There was an interesting article on the BBC today about British skier Chemmy Alcott, and her determination to achieve something in a sport where Britain should barely be able to compete, given our lack of snow and mountains.
The article focusses on the extra funding and expertise being thrown at one of our medal hopefuls for the Winter Olympics in 2010, in order for her to break into the women's top 10; over the last year, Chemmy has employed a team consisting of psychologists, a nutritionist, a performance movement coach as well as a sensory motor skills expert to work alongside her. However, the infrastructure she now has setup around her has yielded only three top 20 finishes in the season just finished.
Whilst three top 20 finishes, by British standards at least, is commendable, for a young athlete who had such high aspirations, it became a frustrating season and Chemmy, quite rightly, was disappointed. It raises the question - in sports such as skiing, where Britain has virtually no aspirations, what do we consider a success? And is it worth all the money being given to it, when there's little realistic hope of us creating a crop of future Olympic medalists? Obviously, the goal for Chemmy is to achieve a respectable position at the Winter Olympics, and possibly even sneak a medal - so what happens if she fails - does the money simply stop coming?
Alcott is quick to point out that a massive run of bad luck is one of the main attributes to her not being able to fulfil her potential; from technical malfunctions to stormy weather conditions, Alcott's route down the mountain has been far from smooth, which raises another interesting point. Regardless of how much money you throw at a sport in order to succeed, there's always an element that it may never be enough. Sport is by its very nature an unpredictable entity - pull a muscle in training or get the wrong conditions for your race and your dreams could be shattered.
What is encouraging about Chemmy Alcott, at least, is that she appears to have the will power and determination to succeed, and that is more than half the battle. Undoubtedly talented, Alcott does have the attributes to compete on a regular basis with her best friend Julia Mancuso at the top table of women's downhill skiing.
Money, whilst it helps, certainly is not everything - it must be combined with a strong work ethic, a good deal of talent, and a bit of luck. Chemmy seems to be missing only one of those things at the minute, that is lady luck shining on her, so for the time being, it can be deemed as money well spent. Let's face it - for a young girl from Hove and a country with no skiing pedigree, she should be lauded for even coming close to competing at the highest level.
Who knows, she may even get a medal at the 2010 Winter Olympics - she's still only 25, and by her own admission, she feels she's got all the attributes necessary:
"Don't write me off yet," she pleaded. "Vancouver is 21 months away and I have the talent, drive and the will to succeed."
With a little bit of luck, she might just do it.
The article focusses on the extra funding and expertise being thrown at one of our medal hopefuls for the Winter Olympics in 2010, in order for her to break into the women's top 10; over the last year, Chemmy has employed a team consisting of psychologists, a nutritionist, a performance movement coach as well as a sensory motor skills expert to work alongside her. However, the infrastructure she now has setup around her has yielded only three top 20 finishes in the season just finished.
Whilst three top 20 finishes, by British standards at least, is commendable, for a young athlete who had such high aspirations, it became a frustrating season and Chemmy, quite rightly, was disappointed. It raises the question - in sports such as skiing, where Britain has virtually no aspirations, what do we consider a success? And is it worth all the money being given to it, when there's little realistic hope of us creating a crop of future Olympic medalists? Obviously, the goal for Chemmy is to achieve a respectable position at the Winter Olympics, and possibly even sneak a medal - so what happens if she fails - does the money simply stop coming?
Alcott is quick to point out that a massive run of bad luck is one of the main attributes to her not being able to fulfil her potential; from technical malfunctions to stormy weather conditions, Alcott's route down the mountain has been far from smooth, which raises another interesting point. Regardless of how much money you throw at a sport in order to succeed, there's always an element that it may never be enough. Sport is by its very nature an unpredictable entity - pull a muscle in training or get the wrong conditions for your race and your dreams could be shattered.
What is encouraging about Chemmy Alcott, at least, is that she appears to have the will power and determination to succeed, and that is more than half the battle. Undoubtedly talented, Alcott does have the attributes to compete on a regular basis with her best friend Julia Mancuso at the top table of women's downhill skiing.
Money, whilst it helps, certainly is not everything - it must be combined with a strong work ethic, a good deal of talent, and a bit of luck. Chemmy seems to be missing only one of those things at the minute, that is lady luck shining on her, so for the time being, it can be deemed as money well spent. Let's face it - for a young girl from Hove and a country with no skiing pedigree, she should be lauded for even coming close to competing at the highest level.
Who knows, she may even get a medal at the 2010 Winter Olympics - she's still only 25, and by her own admission, she feels she's got all the attributes necessary:
"Don't write me off yet," she pleaded. "Vancouver is 21 months away and I have the talent, drive and the will to succeed."
With a little bit of luck, she might just do it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment