Epic Failure

I don't think the IOC particularly does love it when one nation dominates events in that way. But I suspect (with no evidence except my own conspiracy theory ) that they tolerate it a bit more when the nation is not also dominant in a lot of other sports. Germany has been on a downward trend in the Summer Games since unification and that, coupled with their advantages in Winter Sports (both natural and in funding etc) over many other nations, probably means they are allowed a bit of leeway. I suspect the same leeway is given to, say, Norway. I think if these events were all being dominated by the US and China, they might be quicker to limit it to 2 per nation.

I completely agree that funding for skating should be massively increased. Although I guess in these more austere times there isn't the political will to support the building of ice rinks etc. You need to get that system built first and then you can justify it afterwards with the results. Getting the National Cycling Centre built led to so many other opportunities. There's also no real reason we couldn't become more competitive at things like ice hockey. Especially as it is a freaking excellent sport. I don't have a problem with snowboarding/skiing to a degree. We do have some pedigree in the x sports side of things. So I get that more than the traditional alpine skiing events.

If we come away from these games having won 2 more golds than any previous games, with our best ever performance in cross country and with several 4th places (5 at last count I think) AND then UK Sport respond with anything other than a funding boost, I will actually cry. It's not rocket science, we've shown that despite our natural disadvantage of not really having snow, we can be competitive in a bunch of events. Cutting the funding would not improve that.

Yeah, I don't understand that decision, if that's what she did. She would have needed a 96.5 from jump B (if my maths is right) to get bronze. Whereas improving jump A to somewhere around an 87-88 would put all three medals in the reckoning. The only thing I can think is that she just didn't trust that she could as reliably pull that jump A off in any circumstance. Which I imagine happens. All athletes must know what they think they can do repeatedly/reliably. All speculation of course.

But presumably there is still an execution score element? Which is why Tabanelli scored higher than Muir for doing the same jump? She did the jump more 'cleanly', at least in my inexpert eyes.

She didn't have to take the underscored 84. She could have tried to improve that. She took the risk that the chances of improving Jump A was more likely than improving Jump B. Which is usually because an athlete is more comfortable performing one type than the other. Whilst I don't personally like judging only events, I do think making athletes show they can execute multiple tricks is better. Even though it hurt today (Muir would have got silver if it was just the 'best' single jump).

So I'll admit to not being an expert on this, but I would presume that the additional rotation ups the difficulty and then grab/landing takes points off. So had it been perfectly executed, she might have scored higher than that. Which is why Tabanelli scored 1.25 more than her for performing the same trick, but better. Also - and again, I'm no expert - my understanding of the landing scoring is that it only significantly matters if you actually touch the ground with a body part that isn't your skis. Whilst it looked close, from the replays I saw, she didn't actually touch it. And I presume the judges have a better camera options than I do. Either way, she didn't medal so it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

Best DAY ever. We've won more gold medals today than in any previous entire Winter Games.

The sports gods giveth, and they taketh away... But joking aside, Brookes will likely have multiple more chances over the years. This might have been Bankes's last chance. Over the moon for her. And praise has to go to Nightingale. The runs in the SF and Final were exactly what he needed to do to give Charlotte the opportunity to show what she could do.

I'd add if there's any criticism to go towards Charlotte, she didn't have a particularly clean seeding run herself. On another day she gets away with it, but today wasn't that day.

Worth noting that the two people who narrowly qualified ahead of her went on to pretty comfortably go 1/2 in each of their other races, including the final. I'm sure she's more disappointed than anyone, but going out in the QF might not have been a fair reflection on her form generally, given how the other races went.

Agree with this, a very fair review. I sound like a broken record as I've been banging on about it elsewhere on the internet, but we're the nation with the most to think about in terms of 2026 in athletics, with 2 home championships. As you rightfully say, this year is absolutely the least important in the cycle for British athletes. Our number of top 8 finishes was pretty much where it normally is, they just weren't necessarily translated into medals as much as we might have hoped. There's a wider point about the (non)competitiveness in things like field events but in terms of comparisons to recent years, we're not far away. Beijing looks to be important, not least because you have to imagine that it will come in the window for LA qualifying. Better to achieve a mark there, if possible, than have to chase around the world in early 2028.

The most recent guys we've had at Euros have been Duckworth and Bryant, both obviously retired now. As Rafa says, Turner and Ball are the current 'most likely in the future' but as ever in the Dec, fitness is the struggle. Church is a bit older but obviously that doesn't rule out continuing to improve, but I guess his potential ceiling is the lowest of the 3. With both CGs and Euros next summer, it's very likely we'll see all 3 in a national vest of some sort, fitness allowing.

They do have choices. Muir and a few others have chosen the more traditional white. Gutting for Molly. She was definitely one of our better individual medal hopes.

The only 2 athletes on relay funding that didn't run in the relay are Vicki O and Reardon. Anning, MHS and Dobson are on individual funding. YMJ is on potential relay funding but ran in the heat obv. Also, the UK funding is done on an annual level and there are weird rules as to how many athletes can be on which level, and whether you can change levels. So I wouldn't read as much into the specifics on that for any more than a guide. It's as much about making yourself available for things like World Relays. Finally, the UK sport funding is done on the Olympic cycle. So, arguably, the decision about what happens in a WC matters far less to that. They may still take into account WC performance, but there will be another WC before LA and it is entirely possible that we medal in the mixed relay there. I'm sure that the athletes and coaches have had many a discussion. And maybe they made a collective decision to focus on the individual here. It would hardly be an absurd choice. On the subject of hurdlers - Newnham aside - none of the others have done anything to suggest that they would have been better options than those who ran. So really it comes down to whether you think that Reardon and Ohurougu should have been in there. And, for me, Vicki has never shown herself to be a comfortable relay runner, especially as she would have been in traffic due to the set nature of the mixed relay. She usually leads off if she does the relay at all. And I'm not going to begrudge Reardon being given the chance of seeing what his first major individual champs looks like. If the focus is *just* maximising medals, sure, it probably was a poor choice. If at least part of it is helping to maximise the future potential of athletes, I have no problem with the decisions made.