Buckner promises smaller teams

[Sovietvest]

Here we go again.

Presumably this means athletes who don’t achieve a championship standard and ‘only’ get an invitation by WA, will have their invitation rejected by UKA.

This is supposed to be a professional sport, so this is a form of restraint of trade. Athletes in that situation - prevented from competing at a champs - will lose earning opportunities: less chance of winning or retaining a kit contract; reduced bonuses; a lower WA ranking, leading to fewer racing and therefore earning opportunities.

If WA say someone has qualified for a champs and we have a space they should go.

[PotterHoppo96]

I think this is mostly financial related, sending big teams is fine and gives a wide range of athletes to look out for. There are also nearly 50 different events, we should always target to have representation in all of them, if not most of them.

Under this dictat we may lose representation in events like the men's PV, Women's HJ, Women's Hammer, Men's SP, etc. Who does that benefit?

if somebody has a world ranking they have a right to compete in the major events. Its not cheating to take say the 32nd ranked athlete when the field size is that number. Tennis grand slams have 128 players, as a comparison

[Ursus]

I’m half way on this.

Buckner’s talking about prioritising potential medalists - which I understand but don’t wholeheartedly agree with.

But I also don’t believe we should just blindly take as many as we can either. I agree with his view that there have been too many passengers in the past and we also have to recognise UKA’s financial situation A delicate balancing act with incentivising current athletes and future generations.

[LuckySpikes]

I'm fully in agreement with the first 2 posts.

For some athletes just competing in the Olympics or World Championships will be a proud pinnacle of their career. Some might say, there's no room in sport for such sentimentality. However, if they've qualified according to WA's criteria then they're deemed good enough and should be allowed to compete.

[treadwater1]

Last year’s selection policy stated either athletes had to have the standard or had to be within the top 32 of the rankings. It didn’t make much difference in the end as the Eugene squad was 78. This included 15 taken via the rankings. So if they were to change things it would probably be those hoping for an invite finding themselves on the chopping block.

Buckner’s reputation is based on the success of the 2020 swimming team so it’s no surprise that he wants to replicate that at BA. British Swimming set tougher consideration standards than those set by FINA, which may have played a part in raising standards. Would doing the same produce better outcomes in athletics? I’m sceptical, we went down that road with CVC and it didn’t lead to much success beyond Mo, Jess, Greg and TBO

[Occasional Hope]

Obviously we were forced to limit numbers at the Commonwealths last year too.

[Occasional Hope]

Not just smaller teams but

Potentially there will be less athletes funded.

. And he's talking about 6-10 athletes as a core...

[Ursus]

I'm fully in agreement with the first 2 posts.

For some athletes just competing in the Olympics or World Championships will be a proud pinnacle of their career. Some might say, there's no room in sport for such sentimentality. However, if they've qualified according to WA's criteria then they're deemed good enough and should be allowed to compete.

I know. I just dislike the whole selection approach. I’m unfairly going to pick on Beth Dobbin to make a point. Sorry Beth. I could have chosen any number of others and I’m perfectly aware there will be plenty of good counter arguments.

Beth’s a good athlete but she’s never going to be an individual global finalist let alone medalist. That’s fine, that’s rarefied atmosphere.

I’m sure Olympics and WCs are v proud moments for their athletes and their families, but let’s consider 2022 for Beth:

She went to the WC. Blew out in the heats. Unsurprisingly - in that year she was world ranked 118th and only 6th Britain. She failed to legally break 23s all season which probably isn’t really the benchmark of international, let alone world, class anymore. I know she’s subsequently come out and said she had problems last year, but in that sort of form selection made no sense to me.

Who gained anything from that? It’s not like this was a one off for the life experience for her - she’d been to a previous iteration and an OG. The costs incurred gave no return.

And let’s not also forget that majors are not champagne and roses all the way. Some athletes really struggle mentally if they get there and then don’t achieve whatever their personal goals were - which many don’t.

I know I’m in a minority here. But as I say I sit half way on this. All for incentivising and encouraging, but selection should also be thoughtful.

[Runner88]

Been here all before in the Charles VC era and I don’t think it resulted in any measurable improvement. Athletes have to develop into being medalists should they reach that level.

What happened to the aim of an athlete in every event at major champs? Or did that go out of the window with its predecessors?

[Balgair]

I see the idea of not wanting to take passengers, and certainly, if someone's way out of form and has had the experience before, I can see the point, especially in track events where we have many entries... but on the flipside, what about inspiring the next generation?

Lets not forget BBC don't bother showing field events or track heats if there's no British involvement, so kids who might be dabbling in athletics in school won't get the extra bonus interest in an event through seeing it (and seeing British athletes competing) on tv and might go off to some sport which does get coverage instead. I much prefer the aim of having competitors in every event, especially as you never know who might spring a surprise; I wonder if Okoye's medal in the Europeans last year might've inspired some youngsters to take up discus more seriously, for example?

[philipo]

I know. I just dislike the whole selection approach. I’m unfairly going to pick on Beth Dobbin to make a point. Sorry Beth. I could have chosen any number of others and I’m perfectly aware there will be plenty of good counter arguments.

Beth’s a good athlete but she’s never going to be an individual global finalist let alone medalist. That’s fine, that’s rarefied atmosphere.

I’m sure Olympics and WCs are v proud moments for their athletes and their families, but let’s consider 2022 for Beth:

She went to the WC. Blew out in the heats. Unsurprisingly - in that year she was world ranked 118th and only 6th Britain. She failed to legally break 23s all season which probably isn’t really the benchmark of international, let alone world, class anymore. I know she’s subsequently come out and said she had problems last year, but in that sort of form selection made no sense to me.

Who gained anything from that? It’s not like this was a one off for the life experience for her - she’d been to a previous iteration and an OG. The costs incurred gave no return.

And let’s not also forget that majors are not champagne and roses all the way. Some athletes really struggle mentally if they get there and then don’t achieve whatever their personal goals were - which many don’t.

I know I’m in a minority here. But as I say I sit half way on this. All for incentivising and encouraging, but selection should also be thoughtful.

Very brave , Ursus. If I had expounded such views, I know a heap of shit woud have fallen on my head from numerous posters, as has happened previously.
I think that you selected a perfectly appropriate athlete to make your point,an athlete
who has been very fortunate to have been selected in the past at national level on a fairly flimsy basis.

[MysteryBrick]

It's about balance. No total passengers, but also follow reasonable guidelines that World Athletics set. I would always want one eligible person per event at a minimum, for exposure reasons.

[marra]

I've made my views on this clear in the past I think but, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm firmly in the camp that we take anyone who meets the qualification criteria. We're a rich enough nation to do so and we should be doing everything we can to foster more interest and participation in sports from the public, which is more likely to be helped by seeing British athletes compete than it is not. If we're not funding athletics enough to do so then that is a problem of funding that needs resolving. We should be pressuring those that are causing that funding issue, not the athletes.

Now if we want to add additional criteria on top of those mandated by the World/European governing body, that's our choice. I think it is somewhat self-defeating myself but I get why some would argue that a 'best of the best' attitude might push people to new heights.

I understand the concerns about athletes being selected on past form but the issue there is a problem with the criteria for me. Unless those are tightened to only include recent form and not past form (and therefore hurt those who have been injured), you'll always get some weird selections. And you still never know when an athlete might rediscover some form, as Balgair says about Okoye. It's just the nature of sport.

I think there's also a practical POV in certain events that I would argue helps certain people get a place - I'd always be thinking about taking any 100, 200 and 400 runners (as well as hurdlers) who qualify in case they might be needed as an emergency relay runner! Whereas I can't make that argument for, say, the 3rd best hammer thrower!

[philipo]

I've made my views on this clear in the past I think but, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm firmly in the camp that we take anyone who meets the qualification criteria. We're a rich enough nation to do so and we should be doing everything we can to foster more interest and participation in sports from the public, which is more likely to be helped by seeing British athletes compete than it is not. If we're not funding athletics enough to do so then that is a problem of funding that needs resolving. We should be pressuring those that are causing that funding issue, not the athletes.

Now if we want to add additional criteria on top of those mandated by the World/European governing body, that's our choice. I think it is somewhat self-defeating myself but I get why some would argue that a 'best of the best' attitude might push people to new heights.

I understand the concerns about athletes being selected on past form but the issue there is a problem with the criteria for me. Unless those are tightened to only include recent form and not past form (and therefore hurt those who have been injured), you'll always get some weird selections. And you still never know when an athlete might rediscover some form, as Balgair says about Okoye. It's just the nature of sport.

I think there's also a practical POV in certain events that I would argue helps certain people get a place - I'd always be thinking about taking any 100, 200 and 400 runners (as well as hurdlers) who qualify in case they might be needed as an emergency relay runner! Whereas I can't make that argument for, say, the 3rd best hammer thrower!

You mentioned funding, as you and others have often referred to in the past but it is another issue that is ,for me , the main problem.in the uk,namely coaching. Poor,and largely ignored by the elite administration,except for a handful of dedicated coaches; limited and hardly well rewarded, especially at field events.We are clearly a nation that has primarily a middle and long distance tradition , not forgetting cross country.
Throw in a national deep seated love of relative mediocrity , which is reflected in perhaps the modern park run popularity.
Other rich nations like Germany and France have very few super elite athletes and track standards are pretty awful in those and other Euro countries. I foresee no change in the UK

[Sovietvest]

Very brave , Ursus. If I had expounded such views, I know a heap of shit woud have fallen on my head from numerous posters, as has happened previously.
I think that you selected a perfectly appropriate athlete to make your point,an athlete
who has been very fortunate to have been selected in the past at national level on a fairly flimsy basis.

I think both of you are being perfectly reasonable if you're suggesting that athletes whose careers have peaked and are unlikely to get beyond the heats, possibly should not be selected. I certainly would prioritise up-and-coming athletes.

At first sight, like you, I would have put Beth in that category. However, upon closer inspection I see that she qualified for Eugene because she ran just inside 22.80 in the qualification window - 22.78 in Tokyo in August 2021. So, she didn't get in because of a WA invite. She was however, ranked high enough to get an invite that way, too. She's still ranked 21st and had risen as high as 14. Also, prior to Eugene she showed she was in good form with a 22.49 (+3.5 m/s) at the Trails in 2022. That's worth quicker than 22.80 in legal conditions.

The 200 is a funny one. Below the very top 8-10 women who compete regularly on the European circuit (so many of the best are in the NCAA system or never leave the US) there is quite a drop off in standards. So ranking points aren't as hard to come by as they are in other some events.

If you want a controversial view, Philipo - how about this: I'd stop funding the relay teams. Take teams by all means but redirect all that money to other events.

[Ursus]

If you want a controversial view, Philipo - how about this: I'd stop funding the relay teams. Take teams by all means but redirect all that money to other events.

Where do I sign??