GB Selection Policy out for consultation

[CeeBee]

I've been reading the selection policy which is out for consultation with opinions back by 14 November. I wondered what the rationale was for pre selection for U23 selection. Is this really necessary?

You will only make the U23 team if you make the percentages at the selection races. Some of the emerging paddlers are capable of doing this if not in 2013 but 2014 and onwards and should be given the opportunity to race under pressure at the U23 selection races so that they gain the experience for the future. Racing at a race which incorporates selection is a step up in pressure from racing at a standard ranking race.

The selection races are run as single races in the usual format. So, the HPP race on the Sunday could be a standard premier with U23/Senior selection included so all U23 are eligible for selection without having to qualify a wild card.

If the International Panel felt preselection was a requirement, this could apply to Lee Valley only with all those that are good enough (say within 5%) of percentages at Nottingham plus those who have qualified wild cards would be eligible to race at Lee Valley. The bonus of this would be more entries for Lee Valley and HPP which would be a good thing for the paddlers and also contribute entry fees towards the cost of these events

[SilverSurfer]

Personally I don’t understand why there is a pre-selection for U23 selection races, there isn’t for the junior selection races – yet both the U23 and Junior GB teams race on the same course/venue for the Euros and Worlds – so why is there a difference?

If you take the U23 K1W pre-selected paddlers so far, and assuming there are no additional wildcards in 2013, there are only 4 boats in contention. The 5th boat is a J18 and won’t take up a team place even if in the top 3 – which is what happened last year, with two J18 boats finishing 3rd and 4th and not taking their place, so the 5th boat took the 3rd U23 spot. Therefore it’s a very limited selection race!

Granted you have to hit the percentage targets to get a wildcard entry into selection, but this is at specific races, and each year these races change. Looking at past results, paddlers have achieved the set percentage targets, just not at the right race venue for that particular year, so have not got a wildcard.

Championship format racing is very different to best of two runs (just look at the Prem/British open results at Lee Valley); therefore don’t paddlers need more championship race experience, not less. Why can’t all U23’s paddlers enter selection races and the top 3 picked, assuming they hit the percentage targets in the selection races. Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m sure there didn’t used to be a U23 pre-selection – so why now?

This year there are two selection races at HPP and two at Lee Valley - two very contrasting venues. One option put forward for deciding final selection in the policy put out for consultation is taking a paddlers best two runs. I think this is wrong, especially when you consider how hard some paddlers found the water at Lee Valley for the Prem/British Open, so it’s more than likely that paddlers will be taking their best two races from HPP and not Lee Valley – so why not just hold the selection races at HPP for U23s?. This was the case last year with the U23 C1W, with only 1 boat qualifying for the U23 team at Lee Valley, yet at the repercharge held at HPP, the two boats that missed out on the percentages at Lee Valley, made the percentages at HPP! They were the same paddlers, they hadn’t got any better, just that the course/venue was different, and more favourable.

I guess my point is, I don’t understand why we have a pre-selection for U23 selection races, surely we want all our paddlers to get as much race experience as possible, not just a handful of paddlers. If there has to be a limit on the number of paddlers to keep costs down, then why not combine U23 selection races with a Prem race?

[boatmum]

When I asked I was told it was because selection was at Lee Valley and it is too expensive to have lots of people racing there?

[boatmum]

sorry pressed go too soon!

Totally agree with the previous post. If there are cogent reasons for the change in U23 selection it would be good to hear them.

[jjayes]

I wrote this post back in April, seems relevant to mention again here.

It amazes me that we even use percentages to compare classes, it simply does not work as so much depends on the difficulty of the water and where the gates are, who is racing in the MK1 and their form on the day. If you took the results from Beijing ladies K1 event and thought of it as British Team Selection event, GB would not even had sent a lady. The problem is GB put so much importance on percentages that are unreliable and so meaningless and therefore damaging to the athletes moral and the sport as a whole.

I know how percentages came into the world class equation a few years back as a attempt to set performance standards and the thinking was flawed then too.

Can anybody show me anything that explain that percentages are a consistent and meaningful way of assessing performances??????

[SilverSurfer]

I agree there is an argument that says performance percentages are flawed, due to the dependency on which K1M are racing on the day and also the venue/course set.

However, the main flow of the discussion is not the merit of percentages (which is an equally valid discussion point), but should there be an U23 pre-selection, and if so, why ?

[HaRVey]

An article written by me after selection this year.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1912

[SilverSurfer]

Robin, I don’t disagree with your article, I agree 100% with it. Whether percentages are used or not, and in what way is not the thrust of my point though (but is equally valid) – but the U23 section process itself.

Why do we have pre-selection for U23, does anyone know? I don’t buy the argument it is due to cost, and I see no reason for it.

[HaRVey]

There is a good long term reason to have a qualification process for selection.

It applies for both Senior and for U23, but I believe it is applied inaccurately due to the use of % and the limit on the number of places.
Hence why both JJ and myself, relate this point to %.


The good long term view to having a criteria:
Every race that a paddler has to do, increases the hoops they have to jump through.
By increasing the number of (or reducing the size of the hoops), you ultimately increase the quality of the paddlers that are eligible at the end.
(I.e. paddlers have to be a better standard to reach the end point, as they have to have achieved that level of skill at more than one race, on more than one race course, at more than one time of the year).

Thus it is a valid conclusion that having a qualification process, is in fact also a good part of Selection. Selection therefore is not a 1 race weekend (or for next year 2 race weekends) but is carried out over multiple weekends across the year.
Another way to word it, and a more impressive way to include it in the selection policy is to say:

There are 3 races/weekends, across different UK race sites, that make up the GBR Selection Qualification Series.
All Premier Division athletes are eligible to enter these GBR Qualification Races.
In 2013 there are 2 race weekends (4 races) which make up the GBR Selection Finals Series.

The best of the best of UK athletes, go head to head to qualify a place, to then race off at these HIGH CALIBRE, HIGH PRESSURE environments.



This in itself does not sound like a bad plan. It does sounds like a good long term strategy for the sport, and it is good, in theory.

However, the issue is that the number of people that can qualify for this process is too small. (For an Olympic year, I can understand that making the Hoop smaller for the lead into Olympic Selection, helps to focus in on getting that exceptional 1 paddler, but for the rest of the time, having the HOOP to small, leads to a decrease in the depth of talent, as a number of people that would significantly benefit from the experience miss out.



My own view on this consultation process, was therefore, keep an age related % and a Selection Qualification Series, as we currently have, but remove the limit of numbers.

(This in itself is still flawed as we use %. Notice how few people were able to make % at Lee Valley, and thus how few wild cards were issued) and how the Olympic Bronze medalist would not have qualified for GB Selection, at the Olympics in Athens using her %.) But it would at least open the Hoop, to give more paddlers a target to aim for. As it is, the competition in the top 10, is so fierce, anyone from 15-20 downwards, really doesn't believe they have any chance so don't have anything to benefit by trying harder or training harder at those Qualification races.

In my opinon, If % is what they want to use:
K1M - Seniors at 107% are easily good enough to take part at senior selection (it could even be increased to 110%), and remove the limit on numbers to increase the strength in depth, give everyone who can make that % a shot at Senior selection.
K1M - U23 at 115-120%, give everyone who can make that % a shot at U23 selection.
K1M - Juniors no % is used, as age related/hormone development is not uniform, and hence rapid change can occur in 6 month periods.

This therefore requires some Hoop jumping, and performance under pressure, but it increases the number who can benefit from the process.
It seems obvious to most people that immediately following an Olympics, we should be focussing on legacy. We should be improving our strength in depth and supporting the development of the NEXT generation of GB Paddlers and Olympians.

We should not limit this. We must ensure everyone has to work hard to maintain their GB Team Places. We must make sure that everyone has the opportunity to replace/compete with those who make up/made up the team in previous olympic cycles. This is how improvements are made across the sport.



Lastly:
GB Canoeing's should be impartial.
It should be there to support the development of paddlers. It should be there to support the development of WCA, SCA, and CE, paddlers, (not a them or us) and it must provide a structure, that is both challenging and supporting of all athletes to excel.


I very strongly believe that the selection issues you have addressed here are only another example of poor organisation and planning by GB canoeing.
This should already have been thought about. It should already have been in place before the Qualification race in September.


In my opinion:
GB Canoeing should be doing outreach work right now! They should be taking groups of their coaches and their paddlers to work with Juniors and U23's from Wales, from Scotland, and from England. This should be done by going to those regions centre's and working with the paddlers and coaches on the ground. They should be helping to pass their knowledge on by training up coaches, they should be inspiring our young paddlers, they should be opening doors not closing them.

They should NOT be putting in place an interim Coaching program that is reliant on funding in March. It should have been factored in, that this money was required for now! It should have been factored in that U23 and Junior paddlers cannot wait for all the Olympic Team (They certainly deserve the time off, and this is important), but everyday for everyone else is a crucial day, for anyone who hasn't made the Olympics or who wants to make the Olympics in future. The sport does not stop because GB Canoeing suddenly have to apply for funding again, the sport requires GB Canoeing to do more than JUST help its own paddlers.


In the future GB Canoeing must deliver a more consistent and open structure, that provides a transparent and robust system to support all of our up and coming GB athletes and Slalom Centre's. They must look from beyond their doorsteps and do more across the country. Both in terms of written policy and implementation, and in terms of planning and organisation.

[SilverSurfer]

Robin, I think we are on the same page with this, any policy has to be long term, it has to be all inclusive and beneficial to a wider audience and not a few paddlers if canoeing is to develop and maintain the interests of those on the fringes. The current selection policy doesn’t achieve this.