Olympic Trials: Tribulation Or Springboard to Success? What Every Nation Needs To Ask

Earlier in the year, SwimVortex looked at the selection policies of several of the leading swimming nations heading into the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. It did not take long to work out that selection policies vary greatly, while the FINA ‘A’ and ‘B’ standards are mere guidelines that fall well shy of what is actually required to make the cut for many of the countries that make up the medals table in the pool at an Olympic Games.

Now that the Games are done in Rio and the runes have been replaced by results, guest writer and coach leader Bill Sweetenham considers the questions that he feels any with an interest in selection should ask on the way to Tokyo 2020 (and too late for that on some levels) and beyond and sets out some winning strategies. With many nations now or soon to begin the process of Rio reflection and learning, the timing is ripe. 

“A national selection policy must reflect the vision and plans of the performance campaign of the nation and individual within the team,” he notes. “The winning strategies at the Olympics are to have athletes in your care being competition aware and ready, supported by a superior team support system.” Not a bad way to look at Rio and consider who got it right and who needs to work on it.

One of the most common mistakes in planning and approach to performance sport is the failure to repeat what has been proven to work well – and sometimes that happens because of changes made in the final approach to the big occasion when for the most part the adaptations required would need to have been made years before and become a part of the habits and means to ends that lead to outcome a long way down the line when the heat is on.

Trials, Timing & Time

Bill Sweetenham

Bill Sweetenham

In terms of selecting the best athletes to represent the nation, every nation’s selection policy is 100% correct. I know of no selection policy from any nation that does not identify and select their very best athletes to represent them at the Olympics. No great athletes from any country or nation miss out on selection. Is there too much expectation and Olympic performance predictability from selection trials?

The question then remains – when are the trials conducted and how many athletes and at what level will the national governing body select them? This surely must relate to the nation’s aspirations. It is not so much the time gap between trials and the Olympics but more so what is the strategy of accurate preparation of both the team and the individual during this period of time.

History shows that multiple trials do not reflect or mirror the Olympic Games. Many a nation has paid the price for this level of inaccuracy. The rationale for this does not stand up when results are measured. This is a key point which must be understood and whilst being very obvious, is often ignored. This is often due to popularity triumphing over performance. The average world ranking of each member of the team must be as close as possible to the desired and planned (ie. expected) time at the team ranking at the competition. That is, if the desire is to be number 3 country at the targeted competition, then the ranking of all selected team members in their individual events must be as close as possible to third ranked and achieved in their individual event. The key performance indicator should be to have as many individual performances to be in a position to realistically challenge the team goal with their individual performances in finals.

The higher the individual final ranking on selection, then the greater the opportunity and potential for the planned team success. An accurate national selection policy must address and reflect this strategy for a successful individual and team performance outcome. In the final outcome, an accurate performance will reflect the success of the trials and preparation by a minimum of 70% of the team achieving the planned team goal in individual events. This should be the leading indicator of the success of the campaign. Relay success is crucial in achieving this standard should medals be the target.

Should the nation wish to address and include a development approach, then a selection policy could include a top 10, top 12, or even a top 16 ranking policy as well. However, this will lower the average ranking of a team aiming to be top 3 and an appropriate price will be paid for this lowering of an average standard. The team will convert down to match this average in preference to performing up. Many a country/nation has experimented with this compromised policy and paid the price of under achievement in their results.

Whilst the FINA “A” standard provides permission for a nation’s individual athletes to attend, the question is “does this minimum standard provide a standard to compete or to participate?” The larger the participation numbers in the national team, then the less likely they are to compete in this situation. This limits the team’s potential for success in terms of the nation’s aspirations. The lower the average ranking of the individual on the team, then the more challenging is the task of having the average individual ranking facilitate the success for an appropriate and corresponding team performance.

Go! – by Patrick B. Kraemer

Should any nation utilise the much softer selection standards of top 10, top 12 or top 16, it is vital for success that the team is top heavy with top 4 to top 8 ranked athletes. Should the reverse occur, then the team and individual success is less likely than where the above ratio is in place (ranking is annual world ranking from the previous year utilising straight rankings in preference to 2 per nation). There is good argument for the selection of the first place achiever in Olympic events from trials and then second place achiever if they achieved the designated “selection” standard.

As a theoretical example, if a team of all 8th ranked athletes compete as a team at the Olympics then there would be every chance that the “team” could earn an 8th ranking but almost certainly would not achieve any significant form of podium success individually – gold or otherwise. Team success would be then judged on 70% of the team making finals in personal lifetime best times.

A national selection policy must reflect the vision and plans of the performance campaign of the nation and individual within the team. National selection trials should mirror the forthcoming Olympics in as many ways as possible. However it is virtually impossible to cover and replicate every aspect of the Olympic competition at trials. Every Olympic Games is different and strategies must adapt from one Olympics to another accordingly, and trials must also reflect and adapt to these changes on a 6 year plan. Given the above and with the Olympics being held in different countries and where goalposts are constantly moving, it is quite difficult. However, strategies must be simplified.

The winning strategies at the Olympics are to have athletes in your care being competition aware and ready, supported by a superior team support system. The most common denominator is for each athlete to have a winning partnership with their coach. This means having well rehearsed plans for heats, semi-finals and finals, as well as for relays.

The national selection trials should reflect this so comparisons and performance evaluations can be made with a pre-mortem audit, and a post-mortem competition review that is very accurate so that lessons learnt can be implemented and acted upon to ensure continued and future success. A pre-mortem audit should be conducted approximately 6 months prior to the Games, then fine tuned immediately after trials (approximately 5-6 weeks out from Olympics).

However the USA as the number 1 …

continue reading in source www.swimvortex.com