Well done North Harbour Rugby. The “Weekend Herald” has interviewed the General Manager of the North Harbour Union, David Gibson to discuss the Union’s decision to dissolve its junior representative program. Instead North Harbour will introduce “rugby development experiences” they are forming in conjunction with the clubs and that will be available to all players.

The dramatic shift in emphasis had been the result of 14 months’ work and was evidence-based, Gibson said. It was supported by figures released by New Zealand Rugby that showed a sharp drop-off in the numbers of school-age boys playing the national sport. One of the key reasons given for this was that teenagers quickly lost interest if they did not feel they were on a performance pathway. The evidence Gibson and his colleagues studied pointed to representative rugby and the prominence being given to high-performance as an impediment to participation. Introducing performance and representative programmes too early can create behaviours that discourage participation and have a negative impact on children’s physical and emotional development.

Harbour’s stance is supported by AUT academic Simon Walters, who runs the coaching research team.

“An overriding focus on winning at an early age has a number of costs,” he said. “These include closing the door on late developers and late maturers; children not developing the all-round skills they will need later if they stay with the sport; greater rates of overuse injuries; burnout and, ultimately, dropout.”

In my most recent book, “Shaping Successful Junior Swimmers” I argued the same points as are now being addressed by North Harbour rugby. Article after article in Swimwatch has criticized Cotterill, Johns and Francis for walking down the same path that North Harbour has rejected. The stupidity of Swimming New Zealand beggars belief.

Gary Francis is paid a fortune to produce lists of elite junior swimmers and cart them up to Auckland for training camps. And just like the centralised training that the Francis folly has replaced, the whole thing spells disaster. What does the AUT scientist, Simon Walters call it; “overuse injuries; burnout and, ultimately, dropout” How does David Gibson describe the effect of Francis style lists? This is what he said. “Teenagers quickly lost interest if they did not feel they were on a performance pathway.” In swimming we have Francis proudly producing “performance pathways” and wandering around New Zealand telling everyone how marvelous they are. Idiotic does not get close. In my view he is destroying a good and treasured sport.

Cotteril, Johns and Francis cannot be so stupid that they do not read or understand that the membership of their sport is constantly declining. They must know that income is down. They must see that Sport NZ is turning their back on swimming. They must be aware that no medals at the 2018 World Short Course Championships and one bronze in the Commonwealth Games is a catastrophic result. With all that evidence do they ever pause and ask why?

In fact they may ask the question but lack the knowledge or IQ or both to come up with an answer. Which is really dumb because they could have read “Shaping Successful Junior Swimmers” or the pages of Swimwatch. And now an AUT academic is telling them the same thing. Let me repeat in capitals for emphasis what he said.

“AN OVERRIDING FOCUS ON WINNING AT AN EARLY AGE HAS A NUMBER OF COSTS. THESE INCLUDE CLOSING THE DOOR ON LATE DEVELOPERS AND LATE MATURERS; CHILDREN NOT DEVELOPING THE ALL-ROUND SKILLS THEY WILL NEED LATER IF THEY STAY WITH THE SPORT; GREATER RATES OF OVERUSE INJURIES; BURNOUT AND, ULTIMATELY, DROPOUT.”

So what does Gary Francis do in response to that warning? He produces another list of juniors capable of “winning at an early age”. Crazy, crazy stuff, but there you are, that’s Swimming New Zealand for you. The policy initiated by Francis and being followed by Cotterill and Johns is fatally flawed. It will inevitably see the further decline of swimming into a minority, nothing sport; a sport rejected by youth in favour of a more rewarding environment in places like North Harbor rugby.

Does anyone believe that your average city swim meet is a good, exciting and interesting place for young people to spend a day of their time? Of course it is not. Auckland makes it as difficult as possible just to get into and leave the meet. The policy they follow in opening and locking doors is designed to make attending their meet a nightmare.

Does anyone believe that badly trained officials who in New Zealand disqualify young swimmers at a higher rate than anywhere else in the world is good for the sport? Do Cotterill, Francis and Johns feel good about sending young swimmers home in tears because they have been disqualified by some overzealous autocrat? Is that good for the sport? Over my years in coaching I have attended 95 World Cup swim meets. The ultimate irony is that a seven year old in Auckland gets policed to a far higher standard than a world record holder in Paris ever is. Is that good for the sport?

Of course it is little wonder that Cotterill, Johns and Francis don’t understand the destruction of their policy. They are the vandals here. But when was the last time you saw any of them at an Auckland, Counties, Northland, Taranaki, HBPB or Southland swim meet? Never. That don’t know the wasteland they are creating. They never see it.

Following a more inclusive policy does not mean you are less competitive. It simply means you are waiting for the right time to be competitive. I coached a swimmer who could swim non-stop 800 meters when she was three years old. However she ended up swimming for New Zealand and earned a four year full ride in a Division One American University in an event she never swam at all until she was thirteen years old;  the 200 breaststroke. Why was she kept away from her best event? The answer is back up this page in the stuff printed in capitals. It is priceless advice.

For the love of this sport, please, please Antares Place read it slowly and try and understand. Or call Simon Walters or David Gibson. They may have more success in explaining it to you.