Adam Peaty Leads Britain Squad Of 30 To World Champs; Medley Relay Hopes Alive

World record & Pioneer Adam Peaty in London, 2015 - by Gian Mattia D'Alberto / lapresse

Adam Peaty, who set a world record over 100m breaststroke last week in London, leads a 30-strong Britain team bound for the World Championships in August; Georgia Davies misses out but discretionary tickets granted to Adam Barrett for the sake of Britian’s medley relay chances, and Liam Tancock, his status as former world champion and current record holder recognised, too

All SwimVortex articles are placed in our archive after five days, the library of content available to subscribers.
Log In Register

Adam Peaty, who set a world record over 100m breaststroke last week in London, leads a 30-strong Britain team bound for the World Championships in August; Georgia Davies misses out but discretionary tickets granted to Adam Barrett for the sake of Britian’s medley relay chances, and Liam Tancock, his status as former world champion and current record holder recognised, too

Comments

for33

Big hopes for the 4 x 100m medley relay. Also big hopes for Mrs. Miley. And glad that Mr. Tancock is being recognized.

longstroke

Why on earth did it take Britain one whole week to announce its team? Did it take its mathematician that long to calculate who had come within 2% of the magic times and in what order? Or could it be that the selectors agonized over who to favour with their discretionary picks?

Martin

Pretty obviously the latter, longstroke, plus maybe allowing time for appeals or reviews, which may not have happened but had to be allowed for.

I have to say I think the picks are pretty good from Furniss et al; Walker Hebborn is likely to be fierce busy if he has genuine medal ambitions in the individual and both men and mixed relay – it makes a lot of sense to bring a solid battle hardened guy like Tancock to back him up; likewise Barrett gets a benefit of the doubt call he probably deserves based on past results esp in relay. And they resisted the temptation to use all their discretionary picks. will be interesting to see if the discretionary do ind events.

Glad to see Dan Wallace in the team too. Pity for Georgia, the most obvious ‘casualty’, but better now than Rio, perhaps….

Iain

Does Lowe’s inclusion indicate that SMOC will be skipping the 100m fly?

Craig Lord

Iain – there’s no events list with the team and those decisions will be taken closer to the hour, I’m told, but SMOC’s priority is the medley and she may not even do the 200 free.

Steve

@martin – they used all the discretionary picks they had left – after all the 2%ers were in the team was 25 strong and there was a maximum size of 30

Martin

My firm understanding was that discretionary picks were made first (well, second after the 8 automatics), and only THEN were 2%ers chosen up to a team maximum of thirty.

Martin

Craig, is there a firm limit of two swimmers per event, or is it the old rule about 3/4 per event, max two to final?

Martin

Don’t worry, Craig, got the answer…2 per event max.

STIRLO

It’s a very strong team, with very few that aren’t medal contenders either in the relay or individual. The most surprising pick, I think, is Jessica Thielmann. I haven’t done the calculations but I wouldn’t think she was within 2% and she’s not really a relay swimmer. So perhaps she’s the one exception that’s going for the experience, along may be with Molly Renshaw?
Overall, this might be the best GB squad ever. I think 10 medals is a reasonable target. I count as many as 18 realistic chances.

Rafael

Probable Individual Medal contenders:

James Guy
Adam Peaty
Ross Murdoch
Liam Tancock
Hannah Milley
Jazz Carlin
Siobhan
Fran Halsall

I would bet Peaty, Siobhan will surely medal.. Same for Carlin if she delivers what she can.. Milley also has strong chances.. Guy, Halsall, Liam, Murdoch will have strong opponents so they can be left without individual medals..

Some others may be darkhorses (Hebborn for instance)

Danjohnrob

1. Happy Anniversary SwimVortex staff! 🙂
2. I am stunned by how perfectly the British Trials worked out: (as I understand it) 8 qualified automatically, 17 were within 2% of those wildly aggressive goal times, and 5 discretionary picks by selectors = max team size of 30.
3. In the past, when I’ve looked at British Swimming Team rosters, I’ve only known a few athletes by name (I’m from the US and don’t follow British athletes closely), but this year the vast majority of them have made a name for themselves in one event or another, so I feel like I know them.
4. This is truly an impressive group!

longstroke

I’m dead against the absurdly tough standards imposed by the British, and to a lesser extent, the Australian federations as it resulted in a number of good swimmers not making their teams. These swimmers work enormously hard with most receiving hardly any recognition or financial reward. Their only real reward is the thrill of representing their country at the big international events. What purpose is served by denying them that opportunity?

What does it matter if a swimmer’s ranking suggests they are unlikely to make it through to the final or even semi-finals? If you finish in the top two at an Australian or British trials and go under the international qualifying time you’re likely to be a pretty decent swimmer. You’re most likely to be better than the vast majority of swimmers from other nations. It isn’t as if you’re going to be an embarrassment on the world stage. What right do the powers that be have to deem those swimmers unworthy of representing their country?

Craig Lord

longstroke: the British program is funded by the taxpayer and public purse via lottery funding. Surveys have told the paymasters that the public does not want to see folk finished 12th on the big occasions – they want medals… that is a policy decision beyond swimming in Britain. And the model was track cycling, in which Britain has been very very successful and achieved that on a model of focus on very high standards for those who want to wear national kit. FINA standards are based on participation, not medals. At London 2012, many sports did very well at a home Games on the back of that (swimming fell shy); and down the years, some big medal winners in swimming have said time and again that they want to be on teams where all have their eye on the podium in a realistic fashion and are not there for the trip. Your focus on those front line targets overlooks the ‘team’ point: the hard frontline target is aspirational – in reality, 30 people will represent Britain in Kazan… that’s a big team.

Craig Lord

Thank you Danjohnrob

Iain

The fly and the 200 IM do overlap, so possible that SMOC will focus on the medley. 200m free is after the medley though, so probs will do it.

Danjohnrob

Longstroke, I’m in full agreement! As I stated above, I was “stunned” this worked out so well for Briitain. I might point out that 5/30 is a pretty large percentage “chosen” for the team vs “qualified”. This approach did NOT work as well for Canada! It seemed like their entire men’s team was “chosen” due to so few (3) actually qualifying. In the US they would have to be concerned with potential lawsuits.

IMO it’s all about statistics. After the meet, the administrators want to be able to show the largest % semi and final swims and medals won per # athletes on the team/dollars spent. If you look at the process of selection from the emotional standpoint (what’s most “fair”, who has “earned” a spot) you risk selection of competitors who might place 40th and pull down the averages, making the team appear less “successful”.

commonwombat

It’s a tricky balancing act as to whether you take a smaller target selection policy (selecting those only likely to be medal contenders) or select the maximum possible who make the QT set. Sometimes the very scope/depth of your national program decides it for you.

For teams with larger talent spread like GBR & esp AUS, it is tougher. AUS over the past decade and half have probably been in a position of having 2 qualifiers for nigh all individual events but the currently shallow men’s program/depth in certain strokes is making that problematic.

No one can know how a swimmer will perform on the biggest stage until they’re actually exposed to it. Almost every country has the experience of those who are stars domestically but prove serial flops internationally. IF they swim the QT & finish 1-2 at Trials; how do you NOT select them bar going down the “discretional” path which then brings in potential appeals/legal issues.

To this Brit team: the rock solid medal shots look to be Carlin (400 & 800) & Peaty (50 & 100BRS). The “strong” chances are Peaty & Willis (200BRS), Murdoch (100BRS), Walker-Hebborn (100BK) & O’Connor (200IM). Miley (400IM), Guy (400FS) & M4XMED look “thereabouts”

longstroke

Danjohnrob, I agree entirely. The selection process is more about statistics and manipulation. You send a smaller team and hey presto! You can now claim you’ve exceeded all previous performances because 80% of team members made it to the semi-finals, 50% made it through to the final, one medal was won for every three team members etc. etc. What evidence is there that it actually improves standards? It’s more about officialdom pretending they are doing something concrete whilst covering their backsides.

What irritates me about the sport of swimming is the poor administration and the high handedness of the officials. I find it hard to think of any other sport where the athletes are so poorly treated. By and large swimming is an amateur sport. The swimmers work their guts out and then a senior coach or blazer comes along and says they want harder workers, they want excellence, not passengers. How dispiriting!

Bad Anon

Will hazard a few predictions
Men’s 100 breast
1.Peaty 58.07
2.VDB 58.57
3.Murdoch 58.87

Women 200IM
1.Hosszu 2.08.04
2.SMOC 2.08.39
3.Ye 2.08.55

Women 400IM
1.Miley 4.29.42
2.Hosszu 4.30.11
3.Belmonte 4.31.12

men 100back
1.Walker-Hebron 52.54
2.Irie 52.89
3.Grevers 53.01

Danjohnrob

Longstroke, I’m sure the vast majority in the swimming community, swimmers and coaches would agree with us! Isn’t it bad enough that you can only send 2 athletes per event per country? Why not send as many as you can? It is indeed irritating that somebody who didn’t participate in the daily work necessary to achieve the results gets to decide!

However, if there is no head, the body has no direction. Money spent without regard to results and long-range planning in any venture is irresponsible. Also, whenever taxpayer dollars are spent there should be successful results and somebody should be accountable. It would be nice if that was always the case in government as a whole, don’t you think?

Danjohnrob

Commonwombat, I agree that it’s a tricky balancing act and that every country has swimmers that either perform or don’t perform consistently on the world stage. My problem with “selection” vs “qualification” is that the reasons for poor performance are so complex, especially with swimming and the whole concept of “tapers” , that it’s often impossible to pinpoint why a swimmer “succeeded” or “failed”. Also, the amount of time between chances to “prove yourself” can be so large, often measured in years, that an athletes’ entire swimming career might be affected by whether they are chosen. The US is so lucky that all of this can be decided by the clock!

Rafael

Hosting the games, sending athletes have costs..

If you increase the number of athletes, you have need a bigger olympic villa, bigger infrastructure, which would case bigger impacts on services, etc. all which need money..

So for bad or not, we need to have a cap otherwise there would be no cost limit for all major events which in due time would make them impossible to be hosted.

With this cap, if we want more swimmers, some other sport would have to suffer.

Mark

Bad Anon, if those predictions come true, I, for one, would be more than happy! Miley to beat Hosszu sounds optimistic to me – Miley’s record at world level isn’t great, notwithstanding her world leading time at trials. And I’m not convinced about Walker-Hebborn to win 100bk. – bronze would be a fab result for him.

STIRLO

The standards were tough for the Brits, but the fact is that the final team selection is a very fair one. Who exactly was omitted who would have been selected had the standards been lower?
Only two Olympic event winners are not on the squad – Cameron Brodie and Craig McNally and their times were well outside the top 20 from last year. As for runners-up that didn’t make it, I count only 2 women (Matts and Hohmann) and two men( in addition to the runners-up in the 200 back and fly)Those were Fannon, in the 50 fly, who is just 16 and headed to the Euro Games and Caleb Hughes in the 1500. Hughes is perhaps the only truly unlucky guy given that his 15:04 would have ranked him 20th last season, which might be considered a reasonable standard for selection.

Danjohnrob

As I said, the selection process turned out surprisingly well for Britain! There could have been many event winners who did not make the Team, as was the case in Canada; of course, their Team is not really comparable to Britain’s in terms of how competitive it will be internationally.

MP

I see saw many comments here and on another media from people who say that only medal contenders should go. Not those who can smoke finals or come 12th and so on. Well, why does this principle only apply to swimming?!? And why only to GB swimmers? If we take your opinion at face value, then can anyone explain to me why the England football team are selected to go to the World Cup or Euros?!? They NEVER win anything and they NEVER will. So why are we sending a full football team to compete against Brazil, Germany and Italy?

MP

Rafael – Walker-Hebborn is over a second faster than Tancock in the 100 Back, but you predict the latter to win a medal in Kazan but not the former. That is the most illogical prediction I have come across. Good luck to you.

Chris

For me the only real Gold Medal chance for Britain is Peaty. The other shots are in really tough events. If Peaty wins and there are one or two other medals I will be happy. Times have been really quick all the other the world and that does not include the Americans.

Rafael

Actually, I was predicting Liam to win a medal on 50 back.. if he swims it..

Dee

MP,

It applies to swimming because British Swimming had funding slashed post 2012 due to what was quite frankly a poor show from British Swimmers. How can BS apply the same stipulations as say UKA which has a far larger funding base? As for football, it is a multi-billion pound industry, swimming quite simply isn’t. British Swimmers are funded by our money, hard-earned cash… Survey after survey has revealed the Public want their money spent on medals, not 12th placers.

Craig Lord

MP – I know exactly what you mean… the fact is that vast swathes and hordes flock to football whether its crap or gold. Swimming needs medals to shine – that’s the financial theory of the planners, anyhow. One reason it got to that within the sport is that for many years it was the trip that counted for far too many… trials, great, main event, crap – and folk like Paul Palmer said ‘can you please stop bringing these coasters along’, or words to that effect because they made it all the harder for the folk shooting for medals to be world-class. Environment counts. I think after Bill Sweetenham’s years and mush else associated with and independent of that have changed that very much, so the folk finishing 12th tend to be pulling their weight even on an off day. There was a time when that off day was, for some, 30th place and worse, one very bad heats swim worth the kit, the honour, the trip and status. That wasn’t a good time.

Danjohnrob

@MP, Were you addressing your comment to me?! Personally, I think the top swimmers of the world should all go, not just the top 2 per nation per event, and there should be no team cap at all! I say have a mid-season deadline date and the top 24 ranked athletes per event on that date qualify for the meet. Do away with the semi’s altogether and the fastest on the day of the event wins! Plus I say swimmers deserve a LOT more support and respect than they get. But who cares what I think? 🙁

MP

Dee – Your hard earned money is safe. Some of the swimmers who qualified do not even get ONE PENNY of your money. Now go and claim your money back from those who do.

MP

Craig – So the so called GB medal hopers who failed in previous years, they did so because we were also taking swimmers who were happy to make the team? I think those swimmers who were predicted and able to win gold or other medals and failed to do so, have only themselves to blame. And we were taking those swimmers who were happy just to qualify to Beijing too. That did not prevent Rebecca to win two gold medals for us?

MP

Danjohnrob – My comment was not addressed to you and I do care what you think, in particular since I agree with you!

MP

Rafael – Let’s hope they both win a medal and in both events! 🙂

Dee

MP,

You are behaving like a scorned child – The team has been selected in line with what the public want, medals.

MP

Dee – Many thanks for your kind words.

Craig Lord

MP, I think you need to think about the difference between a roommate who goes to bed to get set for the next day and a roommate who hops out at 10pm to go elsewhere and gets back at 2, 3, 4 am or not at all. Becky never next lived through that era… I’m talking much further back.

MP

Craig – Sure I inderstand that. I don’t know how many of our swimmers who qualify for Olympics or Worlds and then behave like that and hops back at 4 am. But I am sure you are right

MP

Dee – I take it that you call names all those who do not agree with your views? I cannot write here what I think you are behaving as… You can have a good guess though. Good night to you.

for33

I believe Mr. Tancock can be very helpful in the morning classification of both the 4×100 medley and the 4X100 freestyle relays. He used to be a good 100m freestyle swimmer; I think he was high-48 or so. I’m pretty sure he swam this race in New Delhi’s Commonwealth games.

Craig Lord

MP… I don’t think any of Britain’s current crew are like that until the job is done and if they then want to party, good luck to them… they should enjoy it. For the most part, most kids and coaches have been very good ambassadors for self and country, to my knowledge but team discipline and the things that can damage even the prospects of the biggest of medal prospects are very real – it requires good and great leadership to create the right environment. I think Britain’s team, is in good hands on that score right now. On the hopping in and out (a metaphor for much more) I’m talking about things that happened during meets, and not only with swimmers, some time ago, when the current crew were but a twinkle in their dad’s eye 🙂

Torchbearer

I would not count your GB medals yet, there have been many false dawns for GB and other nations in the past. International swimming is fiercely competitive, and the US, especially at the Olympics, pull something out of the bag.
And I hope the GB swimmers haven’t peaked early to get those tough qualifying times.

longstroke

I think everyone agrees it’s perverse that the 80th ranked swimmer from Moldova or Paraguay will be there(no disrespect intended towards these nations) when talented, hardworking swimmers from many leading nations won’t make it. In some cases they are victims of the two qualifiers per nation rule but in others it’s due to the national federations deluding themselves that standards will magically rise if they impose tougher criteria. Show me the proof.
Except for a few elite swimmers it is essentially an amateur sport. Enormous sacrifices are made by so many in the hope of qualifying for an Olympics or World Championships. This idea that we should be guarding against some swimmers who are coasting and are in it only for the trips is ignorant, prejudiced stuff. On the other hand, I can think of many officials who are in it for the lifestyle!
Much is made of the fact swimming programs the world over are funded by government and that taxpayers want accountability. Well, as a taxpayer I’m happy for my nation to send its full allocation to the big international events, even if many of them have no realistic prospect of even emerging from the heats. They’ve worked for it and they deserve to be there. I don’t want my taxes only being spent on swimmers doing countless training laps and never get their time in the sun.

aswimfan

Longstroke,

Totally agree with you.
The ridiculousness of World Championships situation:
Melanie Wright who swam 53.5 this year will not get an individual swim but somebody like Nazlati Mohamed Andhumdine from Comoros who swam 1:33.88 in 2013 Barcelona may swim it if she wants to.

Rafael

So what would be the cap? Would there be spots per country or only an overall placement? Let´s say top 30 of the last 2 years.. some countries would get 1 or no spots on some events and others would get 5/6.. US would dominate 100 back spots.. but only 2 on 100 free..

Craig Lord

longstroke. you are living in your time, somewhat. the coasting reference is neither ignorant nor prejudiced. It is real – and it comes from people on teams (staff and athletes), not, with respect, distant observers like you. There have been serious team issues at major events in the past that hang on that very issue. It has often spoken to the theme of why the USA steps up come the big one and so many others step down.
No problem that you as a taxpayer think as you do: but in a GBR context you would be in a minority – and it is the majority, through survey and poll, that they are listening to (that’s not agreeing one way or another, just pointing out the facts).
On standards and getting them to rise, softness is also not an option that works all that well: the FINA B standard for developing nations is truly soft but as I look across the seascape of the bulk of nations affiliated to FINA I see no serious progress of any kind when it comes to elite swimming, catching up on the conveyer belt of progress and making meaningful strides in home programs – and all that includes many nations heavily represented in the direction of the sport. There are officials who have been at the helm of governance at home and internationally for 20-30 and more years but their national swim programs are no further forward now that they were 20 etc years ago.
On the two per nation … its tired and speaks only to that vote and direction of the sport and the corridors of power. It is holding swimming back. A World championship – and most certainly a pro tour – should be based far more on how good you are regardless of where you come from … there ought to be feeder networks, continental rounds and such that lead to either a right to swim at world championships or a right to swim at a development world championship, league-like in nature … you step up, you move up, you go up. Otherwise you compete at your level. Four-hour heats sessions at world titles are a killer to ‘entertaining sport’… I’ve seen my broadcast colleagues walk away from such things as if they’d lost the will to live…

aswimfan

I don’t think drastic approach is necessarily a good think, but at the very least FINA should allow 3 per country, even it means creating a new tougher qualifying standard for 3 per country in addition to FINA A and B.

For Example, women 100 free:
FINA A 55.05
FINA B 56.98

And then create FINA C (if a country wants to send 3 swimmers): 54.09
(it’s the last swimmer to qualify for Barcelona final).

Also, if they want to limit the number of swimmers, FINA can just make every standard a little bit tougher by few tenths of seconds.

We have the Olympics, Asian Games, Pan Ams, Euro Games, African games etc etc for someone like Nazlati Mohamed Andhumdine to swim and participate, but world championships should be held to a higher standard. Athletics/Track&Field can do it, why can’t swimming?

Craig Lord

Rafael, I think you could operate a duel systems of, for example:
Top 30 cut off by a certain date. Any nation with no-one in that list has a right to 1 berth (best ranked by that certain cut-off date) as long as that nation has made the league of top 30 nations (for example). Those are criteria that are easy to work out.
For the rest, there would be a development championship run a little like a league with a feeder network – regional rounds, development clinics and promotion to that top tier something for all to aspire to.
Those are rough thoughts but they will never take flight because the structure of the sport is built so that the votes of 150 ‘non-or-hardly-swimming’ nations count heavily in a grace and favours system of governance that is holding swimming back.

DDias

aswimfan,
i think a 3 per nation rule should be really tough to beat, like 6th place in last Worlds.

Craig Lord,
how would you see a competition like Diamond League in swimming?

Craig Lord

DDias: in general yes but too many events and any points system that leaves the public and even fans caring less not more is unhelpful. Simplicity, consistency, clarity, tradition, quality, social-fan accessibility/interaction are things that make some sports big on a regular basis. The world cup in swimming is of little consequence and is overwhelmingly ignored by the media when it comes to following the series. Even the win at the end and the big prize is mostly a round-up-column mention. I think swimming needs to think of its own ideas in the context of its own activity but with the athlete at the heart of that – including consideration of the Olympic cycle and the traditions that already count. FINA has tried to ignore those existing things and has been happy to watch the calendar swell to obesity: money prizes have not solved that issue, wrong tactic … you have to make it appealing in more ways than money prizes, taking into account the needs of more than a handful of athletes, taking into account budgets of feds to programs to individuals and existing schedules of the kind that are not going away … and you have to keep the viewing public in mind.

DDias

Craig,
i understand.

The media coverage is a bit weak in the matter of swimming.I think a Diamond League event like in swimming should be short(maximum two hours) and only two days, and i would open with a relay and close with another.A mixed relay would be good to close.I would put just one event over 400meters per leg.I think 6 legs in total would be good.SET-OCT-NOV would be good months, replacing WC and of course, all countries putting their top dogs(Phelps,Manaudou,Cielo,Yang…). I think a big Federation prize for the Country winner(like US2mil) should be awarded at the end.

STIRLO

As someone who follows most of the Olympic sports rather closely, perhaps I can offer a few thoughts on the particular challenges that swimming faces in creating anything like a pro tour. In general, the public wants to watch the best athletes performing at their best. Swimming’s challenge is that there is a huge difference between performance when fully rested and when not. This gap is much smaller in athletics for example where world records are often broken away from the major champs. I don’t see much interest in watching swimmers – even the best ones – if they are using a meet as a training session.
I agree, therefore with Craig, that swimming needs its own approach. One would be to scrap some of the regional championships and push the World Champs back to every four years. This would leave 2 out of four years with no major champs which would allow room for other events.
You could try and build a “grand slam” type of calendar like tennis or golf, with perhaps three major events dotted throughout the year. You might also need to drop national trials for the major nations, but they could easily pick squads based on performance on the pro circuit where qualifying points would also be earned. There could be smaller pro events for those not quite at Grand Slam standard.
The other challenge for swimming, and this is one shared by track cycling, is that the venues are relatively small. TV is all well and good, but it tends to follow the crowd. Get a big sell out crowd at the event and the TV money will come. So the Grand Slams might need to be at non-traditional swimming venues. A lot of major indoor venues are not large enough for a 50m pool, but there are some – like the o2, that I think could accommodate. You could even try something radical and stage a meet at somewhere like the Flushing Meadows tennis center. They are about to put a roof on the main court.
Another challenge I think is that swimming’s stongholds are very spread out. Most of the pro sports are centered in Europe and/or the Us. But swimming’s major powers – US, Australia, Japan and a few Euro nations cover all corners of the globe. A tour that hits all those major hotspots would probably be too spread out and too demanding on the swimmers from a travel perspective.
Anyway, there’s my two penneth. It’s an interesting challenge for sure, but I tend to agree with Craig that the current administration set-up probably has limited willingness or ability to tackle it. Perhaps a more likely solution will come from a promoter who offers up the money and moves forward without worrying about FINA.
If you can find it, read Jack Kramer’s tennis autobiography. He talks extensively about tennis’s struggle to break from control of national federations and to build a sustainable pro tour. Plenty of lessons to be learnt.

Craig Lord

Thanks for that Stirlo, spot on with all those lines of thought.

beachmouse

The Golden League and its successor Diamond League work because the meets are located in areas where there is high interest in the sport and meet placement just makes sense.

The World Cup meet format itself actually has a lot going for it. The problem, IMO, is once more FINA. With dollars/euros in their eyes, they demand a high enough sanctioning fee that few places other than the usual autocratic suspects want to pay that cost and we end up with half the events on the schedule in Gulf states that don’t have even third tier national teams of their own.

Get rid of the sanctioning fees (the peopel who used to have New York as a World Cup stop said it added $60K to the cost of hosting and didn’t get them a better field than the usual American Grand Prix meets) and you can make a fine truly global series out of meets that are up and truly working-

North America- Santa Clara, one or two other US Grand Prix stops (Orlando has easy air links to much of the world) Mel Whatshisname in Vancouver.

Europe- Eidhoven, one or two Mare Nostrum stops, (I vote for Monaco for sure) Seven Hills in Rome, another one or two stops in places like Berlin and Hungary

Asia/Gulf States- keep one UAE meet then do Singapore, Japan Cup, and Beijing/Shanghai

Australia- make the Queensland state Championships a big international meet, add similar event in New South Wales

South America/Africa- two stops in Brazil using existing big meet framework, one stop in South Africa

benny goodman

All the issues that create strong opinions and passion on the posts I have delighted in just reading replicate the same as we do on the Track and Field Forums both in the UK and in the USA.
As far as qualification is concerned it is a little impractical in a global sport to base entry on only tough standards, so the important “political” aspect in the organisation of all sporting events has to be taken account of,( even when you have to hold your nose about a lot of the blazers) whilst thinking around the various issues at stake.
One could make a case for a bout 30 countries at best having entrants at world champs. Then you have the charge of elitism to contend with if you want global participation and coverage.
Maybe a it does not matter a tinkers cuss if 200 countries are affiliated to the international federations in some sports and only a relative handful of countries qualify.

As far as the TV is concerned the coverage will always be mainly concentrated on pro ball team sports,( exceptions being Tennis and Golf) cos all the evidence points to the fact that the public want and need that sort of relationship with their sport.

In track and field there are many who consider that the sport is dying but we still get stadiums occasionally with 50,000 people watching a couple of hours of world class performers and still TV coverage on a comparison basis is minor compared to the big boys of sport.
I don’t give a toss that no sport such as swimming will ever reach the mass interest of Soccer here and NFL, Baseball etc across the pond. I love track and swimming etc.
May I note, finally, that I was appalled after Peaty’s magnificent WR in the breaststroke that the moronic British sports press( Craig being a great exception), even the so called quality stuff, did not report his achievement properly.

If GB get 3/4 medals in Kazan that will be what I expect at best. The standards are brutal, these days

babble over.
.

gary howard

Think 3 or 4 medals is a pretty unoptimistic view as far as GB is concerned, Id say there are 4 categories, good gold chances , Peaty x2, O’Connor 200 IM and Halsall 50 fr. Good medal chance and outside shot at gold – Walker-Hebborn, Mens medley relay, Miley 400IM, Guy 400 fr, mixed medley relay. Good medal shout but not gold Carlin x2, Murdoch, mens 4×200 fr. Outside medal shots- Proud 50 fly, Peaty, Willis 200 br,Wallace 400 IM, Halsall 50 fly, Simmonds 200 back, Wilmott 400 IM, womens 4×100 medley. Lets see what happens!

Leave a comment

Post a comment with your SwimVortex Account. Don't have a SwimVortex Account, Sign Up?

(*) Fields are required!
×