Geoff Dickson: No time to rest on our laurels

COMMENT

New Zealand's success at the Athens Olympics is to be applauded. With more than 200 nations in attendance, it has finished towards the pointy end of the field.

When population is taken into consideration, New Zealand has few, if any, peers.

But we should not be lulled into complacency by these adjusted figures. As any athlete can attest, power to weight ratios always tend to favour the lightweight, but it is the heavyweight athlete who still usually prevails.

To put it into perspective, if China were to have the same success as New Zealand in terms of per capita gold medals, it would need to win about 1000 golds.

For New Zealand to have made a move forward in Athens - no matter how small - is to be applauded.

It is difficult to compare the 2004 Olympic landscape to, say, 1964. The collapse of the Soviet Union has made the Olympics more competitive. Before the breakdown, the USSR could have only two athletes in an event. Now the likes of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus can send two each.

Set against this, there is no East Germany. And China is still a new kid following its return in 1984 after a 50-year absence. But women's sport is now significantly more competitive than in 1964.

By any measure and for a variety of reasons, it is harder than ever to win medals at the Olympics.

Complacency and the acceptance of being a minor player are the biggest dangers facing New Zealand sport. The momentum from Athens must be capitalised on.

The Australians did not click a light-switch and transform instantly from Olympic lightweight into Olympic heavyweight. New Zealand sport is still a lightweight, but the opportunity to move up a weight division or two exists. We must think big.

So how does this momentum work? It is not straightforward but it has a lot to do with confidence and self-fulfilling prophecies. Steven Ferguson, Ben Fouhy's kayaking partner, has only had to look across the breakfast table to know what New Zealanders can achieve. If dad can do it, then surely I can.

Young triathletes should now realise that if they become the best in New Zealand, there is every chance they will be among the best in the world, putting themselves within striking distance of Olympic medals. The same goes for young rowers and young cyclists. Nothing breeds success like success.

One day a New Zealand gold medal-winner will combine his or her athletic skills with knowledge of science history and reiterate Sir Isaac Newton's famous words, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Talent identification has long been associated with the development of elite athletes. The East Germans invented it and the rest of the world has been trying to perfect it ever since. There is no point spending all that time and effort on an athlete's development if he or she just do not have the physiological goods to do the job. As a computer programmer might say, garbage in equals garbage out.

The next step for New Zealand sport is to extend this talent identification process to its sport managers, sport scientists and coaches. The logic is the same. These three positions represent the holy trinity on which athletes can develop into genuine world-class athletes.

Another key to improving our sporting success is making sure that every talented athlete stays in the sport as long as possible.

By virtue of New Zealand's small population, a large number of talented athletes is unlikely to be produced.

Sarah Ulmer and the Evers-Swindell twins have spoken of the temptation to retire, but they did not.

Australian swimming - a legitimate world force - does not have many athletes of outstanding talent. But Kieran Perkins, Grant Hackett, Ian Thorpe and Petria Thomas have won multiple medals over an extended period.

This is the key to their success and one that New Zealand, especially, should seek to emulate wherever possible. When we produce an athlete of this calibre, the system needs to extract at least two Olympic cycles from him or her. One-hit wonders will not take us to the next level.

There appear to be four distinct variables that underpin a nation's ranking on the Olympic medal tally - population, per capita income, past performance and a host effect.

New Zealand's population is projected to peak at 4.81 million (a 25 per cent increase) in 2046 and then slowly decline.

New Zealand will then have as many people as Sydney - not nearly enough to be a big fish.

New Zealand's real gross domestic product per capita was just under the OECD average in 1970 but had declined to about 85 per cent of the average in 2001. It is now 21st in the OECD in per capita income terms and not climbing.

With regards to past performance, we have some runs on the board, so there is some hope there. Host effect? There will be no home-field advantage for New Zealand at an Olympic Games.

Given these variables, New Zealand would probably do well to simply maintain its present ranking in the Olympics. Treading water is sometimes an achievement in itself.

There was much to enjoy about the success of our athletes in Athens. A few gold medals, no positive drug tests, a number of personal bests, and no hint of dissension or conflict within the team.

It was a team which proudly told the world that this land has a few very, very good athletes.

* Dr Geoff Dickson is the head of research in Auckland University of Technology's division of sport and recreation.