World Athletics Championships

[Numbers]

This starts on Saturday, there's a few athletes I'm looking forward to watching, here's the schedule: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/66460702

[Banquo]

Should be great; our women's team looks pretty strong.

[Son of Mathonwy]

2 golds so far. Can't complain too much about that.

Great to see Hudson-Smith and Hughes step up their game.

[Banquo]

2 golds so far. Can't complain too much about that.

Great to see Hudson-Smith and Hughes step up their game.

Indeed. Our trimmed approach looking sensible so far. If Hudson-Smith wins the 400m that'd be really special- tbh even medalling in this event is great.

[Son of Mathonwy]

2 golds so far. Can't complain too much about that.

Great to see Hudson-Smith and Hughes step up their game.

Indeed. Our trimmed approach looking sensible so far. If Hudson-Smith wins the 400m that'd be really special- tbh even medalling in this event is great.

I'm not sure I agree about the trimmed down approach. Sure, it might not make much difference to our current medal tally to leave out our weaker (but nonetheless invited) athletes but it makes the championship less interesting to the UK viewer and is massively demoralising for developing athletes - it might make them leave the sport entirely. IMO we'll have a weaker squad in a few years if this continues. Also, it simply seems unfair to prevent athletes for taking up invitations.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles ... nths%20ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... ips-chance

It seems crazy to leave these two out, for instance:

The heptathlete Jade O’Dowda and discus thrower Jade Lally are Britain’s highest-ranked non-injured athletes set to miss out, respectively placed 17th and 19th in the world.

[Banquo]

2 golds so far. Can't complain too much about that.

Great to see Hudson-Smith and Hughes step up their game.

Indeed. Our trimmed approach looking sensible so far. If Hudson-Smith wins the 400m that'd be really special- tbh even medalling in this event is great.

I'm not sure I agree about the trimmed down approach. Sure, it might not make much difference to our current medal tally to leave out our weaker (but nonetheless invited) athletes but it makes the championship less interesting to the UK viewer and is massively demoralising for developing athletes - it might make them leave the sport entirely. IMO we'll have a weaker squad in a few years if this continues. Also, it simply seems unfair to prevent athletes for taking up invitations.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles ... nths%20ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... ips-chance

It seems crazy to leave these two out, for instance:

The heptathlete Jade O’Dowda and discus thrower Jade Lally are Britain’s highest-ranked non-injured athletes set to miss out, respectively placed 17th and 19th in the world.

We'll have to disagree . Resilience is a big part of top level sport imo (and would getting hammered on the world stage help morale much?), and prudent use of money seems important to me.I've not found it less interesting, but I'm not very parochial. (17th and 19th in the world isn't much of a recommendation frankly. Jade Lally is 36 as well, so its not like its a development thing). Life and esp sport isn't fair, as we all know- but its true there is a balance to be struck on providing experience, and there seems to be some of that too.

(the combination of your two articles suggest a- short on cash, and b- picked on current form, which seems quite sensible tbh; Zeller would have been a better example of someone who may have got the nod, given that he finished 5 th in a world final; the others mentioned had barely registered tbh)

[Banquo]

https://www.britishathletics.org.uk/new ... pionships/

background reading

[Son of Mathonwy]

Indeed. Our trimmed approach looking sensible so far. If Hudson-Smith wins the 400m that'd be really special- tbh even medalling in this event is great.

I'm not sure I agree about the trimmed down approach. Sure, it might not make much difference to our current medal tally to leave out our weaker (but nonetheless invited) athletes but it makes the championship less interesting to the UK viewer and is massively demoralising for developing athletes - it might make them leave the sport entirely. IMO we'll have a weaker squad in a few years if this continues. Also, it simply seems unfair to prevent athletes for taking up invitations.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles ... nths%20ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... ips-chance

It seems crazy to leave these two out, for instance:

The heptathlete Jade O’Dowda and discus thrower Jade Lally are Britain’s highest-ranked non-injured athletes set to miss out, respectively placed 17th and 19th in the world.

We'll have to disagree . Resilience is a big part of top level sport imo (and would getting hammered on the world stage help morale much?), and prudent use of money seems important to me.I've not found it less interesting, but I'm not very parochial. (17th and 19th in the world isn't much of a recommendation frankly. Jade Lally is 36 as well, so its not like its a development thing). Life and esp sport isn't fair, as we all know- but its true there is a balance to be struck on providing experience, and there seems to be some of that too.

(the combination of your two articles suggest a- short on cash, and b- picked on current form, which seems quite sensible tbh; Zeller would have been a better example of someone who may have got the nod, given that he finished 5 th in a world final; the others mentioned had barely registered tbh)

Yeah, I think we're disagreeing on stick vs carrot here.

I would agree if it's really about money (which they deny). Sure if there is no money then okay drop the weakest ones, I would agree in that case. But if not, it just seems to me these are human beings who've made big sacrifices to get themselves to elite levels of performance, often on very little money, they've literally been invited to compete, having met the standards of the competition and UKA is preventing them from doing so. I would find it infuriating and depressing to be treated like that. What do you do then, spend another winter training, knowing that you could meet the Olympic standards and still be prevented from going? It sounds pretty demotivating to me. This is already a highly competitive environment, with a massive stick provided by the existing World Champs standards, IMO there really doesn't need to be an even bigger stick provided by UKA.

Personally, from the POV of the viewer, I find it a big turn off (or fast forward) if an event doesn't have any UK entrants. Sadly I've got used to that being the case for most field events but this year it's been shocking to see us with no one in the men's 5000, 10000m or 400mH, and only one in each of the 200m and 400m.

[Banquo]

I'm not sure I agree about the trimmed down approach. Sure, it might not make much difference to our current medal tally to leave out our weaker (but nonetheless invited) athletes but it makes the championship less interesting to the UK viewer and is massively demoralising for developing athletes - it might make them leave the sport entirely. IMO we'll have a weaker squad in a few years if this continues. Also, it simply seems unfair to prevent athletes for taking up invitations.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles ... nths%20ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... ips-chance

It seems crazy to leave these two out, for instance:

We'll have to disagree . Resilience is a big part of top level sport imo (and would getting hammered on the world stage help morale much?), and prudent use of money seems important to me.I've not found it less interesting, but I'm not very parochial. (17th and 19th in the world isn't much of a recommendation frankly. Jade Lally is 36 as well, so its not like its a development thing). Life and esp sport isn't fair, as we all know- but its true there is a balance to be struck on providing experience, and there seems to be some of that too.

(the combination of your two articles suggest a- short on cash, and b- picked on current form, which seems quite sensible tbh; Zeller would have been a better example of someone who may have got the nod, given that he finished 5 th in a world final; the others mentioned had barely registered tbh)

Yeah, I think we're disagreeing on stick vs carrot here.

I would agree if it's really about money (which they deny). Sure if there is no money then okay drop the weakest ones, I would agree in that case. But if not, it just seems to me these are human beings who've made big sacrifices to get themselves to elite levels of performance, often on very little money, they've literally been invited to compete, having met the standards of the competition and UKA is preventing them from doing so. I would find it infuriating and depressing to be treated like that. What do you do then, spend another winter training, knowing that you could meet the Olympic standards and still be prevented from going? It sounds pretty demotivating to me. This is already a highly competitive environment, with a massive stick provided by the existing World Champs standards, IMO there really doesn't need to be an even bigger stick provided by UKA.

Personally, from the POV of the viewer, I find it a big turn off (or fast forward) if an event doesn't have any UK entrants. Sadly I've got used to that being the case for most field events but this year it's been shocking to see us with no one in the men's 5000, 10000m or 400mH, and only one in each of the 200m and 400m.

TBH I think any demotivation comes from World Athletics offering places both based on world rankings or meeting event performance criteria (qualification), with the rankings being out of date. UKA stipulated meeting the event qualification criteria (times, distances etc) which is fair imo. I think an elite mindset is better than being given a ticket to where you have very little hope of being competitive- interesting interview with Ben Pattison who said his mindset had been elevated by being surrounded here by athletes who didn't settle for making the team as being enough, but wanted to win medals. i'd also say it has to be connected to money, given UKA is posting a loss. I'd go back to the examples you gave eg frankly sending Jade Lally is money you can spend better. A culture of it being enough just to get into the World champs imo is not desirable.

Also to note, that athletics obviously isn't just Worlds and Olympics; there's club meets, country and GB championships, Diamond League, Europeans and our folks get the Commonwealths as well (where Jade Lally has done well), so plenty to train for

On the enjoyment front, we just differ- I'm happy to watch the genuine worlds best duke it out and not watch our folks not even in the frame.

Finally, unless things have changed, in the USA you have to perform in the one off trials, or you don't get picked. There's a stick for you.

[Numbers]

Gabby Logan can do one, she's very annoying, back to Jeanette please and why does Cram always call Katarina Johnson-Thompson, Catriona, it's disrespectful and frankly piss poor.

Other than that I've been enjoying the championships, Athletics is one of the truly global sports.

[Banquo]

Gabby Logan can do one, she's very annoying, back to Jeanette please and why does Cram always call Katarina Johnson-Thompson, Catriona, it's disrespectful and frankly piss poor.

Other than that I've been enjoying the championships, Athletics is one of the truly global sports.

I find Jeanette annoying and Denise Lewis too. Jess and Johnson are fantastic.

Agreed- the finalists now come from a vast range of countries. Great to watch- decent silver from Hudson-Smith as well, given he's had tendonitis in his achilles for 6 weeks or so.

[Mellsblue]

Jess can do no wrong in my eyes - class on and off the track (and field). Athletic’s Emily Scarratt.

[Son of Mathonwy]

We'll have to disagree . Resilience is a big part of top level sport imo (and would getting hammered on the world stage help morale much?), and prudent use of money seems important to me.I've not found it less interesting, but I'm not very parochial. (17th and 19th in the world isn't much of a recommendation frankly. Jade Lally is 36 as well, so its not like its a development thing). Life and esp sport isn't fair, as we all know- but its true there is a balance to be struck on providing experience, and there seems to be some of that too.

(the combination of your two articles suggest a- short on cash, and b- picked on current form, which seems quite sensible tbh; Zeller would have been a better example of someone who may have got the nod, given that he finished 5 th in a world final; the others mentioned had barely registered tbh)

Yeah, I think we're disagreeing on stick vs carrot here.

I would agree if it's really about money (which they deny). Sure if there is no money then okay drop the weakest ones, I would agree in that case. But if not, it just seems to me these are human beings who've made big sacrifices to get themselves to elite levels of performance, often on very little money, they've literally been invited to compete, having met the standards of the competition and UKA is preventing them from doing so. I would find it infuriating and depressing to be treated like that. What do you do then, spend another winter training, knowing that you could meet the Olympic standards and still be prevented from going? It sounds pretty demotivating to me. This is already a highly competitive environment, with a massive stick provided by the existing World Champs standards, IMO there really doesn't need to be an even bigger stick provided by UKA.

Personally, from the POV of the viewer, I find it a big turn off (or fast forward) if an event doesn't have any UK entrants. Sadly I've got used to that being the case for most field events but this year it's been shocking to see us with no one in the men's 5000, 10000m or 400mH, and only one in each of the 200m and 400m.

TBH I think any demotivation comes from World Athletics offering places both based on world rankings or meeting event performance criteria (qualification), with the rankings being out of date. UKA stipulated meeting the event qualification criteria (times, distances etc) which is fair imo. I think an elite mindset is better than being given a ticket to where you have very little hope of being competitive- interesting interview with Ben Pattison who said his mindset had been elevated by being surrounded here by athletes who didn't settle for making the team as being enough, but wanted to win medals. i'd also say it has to be connected to money, given UKA is posting a loss. I'd go back to the examples you gave eg frankly sending Jade Lally is money you can spend better. A culture of it being enough just to get into the World champs imo is not desirable.

Also to note, that athletics obviously isn't just Worlds and Olympics; there's club meets, country and GB championships, Diamond League, Europeans and our folks get the Commonwealths as well (where Jade Lally has done well), so plenty to train for

On the enjoyment front, we just differ- I'm happy to watch the genuine worlds best duke it out and not watch our folks not even in the frame.

Finally, unless things have changed, in the USA you have to perform in the one off trials, or you don't get picked. There's a stick for you.

I don't understand your point about the world athletics criteria being demotivating.

On the money point, UKA specifically deny this. And anyway, if you think they're lying, this is an easy problem to get around. You give the athletes who fall short the option of organising their own travel and accommodation or ask them to cover UKA's costs of including them in the squad. Money is not the reason for this.

This policy has seen us exclude Josh Zeller, Jade O'Dowda, Lina Neilsen, Amelia Strickler, Jade Lally and maybe 15 more . Based on current form I would think those others include Lucy Hadaway, Lorraine Ugen, Joel Clarke-Khan, Alex Haydock-Wilson, Amber Banning, Charlie Dobson.

If they had matched their best result this year they would have reached the following World Champs positions:
Hadaway 7th, Ugen 8th, Clarke-Khan 8th, O'Dowda 10th, Lally 12th, Dobson into tonight's final.
And after last year's form, it does seem strange to leave Zeller out.

So it seems to me we are unnecessarily excluding a lot of good athletes, most of them in their early 20s.

Yeah, we agree the US have a crazy policy, although I doubt they would deliberately leave any places unfilled as we have.

https://www.thepowerof10.info/rankings/

[Son of Mathonwy]

Gabby Logan can do one, she's very annoying, back to Jeanette please and why does Cram always call Katarina Johnson-Thompson, Catriona, it's disrespectful and frankly piss poor.

Other than that I've been enjoying the championships, Athletics is one of the truly global sports.

I find Jeanette annoying and Denise Lewis too. Jess and Johnson are fantastic.

Agreed- the finalists now come from a vast range of countries. Great to watch- decent silver from Hudson-Smith as well, given he's had tendonitis in his achilles for 6 weeks or so.

Johnson is great, Jess is good, Jeanette bearable (for an anchor), Denise and Gabby are agonising.

I also hate the fact that the BBC obviously think we can only take so much athletics so they take us back to presenter chat whenever they can, while we are actually missing field action. They cover the track stuff but field coverage seems to be optional.

Logan really annoyed me when she criticised Hudson-Smith for setting off too hard in the final. 2nd fastest time ever by a European just isn't good enough apparently. Denise agreed, but at least Johnson said he didn't want to criticise anyone who took it to the opposition.

[Banquo]

Yeah, I think we're disagreeing on stick vs carrot here.

I would agree if it's really about money (which they deny). Sure if there is no money then okay drop the weakest ones, I would agree in that case. But if not, it just seems to me these are human beings who've made big sacrifices to get themselves to elite levels of performance, often on very little money, they've literally been invited to compete, having met the standards of the competition and UKA is preventing them from doing so. I would find it infuriating and depressing to be treated like that. What do you do then, spend another winter training, knowing that you could meet the Olympic standards and still be prevented from going? It sounds pretty demotivating to me. This is already a highly competitive environment, with a massive stick provided by the existing World Champs standards, IMO there really doesn't need to be an even bigger stick provided by UKA.

Personally, from the POV of the viewer, I find it a big turn off (or fast forward) if an event doesn't have any UK entrants. Sadly I've got used to that being the case for most field events but this year it's been shocking to see us with no one in the men's 5000, 10000m or 400mH, and only one in each of the 200m and 400m.

TBH I think any demotivation comes from World Athletics offering places both based on world rankings or meeting event performance criteria (qualification), with the rankings being out of date. UKA stipulated meeting the event qualification criteria (times, distances etc) which is fair imo. I think an elite mindset is better than being given a ticket to where you have very little hope of being competitive- interesting interview with Ben Pattison who said his mindset had been elevated by being surrounded here by athletes who didn't settle for making the team as being enough, but wanted to win medals. i'd also say it has to be connected to money, given UKA is posting a loss. I'd go back to the examples you gave eg frankly sending Jade Lally is money you can spend better. A culture of it being enough just to get into the World champs imo is not desirable.

Also to note, that athletics obviously isn't just Worlds and Olympics; there's club meets, country and GB championships, Diamond League, Europeans and our folks get the Commonwealths as well (where Jade Lally has done well), so plenty to train for

On the enjoyment front, we just differ- I'm happy to watch the genuine worlds best duke it out and not watch our folks not even in the frame.

Finally, unless things have changed, in the USA you have to perform in the one off trials, or you don't get picked. There's a stick for you.

I don't understand your point about the world athletics criteria being demotivating.

On the money point, UKA specifically deny this. And anyway, if you think they're lying, this is an easy problem to get around. You give the athletes who fall short the option of organising their own travel and accommodation or ask them to cover UKA's costs of including them in the squad. Money is not the reason for this.

This policy has seen us exclude Josh Zeller, Jade O'Dowda, Lina Neilsen, Amelia Strickler, Jade Lally and maybe 15 more . Based on current form I would think those others include Lucy Hadaway, Lorraine Ugen, Joel Clarke-Khan, Alex Haydock-Wilson, Amber Banning, Charlie Dobson.

If they had matched their best result this year they would have reached the following World Champs positions:
Hadaway 7th, Ugen 8th, Clarke-Khan 8th, O'Dowda 10th, Lally 12th, Dobson into tonight's final.
And after last year's form, it does seem strange to leave Zeller out.

So it seems to me we are unnecessarily excluding a lot of good athletes, most of them in their early 20s.

Yeah, we agree the US have a crazy policy, although I doubt they would deliberately leave any places unfilled as we have.

https://www.thepowerof10.info/rankings/

Well World Athletics cut across national selection criteria and issued invites that they must have known couldn’t be taken up- unless my timing is out.
I saw the denial on cash, which has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I don’t think your two tier system would fly- effectively two teams, with one probs not getting more medical and logistics support- just would be bizarre imo.

But the meat of it- that’s an impressive piece of research to show that hypothetically some athletes wouldn’t have got that close to a medal at their very best. So I have no problem with them not going frankly, so we just disagree on UKA policy.

On the USA- well, look at the medal table, and historically they have left stars behind. Whether this applies with the new qualification process, dunno.

[Galfon]

Hodgkinson looks to have bulked up a bit but must be confident of medal finish tomorrow. (7.45 b.s.t...tis). Bet she wishes she has Reekie's kick - outsde chance too for the Scots lass if the race is (relatively) slow..
Done a good job, Hungary. Nice WA supporting w/site too.

[Son of Mathonwy]

TBH I think any demotivation comes from World Athletics offering places both based on world rankings or meeting event performance criteria (qualification), with the rankings being out of date. UKA stipulated meeting the event qualification criteria (times, distances etc) which is fair imo. I think an elite mindset is better than being given a ticket to where you have very little hope of being competitive- interesting interview with Ben Pattison who said his mindset had been elevated by being surrounded here by athletes who didn't settle for making the team as being enough, but wanted to win medals. i'd also say it has to be connected to money, given UKA is posting a loss. I'd go back to the examples you gave eg frankly sending Jade Lally is money you can spend better. A culture of it being enough just to get into the World champs imo is not desirable.

Also to note, that athletics obviously isn't just Worlds and Olympics; there's club meets, country and GB championships, Diamond League, Europeans and our folks get the Commonwealths as well (where Jade Lally has done well), so plenty to train for

On the enjoyment front, we just differ- I'm happy to watch the genuine worlds best duke it out and not watch our folks not even in the frame.

Finally, unless things have changed, in the USA you have to perform in the one off trials, or you don't get picked. There's a stick for you.

I don't understand your point about the world athletics criteria being demotivating.

On the money point, UKA specifically deny this. And anyway, if you think they're lying, this is an easy problem to get around. You give the athletes who fall short the option of organising their own travel and accommodation or ask them to cover UKA's costs of including them in the squad. Money is not the reason for this.

This policy has seen us exclude Josh Zeller, Jade O'Dowda, Lina Neilsen, Amelia Strickler, Jade Lally and maybe 15 more . Based on current form I would think those others include Lucy Hadaway, Lorraine Ugen, Joel Clarke-Khan, Alex Haydock-Wilson, Amber Anning, Charlie Dobson.

If they had matched their best result this year they would have reached the following World Champs positions:
Hadaway 7th, Ugen 8th, Clarke-Khan 8th, O'Dowda 10th, Lally 12th, Dobson into tonight's final.
And after last year's form, it does seem strange to leave Zeller out.

So it seems to me we are unnecessarily excluding a lot of good athletes, most of them in their early 20s.

Yeah, we agree the US have a crazy policy, although I doubt they would deliberately leave any places unfilled as we have.

https://www.thepowerof10.info/rankings/

Well World Athletics cut across national selection criteria and issued invites that they must have known couldn’t be taken up- unless my timing is out.
I saw the denial on cash, which has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I don’t think your two tier system would fly- effectively two teams, with one probs not getting more medical and logistics support- just would be bizarre imo.

But the meat of it- that’s an impressive piece of research to show that hypothetically some athletes wouldn’t have got that close to a medal at their very best. So I have no problem with them not going frankly, so we just disagree on UKA policy.

On the USA- well, look at the medal table, and historically they have left stars behind. Whether this applies with the new qualification process, dunno.

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to convince you but, anyway.

I still don't get your point about the World Athletics - if national athletics bodies have differing criteria (which they do) then World Athletics can't help but cut across them.

I don't see a problem with some athletes being outside the 'village' as it were, but if that's impossible for some reason then go with my second suggestion - UKA take everyone but charge (to cover its costs) those who don't meet its criteria. It's tough on them (though not as tough as exclusion) but it's certainly workable.

(One side point - three of the athletes I've mentioned are actually at the games for the relays (Haydock-Wilson, Anning and Dobson) and still they're not allowed to compete in the individual event. So that's certainly not a money issue.)

Athletes plan to peak at this championships, so it's not unreasonable to use their season's best as a rough guide to what they are capable of. Some will fall short, some will exceed it. And in fact there have been plenty of new PBs and SBs so far. So it's reasonable to think that many of those excluded could have finished between 7th and 12th in their events. Are you really saying unless an athlete is placed better than 7th, there was no point in sending them? Even if they're a developing athlete and our current best is ~30 (eg heptathlon, women's long jump) or the developing athlete is our current best (eg men's high jump)?

[Banquo]

I don't understand your point about the world athletics criteria being demotivating.

On the money point, UKA specifically deny this. And anyway, if you think they're lying, this is an easy problem to get around. You give the athletes who fall short the option of organising their own travel and accommodation or ask them to cover UKA's costs of including them in the squad. Money is not the reason for this.

This policy has seen us exclude Josh Zeller, Jade O'Dowda, Lina Neilsen, Amelia Strickler, Jade Lally and maybe 15 more . Based on current form I would think those others include Lucy Hadaway, Lorraine Ugen, Joel Clarke-Khan, Alex Haydock-Wilson, Amber Anning, Charlie Dobson.

If they had matched their best result this year they would have reached the following World Champs positions:
Hadaway 7th, Ugen 8th, Clarke-Khan 8th, O'Dowda 10th, Lally 12th, Dobson into tonight's final.
And after last year's form, it does seem strange to leave Zeller out.

So it seems to me we are unnecessarily excluding a lot of good athletes, most of them in their early 20s.

Yeah, we agree the US have a crazy policy, although I doubt they would deliberately leave any places unfilled as we have.

https://www.thepowerof10.info/rankings/

Well World Athletics cut across national selection criteria and issued invites that they must have known couldn’t be taken up- unless my timing is out.
I saw the denial on cash, which has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I don’t think your two tier system would fly- effectively two teams, with one probs not getting more medical and logistics support- just would be bizarre imo.

But the meat of it- that’s an impressive piece of research to show that hypothetically some athletes wouldn’t have got that close to a medal at their very best. So I have no problem with them not going frankly, so we just disagree on UKA policy.

On the USA- well, look at the medal table, and historically they have left stars behind. Whether this applies with the new qualification process, dunno.

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to convince you but, anyway.

I still don't get your point about the World Athletics - if national athletics bodies have differing criteria (which they do) then World Athletics can't help but cut across them.

I don't see a problem with some athletes being outside the 'village' as it were, but if that's impossible for some reason then go with my second suggestion - UKA take everyone but charge (to cover its costs) those who don't meet its criteria. It's tough on them (though not as tough as exclusion) but it's certainly workable.

(One side point - three of the athletes I've mentioned are actually at the games for the relays (Haydock-Wilson, Anning and Dobson) and still they're not allowed to compete in the individual event. So that's certainly not a money issue.)

Athletes plan to peak at this championships, so it's not unreasonable to use their season's best as a rough guide to what they are capable of. Some will fall short, some will exceed it. And in fact there have been plenty of new PBs and SBs so far. So it's reasonable to think that many of those excluded could have finished between 7th and 12th in their events. Are you really saying unless an athlete is placed better than 7th, there was no point in sending them? Even if they're a developing athlete and our current best is ~30 (eg heptathlon, women's long jump) or the developing athlete is our current best (eg men's high jump)?

Just think its odd offering invites that they know can't be taken up. The two track thing would just be odd and divisive for mine, and would undermine their policy (if it is indeed about elite focus). I'll maybe agree on money, though relays are medal focuses.

I'm not saying 'no point'- I'm saying the approach towards 'only medal prospects' has its own merit at a world champs.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Well World Athletics cut across national selection criteria and issued invites that they must have known couldn’t be taken up- unless my timing is out.
I saw the denial on cash, which has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I don’t think your two tier system would fly- effectively two teams, with one probs not getting more medical and logistics support- just would be bizarre imo.

But the meat of it- that’s an impressive piece of research to show that hypothetically some athletes wouldn’t have got that close to a medal at their very best. So I have no problem with them not going frankly, so we just disagree on UKA policy.

On the USA- well, look at the medal table, and historically they have left stars behind. Whether this applies with the new qualification process, dunno.

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to convince you but, anyway.

I still don't get your point about the World Athletics - if national athletics bodies have differing criteria (which they do) then World Athletics can't help but cut across them.

I don't see a problem with some athletes being outside the 'village' as it were, but if that's impossible for some reason then go with my second suggestion - UKA take everyone but charge (to cover its costs) those who don't meet its criteria. It's tough on them (though not as tough as exclusion) but it's certainly workable.

(One side point - three of the athletes I've mentioned are actually at the games for the relays (Haydock-Wilson, Anning and Dobson) and still they're not allowed to compete in the individual event. So that's certainly not a money issue.)

Athletes plan to peak at this championships, so it's not unreasonable to use their season's best as a rough guide to what they are capable of. Some will fall short, some will exceed it. And in fact there have been plenty of new PBs and SBs so far. So it's reasonable to think that many of those excluded could have finished between 7th and 12th in their events. Are you really saying unless an athlete is placed better than 7th, there was no point in sending them? Even if they're a developing athlete and our current best is ~30 (eg heptathlon, women's long jump) or the developing athlete is our current best (eg men's high jump)?

Just think its odd offering invites that they know can't be taken up. The two track thing would just be odd and divisive for mine, and would undermine their policy (if it is indeed about elite focus). I'll maybe agree on money, though relays are medal focuses.

I'm not saying 'no point'- I'm saying the approach towards 'only medal prospects' has its own merit at a world champs.

Yeah. Although we can argue about the immediate impact, the long term effect on results & motivation & money is of course not known and - unless the impact (good or bad) is very large - it will probably never be clear whether it was due to the change in policy. A lot of it comes down to gut instinct (as with politics ). It would be great if there was some evidence, say if someone had compared the effect of different selection policies used by different countries (this would also be great to see in politics ).

[Son of Mathonwy]

I hadn't noticed that Stephen Maguire was sacked back in October. No idea if it was anything to do with the selection policy (which he defended) as that probably came from the CEO.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... guire-exit

[Banquo]

I hadn't noticed that Stephen Maguire was sacked back in October. No idea if it was anything to do with the selection policy (which he defended) as that probably came from the CEO.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... guire-exit

no mention of selection, and an odd call judging by athletes comments

[Son of Mathonwy]

I hadn't noticed that Stephen Maguire was sacked back in October. No idea if it was anything to do with the selection policy (which he defended) as that probably came from the CEO.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... guire-exit

no mention of selection, and an odd call judging by athletes comments

Yes, unfortunately we have no idea why it happened.

[Banquo]

I hadn't noticed that Stephen Maguire was sacked back in October. No idea if it was anything to do with the selection policy (which he defended) as that probably came from the CEO.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... guire-exit

no mention of selection, and an odd call judging by athletes comments

Yes, unfortunately we have no idea why it happened.

weird one. I have a mate (amazingly!) who might know, will ask him tomorrow.