Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Changes ahead? Scathing review into UKA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Changes ahead? Scathing review into UKA

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/athl...cid=spartanntp

  • #2
    A bleak future for Athletics at elite level. It has been hanging on by its fingertips to the funding and medal chances. Those things are slipping away to be replaced by.....the PC brigade, box ticking and virtue signalling?

    Comment


    • trickstat
      trickstat commented
      Editing a comment
      While I understand where you're coming from, the least PC environment possible would not bring competitive success.

  • #3
    Bump to get in front of the ludicrous amount of spam.

    Comment


    • #4
      Interview with Joanna Coates on AW main page: https://www.athleticsweekly.com/inte...MztvfoGVdle2To

      Interesting that she's interested in getting more finalists rather than necessarily more medals.

      also wanting better links with grassroots athletics rather than just elites.

      Comment


      • #5
        Barry Fudge is going. I wonder if we're gong to see a complete change at that level?

        Comment


        • john bicourt
          john bicourt commented
          Editing a comment
          Fudge 'leaves' UKA...What a laugh. Sacked more like it.😂 "looking forward to exciting new projects" !... Who's going to employ him now? Maybe he can write on the back of a postage stamp of how much he achieved as Head of Endurance for UKA since 2013.

      • #6
        AW interview with Joanne Coates:

        All sounds very reasonable but the reality and practicability of actually achieving the results intended, are miles apart.

        Now, whilst it is clearly desirable to have as many finalists as we can in the global events and also every event with at least 1 British competitor and up to the maximum of 3 allowed, if qualified, the harsh fact remains: UK Sport, the funding body, is only interested in medals. That is principally what funding is for.

        However, packing the Olympic Games and the World Championships with more GB participants across all events and achieving more finalists is not only great in itself for the sport, the athletes, the coaches and the British public but theoretically increases the chances of medals.

        New appointments: Simply appointing a new Head of Coaching, Head of Endurance and a Performance Director, all on very large salaries, is not automatically going to improve the current level and number of athletes, nor will it necessarily increase the level and number of voluntary coaches to produce more elite athletes from the thin layer of potentially elite athletes that we now have.

        Good level voluntary coaches with proven success are and have been a diminishing breed over the last 20 years. Why?:

        (a) Fewer coaches are prepared to give up so much of their time and effort, day after day, month after month, for no financial reward when the NGB's, (UKA and EA) CEO's, Deputy CEO’s, Heads of, Directors of, Managers of, and all the associated Deputies and Assistants of the various departments, are receiving substantial incomes from their paid posts, (effectively off the backs of what the volunteer coaches produce)

        Unless coaches can be paid RELATIVE to what they achieve in terms of the number of athletes at U20 and senior level they can produce who rank in the top 10, 20, 30, in the UK and those going beyond, to global representation; finals and medals, then where is the incentive to drive and increase the number of coaches and coaching to the highest possible level?

        (b) It cannot be ignored that the number of committed over 17’s and seniors in the sport is seriously diminishing. Why? 1. Because there are too many alternative sports and leisure activities available. 2. Because to become a top athlete, as in all sports, requires huge dedication and time. Athletics, however, unlike game sports, is an individual sport and significantly the most diverse in terms of the range of events.

        So, how can more potentially top athletes be attracted to take up the sport, and more importantly remain in it attempting to achieve their potential?... And how can more enthusiastic people be incentivised to qualify as coaches to be recruited by the clubs and together with existing coaches be incentivised for what they might achieve for their athletes?

        Answer: https://www.linkedin.com/pu…/super-1-athletics-john-bicourt/
        Last edited by john bicourt; 30-06-20, 20:46.

        Comment


        • carterhatch
          carterhatch commented
          Editing a comment
          You set out a compelling case for the Super - 1 athletics concept and articulate, extremely well, thoughts I have been having for many years. I would add one two naunces - for example a team element based around existing Dec/Hep scoring tables (thereby incentivsing absolute effort from all participants) ... don't know where you have taken this or what the next step is, but please keep us/me informed ... welcome to the forum.

        • Biggut
          Biggut commented
          Editing a comment
          Whenever the topic of paying volunteer coaches comes up I always have the same questions. How many are you going to pay, what amount and where is the money going to come from. Across 42 events two age groups with top 30 rankings being taken into consideration that is 2520 ranking spots. You have been making the vague suggestion for a long time. Can you put some meat on the bones and explain what amounts you would pay, who would get them and where the money would come from. You have never answered these questions and they are key to assessing whether your suggestion is viable or desirable.

          If we want to get coaches paid then the payments need to be from the athletes or clubs they are working for. I cant think of another sport that I have been involved in where club and personal coaches at grass roots level are paid but the NGB. they are paid by those they work for.

      • #7
        Plus what is the use of merely getting finalists in mass events like the 10000m, Marathon, etc when all that’s going to happen is that they’re going to come in with the Rest of the World well behind the Africans and rebadged Africans? Ditto for the Walks, although with different nations. Even in the women’s heavy metal events you can get top-12s and still be miles off serious medal contention.

        Completely agree with JB about the Suits and politically-connected quangocrat parasites.

        Comment


        • john bicourt
          john bicourt commented
          Editing a comment
          You are substantially correct, as it stands, regarding those events you mention. However, what should GB do? Stay at home? If you don't try you can never succeed. And if fewer are even allowed to try, even when qualified to do so, then where is the sport in the UK going? We have the potential and they, the quangos and through them our NGB to effect the best possible opportunities. But, as we have seen, relative to the pre-funded days and given the money UKA have had since, they have failed miserably in the global events. With Farah now most likely gone, where are the medals and even top 8 coming from? At the last World Champs, only two athletes won individual medals, both women. What does that say about the £millions handed to an over staffed, clearly incompetent UKA? At least, after the sacking of Black, Fudge, ZHP (before she even took up her appointment) and the removal of the Chairman, Bowker and resignation of his successor, Chris Clark, with a new CEO taking over from the useless previous one, De Vos, hopefully things will finally and radically change for the better...BUT, it has to be athlete and coach centred not job centered for the administration.
          Last edited by john bicourt; 30-06-20, 11:46.

      • #8
        Contenders for the Chief Coach position allegedly Toni Minichiello, Christian Malcolm and Stephen Maguire: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...Athletics.html

        Comment


        • john bicourt
          john bicourt commented
          Editing a comment
          With all respect to those mentioned and for what they have achieved, I fail to see the relevance of a 'Head Coach' when supposedly there will also be a Performance Director? Why do we need both? Athletics is not a one dimension sport. It is the most varied of any sport. Whilst it is clearly necessary to have someone monitoring, and where appropriate, advising those employed by UKA in charge of various disciplines, the question must be asked: how did it work previously?

          All of our top athletes in the past (and mostly today as well) have individual voluntary coaches from their own clubs or closely associated clubs. Having a Head Coach seems to assume they would know more than any individual coach? Likewise with a Performance Director. Then consider, if UKA employs, as it does already, salaried individual event coaches for the elite, how does this go down with the existing, voluntary coach of any athlete? Or even the athlete themselves who may and have been, forced to accept being coached by the UKA coach or not be given funding?

          Without producing here a long list of our previous high achieving athletes and their long time own volunteer club coaches, you can look for yourselves to recognise what I am saying. This is not to assume that every coach today is necessarily guiding their athlete/s in what might be the best recognised practice and hence not enabling their athlete/s the best opportunity to achieve their potential. And it is not to say that a Head Coach and or a Performance Director can do any better? (as results have shown in a number of events) but what should be considered more closely, is how best to support those coaches, initially through free access to coaching videos and seminars and also through a performance cash/grant award relative to what their athlete/s achieve. This is the best way to create the incentive for all voluntary coaches to work with.

      • #9
        I gather from Coates statements that she is looking to implement a culture where athletes achieving top 8 finishes is held in higher regard, whereas currently too much emphasis is put on winning medals above all else. She seems to be treading a similar path to that of Grainger who is advocating more funding for minority sports (basketball currently gets nothing). You could argue that there is much more to the Olympics than the winning of medals but at the end of the day the success of the team in the public’s eyes will be measured in that hard currency.

        Going by results at the last couple of world championships we’ve been doing quite well when it comes to top 8 finishes- London in particular, so I can’t see a drive to increase that number achieving much, we should be looking to convert more of those top 8s to medals.

        Comment


        • Grassmarket
          Grassmarket commented
          Editing a comment
          The job of funding community sports is done by Sport England + three devolved equivs, so it’s proper that UK Sports concentrates on elite sports. Basketball in particular would be a useless money pit - if a team sport cannot sustain a pro League in the UK, then there’s no chance of even qualifying for the Olympics. Ditto hand & volley.

          Would be a big mistake & a short cut to mediocrity if we were to abandon objective criteria for success in favour of immeasurable feelz.

        • fchd
          fchd commented
          Editing a comment
          Yet the GB women's basketball team came within a couple of baskets of making the 2020 Olympic Games, so perhaps not a useless money pit at all?
          Last edited by fchd; 30-06-20, 15:47.

        • Grassmarket
          Grassmarket commented
          Editing a comment
          Fchd: Fair enough - women’s football ditto. But men’s basketball is miles off even European standard. Ice hockey used to be similarly poor, but they managed to turn it around so its not hopeless. But as we saw in London 2012 it’s just a waste to throw lottery money at sports that can’t develop their own audience.
      Working...
      X