This is true. PJ has run 10.1s in SF at national yet in the final he has repeatedly got beaten by Matt. Maybe its because Matt is a great starter and PJ is hit/miss from the blocks. If PJ had Matts consistency at the start I am sure he would of run sub 10 many more times. In 2003 PJ was more consistent 0-30.
It maybe caused by AA arduous domestic criteria and policy. Its a difficult process to balance racing domestically and leaving enough in the tank for the northern hemisphere season.
I’ve raised this issue in the Shirvo thread in News…
But I actually believe it is highly advantageous to bring training to a peak at least once around the New Year period (in Jan-March) because it serves to provide the “checks and balances” to make sure the program is on track, it obliges a more race-specific (in every sense) version of training for a while leading into the first peak; and it establishes a higher base of performance from which to launch into the next cycle of training as the athletes seeks to achieve personal bests each year and climb the ladder of international rankings.
Perhaps in the 100m, but his history in the 200m doesn’t suggest this. The other side of the coin is that by the time he gets there he’s been up one side of the hill and is on his way down the other.
I agree with you on the 200m, perhaps he does better there because there is comparatively more time to compensate if you blow the start.
And his relative success at 200m in 2005 in Europe (albeit after a change of coach that year) suggests you might be able to eliminate the idea that he couldn’t do a good double-periodised program, and also that he didn’t get fried from doing to much intensity without enough tempo (intensive or extensive, whatever floats your boat) to enable him to recover from all that max velocity involved in 100m prep.
No harm in being fast in March. It means there is less work to do during the next phases.The problems arise because many of the mens 100m sprinter try stay in peak form until June. AA selection policy for relays has been responsible for messing up this double peak for a lot of our 100m sprinters. After nationals they don’t finalise the mens 4x100. Its common to have relay camps and races in May-June to finalise the spots. This means the mens 100m sprinters have to be in race shape from Nov- June. Which can only be a recipe for disaster. Both coaches and administrators are responsible here. Usually they end up throwing blame on each-other. The dual administrator/coach point the finger to the big wigs in AA who determine were the $ go.
PJ and tempo :eek:. PJ on the speed gun twice a week trying to hit 11m/s in practice. This may be one reason why he runs 10.1 easing up domestically and than runs 10.2 flat chat in Europe.
In another thread I mentioned that I saw no problem with a double periodized programme, just the expectation that it is expected to occur every year and with rather long seasons.
Agreed. Historically the biggest disaster of a selection criteria came in 1992 when the Barcelona team was left open until very late. Very few athletes were confirmed early, so many decided to campaign across Europea and the US and when they chased times week after week their based eroded to the extent that they still didn’t qualify and if they did, they had nothing to perform with at those Olympics. The selection policy was described at the time as “one of Inclusion, rather than Exclusion” but with all the best intentions in the world it was a bad one.
When I threw I always did a test run on my peaking set up in October and then the final peak in March. I don’t think you need to a peak peak, but just a test run.
In 2000 there was some very dubious selection for the mens 4x100. Extending the selection cut off date usually backfires. It makes it very hard for coaches and athletes to plan training cycles.