British athletics name 72-strong team for doha world championships

[drobbie]

Why? He has never made an individual global final which is the whole point of 'podium potential'. Or because he's one of the more likeable athletes it's ok to gibe him a bye? Sounds like the mentality British Athletics have with their selections

You're right though, there's no way of telling how athletes will turn out, which is why the podium potential clause is so stupid.

he gets a bye, because hes a world champion albeit as part of the 4 x 100

[Afrothletics]

he gets a bye, because hes a world champion albeit as part of the 4 x 100

Seems like you're playing favourites to me. Do you work for British Athletics as well?

[larkim]

The thing I don't get about the selection approach is that by having a discretion (particularly one which is a negative one - it is a discretion to refuse) they open themselves up to this level of criticism. To our knowledge, is it just 5 athletes that were invited (Sawyers, Norman, Strickler, Knight and Fillery? Beyond accommodation and a flight, which for at least Norman they'd have had to have funded if he had run 0.5s quicker after the trials, is there a real and overwhelming cost that would damage elite athletics by sending these 5?

I get the argument about keeping them keen and setting the bar high to drive them on - places at major champs have to be earned, not just gifted as of right, but that's got to be balanced against opportunity and rising to the challenge at the major events - lord knows we have enough athletes that crumble at major events after ticking the correct boxes for automatic spots.

[Sovietvest]

I agree. I get the argument about setting the bar high but the bar is already set high by the IAAF. This just demotivates athletes who often are the late developers, outside the UKA system who already feel they are not competing on a level playing field with funded athletes. Rather than motivating them to try even harder it's more likely to demoralise them or, if they are distance runners, send them off to the roads to earn a living. The cynic in me suspects that often selection decisions are an opportunity for UKA to justify / reinforce previous funding decisions.

[larkim]

That's the thing - without an explicit and clear (and well evidenced) reason for leaving invited athletes behind, all we can do is come up with cynical reasons for their motivation which fuel the antipathy many have to UKA. I'm a naive soul, and I do like to believe that whilst we're all human and have faults, those working within UKA are motivated by a desire for UK success in athletics, and honestly believe that they are doing the best they possibly can within some of the (mainly financial) parameters they have to live within.

It may be as simple as resources - though of course once we stop one athlete from travelling to a champs for explicitly financial reasons, those who are particularly aggressively anti-UKA will immediately point to "lavish" fact finding trips, training camps for "the chosen few", high salaries (for those they don't like), pointless "general fitness" initiatives and marketing, commercial failures of major events or concepts etc. The reality is it is never as simple as all that, and that at some point you do have to set an overall budget for the cost of taking a team to an overseas championships, and there isn't a bottomless pit of cash available. But at least they should have the clarity to say that out loud if that's the case.

[jjimbojames]

But the LOC pay for flights and hotel. It’s a cost of the training camp but the rest isn’t put on an NGB

[philipo]

I agree. I get the argument about setting the bar high but the bar is already set high by the IAAF. This just demotivates athletes who often are the late developers, outside the UKA system who already feel they are not competing on a level playing field with funded athletes. Rather than motivating them to try even harder it's more likely to demoralise them or, if they are distance runners, send them off to the roads to earn a living. The cynic in me suspects that often selection decisions are an opportunity for UKA to justify / reinforce previous funding decisions.

having just spent quite sometime looking at the excellent Tilastopaja site with alll the ranked athletes , qualifying or not, I must admit i can't help feeling somewhat more sympathy for the many athletes across all disciplines and countries who cannot take part in the WC because they are in countries with more than 3 qualifying athletes, than i do for some Brits mentioned in many posts here.

[drobbie]

Seems like you're playing favourites to me. Do you work for British Athletics as well?

hes been on the podium so has fulfilled his podium potential , hes a world champion, a gold medal is stiil a gold medal even if its in the relays

[Ursus]

The team has voted Kilty as captain. A bit part relay runner at best feels an odd choice, especially given some of his previous.

Not entirely sure what the role is, but good on him if the others do hold him in high regard. Just not always been evident to me from the outside.

[Christy93]

The team has voted Kilty as captain. A bit part relay runner at best feels an odd choice, especially given some of his previous.

Not entirely sure what the role is, but good on him if the others do hold him in high regard. Just not always been evident to me from the outside.

I think he has done a lot of growing up in recent years. He has a family now, and while I didnt meet him when he had his bad boy image, the times I have met him in the last few years he has been likeable and approachable. I do wonder if that's our clue that he'll be leading the 4x1 off?

Kilty-Hughes-Gemili-NMB is what I think they'll go. I'd go Gemili-Hughes-NMB-Edoburun personally though. Dream team next year would be Ujah-Hughes-Gemili-Prescod.

[Ursus]

having just spent quite sometime looking at the excellent Tilastopaja site with alll the ranked athletes , qualifying or not, I must admit i can't help feeling somewhat more sympathy for the many athletes across all disciplines and countries who cannot take part in the WC because they are in countries with more than 3 qualifying athletes, than i do for some Brits mentioned in many posts here.

Won't get any argument from me on that.

As one example the mSP standard is 20.70. 12 Americans have exceeded 21m which is world class by any measure yet 9 of them won't be going. Can't be right.

[Stew-Coach]

Why? He has never made an individual global final which is the whole point of 'podium potential'. Or because he's one of the more likeable athletes it's ok to gibe him a bye? Sounds like the mentality British Athletics have with their selections

You're right though, there's no way of telling how athletes will turn out, which is why the podium potential clause is so stupid.

Serious question and one that I now wonder, does the "potential" funding cover the potential to be an individual medallist only or does it include the possibility of being in the full relay squad and funded?

[Ladyloz]

Sprinters are only eligible for relay funding or Podium funding. They are specifically excluded from 'potential ' funding' .

[Afrothletics]

Serious question and one that I now wonder, does the "potential" funding cover the potential to be an individual medallist only or does it include the possibility of being in the full relay squad and funded?

I'm not too sure re: funding, as there are various different ones such as world class, potential and relay funding.

With regards to invites/discretionary picks for podium potentials, you would assume it was for individual purposes, because anyone can be selected for a relay team without a qualifying standard. For example, if British Athletics were so certain that Danny Talbot would go on to become a relay world champion, why did they pick him for an individual event based on 'podium potential' as the reason when they could have just saved his energy and ran him in the relay only, as that's where his 'potential' is. He was clearly picked under the guise of having podium potential as a 200m individual, and the truth is he has never made a global final so it speaks for itself really.

The podium potential clause should be scrapped and named for what it really is - Performance Director's exception picks.

[Ursus]

Can you believe it? I mean can you bloody well believe it?

Says it all. They only had 2 flaming throwers to think about.

RIP British throwing.

[larkim]

Be interesting to see what the specifics of this are, as the source of the story originally is the Daily Mail. It could turn out that Miller and UKA had planned this in advance for some reason, or that it is something completely unexpected that UKA couldn't reasonably have foreseen. But if it is just lack of sensible thinking and planning for an event where we are performing relatively well, then it is very poor.

[sidelined]

Can you believe it? I mean can you bloody well believe it?

Says it all. They only had 2 flaming throwers to think about.

RIP British throwing.

The same thing happened to Shirley Webb in the Dave Collins era. She ended up throwing in a supermarket car park, IIRC.

The most irritating thing about the non-selections of GB athletes for me is knowing that other athletes with inferior marks will go in their place - so choosing not to send them actually lowers the standards of the whole competition (marginally, maybe, but it's the principle of the thing).

When it comes to deciding who has 'potential' the document about selection for the WCPP 2020 programme contains this:

What is the What it Takes to Win (WITTW) data and analysis?

This is simply a description of what the best in the world looks like. British Athletics have developed a series of interactive dashboards that displays all of this information for each event and this will be used as the framework for assessing athlete medal winning capacity (and therefore their place on the WCP).

It features a huge amount of data that describes the levels of performance expected of athletes as they develop towards the podium (similar to the old funnels) as well as projections regarding the future direction of the event (i.e. is it getting harder or easier). It also outlines the key physical/technical characteristics of medal winning athletes, alongside descriptions of the more subjective areas of global medal winners (such as behaviours, coaching quality, environment etc.).

This system is undoubtedly a competitive advantage over other nations and as such we do not intend to publish this data and analysis, or indeed send copies of the dashboards to individual athletes and their coaches. Instead, the data and analysis will be used as part of the athlete review process, with athletes and their coaches taken through each of the key areas in person.

So the whole process is shrouded secrecy while the NGB consult their crystal ball and their decisions can ever be challenged. How ridiculous.