CurlingHigh Performance

PlanCCA OTP Submission 2012

Introduction• Our investment in partnership with OTP• Partners in Performance = Partners in Planning• Focused on and driven to excel• Gap analysis – the ability to create an edge• Top coaches engaged in the full LTAD spectrum –

top to bottom• Developing best practices playground to podium• Legacy through assembling programs from coast

to coast to coast

Highlights of past season

• Summer training at NTP – specific, integrated, prescriptive

• Increased funding for team coaches to go to additional events

• Sweep development module• New research project documenting and analyzing

curling specific injuries leading to modified conditioning

• NTP teams continued to dominate competitions and rankings

• Deeper and more integrated support of the LTAD with improved leadership and programming

Focus/  New Strategies• Additional engagement in the training environment• Specialized Draw Training• Specialized Sweep Training• New sweep research• Integrated Training – (see diagram)• Prescriptive Training• Technology in Training• Measuring & monitoring performance• Increased focus and leadership toward 2018

podium potential• Team Dynamics research • Fitness standards & training protocols

Coach Development• Combination of formal and informal• La Releve Workshop• Summer Training• Mentoring at events• Specific prescriptions

Athlete

Draw Skill

Mental/ Sensory

SkillsKyle Paquette

Technology inputSpeed traps,

technical expertPhysical Skills

Bob Comartin/Team

Trainer

Integrated Training Model

National Team Program 2012

Statistics of Importance within our program

National Team Program

Retention of Athletes -Women-9 of the 12 Skips at the Scotties Hearts in 2011 were former Canadian Junior Champions -7 skips and 13 athletes in 2012 were former Canadian Junior Champions

National Team Program• Retention of Athletes – Men

• 6 men at the 2012 Brier were former Can. Jr. Champions (12 in 2011)

• 6 men in 2012 were Runners up at the Canadian Juniors (9 in 2011)

• 30 of the 48 men in 2012 had competed at Can. Jrs. ( 38 of the men in 2011 )

National Team Program

• Competitive Ages –Scotties / Brier

• In 2005 the average age at both the women’s and men’s championships was between 35-36.

• In 2011 -Women –average age was 30.9• In 2012 –Women –average age was 31.6• In 2011 -Men –average age was 31.4• In 2012 - Men – average age was 33.3

National Team Program

• Why the lowering ages at the top level??• LTADM• La Releve • Podium Project (new)• High Performance Camps• Summer Camps for Juniors• Bantam / Junior competitions• University Curling leagues / championships• Coaching

National Team Program - Women

• Order of Merit– World Rankings (March 2012)• 1. Jones 406 points 7. Ott (Sui) 204 • 2. Holland 266 8. Middaugh 189 • 3. Carey 244 9. Overton-C. 163 • 4. Kleibrink 236 10. Homan 160 • 5. Lawton 235 11. Muirhead(Sco) 155 • 6. Holland 210 12. Sigfridsson(Swe) 145 14 of top 20 teams are Canadian (13 in 2011)

National Team Program - Men

• Order of Merit- World Rankings (March 2011)• 1. McEwen 469 points 7. Ulsrud (Nor) 220• 2. Martin 446 8. Fowler 189• 3. Howard 389 9. Epping 182• 4. Stoughton 362 10. Gushue 179• 5. Edin (Swe) 304 11. Jacobs 173• 6. Koe 289 12. Laycock 172

18 of top 20 teams are Canadian (17 in 2011)

National Team ProgramOlympics 2010 –Percentages -

Women• 1. Canada 9-2 81% Silver (includes

P.O.)• 2. Sweden 9-2 79% Gold• 3. Russia 6-5 77%• 4. Switzer. 6-5 76%• 5. U.S.A. 3-6 76%• 6. China 4-5 75% Bronze• 7. Germany 3-6 75%• 8. Gr. Britain 3-6 75% Vancouver,

Canada• 9. Japan 3-6 74%• 10. Denmark 4-5 73%

National Team Program2011 Worlds – Statistics -Women

1. Canada 10-5 81% Silver (Team % inc. Playoffs)

2. China 9-5 81% Bronze3. Switz. 7-4 80%4. Denmark 7-6 80%5. Russia 6-5 78%6. Sweden 11-2 78% Gold7. Germany 5-6 76%8. Norway 3-8 75%9. Scotland 4-7 73%10. Korea 2-9 73% Denmark11. U.S.A. 6-5 73%12. Czech Rep. 2-9 70%

National Team Program2012 Worlds – Statistics -Women

1. Switz. 10-4 82% Gold ( Team % inc. Playoffs)

2. USA 7-5 81%3. Sweden 9-4 80% Silver4. Canada 9-5 80% Bronze5. Korea 9-5 78%6. Scotland 6-5 78% 7. Russia 4-7 78%8. China 6-5 78%9. Denmark 5-6 77%10. Germany 5-6 74%11. Czech Rep. 2-9 74%12. Italy 3-8 73% Lethbridge, Canada

National Team Program Olympics 2010 – Percentages -Men• 1. Martin 11-0 85% Gold (inc. Play

offs)• 2. Norway 8-3 85% Silver• 3. Switzerland 7-4 83% Bronze• 4. Sweden 6-6 81%• 5. Gr. Britain 5-5 80%• 6. Denmark2-7 78%• 7. China 2-7 77%• 8. USA 2-7 76% Vancouver, Canada• 9. Germany4-5 74%• 10. France 3-6 73%

National Team Program2011 Worlds –Statistics -Men

1. Canada 10-1 88% Gold (Team % include playoffs)

2. Sweden 7-4 87% Bronze3. Norway 7-4 85%4. Switzer. 6-5 83%5. Scotland 9-2 82% Silver6. France 7-4 82%7. USA 3-8 81%8. Germany 6-5 81%9. Czech 5-6 78% Regina, Canada10. Korea 2-9 78%11. China 4-7 77%12. Denmark 0-11 72%

National Team Program2012 Worlds –Statistics -Men

• 1. Canada 88% Gold Team % - Round Robin• 2. China 84%• 3. Scotland 84% Silver• 4. Norway 83%• 5. Sweden 82% Bronze• 6. Denmark 81%• 7. France 79%• 8. Switzerland 79%• 9. New Zealand 79%• 10. Czech Rep. 78% Basel, Switzerland• 11. USA 77%• 12. Germany 77%

Canada’s Position• Canada remains #1 in the world in Men’s play by

any measure used.• Canada remains in the top three in the world in

Women’s play.• Canada is number one in the world in Junior

Men’s• Canada remains in the top 3-4 in Junior Women’s

play

CurlingHigh Performance

PlanCCA OTP Submission 2012

CurlingSochi 2014 Preparation

Towards Sochi

Our Plan

European Curling Championship December 2011 – Moscow

• A very experienced team

• Been to Sochi twice

• Made connections with key people – RCF & Sport Manager

• No concerns about our plan - well in hand

CHALLENGES•Language •Foreign environment•Lack of familiarity for athletes

Field of Play• Ice• Ice Technicians• Rocks• Venue• Opportunity to see it WJCC 2013

Olympic Curling Centre

INSERT CURLING DIAGRAM FROM PDF FILE

Athlete Accommodation

• Fully exploring and analyzing options• Have made an initial decision and communicated

to COC• Some possibility of adjustments depending on

team• COC Performance Centre seems to be an ideal

option for curling• Preparing for options for taking care of our

athletes out-of-village

Elite Condo & Performance

Centre

Accreditation• Plan in place• Will work within the allocation

Family Plan• Well in hand• Inspected many

options• Working with Mike

Murray

Curling - WomenSochi 2014 Preparation

This Plan• Premise: arrive in Sochi 100%/ A-1 condition mentally, physically,

technically, spiritually and to attempt to have full environmental control

• Optimal load and recovery, a carefully planned rest, recovery and regeneration plan fully integrated within the plan of Post-Trials to the Olympics

• This is the third generation of this plan – Torino, Vancouver, Sochi

• Partners: Olympic Excellence Series (OES); Canada Olympic Committee (COC); Own the Podium; Curling consultants & Sport Scientists including Istvan Balyi

Women’s Olympic Curling Team

Sochi 2014 Preparation Plan

Dec. 13 Team Declared/ Meeting on site in WinnipdgDec. 14 – 23 Recovery/ Training at home/ Meeting Dec. 28 – 30 Training Camp, Location TBDJan. 8 - 10 Competition - Berne, SwitzerlandJan. 15 - 17 Competition - Glasgow, Scotland (tentative)Jan 20 - 24 Training Camp in Winnipeg at BDO Men's eventJan. 28 - 30 Sochi 2014Orientation & Training CampFeb. 5 Appearance at Scottie/ Practice on Scottie iceFeb. 8 or 9 Arrive at Athletes' VillageFeb. 10-11 Training in EuropeFeb. 12 Opening CeremonyFeb. 13 Practice at another facilityFeb. 14, 15 Official Practice at Olympic VenueFeb. 14 Move to ‘out of village’ accommodationFeb. 16 - 26 Olympic Competition

Trials to Jan. 1Declaration of Olympic Team to Jan 1, 2014

Europe and OlympicsJanuary 1 through Olympics

‘Alternative Two”One Competition - Switzerland

CH Camp Venue Olympics

CurlingHigh Performance

PlanCCA OTP Submission 2012

CurlingHigh Performance

PlanCCA OTP Submission 2012

National TeamTraining Program

Sweep Development Training

Gerry Peckham• “We need to evaluate and invest in all aspects of

sweeping performance with an eye to enhancing shot execution percentages and team performance standards.”

‘Sweeping’ change carries Alberta rink into

Tournament of Hearts

ALLAN MAKI | Columnist profile | E-mail

CALGARY— From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Feb. 17, 2012 8:51PM Something had to change.

“When you don’t make the playoffs at a provincial, when you’re not coming close, that’s the deflation. That’s when you wonder, ‘What am I doing this for?’ ” Nedohin said. “But when I come runner-up I think, ‘We’re so close. How do we fine-time those dynamics?’ ” Nedohin is convinced her bounce-back showing can be traced to a subtle shift. She figured she and her teammates needed to work on endurance and sweeping in an effort to make the tough shots in the late ends. So they spent more time in the gym and they made a subtle change, having sweepers Laine Peters and Jessica Mair switch sides so they could be better positioned to do their job. “There was a recent study about how male sweepers are sweeping and comparing that to what women are doing,” Nedohin explained. “You see women’s events and we’re not having anywhere near the same results on the rocks. … Yes, we’re not as big and strong as the men, but what can we do with positioning [to get the rocks to curl more]? In July, we focused on our sweeping. There was a lot of fine-tuning to our game.”

Nedohin struggled early in the season with the “sweeping” changes and experimented with different broom heads for optimum results. The team wasn’t highly rated on the Canadian Team Ranking System, which uses points from various events to determine which rink is hot and which is stone cold. But when it counted, Nedohin outduelled Jessie Kaufman

SWEEP MODULE #1 – Technical & Physical

• Presentation of Sweep Study findings• Description of objectives & key points• Physical information intake – weight,

current physical fitness data• Testing – scale, stroke speed, ice

temperature• Training• Re-testing

GOAL Athlete A

Athlete B Athlete C Athlete D

Push ups current

25 10 15 15

Push ups target 35 35 35 35Sit ups/ or? – currentSit ups target 30 30 30 30

Brush type syn syn syn SynBrush brandPSIStroke Speed15 seconds

55 48 48 50

Body position closed Open/closed

Closed**new

Closed**new

Angle of Attack-leg angle: target 45

90 90 90 90

INDICATORSIce Temperature

+ .75 + .75 + .75 + .75

Body weightWeight on scale/ ratio1.Initial test

5636%

6038%

6037%

5736%

1. After training

6240%

6038%

7949%

7044%

1.Target2011-2012

9260%

9460%

9760%

9560%

Load up/Ratio

10065%

9662%

10867%

10566%

SWEEP ANALYSIS - Date: July 23-24, 2011

SWEEP MODULE 2 – Technical/ Physical

• Video analysis• Athlete observation with coach• Adjustments• Video• Goal setting for development

SWEEP MODULE 3 – Technical/ Physical

• Review Team data• Identify Gaps• Review/ identify Target• Practice/ training• Video

SWEEP MODULE #4 – Weight Judgement

• Throw the same rock, same path, same target

• Test judgment skill at:• Release• Half way point• 10’ before hog line• Measure and record tendency

Module #5 – Shot Management• Manage the shot

oBreakpointo Energy systemso Impact of cleaning

Training

Next StepsWhat we know:

• Physical demands/ requirements

• Technological studies

What we need to know:

• Scientific data on relative effectiveness: speed/ pressure/ biomechanics

• Technologyo What we need to measure &

how

CurlingHigh Performance

PlanCCA OTP Submission 2012

Canadian Curling AssociationPsychological Skills Training and LTAD

Presented by: Kyle Paquette at the 2012 Scotties Tournament of Hearts, Red Deer, AB

Part 1 – Thinking and Focusing

Thinking vs. FocusingHaving a conversation with others…

Thinking vs. Focusing Cont’d.• Thinking is the production of thought

o Not necessarily presento Minimal sensory experienceo Left braino Great for development

• Focusing is the reduction of thoughto Fully presento Sensory experienceo Right braino Great for performance

The “Think Box”• Thinking is required prior to executing a shot to

help prepare athletes tactically, technically, physically and/or psychologically

• Athletes’ think boxes will vary according to their individual needs

• What are the critical thoughts for each athlete?

Implications – Preshot Routine

The “Play Box”• Involves a sensory experience (e.g., touch, sight,

hearing)• Which sense allows you to most effectively and

thoughtlessly experience presence (performance) – preferred sense?

• Which sensory experience(s) allow you to most effectively execute, and stay engaged throughout, your performance – preferred sensory experience?

Implications – Preshot Routine

Deliver strategies (some considerations)• Focus is a skill that requires constant training

o Yogi research• “When the sender contradicts verbal messages

with nonverbal ones, the receiver believes the nonverbal ones.” o Attention matching intention

• Content must be discovered and jointly created between the coach and athlete (i.e., tour guide)o Creation of the content, evaluation and assessment

Thinking and Focusing