Not All Those Who Wander Are Lost

 In the table below I have listed the countries I have coached in and the length of time spent in each place.

Country Number of Years
England and Scotland 7
New Zealand 19
US Virgin Islands 2
United States – Florida 5
Saudi Arabia 1

With the exception of the United States I have coached national champions, national open record holders and national representatives in each place. In the United States I coached three master’s national champions, a master’s world record holder and three open national finalists.

During the course of these travels it would be unusual not to notice differences in the administration of sport. Was there something about the administration of swimming in the United States and Saudi Arabia that contributed to the gulf that exists between the performances of swimmers from the two countries? How does New Zealand compare with England and Scotland? In the United Kingdom, with the guidance of Arch Jelley, I was helping coach track athletics. However the change in sport does not distract from the validity of comparing their administration, especially as, at the time I was there, UK athletics was in the golden era of Ovett, Coe, Cram and Capes.

Of special significance, are there qualities that favour good performance? Are there aspects of administration that contribute to coaching international winning athletes? Does the administration of swimming in the United States contribute to their competitive success? Does the role of the national administration in Saudi Arabia contribute to the failure of their swimmers? Or is the administration just a necessary bureaucratic side-show?

I think the answer is clear. There are features of the administration of sport that contribute to competitive success. There are common features present in the administration of successful national programs. There are also common features present in unsuccessful national programs. The winners have things in common and so do the losers. But what are they?

With this question in mind I thought there might be merit in discussing my experience of the administration of sport in each country; a look at the good, the bad and the ugly.

England and Scotland

In the seven years I was involved in British Athletics the sport’s administration was dominated by one colossal personality, Dame Marea Hartman. They say the most effective form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. I think that’s true but only on the condition that the dictator is benevolent and gifted. Marea Hartman had both those qualities.

When Alison first began to run well and looked like she might become good enough to compete internationally I wrote to Hartman asking whether she thought Alison should seek selection for New Zealand or the United Kingdom. She was eligible for both. The reply was polite and firm. For a runner of Alison’s speed New Zealand would be an easier and better option. So that is what Alison did.

Two years later Alison’s running had improved and on the 24 January 1981 Alison won the UK indoor 1500 meters championships in a time of 4:16.70. Thirty seven years later that run still ranks as the 35th fastest UK indoor 1500. I can remember it like it was yesterday, the sight of Marea Hartman sprinting across the infield to where Alison was recovering. She had remembered that Alison was eligible to run for the UK. There was an international meet in three weeks. Did Alison want to run? Alison said yes and three weeks later Alison represented the UK in a dual meet against East Germany.

Our subsequent dealings with British Athletics reflected the personality of its boss. Straightforward and decisive, whether the news was good or bad it was delivered politely and professionally. There was an amazing absence of politics or favouritism or personal bias. There was absolutely never any suggestion of decisions being made that took into account any benefit to Marea Hartman. In fact I discovered recently that, in all the years she ran British Athletics, she never paid herself a penny in remuneration.

That fact alone says it all really. She turned British athletics into a huge money making venture. She introduced professional payments to British athletes. And she took nothing. Every administration pays lip service to the expression, “the athlete comes first”. Most don’t mean it. High paid administration fat-cats pay themselves a fortune. Marea Hartman not only meant it, she lived it. Her administration reflected her life – honest, straight and generous.

US Virgin Islands

The US Virgin Island’s administration is very small. The country only has two clubs. That resulted in some unique arrangements. Federation Board membership was divided equally between the two clubs and the Board Chairman was rotated annually between the two clubs. Their meetings suffered from conflict between the clubs. It is not a good scene when members of a national federation are constantly trying to turn the federation into a vehicle to benefit their club. That was certainly a problem in the two years I was on the island.

You would think that a federation as small as the US Virgin Islands would suffer from the problem of not enough money. But that was never the case. There always seemed to be enough resources to pay for air fares, uniforms and hotels. There was none of the user-pays rip-offs that go on in some administrations.

Was there any feature of the US Virgin Island’s regime that stood out as superior; something others could well copy? I liked the way both club coaches were permanently represented at federation meetings. It may have been possible there because of their size. However I felt the US Virgin Island meetings benefitted by having the input of two working coaches. Product input was direct and detailed.

Saudi Arabia

The worst administration was Saudi Arabia. What, even worse than New Zealand I hear Swimwatch readers ask? I know it is hard to believe, but yes worse than New Zealand. It was really bad. The Saudi federation had plenty of money and the best facilities money could buy. And it was all wasted; misused and squandered because of three fatal problems.

First the organization was devoid of any real product knowledge. The CEO was a New Zealander whose understanding of swimming was extremely limited. But in the Saudi world he was the partially sighted leading the completely blind. Decisions were taken about the management of their learn-to-swim program and about overseas competition that were expensive and doomed to fail. It seemed that the more it cost, the more it was wanted. There was a real “cargo-cult” culture. They wanted to buy what the Americans had for Saudi swimmers who couldn’t qualify for a Florida tadpole carnival.

Second there was an inescapable impression that the sport was being run for the benefit of Saudi administrators. The New Zealand CEO was clearly there to finance his personal pension plan. The way he spoke about Saudi swimmers demonstrated clearly that they ranked well down on his list of priorities. When I arrived in Jeddah the President was a royal prince. Like most of the royal family he viewed the population as being vehicles to enhance his position and status. Officials at Saudi swim meets are all paid a handsome daily allowance. The standard of swimming was terrible but was only what they deserved.

And third the administrators refused to live by the rule of law. Common decency was unknown. For example rules were introduced to select swimmers but when too few qualified the rules were ignored. Trials were expected to be held under carefully controlled conditions but close to an international event a swim timed on the coach’s mobile phone was just fine. Swimmers and coaches were promised payments that were never made or were made months late.

There are some who believe that all that’s needed to produce champion swimmers is four concrete walls and some water. A year in Saudi Arabia will quickly change that view. The administration environment does make a difference. In spite of their fantastic facilities and piles of money Saudi Swimming will never produce champion swimmers while their environment is corrupt, ignorant and inept.

United States – Florida

From the worst swimming nation in the world to the best. Working in USA Swimming was a pleasure. The Americans know how to run a sport. They do all the bureaucratic things well; things like swimmer and coach registrations, meet entries, the publication of results, informing and involving members and arranging and paying elite athletes are all done easily, efficiently and as a normal course of events.

But the quality that made USA Swimming for me was the management care exercised by Mark Schubert. He was the National Coach during the years I was in Florida. I was fortunate enough to coach two national standard swimmers, Rhi Jeffrey and Joe Skuba. The attention Mark paid to what I was doing was extraordinary.

There were two sides to his involvement. First was a quality of care. How could he help? Was there anything I needed? Were the swimmers progressing as we wanted? Second Mark was prepared to interrogate and demand answers when he thought things were not being done properly. His “please-explains” were vital to keeping me and my swimmers on the straight and narrow. We would have contact by phone each month and a full meeting twice a year at the summer and winter national championships.

I loved the attention. Here was a knowledgeable resource I could consult for advice. Here was a powerful and expert coach whose contribution could make me a better coach and my swimmers better swimmers. And here was a tough disciplinarian who if we screwed up would chew us up without mercy. Without question my coaching in the USA was easier and better because of Mark Schubert. I miss his input deeply.

It is easy to see why the Americans are so good. The administrators care about the swimmers and their coaches. Do you want to see care? Just visit the swimmer’s or the coaches’ lounges at any USA National Championships; free food, live TV, comfortable couches and chairs and tea and coffee. If Saudi Arabia get the swimmers they deserve, so do the Americans. I was never a great fan of living in the United States and would hate it with their current President. But their swimming administration is first class; something I miss desperately. Mark Schubert – thank you for your help.

New Zealand

New Zealand is a problem. Its administration is better than Saudi Arabia but can’t hold a candle to the United States. I’ve been coaching in New Zealand for 19 years. I’ve been lucky enough to coach some pretty good swimmers. Never once have I been approached by anyone from Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) offering help. In 19 years in the United States I would have had 228 telephone calls and 38 meetings with Head Coach Mark Schubert. Says it all really.

A previous Swimwatch post included the following description of the New Zealand problem.

Swimwatch has highlighted two issues at the core of SNZ’s problems. First is the catastrophic decision to persist with the SNZ centralized training program. And second is the lack of transparency and anti-democratic features of the 2011 constitution. SNZ has a secretive management style that has sidelined the importance of the regions and disenfranchised the members. Minutes are no longer published, too many Board members are unelected, newsletters have been discontinued, Board members lie about future communication and the website management is inept. Quite simply the organization’s structure and management are on the wrong side of history.

New Zealand certainly pays lip service to the concept of the athlete coming first. But the reality is a hundred miles from that. When Lauren Boyle was a world record holder and a world champion her pay was less than 30% of what the fat cat running SNZ pays himself. There is not much of the Marea Hartman in these guys. In fact their behaviour is close to the Saudi example. Without question the prevailing mind-set is that swimmers need to perform to make the administration look good. And as a result SNZ rules have more in common with a badly run borstal than an adult professional sport.

The influence of the centralized elite training program has undermined the position of New Zealand coaches. Five of the last seven National Coaches have been foreigners. For years Jan Cameron told New Zealand that the job of local coaches was to send their most talented swimmers to the SNZ program. Domestic coaches were treated like second class serfs to the North Shore owner.

I was horrified at the SNZ decision to select a dozen relay swimmers to go to the Commonwealth Games. Only two swimmers qualified for individual events. The obvious comparison with the lawlessness of Saudi Arabia was too stark for comfort. If the rules don’t suit, just ignore them, is no way to run a sport.

New Zealand administrators scoured the world looking for Head Coaches that would lead them to the Promised Land. Ironically all they could come up with was David Lyles and an American age group coach. All that looking however ignored the fact that New Zealand’s problem was right under their noses, right around their own Board table. It isn’t the swimmers or the coaches or the pools. Like Saudi Arabia it is the administration. American swimming is great because of its administration. New Zealand swimming is weak for the same reason. Administrations make a difference. Just look in our own backyard.

0 responses. Leave a Reply

  1. Swimwatch

    Today

    Be the first to leave a comment!

Comments are closed.