|
A
Different Way (Part 2)
Restructuring the New England 9- to
12-year-old championship meet
By WILLIAM J
PRICE
Saluki Head Coach
Part 1, Part 3
Authors note:
In
part
one of this series I argued that the New England 8 & under championship
should be eliminated because of issues concerning pressure and burnout
affecting young swimmers. Part II addresses these same issues but in
relation to restructuring the 9- to 12-year-old championship meet. Before I
get to that though I want to discuss some additional development issues.
Characteristics of young athletes
At the Sport Science Summit
sponsored by USA Swimming in late 1998 a group of sport scientists and
coaches met to discuss how to better address the issue of athlete
development. The purpose of this meeting was to open a dialogue between
researchers and scientists, and coaches who can apply the information to
their club situations. The report published after this meeting helps explain
why children are not merely small adults. It also outlines several
development issues that can be addressed at the club level. But some of the
points made in the report raise issues that can only be addressed at the LSC
level.
In recent years United
States Swimming has begun taking a serious look at the kinds of programs
that best cultivate young athletes. Past approaches to development were
almost Darwinian because their main characteristic was getting as many
athletes in the sport as possible and then letting the fittest survive. This
practice actually works against having the best athletes survive the
rigors of early sport participation though. The best young athletes do not
necessarily make the best older athletes (Sports, 1998). But although
coaches can make changes that mediate the differences among children in club
programs it is the structure of the sport itself and the way we evaluate
athletes in competition that presents the greatest obstacle to athlete
longevity.
There are three main points
to consider when planning programs that enhance long-term development:
- Athletes who have risen
to the top of the totem pole as 9- or 10-year-olds are usually those who
are maturing faster than their peers. They’re bigger, stronger, and have
better control of motor skills. But children maturing at a slower pace
"often catch up to or exceed the performance of early maturers by the
mid-teen years, but only if they have stayed with the sport.
[italics added] . . . Tracking of ‘outstanding’ kids in elementary school
found that only 25% were still outstanding in later years, suggesting that
early success does not predict later success" (Sports, 1998, p. 5).
Coaches who make the effort to retain swimmers from the early years into
the teenage years are quite literally making an investment in good
performance much like the older athlete who trains hard for later reward.
- Along with differences
in physical maturation rates there are also physiological differences
between children and adults. Children do not respond to the same types of
training as older athletes. Rushall (1997) calls them "metabolic
non-specialists" when characterizing the kinds of training from which
young athletes benefit. Unlike their older brothers and sisters they do
not respond to highly programmed training schemes that stimulate various
energy systems. Their response to most training regimens is nonspecific
and therefore Rushall suggests that the key component to age group
training should be variety and non-specialization.
- The one area that is
stimulated by exercise in young athletes though is the aerobic energy
system (Astrand & Rodahl, 1986) which is characterized by longer efforts
with shorter rest. Because one of our basic assumptions is that practice
sessions should prepare one for competition the competitions should be
some kind of an evaluation of practice elements. If young athletes are
limited in the kind of training they respond to then competitions for
these youngsters should reflect this. If younger swimmers train at an
aerobic level then we should offer meet formats that include events that
encourage aerobic work at practice.
Competitive formats
The Sports Science Report
calls our current competitive model the "adult model" because it is geared
toward older athletes. The model emphasizes factors, such as speed, that
depend on early physical growth and that require a certain amount of
cognitive and social maturity to understand. Young athletes--those younger
than 11- or 12-years-old--may not be ready for competition (in the adult
model) until that age (Sports, 1998). This turns what we are presently doing
on it’s head because all competitions we offer are based on the adult model
regardless of the age of the athlete.
The report doesn’t suggest
that all competition for this age group is inappropriate but it does propose
competitive formats that are quite different from what we are presently
using for these youngsters. These proposed formats reward good skills and
sound racing strategy among other things. For example swimmers would be
evaluated on their stroke technique, the number of strokes they took per
length, or perhaps for the evenness of their splits. Admittedly these
formats are impractical on a large scale.
Races for children this age
are almost inevitably short sprints where the stronger child has a definite
advantage over one who may have better technique. At this age sprints do not
reward those with good technique but rather those who are simply stronger.
If it were easy to spot the best athletes by picking out those who excelled
when young then this competitive structure would make a lot of sense. But,
as noted in the Sports Science report (1998), early success is almost more
of a negative indicator than a positive one. The point is that our present
meets are designed to reward people for merely growing up. Additionally, if
the only exercise stimulus this age group responds to is at the aerobic
level then why do we stress competitive events that bypass this level? Right
now our competitive formats reward qualities that we cannot "train" in
youngsters no matter how hard we try. But on the other hand, how could a
large meet be organized that rewarded stroke technique or strokes per
length? More importantly would we be comfortable with such an evaluation in
a sport that has traditionally rewarded simple measures of time and speed?
But if the solutions were implemented indirectly i.e. if we did
something at the LSC level that caused changes at the club level then we
might be successful. We could do this by modifying the format of the 9- to
12-year-old meet.
Restructuring the 9- to 12-year-old meet
The present 9- to
12-year-old meet could be restructured into an open meet for 12 & under
swimmers with a slightly different event format.
- All swimmers 12 and
under who meet the qualifying times would be eligible to participate.
There would only be one age group i.e. 12 & under. The separate
9-10 and 11-12 grouping would be eliminated. The meet would be run in an
"open" fashion similar to the NES Senior championship. Each event would
have only one Junior Champion. In fact we could call the meet the
New England Junior championships.
- Events could be added
that encourage participation in aerobic training. Eliminate all 50s except
for the freestyle and offer 100 and 200 distances for stroke events.
This would significantly
change the nature of the meet. But by making this the centerpiece of the New
England championship for younger swimmers we would be reinforcing three key
developmental strategies:
- Reward the top younger
swimmers in the LSC. Swimmers making it to the top of this meet would be
doing so precisely when research indicates it starts to become meaningful
for them. Likewise, younger athletes--the 9- and 10-year-olds--would not
be under unreasonable pressure to perform well for the first year or so
because they would be competing against the best 11- and 12-year-olds in
the LSC.
- Motivate younger
swimmers to work toward doing well in this meet. Certainly there would be
9- and 10-year-olds who qualify but because of the open format most
finalists would be 11 or 12 years old. This would mediate the "I want it
now" mindset and encourage 9- and 10-year-olds to keep things in
perspective and work for the long term. By first qualifying for such a
meet and then eventually placing, young swimmers would learn the value of
long term effort.
- Aerobic development of
young swimmers would be enhanced because of the longer events offered.
More swimmers would be encouraged to train for longer events thus
affecting this age group’s single responsive energy system. The athlete’s
training will shift away from the 50s and their low developmental value,
to the 200s which have a high developmental value. He will be learning
skills that will become increasingly important as he gets older, and
"training" with an aerobic emphasis. This is a developmental tour de
force!
Conclusion
I’m suggesting this Junior
Championship format because it’s structure and event list reinforce key
elements regarding athlete development including (a) reducing pressure on
young athletes, (b) providing long-term motivational triggers, and (c)
stimulating the aerobic system.
Why the championship meet
only--why not every meet in the LSC? First, the meet format we come up with
doesn’t have to be used in every meet for it to be a motivational trigger.
Take the 200 backstroke for example. It’s not an event that the average
11-year-old gets to swim that often let alone a 9- or 10-year-old. But if we
add it to the event list for the NES Junior meet the event will be offered
more frequently and more younger swimmers will swim it because it is a
championship event. Second, there would be a negative effect if swimmers who
truly were not ready for longer distances were forced to swim them. The 25s
and 50s have their place in meets and, other than in the championship, I am
not suggesting we eliminate them.
---
In part III of this series
I’m going to try to wrap this up by discussing some of the objections I have
received to these ideas so far. I will also tackle the district meet and
where it fits into the developmental scheme of things in New England
Swimming.
Part 1,
Part 3
References
- Astrand, P., & Rodahl,
K. (1986). Textbook of work physiology. McGraw Hill: New York, NY.
- Rushall, Brent S.
(1997). Some considerations in the coaching of young and developing
swimmers. Carlile Coaches’ Forum, 4(1).
- Sports Science Summit
(1998). Sport Science Summit: A report by United States Swimming.
|