.jpg)
.jpg)
NZ: Is the World Cross Country a priority?
By Daniel Wallis
As the results from the 2010 Cross Country Championships in Poland were coming in, so too were the comments by New Zealand followers of the sport on the NZrun.com message board. After discussion ended on our top finishers and team results, an interesting discussion started. It wasn’t about how fast our guys and girls ran, or where they finished – but rather what they were wearing.
For over 100 years the black jersey and silver fern have been synonymous with New Zealand. From cricket to cycling - it’s what we wear, and its what we are proud of. There is one exception – and that’s the occasional white strip. However, the New Zealand team in Poland were kitted out in something unique: silver. My first thoughts were that Athletics New Zealand were throwing some spice into things – going trendy, or bringing a new swing to the ‘silver’ fern… Yet as discussion became more detailed it was obvious that this wasn’t about aesthetics - it was about status.
Last year Athletics New Zealand created a tier system, outlined within their High Performance program. Each event for which ANZ sends a representative is categorised into black, silver, and white singlet events. Representing New Zealand has now become far more complicated than simply putting on the black vest; each athlete is now graded depending on the status of the event he or she is competing in. Although the World Cross Country is widely considered the toughest race in the world, ANZ apparently didn’t get that memo – assigning our representatives this year a second class, silver singlet to wear on the world stage alongside those that are without doubt the worlds best distance runners.
NZRun.com co-founder Carl Jackson compared this situation to Karate - where only the best wear black. However, as Jackson commented, “aren’t we sending our best to World Cross?” If selection policies are not designed to send the best qualified, then what is the purpose? As it happens, ANZ has seemingly degraded the World XC as it is not funded by Sport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC), with it not being an Olympic sport. Thus, now World Cross Country is not only a fully athlete-funded event, but now the athletes going apparently don’t even deserve to wear black – arguably New Zealand’s strongest brand and tradition.
A glance at ANZ’s high performance page: www.performance.athletics.org.nz, shows that this year there are only 3 Black Singlet Events: World Indoor Track & Field, World Junior Track & Field, and the Commonwealth Games. How a junior championship can be graded ahead of World Cross Country is beyond me, yet that is the present situation New Zealand finds itself in. World Cross, the IAAF World Half Marathon Champs, and the World Mountain Running Championships are all assigned the second-class status, while the Oceania Half Marathon Champs and TT21 Test-Match are two of the seven 3rd – tier events.
I understand the situation regarding funding and particular events being prioritised. No one in their right mind would argue that the Commonwealth Games are more prestigious than the Oceania Half Marathon Championships, but that status should be reflected in policy, not what colour singlet you wear. This isn’t karate, representing New Zealand is representing New Zealand, and that should mean the right to wear the black singlet. Imagine if the All Blacks suddenly came out and started doing this. They’d wear black against South Africa, silver against Argentina, and white for the shit games against Aussie and the Lions. Or maybe each player should be given a different colour? That way the opposition would always know the ‘weak’ or ‘non-funded’ links. Would they do this? No - because as was mentioned on NZRun.com – the black jersey is perhaps the All Blacks strongest brand and tradition.
For the first time in how-many-ever years, ANZ finally put out a policy that aimed at sending teams based on particular criteria. Yet despite all the drama around who would and would not go, it appears that Athletics NZ really doesn’t care about this event. Its self-funded, and the athletes don’t even deserve to wear black, rather some shitty shade of grey. How should this be perceived by other nations? Are they thinking: “well, this guy will be easy to beat, he’s obviously a B athlete”. What if Adrian Blincoe wanted to run World Cross? He’s good enough to wear black at the Olympics, but not at World Cross – what is that supposed to mean? Does it say more about the athlete or the meet he is at?
Athletics NZ needs a revamp – particularly with the disastrous number of registered athletes in the country - down from 5319 Senior Men registered in 1987 to 419 last year, yet instead they worrying about who wears what and where. What a joke.
Overall, cross-country has had quite the fall from grace in New Zealand. In 1975 the men’s team won Gold and the women’s team Bronze (albeit with an African representation of less than 7%, compared to almost 40% this year), meanwhile 25 years later athletes are buying their own uniform, tickets, and accommodation. Without grass-roots, domestic passion for cross-country, it seems unlikely that the event would survive at the top-level, with little incentive from ANZ to represent New Zealand at the Worlds toughest race.
.jpg)
.jpg)
