The order of the debate thus far goes  Jussie, Tonza, Andre and then a reply from the man himself, Len Johnson. Tonza has another go, and finally we hear from a real life quality athlete, AV handbook coverboy Neil Brennan. Back to Jussie and then another 'insider' Tim Crosbie.

Jussie was first to put his thoughts down on paper.

Well, it was good to see that aths got some press again on the weekend. It was also heartening to note that someone, Len Johnson, was prepared to state the obvious and point out that our middle distance runners are struggling in a big way. What was disappointing was that he continued on in the typical manner in which athletics is covered locally and looked after the reputations of a few mates.

OK, so Herb and Ralph feel that our middle distance runners aren't training hard enough? There may be some truth in that, I don't watch them train, I wouldn't know. Len doesn't, can't, in fact, watch them train either, but he is quite sure that Ralph is “demonstrably wrong”. A good piece of investigative journalism, there, I would say...

What bothers me about this sort of stuff and the way that it perpetuates the nepotism in the sport is that neither Elliot nor Doubell are quoted, or questioned, yet Norm Osborne is given a chance to prove his “most respected” status by replying to Johnson’s queries. This is most convenient as it can be safely assumed that they were always going to be in agreeance, and Johnson wasn't going to “diss” his mate. Similarly, as per reports in The Age, Chris Wardlaw has never made a mistake…something that has nothing to do with the fact the Johnson has been a friend and co-runner of Wardlaw for some time.

The idea of the top runners going somewhere to train under one “super-coach” is interesting and raises a couple of questions. Firstly, what if the athlete doesn't want to move interstate to train with a medium to large group under a coach they don't know or respect? The first objective of any coach should be to develop an environment in which the athletes are happy to train within. What chance is there of the athletes training better and harder if they don't want to be in Melbourne, for example, in the first place? There are too many unsettling aspects of such a move to believe that the results will be beneficial.

The other, more interesting question, is what hope is there for an athlete not in this group to be selected for a national team? It is hard enough convincing the powers that be of your worth for a team as it is, how are you supposed to do it from outside “the group”? To me, this sounds like an attempt to give Wardlaw, Osborne, possibly Clohessy and Telford too much control over a select group of runners, something that cannot be healthy, and as Charlie Walsh has shown, can do more damage than good. For what it is worth, ask Lucy Tyler-Sharman how this sort of operation works?

We should be encouraging Elliot and Doubell to get involved and understand that it doesn't make any sense to keep patting certain people on the back without asking some hard questions about their abilities and motives. Our “most respected” coaches may be part of the reason some athletes are not making teams or reaching finals, the last thing we want to do is give them absolute control over all our athletes.

Your Loving Son,
Queen Victoria

P.S. Dick Telford must be a good coach, he coaches three out of our top four female 1500m runners in three different cities…now that is talent. Sign him up.

Tonza added a less well structured diatribe that I have edited down to an indication of disappointment that Len Johnson's interest in Athletics doesn't extend as far as voting in our survey, but then we could say that about all the staff at Athletics Victoria also... He then came back with something much more substantial:

Let's look at the facts...In general we're struggling at the top level... 

Australian men's 800m record is 30 years old...Hanigan 1:45.74 (45th in the world) Men's 1500m...no one can get within 12-13 seconds of El Guerrouj's WR or within 6-7 secs of an internationally competitive time of 3:32...Best Holt Hardy 3.38.24 (74th in the world)...The fact that he was voted into someone's top 10 says a lot about how much people involved in middle distance running are kidding themselves... 

Australian women's 800: Lewis 2.01.27 (63rd in the world) she's improving, and given time could take the 3 seconds off that is required (at least) to be internationally competitive 1500 Dawson 4.12.13 (89th) this event struggled this year without Marg Crowley... 

Why??? A number of issues... 

1) Aths is struggling to attract competitors in general...a greater depth of talent would increase the pressure on the top athletes meaning you couldn't win a nationals (1500) in 3.40 +. Currently the top seems to have stagnated...no one is leading the push to improve, they just seem to be happy running slow times and trying to win meaningless national and state titles...It would be good to see a couple of guys have a "dip" at one of the major local races...go through quickly, working together, rather than relying on a couple of Kenyans, or a pacemaker, who *everyone* knows isn't going to finish - they might get beaten but at least they'd know they gave it a shot!...the number of times I've seen a pacemaker pull out, wrecked after going through half a second outside what they were asking, but the group is 2-3 metres off him, worrying about each other! 

2) The "protect your buddies" type attitude that permeates throughout aths in Australia means that a small group of coaches/administrators controls too much of the way aths is run (you'll note that this has been brought up in other articles on this site). Len Johnson's article showed signs of this....why are the coaches mentioned the best at preparing athletes for major races? They're obviously NOT doing it at the moment. Athletes from outside the "group" sometimes don't even get a chance to be "prepared" (note Greg Lyons was probably the stiffest person to miss out on KL...ahead of Dave Baxter, and WAY ahead of the publicity machine Nova Peris). Osborne, Wardlaw, Clohessy and Telford, have their athletes...let's see them improve. (Telford is supposedly coaching in 4 cities at once...Hmmmm). Yes getting together the top athletes to train IS a good idea, BUT it has to be done in the correct way...forcing athletes to a single central group takes away their choices...something which Len Johnson's "supergroup" would do...join us or don't even bother thinking about making a national team. I feel it would be better if there were 3 or 4 groups around the country ...set up by the athletes who want to improve...where top level training takes no 1 priority. This means that the aim is to improve...not win nationals against your mates in slow times...the emphasis should be on improving everyone's times substantially, so that when you do beat you friends it's at an international competition, in fast time...not at some 2-bit state title. What it comes down to is finding the right people to take you to the next level...and if that isn't Norm Osborne then fine...I don't think the coach is necessarily the no. 1 issue, the group must be focussed, and prepared to work...the wrong people in the group and the impetus that the coach gives the athletes is lost. 

3) That the best middle distance runners in the history of this country are ridiculed in the media because they dare say that the current athletes are "not much". Personally I think Elliot and Doubell deserve a bit more respect than they've been given...OK, it might seem like jumping the gun for them to say "the athletes aren't training hard enough", but they're just stating an opinion...currently the Australians are a non factor in world middle distance running, why? There are only about 3 possible answers...they're not training properly, they don't know how to race, or they're not talented enough... Let's discount the 3rd, since Australians have had the talent in the past, so it must be possible for an Australian to run competitively...(but then again maybe the talent isn't being found...point the finger at athletics administrators there). Not racing properly can almost be discounted as well...they're too far off the required times for it to be "all" down to racing methods...this leaves NOT TRAINING properly...not necessarily not enough, just not properly, aand since all of the top athletes seem to be from the groups Len Johnson mentions, those coaches MUST take some responsibility... Elliot and Doubell do speak an element of truth...there's something wrong with the training of middle distance runners in this country...it's time to rectify it... 

Andre finally put in his two cents worth... and managed not to "dis" poor Mr.Johnson

Is there an easy solution here?  NO

Do we know what the problem is? YES… too few quality runners running too slow. 

What do we need? More information… e.g. why do all these runners have different coaches? What goals are the coaches setting for their athletes? Do they believe these athletes are capable of running 3.32-3 or 1.43.5 (or 4.05 or 1.58)? What are other countries doing (such as Spain, Italy, Romania) to produce athletes of this quality in these events? Are any of these Australian coaches capable of getting these athletes into the quality races they need?

A few points we might want to consider:  Can we learn anything from past experience?  What was Simon Doyle doing right when he ran 3.31 a few years back?  Who was coaching him? Was he in a quality group or did he do it solo? How did he get into the quality races in Europe? 

Australia's biggest problem doesn't tend to be producing quality juniors - there is a long-list of Aussies who have managed to run 3.45 or better for 1500m as a junior male, or 4.14 as a female.  Do we remember names like Paulin, Abbott, Cleary, Schuwalow, Walsham, Power (x2) and Raines-White?  Each of these was lauded as the next big thing, some kicked on, most didn't.  The sport has to ensure these runners are kept in the sport, and encouraged to take the next big step.

Tonza points out the gulf between Australia's best and the rest of the world.  The real problem is depth.  Only two men broke 3.40 last year, only 5 were inside 1.47 for 800m.  Something needs to happen that encourages more fast races.  My argument should be to bring out some fast runners from overseas, put in some pacemakers and let the Aussies chase them home.  Unfortunately this has already been tried for several seasons and we've yet to see anyone step up for the challenge - except for Cleary at the Nike Classic a couple of years back.  Maybe start making it a little harder to get into national championships.  Make the qualifying marks for athletes over the age of say 22 a few seconds quicker. Runners training to run 3.45 rather than 3.50 (4.30 instead of 4.40 for the women) to get to the nationals in the first place might find the better quality training is doable. Okay its not a brainwave but it might be a step in the right direction. 

We told Len Johnson about the page and he responded thus:

Your respondent has seized on the one issue that I wanted to debate to leave behind -- that is, what is the best training method/who is the best coach. The main suggestion in the article was not that every middle-distance runner in the country should ditch his or her coach, move to Melbourne (or is it Canberra? or even Brisbane?, gee, it's hard to guess which of those four coaches I do favour), but to suggest that they should show a greater spirit of cooperation, and get together to target specific races and go for the increasingly-tough qualifying times (in case it hasn't made AA's site yet, the Seville, and therefore Sydney, A-qualifier for 1500 is now even faster -- 3:36.8, I think). 

As for attacking Doubell, this is a double standard as Doubell has already publicly dated the "decline'' in Australian standards to the start of the 1980s when Pat Clohessy moved to the AIS. Sounds like a personal attack from where I sit. 

My comment that Ralph is demonstrably wrong on some issues? Well that is based on what he has said in public forums, where he has incorrectly attributed long slow distance (which he did not define but is generally assumed to be 8-minute mile pace) to be a part of the Lydiard/Clohessy training program, and where he has confused high-volume low-intensity reps (20x400, etc) with quality work. I did not address these points again as I had already done so in a piece published in the Sept-Oct edition of Australian Athlete. As I was summarising the arguments in the Sunday Age piece, I did not feel the need to rehash them. Given the response, perhaps I should have. Mea culpa. 

Norm Osborne can speak quite well for himself, but his comment that Ralph has not bothered to ask what he is doing, much less come to have a look at it, is revealing, is it not? 

A final point on this, since 1983, the year from which Ralph Doubell dates the "decline'', Hillardt and Doyle have successively improved the Australian 1500 and one mile records; seven of the top 10 1500 all-time have been run; five of the top 10 all-time miles have been run. In the women's 1500, the Australian record has been broken (twice) and eight of the top 10 times runs. Given the way the world has moved, and also the stagnation in Australian the most recent two or three seasons, that's nothing to brag about, perhaps, but neither is it evidence of a headlong decline. 

What we have to be about now is addressing the present problem and getting people qualified for Seville and Sydney, and for that we need cooperation and coordination. You can argue about training methods at the pub until the cows come home. There is no time for Ralph and Herb to tell people they are doing it all wrong. If they want to play a constructive role, they should get out and inspire as the outstanding role models that both of them are. 

On giving us approval to print his response Len also provided some facts on qualifying.

One note, I've since checked the Seville qualfying times and the 1500 is
3:36.8. For the MD events I mentioned in the article, the qualifying times are
Men: 800 -- A 1:46.30/B 1:47.20; 1500 A 3:36.8/B 3:39.50; steeple A 8:27.00/B 8:30.70
Women: 800 - A 2:00.50/B 2:02.50; 1500 - A 4:08.00/B 4:12.00.

Of course, Aths Australia will set AA standards even tougher than this for
automoatic qualification. These are likely to be sub-1:46/3:36, sub-8:25
and sub 2:00/4:08.

Tonza fired this conciliatory reply right back:

That's a fair reply I'd say...the point on cooperation is a good one and is required when it comes to making the grade...if all of the top groups did talk, rather than playing political games, things would definitely be better...  Whatever happens though there must be a degree of change...or there'll be no Australian lining up in the heats of the 1500 at the Sydney Olympics, let alone in the final! 

The decline can't be measured from a date eg 1983...Doyle was running in the "big league" in very recent history, what is true though is that at the moment the middle distance events (in particular 1500m) seems to be at one of their lowest points...the challenge is to climb out of the trough in time to produce quality performances that will advertise athletics to Australian children at Sydney in 2000...because if we don't win the kids then, they aren't coming back for a long time...but if an Australian stood on the podium in the 1500 in 2000, the tracks would be full of kids for years to come... 

If I had to put my involvement in athletics down to one event, it would be DeCastella vs Ikaanga, marathon, Brisbane C'wealth games...I was 9...! This is why athletics must somehow get it's act together *quickly*, time is short! Cooperation, as Len Johnson said, is necessary, and so is the swallowing of pride amongst some athletes and coaches in local championships and events, who cares if you win in 3:40, you aren't going to Spain or Sydney, but if you lose in 3:35 you may! 

Neil Brennan is a Mentone and Bayside 800m runner who ran 1.51.79 in 1996 as a 17 year-old. He has titled his piece "Thoughts of a baby distance runner".

While the perils of Aus. middle distance runners is a never ending topic it also one worth pursuing and it is good to see people are at least worrying about our poor stocks. It seems that there are two central themes: 1) We are not training hard enough and 2) We are too isolated from each other to get good benefit from our training. 

The first point is always the stock response of any former great. While they all have my utmost respect for what they have achieved it gets a bit like hearing your parents say 'In my day son... ' You know the drill. For instance discounting '98 Australians medalled in the last three World Junior 800's. Did these 3 athletes stop training hard or are there other reasons why they have not gone on as well as they and all Australian aths fans would have liked? Hanigan who ran the fastest of the three as a junior has been battling all manner of injuries for as long as anyone can remember. Byrne made the Olympic semi final on pretty close to one leg and Cremer although getting a name for his regular DNF's last year posted four runs in the 1.46's. Add to this the likes of Paul Cleary - Chronic Fatigue, Michael Power - US College, Shaun Creighton -moved into longer distances because of injuries in steeplechase and of course Simon Doyle who threw it away due to his injuries and maybe it is not that we are not training hard but not as smart as we think we are. Perhaps the shortage of depth is highlighted when a big name gets injured? But if we can somehow get our top juniors to top seniors fully fit we may be able to solve some of our problems. 

The group idea may be one way of assessing when people are training incorrectly and correcting any problems. I personally, after slogging through a year on my lonesome coming back from injury, really do believe in the strength of a large quality group to lift up your spirits. But this will not work for every one and will obviously make things very cliquey at the top of the tree, which is not a good thing. I will be very interested to see the development of Dick Telford's group of juniors in Canberra. Without wishing to be controversial when I first heard the idea I worried how well Paul Fenn would handle himself as opposed to Mark Thompson who I assumed would thrive there. Not knowing the facts it would seem that Thommo has thrived (fifth world junior 5km, 14:05) and Martin Dent is also doing well (Australian Junior Cross Country Champion), Fenn only managed 8th in the same race and was disqualified in his heat of the 1500m in France when he finished well back. It is very tough to pick up and move half way across the country is what I'm saying and it takes a certain type to do it, but perhaps it is what is required to get more athletes onto the world stage. If this kind of group mentality could be developed it would perhaps seem more acceptable to aspiring juniors who will want to come and train with the big boys. 

 Back to the Top

Jussie thought he could get in the final word...

Thanks Len.

I think we were all very happy with your reply, and from my own point of view, I would like to say that my personal, cynical view of the world is much better at starting arguments than winning them. 

I agree with a lot of your suggestions, yet see a great danger in it further alienating athletes who are on the fringe, or outer of a successful group. Athletics is an individual sport which encourages people to go out perform on their own, but to receive the benefits you have to be seen to play the party line held by various institutes. Without their support, many athletes will be lost before given an opportunity to maximise their potential. Your story seems to strengthen this view by highlighting the handling of Osborne and Clohessy by the AIS and the personal attacks (hitherto unknown to myself) levelled at and by Doubell. It is all vicious politics which seems to require athletes either being part of a particular group or wanting to "stick it up them", unfortunately there is not much in between.

I am all for encouraging athletes to congregate for competition, but it can be no one's fault but the athletes themselves if they see a state title in 3.43 as being true reward for a lot of hard training.

Anyway, whilst we have our web page to debate these topics endlessly, I have to ask how you knew we started off discussing this in the pub? Scary.

Cheers, Justin

P.S. For the hell of it, I will point out that tonight I will run behind (a long way behind) a club member who represented Australia at the World Junior Cross Country Champs as a 17 year old, with two more championships ahead of him and who was flatly refused support from the VIS for not having any results on the board, just a couple of months before leaving for Morocco. Forgive me if I'm cynical as to who you have to train with to get anything...

Back to the Top

Tim Crosbie is a one-time 1500m finalist at the Nationals and many-time State Titles finalist.  He was once a pacemaker at the old NEC Classic,  is making a comeback to aths after a few years off, and will hopefully be pushing up the average age of the Bayside team come November.  Here are his views on this debate.

It has been with great interest that I've followed the debate sparked by Len Johnson's article in the Age on 18th October. The subsequent opinions put forward on the Bayside web site have provided a variety of reasons/diagnosis/excuses and solutions for the problems that confront middle distance running in Australia. What I find remarkable in this debate is that many of the opposing points of view, when considered independently, are substantially correct.

For what it's worth I'll add my own observations:

1. As mentioned by that erudite scribe Tonza, Athletics in Australia is struggling to attract competitors and therefore does not offer a strong base from which to have a depth of talent in any one discipline, let alone across the entire sport. I believe several reasons, not all controllable by the governing bodies of Athletics, are responsible for this, namely- - An inadequate bridge between Little Athletics and the senior level - A disjointed schools system (i.e. separate government and private streams) - Athletics position as a "minor" sport in terms of press coverage - A broad community perception of Track & Field as an elitist sport rather than a participation sport - The lack of financial incentives (I'm sure neither Anthony Koutifides or Sav Rocca regret their choice of sporting careers)

2. Admittedly there is a definite problem in the overall depth of middle distance running, however, I do not believe that it should be singled out as the only major problem area in Australian Athletics. Unfortunately it would appear that if we have individual champions in a particular discipline ( i.e. Freeman, Forsyth, Moneghetti, and now Shirvington) then that discipline is perceived as successful and the spotlight does not focus on why we can't produce four Cathy Freemans instead of one.

3. The whole argument about centralised group training as opposed to individual coach/athlete relationships is irrelevant. Both programs have their obvious successes and failures - what is most important is what arrangement suits each particular high performance athlete and can the support system within Australian Athletics provide for both.

4. Andre hit the nail on the head with his comment that "something needs to happen to encourage more fast races". For obvious reasons this is not a problem for sprint events, however, in Australia it would appear that the position rather time are what is most important in middle distance races. (With apologies to Messrs Cleary, Peterson and Bowden who have at times bucked this trend). What if the prize money for the Landy Mile were distributed according to time rather than place - how many of the bastards would then sit back relying on a 400m kick to produce a first Australian time of 4:02? If they can't break 4 minutes give them nothing!!

5. With due respect to Herb Elliott and Ralph Doubell, I wish their constant criticism could be turned into something more positive as it does nothing but encourage negative tabloid press. With the limited amount of press Athletics receives in this country, it would be preferable if the soul searching could be confined to the sports own publications leaving the general media to concentrate on increasing the promotion and awareness of our sport (including Nova….. well maybe)

As a disgruntled National 1500m Finalist (Brisbane 93) robbed of a chance to run a quick time through the "tactics" of the other finalists, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this forum. If only we had the talent to match our passion for the sport, then El Guerrouj would be chasing our backsides!! 

Regards Tim Crosbie

Back to the Top

Surely we haven't exhausted this topic?  Email us your views.