Well Done GNAS

[joetapley]

Don't say the above too often.
Bu well done GNAS for recognising the kick off of the world cup series and mentioning it on their website in a timely fashion.

[GeoffT]

Fully agree Joe. Only confusing bit is Peter Suk's comment "I do not set targets ". Why not?

[joetapley]

Only confusing bit is Peter Suk's comment "I do not set targets ". Why not?

He's got somebody else to carry them!

[bluebow]

Originally Posted by joetapley

He's got somebody else to carry them!

He's got that 'club member' approach then, rather than a 'member of a club' approach!

[bluebow]

Originally Posted by GeoffT

Fully agree Joe. Only confusing bit is Peter Suk's comment "I do not set targets ". Why not?

I expect by that he means he does not set target like "GBR are going to win 'x' number of medals and have 3 archers in the top the 10".

Neither him nor the archers can have complete control over a goal like that, so it should not be set as a goal. GBR final positions will also depend on the other competitors' performance. Something GBR that have no control over.

He has said that the archers will doing their best (as they always do). Having said this, he will expect the archers involved to shoot to their best and to be honest in their own appraisal of their performance, when it is reviewed.

The archers (and Peter Suk) have control over whether they shoot to their best - so that's what he has set as a target.

[Rik]

If it's not measurable, then it's not a target. Targets say something like
"X will achieve Y by <fixed time>". Otherwise they don't mean very much. In order for something to be a target, it has to be possible to miss it...

[bluebow]

Originally Posted by Rik

If it's not measurable, then it's not a target. Targets say something like
"X will achieve Y by <fixed time>". Otherwise they don't mean very much. In order for something to be a target, it has to be possible to miss it...

I totally agree Rik. But that measureable goal should have been completed before the competition. It's in the competition that you apply what you have learnt in acheiving (or missing) that goal.

Also I think it's up to the individual archer to set the measureable goal (e.g. within 20 pts of my PB), with the agreement of the coach, and then make an honest self-appraisal if it was acheived by shooting to their best

[Rik]

Originally Posted by bluebow

I totally agree Rik. But that measureable goal should have been completed before the competition. It's in the competition that you apply what you have learnt in acheiving (or missing) that goal.

Also I think it's up to the individual archer to set the measureable goal (e.g. within 20 pts of my PB), with the agreement of the coach, and then make an honest self-appraisal if it was acheived by shooting to their best

Well, not necessarily. It would be perfectly acceptable to frame goals like "achieve 3 top ten places in Grand Prix tournaments, by the end of 2007" as a performance measure. But I agree that something like "bring home a medal from the Olympics" would be a little hardcore. It's the other side of the 'target' definition - it also has to be resonable that you would hit it...

[andrew.paterson]

Originally Posted by bluebow

Neither him nor the archers can have complete control over a goal like that, so it should not be set as a goal. GBR final positions will also depend on the other competitors' performance. Something GBR that have no control over.

Do you think a top Formula One racing team, or an individual driver, goes out at the start of a season saying "we have no goals"? Their sponsers would certainly be a bit concerned - I am sure the Lottery funding has some strings attached to it i.e. winning gold medals at the Olympics.

I know setting goals can be mentally tough on a competitor, but with the experianced team we have I am sure they are up to a challenge laid down to them.