Oakvillian

I'm interested in your point about the participatory model. I can see this in team sports - the number of junior hockey and soccer leagues testifies to it - and maybe in some of the winter disciplines. But don't see the same thing in individual endeavour sports such as athletics, kayak/canoeing, boxing, cycling. They're hardly mass-participation sports anyway.

If Australia can manage to produce the results it does with a low population density, surely Canada ought to be able to? Granted, most of the Aussie population (apart from the WA folks) are clustered in the East and South-East, but by the same token most of Canada is a 100-mile wide strip next to the US border.

I completely agree with you on national training facilities/centres of excellence, however.

Calculations of $ per head, of course, are skewed by the fact that several of Canada's favourite sports require much more (relatively expensive) equipment than Brit or Aus stuff - hockey kit, skis, etc compared to a pair of goalposts or a cricket bat.

Oakvillian

Aww, why not? It was such fun...

<ducks>

R I C H

******

Not advocating, just reporting my OH's experience.

R I C H

The social dynamic here is one of appreciation for participation and effort, rather than winning being the be-all and end-all approach that our closest neighbour's support. It visibly carries over into the way talented kids are nurtured through the sports system here. It's a very difficult thing to change, as it requires quite a change in the population's attitude as to why sport is important.

Australia implemented an aggressive talent search program several years prior to the Sydney games - identifying kids in schools and whisking them off the the AIS in Canberra for intensive development. Not really dissimilar to the Chinese and Eastern Block countries approach 20yrs earlier, but with a more socially acceptable face. The AIS, and other national centres of excellence mean that Aussie talent doesn't get diluted around their States, whereas here, provinces operate independently and athelete's developmental opportunities can range from world class to non-existent.

The Aussies invested huge $ to create the system and infrastructure, whereas here it's very much a piecemeal effort. BC and Ontario have the best integrated development system, with Alberta a little way behind. The other Provinces and Territories offer very little structure. Canada is basing it's coaching development model on the best of the European and Australian efforts, but that means we're 10yrs late starting, so playing catch up.

The calculations per head have nothing to do with equipment costs, it's with regard to $ going into coaching and facilities. Hockey, BTW is way ahead of all the other Canadian sports with regard to funding. They don't really use to any great extent provincial or national $ to help with development funding. They're able to rely on corporate $ instead.

Oakvillian

fair point... TImmies to the rescue.

Thanks for the interesting explanation. So it seems that in sports as in so much else (foreign inward investment is a case in point from my own daily experience) the provinces are more concerned with competing against each other than with putting Canada forward as a nation. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose, eh?

Jingsamichty

I don't understand all the hair-tearing and wailing that goes on in countries like the UK and Canada about the Olympics and their respective crap-ness at it.

We should recognise what our country is (i) interested in, (ii) good at, and (iii) participates in, and just accept that we're less likely to be good at the other stuff.

On any given weekend, the amount of British or Canadian people who participate in or watch athletics is absolutely miniscule compared to the amount of people who participate in or watch football, hockey, rugby, baseball, basketball... probably even horse-racing. So why do we expect to be good at it?

Everything else about sport seems to be 'free market', so I find it somewhat elitist that public money should be thrown at some minority sports - and athletics is a minority sport - and not others.

R I C H

Absolutely.

Another interesting thing to note is that here, the best coaches coach the best athletes. Youngsters inevitably get the lowest qualified coaches to nurture their ability. Other countries have turned this on its head, and offer the most experienced coaches to the youngsters, ensuring a better grounding in terms of technique and early development.

The National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) that the CAC (Coaches Assoc. of Canada) are implementing is a step in the right direction for Canadian sports infrastructure, but from what I experienced attending numerous policy and planning meetings with provincial sports organisations, huge amounts of time and money are wasted in beurocracy and duplication of reports/funding justification etc etc.

R I C H

Many minority sports simply wouldn't exist in terms of coaching staff, or facilities without some public subsidy. I don't think there's anything wrong with offering the opportunity for participation, even if ultimately gold medals are unlikely.

How you determine what's a fair level of expenditure is tricky. I carried out performance reviews with provincial sports, which contributed to determining their next round of funding. Participation levels, success/results, engagement with various bodies and funding partners were all part of the mix.

Some sports actively chose not to engage and be part of the process, knowing full well it would limit their funding. They traded off a lot of paperwork for independence, and will sink or swim depending on their ability to manage their sports growth and development on their own.

dexdaw

Actually I'm just hazarding a guess that this will be the GB's most sucessful Olympics ever. C'mon the cyclists, rowers, sailors and swimmers. Lets be honest, par capita the Brits do pretty well compared to most. I don't know why they get so much bad press.

R I C H

Well, no, not really. GB's distinctly average.

Data for last Olympics:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]?OpenDocument

Some up to date data that's tracking the current games:
http://www.billmitchell.org/sport/medal_tally_2008

Oakvillian

I'm finding this more & more interesting (not unconnected with my 5-year-old's enrolment in a Sportball program, which he's really enjoying...). I've just read a book which was actually all about other stuff, but in the course of making a point the author mentioned the trade-off between developing athletes and building sportspeople. Specialising too young can be immensely harmful, yet a number of development squads won't even consider taking on 12-year-olds who haven't been single-sport specialists for three years.

And that's not to mention the challenges raised by the lowest grade of coaches (parents, often as not, helping out their kids' sports clubs) being expected to talent-spot and develop the promising youngsters when really their main interest is in getting a good win-record in that year's league.

bazzz

How does one explain India? A billion people, and the only got their first ever gold medal this year.

Oakvillian

First individual gold medal - they won the hockey many years ago. There is absolutely no culture of competitive sport in India except towards cricket - and that isn't an Olympic event - and hockey, though since the standard playing surface for internationals switched to astroturf and almost all pitches in India are grass, they're at a bit of a disadvantage there.

Their medalist is an air-rifle marksman from a wealthy family, whose dad built him an indoor shooting range in the backyard so that he had somewhere to practice, as there wasn't another facility nearby.

The vast majority of my (Indian) colleagues were barely aware that the Olympics were happening.

R I C H

You'll probably enjoy reading the Long Term Athlete Development Model (http://www.ltad.ca/content/home.asp), which Canadian sport follows.

Specialization is very much dependent on the sport, eg female gymnasts specialize perhaps as much as a decade before a shot-putter might. To have a broad cut-off point of 12yrs old is meaningless, and harmful. Many kids haven't fully developed motor skills, balance and coordination at that point, and there are always examples of early/late developers anyway.

Parental coaching is fine up to a point, as long as the parent knows their limitations and doesn't consider themselves the next Frank Dick.

dexdaw

And Kabbadi which is a realy strange sport similar to tag but you have to hold your breath a lot - no seriously cos you have to say kabaddi all the time its your turn! But I still think the Brits will do really well. 2 golds in the sailing tomorrow! At least one more in the pool and a couple more in the cycling. We will probabllly win the triple jump too. Cmon Philips Idowu! A good old British name if ever there was one!