OLYMPIC 2012 DEBRIEF - Demon Sport fileDeterminants – KPD’s). 2. What are the agreed standards for those components re the person’s performance target? 3. What are the delivered/present

2012

OLYMPIC 2012 DEBRIEF

Professor Frank Dick OBE

2012

Probably the Only Sustainable

Competitive Advantage You Have is

the Ability to Learn Faster Than the

Opposition

Arie de Geus

PLAN

PLAN

PLAN

DO

DO

DREAM

REVIEW

REVIEW

1. What is the performance target?

2. What tasks are required to achieve the performance?

3. What actions are carried out to complete the task?

4. What is the current performance?

5. If it exceeds the target, recognise, appreciate and improve farther.

6. If it is below target, diagnose problems and correct.

7. What is the revised performance target?

Short Term Review: Individual Debrief

Medium Term Reviews

1. What are the performance components relative to the person’s role? (Key Performance Determinants – KPD’s).

2. What are the agreed standards for those

components re the person’s performance target? 3. What are the delivered/present standards in

these components re the person’s current performance?

4. When these match or are better than those agreed, recognize, appreciate and improve.

5. If not, diagnose problems and correct them. 6. What are the revised performance component

standards?

Evaluation of objective Rating Notes

achievement

Prioritised objectives set at commencement of year under review

Effect on performing roleSignificant changes influencing role during the period under review

Main task performance Rating Notes

analysis

Prioritized agreed main tasks to meet objectives

Name ___________________________ Role: ____________________________

Prepared by :_____________________ Date:_____________________________

Suggested action required for improvementStrengths/developments

Overall role performance rating

(10 max – 1 min)

Informal Performance Review

Period of review:__________________

PERSONAL ALIGNMENT CHECKOrganisation:

CONFIDENTIAL

The essential review headings in sport: Results – intended and actual. Performance under pressure of athletes and

teams. Professional competence of all staff – coaching,

management, administration and performance support.

Effectiveness of athlete and team staff in

preparation planning.

Effectiveness of overall campaign strategy/current year plan/applied game plan.

Leverage of high performance intelligence and resources, e.g. systems and technology.

Quality of chief coach decision making and judgment calls.

2012

Comparison of Points per

Top 20 Nations

2004, 2008, 2012

Rank Nation 2004 2008 2012

1 USA 233.5 207 303

2 Russia 192 200 177

3 Kenya 67 136 112

4 Jamaica 78 120 107

5 Germany 45 43.5 95

6 Ethiopia 72 76 90

7 Great Britain 69.5 72 85

8 China 31 39 70

9 Ukraine 47.5 50 47

10 France 23.5 37 39

11 Trinidad & Tobago 2 18 35

12 Czech Republic 25 23 30

Rank Nation 2004 2008 2012

13 Australia 34 40 27

14 Cuba 52 61 25

15 Canada 9.5 23 22

16 Poland 47 43 21

17 Turkey 7 16 20

18 Bahamas 29 22 19

19 Belgium 6 9 19

20 South Africa 24 14 15

23 Italy 27 20 15

25 Netherlands 12 3 13

27 Spain 36.5 31.5 12

Men – Overview & Evaluation

100m: the best ever final; average time of

the first 7 athletes = 9.824 200m: 5 athletes below 20 sec with the

first 4 athletes with season’s best 400m: average time finalists - 44.725 (4 Under 23 in final!)

10

8 9

8

SPRINT


110: Aries Merritt dominated all the season, going

on to WR 12.80 sec; only medalists ok

400: Event in stagnation; the winner age 35

4 X 100: The best ever final; world record and 7 teams below 38.50

4 x 400: Poor competition

7

6

10

HURDLES

RELAYS

6


800m: the best ever final; average time finalists

1.42.65 (3 juniors in final) 1500m: poor race with best athletes injured or in

bad shape 5.000/ 10.000m: only one athlete dominating,

FARAH; poor races 3000St.: poor race; best athletes in bad shape Marathon: poor race; best athletes did not

participate

10

ENDURANCE

5

6

6

6


Shot: one of the best recent Olympic finals

Hammer: good competition but old athletes -- average age 33

Discus: one of the best Olympic finals, 7 athletes over 65m

Javelin: poor competition excluding the winner Walcott (Junior

Athlete)

7

THROWS

7

8

6


High: good competition with the winner at 2.38; bronze and

silver 21 years Pole vault: medalists good; European champs helped Long: the worst ever competition; average result of the

finalists – 8.10m* Triple: Good competition; first 4 ok (3 under 23) *Long jump situation is in crisis: 2012 ranking (first 10) = 8.30

/ 1992 = 8.44 / 2002 = 8.34

7

JUMPS

8

4

7


Thanks to Eaton and the two other

medalists, the competition

went well

8

DECATHLON

Conclusions (Men)

In total the global trend is stable but alarm for long jump and also for Long Distances

The best athletes, excluding Farah were in bad shape or no more at the top (see Kenenisa Bekele) or becoming old (see Bernard Lagat, now 38).

It is also becoming increasingly the case that

1) athletes seem ill prepared for the tournament situation as opposed to one-off races; and 2) that they lack racing competencies, having been paced in world circuit races.

Conclusions (Men)

In addition too many top athletes were

injured: Powell, Lashawn Merritt, Robles, and Asbel Kiprop.

On reflection and given table, coaches should remember that their planning should be focused on the “Major Championships” and not only on one day meetings:

–“Peak at the right time!”

Women – Overview & Evaluation

100m: one of the best ever finals; average

time of the finalists = 10.878 200m: good competition and a great run

by Felix with 21.88 400m: race in stagnation but 4 athletes

below 50 secs

10

8 9

7

SPRINT


100: best race of the year with Olympic record; 3

athletes under 12.50; 7 inside 12.70 (Sally Pearson (MacLellan) won bronze in 2004 WJC 100m 11.40 sec and was 4th in 100m hurdles 13.41)

400: Race in stagnation; only first 5 did well (below 54.00)

4 X 100: Best relay ever, with a terrific world record achieved by the USA team

4 x 400: Poor competition; only the USA team did

well with 3:16:87

10

7

10

HURDLES

RELAYS

6


800m: best race of the year with 7 finalists below 2

minutes 1500m: poor race 5.000/ 10.000m: both tactical races confirming

domination of ETH and KEN 3000St.: this event needs some changes (the

length of the water jump relative to the height of the barrier is wrong)

Marathon: good average, 10 athletes below 2:26:00

and Olympic record

8

ENDURANCE

5

6

6

8


High: good competition with the winner at 2.05m and 4 over 2.00m

Pole vault: poor competition; nothing new – only

a weak Isinbaeva (4.70) Long: great jumps for Reese and Sokolova over

7.00m; certainly better than Beijing Triple: this event is in regression; nobody over

15.00m

8

JUMPS

5

7

5


Shot: good competition (8 athletes over

19.00m) but ruined by a doping case Hammer: good competition; 8 athletes over

74.00m and Olympic Record Discus: good competition; 9 athletes over

63.00m and great throw by Perkovic (69.11m)

Javelin: event in stagnation; only Spotakova did well with

69.55m

7

THROWS

8

8

6


Best event in depth; 14 athletes

over 6300 points

9

HEPTATHALON

Conclusions (Women)

In total the global trend is progressing

For long distances we need new blood and should see more Caucasian athletes at the top

As for men, the female athletes suffer when

asked to run twice or three times in a few days

As concerns the planning, the performances

of women at “Major Championships” are better

Age Distribution – Women Finalists All v European

0

5

10

15

20

25

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

AGE

NO

OF

FIN

AL

IST

S

Finalists - All Women

Finalists - European Women

Age Distribution – Women Medalists All v European

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

AGE

NO

OF

ME

DA

LIS

TS

Medalists - All Women

Medalists - EuropeanWomen

Age Distribution – Men Finalists All v European

0

5

10

15

20

25

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

AGE

NO

OF

FIN

AL

IST

S

Finalists - All Men

Finalists - European Men

Age Distribution – Men Medalists All v European

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

AGE

NO

OF

ME

DA

LIS

TS

Medalists - All Men

Medalists - European Men

JWC 2000 – 2010 - WOMEN

354 total medals 2000-2010

JWC 2000 – 2010 European Medalists WOMEN

169 European medals in JWC 2000-2010

354 total medals

2000-2010

JWC 2000 – 2010 Medalists who made it to Olympic finals -- WOMEN



30 Finalists in Olympics from IAAF family

European JWC 2000 – 2010 Medalists who made it to Olympic finals -- WOMEN



30 Finalists in Olympics from IAAF family 11 European

Finalists in Olympics

JWC 2000 – 2010 European Medalists WOMEN


354 total medals

2000-2010

JWC 2000 – 2010 Medalists who won medals in Olympics -- WOMEN



18 Medalists in Olympics from IAAF family

European JWC 2000 – 2010 Medalists who won medals in Olympics -- WOMEN




7 European Medalists in Olympics

JWC 2000 – 2010 European Medalists MEN


360 total medals

2000-2010

JWC 2000 – 2010 Medalists who made it to Olympic finals -- MEN




European JWC 2000 – 2010 Medalists who made it to Olympic finals -- MEN




9 European Finalists in Olympics

JWC 2000 – 2010 European Medalists MEN


360 total medals

2000-2010

JWC 2000 – 2010 Medalists who won medals in Olympics -- MEN




European JWC 2000 – 2010 Medalists who won medals in Olympics -- MEN




1 European Medalist in Olympics

MEN – Finalists v Medalists

Finalists v Medalists - Women

Athlete Development

Pathway

Excite

to practice

Practice

to

participate

Participate

to

prepare

Prepare

to

perform

Perform

to

compete

Compete

to

learn

Learn

to

win

2012

Medals or Season’s Best (or better)

during London 2012

Delivering on the Day

Country Athlete Interventions

M W

Medals

M W

SB

M W

Total

M W

%

M W

Russia 37 55 2 16 8 6 10 22 27.0 40.0

UK 38 35 4 2 4 9 8 11 21.1 31.4

Germany 27 31 4 4 1 6 5 10 18.5 28.6

France 28 12 2 0 4 6 6 6 21.4 50.0

Poland 25 16 1 1 1 3 2 4 8.0 25.0

Ukraine 30 42 1 2 2 6 3 8 10.0 19.0

Italy 13 15 1 0 1 4 2 4 15.4 26.7

Finland 13 5 1 0 2 0 3 0 23.1 0.00

Spain 27 19 0 0 3 7 3 7 11.1 36.8

Sweden 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

USA 59 60 15 14 10 17 25 31 42.4 51.7

Jamaica 19 17 7 5 2 4 9 9 47.4 52.9

China 24 30 3 2 3 1 6 3 25.0 10.0

2012

Medals or Season’s Best in the

Athlete’s Final Performance in the

Competition

e.g. Some athletes performed a SB in a preliminary round

but performed worse in their final competition

appearance.

Delivering on the Day

Extreme

Country Total

M W

SB

M W

Medals

M W

Athlete Interventions

M W

%

M W

Russia 9 22 7 6 2 16 37 55 24.3 40.0

UK 7 6 3 4 4 2 38 35 18.4 17.1

Germany 5 10 1 6 4 4 27 31 18.5 28.6

France 6 6 4 6 2 0 28 12 21.4 50.0

Poland 2 4 1 3 1 1 25 16 8.0 25.0

Ukraine 3 8 2 6 1 2 30 42 10.0 19.0

Italy 2 3 1 3 1 0 13 15 15.4 20.0

Finland 2 0 1 0 1 0 13 5 15.4 0.00

Spain 3 7 3 7 0 0 27 19 11.1 36.8

Sweden 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0

USA 21 26 6 12 15 14 59 60 35.6 43.3

Jamaica 9 7 2 2 7 5 19 17 47.4 41.2

China 6 3 3 1 3 2 24 30 25.0 10.0

2012

Does Coach Education and

Development prepare coaches for

this task?

The last step from the Podium in London. . .

. . .is the first step towards the Podium in Rio

Recommendations

1. National Coaching & Performance Leadership. High performance:

Coach Development & management Athlete Development Junior – Peak Performance Performance Directors – Performance Structures

2. High Priority – Head Coach Junior Program 3. Athlete Development Pathway Review

Junior – Peak Performance Delivering “on the day”

4. Junior – Peak Performance years attrition – why?

Recommendations

5. Replace IAAF World Youth with U/23

6. Coach Education Program review Performance

Delivering on the day

7. Coaching and performance related roles and responsibilities defined

8. European IAAF Junior Medalists and Coaches target for essential support and development

Recommendations

9. Sprints & Hurdles European Priority Coaching & Performance Program. Track endurance to follow

10. Endurance athlete development for competitive races rather than paced races

11. Long Jump & High Jump performance & coaching review to raise global standards

2012

Dr Frank Dick OBE twittercom/frankdickcoach

/IFACScotland

@IFAC_SCOTLAND

Documents

OLYMPIC 2012 DEBRIEF - Demon Sport fileDeterminants – KPD’s). 2. What are the agreed standards for those components re the person’s performance target? 3. What are the delivered/present