By David

While Rhi and John have been finishing their morning 8000 meters, I’ve just finished reading the book “Eats, Shoots and Leaves” by Lynn Truss. It’s a very good 220 pages about the boring subject of punctuation. As Truss says, “Punctuation really does matter, even if it is only occasionally a matter of life and death.” Towards the end of the book, on page 196 to be exact, Truss makes an important point and one that is relevant to all of us involved in the sports of swimming and running.

She expresses annoyance that bomb is spelt b-o-m-b, with the “b” on the end. Why is the last “b” needed at all? The word would be just as meaningful spelt bom. In fact after testing herself over timed intervals of one minute, Truss determined she could write bom 25% more times than bomb. Consider the savings in time and resources dropping the “b” would have on reporting events in today’s world. Whole forests could be saved.

The American nation has done its bit to improve the wasted effort they inherited from the other side of the Atlantic. Harbour, with a Microsoft squiggly line under it, has become harbor, labour has become labor, flavour has become flavor and so on. For some reason though this most logical of people, the Americans, have left your as your. It should of course have become yor.

If you are still interested in all this, you may be asking by now, “What has this got to do with swimming and running?” Well consider this. If we dropped the second “m” in swimming and the second “n” in running and the words became swiming and runing all of us involved in these sports could make a similar saving at no cost to the sound or meaning of the words.

I’ve tested this today and have determined that swiming can be written 23 times in one minute compared to 17 times for swimming, a proven saving of 35%. My wife, Alison – she’s the New Zealand 1000 meter track record holder, so has a vested interest in all this – studied linguistics at University and tells me the “m” and “n” cannot be dropped because swimming would then be pronounced sw’eye’ming and running would become r’eye’ning. Well that might be the case in Victoria University’s linguistic department but if that’s true why isn’t swim pronounced sw’eye’m and run, r’eye’n, because those words don’t have a double “m” or “n”.

There is a clear need here for a linguistic revolution; we have nothing to lose, except an “m” and “n”. I do not expect Craig Lord to become part of our movement. I’m sure he would consider it grounds for treason. Swimming World Magazine and Timed Finals must surely see the light. And USA Swimming, if they have any concern for conservation, any green feelings at all, must change their name now to USA Swiming.

The spelling of swimming is not the only verbal problem to bedevil those involved in the sport. In New Zealand and Australia calling one of the team a “bloody dag” is certainly a term of high praise and endearment. For those poor souls who do not understand Australasian, the word “dag” means something rather gross. That fact should clarify immediately why being a “bloody dag” is a much sort after title. I have learned, however, that in America, one needs to exercise considerable caution. It seems very few of the country’s 301 million people appreciate the value of being dag. Having said that, quite a number of our team qualify as bloody dags and seem to hold their status in appropriate high regard. Get Rhi and Haley McGregory together on the last night of the Nationals and you certainly have the ultimate in two bloody dags.

“Bloody idiot” is a similar Australasian term. There is no offense here. The term usually describes the team’s story teller, the practical joker of the group. Not long after I arrived I called one of our swimmers a bloody idiot. He told his parents and they were deeply offended. Two weeks of tension and two apologies later it was sorted out: another lesson learned. This directly relates to my previous post about foreign coaches fitting in to their new environments. A New Zealand swimmer, upon being called a bloody idiot, would probably smile quietly and forget about it. International linguistics and regional differences are fascinating!

“Fartlek” is a Swedish term meaning speed play. It is widely used in track and field to describe a type of training in which a runner’s speed is varied throughout the run. It is not however a term that is widely used in USA swimming. You can imagine what the bloody dags in our team made of a word like that when I first wrote it on our training white board.

And so you can see there is a far wider responsibility to being involved in this sport. It is not just a matter of swimming laps and recording times. The language of the sport needs your respect. Join the revolution.

By David

The Australian Sweetenham is on his way: back home to Australia, and before the job is done. He was employed to be Britain’s National Coach, to lift the country’s swimming fortunes through to the Beijing Olympic Games. With a year to go, he’s decided to cut and run. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that his father has just died and his mother is seriously ill. Remember though, this is the guy who called on Britain’s finest swimmers to give their all in the name of success in Beijing. Sweetenham was quite happy to call into question the application of some of Britain’s finest swimmers. He was perfectly happy to demand that Britain’s finest swimmers spend their Christmas at a training camp in Wales as opposed to… anywhere else. World record holders with fantastic careers like Mark Foster and Zoe Baker got the rough edge of Sweetenham’s tongue as he slated their training habits and questioned their loyalty.

Many coaches have had to deal with difficult family problems: Tony Dungy, Head Coach of the Indianapolis Colts, for example. Faced with these problems, Sweetenham decided to run up a white flag. Dungy, in much more difficult circumstances, battled on and won the superbowl.

As soon as the going got tough for Sweetenham, as soon as wife, children and family wanted him back in Australia he was out of there, on his way home; do what I say, not what I do, was his message. He was quick to caustically demand application, work and loyalty from others, but not so tough when it came stumping up with the same commitment himself. Is Sweetenham simply a schoolyard bully? Is he a man of little substance? Were the athletes he abused actually the ones with character? Did he take cheap shots at men and women who did not deserve his abuse? He has left someone else to front the big test, which suggests these are legitimate and outstanding questions.

But Sweetenham’s has provided us all with one lasting and important legacy. He has given every aspiring international coach an object lesson in how a foreigner should not act in a strange land.

The first duty of a foreign coach is to learn and understand the culture of his or her new home. If Sweetenham’s family stayed in Australia for the seven years he was in Britain, it sounds like Britain was never his home. Therefore, and although we did not know it at the time, the game was lost before it began. Sweetenham’s task was to use his experience to accentuate Britain’s strengths. His task was not to convert Britain into a copy of Australia. This was Sweetenham’s mistake and was at the heart of Sharon Davis’ criticism. Britain did not need to be colonized in reverse. Aggressive Australian coaches such as Sweetenham and Talbot are fine in Australia; in fact they’re quite fun and highly successful. Their less than polite behavior and “call a spade a bloody shovel” attitude are understood and accepted “down-under”. But Britain is not “down-under” and it never will be.

Britain is Britain. There are many types of person in Britain, but they are not Australians. There are the loud, loutish Brits, but they’re still a different breed of person and a different type of athlete. There and there are the reserved, quiet Brits, who are not Germans and are not Kiwis. Coaches like Terry Denison, legendary City of Leeds coach, knew how to get the best out of British swimmers. There were others who knew how to do the same thing. The land of Wells, Ovett, Coe, Drake, Raleigh, Wilkie, Christie, Churchill and William Wallace do not need to be told by some upstart Australian how to win. The upstart Australian though, needed to learn that the British way of winning is different from the Australian or American way. Done properly, the British way is just as effective; but different.

Sweetenham’s job was to take care of the “doing it properly” bit, not convert Britain into an Australian or American clone. Australian sport can be brash and crass. There is a petulant arrogance about much that they do. The rugby player, George Greegan’s taunting call of, “Four more years,” to the New Zealand team after Australia beat New Zealand in the 2003 world rugby cup is pretty typical. American sport is full of rehearsed cheers and idealized ritual.

None of these things are British. Neither are they necessary components of winning. British athletes of all codes have proven over and over again that they can win, but they do it in their own way, not someone else’s. Sweetenham failed because he tried to do the wrong thing. He tried to colonize Britain with Australia’s swimming culture. His was a religious crusade. He should have identified how the Brits work, what makes them win and accentuate and grow those qualities. That’s how Lydiard did it in Finland: he made that point often. Lydiard did not attempt to turn his Finnish runners into Speights-drinking, sheep-shearing (yes, that’s shearing), Crowded House-listening Kiwis. Neither did I attempt to create Kiwis when I coached some of Britain’s best runners in the 1970s.

Because Sweetenham was not relevant, when he goes his message will soon be lost: two thousand years of British history will see to that. If he’d had the smarts to build the British way, he would have won more swimming races and created something capable of lasting after he had gone. Now, Britain is back at “square one” once more.

You’ll notice that Swimwatch looks a little different today than it has since we re-launched the site on a blogger platform last year. We’d been meaning to do this for a long time, but had never gotten around to it. There are a lot more things we’d still like to do with the look of the site, and we’ll be attempting to keep on making positive changes. We hope you all like the new(ish) layout!

By David

Some guys will do anything to find an easy way out. The best sprinter at my school used to lie on our couch in the Prefect’s Room and pathetically whine, “David, I wish there was a pill you could take to become an Olympic champion.” Well today, Nigel my friend, there almost is. It’s still not a good idea though.

Lydiard had a better thought and it was so very simple. He said winning a swimming or running race required three things. First it required a fit aerobic system, so each season should spend ten weeks getting that into order. It required a fit anaerobic system, so work on that for four weeks. And it meant being race prepared and fast, so spend a final ten weeks seeing to that task. Aerobically fit, anaerobically fit and race sharp; winning performances would follow.

Lydiard based his preparation on sound physiological principles. Aerobic conditioning is improved by running or swimming many miles. Anaerobic conditioning is improved by swimming or training over modest distances at a pretty fast pace. Speed and race conditioning are improved by hard fast trials over short distances. So, he said in a blaze of brilliance, why don’t we do that?

Not everyone has the clarity of thought to see the training process in these simple terms. The mark of true genius is to see, understand and explain complex situations in clear, unadorned logic. That was Lydiard’s genius.

Not everyone is that clever. I’ve come across some amazing theories. One ex-New Zealand national coach used to explain his training in terms of energy systems and speeds that all had numbers and definition codes. I never had any trouble understanding Lydiard, but this guy was too much for me. I wish I could explain to you how his training worked but try as I might I still don’t know. I’ve often wondered how his swimmers ever understood something that complicated.

At the other end of the complexity scale was a guy who worked for me for a very short time. His training theory was based on the story of a young Spanish boy who had a pet bull calf. The boy figured that if he lifted the calf every day, he would be capable of lifting a thousand pound beast by the time the bull was fully grown. Applying the same logic, this coach said, he would take a twelve year old swimmer, race her over 50 meters on their first weekend, sprint train her all week and race her again. As long as each weekend’s trial was a tenth of a second faster than the previous weekend, by age fifteen or sixteen he would have a world record holder. We parted company about a day after he explained this unique theory.

A few years ago I got a call from a coach who said he wanted two or three “Lydiard distance training sessions.” He told me that all the different training ideas were confusing him so he decided he would get some Lydiard type schedules from me for Monday’s training, some interval sessions from a specialist interval coach for Tuesday, some sprint schedules from a “Salo” type coach for Wednesday and so on through the week. He would, he said, then have the ultimate in a balanced program. His squad would be getting a bit of everybody’s ideas – it just had to work. I couldn’t believe it but I gave him week five’s Saturday morning Waitakeres session. All that was a couple of years ago now and I haven’t heard of a host of champions coming from his squad so I guess his idea of a balanced program needs to be reviewed. Perhaps week two’s Thursday session might have worked!

Another coach spent an evening telling me that his coaching secret lay in a deep understanding of bio-rhythms. Before he wrote up his training schedules he’d fill out one of those bio-rhythm charts for his key swimmers and base his program on the result. I know you think I’m making this stuff up. But I swear it’s true. My bio-rhythms for today tell me I am in “very good physical shape. Instead of wasting it I should go for a run or walk,” – looks like there’s no swimming for me today.

But it’s not only coaches that have flown over the training cuckoo nest. There are some real strange parents too. One of the best brought her daughter to the pool to join the swim team. She spent some time asking me about training. I explained aerobic, anaerobic, speed; all that stuff. She listened attentively and then said she would bring her daughter back in three months. She said she knew a better way of getting her daughter started than swimming hundreds of kilometers for all those weeks. “What was her idea?” I asked. She said she knew a very special hypnotherapist who could get her daughter’s aerobic conditioning done in ten half hour sessions. I told her to let me know if it worked. There are a few of my guys who’d love to nap themselves into shape. I’ve not seen her since.

At the world rugby championships in France just now, the New Zealand team are training with an eye patch on one eye to improve the vision of the unveiled eye. Each player also has a test tube of dirt from every rugby ground in New Zealand. The idea is that the soil of home will give them strength. I know of a swim team in New Zealand’s that are asked to lie on the pool deck visualizing their future: their coach calls it, “dream time”. A local swimmer was reported in the newspaper recently as being into “Bikram Yoga”; evidently it flushes “out the toxins in my body”. Whenever I hear any of this stuff, I hear also the voice of Lydiard growling that they should all do an extra 2000 meters, “It would do them more good.”

And, of course, Lydiard is right. Do the training properly and there is no need for packages of dirt, eye patches or even hypnotherapy. The knowledge that your preparation has made you fitter, stronger and faster than your opponents is a toxic combination that all the yoga in the world will never expel.

By David

I see we have been the beneficiaries of another sermon from Mount Swimnews. This time, “from heaven did the Lord behold the earth,” and say, “Individuals without a strong team structure behind them tend to emerge from Olympic finals with a ranking equal to or lower than that they enjoyed going into Olympic year.”

Craig Lord is arguing in favor of, what he calls, the strong American team system and against the disruption of personality that he says is affecting the South African team just now.

It’s pretty typical of establishment commentators like Lord to revere conformity and abhor individualism. But to suggest that independent individuals are somehow weaker and less able to perform great deeds is just rubbish.

Probably the world’s greatest sportsman, Mohammed Ali, was the ultimate independent individual. For a period he stood alone; denied status by his sport and his nation. He was shot at, jailed, and refused permission to play. He was alone and hated, without a team or a nation. But he emerged a supreme winner. By the strength of his character and iron will, he overcame. Ali, the individual beat his sport and won over his country. Craig Lord is never going to convince me that the Mohammed Ali that stood and lit the Atlanta Olympic flame was the product of some team factory. To believe that is to belittle and diminish the strength of Ali’s character and the torment of his lonely exile.

Lord’s wildly inaccurate view also ignores the record of magnificent African runners. Men like Abbe Bikila, and Kip Keino; women like Lornah Kiplagat and Mary Chemweno. Bikila didn’t have a team; he didn’t even have shoes when he ran 2.15.16 to win the Rome Olympic marathon.

Kip Keino didn’t need a team either. Fancy that, the man who won two Olympic gold and two silver medals and is now revered as the father of the African running revolution didn’t have a team. How did he do it? He did it like all the other best Olympic athletes. He was tough, he worked hard and he was an individual, maybe even a slightly lonely one.

Lord’s view that team structure is the driving force behind America’s Olympic success is simplistic and misleading. Team structure has little to do with it. To say that it does, runs counter to one of the most basic underlying qualities of American life; the value it puts on individualism. As long ago as 1840 Alex de Tocqueville in his book “Democracy in America” described Americans as exceptionally individualistic; “each man is forever thrown back upon himself, and there is a danger that he may shut up in the solitude of his own heart.” One only has to look as far as the absence of universal health care in the United States, to detect the American’s belief in individual, rather than team responsibility.

Individual personal gain is the fuel that drives America’s gold medal victories, just as obviously as it has driven its corporate and industrial success. A façade of team unity may modestly strengthen America’s individualism. It certainly makes the drive for personal gain more politically acceptable. Lord, however, has seen the façade of America’s team structure, and has described it to us as the substance of America’s success.

One does not need to scratch the American team structure far to see the cult of individualism appear. Lochte is hard at work now because he wants to win the 200IM in Beijing in twelve months. He undoubtedly does not wish Phelps any ill will but my guess is he certainly wants him to be second. Don’t be fooled by the well rehearsed cheers and untroubled contract signings; life in the USA team is probably more cut throat than any other team in the world. Sure, US swimmers don’t hate each other but at the international level it’s every man and woman for themselves.

It’s a bit off the subject but I tell you what US swimmers do have that helps them win. They have bloody good officials and a good Federation. US athletes are looked after. They are paid well. Their Federation is efficient and fair. If you don’t believe me; does your Association have an air conditioned lounge with TV, soda, Gatorade, water and as much good food as you can eat at its national championships. They don’t? Well the Americans do and in a way that lounge is symbolic of why American swimmers are the world’s best. It’s not a team thing, but it is looking after the individual.

Lord may tell you that “individuals without a strong team structure” are likely to fail. He is wrong. If you’re swimming laps in the North Sydney pool, running Lydiard’s Waitakeres in New Zealand, or swimming a hard set of 400s freestyle in Florida’s heat; wherever you are, whatever you’re doing, it’s not a team structure you need. You need to be tough, dedicated and hard beyond belief. If you are, you can win an Olympic gold medal, on your own.