1. Curling High Performance Plan CCA OTP Submission 2012

2. 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

3. 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

4. Focus/ New Strategies 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

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

7. Integrated Training Model

8. National Team Program 2012 Statistics of Importance within our program

9. 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 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

10. National Team Program 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 ) 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 )

11. National Team Program Competitive Ages –Scotties / Brier In 2005 the average age at both the womens and mens 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 Competitive Ages –Scotties / Brier In 2005 the average age at both the womens and mens 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

12. 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 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

13. 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) 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)

14. National Team Program - Men Order of Merit- World Rankings (March 2011) 1. McEwen 469 points 7. Ulsrud (Nor) 220 2. Martin 4468. Fowler 189 3. Howard 3899. Epping 182 4. Stoughton 36210. Gushue 179 5. Edin (Swe) 30411. Jacobs 173 6. Koe 28912. Laycock 172 18 of top 20 teams are Canadian (17 in 2011) Order of Merit- World Rankings (March 2011) 1. McEwen 469 points 7. Ulsrud (Nor) 220 2. Martin 4468. Fowler 189 3. Howard 3899. Epping 182 4. Stoughton 36210. Gushue 179 5. Edin (Swe) 30411. Jacobs 173 6. Koe 28912. Laycock 172 18 of top 20 teams are Canadian (17 in 2011)

15. National Team Program Olympics 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% 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%

16. National Team Program 2011 Worlds – Statistics -Women 1.Canada 10-5 81% Silver (Team % inc. Playoffs) 2.China 9-5 81% Bronze 3.Switz. 7-4 80% 4.Denmark 7-6 80% 5.Russia 6-5 78% 6.Sweden 11-2 78% Gold 7.Germany 5-6 76% 8.Norway 3-8 75% 9.Scotland 4-7 73% 10.Korea 2-9 73%Denmark 11.U.S.A. 6-5 73% 12.Czech Rep. 2-9 70% 1.Canada 10-5 81% Silver (Team % inc. Playoffs) 2.China 9-5 81% Bronze 3.Switz. 7-4 80% 4.Denmark 7-6 80% 5.Russia 6-5 78% 6.Sweden 11-2 78% Gold 7.Germany 5-6 76% 8.Norway 3-8 75% 9.Scotland 4-7 73% 10.Korea 2-9 73%Denmark 11.U.S.A. 6-5 73% 12.Czech Rep. 2-9 70%

17. National Team Program 2012 Worlds – Statistics -Women 1.Switz. 10-4 82% Gold ( Team % inc. Playoffs) 2.USA 7-5 81% 3.Sweden 9-4 80% Silver 4.Canada 9-5 80% Bronze 5.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 1.Switz. 10-4 82% Gold ( Team % inc. Playoffs) 2.USA 7-5 81% 3.Sweden 9-4 80% Silver 4.Canada 9-5 80% Bronze 5.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

18. National Team Program Olympics 2010 – Percentages -Men 1. Martin 11-0 85% Gold (inc. Play offs) 2. Norway 8-385%Silver 3. Switzerland 7-483% Bronze 4. Sweden6-681% 5. Gr. Britain5-580% 6. Denmark2-778% 7. China2-777% 8. USA2-776%Vancouver, Canada 9. Germany4-574% 10. France3-673% 1. Martin 11-0 85% Gold (inc. Play offs) 2. Norway 8-385%Silver 3. Switzerland 7-483% Bronze 4. Sweden6-681% 5. Gr. Britain5-580% 6. Denmark2-778% 7. China2-777% 8. USA2-776%Vancouver, Canada 9. Germany4-574% 10. France3-673%

19. National Team Program 2011 Worlds –Statistics -Men 1.Canada 10-1 88%Gold (Team % include playoffs) 2.Sweden 7-4 87%Bronze 3.Norway 7-4 85% 4.Switzer. 6-5 83% 5.Scotland 9-2 82%Silver 6.France 7-4 82% 7.USA 3-8 81% 8.Germany 6-5 81% 9.Czech 5-6 78%Regina, Canada 10.Korea 2-9 78% 11.China 4-7 77% 12.Denmark 0-11 72% 1.Canada 10-1 88%Gold (Team % include playoffs) 2.Sweden 7-4 87%Bronze 3.Norway 7-4 85% 4.Switzer. 6-5 83% 5.Scotland 9-2 82%Silver 6.France 7-4 82% 7.USA 3-8 81% 8.Germany 6-5 81% 9.Czech 5-6 78%Regina, Canada 10.Korea 2-9 78% 11.China 4-7 77% 12.Denmark 0-11 72%

20. National Team Program 2012 Worlds –Statistics -Men 1. Canada 88%GoldTeam % - 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% 1. Canada 88%GoldTeam % - 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%

21. Canadas Position Canada remains #1 in the world in Mens play by any measure used. Canada remains in the top three in the world in Womens play. Canada is number one in the world in Junior Mens Canada remains in the top 3-4 in Junior Womens play

23. Curling High Performance Plan CCA OTP Submission 2012

24. Curling Sochi 2014 Preparation

25. Towards Sochi

26. 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

27. CHALLENGES Language Foreign environment Lack of familiarity for athletes

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

29. Olympic Curling Centre INSERT CURLING DIAGRAM FROM PDF FILE

31. 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

32. Elite Condo & Performance Centre

33. Accreditation Plan in place Will work within the allocation

34. Family Plan Well in hand Inspected many options Working with Mike Murray

35. Curling - Women Sochi 2014 Preparation

36. 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

37. Womens Olympic Curling Team Sochi 2014 Preparation Plan Dec. 13 Team Declared/ Meeting on site in Winnipdg Dec. 14 – 23 Recovery/ Training at home/ Meeting Dec. 28 – 30 Training Camp, Location TBD Jan. 8 - 10 Competition - Berne, Switzerland Jan. 15 - 17 Competition - Glasgow, Scotland (tentative) Jan 20 - 24 Training Camp in Winnipeg at BDO Men's event Jan. 28 - 30 Sochi 2014Orientation & Training Camp Feb. 5 Appearance at Scottie/ Practice on Scottie ice Feb. 8 or 9 Arrive at Athletes' Village Feb. 10-11 Training in Europe Feb. 12 Opening Ceremony Feb. 13 Practice at another facility Feb. 14, 15 Official Practice at Olympic Venue Feb. 14 Move to out of village accommodation Feb. 16 - 26 Olympic Competition

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

39. Europe and Olympics January 1 through Olympics Alternative Two One Competition - Switzerland CH Camp Venue Olympics

40. Curling High Performance Plan CCA OTP Submission 2012

41. Curling High Performance Plan CCA OTP Submission 2012

42. National Team Training Program Sweep Development Training

43. 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.

44. Sweeping change carries Alberta rink into Tournament of Hearts ALLAN MAKI | Columnist profile | E-mail CALGARY From Saturday's Globe and MailSweeping change carries Alberta rink into Tournament of Hearts ALLAN MAKI | Columnist profile | E-mail CALGARY From Saturday's Globe and Mail ALLAN MAKI Columnist profileE-mail ALLAN MAKI Columnist profileE-mail Published Friday, Feb. 17, 2012 8:51PM Something had to change. When you dont make the playoffs at a provincial, when youre not coming close, thats the deflation. Thats when you wonder, What am I doing this for? Nedohin said. But when I come runner-up I think, Were 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 womens events and were not having anywhere near the same results on the rocks. … Yes, were 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 wasnt 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

45. 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

46. GOALAthlete A Athlete BAthlete CAthlete D Push ups current 251015 Push ups target35 Sit ups/ or? – current Sit ups target30 Brush typesyn Syn Brush brand PSI Stroke Speed 15 seconds 5548 50 Body positionclosedOpen/close d Closed **new Closed **new Angle of Attack -leg angle: target 45 90 INDICATORS Ice Temperature +.75 Body weight Weight on scale/ ratio 1.Initial test 56 36% 60 38% 60 37% 57 36% 1.After training 62 40% 60 38% 79 49% 70 44% 1.Target 2011-2012 92 60% 94 60% 97 60% 95 60% Load up/ Ratio 100 65% 96 62% 108 67% 105 66% SWEEP ANALYSIS - Date: July 23-24, 2011 SWEEP ANALYSIS - Date: July 23-24, 2011

47. SWEEP MODULE 2 – Technical/ Physical SWEEP MODULE 2 – Technical/ Physical Video analysis Athlete observation with coach Adjustments Video Goal setting for development

48. SWEEP MODULE 3 – Technical/ Physical Review Team data Identify Gaps Review/ identify Target Practice/ training Video

49. SWEEP MODULE #4 – Weight Judgement 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

50. Module #5 – Shot Management Manage the shot o Breakpoint o Energy systems o Impact of cleaning

51. Training

52. Next Steps What we know: Physical demands/ requirements Technological studies What we need to know: Scientific data on relative effectiveness: speed/ pressure/ biomechanics Technology o What we need to measure & how

54. Curling High Performance Plan CCA OTP Submission 2012

55. Canadian Curling Association Psychological Skills Training and LTAD Presented by: Kyle Paquette at the 2012 Scotties Tournament of Hearts, Red Deer, AB

56. Part 1 – Thinking and Focusing

57. Thinking vs. Focusing Having a conversation with others…

58. Thinking vs. Focusing Contd. Thinking is the production of thought o Not necessarily present o Minimal sensory experience o Left brain o Great for development Focusing is the reduction of thought o Fully present o Sensory experience o Right brain o Great for performance

59. 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

60. 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

61. 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