For a coach to qualify to work at an international competition, representing their country, in British swimming, it requires their ‘swimmer of record’ to qualify for the team in one of the competing events. This could be up to 17 different events for each gender.
Often both first place and second place earn a spot on a team, so a potential total of 34 males and 34 females, could be on a team, and all those swimmers would hope their coach makes the team.
Deciding on the coaching staff is done by comparing swimmers’ results. This is quite difficult. To compare swims like 50m freestyle with 200m butterfly or 1500 free is almost impossible.
The selection problem seemed to be resolved by a matrix called the FINA points chart. The chart scaled swimming times into a number. Basically the world record was equal to 1000 points, and your points would decrease according to how close to the world record you were. There was an averaging system to try to eliminate the problem that occurs when one athlete sets a world record miles ahead leaving a gap of time.
The fact some world records were so far ahead of the remainder of the field, skewed the system and without a true algorithm the matrix did not work.
The system was set up to balance averages by taking an average of top times one per person. So 1000 points was set at: midpoint of, the fastest ten times, by ten swimmers, all time, ever done. The world record would be more than 1000 points, and closer to 1100. This was an average of averages. A sprint event always would score higher because the race was closer (in times).
Comparing events in this way was the best pseudo algorithm that was devised by the ISSA (International Swim Statisticians Association). No matter how the times are compared, it is still very difficult to find a fair way to compare different strokes and distances. Each event could need its own algorithm. For example, Adam Peaty at one point had all top ten times in 100breast, so the top ten individuals would still be significantly slower than the world record. A very dominant swimmer skews the averages.
Equally problematic, besides a hugely dominant swimmer, was when an event becomes very competitive and a large number of swimmers creep up on the world record simultaneously. For example in 1992 the top ten times in 200im were all done in 1992.
A female sprinter, in top form, in late 90’s and 2000’s would be breaking new ground. A handful of girls were sub25s and rewriting the record book. So any top 4 swimmer would be close to 1100 points. Whereas a swimmer close to the world record in 100m or 200m event closer to 1000.
The obvious solution is to find an algorithm that creates a fair selection. However the fact sprinting swimmers began to earn their coaches places on teams did not sit well with the predominantly distance coach fraternity.
Due to a undercurrent of prejudice, many coaches felt sprinters were unworthy, they swam at the back of the lane on long sets and generally faded quickly in a quagmire of aerobic training. They only came alive on a rare speed set. Sprint training was trained by the oft repeated philosophy: speed through endurance. Which is an example Exercise Physiology specialists use as an example of how NOT to train correctly.
In the swimming world, which historically moved from open water events, where long races were watched by thousands in natural bays and harbours, distance swimming was held in awe. How could a man swim so far? (Women did not swim as a general rule.) It seemed magical and superhuman. Never has a swimming sprint been considered glamorous. It was rough, splashy and not elegant. Barbaric in fact.
So one year, when the coach qualifications criteria for the next international event came out, a caveat appeared: FINA Points for the 50m Fr will not be considered for coach selection.
Swimmers at the Olympics specialising in 50 free will not have their coach with them. Sad but true.
If a you want a FREE game to laminate and use as a warm up. CLICK HERE
