camp policy
 Jamie
|
Posted: 15 May 2003, 2:07 AM
A few thoughts on camp policy (not necessarily those held by me)
alcohol,
-junior camp none
-d-squad, assessed by management on a camp by camp basis (current policy)
co-ed rooming
-junior camp none
-d-squad, whatever
coach/participant ratio
-1-6
age ranges
-junior camp, M/W 14 to M/W 16 (no exceptions)
-d-squad, M/W 18+ (no upper age limit,as long as potential for national squad)
food
-properly cooked
insurance risk
-participants to pay excess of designated driver, when driver at fault.
location
-junior camp, lower north island every year
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 15 May 2003, 8:09 AM
Jamie. so are you going to limit dsquad to m/w18's + ?
|
|
Jamie
|
Posted: 16 May 2003, 1:08 AM
I'm not going to do anything necessarily (and in this case it is well beyond my power). I was just passing around some ideas I've thought of/been told for comment.
Another idea I heard is to cut M/W 20 out of the DSquad. For these athletes the D-Squad has generally lost its 'majesty' (you might have to look up what majesty means but it is the most appropriate word). Or course you would them add M/W 16 back in and create a very tight group of people at a roughly similar stage of life, i.e school.
But, this is probably not what I feel (and besides what I feel borders on irrelevant), and I'm just trying to provoke discussion.
|
|
Andrew M
|
Posted: 16 May 2003, 4:09 AM
Dont worry Jamie we are becoming rather good at promoting discussion on this forum.
Just a few points.
Does anyone know why the orienteers in the Development Squad are getting younger and younger. Have selection polices changed or are people just using discretion. In the same notion why has the National Squad balloned to include athletes with no aspriation to head to the World Champs in the next couple of years ?
This is just creating the same problem that exists with people running out of grades. The talent of the squads in being dumbed down by people being selected up squads.
If the national squad was limited to an elite 10 men and 10 women. Younger elties could still be in the Development Squad. The orignal and probable current aim of the Development Squad is to foster and train orienteers with a view of them being included in the National Squad during the next 1-2 years.
I personally feel that I am currently orienteering below the level that deserves inclusion in the National Squad and hence and not concerned about being in the Development Squad at the moment. I think that some people in the National Squad may also feel the same, but to move out of the National Squad you have no where else to go.
Maybe you can accept that the D Squad has lost its "majesty" or "prestige" but by moving M/W20's out of it and into the Thomson/Backler school of oblivion you are not improving the development of anyone.
I think that the age group for Development Squad should not include M/W16 competitors. Basically that age group should be developed at a regional level in regional squads. Somewhat along the same lines of the Australian example yet again, where the most talented juniors are selected in a Development/Junior Squad.
Later Andrew.
Sorry If I sound irate, assingments sux.
Edited by - Andrew M on 16/05/2003 12:15:55
|
|
Jamie
|
Posted: 16 May 2003, 4:35 AM
How about if our super-series teams get established and organised and serve as the high performance coaching/training squad for elites/near elites in their region.
Then people like yourself Andrew, Mark 'long time' Hudson etc won't be out in the cold as such but incorporated in a warm team environment.
The super series teams, probably with designated positions such as 'captains' and representatives in outlying areas, would act as a talent identification/motivation/ training body.
Hopefully these groups would operate with support of clubs/non elite individuals, in terms of administration, funding etc
I also think the bonding together as a team will operate to serve and entrench the super series in NZ orienteering culture, which I would very much like to see.
In regards to age range for DSquad it is a very thorny issue. D-Squads are getting a little younger and this is stretching out the age range and probably decreasing the social utility, personally I feel that the D-Squad functions best when it is dominated by those in m/w 18, the problem being that some people drag on in the d-squad when perhaps they shouldn't, when perhaps it has done all it can for them, it very much depends on the person, and for those leaving the dsquad not to go straight to the National Squad there needs to be a support network in place.
so yeah the super-series teams, or the national squad 'zones' (the two of which of course need to be officially amalgamated).
more to come on this.
Jamie
|
|
Alistair
|
Posted: 16 May 2003, 1:02 PM
Back in the dark ages there was a junior squard and a senior one. But then it was realised that there were many non-juniors who deserved and required help but didn't fit into either if those groups. Thus the D (development) squad was instigated. This was obviously a good idea.
Of course how these groups have since evolved is another issue and what groups should exist in the future is I guess part of what you are looking for. The first thing to do is identify the various groups and their needs:
Young juniors (16 ish & under) - handled regionally?
Older juniors (16-20???) should have some sort of national identity.
The top elite - is this 5 or 15 people depends on the guidelines for inclusion in this group?
Other elite - who obviously aren't in the top group.
Of course there are some grey areas between each group and training camps etc. can be organised encompasssing more that one group at times - it's just a matter of deciding on what is worthwhile and how many are in each potential group.
One point that hasn't been mentioned yet is the optimum number of people in a group - or more importantly the maximum - and I would guess that to be about 25. Maybe an opimum number would be 10-15 depending on the goals of the group.
|
|
Jamie
|
Posted: 18 May 2003, 8:08 AM
thanks for the contribution Alistair, and your points are good.
one thing, history has shown that "regional coaching" has been ineffective.
My goal/strategy that I will be working towards first and foremost is coaching within the club, particularly in regards to the younger juniors. The work within the club will be supplemented by annual junior camps and hopefully by talent identification from the zones. I want to see more elite interaction with the talented juniors.
Although elites are often very focussed on their own performance, I believe that most of them would enjoy be willing to have more involvement with talented juniors, (what do others think of this?)
The current D-Squad coach has indicated that he is happy with a group about 25-30. My feeling is that it could be smaller (around 20), especially if the next line of juniors were being coached/encouraged at other levels.
As for the National Squad, roughly the same situation applies. I would like to see it thinned down but only if there are structures, i.e the zones/super series teams to support those elites outside the squads. I think there needs to be two types of national squad members, those permanently overseas and domestic orienteers. The set number in the squad would apply only to domestic orienteers, as otherwise the training element of the squad (which I see as most important) ceases to exist.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 19 May 2003, 4:08 AM
I know that regional coaching efforts have been disappointing, but so have club-level ones. I think that clubs especially those with near neighbours must work together for coaching because of low numbers in each teaching category. (I shudder when I see a coaching day advertised as suitable for "all levels" because it can't possibly serve any group well. Do we have neighbourhood schools with classes containing new entrants up to Y13?)
As an example, I have categorised the members of Orienteering Hutt Valley, at 60-something I would think a medium-sized club. Given that only a fraction of members are available on any given occasion, I have divided the numbers by two (in brackets) to give an idea of the likely coachees in any group on a given day.
Inactive 12
Primarily MTBO interest 11
Primarily Rogaine interest 4
Active (at least occasional) foot orienteers:
M/W-12 (white) 4 (2)
M/W-14 (Ylo) 4 (2)
M/W-16 and inexperienced M/W-18, -20 (Oge) 8 (4)
M/W-18, -20 (Red) 3 (1-2)
Senior red and phys fit 5 (2-3)
Senior red not fit 6 (3)
Senior inexperienced (Oge) 7 (3-4)
Looking for groups that we could combine, orange-level training would get 7-8 on a good day. Red training able to run for a sustained time would be 3-5. The 3 "unfit reds" could use the same exercises as the fit ones but they tend to give up when they are tired.
My eperience is that keen training officers become dejected by low takeup of training offered and their effort dries up. The 50% is an optimistic turnout estimate for training, in fact that's about the best we can expect for an event.
So I see more potential in groupings larger than one club. Yes I know that many clubs have no close neighbours, there are no easy answers.
|
|
Jamie
|
Posted: 19 May 2003, 5:55 AM
I think the problem with your posting Michael is that you're working off the dominant orienteering coaching paradigm (the one you created!). That is, coaching based around one off specialised training days, if indeed this was our priority it does seem that the most efficent way to conduct these would be at a regional level.
Problem: this paradigm has not worked, it depends largely on the enthusiam of one person at a regional level to co-ordinate the clubs, arrange coaches, maps, and get people to come. We have given this approach ten years and it has not worked....
There will soon be a new dominant coaching paradigm which will recognise that the best pace for training is at events, the coaches are there, the participants are there and everybody is at a map. The first steps involved are formalising the post-event discussion and forming club coaching teams.
opps better go to class
|
|
Natalie
|
Posted: 19 May 2003, 9:11 AM
I for one, as an elite, enjoy coaching and would be happy to give up some of my own time (and after events would be pretty convenient) to help develop juniors etc. I feel every time you coach someone else, you can't help but get something out of it yourself, so I would be surprised if most elites wouldn't be more than happy to help with coaching for the talented juniors in their club/region on a semi-regular basis.
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 19 May 2003, 12:47 PM
Gearing up for the 2005 JWOC in Switzerland. I might get coaching from Maja & Patrick Kunz. Their home teritory, them being former JWOC Reps, (WOC Reps?) and the main thing of them being former Swiss JWOC Coaches is great. All depends if im still in the lovely sport of Orienteering.
|
|
fraser
|
Posted: 19 May 2003, 1:13 PM
As far as camp policy goes I think any junior who is capable of running red should be able to go to a 'd-squad' camp while any junior running white or yellow should be able to go to the junior camp.
As far as development of orienteering goes I think camps are one of the best things to have and as many people as possible should be encouraged to go. As an orienteer who started in M10 and been to numerous junior camps and d-squad camps as I grew up, I can say that it is the camps that kept me doing orienteering the most. This is not only where I learnt to orienteer but also where I made lots of friends. The camps motivated me to train and turn up at the next major event to kick everone's ass nowing that everyone else would be doing the same trying to kick my ass.
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 19 May 2003, 1:15 PM
The beloved Camps. So many myths have been created. So many tales. So many rumours. So many memories....
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 19 May 2003, 1:59 PM
I am truly honoured, to think I invented the training day!
But I agree that numbers are at a maximum at events, and I wish you well.
|
|
|
© Ruffneck Productions