Oh, I like this one! Let's have a go.
This is similar to the situation I face, and it has been a bit of a chore organization-wise. In the past I treated the athletes with an indoor track season separately; I kept them in the competition phase of training. I would no longer do this, however. I recognize that once you peak, you peak. I don't believe comp. phase should be extended an additional 12 weeks for these athletes. Comp. phase should be relegated to 3-4 weeks, and peak to 1-2 weeks. I'm particularly thinking along the lines of short sprinters, or all power athletes for that matter…Give them double periodization, going back to GPP, SPP, etc., just at an accelerated pace, and have the other athletes come along similarly. This will refresh the base for all, allow for reparation of minor bodily traumas from their previous peak performances, refresh them psychologically, and get them hungry for phase progressions once again. Indoor track athletes will essentially revisit their plan and cycles of all athletes can be on the same page, though expectations will be higher for the indoor track athletes. This means they'll be hitting faster times, everything will be heightened coming off indoors (new SRM's established in weightroom, thus loads proportionally higher at same intensities). Set-up will be short-to-long for all thru 400m. Throw extensive and intensive tempo (shorter to longer, as well) and special endurance (long sprinters) at them in practice, and use the meets themselves as speed endurance sessions, as they race themselves into shape. By week 9 distances of training runs on the track will match actual race distances in meets. Mesos will be 2 (GPP), 3 (SPP), 2 (pre-comp), 3 (comp) and 2 (peak) as unloading weeks are probably unnecessary, seeing that more recovery days are allotted by pre-meet and post-meet days and by vacations themselves. Those coming off swimming or basketball, one assumes, have also peaked, and will be more or less on the same page. Those coming off no sport will likely need some extra general work capacity and dynamic flexibility to bring them up to snuff and to prevent injury. Some "especially talented" athletes may merit special treatment with their workouts, but to micro-manage everyone with different backgrounds could be a tactical nightmare (as Mike has helped me realize). Those with whom I used to try and extend peak performance/comp phase thru an additional 3 months either A) were forced into taking a step back anyway, by their own bodies mandating it or B) flopped by State. Volumes should always be progressively dropping, as intensities are rising within each period of training, and the athlete should always feel that he/she is headed somewhere.
I just remembered there are only 20 athletes in the group, so I guess we don't have a tactical nightmare. Regard details of my above post as for a larger group of sprinters (50+) :bigsmile:
