Ok Blog, so I have calmed down a bit now. But. The selectors for our Games never fail to amaze. Going back some 50 years, two athletes were preselected for the Olympic marathon leaving one place to be fought over at the ‘trial’ where at least three runners were capable of representing GB with success. Not fair. Not fair at all. The third runner selected was Godiva’s Brian Kilby, current European and Commonwealth Champion …. But he still had to prove himself in the AAA Championships; having to grind out another marathon, a summer race in searing heat. He finished 4th in the Olympics and would probably have medalled if it hadn’t been for the idiotic pre-selection decision and the forced run off which was so close to the Games that it must have seriously hampered his podium chances. On Sunday, at least two athletes in the women’s race were capable of representing GB at the Olympic Games in London, but there was only one place available. When so many athletes are so close to selection, why do not the selectors state simply that the first three to finish earn their Games place. Everyone knows the criteria, no favourites, everyone knows when to peak for a trial, everyone toes the line with the same weather conditions, the same course, the same competition; biased media support then counts for nothing. That is what basically happened following the mess up in 1964. The procedure stood the test of time until the selectors were stupid enough to be conned into a selection procedure when athletics started to go ‘open’ and certain marathon runners could use the system by finding a ‘favourable’ marathon somewhere across the world where the pressure was off and an easy time could be posted leaving all the rest of us mugs to fight it out against the odds at the AAA Championships.
And another thing the selectors cannot sort out ….. they seem to operate two sets of criteria, have double standards. If you take a dispassionate view of the results and the times of the women’s race, the GB women are so far off the world standards (read ‘African’) that they stand little chance of a medal. That being the situation, why send THREE when the identical case can be argued that the men are in precisely the same position but only ONE will run. Are the selectors blinkered by the athletic press observations which talk up the women and how good they are in world terms but talk down the men and how bad there are in world terms. A smattering of statistical procedures shows that in mathematical terms, there is no significance difference between the medal chances of the men and the women if THREE per nation are considered; not to be blinded by red herrings that show a 150 or whatever Kenyans have achieved the ‘A’ standard for the marathon and not quite that many GB athletes have!!! Nor to be blinded by outstanding performance eons ago … time will not age us’ …oh yes it will!!!!!!!!!!
On the other hand …. how many selectors know what happens to an athlete mentally during the course of 26 odd miles? It is an experience alien to them. Jogging a marathon ain’t the same as an eyeballs marathon!!! Neither is it quite the same as 100m run me thinks, or chucking a stick about. If all our expert coaches can’t get the marathon times down to respectability (read 30 years ago), and they are supposed to be qualified to understand the marathon, what chance has a selector of knowing how a given marathon runner will perform??
Colin
No comments:
Post a Comment