Epic Failure

77.50m. So neither Norris nor Ikeji will make it. Frustratingly.

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.

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

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.
 

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.
 

Assuming that I believe that what you are saying is 100% true - and I have my doubts considering your track record of accuracy in some of your claims is...not the best - it still doesn't change the central point that I'm making, which is that the evidence doesn't support that it will make a blind bit of difference.
 
I'd love to be wrong. I'd love for the public to be up in arms and force a change. But it ain't gonna happen.

things that didn't happen, and wont happen ^^ 

Yeah, I don't know where that has come from. The team is being selected on Monday, then announced on Friday. The next DL isn't until the Sunday after that.
 
Chalmers might be in a ranking position when the final list is released, but UKA isn't accepting that in the 400m H.

Just got even worse. Wightman out.
 
Bradshaw has the UKA Q and is in a quota spot, so she's probably fine.

Mills has dropped the 5k for just the 1500m here.
 
Pozzi out of the hurdles, which is a shame, although if they did want to select him I guess there's nothing stopping them. No Aimee Pratt either.
 
For what it is worth (not much), here's my thoughts:
 
100m - (M) Azu, Hinchliffe, Glave ;  (W) Neita, Hunt, Wedderurn-Goodison
200m - (M) MHS, Quainoo, Efoloko ; (W) DAS, Neita, Agyapong
400m - (M) Dobson, Carvell, Smith ; (W) Anning, Nielsen, Ohuruogo
800m - (M) Pattison, Giles, Sharman-Newell ; (W) Reekie, Gill, Baker
1500m - (M) Wightman, Gourley, Mills ; (W) Muir, Bell, Walcott-Nolan
5000m - (M) Dever, Atkin, Rowe ; (W) Fry, Nuttall, Fitzgerald
3000m SC - (M) Norman, Seddon, Pierce ; (W) Bird, Thorner, Tank
110m H - (M) Bennett, Ojora, King, : (W) Sember, Pawlett, Wakefield
400m H - (M) Chalmers, Faulds, Derbyshire ; (W) Nielsen, Knight, Newnham
 
HJ - (M) JCK, Grimsey, Jack (W) Lake, KJT, Ferguson
PV - (M) Heard, Hague, Coppell ; (W) Caudrey, Bradshaw, Ashurst
LJ - (M) JFD, Farquhson, Fortheringham ; (W) Hopkins, Irozuru, Olajide
TJ - (M) Falode, Ajala, Bright-Davies ; (W) Ojora, Metzger, Omitowoju
 
SP - (M) Lincoln, Cameron, Swan ; (W) Vincent, Omoregie, Campbell
Discus - (M) Okoye, Percy, Thompson ; (W) Lally, Law, Oladipo
Hammer - (M) Norris, Ikeji, T Campbell; (W) Purchase, Payne, Mayho
Javelin - (M) East, Evans, Bainbridge ; (W) Walton, F Jones, A Jones

Sekgodiso is definitely in the medal hunt, especially now.
 
But there's just more unknowns about her right now than Moraa or Hodgkinson to make her anything more than a strong contender for bronze, at least for me. Doesn't mean she can't win obviously, but it would still be a relatively big shock, even with her PB earlier this year.

Funny, I could have sworn that the current T20 World Champs are still in the tournament anyway.

Technically not a WL as it had a +2.3 wind.

Watching the Belgian men fight is only matched by watching the Dutch women do the same.

I wouldn't completely rule out . A certain someone split 49.7 in the World Relays in what is her only outing this season. Obviously, this would be reliant on her getting a time before the Q period closes but I believe that the Bahamas National Champs are this week...

I don't love them equally, being from Ireland, but I do like a bit of league, genuinely. The loyalty of its fan base is amusing, but also touching. I personally suspect there's a strong chance a Brisbane Games will try and ;aunch a 'nine's' on us - perhaps as a direct replacement for flag football. Its one advantage may be its weakness - lack of sides allows for a small 6-8 team comp : AUS, NZL, GBR, FRA, TON, SAM, LEB, USA
 
If it survives, it might be worth investigating nines as a CWG sport, at least get on the radar.

As someone who loves both League and Union equally, there's not a chance in hell of an Olympic 9s tournament happening unless Australia forced it in 2032 and then it would promptly be dropped as soon as 2036 comes around. There's more chance of flag football establishing a long term hold than 9s.
 
7s has its issues with marketing etc but it is a growing competitive sport in a code of rugby which is itself growing. As much as it depresses me, League is essentially dying outside of the NRL.
 
Also, international RL matches might have better attendance than 7s, but that doesn't mean 9s would. It's not like the XV-a-side game struggles for crowds internationally!

MvdP has never been that big on MTB, he's more into cyclo-cross.
 
My personal theory is that he and TP have sat down in recent years and agreed that they won't really cross each other too much - TP dabbles in CC but only slightly. Whereas MvdP takes the opposite approach. Works for both of them in that they get to dominate a discipline more easily.
 
Tarling finished 6th in Dwars door Vlaanderen earlier this year, so it is possible that they believes he has a realistic shot in this as well and isn't just there to work for the team. At his age, you just never know.

Watching the Belgian men fight is only matched by watching the Dutch women do the same.

I think, including events where gb have a very good chance e.g mtb, the mens road race is the thing im most looking forward to the entire olympics, so many people from many different countries all capable on this course, im excited to watch all the belgium riders fall out and attack each other, and i love gb's team selection

No matter what one's political leanings, even a brief google search shows that the political situation in New Caledonia is more complicated than simply them requesting independence and France refusing (they have a deeply divided electorate, much akin to Northern Ireland).
 
It's not remotely similar to what is happening in Ukraine or Israel/Palestine.

I mention the rugby simply because 1) it was the same weekend as Budapest anyway and 2) the attendance in Monaco was, frankly, pretty pathetic. The players deserved more. There must have been a football stadium somewhere in Budapest they could have stuck a couple of sets of posts up in!

I was pretty skeptical of the concept of the OQS when it was first announced - I thought it would be a bit of a gimmick but I think I could be converted to it. The sports they have selected to showcase at the OQS have all worked pretty well. Not breaking obviously because it has no place anywhere near an Olympic games - but the rest were great to watch. 
 
I wonder if they'll look to extend the OQS in 2028 - I'd like to see beach volleyball getting involved next time. 

Thinking that it should have been a doddle is exactly the kind of arrogant thinking that people often accuse English/British sports fans of.
 
We've not been one of the best teams in 7s for several years now, so qualifying through the series was never that likely. As it is, we've lost out in one off games to Ireland and South Africa, both of whom will hope to challenge in Paris. The way the qualification system panned out this time didn't help us.
 
Sometimes you have to accept that someone else is better than you and there's no shame in that.

Sadly, this decline has been a long time coming - I think coming together as 'one team', far from focusiing resources, has made the team an orphan that none of the home nations care that much about - not unlike olympic soccer. Even now, embarrassment aside, losts of GB fans will just shrug - "it's only sevens". Twitter was full of that last night, 'purists' more interested in the money spinning friendly between RSA and Wales than either the URC league grand final or the Sevens Olympic qualifier, all but wishing sevens dead and out of the Games. Couldn't make it up.
 
Watch the four times 15s RWC winners reaction to sneaking into the Olympics this afternoon (or the rather delightful Chinese women), or the despondency of the gallant Kenyan's, and explain how the Olympics don't matter. Consider the road to Hell and Back Irish rugby took to create plausible sevens teams from nothing, or Hugo Keenan opting out of 15s for the summer...or DuPont, the greatest player in the world, temporarily abandoning 15s for pursuing home glory in the format.