Two Coaches Who Make Other Coaches Insecure

In the world of coaching swimming, there are all kinds of coaches. There are coaches who acquire almost universal admiration (think David Marsh). There are coaches who attract a cult following (Milt Nelms, Bill Boomer). There are female coaches who...well, I think we've already been over that a few times. 

But there's a special class of coaches who seem to drive other coaches mad. They do so because their presence needles away at common insecurities or frustrations. They appear to not be playing by the established set of rules, and their continued violation of these "rules" leave many making up reasoning after the fact for why they don't like them. 

Peter Andrew

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about Michael Andrew, and while much of the coverage of his swimming is rightly about him and not his coach, it's possible that Peter Andrew makes many people even more upset than his son.

What they'll say: Many people will couch their criticism of Peter Andrew in the fact that they think he does too much religious talk. This is a criticism I find weird, even as an atheist. Religion makes people happy, so good for the Andrew family. Other criticisms of the father Andrew seem to boil down to him talking about what he thinks has helped his son to be successful, of which he is probably asked ALL the time, so what else shall he say? But I digress

What really makes people feel insecure: Peter Andrew is a dad coaching his kid. In an age where the surest way to get a nice slap on the back from other coaches is to post another article about how "parents these days" are ruining sports for their kids, a parent effectively cutting professional swim coaches out of the picture and then having his son go on to be one of the world's top juniors is very threatening. 

Shane Tusup

In many ways, Shane Tusup represents a nice evolution in the "coach in a relationship with the swimmer he is coaching" progression. Tusup and Hosszu are roughly the same age and met while swimming teammates at USC. Furthermore, Tusup coaches only Hosszu, so there is no conflict of interest to worry about with another swimmer in the "group"

What they'll say: Criticisms of Tusup basically form around him behaving like a stark raving madman on the pool deck. Which, um, I guess is pretty fair. Or, they might accuse his wife of doping, which is not as fair and pretty squarely an attack on him as well given their level of intimacy. 

What really makes people insecure: Much like Andrew, if it's possible for a coach as well regarded as David Salo to be replaced by the swimmer's husband, what does that say for the rest of us? In fact, Hosszu's career has taken off since switching over to Tusup. Gulp.

What about ratios?

In both cases, I think there is something completely different at play. Coaches of college and club teams shouldn't compare what they do to the work of these two. Put simply, however much they are individualizing, they are still dividing themselves into many pieces as coach.

Coach to swimmer ratios matter. Even the best coaches in the entire world cannot do right by a big number of high ability swimmers. Shane Tusup coaching one to one is a better coach than David Salo split 50 different ways- and that's not an insult to either one. 

Want to add some individualized coaching to your own swimming or team? Write me. 

Ethics Should Matter More for a Hall of Fame

This past weekend, Mark Schubert got inducted into another hall of fame. The International Swim Coaches Association (ISCA). ISCA is ostensibly an organization that exists to provide an alternative to the American Swim Coaches Association (ASCA). I've already made my feelings about ASCA known. Unfortunately, ISCA seems headed down a similar path.

Mark Schubert is a great test case for where we are culturally as coaches. The argument that he belongs in the hall of fame is based on results of swimmers that he has coached. Three NCAA titles, multiple world record breaking swims, a lot of Olympic medalists. That argument is easy, if that were the only criteria.

And maybe it is, because when you get to the rest of Mark Schubert's record, things get pretty bad. Schubert manipulated Dagny Knutson out of a college scholarship and effectively ended the career of one of the biggest phenoms of her era through his own avarice.

After Knutson followed Schubert's false promises to Fullerton, CA, Schubert leaked rumors of the coach of that team, Sean Hutchison, having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a swimmer. He then hired a Private Investigator with Bill Jewell, who would later be sanctioned by USA Swimming for violating their code of conduct, to follow Hutchison.

His actions led to the complete dismantling of the "Center of Excellence" in Fullerton, leaving swimmers to pick up the pieces. It wasn't the first time Schubert had wielded rumors of sexual abuse to his own benefit. When Rick Curl finally got justice, Schubert tried to represent himself as someone who did the right thing, if somehow telling Chuck Wielgus was all he could do.

Remember that Schubert was not some anonymous member of the rumor mill in the Curl case- he had been informed first hand by Curl's victim, Kelley Davies Currin. 

Over in the sport swimming loves to look down its nose at, football, former Baylor coach Art Briles is so toxic that no one dare touch him. In swimming, Mark Schubert gets a hero's welcome at his old club, Mission Viejo. And an organization like ISCA, with the knowledge of all the above, deems him fit for the hall of fame.

I've heard a lot of people argue that character shouldn't be considered for a Hall of Fame. There are plenty of baseball players in Cooperstown that were terrible people (Ty Cobb comes to mind). But I think a coaching hall of fame is definitely different. Coaches should be held to a higher standard. We should be examples and mentors and principled first, then we can consider results.

Don't we have it all backwards?

Michael Andrew's Swimming Drives People Insane

Night two of the World Junior Swimming Championship taking place in Indianapolis, Michael Andrew was not having his best night. The first swim of the night went alright, with Andrew about a half second off his personal best in the 100 breaststroke.

He had tried to challenge junior world record holder Nicolo Martinenghi, but couldn't hang on the second lap and was ultimately also passed by American rival Reece Whitely.

He still had the 200 IM, the race where he held the junior world record, coming up. That race, however, was effectively over for Andrew after 50m. After an opening volley of 25.71 on butterfly, his fade began almost immediately and only got worse. The final result was more than eight seconds slower than his record. 

That was when the knives came out.

It's Over!

There exists a segment of the swimming follower population that is constantly ready to write Michael Andrew off. Why is there so much furor over a not yet 18 year old junior athlete? Because Michael Andrew violates many of the "values" that a significant portion of the swimming population holds dear.

In no particular order:

1. There are no junior "sprinters" and success at the junior or age group level in short races should be purely incidental, not something you train for. REMEMBER THAT TOM JAGER'S FIRST SENIOR NATIONAL CUT CAME IN THE 1500!

2. Young swimmers should not declare professional, certainly not at 14 like Andrew did. If this catches on then we will be just as bad as those four major sports that we try to look down our noses at.

3. Race pace training doesn't give you the endurance to be good at anything but 50s.

And on, and on, but those are the largest violations he makes. Andrew has had an incredible meet since night 2, setting world junior records in three out of the four stroke 50s. For all the people that are on the other side of one of the cultural wars above, those results have been a boon. And therein lies the biggest problem for Andrew.

Proxy War

Michael Andrew has become a proxy for people's "religious" arguments in the swimming world. I put "religious" in quotes because I'm not talking about real religion, which is an undercurrent of Andrew that I just don't feel qualified to address in this space.

I mean that when it comes to the content of swim practices, many coaches, swimmers and others tend to get a sort of religious zeal about "what works" and what doesn't. Even some of the same people who will tell you that there are "many ways up the mountain" will defend their particular path to the death. 

I'm not going to pretend I haven't occasionally fallen guilty to the same. Mostly I'm just trying to enjoy watching this kid swim. There will be plenty of more ups and downs from here, and Andrew deserves not to be a weapon for the rest of us to beat each other over the head with.

All The Opportunities of No

"No" is not a word we usually associate with opportunity. I have my own troubled history with it. It is the ultimate "negative" feedback. No means "stop, don't proceed" ,it means "I don't agree" , or even "we aren't going to do that". So where does the opportunity come in? It took me a long time to figure that out.

"No" Parenting

We often hear that "millenials", a generational group I'm lumped in with, don't hear the word no often enough. That was not my experience. In fact, I learned from a very young age not to even bother asking for what I wanted, lest I raise the ire of my mother.

I was, in other ways "spoiled". I grew up in a big expensive house in a rich town. I got a lot of things, and I never asked for them. They were what my mother wanted me to want to have. I learned the helplessness of hearing "no" from someone else. Once that other person said "no!", what could you do?. Turns out there were many situations where there were plenty of ways to go from there.

Learned "no"ptimism

I should be unambiguous about one thing. Learning "no means no" in a sexual context is absolutely the best lesson, and the rest of what I'm about to describe doesn't apply to that context.

When I left the protective womb of my elitist liberal arts college I was all of a sudden swamped with "no". I wanted to be a college swim coach, but I heard a lot of "no". Not knowing how to deal with that, I reverted to my child-like state. I guessed that I should stop asking. I soon found out I was wrong.

With new found courage (from my future wife, who couldn't understand why anyone would give up so easily), I started asking again. This time with an open mind. When I heard no from hiring coaches, I kept my cool and pressed on. What could I do to get to "yes"? How could I improve myself? What did they value?

Even more so, I learned how to absorb the ego blow of hearing no and move on from it in the same conversation. 

I learned a lot about the profession I wanted to join before I joined it this way, and it allowed me to start the most important process (networking) of my professional career.

Finding Your Own No

But still harder challenges lay ahead. After learning about all the opportunity that I got from hearing no, I still hadn't learned how to use the word myself. I said yes way too much- yes to doing that extra work, yes to the job I wasn't sure of, yes to all the endless requests from swimmers, parents, and other coaches. I said yes until I was totally overwhelmed.

I found my own no, and though I'll never quite perfect it, I can see now the opportunity it creates for others too. 

How to Explain Talent

Talent: it's a dirty word that we can't get away from in sports. The typical connotation is that talent approximates just how much innate ability a person has for something. People often add redundant qualifiers like "natural talent" or "god-given talent". 

The reason, therefore, talent has become a dirty word is the growing sense that one of the most important psychological factors for success in anything is whether you have a "growth" or "fixed" mindset. The work of Carol Dweck (and others) has done much to convince sports people and educators that having a growth mindset, i.e. believing that success in something is possible by developing and nurturing your collective abilities. 

in 2014, I sat down with the swimmers I was coaching to define talent, partly because I was growing very frustrated with their definition of it. The exercise was simple, but it did a lot to change their attitudes about how much of "talent" was about fixed traits and how much wasn't.

The List

In all, the swimmers pooled together as many as fifty characteristics they believed could go under the heading "talent". I won't repeat them here. Several different categories emerged.

First came physical skills. "Talented swimmers swim with good technique", they said, and have are good at skills like starts and turns. Talented swimmers knew how to get their hand on the wall first. 

Then came physical characteristics. These included height, the length of limbs and lean bodies. Talented swimmers were flexible and had good range of motion.

Mental characteristics made it onto the list. Talented swimmers were confident, specifically in that they believed in their ability to do things. They were "mentally tough" and could shrug off bad performances.

When we were sure that we had a comprehensive list of all the things that "talent" encompassed, I asked them to rate each thing we had written down with a simple binary.

Can you improve it? Or not?

Out of a list of fifty characteristics, we found two that couldn't be improved by some process. You cannot improve your height or the fundamental structure of your body through some process. Everything else is fair game.

Now, no one believes that we are operating on a completely even playing field. There are swimmers out there who could really give their everything and never come close to being world class. But that's not the point! Why focus on the relatively small list of things that you cannot change when there are so many that you can.

Interestingly, I've found that mental characteristics are more often seen as "fixed" by coaches, simply because they have not yet learned the processes for changing and improving these characteristics. However, nearly any of these have a simple process for improvement just like a flip turn, conditioning or freestyle catch

Want to learn more about improving your mindset for performance? Write me!

Well, This is Fun

If there is one criticism swimming nerds must take to heart it's this: our sport can be boring. One thing that often gets lost in the conversation is that swimming has fairly predictable results. This is why we have had dominant swimmers over the ages who rack up big medal totals.

This is also why many the most memorable races are the ones with unexpected results. Unpredictability is at the heart of many widely watched live sports- people feel compelled to watch because they simply can't predict what will happen.

Which brings us to some recent results. Yesterday, everyone's favorite name to say Ranomi Kromowidjojo blistered to a 22.9 in the 50 free SCM, beating the sizzling hot Sarah Sjöström at the Berlin World Cup. Witness below:

The first wonen in the world to break 23s in the 50 freestyle. @ranomikromo pic.twitter.com/6SSs3RV7sK

— Marcel Wouda (@mrwouda) August 7, 2017

Sjöström came off a World Championships where she swam to a world record in the 50 and 100 freestyle and performed her usual 50/100 Butterfly domination. What's fun about this is that Sjöström is swimming phenomenal- but on a given day Kromowidjojo can reach even higher and take a victory.

As good as Sjöström is, Kromowidjojo is perhaps the world's best technician on the start, and even in losing in Budapest she had a significant advantage in the early going. Sjöström's raw speed advantage was blunted a bit by the short course format. 

Likewise, Simone Manuel was lying in wait at the World Championships for Sjöström in the 100 freestyle. Sjöström was just a bit off, and Manuel seized the opportunity to snatch another gold. 

Like the Pellegrini win over Ledecky at the meet, these kind of results point to an ever more competitive world stage for swimming, and that means a more entertaining product. 

I'm not suggesting that it's not fun to watch envelopes pushed to the extreme that one swimmer is dominant for a period. As a swim nerd I love to watch Adam Peaty- but his races have come to take on an air of inevitability. I'm looking forward to him having a significant challenger.

In any case, this is fun, let's hope the competitive level keeps building and we can go into Tokyo with less certain winners than ever. 

How I Would Have Over Coached Sjostrom

Sarah Sjostrom is a phenomenal swimmer. Would you want to coach her? I think many coaches would say yes. The opportunity to work with an athlete on that level is a dream for a lot of coaches.

It's too easy sometimes to say to yourself that the coaches of these phenomenal swimmers are "lucky" to get some one with such "talent".

The truth of the matter is that the higher level the swimmer gets to, the harder the coaching gets. In my career I've worked with a handful of swimmers that ranked in the FINA Top 100. There is still a huge leap from that level to the level of a swimmer like Sjostrom

What I found is that I had a tendency to "over coach", to try to do too much, my first time working with a swimmer that was on a certain level. So I'm trying to do better, I'm trying to anticipate where I might go wrong should I ever get the chance with a swimmer that has Sjostrom's potential. Here's how I might have screwed it up

Stroke Finish

Sarah Sjostrom's completion of her stroke on freestyle and butterfly are something that honestly I wouldn't even think to teach someone until I saw them. Look at what happens in her freestyle. It confounds the technical discussion of "finish your stroke" versus "no, in sprinting it doesn't matter if you finish your stroke". 

More than any swimmer I have ever seen, Sarah seems to get her elbow out early, while somehow still finishing with her hand fairly far back, but with no flick of momentum with that arm up in the air. The stroke finishes hard and transfers energy into the recovery immediately, allowing her to both pull a lot of water and get a fast stroke rate. Look at this video in 0.25 speed from 2:13 (Sjostrom is in the lead):

Likewise in butterfly, Sjostrom has complete control over the finish of her stroke and is able to redirect her arms forward immediately. Compare the ease with which she recovers her stroke.

Sarah Sjostrom is one of the best "inside out" swimmers I have ever seen. The finish, the pull underwater, even her kick all come from an incredible center (the term core is politically incorrect these days) that gives her huge control over what her extremities are doing. 

Pacing

Sjostrom has just had her best freestyle meet of her career. While she has always been highly competitive in 50-100-200 freestyle, the butterfly races have been her bread and butter since age 15.

Sjostrom's butterfly pacing relies on devestating back-halfs. Her speed advantage in fly is such that she can go out in 26 low "easy" and have plenty of energy to swim the back half in 29. She tried to go out faster in Budapest and did not break her own record.

You would think that the same pacing rules might work for Sjostrom in the 100 freestyle, and maybe they will. But it's hard to argue that she should hold back in freestyle when she broke a world record and went 51.7. I would probably be even more likely to second guess this tactic after the 100 free final where she got run down by Simone Manuel.

But would we have seen 51.7 if Sjostrom had played it safe? Probably not.

Overall, Sjostrom's swimming shows a creativity and autonomy from herself as a swimmer that is unique at the top levels of swimming. The lesson we should learn as coaches is not to copy the precise movements she is making in the water, but to find out what process she (and her coach) used to create those movements.

Want help with your swimming technique? Write me.

Pellegrini Has a Strategy and Sticks to It

By Federica_Pellegrini_e_Luca_Marin.jpg: br1dotcom from Milan, Italyderivative work: Bill william compton - This file was derived from  Federica Pellegrini e Luca Marin.jpg:, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25472885i/File:Federica_Pellegrini_e_Luca_Marin.jpg" title="File:Federica Pellegrini e Luca Marin.jpg">Federica Pellegrini e Luca Marin.jpg</a>:&nbsp;<a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Federica_Pellegrini_e_Luca_Marin.jpg" class="image"></a>, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0" title="Creative Commons Attribution 2.0">CC BY 2.0</a>, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25472885">Link</a>

Federica Pellegrini will go down as one of the all-time greats. Yesterday, she beat the world's best swimmer, Katie Ledecky, in the 200 free. It was her seventh World Championship medal in a row, dating back to 2005. The result is remarkable, and Pellegrini remains somehow underrated.

The hallmark of a Pellegrini victory is her dangerous final 50. Even a superhuman like Ledecky can fall victim to Pellegrini's late race heroics. While she doesn't always win, she's won a lot of races against a lot of worthy competitors by sticking to her guns and executing a race strategy that works for her.

Let's look at some of the examples of this from the past. In 2011 Pellegrini won gold in the 200 freestyle. Look how "out of the race" she looks halfway through that one:

While Allison Schmitt and Femke Heemskerk tighten up, Pellegrini seems to calmly glide to the front of the field and then take a decisive victory, despite trailing by a body length halfway through. 

Again, it matters little to Pellegrini what the other swimmers in the water are doing. Go out fast? She believes she can catch you. Wait around? You risk leaving her too close at the final lap.. Here is Pellegrini also dispatching Heemskerk (and Hosszu) when the pace was a little lighter on the first 100 at the 2014 European Championships in Berlin:

I often think of Pellegrini as the reverse Pieter van den Hoogenband. Hoogie had a nasty habit of stealing 200 freestyles from all-time greats by setting an uncomfortable pace on the first 100. He was able to use that both to beat Thorpe in a home pool 2000 Olympic race.

Thorpe was ready for that move four years later, but a less experienced Michael Phelps would have to wait four more years for history when caught in the whirlwind of those two:

Anyway, Pellegrini's particular style means that even when she loses, it's exciting to watch her race. You never know if she's out of it, and at 28 she's still ready to teach a younger swimmer something in a World Championship final. Bravo.

Efimova's Revenge Will Define Lilly King's Career

Yesterday, America's #1 Swimming Villain Yuliya Efimova got revenge on Lilly King, She capped the victory by wagging her finger, a move that sent your average American booster in a frothing rage.

Lets set aside, for the moment, discussion of whether such taunting has a place in swimming (I believe it does). Let's also set aside arguments about Efimova's doping. Lilly King is an outstanding swimmer who has, ready or not, crossed over into a new stage of her career.

King's meteoric rise has been marked by the kind of brash, in-your-face confidence we rarely see in swimming. In a way, we can all relate to this kind of confidence. It's how you feel when you haven't realized your own mortality yet. It's a teenager speeding down a hometown road without any fear. Now that teenager has had an accident.

The history of world class swimming is littered with athletes who looked like the next best thing, rising and rising. The rising part is "easy", if you can consider anything at this level easy. It is far harder to confront reality after that first big loss, after you're not the rising star anymore. 

The pressure is now on- the only not disappointing result for King is to be better than everyone in the world. You don't have to look far back for an example of someone who rose nearly as fast as King, only to struggle after that first big disappointment.

Breeja Larson came on like a freight train leading into the 2012 Olympics. She looked like the future of breaststroke. Remember when she held off Rebecca Soni (who at that time had the world record in the 200 breaststroke) on the back half of the 100 breaststroke at the 2012 Olympic trials?

Larson would go on to a disappointing finish in London. She finished 6th at the games. Every year between 2012-2016, she regressed from her 1:05.92, despite being in a stage of her career where she should still be improving.

King will have to be very purposeful in the way she mentally prepares going forward. She cannot ignore this loss, she must deal with it emotionally re-frame her confidence. She will have to effectively confront the doubts that weren't there before.

If she does that, she can make Efimova an afterthought and do all the finger wagging she wants. 

Lia Neal Instead of Katie Ledecky on the 4x100 Relay

The World Championships in Budapest are underway, and despite some pessimistic predictions things are mostly going great for team USA. But a curious reader reached out to me to point out something strange that happened on Day 1. Why was Katie Ledecky on the 4x100 freestyle relay instead of Lia Neal?

Because, Superwoman

The obvious argument is that Katie Ledecky is just such a great once in a generation phenomenon for women's swimming that she deserves the benefit of any doubt. She's the best swimmer in the world, although Sarah Sjostrom is making that closer than it's ever been for the past few years.

When Michael Phelps was the world's best, he swam on 4x100 free relays. For the brief period of time that is quite hard to remember when Ryan Lochte was the world's best, he swam on 4x100 relays. So Ledecky should swim on 4x100 relays? Right?

Well, there's a compelling argument that she shouldn't.

Lia Neal Earned It

Hindsight is 20/20 blah blah, but very objectively we can say that Lia Neal was faster than Ledecky yesterday, but that Ledecky swam on the relay. The decision didn't have any objective cost for the American team, as they still won gold semi-comfortably. 

But Lia Neal was 53.9 in the morning from a flat start, and Ledecky produced 53.8 from a flying start at night. Swimming common sense dictates that Neal would have gain far more than .1 of a second from a flying start. 

Mitigating circumstances

On top of the strong performance of Neal, there were other reasons to use her on the 4x100 relay that night. Ledecky had the 400 free final, while Neal otherwise had the night off. Again, I know Ledecky is superwoman, but swimming a 400 free final at the World Championships will greatly decrease the chance of an outstanding relay split.

And it did just so, where Ledecky swam a pedestrian (for her) 53.8 versus the 52.7 she scorched in Rio. 

None of this is a knock on Ledecky, or on Neal for that matter. Both did their jobs yesterdays and the results were as good as they can be for the team. I can imagine that behind the scenes there was definitely some conflict over how to arrange that relay, especially with Greg Meehan having coached both swimmers.

Expect Weirdness in Budapest from Team USA

A friend of mine (for the sake of protecting his anonymity, let's call him G. McCaffrey) pointed out an anniversary of sorts the last time we talked. With the World Championships in Budapest (the pool portion) about to get underway, it was time for my annual bed-wetting about American swimming.

But nine years in, I've learned my lesson. In the year after the Olympics, the US team usually takes a dip from "extremely dominant" to "dominant" on the world stage. That is nothing to wet the bed over. However, if you don't follow your history, you might be tempted to get concerned as the results unfold next week in Hungary. 

That's why I'm hear with this message: expect weirdness in Budapest. What kind of weirdness? I'm glad you asked. I'll give you a historical example and then take some guesses.

The Relay Blunder of 2009

It's hard to fathom the US every missing a relay final in international competition. That very thing happened in 2009, when the Women's 4x100 Medley squad only managed 10th in the preliminary session

Yes, some of the swimmers on that relay didn't perform to their potential, but the US also elected to not use their fastest stroke swimmer in either backstroke, butterfly or breaststroke. For freestyle the coaches went with a swimmer who didn't even make the 4x100 night relay. Weird indeed.

More Than Just "No Phelps"

A US slip in the medal count will undoubtedly be attributed to "No Phelps" so I won't focus on that obvious narrative. There are other events in which the US all of a sudden finds it's position far less certain than 2016 and could lead to some Budapest Bed wetting:

1. The Men's 1500 Freestyle: The loss of Connor Jaeger puts the US well behind the world standard in this race, in fact our results from trials would have last looked promising for a medal even twenty years ago.

2. Women's Butterfly: Dana Vollmer's continued excellence is on pause to create life again, leaving the US without their most consistent butterfly Olympic medal threat. While the US has some promising swimmers in all distances, they need considerable improvement to make the medal stand in Budapest.

3. Women's IM: Likewise the women's IM are hurting for the kind of performances that Maya DiRado gave us in Rio. As good as Melanie Margalis and Leah Smith swam, there's another level for them to find to break through at this meet. 

4. Ryan Murphy is beatable: Ryan Murphy was the best non-Phelps male swimmer for the US Team in Rio. He crushed Australian Mitch Larkin's dreams and effectively ended the 4x100 Medley relay on the opening leg. But he looked far more human at Trials, He's a candidate for a "swoon" the same way that Phelps himself took a bit of a backwards step in 2005 Montreal

That said, most swimmers would probably kill for a disappointing Ryan Murphy swim.

Ultimately, the post Olympic World Championship meet is always good for a reshuffling of the world swimming deck, and even if the US team seems only normally dominant, any step back always seems to motivate them to crush the rest of the world by the end of the Olympic cycle. 

What's Going on In West Chester?

It's been four months since Jamie Rudisill announced that he was going to retire after 29 years at West Chester University. There are times when a coach "steps down" and you have to sift through coded language from an athletic director to find out that the breakup was not mutual.

This was not one of those times. Here is the quote from West Chester AD Dr. Edward Matejkovic:

"I am not sure that the string of championships that he has engineered can be duplicated".

Rudisill has been successful at West Chester in many ways through sheer will and ingenuity. As the article notes, the learn to swim program that Rudisill developed at West Chester teaches 4000 (!!!!) kids a year. 

So it's a bit curious four months later that there has been no public anything in regards to replacing Rudisill at West Chester. None of the possible scenarios are really good for the West Chester Swimming and Diving program.

Scenario 1: Internal Hiring Process

The lack of even a job posting seeking candidates for Rudisill's position could mean that they are searching for his replacement internally. Perhaps Scott Elliot (see edit below) who has done such a tremendous job as age group coach for Golden Ram Aquatics (as well as helping with the college team) could be sliding up. (EDIT: After finishing this, I got confirmation from multiple sources that Scott Elliot has just passed away from Cancer.)

But if that was the idea, they have done the team no favors with four months of no news. Furthermore, an internal hire's whole advantage is that you can do it quickly and move on without all the inefficiency of a new hire. This is the worst of both worlds

Scenario 2: There's a new AD

One of the things that can slow up hiring processes is if there are key decision making personnel missing in the athletic department. In West Chester's case, the previously mentioned Dr. Edward Matejkovic also retired this Spring. 

West Chester put an interim tag on Terry Beattie (who was already at the school) and he remains in that role months later. So it could be that West Chester is basically paralyzed, waiting to either have a new AD so they can hire new coaches, or for their current interim have that tag lifted so they can proceed.

Scenario 3: There is no hiring plan

None of these scenarios are exclusive of one another. Perhaps there is so much disorder that there is simply no plan for West Chester for how they will replace Rudisill. Which is a shame because the market is only shrinking for possible replacements they could get, and much of what Rudisill accomplished will need to continue running smoothly to ensure future success.

EDIT: After finishing this post, I got information from multiple sources that Jamie Rudisill's retirement would not be "official" until August, and that current assistant coach Steve Mazurek will be taking over. Mazurek is a West Chester alumn and no stranger to the team after serving as an assistant coach there for nine years.

If you have any information on what's going on at West Chester University, write me!

The Recruiting Fallacy in College Coaching

Recruiting. If you have ever held a college coaching job, applied to a college coaching job, or talked to a college coach, you have probably heard this word more than you'd ever like to. Recruiting is the lifeblood of college athletic programs, and most coaches will admit that it is at least as important as your actual coaching ability at this level.

That is true. Recruiting is incredibly important. It's also something anyone can learn to do, and may already have a lot of skills for that they don't even know. Coaches who look past well-qualified coaches because of lack of "recruiting" experience do so at their own disadvantage.

This is one of many reasons that college coaching remains a weird, cliquish sub-culture in the swimming world. Every year, hundreds of otherwise nice resumes face rejection from the college ranks because of this.

What is recruiting? For one thing, recruiting is marketing a college swimming program. A club coach who runs their own business may have experience with marketing. Now, in college coaching you have to deal with NCAA rules around how you can market.

These rules are made by what I can only assume are miserable people paid to ask the question "What would the most insane college football coach try to do to get an edge?" and then get their legislative pens out.

Recruiting is also sales. You sell to a family and a student athlete the promise of studying and swimming at your school. Coaching any kind of practice is it's own kind of sales job- after all you will not be successful as a coach if your swimmers are not "buying" the workouts you are "selling".

In fact, career club coaches can bring a lot to the table that career college coaches cannot when it comes to recruiting. Many of them have way more "reps" in their back pocket interacting with families and high school age swimmers.

They have seen the process from the other side and know what works and what doesn't. They have sat and wondered "why doesn't (anonymous college coach) just call me? Don't they know I could help them right now?".

The final absurdity is the notion that coaches without college experience are a great risk to commit NCAA violations. It doesn't hold water- especially when you consider how easy it is to pass a NCAA recruiting test (an open book test on one chapter of the NCAA manual) and the infrastructure that athletic departments have built in compliance to prevent this very thing.

Ultimately, the divide that exists between the skill set it takes to be a successful college coach and a successful club coach is not as great as the hiring market would indicate. College swimming would benefit from a more open coaching pool, and individual programs that see the opportunities in hiring "club only" coaches will gain a competitive advantage.

Are you looking for help getting involved in college coaching? Write me

Virginia Should Hire Stefanie Moreno

For the second time in four years, the University of Virginia finds itself without a head coach. Their previous boss man, Augie Busch, is leaving to coach the program his father led to a national championship. Swimswam commenters do not seem terribly positive about Busch, to say the least. 

I'm not here to join that flame war. Let's talk about something positive. Who should UVA hire to replace the departing Busch. They should hire Stefanie Moreno! If you're asking who that is, it is possible that you know her by her maiden name, Williams.

Let's review some reasons why Moreno would do a great job coaching in Charlottesville:

1. Her debut at Missouri: Moreno began her college coaching career at Missouri. Look, what I'm about to say addresses a perception that is completely unfair, but as long as it's out there, we might as well address it. She established that she could coach both men and women on a combined program.

Actually, it's probably fair to ask whether all coaches that will coach combined teams can coach both men and women, it's just that the question is most frequently posed in relation to women coaching men, as if all women coaches have to get an imaginary "can coach men" certification to proceed. But I digress

Missouri athletes from that era. have told me how well Moreno stepped right in and established herself as a leader on their team

2. Setting a new course for Ohio State- Moreno was tabbed to help Bill Dorenkott take over the Ohio State women's program in 2008. The program was far from where it is today, finishing 8th at the 2009 Big Ten Championships, Moreno's and Dorenkott's first year.

By the next year, they would move up to 5th. The year after that? 3rd and a 17th place finish at the NCAAs. Moving from 8th to 3rd in a competitive conference in a couple years is no small feat, which, along with her alumni connections, is probably what drew her back to...

3. Help begin a new era of dominance for Georgia- Great results, especially for women, are easy to pass over at Georgia. But even by Bulldog standards, Moreno's time in Athens has been exceptional. Georgia has won three out of five NCAA Championships during her time.

But the UGA men have also improved greatly since Moreno arrived, culminating with their huge presence on the recently selected World Championship team. 

Moreno has paid her dues, now it's time for her to take the reins of a program of her own. If UVA has a "search committee" or is doing a "national search" this is exactly where they should look.

Stefanie Moreno for UVA Coach 2017!

Are you looking to get hired by a college team or a college coach looking to improve your hiring? Write me.

Teri McKeever Got Screwed Again

Here's a shocker for you: the 2017 American World Championship coaching staffs are out and there are no women. As usual, Teri McKeever is the biggest snub, but the fact that she stands alone as a female with a strong objective argument for being on the team is a problem of its own.

So let's discuss McKeever's case first, before we get into the extremely alarming state of women in coaching. The decision to leave McKeever was probably made on some objective grounds, so as to avoid any sense that this was personal. 

It's worth noting that head coach Greg Meehan was rightfully lauded for using his powerful position at Stanford to promote female coaching.

USA Swimming's official selection criteria does not specify how coaches were chosen, so the following is an educated guess on my part. 

Coaches were selected by having the highest level performer- This system is used across the world in many cases and many different forms. Perhaps swimmers were rank-ordered in terms of FINA points, the measure that purportedly compares performances in different events.

They also could have made the coach selection based on number of events qualified for, in which Leah Smith of Virginia has more events than Abbey Weitzeil and Kathleen Baker of Cal. 

Selection on such criteria reveals a deep flaw in the way in which we evaluate coaches, all the way down to the lowest levels. We tend to single out coaches best possible result instead of the totality of their work.

McKeever's longstanding track record of producing top international results would be a huge asset to the US squad. Any subjective criteria should have selected her to the staff, as she would provide much needed "big meet" experience to the squad.

To the larger point, male coaches need to continue to advocate for women at all levels to right this situation. On the college level, this means going beyond the silly "quota hiring" and actually finding and retaining top female coaches.

At the club level, we should all be pushing together to make coaching swimming less of a "family killer" because that would be better for all of us, not just women. 

Warren Buffet famously said that he only had to compete with half the population, and the same could be said for many of the elite male coaches out there. If you truly love the sport of swimming, you want to see the best coaches on the deck. It's on us to make sure that this far from fair system.

Want help improving your hiring process? Write me

The Tipping Point of College Hiring

We have crossed the threshold of July, which means that in the annual game of musical chairs that is college swimming hiring, things are changing from a hirers to a job seekers market.

Although to be fair, when you look at the compensation for many of these college jobs (low) and the quality of people applying for them (high), it's fair to say that it is always a good market for those hiring. This is not to mention the ever-shrinking market of available jobs as programs face the cutting axe. 

Still, the best time to be hiring for an open position in college swimming is the spring. The spring is when coaches who are already established where they are think about making a change. The spring is a safe time to throw your name out there and see what happens.

The spring is also a time when there is little time pressure. Recruiting in many places is at its most relaxed point. The next season is well in the distance.

The warm and fuzzy happy hiring period lasts into July, when all of a sudden the pressure of a missing piece ramps up. 

As the summer progresses, chairs get filled. The pool of available, experienced candidates that want to change jobs shrinks. This is especially true the farther down you are on the college food chain. If Cal or Texas were looking for a head coach, they would get very good applicants in the middle of winter.

But for many other teams, the dwindling applicant pool and the pressure of a missing piece in recruiting or on the pool deck can really start to tip the balances in favor of those who apply.

The college hiring game of musical chairs lasts for months, sometimes with seemingly no end as open positions appear under often strange, poorly explained circumstances into September, October and even later.

The late period can be really great for "foot in the door" types who just want to get in but have found themselves rebuffed by the insider nature of college coaching. This is your opportunity to make your case and get someone to take a chance on you.

Want help with your college coaching job search? Write me. 

Why David Marsh Makes Perfect Sense At UC San Diego

I don't pretend to know David Marsh very well. I've met him a couple of times. But it appears there are many people out there who also don't know David Marsh very well weighing in with rumors about what he might do. A lot of those people were shocked to hear that he would take over as Head Coach of UC San Diego.

Marsh, who's coaching resume means that he has had his name floated for every "extra super high profile" coaching opening for what seems like over a decade, is probably not what a lot of people expected to take over a program transitioning from Division 2 to Division 1 swimming.

But Marsh to UC San Diego makes a ton of sense, and speaks to the changes in the landscape since Marsh left college coaching to incubate a pro group in Charlotte, North Carolina. Let's tick off some obvious reasons why this move makes sense

1. San Diego is by all accounts a lovely place to live. Beautiful weather year round. One of the trickiest aspects of building professional swimming is making places to have professional swimming attractive to adult athletes, while balancing that areas that are attractive to people in their 20s and 30s are often expensive.

But my guess is that San Diego will be a much better draw for professional swimming talent than Charlotte was, even if it appears that Charlotte will continue to have professional swimmers.

2. The Bob Bowman affect. There are only a few truly creative people in charge of hiring swim coaches in the college system. One such person is Ray Anderson of ASU, who went for broke to get Bob Bowman to cross the country and take over a struggling team. Bowman's instant success has essentially provided a model for what Marsh will be doing in San Diego. 

3. UC San Diego will see a talent boom in coaching. Likewise, San Diego will be an attractive destination for coaches, and now doubly attractive with David Marsh running the show. As I once said in a video, being a head coach of a combined program is far more about managerial skill than coaching skill. 

David Marsh is perhaps swimming's top manager. He has figured out how to scale his own coaching ability by finding great coaches to work for him and putting them in positions to be really successful. A great example from the very successful Charlotte training group was that he had Bob Groseth, a vastly overqualified assistant coach, roaming the pool deck with him. 

You can expect UC San Diego to be an even better platform for Marsh to put coaches in strong positions to be successful and find a way to create positively imbalanced situations like Groseth's.

It will be exciting to see what happens in the next few years in NCAA Division 1 Swimming, as there are for the first time in my memory five or more teams who are honestly pulling out all the stops to win a NCAA Championship.

Want creative ideas on hiring to make your team better? Write me!

Aerobic Base is A Myth

It's amazing that in 2017 people still believe in aerobic base. Although, I guess when you compare this to people believing the earth is flat, the belief that you can magically hold on to a training effect for months or even years of de-training sounds fairly innocent.

Witness this interview from the most likable person in swimming, Elizabeth Beisel:

Beisel returned from months away and can still swim a pretty slick 400 IM. She credits the "base" of her training from years of high volume work with both Chuck Batchelor of Attleboro Bluefish and Gregg Troy at Florida for her continued ability to put up solid times in an endurance event.

All credit due to both men, who coached Beisel to a long stretch of outstanding, world class swimming. I have never met Troy, but I have met Chuck Batchelor. He is a wonderful guy who has done a lot to raise the standard of what was quite a depressing LSC prior to his arrival.

But Beisel's claims are very tame when it comes to some of the whoppers I've heard about aerobic base. I've heard at various times over the years how a strong "base" was key to Tom Jager's 50 freestyle performances in the 1980s, or basically any older swimmer that hardly trains and can still reproduce best times or near best times.

When I myself produced a best time in a 100 training three times a week and roughly 1000 yards a practice (at age 27), many people told me it must be due to my "base" even though it had been five years since I had done anything that was then considered "aerobic" training in swimming

To me, these performances say far more about how far we have yet to get with the sophistication of swim training systems. The fact that there is such a relatively small dip in performance from an athlete like Beisel, or any number of post-collegiate athletes after months of de-training indicates to me that the training is not making as big of a difference as we would like. 

I don't believe in magic, and I don't believe in training adaptations that last forever. As far as we've come in swimming, there is an incredible level of performance waiting for us in the future if we embrace how primitive the methods we have for improving swimmers are right now. 

Do you want to try and swim faster, practicing less time than you do now? Write me

Professional Swimming Starts From the Ground Up

Let me first say that Katinka Hosszu is absolutely right. Swimming is not a professional sport. Although she herself has been able to make a profession out of it through pure prize money, and yet others have strung together enough sponsorships to stay afloat, there is nothing resembling what we consider a true professional class in swimming.

She is right to rail against FINA, which is absolutely corrupt to the core and disinterested in creating a professional sport. Likewise, we should not look to the governing bodies, who invest far more heavily in non-swimming personnel than directly funding athletes. She is right to say that "it has always been right in front of us"

Swimming is a sport where sizable amounts of money changes hands, but surprisingly very little of it gets into the pockets of the people who add the most value to the sport. The bureaucracies we have in place are designed to enrich a select few, and leave the rest fighting each other over scraps.

It's not surprising that some swimmers whined and complained for the rule changes to World Cups that hurt someone like Hosszu. They are fighting for the survival of their meager professional careers. Two things are obvious:

A swimmer of Hosszu's stature should not have to compete for prize money to make a living in the first place. She is right to be firing off at the power players in Hungarian Swimming, who have had little to do with her success but nevertheless are enriched for it while she hustles every weekend.

When I coached in Denmark, Lotte Friis, the woman who almost beat Ledecky, was barely able to sustain her swimming career to the 2016 Olympics. I helped to broker a meager sponsorship through a private donor to help her continue to train and prepare. What did we get in exchange? We got our club represented by one of the most selfless, wonderful athletes our sport has ever seen. 

Many were critical. "What a waste of money" they said. I couldn't disagree more. We should all, from the ground up, be looking for ways to support the elite athletes of our support to a manageable level. My only regret was that we weren't able to find a way to support Lotte more. Only then will we see more athletes with the security to put on a show the way Hosszu has done for so many years.

Only when we make it inevitable from the very bottom of swimming's bureaucracy do we have a chance of breaking the stranglehold of corruption that holds all of us down. We cannot wait for federations, or USA Swimming, or FINA or (ugh) ASCA.

Athletes may form a union, but that union will be useless unless the rest of us, the rank and file of the swimming world, rally behind them wherever we can. We need to see supporting the top level of swimming as valuable to every level below it, not as some petty waste of resources.

The Power of Crying In Sports

Two weeks after my daughter was born I found myself a blubbering mess. I was watching the Star Trek movie (the 2009 reboot). The opening scene has James Kirk's father sacrificing himself so that his wife (who is in labor) and crew can escape certain death. He lives to hear the first sounds of his son but never sees him.

In that moment I was heartbroken for a movie character. However silly it might have been, the catharsis was real. Like most men, especially athletes and coaches, crying was not something I did often. It was much later that I realized how weak that made me. 

A League of Our Own

Sports suffers from a hyper masculinity complex. To reference another movie, Tom Hanks said "there's no crying in baseball", but he was absolutely wrong. There should be plenty of crying in baseball.

Think about what crying actually is: a raw display of emotion. Sometimes we cry when we are sad, or feeling great joy or love. But crying is just a physical display of the emotions we are feeling. 

We cannot control our emotions, but we can control our reaction to emotions. So many of us, especially men in sports, have learned that despite the sadness, joy or love we might feel in a moment it is bad and weak for us to wear that emotion so visibly.

Worse yet, as coaches we can often struggle to deal with athletes who cry when they are in a heightened emotional state. I have often heard coaches mutter about athletes crying, especially around big competitions. 

The truth is, at least athletes who can release their emotions in this way are in touch with how they are feeling. Yes, crying can cross over and be "too much", but I find more often than not, it is over-suppressed in sports. 

Coaches should be working on emotional skills with their athletes rather than shunning tears. That means bringing some of our less in touch athletes out of their shell. It also means that we need to build a runway for emotional athletes to land their plane safely.

Sports should not be an arena for emotional suppression, rather it should be a healthy place where we learn to harness powerful emotions for the good of ourselves and those around us.

Want to learn more about getting athletes out of their shell or safely landing the plane? Write me.