Ironically, for someone who is a devout member of the aerobic training club, I have been fortunate enough to have helped more sprinters than middle- or long-distance swimmers.

Oh sure, there have been some good middle-distance and distance swimmers. For example, Jane Copland was an open New Zealand 100m and 200m breaststroke champion and open New Zealand SC 200m breaststroke record holder and an NCAA Division One finalist. Rhi Jeffrey was an Olympic 200m freestyle swimmer and Gold Medallist.  John Foster was a sub-4minute 400m swimmer, ranked 12^th in the USA. Jessica Marsden was a New Zealand open 800m medallist. Bridget Mahier was a silver medallist in the New Zealand 5k open water swim and Darcy La Fountain won the American Age Group 5k open water championship three times.

But the list of sprinters is longer.

Toni Jeffs – New Zealand 50m and 100m free open champion. Pan Pacific bronze medal and World SC Finals bronze medal. Broke 18 New Zealand open records.

Nichola Chellingworth – New Zealand open 50m fly champion. Set 24 New Zealand Age Group records. New Zealand representative.

Joe Scuba – Florida State 100m free champion. US National Championships, Mare Nostrum and World Cup finalist.

Andrew Meeder – Florida State schools 50m free champion

Jane Ip – New Zealand open 50m breaststroke champion

Ozzie Quevedo – masters (30-34year) 50 and 100m butterfly world record holder

Lindsay Meeder – Florida State schools 4x100m freestyle champion.

Eyad Massoud – World Refugee team 50m and 100m fly 2022 World Championships. Finalist 50m free open New Zealand Championships.

All those sprinters included a high percentage of aerobic swimming in their training. Their normal 6-month training cycle was divided into 10 weeks of aerobic swimming, 4 weeks of anaerobic swimming and 12 weeks of speed swimming and racing.

As you can see, about 40% of a sprinters training time is spent on aerobic conditioning – swimming up to 100k a week, doing weekly swims of 100x100m on 1.30, swimming sets of 2x3000m – all that sort of thing. Five of the sprinters named above swam 1000k in the 10-week aerobic period. I agree 1000k in 10 weeks is a long way to swim – from Auckland to Taupo four times.     

Of course, I have been asked a million times, “Why should someone who races for less than a minute spend 40% of their time swimming at a steady aerobic pace?”

There are several reasons. Let me explain.

First, it would be right to ask, “Does the long aerobic swimming work?” The list of good sprinters named earlier in this post suggests a yes answer. But when you add names like Alexander Popov, Michael Klim and Alain Bernard to that list of aerobically prepared sprinters, the answer of, yes aerobic swimming does work, seems to have merit.  

Second, the results of exhaustive academic study by Sir Peter Snell at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Centre confirm the benefit of aerobic exercise. In fact, Snell found that if aerobic exercise is continued for long enough (10 weeks of 100k for example) fast twitch muscle fibres will be called on to assist. Run or swim far enough and fast twitch sprinting muscle fibres will directly benefit from the training.

Third, at the recent World Swimming Championships in Budapest, High Performance Sport New Zealand provided a video analysis technician to film New Zealand swimmer’s races and provide a report on time, velocity, stroke count and stroke length. Eyad’s 50m races produced this shape of graph. Excuse my unsteady hand.

View post on imgur.com

The initial downward slope shows the drop in speed during and after the dive – out to 15m.

The second flat section shows Eyad held his velocity, turnover and stroke length between 15m and 35m.

The final slope down shows Eyad lost velocity, turnover and stroke length in the final 15m from 35m to the finish at 50m.

That shape of result is pretty consistent for every sprinter in the world. The trick to improving a 50m time is to

• Slow down less in phase one. Maintain more of the speed generated by the dive.
• Maintain a faster velocity through the middle of the race. Improve velocity, turnover and stroke length.
• Avoid the last 15m drop-off in velocity, turnover and stroke length. In other words, maintain the middle section numbers all the way to the finish.

There are three ways to address these three sprinting problems – technique, power and fitness.

Technique is most important in maintaining more of the speed generated by the dive. How can I kick better under the water? Can I improve my streamline? Is my transition smooth and does it lift me quickly up to full sprinting speed? Those features need to be drilled over and over and over again.

Power is most important in improving velocity, turnover and stroke length through the middle portion of the race. A good heavy gym weight program is essential. You will not get stronger by lifting puny weights. A sprinter’s life is too short to be small.  

Fitness is most important in avoiding the last 15m drop-off in velocity, turnover and stroke length. This is where the ten weeks of steady swimming are needed. The drop-off in the final 15m is hugely expensive. Ten weeks of swimming around the Waitakere Ranges will certainly reduce that cost.

And so that is why aerobic conditioning should be part of a good sprinter’s training. Of course, technique plays an important part in all three stages of the race. Of course, good power is required at the start, middle and end of the race. And of course, good fitness benefits the start, the middle and the finish. It is a balanced package. Aerobic fitness fits into that package as an important portion of a good sprinter’s training. If you are a sprinter, miss aerobic conditioning at your peril.      

Thousands of words have been written describing the carnage wrought on New Zealand sport by Sport New Zealand’s autocratic rule. Imagine the words written about the death of Olivia Podmore. That disaster was caused by Sport New Zealand’s money and the corruption it spawned. Imagine the pages spent discussing Lauren Boyle’s decision to abandon Swimming New Zealand’s (SNZ) high performance chaos in favour of training in Australia. Can you remember the outrage written about Canoe Racing New Zealand’s decision to ban Aimee Fisher from the Olympic Games because she wanted to coach herself?

A thousand words would swiftly go by listing examples of the harm Sport New Zealand has caused. But their most recent atrocity involves tennis player, Cameron Norrie. You may remember, Norrie was raised in New Zealand but left to play for the United Kingdom. He recently reached the semi-finals of Wimbledon. Mark Belcher, a full-time tennis coach in Taranaki and former All-American player from the University of Texas Tyler, has written an article, published on the Stuff website, that explains why Norrie no longer plays for New Zealand.

Here is the link to Belcher’s report.

I recommend you read it. Of all the millions of words written about the despair felt by Podmore, Boyle, Norrie, Thompson, Fisher and me, Belcher describes it best. His measured prose accentuates the destruction Sport New Zealand has caused. The only qualification I would add to Belcher’s report is his view that responsibility, in the Norrie case, stops with Tennis New Zealand. Not at all, responsibility goes higher than that. Miskimmin and Castle wrought this chaos.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/tennis/300634603/opinion-cam-norrie-should-have-had-a-silver-fern-on-his-chest-at-wimbledon

Below is a sample of what Belcher has to say.

“Instead, I found myself somewhat muted, pleased to see Norrie progress while at the same time sad and frustrated to know that here was yet another fumbled ball by Tennis New Zealand. If we don’t do a whole lot better job in supporting our talented players, I’ll continue to be relegated to quietly listening in the early hours to Norrie’s name being chanted by a ravenous British crowd.”

I know exactly what Belcher means. For twenty years I too felt sadness and frustration as I watched Jan Cameron and successive Boards tear my sport apart. When Jane Copland left New Zealand to swim for Washington State University, she was a double open national champion, a double open record holder and had just swum in the Pan Pacific Games. And yet for the next four years she received not one communication from SNZ. Not a note asking how things were going – nothing. Jane had left and was banished. That’s the way it was in centralised swimming. Remember when Jan Cameron had “team” meetings at the Commonwealth Games that only swimmers in the centralised programme could go to? Their mismanagement and arrogant superiority contrasts starkly with progress at SNZ today.

Tongue, Johns and Francis and their staff are good people, and they care. That is all it takes. Of course, financial support is important. But so is a welcome: how are you today?; can I help your swimmer’s training in Budapest?; would you like a cup of coffee and a chat? A feeling that your swimmer’s career is important.   

Here is an extract from my first book on swimming, “Swim to the Top”. It was published in 2002. The duty of care is not new.   

“The care needed to prepare and administer competitive swimmers has been the primary focus of this book. The aim is to avoid what the head Canadian coach once described to me as “eggs against the wall” coaching and administration. Hundreds of swimming “eggs” are thrown against the sport’s wall; eventually one hits, falls to the ground and does not break. This egg is the Olympic champion. The thousands who broke in the process of finding him/her are forgotten.

Maybe it works in the USA, Germany and China, which have millions of eggs to throw; but in smaller countries, such as New Zealand, where swimmers are numbered only in their thousands, the chance of finding one that does not break is small. The premium has to be on the care of and the importance of every egg because smaller countries cannot afford the casualties.  To take the risk because “that’s what they do in the USA or Australia” is inviting disaster.

The simple fact is that a diversified club-based system looks after and prepares limited resources better than any other. It puts in, it builds, it takes care of before it uses. No other system obeys this rule so completely.

Those who don’t care about how many young people become the sport’s casualties continue to follow Sport New Zealand’s orders. Massive casualties are an accepted part of their trade. And, hey, your swimmer might just be the lucky one that makes it through. If all that sounds a bit risky, change your programme to a diversified club structure.”

Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) became a better organisation when it decided to abandon the centralised training policy. About $35million had been wasted clinging onto a policy demanded by Sport New Zealand. Membership in the sport had been decimated. Swimming had been decimated by the avarice of its leaders.

When SNZ returned responsibility for preparing elite swimmers to the Regions, Clubs and Coaches, it was a good decision, but will take time to work. Repairing the destruction wrought in 20 years of centralised coaching will take longer than five minutes.

To SNZ’s credit, the process of repair is being worked through today. And while it is, I will support those that are rebuilding the sport. I will not join pathetic critics who pick holes in everything SNZ does. In most cases small minds are being attracted to very small things. For example, one post recently said, “Chloe Francis is not updating dud links.” Wow, that’s important. Chloe, you naughty girl. The future of SNZ’s ship of state is hanging by a thread waiting for Chloe and others to get around to finishing off the new website.

I refuse to join that mob of small-minded critics. After the decision to reverse centralised training there are two major issues the Board of SNZ has yet to address.

First, the abolition of three Sport New Zealand appointed Board seats – a return to democracy.

Second, the introduction of a membership trade union to promote member’s rights and interests.

These corrections are important. They will make a sea-change reform in New Zealand swimming. The Board should have a laser-like focus on these issues.

But from time to time there are other important reforms the Board should address. Not whether Chloe has repaired a couple of dud links in a new website. I think the Board can safely ignore criticism from that direction. But issues like gender fairness cannot be ignored.

Three weeks ago, on 20^th June, FINA voted to restrict the participation of transgender athletes in elite women’s competitions and recommended local associations adopt the same policy. FINA also asked local associations to pass rules that reflected the “elite” policy for junior members.

That is an important directive. SNZ need to address the issue quickly and decisively. Membership protection means very little if the Board fails to enact rules that protect more than 50% of the membership. The current SNZ policy says, SNZ is committed, “to providing an environment for participants of all ages and backgrounds that is safe, free from harassment and abuse, and promotes respectful and positive behaviour and values.”

If SNZ ignores its own rules we are in deep trouble. I do not think it is too much to post website updates on the issue.

• Does the Board have new transgender rules on the agenda for its next meeting?
• What are the New Zealand rules likely to be?
• Is SNZ going to comply with the FINA initiative?

This is a serious issue that affects more than 50% of the members. Three weeks is long enough for SNZ to have dropped its focus from a couple of dud computer links and made decisions on a genuinely important issue. We need to know, what are those gender decisions?

Sadly, one of the premiere legacies from a previous SNZ Chairman was an obsession with secrecy – Antares Place behind closed doors. But on an issue like this, secrecy is not appropriate. It would be sad if SNZ was dragging its feet on an issue of this importance.

Tell us what the Board is doing. Mushroom management is not appropriate. We cannot and should not be kept in the dark and fed shit.  

New Zealand has produced some fantastic coaches. Usually, they are easy to pick. The first letter I received from Arch Jelley inspired confidence. This guy knew what he was talking about. You could accept his direction. And for 40 years I and many others have done just that. The first meeting I had with Arthur Lydiard provided the same confidence. Mark Schubert (USA), Lincoln Hurring, Judith Wright and Ross Anderson were all master coaches. They knew the product and they knew how to pass on their knowledge with confidence and purpose.

Swimming in New Zealand is blessed with coaches capable of becoming a Jelley or a Lydiard, a Schubert or a Hurring. There are many examples. I do not want to mention names because inevitably I would miss many who should be included. But there are two I have come across recently who deserves mention. Both helped Eyad through the 2022 Mare Nostrum series and World Championships – Andy McMillan and Graham Smith. I will watch their coaching exploits with admiration and awe.

Let me tell you a story of the difference a good coach can make. Several years ago, Jane Copland was 12 or 13. We were in Auckland staying at Arthur Lydiard’s Beachlands home. Jane had already won the Auckland Championships age group 50 and100m breaststroke. On the final day of the meet, I entered her in the 100m freestyle.

She swam well in the heat and qualified fourth for the final. Back at Arthur’s place for lunch, Arthurs asked how Jane had got on in the heats. Jane said she had done well but would never win the final. The fastest qualifier was a terrific freestyle swimmer called Caroline Collard. Caroline was good too. I thought she had the talent to better the records set by Toni Jeffs.

As we prepared to leave for the finals, Arthur came downstairs and said, “I think I’ll come and watch tonight.” I could see the surprise on Jane’s face. Why was Arthur coming tonight? Why didn’t he watch the two races I had won?

An hour later we were driving across Auckland to the pool. Arthur rummaged around in his bag and handed Jane a Rocky Road chocolate bar. “Eat this,” he said, “it will help your race tonight, but remember this if you can turn together with that fast girl at 50m, because of the aerobic work you have done, she will never live with you in the second length.”

I could see Jane, sitting in the backseat, munching her way through Arthur’s chocolate bar, clearly thinking, “Arthur says turn with her at 50m and I can win the race.”

Two hours later Jane and Caroline did turn together at 50m and Jane pulled ahead in the second 50m to win. Now, that is coaching genius. That’s a gift. I’ve seen Arch do the same thing. The good coaches instill belief.

And then we have the All Black’s coach, Ian Foster. I don’t see it. I don’t feel it. I never have. The gift of coaching greatness is missing. He accepted the job of coaching a New Zealand foiling rocket ship and somehow has produced the Mary Celeste. Please excuse the mixed metaphors but his team of brilliant players run around the field like headless chickens – without direction, purpose or belief. What Arthur gave to Jane, Foster cannot provide.

Look at this list of facts.

• A week ago, Foster was at home recovering from Covid and others stepped into his coaching role. The result? A win to the All Blacks.
• Foster ended up ordering 15 players onto the field when the team were reduced to 14.
• Foster removed a player in a way that meant the player had to sit out the rest of the game.
• In his press conference after the game, he blamed mistakes and bad luck – anything but himself.
• His coaching record at the Chiefs was 50%. He is in the process of repeating that number with the All Blacks.

Truth is, Saturday’s test match was like Monte Python’s flying circus. Sadly, Foster may get away with the shambles – again. He has a superb team of gifted players. They may be capable of pulling together a performance that wins the Wellington test. But, make no mistake, that will not be because of the way they were coached. The best coaching news the All Blacks could get this week is for someone to find a way of keeping Foster at home in Hamilton.

And whether Foster shaves for a week will not be important. Because the only razor this team needs lives in Christchurch. Foster is not up to the job of coaching this team. He does not display the skills of a Jelley or a Schubert or a Lydiard. He must go.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that sports journalism in New Zealand is in a sad and sorry state. When an intellectually challenged scribe can earn the title of “senior sports columnist”, the discipline has a problem.

Take Stuff’s Mark Reason for example. He has written a column today that begins with this paragraph.

“There are times when one thinks that it might be a very good idea to assemble all the sports coaches in the world on the deck of a big ocean liner and then abandon them in the vast depths of the Pacific.”   

Now, tell me, what is the point of that? It is not funny. It is not enlightening. It contributes nothing to the progress of sport or mankind. But it is stupid. Reason struggles on, trying to make the point that the All Blacks would play better if they coached themselves. If his point is that this one team is “over-coached”, Reason may well have a point. But that is a criticism of one particular coach of one particular team.

And how he connects his opinion of Brendon McCullum with the idea that all coaches should be swimming around in the Pacific Ocean, I have no idea. Remember the story Reason wrote two months ago about McCullum. His appointment was a terrible decision by English cricket. McCullum was a short form specialist. Nothing could save England with McCullum as the coach. Three tests against New Zealand and one against India and England, under McCullum, have yet to lose a game.

And with a run rate of more that 4 per over, it would be hard to make the argument that England would have done as well with McCullum swimming around the Pacific. As I say, Reason’s opinions are stupid.

Try and convince John Walker he would have run faster with Arch Jelley practicing breaststroke off the Samoan coast. Try and convince Murray Halberg that Lydiard was unnecessary. Or Danyon Loader that Duncan Laing should go away. Or Anne Audain that John Davies ruined her running. No, the coach/athlete team is invaluable and does not deserve to be degraded by an airhead with a pen.

And so, before I leave for the pool, to ruin another swimmer’s career let me reinforce the role of the coach. This is a quote from a guy who can write about sport, Roger Robinson. In fact, I owe Robinson an apology for comparing the two. Robinson’s ability is a gift. He entertains. He informs. Qualities Reason will never achieve. This is what Reason’s post could have said. It is not difficult to pick the difference.

“To define the coach’s role, I should like to be dryly academic for a moment and define the word itself. Kotcz is a small place in Hungary, between Raab and Buda, which gave its name back in the fourteenth century to a special kind of vehicle, a “kotczi-wagon” or “kotczi-car”, used for passengers on the rugged local roads. The term passed across to England after a hundred years or so, and by 1556 was anglicised as “coach”. “Come, my coach,” calls Ophelia in Hamlet, and she was a lady who could certainly have used help with her swimming. In fact, the word began to take on the modern meaning of an instructor only in nineteenth-century Oxford and Cambridge universities, where by 1849 to “coach” a pupil meant to “prepare in special subjects”, to carry the student along, as it were, like a coach and horses, to the destination. Soon, sporting “coaches” appeared, first of all in rowing, the social leader of Victorian sports. The Oxford English Dictionary cites “…coaching from Mr Price’s steamboat”.  Dickens in The Mystery of Edwin Drood (1870) keeps the sense of conveying passengers when he describes Mr Crisparkle, Minor Canon of the Cathedral and previously a private tutor in Latin and Greek, as lately “Coach upon the chief Pagan high roads.”

So a coach is someone with whom you travel, who is a means of conveying the student or athlete along a rough road to a difficult destination. There is a moral in the dry dust of the dictionary. If we think of coaching as a means of travel, we may perceive more clearly both the importance and the limits of the coach’s role. The coach has indispensable functions: to instruct, to motivate and to inculcate strategy, especially that    long-term strategy which no young competitor can know by instinct. The coach should also observe clearly defined limits: not to intrude into the ultimate aloneness of the competitor nor to diminish the essentially individual satisfaction of sporting achievement. The coach’s achievement and satisfaction are equally real, equally valid, but different. The means of travel is not the traveller. I am made uneasy by coaches who speak of “we”, as if athlete and coach were a composite being.”

See how that text lifts and inspires. We are better for Robinson’s insight, his choice of words and his knowledge. He even mentions Ophelia’s swimming problems in Hamlet – a more uplifting comparison than walking Reason’s plank off a cruise liner in mid-Pacific. I commit nothing to heart written by Reason. But this Robinson sentence will forever be my coaching guide.

“So a coach is someone with whom you travel, who is a means of conveying the student or athlete along a rough road to a difficult destination.”