Lessons learned from 5 years applica2on of LTAD in swimming in the Netherlands

Transcription

1 Lessons learned from 5 years applica2on of LTAD in swimming in the Netherlands dr. Theo Hu+en NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences 2014 World LTAD Symposium January 31 in Ga2neau, QC Canada

2 Star2ng point Olympic ambi2on Discussion about Dutch Olympic results in the future (2004). NOC*NSF: Masterplan Talent Centraal , adop2ng LTAD. 11/4/2013 2

3 KNZB and LTAD Dutch swimming federa2on KNZB translated LTAD in MOZ in Structured and useful roadmap For swimmers and their supervisors Stages: FUNdamentals, Train technical skills, Train to train, Train to compete, Train to win Detailed descrip2on: - level of athletes skills - swimming facili2es, training hours, sport technical coaching, general guidance - support KNZB, clubs Implementa2on took some years, but now 5 years experience further Use of a MOZ- club scan (posi2oning and cer2fica2on) 11/4/2013 3

4 MOZ content Descrip2on of the stage key issues per stage Facili2es needed at club level per stage; e.g. number of swimming hours Guidance and coaching at club level Role KNZB Expected technical skills per stroke per stage Type and amount of physical training Other types of training: core stability and power/strength Requirements for year program and swimming compe22on 11/4/2013 4

5 Research aim Evalua2on of the use of the MOZ talent development plan at the level of clubs and its impact on a planned, structured and professional approach of talent development at club level 11/4/2013 5

6 Theore2cal background Gagné (2004): talent development: process in which a talent systema2cally develops his own set of skills into excep2onal competencies. Colangelo and Davis (2003): three pillars for talent development: Interpersonal factors Environmental factors and context The Luck factor MOZ has been established to control environmental factors and to reduce the luck factor 11/4/2013 6

7 Methodology Survey of all clubs with youth swimmers (387). Total response: 22 % Three groups: Unfamiliar with MOZ group 1 Familiar with MOZ group 2 Using MOZ scan as benchmark group 3 Comparison groups: Pearson Chi- square and Cramer V. Results are discussed separately with key- players 11/4/2013 7

8 Structure for talent development 1993: Clubs sporters with Elite swimming centers qualifying 2mes TZN, TWN,TWA 2008/2009: (2) A+ QT FINA addi<onal QT+ addi<onal requirements Clubs youth athletes with Regional training 2 Na2onal qualifying 2mes requirement centers (3) training centers 2013/2014: Clubs 14 talent centers 3 RTC s 3 NTC s (+/- 400) at cer2fied clubs youth world class focus on juniors (juniors) athletes 11/4/2013 8

9 Research among clubs Survey of all clubs with youth swimmers (387). Total response: 22 % Three groups: Unfamiliar with MOZ group 1 Familiar with MOZ group 2 Using MOZ scan as benchmark group 3 11/4/2013 9

10 Awareness of MOZ 8 years afer the introduc<on MOZ: Just 18% of the clubs are using the MOZ as benchmark for talent development 37% are unfamiliar with the MOZ Smaller clubs (less than 60 youth members under 21) Ac2ve on the lowest levels of compe22on 45 % know the MOZ, but the use is limited In all 3 groups trainers are more familiar with MOZ than board members/swimming commikees 11/4/

11 Fulfilling requirements of MOZ Almost all clubs fulfil FUNdamentals requirements: At least 2 training hours Teaching basic rules and learning the standards and values of swimming Have fun in the water The number of clubs able to fulfil the requirements cease at the next level Train to compete and Train to win are restricted to RTC and NTC respec2vely. 85% of the clubs endorse the need for a swimming policy for talent development, but managing/controlling the trainers in this area isn t seen as a key issue. 11/4/

12 MOZ stage dependent training programs More common in group 3 (MOZ benchmark) than group 1 (unfamiliar) are: Stage dependent programs Stage dependent coaching Separate lanes for the various MOZ- stages Especially in group 1 young children (Train technical skills; <11 years) train with older athletes in programs for older athletes In Train technical skills 40% group 1 and 60% of group 2 are able to facilitate the requirement of 4 hours swimming. In the next stage Train to train (11 hours) 90 % in group 1 and group 2 clubs don t fulfil the requirements of 11 h swimming 64% of group 3 (MOZ benchmark) are able to fulfil the requirements 11/4/

13 MOZ stage dependent training programs Stage dependent programs 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No kids Juniors Youth (Na2onal) elite? Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 11/4/

14 Individual athlete development Individual goals: In group 3 ( MOZ- benchmark) 93% are using individual goals The other groups significantly less (group 1 = 49% and group 2 = 68%) Sufficient trainer- coaches is a problem for : 65% of group 1 (unfamiliar) 51 % of group 2 (know MOZ) 43% of group 3 (MOZ benchmark) The role of the parents is restricted to official, service delivery (transport) and supporter 11/4/

15 Athlete mobility In all 3 groups the main source for recruitment of new swimmers is from their own A,B,C- cer2ficated swimmers. Other access roads aren t explored. The flow of swimmers between clubs is limited: Mainly due to following their trainers Clubs in group 1 and 2 don t facilitate the mobility of athletes to group 3 clubs 11/4/

16 More talents, more medals? Olympic Games, World and European Championships: No increase in number of par2cipants, partly due to overburdened qualifica2on 2mes No increase in medals/event Medals won by one or two athletes/event Medal - success seems to be linked to par2cipa2on of these athletes. European junior Championships (Male >18 y; Female >16y ) Female male = = = = es =1 More medals by females Most medals per event won by one person Na2onal championships (seniors, juniors): no improvement 50 and 100 free style are overrepresented For longer distances in various strokes it is difficult to complete one heat with qualified swimmers Fewer clubs par2cipate in relays 11/4/

17 Future perspec2ve From the group 3 clubs ( MOZ benchmark) : 73% expect MOZ will play an important role in the future In the other 2 groups this is much lower : Group 1 = 19% Group 2 = 42% 11/4/

18 Key conclusion MOZ is seen at club level as a program of requirements and not as a helpful tool for improving talent development itself Demand for: improving usefulness of MOZ, for managing MOZ at club level, more emphasis on athlete s personal factors 11/4/

19 More specific conclusions The stage of Ac2ve start is missing: swimming is facing a wrong start. It s not Fun, it is dangerous Expensive and 2me consuming for parents MOZ is seen as roadmap to establish norms for requirements and to manage environmental factors, but luck is s<ll an important factor, because of: The significant difference in development opportuni2es amongst clubs of the 3 groups Swimming in a group 3 club is a key success factor in talent development Mobility to group 3 isn t properly facilitated Athletes have to fit within the structure No measurable results of the KNZB policy in terms of par2cipants and medals at WC, EC and OG 11/4/

20 More specific conclusions The impact of MOZ is restricted because there is no established talent development policy at club level and because of the lack of facili2es at club level. Need for developing, implemen2ng and managing a talent development policy at club level Despite differences between the 3 groups, there is a need for: Beker educated trainer- coaches More swimming hours Separate programs and lanes for different stages of MOZ More support by KNZB to fulfil the requirements at club level More support and efforts to improve athlete mobility Despite the professionaliza2on (RTC s, NTC s) and the use of LTAD the results aren t improving The structure is too compulsory, The talent development chain isn t effec2ve The supervision of athletes within the chain or at subsequent levels of the chain isn t effec2ve 11/4/

21 11/4/

22 11/4/