Another edition of the Olympics belong to the past, and what great Games they were. But our athletes didn’t bring home enough metal? Too many of them disappointed? For athletics the declared goal by AA was 6 shiny medals. In the end the team won 3.
If the Australian delegation didn’t reach the goal that was set for them, what about some of the other countries? Germany, for instance, budgeted for a whopping 86 medals overall, 28 of which gold. The team achieved “only” 11 gold medals, and a total of 44, and were ripped to pieces by the nation (or just the media?) for under-performing, even though they did bring home four more medals than in Beijing! I guess it is partly about managing expectations.
I might be digressing here, but I ask myself, what is the benefit or the intrinsic value or meaning of these medal tallies in the first place? They are flawed at so many levels. Talking about comparing apples and oranges.
At the very least, perhaps it would be more useful to look not just at medals, but at Top 8 places by assigning points to places and tallying those up (8th place gets 1 point, 1st place gets 8). This gives a slightly fuller picture of a team’s overall performance.
This is Germany’s post-Wall history, which requires no translation.
The German athletics federation aimed for a Top 6 place in the points tally, and they achieved 5th:
I figure they must be doing something right to have turned the boat around in the last four years.
Where would Australia be on this table? Whatever the ranking, I didn’t work it out, but the points tally is 25, the lowest since Barcelona in 1992.
Of course athletes who compete in the Olympic Games are in the public eye and must expect that their performances will be publicly scrutinised.
But let’s focus on the positive for a moment:
Apart from the outstanding performances by Sally Pearson and Jarred Tallent, our other medal winner, Mitchell Watt jumped close to his best for the year, Martin Dent achieved a season’s best in the marathon, in the 400m hurdles Tristan Thomas ran a season’s best and Brendan Cole a personal best, although both achieved their best in the first round. Melissa Breen ran within 8 hundredths of her PB, in the 1500m Zoe Buckman posted a new PB, as did the most unlikely participant, Genevieve LaCaze. In the women’s walk both Regan Lamble and Beki Lee achieved PBs, as did Lisa Jane Weightman in the marathon.
Whatever the overall outcome in terms of results, I don’t believe any of the athletes who went to London just wanted to be there in order to party or to wear an Australian uniform. I am sure that each and every one of them tried their best to perform at their best.
For some athletes things went pearshaped, and yes, perhaps some of the lesser performances were more predictable than others, and yes, there will be reasons for why they didn’t perform to expectation, but it is up to the athletes and their coaches and their support team and AA to collaboratively analyse and carve out a way for the future, and if they are committed, then they should receive the support they need to do that from our national body.
We don’t have the luxury of dropping our best athletes like hot potatoes if they don’t perform to expectations. Not only is it morally reprehensible, there are also not that many others in the pipeline to take their place, and those few can see very plainly what is happening…
It is easy to forget that competition at this level is incredibly tough, and it isn’t getting any easier. Setting medal tally targets is no more a science than is economics. There are so many factors at play, most of which are beyond our control. It is OK for sports officials and government officials to set a realistic target, but it would be wrong to turn that into an outright expectation.
And yet, perhaps sports administrators feel that they have to set their expectations high, and too high perhaps, in order to justify funding for their sport. One German administrator suggests as much, and it would be naive to think that this doesn’t happen here. After all, every Olympic sport relies heavily on government funding, and our own sports minister suggest as much.
John Coates is right to suggest that sports need to look beyond funding arrangements.
Perhaps the Australian Sports Commission needs to look more closely at how the sports actually spend the money they receive and how they function and deliver. Sports should have to make a clear case for the programs they run, and monitor the delivery of these programs. Sports owe it to taxpayers and their stakeholders to do the best they can do to improve their governance and be accountable for the government support they receive. They should not just be expected to make a contribution to a medal tally every four years. They should above all be expected to have systems and processes and personnel in place so they can make a significant contribution to developing the sport at all levels, especially at the grassroot level. After all, a broad base is important for success at world class level.
Let’s not beat about the bush, we all know athletics has governance issues. The ramifications of this are real – and I cannot imagine a bigger distraction than that…
Athletics must, and I believe can, do better, as difficult as it may be given this sport’s history.
Accountability, transparency, communication, co-operation, recognition, all these require significant improvement, which would go a long way towards giving our sport the best chance for Rio and beyond.
The key to future success is to get the basics right. I bet that’s just what sailing has done. Perhaps we should have a look at what we can learn from them.
Note: The opinions expressed here are entirely my own.