Tag: youth ski development

  • Development in Norway Isn’t Just a Plan. It’s a System.

    Development in Norway Isn’t Just a Plan. It’s a System.

    This article was made possible through the generous support of our voluntary subscribers. If you value coverage like this, please support FasterSkier with a voluntary subscription.

    Johannes Hoesflot Klaebo (NOR), Emil Iversen (NOR), and Martin Loewstroem Nyenget (NOR), (l-r) during the final kilometers of the Olympic 50 k classic. (Photo: Vanzetta/NordicFocus)

    A review of a recently published paper from Norway, “Long-term development culture for sustainable Olympic success: Lessons learned from Norwegian cross-country skiing” by Jacob Walther and Øyvind Sandbakk, is worth the time.

    Long-term development culture for sustainable Olympic success: Lessons learned from Norwegian cross-country skiing – ScienceDirect

    We’ve all heard enough about Norway. But this one simply cuts through some misconceptions, and it is worth the time to review. It strips away the mythology and gets back to what actually drives development and ultimately elite performance. Norway isn’t operating with better information. They’re more disciplined about applying what most programs already understand, and more consistent about what they refuse to do.

    The paper addresses this immediately and directly.  There is no “Norwegian method.” No magic interval session. No secret intensity zone you can implement and expect results. What they have is a system. And more importantly, a system built around their culture.

    We tend to frame their success in physiological and technical terms.  It’s not physiology, technique, health management, or mental health; they are all part of it, but they don’t explain the system. Most programs know early specialization is risky and inaccurate. Most coaches understand long-term development and the need to build training slowly and in phases based on training age. The difference is that Norway holds the line on it.

    The elements are not new. Delay early selection. Encourage multi-sport participation, and integrate sport science into daily coaching. Invest in coach education. Treat athlete health as part of development, not something that gets in the way of it. The result isn’t just better elite athletes.  It’s broader mass participation, more informed training, and a deeper pool of athletes and families engaged in the sport.

    Norway’s Johannes Høsflot Klæbo won his first World Cup at 20, in the men’s 1.6 k freestyle sprint in Otepää, Estonia, in 2017. (Photo: Fischer/NordicFocus)

    The paper uses Johannes Høstflot Klæbo as a case study. At 15, he placed 101st at junior nationals. Years later, he’s the most decorated Winter Olympian of all time. That’s a compelling outcome. But the value isn’t the result. It’s what the system expects and allows.

    In most programs, that athlete gets filtered out early. In Norway, they stay in longer. That’s the point. This isn’t about identifying talent earlier and directing resources and opportunities at those. It’s about not eliminating talent identification too soon. That requires patience, cooperation among club programs, trust in the system, and a willingness to ignore short-term validation.

    That’s where the Norwegian model sets itself apart. The turning point came in the lead-up to the 1994 Winter Olympics. Norway didn’t discover new physiology or invent new training methods. They organized themselves differently. They centralized expertise, embedded sport science into coaching, collected experience and training data across all Olympic Sports, and aligned the ski federation from the national team down to the club level.

    Olympiatoppen sits at the center, not as a lab removed from the field, but as part of the training process. It doesn’t drive the system, but it informs and shapes it. That balance matters. Norway didn’t just add sports scientists. They used sports science to improve coaching. At higher levels, many coaches are trained in exercise physiology. That reduces misinterpretation and creates consistency over time.

    Long-term development in Norway isn’t a slogan. It is intentionally implemented. It follows physiology. Peak endurance performance arrives in the late 20s, after years of consistent training. They don’t challenge that reality; they built their whole system around that reality.

    You see that athletes stay in the sport longer, as evidenced by high-level FIS races in Norway. Hundreds of skiers are over 25-30 years old. They build general capacity before narrowing focus. Skill development has time and the room to engrain. Training isn’t rushed. Volume and intensity progress over years, not seasons. Junior results are not used as a sorting mechanism.

    And this is where most systems break down. They say development matters, so select early and train accordingly. In Norway, youth championships are not selection events. They are part of the development process. The culture reinforces it. Clubs and schools coordinate so athletes can participate in multiple sports. Athletes regularly move across multiple ski disciplines. The recruitment base stays broad, and the system stays resilient.

    Norway hasn’t eliminated selection; they’ve delayed it and minimized its consequences. That distinction matters. What gets labeled as “talent” at 14–16 is often early maturation, better support, or more exposure, not long-term potential. Norway avoids that trap by not falling into it. While many other systems double down on it.

    Another principle sits underneath all of this: athlete health, physical and mental, comes before results. Training is managed for long-term progression. Training loads increase gradually over the years. High intensity is controlled, and low intensity dominates most of the training. The goal is adaptation over time, not accumulation in the short term.

    The paper also points to emerging pressure on this model. Rising costs, shifting societal trends, increasing early specialization, and changes in team structures all push against it. These aren’t theoretical concerns. There are real pressures that can erode the system if they’re not managed.

    Harald Oestberg Amundsen (NOR), Johannes Hoesflot Klaebo (NOR), and Einar Hedegart (NOR), (l-r) share the 20 k Freestyle Mass Start podium at the final World Cup in Lake Placid (USA) to end the 2025/2026 season. (Photo: Modica/NordicFocus)

    So what carries over?

    We can’t copy Norway. That misses the point. The lesson is alignment. Align incentives with long-term outcomes. Integrate sports science into coaching to improve the coach’s work. Build systems that allow athletes time to develop. And hold the line when short-term pressure starts to dictate decisions.

    Many countries can point to a standout athlete. But if success depends on outliers, unusual resilience, unusual support, unusual talent, you don’t have a system. You have anecdotes. Norway produces depth, that is, the expectation and the standard.

    There’s no secret session here. What they’ve built is a system that connects coaching and science, commits to long-term development, creates space for late progression, and maintains consistency over time. Not what they’re doing this week or next week, but what the athletes are doing ten years from now.

     

    Help Support Our Olympic Coverage!

    If you value the thoughtful work and access FasterSkier provides, please consider becoming a Voluntary Subscriber. Your support directly fuels our work to cover the people, places, and moments that make our sport special.

    Join the FasterSkier community!

     

  • If we know better, why don’t we do better?

    If we know better, why don’t we do better?

    This article was made possible through the generous support of our voluntary subscribers. If you value coverage like this, please support FasterSkier with a voluntary subscription.

    USCSA Nationals 2024

    Where do High School and USCSA programs fit into our development.

    In a recent article, I laid out the disconnect between what we say about long-term development in Nordic skiing and what we do and the rewards. “Long-Term Development in Nordic Skiing: What We Say vs. What We Actually Do”. Most people that I talk with agree with the premise of long-term development and keeping youth in sport longer. None of this is particularly controversial. We all understand that endurance development, technical skills and learning how to race takes years. We now see this statement across virtual all endurance sports world, that early results are a poor predictor of long-term success.

    So, if we assume there is a consensus then we must ask why the system seems to act in the opposite way. Because systems don’t reflect what we say. They reflect what we reward through early selection, for competition and training opportunities. That’s really the question sitting underneath all of this.

    We’ve reached a point where there’s broad agreement on philosophy. Long-term development matters. Early results don’t predict long-term success. Endurance, technique, and racing ability take years to build. You hear that all endurance sports now, not just skiing.

    None of that is controversial!

    But if that’s true, then we have to be honest about what follows. Because systems don’t reflect what we say. They reflect what we reward. And right now, the system is still rewarding something very different.

    The incentives tell the story.

    Skiers from all over the country round the first corner of the Theodore Wirth Park course in the U16 Boys 5 k Classic at Junior Nationals in Minneapolis in 2022. (Photo: David J Owen Photography)

    Junior skiing in the U.S. is quietly organized around early selection. Qualification for Junior Nationals, especially at U16 and younger, carries weight. Rankings matter. Opportunities follow results. No one would say that’s the goal. But it’s the outcome.

    Athletes see it. Parents respond to it. Coaches feel it. And none of that is inherently bad. But when those forces align around early results, the system starts to tilt. Short-term performance carries more weight than it should. And over time, that shows up in participation. The fields in USSS junior races get smaller as the age groups progress. We can debate why, but we can’t ignore that we’re losing athletes along the way.

    The earlier we start selecting, the earlier we start excluding, selecting out athletes. And in a sport like skiing, that’s a problem. Development is long-term, non-linear, and tied to maturation in ways we can’t reliably predict. So, when we sort athletes at 13, 14, or 15 years of age, or younger, we’re making decisions on incomplete information, and treating those decisions as if they’re meaningful. They’re not!

    What we’re really doing is narrowing the pathway at the exact point where it should be widest. If we believe in long-term development, early stages should include more athletes, not filter them out. We don’t lose athletes because they lack talent. We lose them because they stop seeing a path or opportunities forward.

    That loss doesn’t always show up at the top. At the elite level, we can always point to success and say the system works. And in a narrow sense, it does. Every system produces some high performers. But that’s survivorship bias. But even with the perceived success, it is clear that most of those who step onto the World Cup are not prepared and developed for that level of competition, or we see an erosion of their performances over several years.

    What matters more is what happens in the middle. Over time, that middle erodes. Fewer athletes stay. Fewer develop later. Fewer are still around when their best years should begin. And once they’re gone, they’re gone. So, how do we grow the sport and improve the development system? Following are a couple of ideas for the integration of high school and college skiing.

    Stillwater senior Jessie Diggins, right, finishes ahead of St. Paul Academy senior Annie Hart in the 2010 edition of the Minnesota State Meet. (Photo: MSHSL Archives)

    This is where the high school system should come into focus. Whether we acknowledge it or not, it’s one of the most influential environments in the entire pathway. We’re talking about roughly 6,500 high school athletes, compared to about 2,100 in the USSS junior system. That alone tells you something. Most athletes are not in the club pipeline. And there’s very little overlap between the two, in some regions more than others.

    So now you have two systems, often operating in parallel, sometimes in conflict, shaping the same athlete. The club system is year-round, often very expensive, which creates barriers, and it is tied to rankings, qualifications, and progression. Ideally, at least in theory, it is long-term focused. The high school system is seasonal. Compressed. Built around immediate competition, conferences, regional, and state.

    Both have value. But they’re not aligned. And when systems aren’t aligned, the athlete’s abilities are often put in difficult positions. High school seasons are short. That compresses everything. Training, racing, recovery, all of it gets stacked into a three-month season.

    And yet, high school skiing also gets something right that the system needs more of.  It creates a connection. It lowers barriers to entry. It brings athletes into sport who might never join a club. It makes skiing social. It makes it fun. Those values matter!

    Athletes who feel connected to a team stay in the sport longer. That alone makes the high school system one of the most valuable pieces of the entire pathway. The issue isn’t that it exists rather it is not integrated,  where do those high school skiers go after high school, an assumption may be many go into the non-integrated USCSA programs.

    If that gap exists in high school, it becomes even more obvious at the college level.

    Because this is where the pipeline either tightens or disappears. On one side, you have NCAA skiing. Roughly 20–25 programs. Maybe 300–400 athletes. Small, but structured, providing consistent coaching,  clear expectations, and daily training environments that align with the demands of sport.

    On the other side, you have USCSA. Thousands of athletes. Hundreds of active racers. A much broader participation base.  So yes, USCSA is far bigger. But the NCAA is more efficient. In NCAA programs, a higher percentage of athletes improve year over year. More reach FIS relevance. More stay on a performance trajectory. That’s not because they’re inherently more talented. It’s because the environment supports development. Training is consistent. Coaching is present. Progression is clear.

    USCSA shows the opposite. It’s not only a talent problem. It’s a structural problem. You have hundreds of athletes still in the sport. Many have endurance backgrounds. Many are still within a trainable window. But training is inconsistent. Coaching is variable. Development isn’t systematized. And there’s no clear bridge to higher performance levels. So, the conversion rate stays low.

    This is where the pipeline argument starts to fall apart. We tend to focus on the front end, getting more kids into the sport.  But at the USSS level that has been ineffective at best.  And missing the fact that we already have athletes in the system that aren’t welcome or integrated. High school skiing, USCSA, represents a large participation pool sitting right in the middle of the development pathway. What we don’t have is a system that consistently integrates and develops them.

    So, what actually needs to change? Not the philosophy, it seems we already agree on that. What needs to change is how the system behaves across the junior and collegiate level, it means recognizing where the opportunity is not just in the NCAA pipeline, but in the larger, under-structured USCSA system that already exists.

    Even if we integrated the high school athletes and the USCSA athletes into the USSS system, the sport is still tiny. But it seems growing the sport significantly beyond this level is unlikely so we should be looking for ways to include these athletes in the system as much as possible for those who have an interest.

    There are athletes in the system right now, thousands of them, who could or have the potential to improve dramatically beyond high school. Some who could enter the sport late and still become competitive.

    Novie McCabe controlled the pack for much of the 20-k mass start at the 2023 NCAA Championship in Lake Placid, New York. McCabe became just the fifth three-time NCAA Women’s Champion with her win. (Photo: (c) 2023 Nancie Battaglia)

    At some level, this comes down to a simple choice. Do we want a system that identifies and benefits early performers? Or one that develops athletes over time? Right now, we say the second. But too often, we operate like the first. And the differences are real; we can see it by who improves, who stays in the sport, and when athletes exit the sport.

    We don’t need to overhaul everything. There’s a lot in the system that works. High school brings athletes in. NCAA shows what structured development can look like. Even USCSA shows us how much untapped potential is sitting there.

    But without alignment, those pieces don’t add up. So the question isn’t whether we understand long-term development. It’s whether we’re willing to build a system that actually supports it. Because if we are, the path forward should be clear.

    And if we’re not, we should at least be honest about what we’re choosing instead.

     

    Help Support Our Olympic Coverage!

    If you value the thoughtful work and access FasterSkier provides, please consider becoming a Voluntary Subscriber. Your support directly fuels our work to cover the people, places, and moments that make our sport special.

    Join the FasterSkier community!