GB Athletics

[Grassmarket 3,403]

33 minutes ago, Olympicsnell said:

Please seriously dont tell me you think we are a dominant 10,000m natiom, that cant be one of the events you are refering to 

 

We had ONE runner 🤣 

You've got to go back to the 70s to find a time when we had multiple contenders. 

[Epic Failure 355]

19 hours ago, Rafa Maciel said:

 I'm not disputing that UKA is financially challenged (and grossly mismanaged) but at the same time, I can't think of a recent major event that UKA have not sent a decent sized squad to with the exception of race walking.

 

The first team they introduced the limit was Eugene, where it was Q or ranking if the ranking was inside the top 32. That team size was 80

 

Last year, they adopted even more stringent standards. The team dropped to 55.

 

For Paris it will be about the same - somewhere between 50-60 I reckon. It's a sizeable drop.

 

Will it impact our medal count? Probably not.

 

Might it discourage athletes? Could it have a knock on effect, especially in events we don't have strength in depth? Absolutely.

 

 

[Epic Failure 355]

15 hours ago, Olympicsnell said:

This is kind of where i stand, i am a HUGE athletics fan, but when UKA leave an athlete at home who probably wont make a final, probably struggle for a semi spot, i am none to botherd. 

 

UKA have their standard and that is what the athletes should aim for, not a lesser qualification standard that just gets you to the show. If this was GB of old (92...96) then sure, send as many as possible and just be happy to be there, but GB now are a global powerhouse of sport and the athletes should be pushed to achieve higher standards of qualification. Some athletes will be upset to miss out, but GB have layed out exactly what you need to do to qualify, if you give them the option of leaving you at home, then do better. 

That works in a handful of events where we have strength in depth. But it is an approach that can have a bunch of downsides, some obvious, some less obvious.

 

Firstly, it's worth noting that the WA Q are intended to be difficult to achieve - they want half the field to qualify on time, the other half on ranking. So using the ranking isn't an easy way out.

 

Let's use Anna Purchase as an example. She has neither the WA nor the UKA standard. However, she is ranked 16th in the world. On top of that, she was 8th at the Euros this month. And was 11th in Budapest. She's not going to taken to Paris. Instead less talented athletes from other countries will take that spot.

 

Is that really what we want? If so, why are we taking, say, Amber Anning? After all, she's only 9th on time this year, so she might not make a final, right? Do we only take people we think are going to get medals?

 

Secondly, you never know when an athlete might break out. Let's use the French heptathlete from Rome, Auriana Lazraq-Khlass. She went into that competition with a PB of just over 6200. She then went crazy in Rome, winning a silver medal and setting a PB by 400 points. I mention that because last year Jade O'Dowda missed Budapest by a small margin like that because UKA wanted a higher score, even though she had a WA invite. Who is to say that she could not have had a breakout last year if she was selected? If athletics was so predictable, we wouldn't watch it.

 

Thirdly, there is the argument about experience. Sophie Hitchon went to several World and Olympic meets before she finally broke through for her medal. Likewise Holly Bradshaw. Can it not be said that the experience of the unsuccesful champs might have paid off eventually with the successful ones?

 

Finally, and this one is more subjective, but I firmly believe we should take all those who qualify, especially in events where we don't have strength in depth. What if seeing someone represent your country in, say, the shot were to inspire a young kid? If we stop sending those athletes, we risk the next generation being uninspired.

 

Representing one's country should be something we encourage. This policy does nothing but discourage people. It's a terrible policy in my opinion.

 

[mpjmcevoy 362]

7 hours ago, Epic Failure said:

That works in a handful of events where we have strength in depth. But it is an approach that can have a bunch of downsides, some obvious, some less obvious.

 

Firstly, it's worth noting that the WA Q are intended to be difficult to achieve - they want half the field to qualify on time, the other half on ranking. So using the ranking isn't an easy way out.

 

Let's use Anna Purchase as an example. She has neither the WA nor the UKA standard. However, she is ranked 16th in the world. On top of that, she was 8th at the Euros this month. And was 11th in Budapest. She's not going to taken to Paris. Instead less talented athletes from other countries will take that spot.

 

Is that really what we want? If so, why are we taking, say, Amber Anning? After all, she's only 9th on time this year, so she might not make a final, right? Do we only take people we think are going to get medals?

 

Secondly, you never know when an athlete might break out. Let's use the French heptathlete from Rome, Auriana Lazraq-Khlass. She went into that competition with a PB of just over 6200. She then went crazy in Rome, winning a silver medal and setting a PB by 400 points. I mention that because last year Jade O'Dowda missed Budapest by a small margin like that because UKA wanted a higher score, even though she had a WA invite. Who is to say that she could not have had a breakout last year if she was selected? If athletics was so predictable, we wouldn't watch it.

 

Thirdly, there is the argument about experience. Sophie Hitchon went to several World and Olympic meets before she finally broke through for her medal. Likewise Holly Bradshaw. Can it not be said that the experience of the unsuccesful champs might have paid off eventually with the successful ones?

 

Finally, and this one is more subjective, but I firmly believe we should take all those who qualify, especially in events where we don't have strength in depth. What if seeing someone represent your country in, say, the shot were to inspire a young kid? If we stop sending those athletes, we risk the next generation being uninspired.

 

Representing one's country should be something we encourage. This policy does nothing but discourage people. It's a terrible policy in my opinion.

 

100%

 

UKA treat a ranking invite as if it were the old 'B' standard - which only shows they don't understand the system. The ranking is actually supposed to be the main way to qualify, with the 'A' standard there to catch elite athletes who have slipped down the rankings through injury or inactivity. of course, it hasn't worked out that way in practice but the qualification for the 100m for men, for example, is 10 secs flat. That is ridiculous if you consider it the 'basic' qualification standard.

 

I actually hope WA move on this eventually, but I'll add only this. The USA accepts ranking invites. They don't believe in excellence?

 

The athletes who will likely miss out; Amelia Strickler-Campbell, Shot, Anna Purchase, possibly Charlotte Payne, hammer, Phil Norman Steeple chase, Hannah Nuttall and Verity Ockenden 5000

Edited July 1 by mpjmcevoy

[cjsavory 44]

Nuttall feels particularly ridiculous, given that she missed the main qualification time by, what, 0.65 seconds? Over 5K?! And that was only a month ago, so she's clearly in great shape.

Edited July 1 by cjsavory

[mpjmcevoy 362]

19 minutes ago, cjsavory said:

Nuttall feels particularly ridiculous, given that she missed the main qualification time by, what, 0.65 seconds? Over 5K?! And that was only a month ago, so she's clearly in great shape.

Phil Norman Likewise. Not to mention one I forgot Jake Norris in men's hammer, an outstanding talent for the future, in good, good nick.

[Orangehair43 251]

47 minutes ago, mpjmcevoy said:

100%

 

UKA treat a ranking invite as if it were the old 'B' standard - which only shows they don't understand the system. The ranking is actually supposed to be the main way to qualify, with the 'A' standard there to catch elite athletes who have slipped down the rankings through injury or inactivity. of course, it hasn't worked out that way in practice but the qualification for the 100m for men, for example, is 10 secs flat. That is ridiculous if you consider it the 'basic' qualification standard.

 

I actually hope WA move on this eventually, but I'll add only this. The USA accepts ranking invites. They don't believe in excellence?

 

The athletes who will likely miss out; Amelia Strickler-Campbell, Shot, Anna Purchase, possibly Charlotte Payne, hammer, Phil Norman Steeple chase, Hannah Nuttall and Verity Ockenden 5000

A few others as well. 

[Orangehair43 251]

9 minutes ago, mpjmcevoy said:

Phil Norman Likewise. Not to mention one I forgot Jake Norris in men's hammer, an outstanding talent for the future, in good, good nick.

And someone GB are lucky to have as he could have switched to Switzerland through parentage. This policy could well send some younger athletes to switching as teens. 

Edited July 1 by Orangehair43

[RussB 189]

I would be very surprised if Nuttall and Norman are not selected...

Purchase I'm less confident in.

[Epic Failure 355]

55 minutes ago, RussB said:

I would be very surprised if Nuttall and Norman are not selected...

Purchase I'm less confident in.

I would be shocked if they *were* selected. Once you start carving out exceptions for those who are close, you lose the justification to reject those further away.

 

History has shown they won't take close examples - they didn't take Lina Nielsen to the Worlds last year and she was only 0.06 off the Q mark.