In a month the Swimming World Championships will begin. We have been given the normal assurances by the Swimming New Zealand Board that the New Zealand results will be better than ever. Before every international event the message coming from the Board is the same. “Boy, are we going to kill it this time.” And after the event the Board Chairman either seriously addresses the media, promising a full inquiry into why swimming has not progressed or assures everyone that the team’s performance had, in some way, been “the best ever”. It is becoming as predictable as Christmas.

There have been more tax payer funded inquiries into the malaise at SNZ than I can remember. In the recent past millions have been spent on reports from Sweetenham, Ineson and Moller. And it’s still a mess. Especially when they could have read Swimwatch for free.     

If New Zealand had actually swum “the best ever” as many times as Swimming New Zealand’s spin, we’d be beating the United States by now. In fact the country’s “best ever” result, at an event of this standard, was at the Atlanta Olympic Games, 20 years ago when Danyon Loader won two Gold Medals.

For this Belgrade 2017 World Championship the lead up by SNZ has been no less positive. Here are some of the quotes from the Head Coach Jerry Olszewski and others.

 

• The nine swimmers to attain individual qualification in the pool is the highest number since 2005.

• Jerry Olszewski was pleased with the promise of the team.

• Basically all of this team and a number who just missed teams we have a healthy group of swimmers as we prepare for Tokyo 2020 and beyond.

• The young swimmers are exciting for the future.

• Swimming New Zealand is confident in the swimmers they have in the high performance system as well as their youth program.

 

And the Board Chairman Bruce Cotterill joined in the songs of praise.

 

• This has been the most successful swimming era since the mid-1990s. We won five world championship medals. In the aftermath to London we had eight top-50 athletes, of whom four were seen as Rio targets. Post-Rio we’ve got 16 in the top-50 of whom 12 look capable of going to Tokyo. ”

• “I think we’ve got the right coaching in place and a new facility [at the Millennium Institute].”

 

In the last two years, in support of this confident outlook, you and I have paid Cotterill 2 million tax payer dollars. Like obedient puppies Swimming New Zealand have persevered with the Baumann policy of centralized preparation. For twenty years the policy has not worked but evidently it is going to work this time. The predictions of success have not changed.

Let’s look at the results of the last three World Swimming Championships. Then we will have a basis on which to make a comparison.   

2011 SHANGHAI

Number of Swimmers on Team: 12

Number of Gold Medals: 0

Number of Silver Medals: 0

Number of Bronze Medals: 0

Number of Finals: 4

Number of Semi-Finals: 5

Average Place over all team members: 19th

NZ Position on Medal table: Did not appear

2013 BARCELONA

Number of Swimmers on Team: 14

Number of Gold Medals: 0

Number of Silver Medals: 0

Number of Bronze Medals: 3

Number of Finals: 6

Number of Semi-Finals: 5

Average Place over all team members: 19TH

NZ Position on Medal table: 27th

2015 KAZAN

Number of Swimmers on Team: 8

Number of Gold Medals: 0

Number of Silver Medals: 2

Number of Bronze Medals: 0

Number of Finals: 2

Number of Semi-Finals: 1

Average Place over all team members: 23RD

NZ Position on Medal table: 20th

2017 BUDAPEST

Number of Swimmers on Team: 11

Number of Gold Medals:

Number of Silver Medals:

Number of Bronze Medals:

Number of Finals:

Number of Semi-Finals:

Average Place over all team members:  

NZ Position on Medal table:

The numbers appear to highlight three trends. First, the extent to which swimming in New Zealand has relied on Lauren Boyle. From 2011 when she made up the bulk of the finals swum, to 2013 when the three bronze medals were won by her and in 2015 when she won the two silver medals. Certainly the improvement from not being included on the medal table to 27th and then 20th is all down to Lauren Boyle. Her performances papered over a lot of cracks that remained unaddressed because of her efforts.

Second the performance of the team apart from Lauren Boyle has got worse. From an average place in each swimmer’s event of 19th in 2011 and 2013 this dropped to 23rd in 2015. Of course Lauren Boyle is not going to be at this meet. She wisely decided to get her hip repaired in advance of the 2018 Commonwealth Games. We will now get an insight into what swimming in New Zealand is going to look like in the post-Boyle era. We will see whether Cotterill has spent our tax dollars wisely. We will be able to measure again whether the centralized coaching policy works.

Ironically swimmers that have done best have had the least to do with Swimming New Zealand’s centralized Millennium program. Boyle spent most of her time in the USA or Australia, Mains trains in Florida and Snyders has Salo in Los Angeles as his coach. Swimming New Zealand have no shame. They think nothing of claiming credit for swimmers trained thousands of miles from Auckland as proof that their policy of centralization is working.   

When the 2017 Championships end we will complete the table shown above. We will see whether the Cotterill and Olszewski confidence that New Zealand swimming is on the up and up is well founded. Or is their opinion as delusional as it has been prior to every other recent World Championships and Olympic Games?

PS – You never can tell with Swimming New Zealand. If they come out with some superlative, always check. They are masters of alternative facts. Even Trump could learn from these guys. Their published claim that, “the nine swimmers to attain individual qualification in the pool is the highest number since 2005” may or may not be true. What I do know is that in 2011 ten swimmers competed in individual events. In 2013 nine swimmers swam in individual events. In the 2016 Rio Olympics nine swimmers swam in individual events. And when I went to school nine and ten are the same as or more than nine.