|
Post by Administrator on Oct 21, 2009 10:34:17 GMT 1
Hi Nige,
I'm not sure that Geoff was suggesting that people would be told to move to London against their will but it may be recommended that they move somewhere else.
I can think of lots of examples of where people have been asked to relocate to be with specific coaches - you had a hurdler at UWIC this time last year who went on to do very well in the world champs. There are at least 5 or more sprinters that I know of training and I am sure there are many more I don't know of at Lee Valley that have moved from other areas of London or the country to live nearby and train there.
Also know of some multi-eventers who have moved to London to train at Lee Valley and a couple of jumpers as well. I only go there about 10 times a year and have seen lots of examples so sure there are more than I know about.
James
|
|
|
Post by geoff on Oct 21, 2009 12:14:13 GMT 1
Nige
I am not scaremongering or necessarily saying that athletes will have to move to London or elsewhere - but I wouldn't rule out the possibility. Nothing much has happened in throws but it certainly has in other events as admin has said. I know of one multi eventer being encouraged to move.
Take a look at the job specs for national coaches and development/apprentice coaches and you will see it is expected they will coach groups of talented athletes. In the case of apprentice coaches those aged 14-21 so school aged (local) and university aged athletes. Where will these athletes come from? National Event Coaches will be expected to coach all or most on UKA performance funding - it's in their job description.
None of this applies to javelin at the moment, maybe it never will, but National Event Coaches are employed mainly to coach the best we have and not just act as a coordintor or educator or mentor.
Nige, my main concern is how this professional coaching approach marries with voluntary/local coaching and why has their been no information on the structure announced to coaches? Better still, why not involve coaches in the process? It may all work out but I fail to see how it will all fit together.
This is not scaremongering but an attempt to open up the UKA strategy and discover what it means for 99% of British coaches. I should add that I am not against professional coaching or athlete transfers but the structure has to be fair and equitable to all concerned. As someone said on this board 'Some expenses would be nice.!'
|
|
|
Post by pembrokian on Oct 21, 2009 12:49:39 GMT 1
The cynic in me says the recipient of this, publically funded, well-paid apprenticeship has long since had his/her inked in and the application process is simply a thin veneer to cover another jobs-for-the-boys hand out of public money.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong; but I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by sam on Oct 21, 2009 13:15:28 GMT 1
Pembrokian.... you are right.. it's jobs for the boys... hence the attitude that it should be someone who was an athlete and no one in their 20's can take the role on (suggested)
just because someone has been a competitor at a high level doesn't mean they know how to coach... and anyway who on earth do we have that could fulfill that role now anyway..
Steve is too tied up with his media jobs.. Mick is already working in a coaching capacity at leeds, Nick is not retired yet as i understand and for him to take on that role would lead to a very significant pay cut form his banking money.
It's not going to be John Trower, Mike McNeil, Peter Yates or Ken Holmes because they are well above an apprentiship role.. Bevan is tied up with UWIC and doesn't also need the pay cut (I assume)
The only person left i could think of who would fit is David Parker but as a 20 something he doesn't fit the criteria and is also not retired....
Also the issue regarding not being a thrower at a high level is tosh... i have coached an 18yr old to over 70m but only thrown 54m myself... i have coached an U17g to over 45m.. the list goes on (it's not about my personal achievements i'm merely making a point)
if athletes who show promise with their current coaches are then whisked off to work at a more central place then that coach can never reach the desired criteria for such a job... it protects the "Boys" in their positions because those who would be better are kept supressed!.
It happens everywhere.. you only have to look at management structures of any firm/business and you will see that there are people at the bottom who would be much better than those further up but are never given the opportunity to prove their worth.
|
|
|
Post by geoff on Oct 21, 2009 13:59:00 GMT 1
Just to emphasise that apprentice coach positions have only been advertised for jumps based in Birmingham and hurdles in Bath. I have seen development coach positions advertised in sprints - not precisely sure what the difference is! Also the apprentice coach is under the wings of a Master Coach which I suppose may or may not be a National Event Coach.
Most of the NEC and other UKA coaching appointments have been made with an individual in mind with minimal advertising of the posts. I can understand why a National Pole Vault Coach position for triple jump is advertised as being based in Birmingham (Aston Moore), pole vault in Birmingham/Loughborough (Steve Rippon), long jump in Lee Valley (John Herbert), sprints coaches in Lee Valley, Geoge Gandy in Loughborough/Birmingham etc. Existing coaches, mainly very good ones, are being slotted in to the structure and posts advertised at or near to where they are currently based.
I think if John Trower was wanted by UKA as National Javelin Coach the position would have been advertised for a week or two as based in Birmingham/Loughborough and he would be in post so doesn't look like he's going to get the jov, if indeed we get a National Javelin Coach!
I am not necessarily against the appointments but why be so secretive about the strategy and structure? At the moment millions of pounds is being spent on coaching appointments at elite/UKA level creating an us and them situation within coaching. We are all coaches developing athletes as far as possible through a range of levels and hopefully to international success. You cannot just split 99% from the rest - it has to be seamless.
All UKA have to do in the short term is present a proposed startegy and then engage all coaches in the process. It may happen in due course with the reasoning for the present situation being we have to succeed in London 2012. However other things are happening such as the UKCC delays that suggest coaching will not progress in the near future at grassroot/local level.
|
|
|
Post by nije on Oct 21, 2009 15:04:27 GMT 1
HI Geoff
I siad scaremongering a bit as I wasn't trying to be offensive or rude to you - so the turn of phrase was possibly heavier handed than meant. But I take your point but mine was that athletes have been enticed or offered but as far as I know they have gone willingly. Will Sharman came here of his own will to be coached by a certain person and has now gone home because of a change in circumstances i.e the coach left and he is back home with his family now. Nothing sinister at all. I know of sprinters who have gone to loughboro from here and as far as I know it was their decision.
MY point being, that I know of few athletes who have been forced to go anywhere. Athletes tend to be the ones to travel to coaches and not the other way around.
As far as 14- 18 year olds. unless theya re going top leave home and leave heir parents, I cannot see that happennig as ha happend with matti for example. he has stayed put and made the best of it.
My thoughts are that this apprentice would work with the local athletes and coaches. I remember when the first TiD squads qere formed and ncoaches were afraid they were going to loose their athlets and teat never happened!
|
|
|
Post by geoff on Oct 21, 2009 15:25:00 GMT 1
Nige, no offence taken! You know a lot of my views on coaching and that all I want is a united coaching force with an identified structure that is fair to all concerned. The main issue at the moment is lack of communication/information/imvolvement. We have to have a mix of voluntary and professional coaching so it's how we dovetail the two that is crucial. We also have to be clear about how coaching is delivered - centrally through UKA, locally through clubs, locally through local authorities, locally through schools, locally/regionally through universities. There is also the thorny question of athlete transfers, surely we should try and resolve this once and for all?
With regards to apprentice coaches coaching 14-18 year olds I did not mean young athletes moving around the country but assume they will be identified local youngsters. Again it potentially raises the question of transfers.
|
|
|
Post by geoff on Oct 21, 2009 16:44:08 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by dobster on Oct 28, 2009 0:45:00 GMT 1
To be honest, if they did the apprentice thing for the Jav it would be extremely worthwhile - however, I feel that it would be better to have say 3 or 4 part time apprentices (or deputies if you like) - under a master coach (when they appoint one of course) who can then train up some coaches for our future.
Regards having a background in the event - tbh it can be considered almost irrelevant - Mike Mc didn't throw the javelin at all and he aint a bad coach. Obviously it does help to have been an ex thrower, and not necissarily a top ranked one either.
|
|