GB Selection Policy

[SilverSurfer]

Firstly, the comments below are not aimed at any specific paddler but at the inconsistency of the selection policy. So those who have made the Junior European team, congratulations.

Now my concern:

I think the IP have hit new lows today following the announcement of the European Junior team. The selection policy for Juniors was questionable prior to the selection series, the inclusion of 7 boats (excluding 3 reserve boats) in the European team who did not make the percentage targets makes it more so.

There is much hype about hitting percentage targets, and this message is constantly driven home to the paddlers, then behind closed doors, percentages are completely ignored, with just the caveat statement of “discretion has been applied”.

In the selection policy it clearly states that if there are vacant C1W or C2M places due to performance targets not being achieved, then a subsequent event maybe identified. This rules has been invoked in the past, so it questions why not now.

If the percentages achieved were close to the performance targets for the required number of runs (two), I could understand discretion being applied, but they are not, especially for C1W. With the exception of boat 1 who did achieve the percentage targets for 2 runs, boat 2 and 3 came close to achieving the percentage targets only once (169% and 179% respectively), and their other 5 runs were significantly higher than the percentage target of 160%, with all 5 runs being over 200%, some even as high as 300%, 400% and 500%.

The IP need to be consistent in how they are interpreting their section policy, this year it would appear that the percentage targets have been blatantly ignored with the fastest 3 boats in each class being in the team.

I have no issue with the fastest 3 boats in each class making the team, and not having performance targets, but ONLY if the selection policy states that, which it does not. Therefore, an additional race should have been arranged as per the selection policy. This could have been the HPP race in May and in plenty of time for the European Championships in July.

I’m sure some will share my concerns, and others will not – but without a doubt, the way in which the selection policy is sanctioned needs more transparency to the paddling community going forward.

[CeeBee]

The selection policy states

Performance standards for 2014 GB Junior Teams

(age in year in question) C1W* C2 * C1M K1W K1M
U18 (18) BSR <160% <140% <126% <135% <115%
U17 (17) BSR% <160% <144% <129% <138% <118%
U16 (16) BSR% <160% <150% <134% <144% <123%
U15 (15) BSR% <160% <155% <138% <149% <127%

BSR% = Best Single Run Percentage
For Junior Selection, an assessment of the strength of the K1M start line will be made and an adjustment may be made to the time based on statistical data to validate percentage criteria at each race.
If an athlete achieves the minimum performance standard specified above on at least two runs, they are deemed to be selected. If outside the required standard, discretion may be applied to select an athlete but funding is not guaranteed. Where age group % are applied, the rule is only applied within the top 3 boats (4th place boats and below will not be taken into the team above boats in the top three who have not made %).
*Selection of C2/C1W class for 2014 Junior European Championships
Selection of the C2 and C1W class will be based on the results at the Junior European Championship selection series. Should there be vacant Junior C2 or C1W class places on the team a subsequent, nominated event may be identified at which Junior C2 and/or C1W performance will be considered for a Junior European Championship Team place."

Percentages have an element of subjectivity and if the water depends on physical strength e.g. Grandtully last weekend, then the Juniors percentages are higher than when Grandtully is low. The selection policy states that you are selected if you achieve the performance standards on 2 runs. If then goes on to say, if outside the required standard, discretion will be applied which it has been. Both the C1W you refer to are J15 and will have 4 years as juniors (not clear why the same %s apply to all age groups for C1Women) . GB need to look ahead and give these paddlers the race experience now to improve their chances of success in later junior years. There is no point having a further event at Nottingham given that they have already raced there.

What is of more concern, is why are there not more C1 women and what do we need to do across the sport to encourage C1 Women?

[SilverSurfer]

I feel you are missing the point I am making, and it's the policy I have concerns with not the paddlers.

If percentage targets are set by the IP in the policy then they should be achieved. Too many paddlers have been dropped from GB programmes for not achieving them, so it's double standards at play.

I accept discretion can be applied if a paddler narrowly misses the target percentages, but not to achieve a single percentage, and to have 5 out of 6 percentages over 200% is not discretion, and clearly demonstrates that the paddlers were not at the level required for the GB team.

My point is equally applicable to C2, and the argument of it being a development sport does not stand, given C2 is more than likely to be replaced as an Olympic discipline.

[CeeBee]

I didn't miss your point but was adding my view.

I can't comment on what the panel has done in the past but I do think that a full team should be selected for the European Championships if the paddler can demonstrate that they can cope with the water, will race the course and have another year as a junior (as investing in them this year will improve their chances of future success). Obviously there are financial constraints but these can be overcome through athlete contributions.

The reason some of our seniors are currently successful is because of opportunities they had as juniors racing abroad. So a full junior team is a good message.

[SilverSurfer]

You said "I do think that a full team should be selected for the European Championships if the paddler can demonstrate that they can cope with the water"

Rightly or wrongly (there are mixed opinions) the current GB policy is to judge the ability of a paddler via performance percentage targets. Those percentage targets were not achieved in junior selection, not by a narrow margin but by a significant margin.

I don't consider a paddler to have demonstrated they have the ability to be in GB team and cope with the water if they had 1 or more 50 penalty points on 5 of their 6 selection runs.

A place on the GB team should only be awarded if a paddler can meet the performance standards required to compete on an international stage, and not given away as the IP have done to make up team numbers, otherwise it is devalued.

Why have 7 paddlers selected for the C2, C1W and C1M European team not been allowed to race at LV for a place on the World team ? Simple, because they did not achieve the performance targets, so why should they be on the European team. It is double standards.

For too many years C1W has not received the coaching support it should have. It is seen by many as an alternative way to make the GB team when you can't make it via K1W and to a lesser extent the C2 GB team for the junior boys. The decision taken by the IP to ignore their own selection policy and guidelines smacks at politics at play, and only strengthens this argument.

If C1W is to be taken seriously, and I sincerely hope it does, it needs the right support and right coaching. All too often paddlers take up C1W has a second option, there should be encouragement from the home nations and GB canoeing that it is a viable and equal option to K1W. Then and only then will the participation and performance levels improve.

[Neil H]

Leaving aside any disagreements in the thread so far. I think there is a perfectly valid reason to take a full team. One obvious question would be though, Do other nations take paddlers who haven't made percentage. If the answer is no then it seems it could turn into an experience only exercise.
Setting a science to decide the team and then leaving it to discretion, seems a bit vague, where does the discretion cut off? At a certain percentage outside the required level or somewhere else. It might be beneficial to document the discretionary selection in future to try and alleviate such discussion on here, at least those involved in the sport might feel more assured.
For example I noticed that no C1W reserves are included, presumably they fall outside the discretion, what if a selected paddler gets injured!!

Just a few thoughts. Fire away

[Seedy Paddler]

I applaud the decision to select a full team for the Europeans, there is little real basis for the pseudo science in percentages. Depends who paddles and who paddles well, paddlers can have off days and have very good days. The challenge is that over a series of races the best will come to the top and they should represent the Nation. To suggest a further race in May places undue pressure on young paddlers - most may be involved in examinations through May/June. What is more likely to set them up for life - good exam results and qualifications or an improved percentage to support them in a race on foreign waters.

Well done to those in the team, never mind the nay-sayers go out enjoy the experience and do your best, should you win you will gain our heartiest congratulations should you be an also ran then regard it as important learning experience something to build on to return stronger and better equipped in the future.

I'm afraid I don't buy the hogwash and embarrassment spawned by Eddie the Eagle and others, he was the GB Champion and the best we had, he deserved his opportunity. The vast majority of us undertake sports for our enjoyment and self determination, we fully recognise that for every winner there will be many competitors. If I was only to enter if I thought I had realistic chance of winning I would spend far more time on the sofa in front of the Telly! And we wonder why we have spawned a generation of couch potatoes...

CD

[Neil H]

Well said. I agree with the majority of that

[SilverSurfer]

Still the point is being missed, in my original post I congratulated those on the team.

The concern I have is the selection policy, and the whole saga of percentage targets.

The percentage targets have blatantly being ignored, and the justification applied is "discretion". Based on what ? Where is the transparency ?

What is the point of setting percentage targets and then not standing by then, especially when some classes missed them by a country mile, and had multiple missed gates on 5 out of their 6 runs? That is not a definition of the best paddlers.

If the paddlers on the Euro team are deemed good enough then why are 7 of them not being allowed to race for a place on the team at the worlds ? Will the field of paddlers be so different at the Worlds to the Euros, of course it won't. It's down to politics, cost and a flawed selection policy.

Putting on a GB track suit should mean something, and be awarded only for delivering the required performance levels, not given away.

You can't bring Eddie Eagle into the equation, there we no set targets for him to meet in the same way as there is for the junior selection policy.

All coaches ram home the need to hit percentage targets, then the IP simple take the first 3 boats per class. I sat at a table with the English home nation coaches and paddlers, listening to the coach stress the importance of hitting percentage targets, and what they had to get. When in hindsight, they should have just said, paddler to get in the first 3 boats, and if you don't make percentages, don't worry they will be ignored anyway.

We are sending mixed messages to paddlers and parents. I am all for development of paddlers, and especially C1W which has been ignored for far too long because it wasn't an Olympic discipline. But sending a team to the Euros for the sake of it isn't the answer. A structure coached programme specific to C1W is required, with funding. The money spent sending paddlers to the Euros who are not at that required level is detrimental, and the money should be spent helping them to develop further on home soil first.

My question: Why have an elaborate selection policy if it is not going to be followed?

[BaldockBabe]

I don't think people are missing the point, I think that there is just relief that the policy was not followed. I will never claim to have spoken to everyone but I am aware of a number of representations going in during the so called "consultation" period (both about senior and Junior selection policies) and from my review of the final policy it would appear that all the concerns I was aware of were ignored.

Perhaps the question should be was the policy flawed to start with? The answer from above appears to be Yes.

With regard to the C1W we as a nation have a number of world class C1W. Many of whom originally earnt their team places under the "discretion" category. Perhaps the value of these girls being selected is more in their access to the coaches that have helped the other girls that were once in their shoes reach world class levels?

In any event getting percentages did have a benefit - those that did get the chance to race for a place at the Worlds. Those that didn't don't.

[SilverSurfer]

I agree the policy was flawed from the start, I too raised my concerns which fell on deaf ears of the IP. I also started the posting after the draft paper was issued to discuss the same.

The IP have been totally inconsistent in the way they have executed the policy this year. Contradicting the way in which percentage targets were applied in previous years.

- previously paddlers were not selected for the team because they did not meet the percentage targets and they missed too many gates on the majority of their runs. But this years paddlers in the same position are deemed good enough.

- previously when percentage targets were not achieved a separate race was organised for the available team places. Why not this year given it was in the policy as previous years.

- previously when paddlers narrowly missed the percentages they were selected for both the Euros and Worlds teams and discretion was rightly applied. Why not this year, some of the 7 paddlers missing the percentages only narrowly missed them.

Whilst the reason of cost has been put forward by many for the additional race at LV to make the team for the Worlds, this is a flawed argument. If all paddlers in all classes had made percentages in the junior selection races and the additional LV selection race then all paddlers would have gone to the Worlds. Therefore, the budget must be there. So why are those 7 paddlers on the Euro team not going to LV ?

This is not about a specific class but the policy.

The flawed policy from the start and the contradictions by the IP in the way they have executed it, is not beneficial to anyone. This is the point I want to raise to make sure it does not happen again, and that in future we have a transparent policy that isn't full of caveats that are interpreted to meet internal politics.

Greater transparency and accountability of the policy and involvement from the wider paddler community is the only way to ensure this happens, and not a token gesture of a so called "consultation period". Sadly, I'm not optimistic that will happen.

[Seedy Paddler]

You can't bring Eddie Eagle into the equation, there we no set targets for him to meet in the same way as there is for the junior selection policy.

And that was exactly why he does need to be brought into the equation as it was after the wailful whinging by Daily Mail and similar publications and the chastisement of MPs and Cabinet Ministers (that still believe that they are entitled to expenses without recourse to receipt or justification) that introduced the whole concept.

Per centage points are trailing indicators used to develop progress, ask someone to try and improve by 1%, they will find it possible - it is only a little more effort, a slight improvement. So you keep knocking off 1% until you become the benchmark for others.

I agree team selection should be about selecting our best paddlers and filling the places, as I said I am more than happy with European team selection. If the budget is there (potentially not as this is where public funding gets tied to the percentage issue) then yes have a full team to the Worlds, or at least offer the paddlers the option to travel self-financing.

The issue we get is that (e.g. C1W) we have a wide range of age and ability in the top 3, so we send #1 to the Worlds and she medals - does that mean we have a successful C1W system or a talented individual? Send all 3 and we can gauge the greater strength in depth, we can also extrapolate for bad results. Look at the speed skating we have a potential medal winner disqualified in each of 3 races during the Olympics, 3 weeks later and she wins silver at the World Champs.

Percentage points are a means for public funding driven from the sorry Eddie the Eagle saga, if only we could see the same level of justification and commitment from our MPs in their expense and allowance claims...

[SilverSurfer]

I am not advocating percentage targets, the selection policy drawn up and approved by the IP is.

The whole of the GB funded programme is driven by percentage targets, so you are saying remove percentage targets period ? Paddlers have been dropped from funded programmes for not achieving the set percentage targets.

Rightly or wrongly the performance of a paddler is judged on performance targets. If we have performance targets then they should be applied across the board. Discretion applied when narrowly missed I can understand, but percentages over 200% on 5 out of 6 runs I can not. At what point do you draw the line, are percentages of 400% and 500% acceptable ? To me that demonstrates that a paddler is not at a sufficient level, which is why the percentage targets are there.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether paddlers were selected on merit or not for the European team.

However, this thread is not about C1W or the development of it or any other class for that matter. It's about highlighting the fact that the selection policy is flawed due to there being no transparency or consistency in the decisions being made. To ignore that fact simple says the IP can do what ever they want, with little regard to the policy. That is wrong and needs to change.

[BaldockBabe]

To ignore that fact simple says the IP can do what ever they want, with little regard to the policy. That is wrong and needs to change.

They do do what they want. That is the whole point.

Even the policy seems to be written around who they want to have selected for the team. Why else would you run selection on a Friday during term time which discriminates against those at school, college, and with full time jobs (particularly in education I would imagine)? Why else have selection over 3 days at a venue that is difficult for non-squad members to get valuable water time - especially in a year where the Senior Worlds is being held at a venue that is far flatter than Lee Valley... The list goes on...

However, they did have regard to the policy. It allows for discretion to be applied in C" and C1W and they have applied that discretion.

[SilverSurfer]

Munchkin we are are on the same page. If more people support this view, then and only then will change happen. The IP should be accountable, otherwise these issues will come up time and time again. Change never happens if people don't make a stance.

I am sure everyone remembers the debacle over the IP decision to award David and Richard an automatic space on the K1M and C1M senior team because of their endeavours in C2. Very few people in the paddling community supported that decision, and eventually it was overturned. The fact that David went on later to win the C1M is irrelevant.

The only concern I have with discretion being applied, is that it is left to interpretation with no boundaries - and deliberately so by the IP, but that is wrong. Being able to apply discretion is fine, as long as there is a published upper limit. This year I believe the IP have exceeded that upper limit with some team selections.