³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Completely agree with you Katharine - first two past the post with the A standard. The US system does have it's obvious benefits, not least in instilling a certain mentality in their athletes )in 'having to be the best'), but I would expect a method like that to be detrimental to the GB team's performance as a whole.

I always thought it odd that if a proven winner had been unable to make the US trials, or perhaps underperformed on the day, they wouldn't be a wildcard system to make allowances for that fact. It wouldn't be a case of backdoor entry for the big names who had failed to finish in the neccesary places, but more a recognition that achievments over a season perhaps count for more than a one-off result.

I think we've got pretty much the ideal system for GB athletics at the moment. Perhaps it would be worthwhile reviewing in the future, but for now, I would leave it be.

I thought selectors take into account A/B standards by athletes within the last year...

I'm a bit confused as to the point your trying to make.

You don't like the current system as it's confusing and leaves athletes in the dark as to whether they have been selected or not. But the solution you suggest is just as ambiguous.

Trials performance, head to head battles and an athlete's top three performances. Great, but how are they weighted or quantifiably measured? Unless you can put a number to these criteria, athletes are still in the dark and reputations again play a massive aprt in whatever committee makes the decision.

I don't know the answer, but I do know that if we followed the US example, Regrave would never have made the final four in Sydney and got that 5th Gold.

Great article:

Here are my thoughts:

a. Anyone, unless injured/given dispensation, not attending the National Trials automatically forfits the right to compete at the major events.
b. First 3 past the post, as long as they meet the recognised "B" standard for their event should be picked automatically.
c. Where an athlete has been injured/given dispensation has recorded "A" or "B" standard time they should be considered but only if they are a strong contender in there respective event.

I believe the time has come to have leaner and stronger teams. This will give athletes a more pragmatic view of what is need to be right at the top of there respective events.

Selection policies can be very complicated but ultimately Athletes are in the business to win and I believe, nov, it is pointless taking athletes to major events to make up the numbers.

The main incentive for athletes at pre world championship national championships is to to do well in order to represent their country in the international competition rather to win the tournament for its own sake. The purpose of the selectors is to select the team that they believe will perform the best at that tournament.
I believe giving the selectors some discretion in not picking the first three to cross the line in the national championships is the right thing to do, but I think it should be based on objective selection criteria.
For example, perhaps the person who has achieved the best time/distance in the preceding 3 months before selection date should be picked irrespective of whether they finish (or even compete) in the national trials? Ultimately it's about the best team going to world champs but its also about being 'fair' to the athletes, having subjective criteria allows personalities and reputations to blur the minds of selectors. Age should also not be criteria either, as I believe it often is in sport.

I don't see why Athletes should get further assurance before selection takes place, this just plays to complacency. The selectors should have free reign to select who they think will be best able to repesent Britain in August.

On the other hand, if they want this kind of freedom, they need to give good reasons for all selections and these reasons should be based primarily on performances in the past 12 months rather than reputation gained over years.

Their needs to be a sense of uncertainty in order to ensure consistent top class performance. I for one don't like the American system as it does require the athlete to peak twice in the same year.

I like the US system. It's clear and simple and there's no need to make this complicated.

If our athletes are not good enough to mix it with the worlds best then they should not be competing in a world championship. Why take athletes to make up numbers?

Many sports have similar problems selecting teams and individuals.

I think all sports miss the point. Having fixed rules/criteria will always create more problems than it solves. The answer is three simple steps:

1. Choose some selectors (three is ideal), but choose them well.
2. Let the selectors set a qualifying standard if one is required or desirable.
3. Let the selectors do their job i.e. SELECT!

Your selectors will need to be honest, and brave and able to justify their selections when questioned. If they get it wrong change them.

Under the current system Seb Coe might not have gone to LA olympics for the 1500m. The selectors got it right......he won!

Looks like Idowu is carrying his bags in that photo...

Could you have picked a worse picture of him?

On the bright side... he might say that it is quite flattering!

Sorry, I am slightly confused. In one paragraph you say that we don't have the same depth as the USA for example, and so we cannot afford to do it based simply on trial results. And then in the next paragraph you say we have 39 all at the right standard but they can't all go so how do we choose. Not picking points, just don't understand that bit. Maybe I am missing something....
Otherwise, great blog. I agree, if we did have the depth, then to do it like the states would be the best shot. Put everyone on a level playing field, and watch them fight it out. That would also promote more respect for the competition. But as you said, we don't have that liberty so have to take other things into account. Putting through the top 2 at the trials is an absolute must. A lot can be said for current form. As for the next spots, head to heads seem fair to me!
Good Blog Perry!!!

I like what tonytorra has to say....
In events where there is competition for places (in individual events)...miss the trials and you're not on the plane. I do think that relays are a special case with relays as they are a whole different kettle of fish and bring out the best in some athletes that for some reason you just won't see in an individual race.

If the first three competitors at the trials have an A or B qualifier, select them there and then. Obviously that then means that to get to run, that B qualifier would have to subsequently get an A (if I read the IAAF's criteria correctly). If they don't, then someone else who didn't do quite as well at the trials would then be fortunate and get an opportunity.

For events where there is less competition, or people haven't got an A, then there should be a degree of discretion afforded the selectors.

It's all clear in my head, but I don't think I've articulated it particularly well...busy day at work! :)

The US system is not the best way, it all comes down to one event, injury, illness or just a one off mistake can mean the best athlete does not get on the plane, it is ridicullous.

A good example of the US system failing was the mens 200m trials for the 2004 olympics. Maurice Green & Michael Johnson were by far the fastest two men in the world over that distance at the time and both suffered (minor) injuries durring the trials, partly induced by running two events in a rather cramped schedule (far less recovery time than they would have had in the olympics). The olympic gold medal was won in a time of 20.2 seconds and no Americans were on the podium, Green & Johnson were running around 19.8. It was not just America which lost out, that 200m should have been one of the highlights of the 2004 olympics.

The world championships (and the olympics) should have the best athletes competing in it and everything possible should be done to try an ensure that is the case. There are always going to be contreversial decisions, people missing out wrongly but it is vital for athletics that the superstars are there, if Usain Bolt is not in the 100m final, it has to be because of his performance (or somebody else's) in the chapionships not because his condition a month before.

I think Tonytorra is on the button with this one.

It is very easy for us to apply the first past the post system at the trials, but we don't have the depth and nor will we ever. We should apply that system but put it under certain requirements.

Any athlete who has the b standard and finishes in the top three should go. If you don't show up at the trials and offer no reason then you really do forfit it.

Although, they call it the A standard for a reason and if you have it then surely you deserve to go, regardless of being at the trials or not.

Although, watching the trials last weekend, I was adamant that they said that Germaine Mason was going becuase of his performance last year? Also, what about Charlene Thomas? Isn't she going because she was first? Did she get the standards?, i'm confused, i think everyone is to be honest.

Clarification and definity should be on the cards.

Here is my ideal selection criteria:

Top two at the trials with the A standard (this gives a large incentive for athletes to compete at the trial, as there may only be one space left after the championships, increasing the risk of missing the championships).

Then with the remaining athletes with A standards either take it on the best time OR the best position at the trials. Choose one or the other and stick to that. I would personally opt for the trial. Trials are important! It's all well and good that an athlete can say run 45.5 in a one off race for example (purely hypothetical, don't read anything into this!) but if they can only run 46.5 after heats and semis, then you are going to want to take the athlete who can run 45.8 but can reproduce in a final. The trials are often the only chance all year to see athletes go through a set of rounds, similar in ways to the worlds. That is what the US trials are based around, replicating the major championships exactly, so that they know that the athletes are capable of doing it. I know ours is on a smaller scale, but that should surely mean that the best athletes should find it easier, and if they can't cope at the trials then how are they going to manage a global championships?

If there are any spare spaces after putting in the A standard athletes shove in as many B standards as we are allowed, fill an additional one athlete into every event that doesn't already have three. That athlete should be the one highest up the rankings. If they only have the B standard then they probably won't make it through the rounds, so just put in the fastest, or the best thrower/jumper available, and how they excel or get something worthwhile out of it and can come back the next year and be that A standard athlete.

I hate our ideas of medallists and finallists, send everyone we are allowed to. If we only send people away who we think will medal or make finals, surely we can only be disappointed by failure. If we send people there for experience then they are the athletes who might exceed all expectations. One great recent example is Lloyd Gumbs, the U23 who won the European U23's last week. He won the trials and had the standard and deserved to go irrespective, but he smashed his PB by a second to win the trials, and then by a further second to win the European U23's. To say he was an underdog is an understatement, many would have expected him to maybe get to the semis, but no one would have predicted the win. Let's give ourselves every chance, not limit ourselves and 'fail'.

Relays: Top 6 in the rankings. Gets rid of 'a safe pair of hands' and it is harder to argue with. It also lets people know where they are, and the people who are 5th/6th in the rankings won't end up getting upset when they say they are deserving of the place. If someone is injured then go down the rankings to the next position. There is of course the issue of who is 'more in form', but with 6 athletes you have a big enough pool to choose the best athletes for the final regardless, and if the team is good enough then heats shouldn't have to be a problem. Often the 5th and 6th best runners aren't even used anyway, so if we can get rid of the controversy it saves a lot of hassle.

I have recently been on the reciving end of the UKA selection criteria problems. I missed out on a place at the European Junior champs this summer, despite winning the trials and achieving several of the other selction criteria. Unfortunately the selectors picked another athlete who came 2nd at the trials and had not run the qualifying time. This inevitably left me very confused as to why their is selection criteria, when clearly, selection is based on who your coach is and where you are from.

Whats the point in competeing if the selectors aren't going to recognise the athlete's achievements?

runnergirl800... i assume you came 4th at the trials if you ran the 800m, as 1st and 2nd were selected, along with 5th, with the 3rd placed athlete going to world youths? selection is complicated and it is always frustrating to be on the 'non-selection' side, but the selectors have to choose the three athletes who they think will do best at the championships. if you are who i think you are, the athlete they selected ahead of you had a faster pb at the time, but not now? if you had won, i'm sure you would have been selected. if you are talking about the u23's then i am not sure

You need a system that uses various methods of selection.
When you have a brilliant prospect, like Daly Thompson was in 1976, you need to find a way of introducing them to big time athletics, even though they may never have produced the necessary proformance in their event. Surely, those in charge of Athletics in Britain must be given the power to make this kind of decision. The American system would not do that and to me that is a weakness.

While I am listening to this music, I thought of how Australia trains her atheletes

Australia is a small country compared to USA or UK,
but it still manages to grab a significant amount of Golds in Olympic

What do you think we can learn from Aussie ?