UK's Beijing medal hopes •


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: UK's London Olympics medal contenders

Postby mump boy » Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:39 am

26mi235 wrote:
mump boy wrote:GROW UP :roll:


Which one? One is paid to produce, one is paid to manage things. It seems like the one who is supposed to manage things is the one not doing his job.


both of them, who cares they both have better things to worry about than squabbling like teenage girls over who said what in Twitter of all things

Like OMG :roll:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby mump boy » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:21 am

GDAWG wrote:Tiffany Ofili-Porter will not medal in London. She'll probably make it to the finals, but with Kellie Wells, Danielle Carruthers, Dawn Harper, Sally Pearson, Perdita Felicien and the soon to be returning Priscilla Lopes Schliep likely to be in the finals (if all of them make it to the finals or even on their national teams next year, which seems likely) it'll be hard for Ofili-Porter to medal.


is this the same TOP who just ran 12.60 and beat most of the above ? :?
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby GDAWG » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:43 am

mump boy wrote:
GDAWG wrote:Tiffany Ofili-Porter will not medal in London. She'll probably make it to the finals, but with Kellie Wells, Danielle Carruthers, Dawn Harper, Sally Pearson, Perdita Felicien and the soon to be returning Priscilla Lopes Schliep likely to be in the finals (if all of them make it to the finals or even on their national teams next year, which seems likely) it'll be hard for Ofili-Porter to medal.


is this the same TOP who just ran 12.60 and beat most of the above ? :?


When did she run a 12:60? If so, that's impressive.

As for Christine O, I think she'll make it to the finals in London in an attempt to defend her gold medal, but I don't think she can beat Montsho for the gold medal, especially with the way that the African has been running this year (I'd expect her to run like that next year too, barring injury). It could be a very competitive race though if O can return to the form that made her a World and Olympic Champion. I think she'll medal, but it probably won't be gold.
GDAWG
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby mump boy » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:47 am

GDAWG wrote:
mump boy wrote:
GDAWG wrote:Tiffany Ofili-Porter will not medal in London. She'll probably make it to the finals, but with Kellie Wells, Danielle Carruthers, Dawn Harper, Sally Pearson, Perdita Felicien and the soon to be returning Priscilla Lopes Schliep likely to be in the finals (if all of them make it to the finals or even on their national teams next year, which seems likely) it'll be hard for Ofili-Porter to medal.


is this the same TOP who just ran 12.60 and beat most of the above ? :?


When did she run a 12:60? If so, that's impressive.

As for Christine O, I think she'll make it to the finals in London in an attempt to defend her gold medal, but I don't think she can beat Montsho for the gold medal, especially with the way that the African has been running this year (I'd expect her to run like that next year too, barring injury). It could be a very competitive race though if O can return to the form that made her a World and Olympic Champion. I think she'll medal, but it probably won't be gold.


about 20 mins ago in Monaco

TBO ran 51.49 tonight in Barcelona, NEVER write her off in a month she will be sub 50
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby GDAWG » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:54 am

mump boy wrote:
GDAWG wrote:
mump boy wrote:
GDAWG wrote:Tiffany Ofili-Porter will not medal in London. She'll probably make it to the finals, but with Kellie Wells, Danielle Carruthers, Dawn Harper, Sally Pearson, Perdita Felicien and the soon to be returning Priscilla Lopes Schliep likely to be in the finals (if all of them make it to the finals or even on their national teams next year, which seems likely) it'll be hard for Ofili-Porter to medal.


is this the same TOP who just ran 12.60 and beat most of the above ? :?


When did she run a 12:60? If so, that's impressive.

As for Christine O, I think she'll make it to the finals in London in an attempt to defend her gold medal, but I don't think she can beat Montsho for the gold medal, especially with the way that the African has been running this year (I'd expect her to run like that next year too, barring injury). It could be a very competitive race though if O can return to the form that made her a World and Olympic Champion. I think she'll medal, but it probably won't be gold.


about 20 mins ago in Monaco

TBO ran 51.49 tonight in Barcelona, NEVER write her off in a month she will be sub 50


Got to see that tonight. If Ofili Porter can run like that next year she can medal, easily.

I would like to see Chrissy O return to her 2007-2008 form going up against Montsho, who just won again today. That would be a very competitive race. However, except for American Allyson Felix, nobody has been able to beat Montsho. We'll see what happens there.
GDAWG
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby mump boy » Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:12 pm

Monsho is running too many races for my liking and while she's dominating it's more because everyone else is running poorly rather than her running extremely well

I would love her to win in Daegu but i'm not so sure right now
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Flumpy » Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:00 am

I agree. I'd love her to win at the WC's but she seems to have run in every single meet I've watched this year.

Anyway as long as it's not Kapachinskaya I'll be happy with any winner.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 72 » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:34 am

In a month CO will run sub 50.00
So says the AW cheerleader. Thats one problem solved then. :lol: :lol: :lol:
72
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:53 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby jjimbojames » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:45 am

Flumpy wrote:I agree. I'd love her to win at the WC's but she seems to have run in every single meet I've watched this year.

Anyway as long as it's not Kapachinskaya I'll be happy with any winner.

She's only competed seven times - she's only doing the DL races, so is high profile, but not that race-heavy
jjimbojames
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:16 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Flumpy » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:31 am

Only 7 in total this year?
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby jjimbojames » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:33 am

Flumpy wrote:Only 7 in total this year?

Yes - second to last para
http://www.iaaf.org/competitions/dlm/ne ... 60949.html
jjimbojames
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:16 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Flumpy » Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:02 am

WOW!!!

That's so strange as I've heard quite a few people comment on how much she's been running. Must just be that we've managed to see them all.

That makes me :D

I deffo want her to win in Daegu (Assuming TBO won't).
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby tandfman » Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:13 am

jjimbojames wrote:
Flumpy wrote:Only 7 in total this year?

Yes - second to last para
http://www.iaaf.org/competitions/dlm/ne ... 60949.html

She may have said it, but it's not quite right. She's competed at 400m seven times, but she's also run 200m twice.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 72 » Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:17 pm

We now read from AW fans in the UK who,sadly, have a touch of the sun, about our possible 12 plus medals in London 2012 and our rising standards in the UK .

What standards? ... oh I see, we have a 100% increase in our women pole vaulters this year who have jumped 4.60m, 2 in lieu of 1; we have 1 world class short hurdler , but half a dozen 400m hurdlers under 50 secs...break open the champers.!
We have drop off in standards in the sprints,400m,800m this year,1500m definitely...Baddeley and Lancashire ??; one great 5K/10K runner,Farah, and appalling general standards in those events.High Jumpers are worse than the last 2 years; our lonely Pole Vaulter is utterly inconsistent and the standards are no better than last year from Cutts and Eaves; oops, our Discus has improved...break open the champers again.! Our javelin standard???Our shot improving?? Our Triple Jump athletes were better than this year... must not forget the injuries,old chap. 3K worse than ever!!!



One could show the drop off or at least "going nowhere" standard in the womens events right across the board, but too much typing.

Brainwashed, so called optimism is the order of the day, otherwise Jon decides that AW dont need a touch of reality and certainly not Facts.

The great Cheerleader, mump, tells us of great things in a handful of events, and conveniently forgets poor, stationary or deteriorating standards in over 30 events....
72
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:53 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby mump boy » Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:54 am

I haven't forgotten anything, we're crap at loads of events but that doesn't mean we have to stop celebrating those that we're improving in :?

i don't have this strange notion that if we a god given right to have world beaters in every event :? We never have, no matter the nostalgic, rose tinted glasses you insist on wearing
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby mump boy » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:21 am

there are certainly 12 or more medal 'chances' in Daegu and London

Mo x2
Dai
Chris or Greg
Phillips
Relays x2

TBO
Jenny
a 1500 girl
Tiffany
Holly
Jess
4x4 (on a very good day)
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:09 am

Winning medals requires more than just good people. Having the likes of Badderly go back rather than forward did not affect the odds much (expected value of medals from him was maybe 0.1 or less) but Mo has gone from a possible contender to and expected value that might be greater than 1 (since he has two events with good prospects). The w1500 has seen a big decline in the number of 3:5x times and so remains a possibility, but the gals have been not moving into the 'breach'.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Powell » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:55 am

72, could you please say what level of performance would you expect from British T&F team and be satisfied by? From my perspective, it looks like the UK is doing just fine versus other comparable European countries.
Powell
 
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 72 » Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:23 am

Serious medal chances:

Farah 5K and a poss of medal if he runs the 10K assuming he doubles, in that steam heat of Daegu

Idowu
Ennis
Greene

outside medal chance
Tomlinson or Rutherford
Totally off the wall.... Bleasdale, but its probably a little unfair to expect a medal as she is inexperienced at the WC level.

As far as Relays are concerned , I don't think we have any chances in the womens relays.No evidence this year to justify such expectations.

If our 4x100m guys get it round OK, I see no better than 4th Our sprinters are indifferent this year anyway, but Jamaica,USA, and a Caribbean country for me.

In the 4x400m men I see USA,Jamaica, and either Belgium, Trinidad or Bahamas. Our best 400m guy has not done better this year so far than 45.4 and a some middling 45s.

Turner a possible/probable finalist; I do not think that the 800m will gain us a medal with Meadows; the top 20 800m women this year have some formidable finishers, and she is not for me a Medal contender. Tiffany Ofili Porter for a finalist place.
There are always a few surprises for finalists, so we may have a 1500m woman.
72
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:53 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:34 am

72 wrote:Farah 5K and a poss of medal if he runs the 10K assuming he doubles, in that steam heat of Daegu


The WCs are at the end of August and beginning of September for a reason, to diminish the heat. It is three weeks later than when the Olympics began in Beijing, which can be a crucial difference, and Beijing was not quite the problem people anticipated (e.g. destroying the Olympic record in the marathon). By the time that they run the 10,000 the temperature will have dropped from its peak, and at that time of year the peak is only just above 30C and the dew point is just below 20C and the lower the dew point the faster it will cool off. Warm and humid, probably but steamy, not so likely.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 7-sided » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:43 am

Powell wrote:72, could you please say what level of performance would you expect from British T&F team and be satisfied by? From my perspective, it looks like the UK is doing just fine versus other comparable European countries.

I'm with 72 on this... If Europe as a whole is underperforming (Russians not included) why should the UK take solace in that type of company?
7-sided
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:02 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Powell » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:55 am

7-sided wrote:
Powell wrote:72, could you please say what level of performance would you expect from British T&F team and be satisfied by? From my perspective, it looks like the UK is doing just fine versus other comparable European countries.

I'm with 72 on this... If Europe as a whole is underperforming (Russians not included) why should the UK take solace in that type of company?


Underperforming compared to what? Europe accounts for just 11% of world's population, but it regularly wins around 40% of all medals at global championships.

Anyway, 72 has not yet answered my question. You say you see things the same way, so maybe you can give me a number: how many medals by the UK would it take at a WC or OG to call their performance a good one?
Powell
 
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 72 » Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:32 am

An impossible question,Powell< and totally subject to ones interpretation of the words " a good performance"

Based on population ...one answer; based upon the population and the traditions and sporting culture and number of practitioners of Track and Field, you get another another answer( lets not forget that we have achieved more medals in WC/OG track and field than ,say, Pakistan and India combined, 1.5 billion, or even more than China, because the latter countries don't really seriously do all-over track and field).

Then again a "good performance to" many fans I converse with, via MBs, suggests that value for public money is a criteria for a "good performance"; in UK we have spent a frigging fortune over the last 15 years and especially recently to achieve a good performance, so I predict

not less than 3 or more than 5 medals in daegu. Not talking London 2012,yet
72
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:53 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 7-sided » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:02 am

Powell wrote:
7-sided wrote:
Powell wrote:72, could you please say what level of performance would you expect from British T&F team and be satisfied by? From my perspective, it looks like the UK is doing just fine versus other comparable European countries.

I'm with 72 on this... If Europe as a whole is underperforming (Russians not included) why should the UK take solace in that type of company?


Underperforming compared to what? Europe accounts for just 11% of world's population, but it regularly wins around 40% of all medals at global championships.

Anyway, 72 has not yet answered my question. You say you see things the same way, so maybe you can give me a number: how many medals by the UK would it take at a WC or OG to call their performance a good one?

Powell, you know better than that! Europe may have 11% of the world's population but in terms of track facilities and participation it would be near or over 50%.

I don't see success necessarily in terms of medals, let me explain. Exhibit A: Jamaica. They are getting better in the field events and their sprints have no equal currently. But, they are also sending multiple athletes to finals. That to me is success. The UK on the other hand MAY send ONE athlete to any final in which they have a legitimate medal contender, othewise they have athletes who may not make finals. That should not be considered success. Since 2004 (chosen arbitrarily to denote "recent" and to show decline), only two European records have been set not counting the walks (sorry, MJR). One by Mo Farah, the other by Boubdellah Tahri. Two on the mens' side, 7 on the women's side (includes w3000st and wPV). NACAC region has 10 womens records since 2004 and 11 on the Men's side. That means in the whole intra-region citius altius fortius thing, Europe is not progressing as well as NACAC and definitely not progressing when judged against Europeans prior to 2005.

If UK put two athletes in each race final and won no medals I would consider it more of a "success" than if Idowu, Ennis, and Farah struck gold and they won two other medals with no other prospects in sight. The entire medals as a barometer of success is a political construct, not a performance development one.
7-sided
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:02 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 72 » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:11 pm

like the last paragraph,7 sided.
72
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:53 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby mump boy » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:13 pm

7-sided wrote: Since 2004 (chosen arbitrarily to denote "recent" and to show decline), only two European records have been set not counting the walks (sorry, MJR). One by Mo Farah, the other by Boubdellah Tahri. Two on the mens' side, 7 on the women's side (includes w3000st and wPV). NACAC region has 10 womens records since 2004 and 11 on the Men's side.


You're seriously comparing CAC to European records ??

Can you think of any reason that European records may be harder to beat the those of the CAC ?

:roll:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby jjimbojames » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:18 pm

7-sided wrote:If UK put two athletes in each race final and won no medals I would consider it more of a "success" than if Idowu, Ennis, and Farah struck gold and they won two other medals with no other prospects in sight. The entire medals as a barometer of success is a political construct, not a performance development one.

That's a big ask for ANY country! If that happens, I would be amazed - there just isn't that much depth in participants to even come close
jjimbojames
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:16 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 7-sided » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:50 pm

mump boy wrote:
7-sided wrote: Since 2004 (chosen arbitrarily to denote "recent" and to show decline), only two European records have been set not counting the walks (sorry, MJR). One by Mo Farah, the other by Boubdellah Tahri. Two on the mens' side, 7 on the women's side (includes w3000st and wPV). NACAC region has 10 womens records since 2004 and 11 on the Men's side.


You're seriously comparing CAC to European records ??

Can you think of any reason that European records may be harder to beat the those of the CAC ?

:roll:

Do you not recognize how seriously stupid that question is? I would expect more from you, of all people! Lesson below...you might want to write this down.

The IAAF has these things called Regions.
The Regions are as follows: Africa, South America, Oceania, Asia, Europe and NACAC.
Did you not see where I wrote NACAC?
It was YOU who wrote/thought CAC, not me.
CAC and NACAC are two different regions.
NACAC is CAC + USA and Canada

****Whether a region has "harder" or "easier" records is irrelevant, for the most part, because you are comparing like to like. Did you not see where I wrote "intra" as opposed to "inter"?

jjimbojames wrote:
7-sided wrote:If UK put two athletes in each race final and won no medals I would consider it more of a "success" than if Idowu, Ennis, and Farah struck gold and they won two other medals with no other prospects in sight. The entire medals as a barometer of success is a political construct, not a performance development one.

That's a big ask for ANY country! If that happens, I would be amazed - there just isn't that much depth in participants to even come close

Don't take it so literally. The point is that for all the money the UK has spent and the claims of being one of the more rabid track countries...where are the athletes? Jarrett, Jackson and Ridgeon were at the same time. Black, Grindley, Thomas, Richardson were at the same time. Christie, Regis were at the same time. Yet the UK doesn't have a single senior sprinter under 30 y/o that they've identified for a final with a 7 year run-up? that's atrocious! The easiest thing to find is a sprinter - if you're looking, the hardest thing to do is coach them.

Europe 2011 is underperforming Europe of 2004 and earlier.
7-sided
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:02 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 72 » Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:59 pm

If you were to believe the endless bull emanating from the likes of AW about the current state of athletics in the UK you would be the same fooled people that post excessively on the AW Message Board, following slavishly the c rap I have just been reading on the Home page from Jason Henderson, Editor of the AW Magazine.who should know better.

He talks enthusiastically about a new Golden Age of British athletics and no doubt he gets a pat on the back from the Chairman/Chief Executove of UKA for his article.

There is NO golden age in Brit track and field currently.
Just because two promising young athletes in the Discus and Pole Vault have broken records... Okoye got lucky with with a huge windy 67 metre throw but he is a very promising guy and no more right now; Bleasdale is an exceptionally promising young woman, but lets see at 19 years of age how she develops...No golden age.

Hitchon throws 69 metres for a second time and exaggeration takes over; she will not be a factor in world Hammer throwing for a few years, if ever....No Golden Age.

Mo Farah is a one off outstanding talent and has not yet won a world title or OG Gold which may well be put right in the next 13 months; he is out on his own in the UK, 100%... No Golden Age.

Two world class long jumpers this year...am awaiting what they achieve in the Big ones...good to see, but No Golden Age!!!

The spivs who run the Show in Birmingham really believe you can kid all the people all the time...they cannot.!

Fans who have been around for a while know full well the spin put out by UKA and AW Magazine
cannot gainsay the truth, that any golden age,80s and 90s, was a long time ago....
Turner, a potential world level finalist; Greene a possible medallist and Jess a Champion at the highest level. No Golden Age!!!
The golden age over a twenty year period looks like this:

Christie, Regis, Black,Thomas, Richardson,,Coe,Cram,, Elliott,Ovett, McKean,Jones, Spedding,,Rowland,Reitz,Jackson, Jarrett,Akabusi, Steve Smith,Dalton Grant,,Cooke, Holmes,Murray, McColgan, to name the main athletes.

When we have some male and female sprinters,400m runners, middle distance runners, currently the worst for many years, when Mo has 3 or 4 top liners sub 13.15/27.40?? to run against...talk to me of Golden Ages. :lol: :lol: :lol:
72
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:53 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 72 » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:38 am

Maybe a few Brits might read the comments of the Wall Street Jornal sports section to hear the facts about the so called new golden age stuff pedalled by some fans of the Sport who should know better. To the right of the Home Page.

The writer tells it as it is and all this stuff about new records is seen in the light of the track and field real world... not the dream world.
72
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:53 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby mump boy » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:43 am

7-sided wrote:
mump boy wrote:
7-sided wrote: Since 2004 (chosen arbitrarily to denote "recent" and to show decline), only two European records have been set not counting the walks (sorry, MJR). One by Mo Farah, the other by Boubdellah Tahri. Two on the mens' side, 7 on the women's side (includes w3000st and wPV). NACAC region has 10 womens records since 2004 and 11 on the Men's side.


You're seriously comparing CAC to European records ??

Can you think of any reason that European records may be harder to beat the those of the CAC ?

:roll:

Do you not recognize how seriously stupid that question is? I would expect more from you, of all people! Lesson below...you might want to write this down.

The IAAF has these things called Regions.
The Regions are as follows: Africa, South America, Oceania, Asia, Europe and NACAC.
Did you not see where I wrote NACAC?
It was YOU who wrote/thought CAC, not me.
CAC and NACAC are two different regions.
NACAC is CAC + USA and Canada

****Whether a region has "harder" or "easier" records is irrelevant, for the most part, because you are comparing like to like. Did you not see where I wrote "intra" as opposed to "inter"?


Calm down i misread

how many of these new records where from US and Canada and how many from Caribbean or Central American countries
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 72 » Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:01 am

This mornings Times sports headline notes that even CVC, Chief Coach, is starting to panic with his comments about GB track and field team not being ready to match his expectations with only ayear to go. He know show little we have on the field of play, from a Medal point of view...Idowu, Farah, Ennis, maybe Greene.
72
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:53 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Powell » Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:06 am

72 wrote:An impossible question,Powell< and totally subject to ones interpretation of the words " a good performance"


Seriously???

You write dozens of posts lamenting how bad UK athletics currently is, so obviously you must have some level of expectations that are not being met. Why is it impossible to say what those are?
Powell
 
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Gabriella » Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:49 am

Athletics globally has completely changed since Britains Golden Age of the 80's and early 90's. It's a completely different sport now. It has developed in Africa and the near and far east so much so that it's a shocker if Kenya or Ethiopia do not win medals in every distant event. That never happened in the 80's and 90's when Europeans dominated. The American collegiate system has continued to produce world class athletes, as does Russia's method of selection, and we just cannot compete with that. The UK is a tiny dot of a country, there is no reason to expect the UK to be a world leader. I'm happy when we finish in the top ten on the medals table.

In UK terms, when I was young every grand prix meeting was on terrestrial TV, sometimes even on both of the main competing channels. Every school did athletics and it was one of the main sports shown on TV. Now, it ranks behind football, rugby, golf, cricket, formula 1 motor racing, tennis, horse racing....and possibly even snooker and boxing.

The expectation for 2012 is higher because it's a home Olympics. I would personally be happy if we came home with some gold medals but am not expecting more than 5; that would be unrealistic. We need at least a couple of golds though. Our overall medal count should be greater than the previous 2 or 3 Olympics for it to be considered successful.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 7-sided » Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:46 am

Gabriella wrote:Athletics globally has completely changed since Britains Golden Age of the 80's and early 90's. It's a completely different sport now. It has developed in Africa and the near and far east so much so that it's a shocker if Kenya or Ethiopia do not win medals in every distant event. That never happened in the 80's and 90's when Europeans dominated. The American collegiate system has continued to produce world class athletes, as does Russia's method of selection, and we just cannot compete with that. The UK is a tiny dot of a country, there is no reason to expect the UK to be a world leader. I'm happy when we finish in the top ten on the medals table.

60 million is not a "dot of a country" and I DO expect UK to be a world leader (given relative wealth and culture of sports). It also is not relevant to note the rise of the Africans or the "success" of the American Collegiate system (I will cite NCAA failures in another post when I have the time), we are talking about the UK. And, if you compare 2005-2011 with 1989-1996 WITHIN the UK it is apparent that a decline has taken place (something that you're not arguing). It's hard to beat the world when you can't beat your previous self. I argue that the UK CAN compete with that, but to do it they are going to have to rethink the system from top to bottom. At the top? Eliminate the middle distance thinking of Stewart, Cram, Coe, Moorcroft, etc... PV, DT, 400h, LJ...build on these successes.
7-sided
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:02 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 7-sided » Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:23 am

mump boy wrote:how many of these new records where from US and Canada and how many from Caribbean or Central American countries

It shouldn't really make a difference. We're talking about 2 mens records: one from France and the other from the UK; both in distance events!!! I'm not expecting Luxemberg and Malta to break records but surely ITA, ESP, POR, HUN, RUS, GER, POL, SWE, NOR, DEN, BLR, etc would be able to break at least one record. There is at least 300 million people among those countries. Europeans need to stop comparing themselves to Africa and NACAC and compare themselves to Europeans of past years. That is how you learn whether progress is being made. Anyway, to answer your question :lol:

CAC - Men: 4 (100, 200, 110h, 4x1); Women: 3 (400h, HT, JT)
NA - Men: 7 (1500, 3k, 3kSt, 5k, 10k, PV, JT); Women: 7 (400, 5k, 10k, Marathon, 3kSt, HJ, PV)

NACAC WR's prior to 2005 - (Men: 43.18, 46.78, 2.45, 8.95, 23.12, 2:54.29; Women:10.49, 21.34, 7291)
7-sided
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:02 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Powell » Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:32 am

7-sided wrote:Europeans need to stop comparing themselves to Africa and NACAC and compare themselves to Europeans of past years. That is how you learn whether progress is being made.


But it was much easier for Africa and CAC to progress, because they were terribly underdeveloped T&F-wise until a few decades ago.
Powell
 
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby Gabriella » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:06 am

Powell wrote:
7-sided wrote:Europeans need to stop comparing themselves to Africa and NACAC and compare themselves to Europeans of past years. That is how you learn whether progress is being made.


But it was much easier for Africa and CAC to progress, because they were terribly underdeveloped T&F-wise until a few decades ago.


Exactly. And you do not compare what Europeans are doing now to what Europeans were doing in the 80's and early 90's because there was a serious lack of doping control back then that allowed for some unreal performances. The sport now generally has a better system of drug testing which is a big factor in the decline in performances (well, for some countries) Anyone that thinks the Golden Age of UK athletics was built solely on hard work needs their head examining.

The UK is tiny compared to China, Russia, India, the USA, Brazil, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mexico, Japan, Nigeria and smaller than 12 other countries including France and Germany. Do you expect the same from these countries too? The world has changed and is changing further, the UK is not as big a player in athletics as it was, that's just the way it is. As the bigger countries tap into their huge populations we further regress. As smaller countries with less stringent dope testing develop, we further digress. Athletics probably has the biggest participation in terms of numbers of countries than any sport which doesn't help.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby jjimbojames » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:35 am

7-sided wrote:
mump boy wrote:how many of these new records where from US and Canada and how many from Caribbean or Central American countries

It shouldn't really make a difference. We're talking about 2 mens records: one from France and the other from the UK; both in distance events!!! I'm not expecting Luxemberg and Malta to break records but surely ITA, ESP, POR, HUN, RUS, GER, POL, SWE, NOR, DEN, BLR, etc would be able to break at least one record. There is at least 300 million people among those countries. Europeans need to stop comparing themselves to Africa and NACAC and compare themselves to Europeans of past years. That is how you learn whether progress is being made. Anyway, to answer your question :lol:

CAC - Men: 4 (100, 200, 110h, 4x1); Women: 3 (400h, HT, JT)
NA - Men: 7 (1500, 3k, 3kSt, 5k, 10k, PV, JT); Women: 7 (400, 5k, 10k, Marathon, 3kSt, HJ, PV)

NACAC WR's prior to 2005 - (Men: 43.18, 46.78, 2.45, 8.95, 23.12, 2:54.29; Women:10.49, 21.34, 7291)

So in the same timespan that Europe's men broke two area records, NACAC broke four. Let's ignore the number of people in NACAC compared to Europe, and look at what NACAC records got broken: 100m, 200m, 4x100m - Bolt-induced. Gay and Powell for the 100m, but without Bolt, we had no 4x100m record. So without Bolt, we're looking at the 100m and the 110mH - precisely the same as Europe! It's not even worth going to the women's records - we all know most of them won't be getting touched for some time, bar the 'new' events (s/c, PV, JT-new spec etc)

Don't get me wrong; I am with you 100% on the fact that Europe is declining - I just don't think it's as unrealistic to accept that as you do
jjimbojames
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:16 am

Re: UK's London Olympic medal contenders

Postby 7-sided » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:10 am

Powell wrote:
7-sided wrote:Europeans need to stop comparing themselves to Africa and NACAC and compare themselves to Europeans of past years. That is how you learn whether progress is being made.


But it was much easier for Africa and CAC to progress, because they were terribly underdeveloped T&F-wise until a few decades ago.

One more time: NACAC (not CAC). If we're not going to subset BeNeLux or Scandinavian or Balkans why is there a push to separate NACAC? Anyway, It shouldn't matter, you are comparing Europeans to Europeans not Europeans to Africans (which was said in the WSJ article which I did not read before writing my post).

Gabriella wrote:Exactly. And you do not compare what Europeans are doing now to what Europeans were doing in the 80's and early 90's because there was a serious lack of doping control back then that allowed for some unreal performances. The sport now generally has a better system of drug testing which is a big factor in the decline in performances (well, for some countries) Anyone that thinks the Golden Age of UK athletics was built solely on hard work needs their head examining.

The UK is tiny compared to China, Russia, India, the USA, Brazil, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mexico, Japan, Nigeria and smaller than 12 other countries including France and Germany. Do you expect the same from these countries too? The world has changed and is changing further, the UK is not as big a player in athletics as it was, that's just the way it is. As the bigger countries tap into their huge populations we further regress. As smaller countries with less stringent dope testing develop, we further digress. Athletics probably has the biggest participation in terms of numbers of countries than any sport which doesn't help.

Doping is a real argument, but it presupposes that doping didn't exist within NACAC because why would NACAC continue to better itself while Europe regressed or stayed the same. Let's leave the doping talk out of this for the time being (I acknowledge it), please.

OK, there you go with the population argument again... It's invalid; stop using it! Neither Indonesia, Pakistan nor India maintains a single record in the Asia region. Size definitely doesn't matter in athletics. Only COMMITMENT to the sport matters, that's why Bahamas is more significant in athletics than Albania. Gabs, I already said that Europe is underperforming so mentioning Germany and France (but to a lesser extent) is moot, they're already covered. So, let me say this so you get it: Russian men, Mexico, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria are underperforming. USA may not win every event but they're not underperforming. I would put China in the "toss-up" category: they're not underperforming in their region, but they are globally and you can see them getting better in bunches. Again, the UK isn't regressing because these large countries who still don't win global medals (see: China, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, etc) are tapping into their formidable populations, the UK is regressing because they aren't developing athletes!

If Grenada can possibly win a medal at Daegu, and Bahamas can win a medal at Daegu (and St. Kitts won a medal in Paris) and an ANTIGUAN-Brit could possibly win a medal for the UK...how can you continue to make an argument based upon population?

jjimbojames wrote:So in the same timespan that Europe's men broke two area records, NACAC broke four. Let's ignore the number of people in NACAC compared to Europe, and look at what NACAC records got broken: 100m, 200m, 4x100m - Bolt-induced. Gay and Powell for the 100m, but without Bolt, we had no 4x100m record. So without Bolt, we're looking at the 100m and the 110mH - precisely the same as Europe! It's not even worth going to the women's records - we all know most of them won't be getting touched for some time, bar the 'new' events (s/c, PV, JT-new spec etc)

Don't get me wrong; I am with you 100% on the fact that Europe is declining - I just don't think it's as unrealistic to accept that as you do

Ok, NACAC definitely has a PR problem (or jjj has a screen problem that inhibits reading :lol: )! NACAC didn't break 4, while Europe broke 2. NACAC broke 11!! I broke down how many "CAC" contributed versus North America, which is really the US because Canada is the biggest underperformer in the entire region (maybe save Mexico). So your analysis is way passed incomplete.
Last edited by 7-sided on Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
7-sided
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:02 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], bushop, Google [Bot], Jackaloupe, smc and 10 guests