More Olympic Qualification

Today we revisit the topic of Olympic Qualification and the Senior National Team. I don't do this to inflame passions or invite argument, it is a cultural and educational exercise I am undertaking. Cultural - to illustrate different opinions, Educational - to help athletes I coach see that there are differing opinions in this country than the status quo. If Bushido players are to continue to move on and play professionally, in the NCAA and on the National Team then they will encounter these different perspectives and strong opinions - so, they should be prepared.

On the popular international website "Water Polo World" there was an article yesterday discussing the FAILURE of the Hungarian women's team because they did not make it to the final (ie 1st/2nd) match of the qualification tournament in Imperia. It was a failure even though the team had qualified for the Olympics by winning their division in the round robin much earlier in the week. Here is what the website wrote about the blame for the loss in the semi-final game that went into overtime and then a shoot out.

"In the penalty shoot-out Hungary´s Barbara Bujka and Italy´s Manuela Zanchi missed the fifth shot each. In the second leg Hungary`s second shooter Ágnes Valkay did not score, so that Tania di Mario netted the winning ball for the home team.

The game was really exciting and great to watch. Unfortunately this was partly caused by some easy mistakes of the teams and the officials. The game was interrupted several times, but was finally lost by Hungarian head coach Gábor Godova who was not able to calm the actions of his team in the final seconds of regulation and extra-time. But today it was much more amazing to watch a game like this than a correct boring game."

Not only did they name the player who missed the final penalty shot but they lay the blame for team performance squarely on the shoulders of the team coach who did not control the team emotions and psyche in tense moments. Contrast that to the Water Polo Canada website and their congratulations today to the team that came 5th and did not qualify for the Olympics at all. Some of those comments are here;

".... the young Sr. Women's National team was unsuccessful in their attempt to gain an Olympic berth for Beijing

We are so very proud of the women, their coaches and the other individuals who helped prepare the team for this important event. The effort the players put into their training - both mental and physical - was both remarkable and phenomenal.

As much as it is difficult now to think of positive outcomes, we want all associated with this team to know how supported and cared for they are. We are proud of them and how they represented our country."

Neither one of these approaches to failure is incorrect. In fact, failure is not even measured the same way in the two countries (unless we talk about hockey, then our perspective is more like that of the Europeans). One approach is open and deals with issues, one is closed and avoids issues altogether. However the biggest difference is once the teams get home. The Hungarians will talk frankly about their performance, make quick and open decisions to address their concerns and move on together, unified. The Canadians will have a very different approach, how different remains to be seen.

Water Polo Canada prefaced it's comments by describing the team as "young". Their average age, by "water polo birth year" is 25. If you know human physiology that is pretty close to the peak athletic age for females. Can we expect that any team review will be tempered with age as a major factor now that we have seen it in writing as a performance qualifier? I hope not since every athlete in the country (or the NCAA or Serie AI, Italy) was eligible for selection.

If you are curious about how that team age breaks down it is like this;

@30% are 22 or younger,

@35% are 24,

@35% are 25 or older.

What is surprising is that there are only 2 athletes between the age of 25 and 29 (the same number that are over 30). I'm curious about how the three 20-21 year olds jelled with the three 29-37 year olds. That seems more interesting to me than the majority of the team that was not young and not old.

People who don't know me might think that summary is negative. Not at all, I am more interested in understanding this process, it's disappointing result and then helping make sure it does not happen again. Wonder how many others feel that way too.