posted Sep 3, 2008

A lot of the so-called 'podium class' athletes either haven't made the podium in years, or have showed no signs of getting near the medals (or even finals) despite having competed for years (I echo Makelele6 - Joice Maduaka?!!)

Add in those newer competitors who are unlikely ever to make it and it's not looking good at all ...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2008

"You cannot base funding on age. Different people reach the top at different ages. Christie won the Olympics at 32, and set the British 100m record at 33. Kelly Holmes won two Olympic titles at 34. Then look at all the kids who have had money thrown at them and achieved nothing. It's not that simplistic."

To be fair, Christie had been fairly consistent prior to 1992 - he already had two silvers from the 1988 Olympics, European and Commonwealth golds and a couple of World bronzes. Kelly Holmes also managed a sprinkling of medals before 2004 but could have had more if it wasn't for injury. So in a way, these competitors weren't late bloomers per se, but rather that their full potential was delayed - Christie because he didn't take athletics seriously until he was 26 (if he had, he could have figured in the medals as far back as Los Angeles 84) and Holmes because she kept getting injured.

I definitely see your point though. It took Phillips Idowu eight years to get an Olympic medal despite showing huge promise, and few people would have bet on Tasha Danvers medalling prior to Beijing. Trouble is that for every Idowu and Danvers, there's at least a couple of athletes who will never be late bloomers - Jo Pavey because the African runners have a lock on the medals in her event, and Joice Maduaka who has never been good enough, for whatever reason.

Idowu and Danvers are exceptions rather than the rule, but the majority of British athletes knocking or over thirty are not, and it's risky to allocate funding to these athletes in the vain hope that they MIGHT do a Linford Christie late in their career, when they're still running times that won't even get them into finals and don't even have a decent explanation for it.

If they have medalled in the recent past, or have never fulfilled their potential at Olympics or Worlds due to injury (but have consistently achieved medals and final placings in other international events, showing that they CAN do it) then fair enough, but we shouldn't take the exception as indicative of the rule.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 4, 2008

I seem to remember that the UKA, rejected an experienced director in the form of Keith Connor was had guided the Australian athletics to their 2000 success in favour of an unknown. I always knew this would end in disaster.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

Early applicants include Mrs Beeton, our Kev, Noddy, Little and Large and the last PM's master of spin.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

Provided he brings Big Ears with him, Noddy has my vote. At least we'll have someone with the capability to listen!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 7, 2008

Lost all confidence with Mr Collins when i saw
the interview with the ever so nice Hazel Irvine
at the London GP.
Some of the Olympic selections were staggering.
Barr(4x4W) Scott(110mh) Lemencello(St) Turner
(100mW) Garland(4x4M)
Scott, Lemencello & Turner were a complete waste of space .Barr and Garland thankfully did not get a run.
As performace director DC must sholder the blame
for their selection and the non selection
of Yates(400h/4x4M)and Shakes_drayton(4x4W)
Granted he got lucky with Mason (HJ) and the amazing Tasha Danvers (there was a shout for
the aformentioned S-D to be selected)
It is a fact that our potential medalists in
2012 have to be on the radar at this moment
nobody is going to suddendly appear out of nowhere (cycing got lucky with the former rower)
and if you going to take a large team give
young athletes like Yates and Shakes-Drayton
(in the heat/semi of the relay) a chance to
peform in the Olympics in 2008 rather than
be expected to make their debut in 2012.
He blundered and has now thankfully departed.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 7, 2008

The issue is highlighted in the initial statement from Mike Winch - "but at least he is a real coach who knows how the sport works"

Coaches are coaches and very few have a clue how to organize a sporting organization - that is for the administrators of the sport.

Until the right people are appointed to organise athletics in he UK as a whole then we will continue to go backwards.

I am a firm believer in the old addage "You are only as good on he pitch as ou are off it"

The continued appointment of coaches and "names" (none of whom have a background in organising sport)to the top jobs in UK athletics will see our sport decline.

As a matter of urgency our endurance running needs attention if we are to compete for any track medals in 2012.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 9, 2008

I think Barr was a solid choice for the 4x4.

Fraser on the other hand... how can they possibly justify that!!

Kim Wall must have been gutted.

Desperately sorry for Mike East - his non-selection is a sorry last milestone in a fantastic career. If he had been taking someone elses place then fair enough, but there was space for him to go, he was improving after injury lay offs and has proved he is able to make the final on the biggest stage.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 9, 2008

Got a thing for Kim Wall haven't you Paps!

Donna looks sooo much better floating round that track tho.

The Wall/Fraser thing is a non argument. No one cares but them. Neither would have gotten to run anyway. Last choices out of like 8 possible 4x4 runners

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 9, 2008

Haha, no no, for me that was the most blatantly wrong decision (closely followed by the Garland selection). I disagreed with a lot of the other selections but could begrudgingly acknowledge that there could be cases argued for them.

Add to that the fact that Frasers selection got relatively little comment and I feel the need to get on a soap-box!

Grenot on the other hand, I most definately have a thing for!

add comment | complain about this comment