely to happen with a selection race. Also, there were some deserving juniors that opted not to go but that's a different issue. There may be an issue with the minimum ranking score requirement but that could be changed without changing the basic selection process.

I should make it clear that my main issue here is having a single selction race. However, I also want to say that I think it's a raw deal for some junior to qualify for the team and than be told by a committee that they don't think they are prepared. I'm glad I won't be the bearer of that news.

Just my opinion but I think I have followed the juniors as close or closer than anyone over the last four years and I think there were certainly juniors that went that were not prepared. But, IT WASN'T THEIR FAULT . I believe all of them wanted to do well and belived they all took the task seriously and tried to train well but, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE GUIDANCE. Fourtunately, that has changed now.

It's all a question of priorities... those who set making the team as a priority will find money and vacation time, will prioritize running over skiing during the winter, will find similar-to-Trials terrain or emphasize the relevant skills in their training, and will find enough guidance to come prepared. Those who don't, will certainly find excuses.

T/D is mostly correct. And those will be the juniors at the top of the rankings. BTW, students can not "find" vacation time. It is dictated. And one other thing I failed to mention about a single selection race. What if you're sick or injured/ Petition I suppose but then the decision is going back to perfformance which is back to rankings.

offtopic:
What are the running standards for JWOC members for USA?

Team Latvia has this:
Nr. Distance Female Male
1. 3000 m inside 13:18 10:53
2. 3000 m stadium 13:15 -
3. 5000 m stadium - 18:50
4. 5 km paved run 22:00 18:30
5. cross country 4 km 17:20 -
6. cross country 8 km - 30:00

http://www.lof.lv/uploads/IzlasePieaugusie/juniori...

I'm not a big fan of selection races for picking the team. I advocate a discretionary approach, in which the coach makes the decisions. This allows the coach to direct the long-term development of the team and individual athletes. One very successful international coach I know described his country's selection - it is entirely his decision, but his decision is backed up with results from 3 races the athlete picks in advance, plus 3 mandatory races that all must run in, plus a minimum WRE score. However, he assures me that at least one of the top runners in his selection races will not be chosen for the team, because of a history of doing well in selection races but poorly outside the country. I think this approach gives great strength to the program, and will develop the strongest athletes in the long run

(of course, this approach requires a strong, skilled, dedicated coach, who is well supported by the national federation, and well respected by the athletes. Not so easy to find ;-) But I think we are starting to see some people with these qualities in North America ... Thanks guys, it is really encouraging to see the work you are doing / have done.

For the record: There is by no means a consensus of opinion on JTESC regarding this approach. This is still very much a trial balloon.

Erin: I suggest you also post the selection process that "we" were previously discussing, so that those opposed to selection races, can see at least one other alternative that considers preparedness, beyond just rankings.

@AZ: Were you describing selection for JWOC or WOC? I ask because of the requirement for a WRE score.

When it comes to team selection, I'm a proponent of:
- mostly objective systems
- clearly-defined criteria
- selection races, when possible

In my opinion, people that think they can pick a better team than the results can pick are generally self-deluded. It's like people who think they can beat the stock market. Many more think they can than actually can.

The problem with discretion is that, even if you get it totally right sometimes, you inevitably get it very wrong other times, and the damage done by the screw-ups outweighs the benefits of the successes. It's sort of like the 10:1 rule of thumb regarding equivalency of praise versus criticism in interpersonal relationships, or to pick a commercial application, in business reviews.

It looks to me like the proposal Erin is describing would make the Senior Team trials also serve as the Junior Team trials. Is that correct? The advantage of this is that a very talented junior could conceivably simultaneously qualify for both the JWOC and WOC teams. A disadvantage (assuming juniors run W/M21 for the trials) is that the best juniors would have to forgo competing in their age group in the national championships, which seem destined to be used often as the selection races for the Senior Team.

Commonly, when team selection is discussed, someone points out how many of the top orienteering countries have a largely discretionary selection. While I am generally in favor of looking around the world for best practices, it is necessary to recognize when conditions are suitably analogous to map those solutions onto the situation in the U.S. Team selection is an area where there are important differences between most of the relevant factors in the U.S. and those in smaller, more competitive, more developed, and more closely coached orienteering countries.

I am in sympathy with Carl's comments regarding the challenges of a single selection race weekend. (And having multiple selection race weekends is even more problematic.)

At the same time, there is a lot to like about the proposal that Erin outlined. In particular, getting juniors to set their sights high, both in terms of preparation and in competing against the senior team members. Also, the crucible of selection races is a helpful component in the athletes' preparation, and in the selection committee's quest to see how JWOC team aspirants handle big-race pressure.

What about having part of the team picked via selection races and part via rankings? Here is what I'm thinking: The presumption is that the team will be picked at the trials, however if a junior is highly enough ranked, then that junior's ranking can serve to place her/him into the team via petition and without her/him having to show up to the trials. The high ranking requirement would function in the same manner as the restrictive criteria regarding who can petition at the Senior Team Trials. Anyone who is not clearly ranked among the top few athletes would need to qualify at the trials.

This could still place a financial and scheduling burden upon the 4th-and-lower-ranked runners, however I think it is okay to set a higher bar for them. As Tundra/Desert said, it comes down to a matter of priorities. Perhaps the willingness of one's college professors to accommodate student athletes' schedules should be a consideration when a team aspirant is signing up for classes.

Without a lot of time to elaborate at the moment, I've become more and more concerned about rankings as a (sole) selection device. After some study, I've learned that some races (typically sprints, IS champs, basically races where most people do better than usual) have "depressed" rankings for the winners. I think it would be great to have a way to select a team that includes specialists in sprint, long etc - but the rankings don't allow this. Savvy juniors(/parents) pick the races that they go to carefully. (Instead of going to every possible A meet to get more experience.) People can have a great ranking from races more than a year in advance of the JWOC competition, and then slack off completely on training. The rankings seem to encourage finding ways to play the system instead of encouraging solid training and real improvement. With an increasingly competitive field, using rankings alone will not, in my opinion, produce the best result.

From the financial and vacation time point of view, for anyone outside of the northeast getting a solid ranking is likely a much more significant financial and time commitment than a single selection race. Rankings require getting to A meets and having people at those A-meets to compete with who are ranked (and who are getting to meets with other people who are ranked). In much of the country, there are not that many A-meets each year within a 5 hour drive (and most families don't consider driving more than 10+ hours on one weekend reasonable).

When I was in high school in St. Louis and aiming to race at JWOC, my family drove me to weekend meets in Alabama (10+ hours one-way drive), Cincinnati (5-6 hours one-way), and North Carolina (12+hours one-way) to get enough ranking races. Each race was also crucial to have a good run, since I had fewer races available to drive to and therefore couldn't drop hardly any bad races from my ranking. To get to enough A-meet races I almost got thrown off the cross-country team for choosing to miss a minor xc meet in order to drive 6+ hours each way to get one last orienteering A-day, even though we'd asked for me to miss that xc meet at the beginning of the season.

It's already hard to stick with orienteering as a junior from outside of the more dense orienteering areas because they have fewer opportunities for more competitive competition with peers/friends - so it's easier to focus on other high school sports instead. I was fortunate to have a local club with lots of B & C meets where I could train, a family that loved orienteering as family-time so we prioritized it, and a father with an unusual work schedule so we could take off on a Friday morning to drive to a race.

My goal is not to complain about challenges from times past. We knew what the rules were, made the choices we needed to make, and I competed at several amazing JWOCs. There are many people that supported me over the years. I also had many adventures along the way driving across the country and raced in woods all over the US and the world. Instead my goal is to point out that:

1. If finances/time are a chief consideration, then selection races are likely preferable than rankings for those juniors who live outside the Northeast - at least given my experience at the time. Then they have to sacrifice to get to a single race, rather than many. For training, they can focus their other forest training on more local opportunities or on traveling to training camps rather than A-meets. I remember having to choose between traveling for an A-meet (to get ranking points) and going to a training event (to get better).

2. Clarity in the rules is incredibly important. We knew what the rules were at the time (get a good ranking) and could make the choices/sacrifices necessary to make that happen. Without clarity, it would have been much harder to make those decisions because we wouldn't have known what we were aiming for. There are always edge cases, but clarity helps because then everybody knows what the rules are that they're playing by.

A selection race is perhaps the most clear of all: if you win, you go. The incentives are also aligned well: the running and orienteering training that will help you win at selection races is the same training that will help you win (or place well, have a good showing, etc) at JWOC.

I'm following all this with interest. Speaking as a parent here. I'm glad to see discussion of making any changes now, if they are to be made...unlike past years when the changes were announced in the middle of the game, so to speak. It was not fair to change the process when it was based on 12-month rolling rankings after the 12 months had already started. Let's be sure to announce any changes well in advance this time. Also, if changed, this would be the 3rd consecutive year that a change in the JWOC selection process has been made. It would be great to settle on a process and live with it for a while. Some of the families plan many months in advance, taking into account budgets, school and work days missed, etc.

A few other comments:

-Missing days of high school is NOT easier than missing days of college if you're taking advanced, college-level courses, participating in school sports, and the school has a strict attendance policy.

-If we are to do this, let's have the event well in advance of March-April. Finding out you're on the team just two months before the event, again, strains family schedules and budgets.

And now, a question: has anyone surveyed the local (C) meets and clubs to see how many blue courses there are in a given year? Seems to me that if the juniors can't train locally on blue regularly and consistently, how are they to be expected to compete at that level?

Another thought: If "Committee will also be looking at races in the last 6 months, specifically at terrain ... and who athlete was competing against" then what this may mean, for some people, is merely the addition of a race. Admittedly, an important race, because it's a selection event. But in some parts of the country there is less variation of terrain or less competitiveness of the competitors, through no fault of the athlete's. So you're already requiring extensive travel to distant A meets. What you're really doing is adding another, presumably distant, at least for some people, event to the requirements. Not a major problem with sufficient notice. Let's just make sure the gain offsets it.

Seems to me that if the juniors can't train locally on blue regularly and consistently, how are they to be expected to compete at that level?

The long at JWOC is longer than a red, so juniors with JWOC ambitions should already be preparing for that. They can: run red at local meets, then run another course; do long runs (preferably in terrain); practice running extra long legs, and orienteering advanced level while tired.

how many blue courses there are in a given year?

Those who want, find ways. Those who don't...

I applaud Erin for challenging the status quo. It's important to do that every once in a while, and it's nice that he and Barb are willing to open the issue up for commentary. I had the opportunity last weekend to speak with Erin about his objectives, and with Clare about the history of JWOC selection rules. Previously, I was totally wedded to the rankings system. Erin convinced me there are reasons to consider more flexibility. That being said, here's my view.

There is no flaw in the rankings system. It is a fair, accurate ranking system. When I first got involved in orienteering, I was skeptical. But after 6-8 years, it is strikingly, shockingly, and unflaterringly accurate. My own terrible ranking is verification. I look at the people ahead of me, and behind me, and I don't see anything amiss. It's right on.

For the last two or three months, as I have heard there was discussion about chaning the JWOC selection rules, I have asked people who have been involved with JWOC longer than I have, "Are there juniors who went to JWOC based on the ranking system who did not deserve to do so?" I haven't asked for names, I just want to know whether there is a problem. If there is no problem, then its hard to identify how to "fix" it. The answer has been uniformly "No". Maybe they are being polite or politically correct, but no one has identified a single "mistake" in selection based on the ranking system.

I'll leave aside last year, when the rules were not followed on the girls side, and two girls from COC (as I recall) were skipped over. That was unfair to those two girls. Plain and simple.

So, if the rankings system is fair and accurate, why change it? Well, I have to admit that Erin has convinced me that the rankings system does not measure "taking it seriously". If I remember correctly, and I apologize if I got it wrong, Erin thinks that the right juniors have been selected, but they haven't been properly motivated. So, for example, someone can get a great ranking in summer 2013, and then sit on that ranking for 9 months, not run another A-meet, and qualify for JWOC 2014. So, they are great, and almost certainly qualified, but they weren't properly motivated to get better. Instead, there was an incentive (which is only short term, and hopefully most would resist) to avoid another A-meet. I think he has a point.

I'm a little bit surprised that the proposal is now for a team trial. That creates head-to-head competition which is good. But I don't see a single head-to-head race, on a single weekend, in the real world, subject to all the factors that Carl Childs mentioned above, as resulting in, overall, a more fair ranking list than the rankings system itself. More importantly, I don't see how it addresses the "taking it seriously" issue that Erin convinced me was a good issue. You only have to do well in one race each year? You only have to prepare for one race on one weekend on one terrain? I don't think it makes sense for junior orienteering. I'd be surprised if any of the orienteering powerhouses uses a team trial for JWOC selection. (Please feel free to educate me!).

However, I am not convinced that moving away entirely from the rankings system makes sense. If the problem is 9-month old results, which I could see being a problem, perhaps we should shorten the rankings selection period. A year or two ago, the IS Champs in April counted toward JWOC 18 months later? Not sure that makes sense. How about making the selection period something like October to March? Things like that make sense to me, perhaps more than moving away from the rankings system.

There are other possible tweaks. How about selecting the top sprint, middle and long results for automatic picks to the JWOC team? How about weighting results differently depending on time of year (spring results have 1.2 x weighting vs fall results which have 1.0x weighting vs summer results which have 0.8 weighting). How about bonus points for participating in training camps?

The beauty about numbers is that if you announce the rules in advance, and they are based on numbers, and the numbers are published periodically, everyone knows where they stand. They know how much they have to improve. A single team trial on a single weekend late in the season leaves it a mystery, and a little bit to chance. Not sure that it really encourage "taking it seriously" or that it would produce objectively better rankings.

On the girls side, there are different issues than on the boys side. Maybe the 70 cutoff (is that what it is?) is too high? Maybe girls should be allowed to petition on to the JWOC team even if they have not hit the cutoff number? I don't know. I'm in favor of more change there. We need to help build the girls roster. There's more evidence on the girls' side that something needs to be "fixed".

Final thoughts: The rankings system is accurate and fair. It should not be abandoned. It could be tweaked in a variety of ways, and those should perhaps be tried first. I'm not a fan of the team trial. I don't think it is more accurate or more fair. I don't think it addresses the "taking it seriously" issue. How about an alternative: Top four both girls and boys are selected based on rankings system. Last two on team are coach selection. That's how I've seen it done in a variety of youth sports. I would support this for so long as Erin is the coach.

...if any of the orienteering powerhouses uses a team trial for JWOC selection...

Sweden does, but as yoy say we are - together with a few other countries - a "power-house" and competition is really tough. Selection races show who can run under pressure and who can´t...

"Running under pressure" for a Swede is totally different issue than running under pressure for a North American. The Swede is expected to be on the podium at JWOC. For North America our goal, with a very few exceptions, really needs to be to build the base of junior elite orienteers. And this is done through long term development plans, which in my mind clearly calls for discretionary selection. It just might not be the top runners that should go to JWOC - there might be more to it. Such as creating an atmosphere of determination and training, which takes a while.

There is value in earning something and being motivated to strive for something. If the selection is discretionary, then what is the runner striving for? It should be an honor and an accomplishment to qualify for JWOC. So, whether it is a high ranking, or winning a selection race, or completing a particular training regimin, there should be something to strive for.

Suzanne - are you saying there is nothing to strive for under a discretionary selection system? I have the opposite opinion - perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what discretionary would entail. In my world the coach (selector) would lay out expectations of the athletes - such as amount of training, amount of racing, standards to be achieved (perhaps using the US ranking system), plus the athletes would have to identify in advance a number of "focus races" in which they plan to go all out.

By setting these expectations together with the athlete, the coach is able to influence the on-going training of the athletes, plus give the athletes tons to strive for and guidance on how to get there. By doing so there will be lasting and hopefully growing emphasis on preparation. And even those that don't make the JWOC team will still have benefitted by being part of the program

Here is the Selection Process just before this one that I had proposed to a small group of people. Many people seem very afraid of a more subjective selection process. I want to share it with everyone to see what they might think compared to a selection race or rankings. I think it is much more comprehensive. Some things could be taken out.

2014 Selection Criteria:


1. Navigation:
Number of A meets participated in and how well a Junior did in comparison to their competition in the M/F 17-20 and M/F 21 Category.

Racing experience locally, nationally, internationally and rankings.

Consistency of competition, and ability to compete when it counts.

Consistently Logged training over the last year with explanations where training is not logged.

Consistent work with a coach or mentor who can help a junior improve and develop their skills on a regular basis, this mentor/coach should be in touch with the national coach advising him/her on the athletes development and abilities.

Attendance of training camps and local training. Evidence of this should be in training log.


2. Physical Fitness, and health:
Road, Track or XC running times within 4 months of selection period (Mile, 3k, 5k-10K)

Terrain Running times within 4 months of selection period (3k, 5k, or 8k.)

Consistency of training: Training is consistently happening without large gaps and time off.

Progression of training is smart and healthy for the individuals age and ability, and increases as the individual is ready to increase.

Distance and pace of workouts both orienteering and running.

Consistency of core, agilities, and strength workouts. These should all be done at least 3 times a week regularly.

Injuries and time off from training close to selection.


3. Team Work and Commitment:
Brings up the level of competition of piers.
Works well with others for training and competing.
Can put team needs before individual needs as asked.
Competing for the team lifts individual abilities.

4. Potential of the Athlete:
Will likely be a potential WOC candidate down the road?
Competition experience will get them closer to their potential.
Have shown can compete at a very high level.

5. Selection Race:
The selection race is not mandatory; however it will be used as strong evidence for readiness for JWOC, in section of the team. This will push the selection process back to later in the spring.

It is expected that every Junior on the standing Team will travel to Europe for competition. Declining will not keep them from the team but it will keep them from competing at JWOC. The team will be selected from the standing team. (Note the standing team will probably expand as the pool of juniors grows, the coaching part of it will have to be worked out. Possibly with another coach juniors could be divided up making it possible to work with more juniors.) The only exception will be that a junior not on the standing team who can place in the overall top 3 at the team trials and present evidence of consistency of the criteria listed above will be considered for the team. Scoring system for the team trials will be as follows:

1st - 20 points
2nd - 16 points
3rd - 12 points
4th - 10 points
5th - 8Points
6th - 6 points
7th - 4 Points
8th - 3 points
9th - 2 points
10th -1point

Note: an athlete who finishes 2nd in the sprint, 4th in the middle, and 3rd in the long would have 16+10+12= 38 points total.


Selection Process for 2014:

Using the criteria above the selection committee will determine the juniors most ready for JWOC.

Each point will receive a value based on the bellow rubric. The Juniors with the highest number at the end will be the ones selected to JWOC.

Rubric:
1Point: Has fallen way short of the necessary number.
2Points: Has come close to or hit the number.
3Points: Has surpassed the number.


Step 1: Committee will review all the individuals based on the navigational criteria.

1. Trained 6 hours a week consistently for the last 6th months.
2. Attended two A meets in the spring leading up to the JWOC selection and placed in the top 8 or higher in the 17-20.
3. Two orienteering trainings a week for the last 6 months. (may include local meets, and training camps, and one day of A meet competition.
4. Have a coach for orienteering.

Note: 2 or more 1 pointers in this category will hinder an athlete’s ability to make the team.



Step 2: Selection Committee will review all individuals based on their physical fitness.

1. Athlete has trained consistently at least 5 days a week with a good balance of endurance, middle strength, and speed work. Their training shows progression in that there is a base period and strength period and a potential peek period geared towards JWOC and the summer races.
2. Athlete demonstrates fitness based on pace in workouts in both orienteering and running training/cross training. Athlete has proved physical fitness based on running race times and terrain running times.
3. Athlete has shown they are physically strong and keeping their body healthy by doing core, agilities, and strength work at least 3 times a week for each.
4. Fitness is clear based on continued training over the last 4 months without injuries or significant time off. (Note significant time off would be 5+days)


Note: An athlete with 1 point in 3 and 1 will significantly hinder and individual from making the team.

Step 3: Selection Committee will review all individuals based on their team work, commitment, and Potential.

1. Athlete has demonstrated that they can train and compete well with team mates, so that both their ability and their team mate’s ability rise. They are disciplined to follow racing and training directions that benefit the team and themselves as needed. This evidence will be drawn from individual coaching work and observation with and of individuals.
2. Athlete shows an increased ability to compete well when working towards larger team goals that support individual goals. Individual shows ability to compete well when it counts, at large races.
3. Athlete shows athletic promise and ability towards going further in the sport than just JWOC. Individual orienteering abilities and results have increased significantly in the last 6 months.
4. Competing at JWOC would help the athlete rise to a potential WOC candidate.

Note: 1 point in 3 or more of these categories will hinder the athlete from making the team. There will be more emphasis put on 1 than any of the other categories.

Step 4: Selection Committee will review results from the selection Race.

1. Athletes who finish in the top 2 of any given discipline and can show they are significantly better in that discipline than their competition will be strongly considered.
2. Athletes that finish in the top 4 over all will be strongly considered.
3. How athletes compare to M/F 21 runners will be strongly considered.

Note: all three of these will have significant weight. 1point in more than one will hinder an athlete from making the team.

Step 5: Committee will generally review all the athletes based on the first four steps to make final selections.

Note: the selection committee is generally looking for an Athlete that is physically fit, has good navigational experience and has proven themselves in competition to be more consistent and faster than their piers.

The committee will review every one again generally based on the above statement. They will choose the 6 men and 6 women that have shown they are physically fit, based on their training and consistency. Individuals that demonstrated they have good racing experience and results from recent A meets. Have show a significant amount of orienteering exposure at local meets and regular orienteering training on a weekly basis.

Please Note: Two alternates will also be selected for both the Males and Females who will be able to travel with the team.

Note also that any individual who does not make the Trial race will be considered based on the first four criteria. These should be strong in order to make up for not being at the race.

Hi all,
Also I have started another thread Combining 18 and 20 racing categories into one please see the proposal as it is part of the whole process that we are trying to bring.

I just want to say that I don't think the specifics of the selection process are as important as simply having a well-defined process that gives juniors something to work towards. And it definitely looks like that is what we'll get from any changes!

Having watched this process up close for a few years, my first reaction to the idea of a selection race for JWOC is how much pressure that puts on the juniors, especially the less-experienced ones. I'd guess juniors perform more erratically than adults, and it would be shame to have a bad race (heck, one bad control) erase a year of hard work. Rankings have their flaws, but tend to be pretty indicative, and they unfold over time; it becomes gradually evident whether you'll make the team, and plans and psyches can adjust accordingly. I agree with Carl, "dawg" and others to tweak the current system, perhaps blending in other elements, but not abandon it completely.

Just to play devils Advocate here some questions come to mind. I will take full responsibility of opening the door to this discussion to get feedback. Here are my questions:

Regardless of what system is in place for selection, whats the point of hiring a coach if the system is dictating everything that the Juniors need to do? Is this the case for the rankings. I could see an argument arising that the coaches job is simply to teach athletes how to get better and motivate them, and the rankings the system will do the rest of the work for you. Its easy no need to worry, its clear there are flaws but generally it works well and its predictions are accurate.

Lets say say the coach gets all the kids motivated and and helps them get better. Awesome! Now the kids have to contend with the system to get qualified for the team. Here in lies the difference between systems that work and systems that don't. Some systems are built to serve the people they are working for, others hinder them. I agree that time ages all systems and things improve and change over time.

The real question is, do the rankings in orienteering serve the juniors or not? I think in the past they were great and it was a first step in having a standard for the juniors. The question remains will this current system foster the growth of the Junior program that produces wins at JWOC. I would argue definitely not. Why because the kids are focused on their rankings in a country where they are ranked against the athletes they are competing against. If they have a high ranking they will make a team but it in no way describes whether they will be able to compete against the elite Juniors in the world.

Again I here the argument that if the coach motivates and trains the kids they will get better and ranking points will increase. I would argue that kids and parents are smart they will do what they can to get the best possible ranking points whether it means going to certain meets, asking that races be removed from a personal ranking, go to meets on home terrain etc. The point is at a certain level there is no getting around the fact that you have to train to get better. You have to go to A meets to get competition experience. You have to get O training on a weekly basis. You have to compete against the best. You have to train with people, etc.

So why change the current system. Because the training proprieties are not there on a regular basis. The consistency of working with Juniors is low, the regularity of junior gatherings and competition opportunities in local areas is low. There is way more to do than one or even a few individuals can accomplish. The point is that we are changing the system to say if you want to be good, if you want to compete at a high level you need to do these things. If clubs and parents want their kids and juniors to get better, if Juniors want to get better, they have to start doing the the things that will get them to that place. Even if they do not compete at a high level there is something in the training and regularity of doing something well that informs the development of a person. Yes the new system would be inconvenient for people initially. We can all make that choice, ist to much or its motivating and I am going to get more junior training going, I am going to get my club looking to find money to support more training, I am going to find more volunteers so my club can put on more A meets and local meets and training's.

Again the point is that the system we are proposing is a catalyst to get this sport to the next level. The rankings are not going away they are great tool for analysis and to see how you stand against your competition. The real question is, will the rankings motivate the whole orienteering community to grow and get better. That's something we can all debate. When we are talking about using a system of qualification for the junior team we are not just talking about how it will affect a few individuals we are talking about the ripple down effects that it will have throughout the orienteering community. Currently the rankings do not provide clubs the incentive to grow their junior program, develop training schedules to higher coaches etc. So yes we are talking about a selection process for the national team. How good that team is going to be is determined by the growth and development of juniors around the country in the programs they are in locally.

So why hire a coach? Should a coach be limited to the current system? Is it the coaches job to develop a program that gets better or just do the best they can with the system that's in place. Do you a hire a coach so that they can have the vision to take the program to the next level or maintain something that's already good. Would we say that the sport of O in the US is in a good place that we just need to maintain it? Do we need to mix it up a little bit and make huge changes to get the whole community in a direction that leads to a sport where people are not burned out do to over volunteered hours, to much to do for to few people, not enough time and money to get to meets and train and travel? Personalty I want a good selection process but more than that I want the sport to grow to develop to become something where the organization and structure operates smoothly consistently and well, and opens up the door to be highly competitive and social and recreational on a consistent basis. How do we get there?

Some things to think about when encouraging the use of one system vs another.

asking that races be removed from a personal ranking

Just to make sure we are all on the same page, this is only possible before the race -- technically, before the first start of the race.

What outcomes does a country wish to achieve? Is success at JWOC the primary goal? Is the development of Juniors as athletes and people important? Is it important to make the sport an enjoyable experience that they will stick with so they can become the mappers, organisers and coaches of the future?
• Success at JWOC
Preparation, training, fitness, technique are the ingredients. How does how you pick the team influence any of these? Not at all – these are about providing opportunities for kids to train and enjoy doing it.
• Picking winners rather than the consistent performers.
Easier said than done, particularly if a discretionary system is used. Of course AZ’s perfect selector might get it right but there are not many to be found, as AZ says. An automatic team place for winners of specific events sounds like the fairest option.
• Transparency, bias, perceptions
Here are the main problems with discretionary systems. Athletes cannot read a selectors mind and so cannot know how they are going. A selector can’t tell an athlete whether they are on the team or not until, they actually sit down and pick it. So people will have different expectations of how they are placed. And when the team comes out some people are going to be surprised and disappointed. The protest/appeal process (if any) is debilitating to all involved. Disgruntled juniors are actually quite likely to make non-selection a reason for quitting the sport; many will anyway and this is just another
• Selection for Swedes
Quite different. Sweden and other larger countries have a large number of contenders for a team and arguably could pick 6 from a lottery and still have those perform well at JWOC. Sweden also has a lot of likelier candidates for “the perfect selector”. If one or two fall foul of the discretionary system, well there are plenty of others to take their place and plenty of other opportunities for the disgruntled ones to take up. Sweden should not be a model to follow for countries with small pools of athletes.
• Know what you have to do to make the team
Back to transparency. In athletics it is easy – run the qualifying time and/or win the Nationals and you are in. In orienteering it is much more difficult with races in varying terrain, of varying quality and varying fields because the venues are often so far apart. But for an athlete to find it worthwhile to put the effort, time and money in to make the team they need to know in advance how to do it. If they put in and don’t make it and the only reason is because the selector picked someone else because they could – do you really think the athlete is going to bother next time around?? How does that fulfil the countries success objective next time, never mind the development and keeping goals?

I have two comments regarding preparedness and team work.

Re: preparedness. As an athlete I would not like or probably be furious if I beat others at selection race but get excluded because team coach determines that I did not prepare enough to be on team. Orienteering is still athletic event and actual race performance should take precedence over subjective opinion of a coach how particular athlete prepared. As a junior I had minor clashes my coach but I knew if I did well at selection races I don't have to worry about my spot on team. If I was on the edge - last guy to be considered for the team - I accepted my faith that I might have been excluded from team because someone else is better being coaches pet. I did not clash with my coach to be difficult but because I strongly believed that I needed slight adjustments tailored to my specific training needs vs. training methods he used for entire team.

Plus - how would preparedness will be policed? By monitoring AP entries? If so then I might just steal Galen Rapp's training plan and log as mine and be most prepared athlete to challenge worlds stage even I totally flopped at selection race.

Having preparedness as possible criteria for selection might and will foster cheating.

RE: Team Work. Teamwork is one of least needed skills in orienteering. More often then not as an orienteer you can help your team with strong individual performance, even it is team relay. Orienteering is not basketball or football or any other team sport where some folks on team need to play less rewarding positions in order for team to succeed.

I had share of deserving but very selfish teammates during my competitive days, I did not like some of my teammates (and I am sure feeling was mutual). I can't say that our clashing egos bothered me too much as long as we had mutual respect for each others skills and mutual understanding that as teammates we will need find a way how to coexist on the same team. I did not strive to make a team to make friends and at times having teammates that I was not too found of made me work harder at practice to beat them.

Team pride is different story but it's not the same as team work. Looking back Team Pride was what I think allowed many of us - ego-maniacs - coexist and succeed on the same team.

I would not like or probably be furious if I beat others at selection race but get excluded because team coach determines that I did not prepare enough to be on team.

Are you talking about beating someone by <10 seconds? If so, the performances could be considered equal, with preparedness being the tie-breaker.

Having preparedness as possible criteria for selection might and will foster cheating.

If AP were the only measure of training.
But Junior Standing Team (JST) members (the most likely to make the JWOC Team, regardless of the selection process) will also have local mentors/coaches who can directly monitor progress. Also, schirminator will be in touch with JST members on a weekly basis by phone.

Feel free to check out the performance targets on the JST Application. They largely reflect what will be expected of JWOC Team members.

The enthusiasm and energy of junior team coaches should somehow be kept in check. The trial race (or set of a few races) is much more fair way of selecting into a team, then that weird set of criteria, with points given for compliance. This is all “разговоры в пользу бедных”
Alternatively, a clear and transparent ranking system (say best 2 out of say 4 races) on pre-selected events will do. What I really did not like after reading all the rules, is that objective selection is replaced with a fuzzy, highly subjective scheme. Bureaucracy wants to be indispensable, hence all these confusing, elaborate “stages”. Attempt to assign “points”, attach cardinal numbers to different criteria, evaluate on rubric, as opposite to running the race in the forest to determine who does it better is totally against the spirit of this sport, but very much to the liking of “human resource” specialists. That is what they do. Result: selecting those who fit into one’s “vision”, limited to boy-scout-brainwashed experience, instead of the strongest candidates.
Ability to perform under pressure, ability to push to the limit when it matters is no less important than technical and physical level. That is why the trial race.
“Committee will review all the individuals based on the navigational criteria”. WTF is this! A tough, challenging trial race will review all aspects of preparedness.
Another quote: “Selection Committee will review all individuals based on their team work, commitment, and Potential” This is demagogy, in its purest form.
“Athlete shows athletic promise and ability towards going further in the sport than just JWOC” You are taking too much upon yourself to make such judgments.

“Athlete has demonstrated that they can train and compete well with team mates, so that both their ability and their team mate’s ability rise. They are disciplined to follow racing and training directions that benefit the team and themselves as needed. This evidence will be drawn from individual coaching work and observation with and of individuals”.
Yes, trial race is imperfect, but infinitely more fair than selection based on one’s cultural stereotypes about someone’s potential. That is probably what they teach these days about coaching in American football, but in Orienteering you work with people, in this case young adults 20-21 years old, whose IQ is well above that of Forrest Gump. Thus, you need to respect their individuality, they are not supposed to be a “team” of soldiers. Orienteering is not a paramilitary exercise, and it is individual sport.

OMG. What a mean-spirited, negative post. I don't see how this kind of language helps at all.

As for the content of the post, I couldn't disagree more. Sure, orienteering, once you get to the start line, is an individual sport. But being prepared at the start line takes the support and encouragement of all of those around you, including coaches, support staff and volunteers, AttackPointers (hint hint), family, friends, and very importantly those that you train and race against on a regular basis. There is no better way to raise the standards of orienteering that to have everyone "train and compete well with team mates, so that both their ability and their team mate’s ability rise".

The most important point from Erin's email, in my opinion, is this: "Again the point is that the system we are proposing is a catalyst to get this sport to the next level". The criticisms of Erin's proposed selection process, to me at least, seem completely based on maintaining the status quo with minor incremental change - and they miss completely the wonderful opportunity USA orienteering has right now to start making changes in the culture of youth orienteering that will lead to long term significant improvements that could see top 10 results in perhaps four or five yeras.

AZ, it's yurets. He has his paramilitary style and individuality.

What I would take from his post is that one should be wary of (accidentally) operating an Ivy League old boys club type of system. I don't see much risk of this, but selectors should be aware of their own prejudices.

And I full faith in Erin and Co to do a fine job.

While it is in the inimitable yurets style, IMHO, some of his concerns are not without merit. And also ndobbs'.

Firstly, I am entirely in agreement with ndobb's final point.

Everyone is arguing but is there currently the depth of field to be having this conversation? If we're totally honest? To me it seems like all the changes might do is stop kids who win one race from going if someone doesn't think they've trained enough. I also want to say the argument that a selection race is too much pressure mentally is BS - it's not more pressure than JWOC.

But my main point is that for the last five years, the coach could have picked the team and I guess it would likely have been exactly the same one as the rankings. I had the team pretty much picked and I know nothing about the Juniors really. I would give Erin a few years to work his magic and then worry about spending time and effort refining the system when there's really the tough competition to merit it. At the moment ranking works totally fine, as Carlch has said.

However, and this ties in with the other thread, the problem with rankings is sticking 18s or 20s on courses where they're the only ones running, because they have no choice but to run them if they want to go to JWOC. I personally see this as the most important current change, and the rest can probably wait.

I have always been slightly apprehensive about posting on AP due to the tendency of bashing creeping in sometimes, but fortunately to this point this thread has been great and has so many good points!

I do second Suzanne's experience, only from the parent's position. We even had "close-by" A-meets with 15-20 hours drive one way. While living abroad and only back for a few summer weeks every year, we scheduled all our vacations around A-meet festivals to minimize costs. Those who want do indeed find ways, but they may still be at a great disadvantage if they are far away and have to rely on large financial input to get to more than local meets. For the northern Midwest states, having Canadian events, or even non-standard events like large scale street-scramblers count towards something would be good.

There is a great and commendable drive to strengthen this sport at the top level, the tip of a tiny pyramid. The other thing that needs to be done, and I don't know how, is work also on supporting growing the pyramid, and I think that is attempted in the JDT. The JDT and JST, though, may not have equal access to opportunities to give them some of the needed points in the various categories as others have that have strong club support. And by club support I don't mean the club members verbally and wholeheartedly supporting the youth, but having the necessary courses, and maps and even coaches.

"Consistent work with a coach or mentor who can help a junior improve and develop their skills on a regular basis, this mentor/coach should be in touch with the national coach advising him/her on the athletes development and abilities."

If there is to be cooperation and support and all that between the juniors, I think there needs to be a similar level of interaction and exchange going on between the local coaches and the national coach. Or else have a pool of event mentor coaches who could help coach the athletes when travelling to A-meets without the support of a local coach or even without support of anyone going from the local club.

@Becks - I don't totally understand why I'm arguing to make the US team stronger when what I want is the Canadian team to win back the BK cups ;-) But I can't help get excited by Erin's proposal. So I must adress two points in your post.

First, I think you are undermining the potential of the discretionary approach when you say "To me it seems like all the changes might do is stop kids who win one race from going if someone doesn't think they've trained enough". In Erin's five-step selection process there is no way at all for this to happen. The 5-step process clearly lays out the expectations for training quantity. Also there is no single person who will be able to make such a call. This situation you describe is highly unlikely to happen, and will only happen if the system is corrupted.

Second, you point out that there is likely no difference in the team if the selection is based on rankings / trials / discretion. I agree with that, for sure. So then I say why not use discretion instead, since there is a big advantage to using discretion in that the coach can set expectations for training - and it is this training that is key to improve the quality of orienteering. WIth only rankings or selection races the coach is left powerless to demand training.

Okay, there's more...
Third, you say pressure at selection races is no worse than at JWOC. Here I also disagree, but not as strongly ;). At selection races the pressure comes from: will I make the team or not - a very clear binary choice. At JWOC where is the pressure? The result is very much on a continuum and the difference between a top 30 and top 40 finish doesn't really have major impact. With few exceptions North Americans are running for pride at international events. My dream is that this will change and we'll see more and more North American's striving for podium finishes. But to get there we all need to work together, and we need to give coaches like Erin and Brent (Canada's Junior Coach) the enthusiastic support and freedom they need to change things.

AZ - I think we agree on the important things actually, but perhaps I didn't make my points very clear. As a GB Junior our selections were discretionary, with key races highlighted, and I think that I'm still a fan of this system in general (despite the fact it's largely responsible for the end of my junior career - it's tough sometimes, there's no denying that).

Have you been to JWOC? I'm asking a genuine question, not trying to be angsty, I know you've competed at Senior Comps, but we're mostly a little bit more mentally stable by then. I've not made it to JWOC but I've run at JEC and World Cups, and the pressure, if not entirely logical, is definitely worse, regardless of expectations. Silly things like "All the Swedish people look so good," "She runs so fast" "All these people look better than me, I don't deserve to be here." I think it's the unknown quantity - at least in the US you know your opposition, their strengths and weaknesses, and don't make silly assumptions about how good they look in O' Kit. At least if you kicked butt at the selections races, rather than travelled to 3 meets miles away where you were the only person there, you know you deserve to be there. (Saying all that, I'm really not sure of the wisdom of a single race in such a huge country. I really don't know how to answer this one).

I just don't think we should be worrying too much about selections right now, that really is my take home point. Because your final sentence really is the key, and that has to come first. Until then, you're just fighting over minutae of how to get the same eggs into your basket. For now, the rankings seem to do that just fine. (I'm genuinely surprised this is the conclusion I'm coming to!) I hope I don't come across as combative, I'm genuinely not trying to be. Sometimes I'm aware I am a little abrupt.

@Becks - good points - I had meant to mention that I hadn't been to JWOC, so that last object was purely theoretical ;-) Also, I agree that we are pretty much thinking the same way - I just probably went over the top. Sorry. I agree that last sentence is the key - and the rest I could easily be wrong about ;-)

@GuyO - yes. Since I tended to be rebel within my training group I was aware that I needed to be not just slightly better then my teammates to be on the team but unquestionably better. If I was withing 10 seconds of someone else I knew that chances were I would not be selected and I was not on one occasion. I was ok and I am Ok if coach selects team if all contenders are equally matched. In those situations I felt that I was left out I did not deserve to be on the team since I cannot even beat my training mates.

I am familiar with JST application and I agree with most of it on it. I have said it before that I like overall intent of application that it's focus is to develop an athlete.

Local mentor does not eliminate possibility of cheating. Once I made national team my coach was selected as one of assistant coaches. In cases where he disagreed with national coach he told me flat out not to do what national coach was asking to do and stick to his training plan but report that I did what national coach was asking to do. I don't even know what my coach was reporting to national coach but one thing I can tell you that from all potential prospects he pushed his own athletes 10 times harder then others and if white lies helped me or any other of his athletes to stay on team I am sure he did it. Heck - I have told white lies to my coach to come up with reasons why I skipped practice or why I did not work hard at the practice. It's just human nature.

Just for a record - I do not have an issue of having local coach/mentor working with local prospect and have them in close contact with national coach at all times. That is one of the changes I like and I think it will pay dividends in long term. It's good to have a good working relationship with national coach but at the end of the day goal is to win championships, not to make friends.

Interesting, that half a world away a parallel discussion is going on. One thing in yours that hit me on the head was "close-by A meets 15-20 hours drive one-way". That gets us from one extremity of the country to the other, so we should be grateful for being small! And the lesson for the big place? Zones? I dunno, since representing a zone doesn't have the same zing as representing your country. At least it levels the international playing field somewhat..

@Gil: I doubt Erin is shocked by what you wrote... :-D

@GuyO - that I lied to my coach to get out of trouble? To some extent I don't envy him since he will have to endure lot of strong opinions. There is no way pleasing everyone. There are pros and cons for every decision.

andreais mentioned something that I had on tip of the tongue some time that there is lot of focus targeted to improve top guys but I have not seen it any activity targeted to grow base pyramid. It's not even pyramid in US, it's more like Empire state building. If I understand roles correctly it's not Erin's responsibly but he will feel the impact down the road if base needs are not addressed.

Volunteers won't grow the base. Volunteers will make sure their kids get a great experience, perhaps their neighbors' kids, and that's the extent of volunteer time and commitment.

The Junior Development Team is for the base of the pyramid.

I am disappointed by Gil's post that discounts the importance of friendship and teammates and heartened by AZ's comments that "There is no better way to raise the standards of orienteering that to have everyone "train and compete well with team mates, so that both their ability and their team mate’s ability rise".

When somebody is choosing between going for a long trail run or bike ride, going rockclimbing, competing in an adventure race, or going orienteering on a particular weekend, my bet is that friendship and community is an important part of that decision. This becomes more important if you can do the other activities from your doorstep, but need to drive an hour to a local race to get to the forest. Or you can do the other activity in your hometown, but need to drive 5 to an A-meet.

Plus, if you're trying to improve, getting feedback and being challenged by people that you trust is also important.

Having a wonderful, inclusive, supportive community that challenges us to be our very best is important to growing the sport of orienteering.

@Susanne - in my post I did not discount importance of friendship but I pointed out that teamwork is least needed skill in orienteering. Then I recounted my personal experience with some of my former teammates. I did not mention but I was friends with majority of my teammates.

Teamwork and teammates are two different terms.

I was 6' 1 1/2" (188cm) when I was 13. Back in Soviet days there was organization responsible for developing Olympic hopefuls and I was put in boarding school when I was 15 with other similar Olympic hopefuls and we had a great team and we had an excellent teamwork developed between us. We lived together, ate together, hangout together, trained together. Also we cheated at workouts as team together and often we did lot less than coach instructed us to do at the practice. After 4 month in boarding school I realized that there is no way I will ever be Olympic caliber basketball player if I stay in this environment even I (we) were given ideal conditions to succeed and that was a moment I decided not to pursue basketball carrier.

Before my stint with basketball boarding school I also was doing orienteering and I was winning my age group at local competition on regular bases. When I decided to quit basketball one of the appeals of orienteering for me was that it is an individual sport and while on course 100% of my success was how well I do. Even during training if I wanted to work harder then others I did not have to necessary rely on my teammates to do the same. I could not to that in basketball if I wanted to do team drills. Because I was not afraid to work out harder then my teammates I started to have success. As a result I was selected to represent team U.S.S.R at JWOC predecessor in 1989 in Kuftein, Austria (I did not do too well but that's different story... ;)). I think 1989 was last year when I could still beat 1991 JWOC winner Ivars Zagars with who I trained together and competed against while living in Latvia. We were from different clubs and had different coaches but occasions we were together at team Latvia training camps. Ivars surpassed me sometime in 1990 when he won U.S.S.R junior champs where I was 4th (second year in the row...). And in case somebody is wondering - he was not the teammate I disliked.

As far as my awesome basketball teammates from Olympic training boarding school - none of them became Olympic caliber basketball players. Few of them barely got some playing time on Latvian national team.

This is an example from my personal life where teamwork got me nowhere and strong individual desire to succeed got me to compete at worlds stage. I could recite many examples from other sports where strong individualism paid dividends. One of most impressive examples for me personally was Derek Parra's Gold medal in 1500M long track at Salt Lake City games. He is 5'4" tall but managed to snatch Gold and Silver at long track speed-skating event which favors and is dominated by lot taller athletes. How did he do it? Without getting into details he and his coach used different training methods to prepare for games than his teammates. I strongly doubt if he'd even be able to contend for the national team if he'd train the same way as his teammates.

It is important to distinguish what is your ultimate goal, ultimate aspiration - being awesome teammate or win championships. Chris Paul is one of contemporary basketball players who I like and if I was still playing basketball I'd love to have him on my team. Kobe Bryant would not be teammate I'd pick to play my team based on his personality however Kobe has 5 championship rings.

For the record - I do not advocate approach winning at any cost. But the point of my rant is that teamwork is not necessary ingredient for building successful program, especially in orienteering which is such an individual sport. Also that term teamwork is not the same as teammate and/or friendship and should not be mixed up. Also I am not advocating for anarchy within a team. Every teammate must adhere to team rules, coaches directions and have a mutual respect each other regardless if you like your teammate or not. Sports teams are no exception from real life situations when - again using my personal experience - I do not like every coworker I work with (and I know feeling is mutual) but I don't have a problem putting aside our differences and work together and deliver successful project.

@GuyO - thanks for clarifying. I did go back and reviewed Erin's monthly reports and I did notice that base of Pyramid is not left out on their own. My first reaction was that it ain't going to work but more I thought about it - I think it could actually work or at least it might mix things up.

@Gil - That is a great story, thanks for sharing it. Even though I really enjoyed the story, I still disagree with your conclussions ;-) Kobe, for example - the reason Kobe won any rings is Phil Jackson (the coach who won 11 rings). PJ is pretty "new-age" himself and demands of his star players that "the mark of a great player is the ability to make all of their teammates play better'. Kobe thrived under the teamwork approach of PJ, and is pretty lacklustre before and after PJ. As much as it goes against his nature, Kobe has way more success when he works with his teammates, and focusses on making them better.

I would venture that your success/failure in basketball & orienteering have less to do with teamwork and individual determination than with natural ability compared to the rest of the competitors. I think it "just so happens" that you succeeded in an individual sport and not in a team sport - and disagree with the conclusion that teamwork will get you nowhere, whereas individual efforts and determination will lead to success.

Anyway, I have counter story about how teamwork and generosity lead to improvement for all. It is about a guy that wanted to run for Canada at WOC a number of years ago. He realized his limitation was a lack of technical orienteering experience and the only chance he had to make the team was to do more, lots more, technical orienteering. He also was smart enough to realize that his coach (me, kind of) wouldn't be so interested in setting up all the training he wanted. So this is what he did ... he organized a series of races! He figured, correctly as it turned out, that if he could create a regular race schedule, that other people would eventually help with the organizing and he would get to run in competition.Sure enough, after we set the courses for the first three races then other people started taking turns setting the courses. Pretty soon the series took off and for the next almost 10 years our club had a race every Wednesday night, no matter what the weather or the temperature. So this guy (who did make the national team, by the way) achieved his goals by engaging the entire club and creating a legacy that lasted well after he left town, and even spread to other clubs. I suppose it was a selfish move on his part ;-) This is an example of how orienteering can develop in North America. Who is going to set the courses for the top guys? Who is going to race against them and push them to their limits? As Suzanne says, who's going to go training with them? It is the people around us. If we want our young orienteers to achieve more, then we should instill this attitude of mutual benefit, of teamwork, and of cooperation. Because that is the only way I can see that there will be enough races, enough competition, enough trainings, enough anything to make significant improvements in orienteering in North America.

I'm not sure that I've been clear in my argument, but I hope the gist is obvious.

Thanks Gil and AZ for the stories!

@AZ - it's refreshing that you can respectfully disagree with my opinion but based on your comments I can see that you actually tried to understand my point of view. I like that even if you disagree but you do it respectfully.

Your story outlines the fact that success cannot be created in vacuum. I was lucky that I had about 6-7 very capable and competitive teammates in my local club, one of them - Oskars Zernis - made USSR junior team year before me and participated at JWOC predecessor in 1988 in Hungry (Oskar's son - Rudolfs Zernis became European youth champ in 2011). Few others just from my local club barely missed national teams. Two other my former teammates won Worlds Rogaining Championships in 2002 and 2006 - Gundars Mankus and Anita Liepinna.

Even I clashed with my coach at times I have to give him a credit that he treated all of all as equal. When I started with my club I was barely in Top-10 at my club but we all have to do the same drills, same training runs. Our coach created environment where anyone who worked hard had a potential to succeed and I think in my case not too many expected that I'd be one of first juniors from Latvia to compete at worlds stage. Out coach never asked us and never put in a position where we needed put "team needs before individual needs" and I am very grateful that he did not. I know another instance where coach from another club treated his superstars differently than any other members, where less successful team members were asked to set courses for teams stars. I doubt I'd ever had success that I had if I was on other club. Also other club produced only one temporary star at Junior level vs. my hometown club had many successful orienteers for many years.

What you call team work I would more classify as collaboration between teammates. Terms are close synonyms but slightly different that I felt I needed to go out on limb to explain why phrase "team needs before individual needs" does not really fit into orienteering.