Epic Failure

That's not what the policy says.

They couldn't go up to 37 in every event without increasing the total quota. Whilst it is disappointing not to have any British representation, it was always likely. Stutchbury was always on the edge. It's not a particularly egregious problem for the 30th ranked athlete to miss the games, when the field is 34. At least for me.

Yeah, you don't have to go deep into the program to find an event where Europe *could* win gold but they probably aren't favourite - an on form Dressel or McEvoy would be favoured in the 50 free over any of the Europeans.

Just looking at the rankings, I think there's pretty much zero chance she gets in. There's more athletes higher ranked than her than there are places anyway I think, and that's assuming none of the places went to the tripartite.

Acknowledging the reality of the situation (that the current system might be the best deal that the FIE is going to get from the IOC) and not being a particular fan of the sport doesn't invalidate someone's opinion of the qualification system as a neutral observer. Discussing a hypothetical preferred system is just that - a hypothetical. Both things can be true - it can be the best realistic system *and* still not a good system. And the fact that the IOC likes it doesn't change that. I'm fairly certain there's a bunch of things the IOC likes that I would consider bad. Which include the qualification systems for a bunch of sports at the games, not just fencing.

I'd agree that the 6.68 itself is not a medal worthy jump, but it was also done with practically no wind. She was 7th in Budapest last year and beat 2 of the athletes above her that day today (Diame and Rotaru-Kottman). She jumped in excess of 6.80 a few times last year. So I would say that she's definitely an outside minor medal threat already if she gets things right on the day. But she's likely to need to go beyond 7m to move from 'outside chance' to 'strong chance'.

I hadn't mentioned either Ilieva - because she still had tomorrow - or Georgiadou because you had already covered how ridiculous her situation is already, that was all. All 3 are currently examples of a system that doesn't seem to be helping the games be the best they can be. The only 'consolation' I can find is that it isn't just fencing that has a stupid qualification system. There's other athletes in other sports who get equally screwed by the weird whims of the IOC quotas! So the fencers are in good company at least!

If we ignore Popovici, I'd be amazed if a 1.43 high didn't win it. For whatever reason, the 200m free seems to have settled to the 1.44 lows. There's only been, what, 4 non super-suited swims under 1.44 ever? Phelps in 07, Agnel in 12 and Popovici's 2 in 22. Even the Thorpedo's time, as great as it was, was an outlier for him - he was consistently in the 1:44.7 range but only once dipped down to that 1:44.0 time. So it feels like if someone can get the perfect swim anywhere in the 1:43s, they are going to win. But those swims have only been coming along about once every 5 years since the turn of the century!!

2013. We won one medal in the pool that year, a bronze from Fran Halsall in the 50 free. We've always been a bit up and down over the years, but that was particularly bad.

I mean, if we're talking about what we would rather see, I'd rather see the top 16 teams battling out in their competition, and the top 64 individuals in their competition! However, if we're talking within the confines of the current quotas numbers, I'd personally get rid of the team event if it meant that the highest ranked 32 in each individual discipline got to take part. Especially when the make up of the team comp is not even just the 8 best teams but based partially on continental location.

If memory served Britain moved their champs to the US model one year, then did appallingly at the subsequent WCs. So they promptly moved it back to their usual window the following year.

I'd not be making Märtens the favourite yet, simply because he hasn't shown at a World/Olympic level that he can definitely get the pacing right through 3 rounds of the 200m yet. He's in the group of favourites for sure but I don't think these 2 swims today take him clear of the pack yet. They are still his only ever sub 1:45 swims at the distance, bar a relay split, I believe. Hwang, Richards and Scott would all still fancy their chances I reckon. If Popovici is at his 22 best, he's away and gone obviously.

On the subject of the mixed 4x4 - I believe that the schedule has the final of that the night before the men's individual 400m starts. So I'm not 100% sure that MHS would risk doing both with that short of a turnaround. Hope I'm wrong, but I think it is more likely that we get a team (assuming we qualify next week!) on the men's side from those who haven't qualified in the individual. Unless we get multiple individual qualifications, in which case, tough luck for them for being more talented than I was expecting.

On the other hand, it's possible that she's still a young athlete who doesn't necessarily know yet how far to push herself, at least in terms of competing at the very highest level (and especially in the 5000m at a champs, where she has heats and a final to deal with). She might be better off concentrating on one event this time to see quite how far she can go, rather than spreading herself across both. Save trying that for something like the European Champs in 26, when the level of competition might be slightly less taxing. Or I might be talking rubbish.

As much as the parochial side of me is sad to see Stutchbury miss out, she had her shot and her ranking puts her roughly on the borderline anyway. I feel more for Carlos Llavador from Spain in the men's foil. He's ranked 12th. He's looking likely to miss out. But in the individual event, we'll see 3 Polish fencers and 3 Canadians, none of whom are within the top 30 in the rankings. Nothing against any of those athletes, it's just a weird system. It just seems somewhat perverse that *multiple* lower ranked athletes get to take part in the individual because they are just good enough to get a quota in another event, whereas an individual clearly more talented misses out.

Yeah, my preference is obviously for an increased number of athletes. Or if we can't do that, to reduce the athletes from other sports first. The fact that track and field get up to 3 per event is a crazy disparity to a bunch of other sports. But I digress... However, in this specific case, if the IOC were unwilling to grant such an increase in quota places in fencing (which would only be about 30 total athletes, but this is the IOC talking...) I'd scrap the team events and have just the individual events. You could still reward strongly ranked countries by giving them more spots in the individual competitions (ie, the top 4 ranked countries get 3 slots, the next 4 ranked get 2 spots etc). So the excellence displayed by countries in the normal circuit is rewarded. And you can still have the continental qualifers. But you don't lose the gifted athlete from a weaker country.

Definitely a quota issue for sure. The limits they put are weird.

Yeah, it was the 3 spots per team in the individual that really shocked me. When you add that to the fact that there's a continental quota for a country in the top 16 for a team sport, there's a few teams who are ranked 14th or 15th as a country who are getting 3 fencers in there, when there's an individual who is much higher in the rankings who isn't there. The men's foil, for example, looks likely to have 3 Canadians in it. But not the Spanish guy who is ranked 13th, a good 20 spots higher than any of them. That just seems weird. Personally, I'd do it similarly to cycling - the top ranked countries get 3 spots in the individual. the other team spots get 2, and you increase the global individual spots (based more on the world rankings than continental qualification). So still a strong reward for a great team, a good reward for a solid team and more chance for a talented individual.

Apologies in advance to all fencing aficionados and no disrespect intended to the sport itself, but this morning is the first time I've ever delved deeply into the qualification system for the Olympics, and it is surely one of the more insane systems of qualifications out there.

Yeah, my bigger 'concern' with China is whether they perform on the very highest stage. They've always put fast times down in domestic meets but not always collectively performed on the international stage (they've always had a couple of stars who've performed, but not necessarily the team as a whole). If they can solve that problem on a consistent basis, they are a force to be reckoned with.

Cassie Wild (swimming)

Gutting for Sawyers. Although hopefully she won't miss the Games completely (if she doesn't want to, that is). She was excellent on comms at the World Champs. The Beeb would be insane not to use her in Paris if she's up for it.

The US didn't have too much strength last summer in Fukuoka. Adding in the GBR heat swim (adjusting it slightly slower for a legal takeover), the US were only capable of producing the 4th fastest time of the meet, behind Aus, Italy and GBR. Obviously with their general strength, having them as favourites is perfectly reasonable and even more so if Dressel is close to form. But if someone had one of those others as favourite, I don't think it would be an unreasonable shout. And that's not even considering the Chinese.

Italy were 5th at the last Olympics and 5th in Budapest last summer (as well as 5th in Doha), both in 7:03-something. Yes, China and South Korea were faster in Doha, but that WC is not necessarily a good guide as to who will perform in Paris because we just don't know who was tapered. I certainly wouldn't be ruling Italy out of the running.

There's very little Olympic sport that I won't watch and enjoy, so I would be here all day if I tried to list them. Cycling, Athletics, Rugby and Climbing are all always near the top if there is a clash because they are some of the sports I've taken part in a decent amount myself over the decades.