Changes to GB team selection procedures

[Adam]

According to the lastest posting on the GNAS website, the demands on archers hoping to participate in GB teams appear to have just grown exponentially.

Given the appointment of a new GB head coach, change was to be expected and I don't know many archers who won't welcome at least a degree of change for the (sometimes seemingly haphazard) system that has applied to date.

What worries me slightly is that the new structure appears to require around 90 full days of either squad training or competition during the coming year. i.e. almost one day in four to be spent either in training or competition.

This may be feasible for WCPP funded archers, or TASS sponsored juniors, but for those of us that have to work for a living it looks like a pretty tall order, especially as many of these days (around 2/3rds) are week days.

That said, the first trick is to get selected for the squad, and this is getting tricky, especially as the say on who's in and who's not rests, in part, with the head coach. The same applies to team seclection: it used to be that the top three in the selection shoot got in, but now it's the top 2 plus one other at the head coach's discretion. This will, I feel, inevitably mean that an older guy (like me) finishing third will lose out to a lower placed, younger archer.

Now, I'm certainly not "age-ist" in way, and I'm all in favour of encouraging and rewarding young archers, but I'd be prepared to wager that this is just the start. I suspect it's only a matter of time before all selections are made at the discretion of the head coach: whilst this may be good-practise and even preferable where the olympic disciplines are concerned, I'm far from convinced that's it's the right process for us compound archers who are in the game for fun.

Well, that's my take on it. I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others.

Adam

[Thunk]

Adam, if you are 'in the game for fun' as you say, you are hardly likely to make the GB squad anyway!

That said, why not be ageist? Sport generally is full of activities where people have to give up at a ridiculously young age; the extreme case is probably gymnastics, where for the girls the onset of puberty means you're over the hill! Most sports require a level of physical fitness which becomes impossible to sustain through your thirties, and in only a small minority can older people compete successfully. My other sporting passion is sailing, and in the 1992 games Paul Elvstrom of Denmark sailed at the age of 64, crewed by his daughter Trina. I was lucky enough to be given a personal 'master class' in sailing a singlehander by Paul when he was a World Champion and I a callow youth of 14 - that was in 1961!

In archery we have another sport in which all ages can take part. I suspect that many who are past the first flush of youth wouldn't actually want to work/train hard enough for selection to the national team; but if they do, and do so successfully, then why not selcect them? Let's celebrate the inclusivity of this sport, and not allow it to be seen as one where youngsters succeed and older participants simply play around at the edges.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by thunk

In archery we have another sport in which all ages can take part. I suspect that many who are past the first flush of youth wouldn't actually want to work/train hard enough for selection to the national team; but if they do, and do so successfully, then why not selcect them? Let's celebrate the inclusivity of this sport, and not allow it to be seen as one where youngsters succeed and older participants simply play around at the edges.

Thunk, I do agree with you, age should be irrelevant. I suspect however, that the new GNAS regime will lean strongly in favour of youth: in many coutries, Korea included (home to Peter Suk, head coach) archers over 30 just don;t get a look-in. The Russians don't even consider anyone over 25.

As far as not being prepared to do the necessary is concerned, I am already a GB international. I fear though, that at 42, the end of the road may be nigh.

Adam

[andrew.paterson]

Originally Posted by thunk

In archery we have another sport in which all ages can take part. I suspect that many who are past the first flush of youth wouldn't actually want to work/train hard enough for selection to the national team; but if they do, and do so successfully, then why not selcect them?

Why not use age to your advantage? Archery is a mentally tough sport, and 'younger' archers can fail in this area. Now if the performance coach has come from a country where they scrap the 30+ archer (although I have to reserve judgment as I do not know his track record) we have to convince him that in the UK we are made of tougher stuff.

I must admit when I saw the qualifying scores that really focused my attention, but it ain't going to put me off.

[Shirt]

Yes, but GNAS has a long and distinguished history of putting juniors ahead of seniors - anyone remember the fracas over the Europa Cup four or five years ago? We nearly didn't send any compounds to the World Target Champs because a full junior team had gone to the Europeans...

And now they've declared themselves completely against self-funding, the odds of anyone not completely in the program getting anywhere is nil.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Shirt

And now they've declared themselves completely against self-funding, the odds of anyone not completely in the program getting anywhere is nil.

I think we are still waiting for a full explanation of the effects of this particular decission, but I believe self-funding has been scrapped because full funding has been extended to more/all teams. Though I may well be wrong...

Adam from what you say it seem that anyone with a full time job has no chance of selection for the GB team. I'm not good enough anyway, but even if I was I could not commit to 90 full days, work would not allow it. Many young archers that are good are probably in the same position. There is an 18 year old archer in our club who is good enough to shoot for GB but I wonder if he could simply do a four day week?

So is archery going to become an eliteist sport where only people who can afford not to work can compete at this level? I wonder if selection should be based on consistant ability, not age.

On the other hand, lots of olympic athletes have to make a sacrifice to persue a dream. Is that part of the selection process? This country simply does not fund people well enough to compete on the world stage. As far as I can see it's the country is just playing at it with any sport.

[Sponge]

If I happen to be up for selection for the 2012 Olympics (do we have a flying pigs smiley?) I would be 39. If I was a similar level to a 22 year old, I would expect the 22 year old to be selected. This is becuase they have a possible long career in front of them, where as I would have a more limited time to be a gold medalist etc. Holding back equally good youngsters does not help if they have the chance to progress further.

Radio 5 was joking a Christmas about 40 year olds taking up Archery as the only possible way of getting into the Olympics in London.

Football has a probelm of playing to same old people even if new and younder people have just as good a chance.

Suppose it means I have to get even more practice in then.

Sponge.

[Bald Eagle]

What an interesting discussion! The head coach certainly wants younger archers for his "squad" but as was mentioned, older archers have a stronger mental approach to the game, look at Slow Hand, where are the young archers when he's shooting? Also, why do archers have to travel to Lilleshall for coaching? We can coach regionally, under direction of Mr Suk and help prepare these athletes, cos that's what they are, then they can go down there periodically for assessment. I know I would be proud to help an archer achieve.

[Rik]

I was reading the stuff on team selection yesterday. I might be wrong, but it seemed to be saying that team selection (as opposed to squad selection) will be, as normal, by shoot-off. World Class Performance Programme members get an automatic invititation to the shoot off (I guess at the Head's discretion), but anyone else who qualifies by reaching the required scores also gets to go. Once at the shoot-off, well, it's a competition, isn't it?

I interpret this as saying:
"we're focusing on the people we think are going to be the right ones, but we're not going to exclude someone we've missed, who is shooting well". Which is a reasonable attitude, on the face of it. I'll be interested in seeing how it gets applied and whether any evidence of bias shows up.