The release of the US High Performance and Developing Rider’s training lists earlier this month got me to thinking. I thought about what it would feel like to be on the selection committee that made the lists, or what it would feel like to one of the riders named to the list, but mainly I thought about what factors went into the creation of the lists. The High Performance list contains pretty obvious choices as the teams for Olympics and World Championships are created off that list. There are a few exceptions to this year’s list, which is really exciting, but basically its made up of the experienced household names. No surprise there. [2010 High Performance List, 2010 Developing Rider List]
Less obvious are the factors that went in to the creation of the Developing Riders list. Undoubtedly the individuals named for 2011 are extremely good riders each possessing qualities that the selectors feel necessary for large-scale success. They are all good, but each at a different “level within their level” so to speak. For a couple riders, this year will hopefully prove to be the last step in the staircase before reaching the “landing” of the High Performance list and eventual team selection. For others, Developing Riders is the first step in their pursuit of a career with horses. But many riders are finding themselves lost in the middle of the staircase, some years they get named to it, other years they are left off. These riders have the talent if they were chosen for the program in the first place, they are considered “good” by most people’s standards, but they are still bouncing on and off of this list. And that’s the dilemma, because “good” doesn’t bounce. If you’re “good” you can get better, if you’re “bad” you need to get better, but in all levels and forms of riding you either remain unchanged or progress up the training ladder. But without a consistent program and enough time to develop from it, these riders cannot reach their full potential. I have compiled a few statistics for discussion:
From the 21 riders on the July 2010 Developing Rider List:
- 57% (12) were dropped completely from the 2011 Lists.
- 29% (6) were named to the 2011 Developing Riders List.
- 14% (3) moved up to the 2011 High Performance B-squad.
Note: I used the updated version of the 2010 Developing Rider List, which was revised in July, here is the original 2010 list. The 2010 list contained 21 pairs, and the 2011 list contains just 17, which will skew the statistics towards the direction of people being dropped.
Two changes have been made to this year’s Developing Riders list, it’s now divided into A-and-B sections, and horses have not been named along with their riders. However, with a combined total of seventeen riders, the 2011 list is down a few riders from last year. Looking at the Developing Riders List statistics from 2010 to 2011 is quite interesting. The selection committee has made an apparent effort to select some new talent, as they have added eleven members (65%) to the 2011 list that weren’t named in 2010. There are a few riders, like Clark Montgomery for example, who have been named to Developing list this year simply because they don’t have horses experienced enough for the team level yet, Clark himself is a proven international competitor and one of the best riders the US has. Still, there have been many truly new additions of deserving young riders. Probably the most exciting of additions is that three of last year’s Developing Riders, Jennie Brannigan, Hannah Burnett, and Tiana Coudray, had great seasons and made it onto the High Performance B-list. That’s a big accomplishment for not only those girls personally but the US program as well, it shows that the Developing Riders program is helping somewhat to bridge the gap between the Young Rider rankings and the International level.
That being said, cutting eleven good riders from this year’s list shows there is a problem with our program. Being cut from the list isn’t necessarily catastrophic for those riders, they are very good after all, a few potentially world-class, and their success isn’t going to be directly affected by their placement on the Developing Riders list. However, cutting that number and caliber of riders from the list does expose a weakness in the US program. Although there are a many factors outside of the team’s control that influence selection, like whether riders have access to good horses, and whether those good horses stay sound; talent is being overlooked, and talent decides the future. Eventing is a tough sport and a long road, our program needs to recognize “talent” for the long-term potential that it has, rather than just what it has produced in the short-term span of results. A coach once told me that success could be had with four things, “A good program, dedication to that program, faith in that program, and the passing of time.”
Which ones do we need to improve upon, Eventing Nation?
