Good breaststrokers worth their weight in gold?

[tumbleweed]

Anecdotally it always seems to me that it's much tougher for a breaststroke swimmer to qualify for nationals, and that freestylers seem to have an easier path even over the other form swimmers. I know it's tough with every stroke and huge congrats to whoever has achieved the times - I am taking nothing away from that milestone.....
However, I had a look at the male qualifiers for this years Youth Nationals in the double age band 15/16 years and came up with some really interesting numbers.

Event Number of qualifiers

100 back 32
200 back 35
100 fly 43
200 fly 30
100 breast 32
200 breast 24
100 free 87
200 free 74

The situation is similar for girls with 81 with qts for 100 free and 80 for 200
compared to 25 for 200 breast!
Of the qualifiers for male 200 breast only 5 are aged 15.....
Is there an explanation that seems to make sense to anyone else?
Is it as mundane as the freestyle events are quickest so the organisers can get through more heats at nationals than the much slower breast or form events? Or do we not teach form strokes as well as freestyle in the clubs??
:confused:

[Breaststrokemum]

I made similar observations last year regarding BAGCAT qualifiers. I have never heard an acceptable explanation for this disparity.

BM

[Breaststrokemum]

Just looked.........last year at NAGS there were the following qualifiers.....

(Girls)
100 breast 59
200 breast 61
100 free 110
200 free 145
100 back 92
200 back 125
100 fly 66
200 fly 81

It could be argued that 'flyers are perhaps disadvantaged too?


I know that the reasoning behind the QTs is historic, just an idea......... does those for backstroke mean that historically the past 'best times' are based on the old tumble turns which were much slower than the new turns? Breaststroke turns have changed, but youngsters don't seem to be that proficient at them, compared to the advantage that the new turn has for backstrokers.

BM

[Bazza]

I felt the same. A bit of research using the online rankings databaseshows the number of qualifiers for each event at this summers ASA Nationals:

Mens qualifiers
50 Free - 87
100 Free - 176
200 Free - 190
50 Back - 34
100 Back - 66
200 Back - 58
50 Breast - 64
100 Breast - 68
200 Breast - 55
50 Fly - 67
100 Fly - 83
200 Fly - 66

Womens qualifiers
50 Free - 38
100 Free - 110
200 Free - 157
50 Back - 45
100 Back - 48
200 Back - 39
50 Breast - 27
100 Breast - 36
200 Breast - 34
50 Fly- 28
100 Fly - 32
200 Fly - 30

I think this shows not a huge difference across the form strokes, but certainly a huge bias towards freestyle relay swimmers and surprisingly alot more male qualifiers than female (though at the same time not surprising if you think about how the QTs are set).

Why can't the times just be set on (eg) top 50 in the country each year? Surely that would allow consistency? I thought the national championships were for the best swimmers in the country, not the best 30 in one event but the best 190 in another!

[Linny]

surprisingly alot more male qualifiers than female (though at the same time not surprising if you think about how the QTs are set).Sorry Bazza I must be missing something, what do you mean by this bit? The bias towards freestyle isn't surprising but I was certainly surprised to see how many more males than females theoretically fall inside the times. Why do you think that is not surprising?

[Taxiandbank]

I felt the same. A bit of research using the online rankings databaseshows the number of qualifiers for each event at this summers ASA Nationals:

Mens qualifiers
50 Free - 87
100 Free - 176
200 Free - 190
50 Back - 34
100 Back - 66
200 Back - 58
50 Breast - 64
100 Breast - 68
200 Breast - 55
50 Fly - 67
100 Fly - 83
200 Fly - 66

Womens qualifiers
50 Free - 38
100 Free - 110
200 Free - 157
50 Back - 45
100 Back - 48
200 Back - 39
50 Breast - 27
100 Breast - 36
200 Breast - 34
50 Fly- 28
100 Fly - 32
200 Fly - 30

I think this shows not a huge difference across the form strokes, but certainly a huge bias towards freestyle relay swimmers and surprisingly alot more male qualifiers than female (though at the same time not surprising if you think about how the QTs are set).

Why can't the times just be set on (eg) top 50 in the country each year? Surely that would allow consistency? I thought the national championships were for the best swimmers in the country, not the best 30 in one event but the best 190 in another!


But how many of those qualifiers are youth swimmers?

[tumbleweed]

Why can't the times just be set on (eg) top 50 in the country each year? Surely that would allow consistency? I thought the national championships were for the best swimmers in the country, not the best 30 in one event but the best 190 in another!

I tend to agree that a fair a very defensible system would be one which was completely transparent to participants ie National championships should be the fastest percentage across the board. Relay teams are chosen from the top 20, why can't individual event participants be selected in the same way. The organisers know how long they want the event to last and they thus pick the participants accordingly? We have the very comprehensive rankings database in place, why can't invitations be sent out to whatever number of swimmers are needed?
I suspect that a bit of "this is the way we've always done it" operates here. I know there is a scientific formula used to come up with the qts, but then they are manipulated on the basis of last years performances/numbers.
Each year I see this same debate in some way or another - as the system of qualifying time setting remains biassed in an arcane way.

[doublexpresso]

Freestyle is the most popular stroke and everyone can have a go at it whereas for each of the other strokes, it seems to depend on personality and body shape. That means more people can do it and achieve the QTs.

However, there is another thing that I have noticed fresh out of the Regional Bagcats - all the big clubs seem to be fantastically good at Freestyle - they do a lot of freestyle training and distance and it shows. For smaller clubs, they seem to do better at the form strokes - I wonder if this is because reduced pool times means they have to focus more on strokes rather than 'waste' precious time on freestyle - just a theory.

Has anyone else seen this small club/big club distinction?

[tumbleweed]

Freestyle is the most popular stroke and everyone can have a go at it whereas for each of the other strokes, it seems to depend on personality and body shape. That means more people can do it and achieve the QTs.



If more people can do it then why aren't the freestyle times more difficult? If the qts are set to form a boundary between the very good and the exceptional as they are on the form strokes (with the exception of breaststroke which seems most difficult to qualify on so maybe the boundary is set to "how many heats can we fit in") this doesn't seem to apply so strongly to freestylers!!
How demoralising to those 15 year old boys to see only FIVE of them qualified this year. I find that remarkable.

[tumbleweed]

Oh dear, I'm getting sadder....I just had a look at the Australian age group 2007 national times and the time for 200 breast for both the 15 and 16 year olds is 5 seconds slower than ours...The backstroke and butterfly times are 3.4 and 2.3 seconds slower respectively.
Not too disimilar on the free's interestingly enough, mind you their 1500 free time is a whopping 26 seconds tighter than ours.
I would consider the Australians to be in the top 2 swimming nations - maybe I'll look at the American times next.
Our form stroke times are harder across the board than for Australian youth swimmers!!!:aarrgghh:

[doublexpresso]

Our form stroke times are harder across the board than for Australian youth swimmers!!!

Is this just that they don't expect so much so young? The Australian QTs start at 13 & under, Canadian are from 12 year olds. I am too tired to look now but I wonder if the QTs for open categories are easier than the British.

p.s. couldn't find US QTs but the Canadian QTs also seem a bit easier across the board.

[Breaststrokemum]

Oh dear, I'm getting sadder....I just had a look at the Australian age group 2007 national times and the time for 200 breast for both the 15 and 16 year olds is 5 seconds slower than ours...The backstroke and butterfly times are 3.4 and 2.3 seconds slower respectively.
Not too disimilar on the free's interestingly enough, mind you their 1500 free time is a whopping 26 seconds tighter than ours.
I would consider the Australians to be in the top 2 swimming nations - maybe I'll look at the American times next.
Our form stroke times are harder across the board than for Australian youth swimmers!!!:aarrgghh:

I am also 'sad'. I looked at the Aussie agegroup results a few years ago and apart from the occasional phenomenal swimmer, British agegroupers were generally faster. Perhaps the more measured approach in the Antipodes (I prepare myself to be shot down here!) retains swimmers beyond their mid teens? I recall very few of our agegroupers who were achieving as 11-14 year olds who are still swimming 5-6 years later.

BM

[selkie]

The Americans don't have a national age group championship, or age group-related qualifiers into the Senior National meets. Everyone has the same time standards to meet whethet they're 12 (Always seems to be one girl that young) or 41 (always seems to be someone past 40 in the sprints entry lists) There's a seperate Junior National meet that's sans age bands. If you're 18 or under, and don't quite make senior national cuts, then that's your big meet of the summer. Again, same qualifying times whether you're 18 or if you're 12.

Junior and senior national meet time standards are here:

http://www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabId=147&Alias=Rainbow&Lang=en

Girls LC 100M breast- 1:13.29 senior meet, 1:14.89 junior meet
Girls LC 200M breast- 2:38.09 seniors-2:41.39 juniors
Boys LC 100M breast- 1:05.59 seniors- 1:08.39 juniors
Boys LC 200M breast-2:22.29 seniors, 2:28.59 juniors
Girls LC 100M free- 57.69 seniors- 58.89 juniors
Boys LC 100M free- 52.19 seniors- 53.89 juniors

[doublexpresso]

The Americans don't have a national age group championship, or age group-related qualifiers into the Senior National meets. Everyone has the same time standards to meet whethet they're 12 (Always seems to be one girl that young) or 41 (always seems to be someone past 40 in the sprints entry lists) There's a seperate Junior National meet that's sans age bands. If you're 18 or under, and don't quite make senior national cuts, then that's your big meet of the summer. Again, same qualifying times whether you're 18 or if you're 12.

Junior and senior national meet time standards are here:

http://www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabId=147&Alias=Rainbow&Lang=en

Girls LC 100M breast- 1:13.29 senior meet, 1:14.89 junior meet
Girls LC 200M breast- 2:38.09 seniors-2:41.39 juniors
Boys LC 100M breast- 1:05.59 seniors- 1:08.39 juniors
Boys LC 200M breast-2:22.29 seniors, 2:28.59 juniors
Girls LC 100M free- 57.69 seniors- 58.89 juniors
Boys LC 100M free- 52.19 seniors- 53.89 juniors

Those times are pretty tough - roughly the top 20 from the British Swimming all age groups rankings.

[2.tso]

The Main Diff between USA Swimming and UK swimming is that "STATE" meets are your age group aim, the Followed up by Major club meets, "LOST DUTCHMAN INVITE" next stage "NCSA JUNIOR NATIONALS" and "SECTIONALS" next step up the ladder is "US OPEN" Further step is "US NATIONALS" then the ultimate goal is "OLYMPIC TRIALS"...........................

UK Swimming, "YORKSHIRES" ETC then "COUNTIES" then "AGE GROUP NATIONALS"

i will let you make you own mind up but i know what the better world class system is!

Also a note for us all, only in 2005 did USA have a "HEAD COACH" such as Bill is to us!

[swimmer 89]

i will let you make you own mind up but i know what the better world class system is!!

Don't think its the system which makes a nation better but more how the system is used.

For example, the Australians have adopted a relatively similar sytem to the British yet they seem to have a lot of success at international level than them.

Perhaps the fact the Australians use the system more positively than the British, in terms of they make the qualifying standard easier for youth swimmers at a national level. Means they encourage more teenagers to keep swimming and thus have a wider selection of talent remaining in the sport to select from at an adult level?

Or maybe its simply the demographic reason that they have more potential swimmers in their country to select from?

[2.tso]

True USA have 250000 swimmers Not too sure about OZ though!

Back to the subject matter though i dont think the breast times for age groups are that difficult, i have 3 out of 5 swimmers for AGN Qualify in Breast, and 3 out of 5 that just missed out were within .50!

[tumbleweed]

True USA have 250000 swimmers Not too sure about OZ though!

Back to the subject matter though i dont think the breast times for age groups are that difficult, i have 3 out of 5 swimmers for AGN Qualify in Breast, and 3 out of 5 that just missed out were within .50!

My reference was to Youth swimmers. The fact that only 5 15 year old boys qualified for Nationals in 200 breast surely implies a great deal of difficulty.

The Australians have a completely different attitude to swimming to the British. Swimming is a cool sport - one in which teenage boys aspire to be on the school team for. The television coverage is extensive and your average Aussie would be able to name at least 2 or 3 of their national swimmers. Here ask man-in-the-street to name a famous British swimmer and I guarantee it would be either Sharron Davies or Duncan Goodhew, possibly Adrian Moorhouse cos he's on the telly....would they know that Hannah Miley broke Sharrons 400IM record this year, would they have heard of Liam Tancock etc etc.
Yes, back to the subject matter, if the desire is to keep teenagers in the sport then the qualifying times should be set so that they are fair, so that achievement in the form strokes is elevated. However you look at it for Youth swimmers male and female the national qualifying times discriminate for freestylers over form swimmers (IMHO and ducking)

[Barracuda]

Swimmers will either see swimming as a pastime, or as a sport, the problem arises when parents or coaches see the swimmer as being in it for the sport when in reality they are in it for the pastime.
I have worked with too many coaches that are not prepared to work on the psychology of sport, only the physiology, which still leaves us way behind other leading countries.

[Linny]

I have worked with too many coaches that are not prepared to work on the psychology of sport, only the physiology, which still leaves us way behind other leading countries.Why do you think this is so? I think it a far wider problem than you are suggesting and coaches will struggle to surmount it alone so to imply that coaches are not prepared to work on it is perhaps a bit unfair.

Many of our schools are not introducing our children to sport at either.

[Phil Tanner]

On one level you'd have a fairer selection if AG and youth nationals just acccepted the top [whatever number] in each event rather than set qualfying times, i.e. as with relays. But it's hard to see how this would fit in with the need for a structure of qualifying competitions throughout the season.

You'd need far fewer meets through the season, because for all you know a brilliant time in January might get overtaken in May. So thanks, but we won't enter the January meet at Anytown SC. So the meet becomes unviable and Anytown finds it that bit harder to fund its pool hire and coaching.

IMHO there has to be some sort of reward for achieving targets through the season. Families of AG and youth swimmers can at least now organize their summers on the basis of knowing that little Johnny will be spending time in Sheffield in late July if he makes time X in event Y. (OK, assuming injury-free and enthusiasm for it maintained.)

I think a significant number towards the margins of NQTs - and you wouldn't know exactly where the margin ended, of course - would be less likely to commit to the sport if you could be in the top [whatever number] all season but slip out on the last weekend before the qualifying deadline.

The hairy-chested response to this would be we don't want the uncommitted. But can the sport be maintained solely through the efforts of the utterly committed? I don't think it can.

[Barracuda]

Why do you think this is so? I think it a far wider problem than you are suggesting and coaches will struggle to surmount it alone so to imply that coaches are not prepared to work on it is perhaps a bit unfair.

Many of our schools are not introducing our children to sport at either.

I don't believe there is enough emphasis on coaches being taught the relevance of teaching their swimmers the importance of physical development, and the factor it plays in their performance levels as they grow older.
Slower developing swimmers drop out because they think they will never catch up with the early developers, something the coach (hopefully) is aware of but fails to teach their swimmers.
Faster developing swimmers drop out because they weren't taught that they need to maintain technical development, because the slower developers would or could catch them up later, and when it happens it's all too late.
I don't agree that changing competition levels is the answer, but teaching young swimmers that it is purely part of the LONG TERM process, and failing to make them or win them are not an indication of their final long term development.
Many schools have decided to drop sporting competitions, as they fear it develops a fear of failure, yet another classic example of the perception of sport psychology.

[Bazza]

Surely we will never improve our sporting credentials while our society has the view that competition is a bad thing and should be discouraged. I fear for the future of all sports while attitudes like that previal. Meanwhile kids would rather look up to Paris Hilton than Hannah Miley. :rolleyes:

[Bazza]

Sorry Bazza I must be missing something, what do you mean by this bit? The bias towards freestyle isn't surprising but I was certainly surprised to see how many more males than females theoretically fall inside the times. Why do you think that is not surprising?

I believe the times are set using historical data. I may be wrong but I feel that generally (until recently anyway) mens swimming has moved on more than womens swimming in say the last 10-20 years. This means there are more males higher up any all time rankings than women. We still see names like Sarah Hardcastle holding British records from 1984!

So in other words comparing the past to the present, I think women were faster than men (relatively speaking) before, which makes it harder for girls now to achieve those times.

[Another SwimMum]

Swimmers will either see swimming as a pastime, or as a sport, the problem arises when parents or coaches see the swimmer as being in it for the sport when in reality they are in it for the pastime.
I have worked with too many coaches that are not prepared to work on the psychology of sport, only the physiology, which still leaves us way behind other leading countries.

Agreed. Don't we have the lowest number of qualified sports psychologist's working in this country compared to our International friends? Coaches at club level seem to be very 'old school' rather than embracing new ideas/methods. We need to educate those that are willing to change and adopt new methods and remove dead wood to progress (IMHO)....... Let's think radical here, it's time to change! :banghead:

[Phil Tanner]

Coaches at club level seem to be very 'old school' rather than embracing new ideas/methods.

Isn't that a bit of a sweeping statement? How many of us would know enough about the country's coaches as a whole to have a valid opinion?

We did have someone on here a year or two ago who advocated a radically different approach which involved getting kids to spend minimal time in the water and far more on land training. Which was fair enough, people are entitled to a variety of opinions. But he or she vanished like a puff of smoke as soon as asked to front up with evidence of results - IIRC the claim was along the lines of national medals off three hours a week in the water - so they could be compared with those of coaches with a more "old school" approach.

[Another SwimMum]

Isn't that a bit of a sweeping statement? How many of us would know enough about the country's coaches as a whole to have a valid opinion?

We did have someone on here a year or two ago who advocated a radically different approach which involved getting kids to spend minimal time in the water and far more on land training. Which was fair enough, people are entitled to a variety of opinions. But he or she vanished like a puff of smoke as soon as asked to front up with evidence of results - IIRC the claim was along the lines of national medals off three hours a week in the water - so they could be compared with those of coaches with a more "old school" approach.

I didn't mean to offend! I can only go on what I have seen over many years where coaches don't do very much (if any) technique work and plough their top squads up and down the pool doing freestyle. And we wonder why there are only a few breaststokers qualifying a National level. We all know that power over technique will only carry a swimmer so far. Why do coaches not concentrate on looking at improvements to technique whatever the age of the swimmer? Recent under water filming at our club highlighted serious technique problems in 15 year olds and above. Is it too late to try and change? Are they (the swimmer) acceptant of change? Does the coach care? I have seen no evidence since that filming where the coach has acted upon the results and tried to rectify the technical problems. Yes, all coaches are entitled to their opinion but results speak for themselves. This country needs to move into the 21st century and keep up with the rest of the world with regards to swimming.

[Phil Tanner]

My point is just that any of us, unless we happen to hold some sort of senior national coaching supervisor role, would only have first-hand knowledge of a tiny number of coaches, and then we'd probably only see parts of occasional sessions. I certainly don't recognize the "just plough up and down" scenario.

[Another SwimMum]

My point is just that any of us, unless we happen to hold some sort of senior national coaching supervisor role, would only have first-hand knowledge of a tiny number of coaches, and then we'd probably only see parts of occasional sessions. I certainly don't recognize the "just plough up and down" scenario.

Very true and I can only speak about a number of coaches - 8 in total and all at Head Coach club level. All, without exception have concentrated on frontcrawl and have tended to do very little technique work generally especially across the diciplines. I happen to agree with earlier comments made by posters that coaches (in this country) don't spend time on the psychology of swimming with their swimmers and understand that this is not the case in other countries. At the end of the day we aren't producing the results that others countries are. If there were some kind of structure in place to educate coaches in new teaching/coaching methods (taken from our successful counterparts) then perhaps we would have different attitudes/results. I believe we have many excellent coaches in the UK but they aren't supported adequately through structure, planning, methods and pay. Doesn't the saying go 'a coach is only as good as his/her last swimmer!'? Perhaps we have just been unlucky with our coaches or may be the club has the wrong approach.

[lane4]

Why do coaches not concentrate on looking at improvements to technique whatever the age of the swimmer? I have only seen a VERY small minority of swimming coaches in the UK who do not concentrate on improving technique. Your sweeping generalisation (again) is an insult to the large majority of coaches who do try hard to improve their swimmer's strokes. Okay, some do try harder than others, some try more often than others, and some are obviously better at it than others but to say what you said I believe is offensive and misrepresentative of most coaches.

Yes, all coaches are entitled to their opinion but results speak for themselves. This country needs to move into the 21st century and keep up with the rest of the world with regards to swimming. At the recent World Championships, Britian finished 4th overall in the team points competition. At last year's European Championships, Britian WON the top team trophy! Evidence perhaps that we are AHEAD of most of the rest of the world not behind it! And if you think the results of USA and Australia are due to superior coaches who spend hours working on technique and don't grind their athletes up and down the pool on freestyle you are seriously mistaken. Of course there are plenty of fantastic coaches in America and Australia but ours are equally as good, and some are equally as bad as their bad ones too.

[Another SwimMum]

I have only seen a VERY small minority of swimming coaches in the UK who do not concentrate on improving technique. Your sweeping generalisation (again) is an insult to the large majority of coaches who do try hard to improve their swimmer's strokes. Okay, some do try harder than others, some try more often than others, and some are obviously better at it than others but to say what you said I believe is offensive and misrepresentative of most coaches.

At the recent World Championships, Britian finished 4th overall in the team points competition. At last year's European Championships, Britian WON the top team trophy! Evidence perhaps that we are AHEAD of most of the rest of the world not behind it! And if you think the results of USA and Australia are due to superior coaches who spend hours working on technique and don't grind their athletes up and down the pool on freestyle you are seriously mistaken. Of course there are plenty of fantastic coaches in America and Australia but ours are equally as good, and some are equally as bad as their bad ones too.

Oh dear, I've obviously touched a nerve and consider myself duly reprimanded. :cry:

Lane4, you are the most negative and depressive person I have ever come across on this forum. It's just a debate. We are all entitled to our opinions and my comments are made through the experiences encountered over many years. Has it occurred to you that I may also be a coach? :aarrgghh:

Question: If (some) of our coaches are equally as good (and I agree with you here) why is BS looking to employ a number of International coaches in excess of 150k pa?

[Linny]

Very true and I can only speak about a number of coaches - 8 in total and all at Head Coach club level.8! You are a swimming mum yes? Do you have loads of children? Do you keep on moving? Do you keep on moving your children? Or do the head coaches keep moving? Or do your children belong to loads of Clubs? There is something going wrong here. I'd like to suggest that your experiences are not typical; it would be interesting to know why.All, without exception have concentrated on frontcrawl and have tended to do very little technique work generally especially across the diciplines. I have never known anyone do this, mind you I haven't been involved with very many programmes although I have sought advice from, worked with, been to visit and know quite a few "head coaches".I happen to agree with earlier comments made by posters that coaches (in this country) don't spend time on the psychology of swimming with their swimmers and understand that this is not the case in other countries. At the end of the day we aren't producing the results that others countries are. If there were some kind of structure in place to educate coaches in new teaching/coaching methods (taken from our successful counterparts) then perhaps we would have different attitudes/results.I think that our coaches struggle with psychology not because of ignorance and/or lack of effort but because of wider society - schools, parenting etc. As the result I think that they may even try too hard to the extent that they themselves appear brainwashed in their determination to persuade us that if we only believe noone would ever give up swimming a la Barracuda and we could all be great.I believe we have many excellent coaches in the UK but they aren't supported adequately through structure, planning, methods and pay. Doesn't the saying go 'a coach is only as good as his/her last swimmer!'? Perhaps we have just been unlucky with our coaches or may be the club has the wrong approach.Why do you think this is if it goes completely against your own experiences?

[Barracuda]

8! You are a swimming mum yes? Do you have loads of children? Do you keep on moving? Do you keep on moving your children? Or do the head coaches keep moving? Or do your children belong to loads of Clubs? There is something going wrong here. I'd like to suggest that your experiences are not typical; it would be interesting to know why?
Are you a lawyer because you certainly talk like one, or in someway connected to courts?
I fail to see why you find it strange that someone could have come in to contact with 8 coaches who are qualified to club coach level?

As the result I think that they may even try too hard to the extent that they themselves appear brainwashed in their determination to persuade us that if we only believe noone would ever give up swimming a la Barracuda and we could all be great.Why do you think this is if it goes completely against your own experiences?

If you have interpreted this from what I have written, then I need to re-read my words as this is not what I was trying to say. It is impossible to prevent ALL swimmers from leaving this sport, but I do believe that with certain changes some could be encouraged to continue, in a sport that hopefully they once loved and understood. Too much emphasis is placed on age group competition.

[Linny]

I fail to see why you find it strange that someone could have come in to contact with 8 coaches who are qualified to club coach level?I agree, I wouldn't say that it was strange for someone to come into contact with 8 coaches who are qualified to club coach level but that is not what was said or I would not have said that I thought it was not typical.

AnotherSwimMum spoke of what she had experienced - 8 head coaches, club level. You may disagree but I DO think that this is unusual and I also see it as quite different to 8 qualified club coaches - let's face it, you may find several of them in one large team. I also believe that it requires a completely different level of knowledge and experience of a coach to be able to say that they have "concentrated on frontcrawl and have tended to do very little technique work generally" to just having come in to contact with them.

Barracuda you're twisting my words. Are you a lawyer? I am not.

[lane4]

Lane4, you are the most negative and depressive person I have ever come across on this forum. Thanks for the vote of confidence. But don't worry, I've had a LOT worse said about me on here, and especially in pm's and I'm still going strong.

We are all entitled to our opinions I have never once said or suggested otherwise.

Has it occurred to you that I may also be a coach? No, I figured you for a swimming parent. If you were a coach I dare say you would have come across a lot more than the 8 coaches you speak of experience of. However, please prove me wrong, tell us all about your coaching if that is the case?

Question: If (some) of our coaches are equally as good (and I agree with you here) why is BS looking to employ a number of International coaches in excess of 150k pa? If by BS you mean Bill Sweetenham, he isn't! He is leaving in 2008. If on the other hand you mean British Swimming (man in charge = David Sparkes), well they are looking abroad for successful coaches that they think might help win Britain more medals in 2012 than the coaches we currently have. They intend that one of them will replace Bill. However, it does not mean they are right, they [British Swimming] are just doing what they think best to satisfy UK Sport's Olympic medal objectives. Only time will tell.

[Barracuda]

Very true and I can only speak about a number of coaches - 8 in total and all at Head Coach club level.

I agree, I wouldn't say that it was strange for someone to come into contact with 8 coaches who are qualified to club coach level but that is not what was said or I would not have said that I thought it was not typical.
Barracuda you're twisting my words. Are you a lawyer? I am not.

I am not twisting your words, but I thought you were twisting hers, so we will have to wait until another swim mum confirms what she meant, as I read her comments as she has had contact with 8 coaches who were qualified to head club coach level, but not necessarily head club coaches, which is certainly possible.
And no I'm not a lawyer, or even involved with the legal profession.

[tumbleweed]

This has certainly broadened into a very interesting discussion, and there are a couple of points which seem to strike a chord.

Coach education as a factor in the development of swimmers both from a pyschological perspective and from technique development point of view.

The first issue is crucial to success in a talented athlete -look at the example of Kelly Griffiths, she was plagued by just missing out on a breakthrough most of her athletic career, but determination (and obsession) carried her through to ultimate glory. Can this be taught, ie can you teach a coach to teach this? I don't think so, but it can be nutured. Can you instill it in an athlete if it's not already there? I doubt it very much. The willingness to succeed is an internalised motivation, driven by a variety of different factors for different athletes. I don't know how your average club coach starts this process, but I think it can be fostered more widely by validating effort, not just success. I also think it is a cultural thing, one which is firmly implanted in the Australian and American pysche - you can do it and you don't need anyone's permission to succeed.
From a technique point of view, I'm afraid I have to echo some of what anotherswimmum says - we have seen five high level coaches in action now at first hand (and no we haven't flitted from club to club, just been in the sport a while). Two of the five emphasised technical development as part of the everyday business, the other three went for front crawl volume, independant of faulty technique. I would suggest this is not unusual - all three coaches were quite open about the fact that by the time the swimmer was in their squad they should have bulletproof technique.

I am not seeking to find a solution, and I would love to see the poolside coach have the same status in this country that they enjoy in Australia....but we do still have a conundrum in the sport. The original point was an unequal playing field for form swimmers over freestylers. It's not so straightforward as saying "if our coaches were better/different/more trained/etc", but there has to be a place to start, and the leaders of the sport have to be most positively involved, and that means validating their job first and foremost. They need the tools - in proper professional development. The changes and improvements in sports science in the last 20 years have been nothing short of remarkable, and I don't know how easy it is to keep abreast.

[selkie]

The top coaches here almost always advocate training for individual medley during the developmental years. Philosophy is to give a broad foundation so that whatever you're going to end up specializing in at age 16-18, you'll have a decent background for it.

[Another SwimMum]

8! You are a swimming mum yes? Do you have loads of children? Do you keep on moving? Do you keep on moving your children? Or do the head coaches keep moving? Or do your children belong to loads of Clubs? There is something going wrong here. I'd like to suggest that your experiences are not typical; it would be interesting to know why.I have never known anyone do this, mind you I haven't been involved with very many programmes although I have sought advice from, worked with, been to visit and know quite a few "head coaches".I think that our coaches struggle with psychology not because of ignorance and/or lack of effort but because of wider society - schools, parenting etc. As the result I think that they may even try too hard to the extent that they themselves appear brainwashed in their determination to persuade us that if we only believe noone would ever give up swimming a la Barracuda and we could all be great.Why do you think this is if it goes completely against your own experiences?

In answer to your questions: Yes, no, no, no, yes, no. It's one small club. I got my original calculation wrong! Over 6yrs there have been 6 Head Coaches and 4 assistant head coaches (club level) who have stood in (acting HC) whilst a new HC is appointed!

Thanks for the vote of confidence. But don't worry, I've had a LOT worse said about me on here, and especially in pm's and I'm still going strong.

Good, because I think your comments are on the whole very structured and valid. It's just seems that sometimes when the conversation isn't going the way you want, then you wade in. It comes across as very negative. You said I was being offensive to coaches with sweeping statements. As I pointed out, I can only comment on my experiences. And yes, I have met and observed many other coaches over the years and the majority (sorry everyone) seem to favour frontcrawl over breaststoke, fly, backstroke or IM and sprinting, but that's another thread somewhere I think.

No, I figured you for a swimming parent. If you were a coach I dare say you would have come across a lot more than the 8 coaches you speak of experience of. However, please prove me wrong, tell us all about your coaching if that is the case?.

You're right and you're wrong! But oncce again I see this comment of yours very antagonistic and I'm not sure why. :confused:

This has certainly broadened into a very interesting discussion, and there are a couple of points which seem to strike a chord.

Coach education as a factor in the development of swimmers both from a pyschological perspective and from technique development point of view.

The first issue is crucial to success in a talented athlete -look at the example of Kelly Griffiths, she was plagued by just missing out on a breakthrough most of her athletic career, but determination (and obsession) carried her through to ultimate glory. Can this be taught, ie can you teach a coach to teach this? I don't think so, but it can be nutured. Can you instill it in an athlete if it's not already there? I doubt it very much. The willingness to succeed is an internalised motivation, driven by a variety of different factors for different athletes. I don't know how your average club coach starts this process, but I think it can be fostered more widely by validating effort, not just success. I also think it is a cultural thing, one which is firmly implanted in the Australian and American pysche - you can do it and you don't need anyone's permission to succeed.
From a technique point of view, I'm afraid I have to echo some of what anotherswimmum says - we have seen five high level coaches in action now at first hand (and no we haven't flitted from club to club, just been in the sport a while). Two of the five emphasised technical development as part of the everyday business, the other three went for front crawl volume, independant of faulty technique. I would suggest this is not unusual - all three coaches were quite open about the fact that by the time the swimmer was in their squad they should have bulletproof technique.

I am not seeking to find a solution, and I would love to see the poolside coach have the same status in this country that they enjoy in Australia....but we do still have a conundrum in the sport. The original point was an unequal playing field for form swimmers over freestylers. It's not so straightforward as saying "if our coaches were better/different/more trained/etc", but there has to be a place to start, and the leaders of the sport have to be most positively involved, and that means validating their job first and foremost. They need the tools - in proper professional development. The changes and improvements in sports science in the last 20 years have been nothing short of remarkable, and I don't know how easy it is to keep abreast.

Thank you TW, you have said exactly what I was trying to say, but much more succinctly. :)