Athletics Weekly | London 2017 Post Mortem - Athletics Weekly

London 2017 Post Mortem

This topic contains 131 replies, has 30 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of biggut Biggut 2 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 126 through 132 (of 132 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #68865
    Profile photo of sovietvest
    sovietvest
    Participant

    And by the way – I’m old and the athletes Ursus mentioned were and continue to be my heroes. I try however to be balanced and view the different ages objectively.

    #68869
    Profile photo of ursus
    Ursus
    Participant

    Ursus identified the golden age as 77 (Ovett’s first year as world #1) to 2002 (Edward’s last year). 25 years. Interesting to note however that in the 15 years since then we have seen British NRs in the majority of events.

    Interesting observation, Soviet. There certainly has been a flurry of records over recent years. Here’s how I reckon the records stack up.

    Men

    Pre 02 100, 200, 400, 800, mile, 100h, 400h, chase, HJ, TJ, SP (Myerscough’s 03 mark wasn’t ratified), JT, Dec, 4×4, marathon

    Post 02

    1500, 5K, 10K (noticing a theme?), PV, LJ, DT, HT (by 1 cm), 4×1

    Women,

    Pre 02

    800, mile, 400h, TJ, SP, DT, JT (taking a view – Whitbread would have beaten Goldie with any spec),

    Post 02

    100, 200, 400, 1500, 100h, LJ, HT, PV, HJ, 4×1, 4×4, marathon, chase, 5K, 10K, Hep.

    Your assertion seems more true on the female side, albeit distorted by 3 new events in chase, PV & hammer. Arguably 5K, 10K & marathon fall into that category as well although I’m sure Paula would have broken those marks regardless.

    I think the only athlete we’ve produced in the intervening period who was capable of joining the Coes and Thompsons of this world was Okoye. And sadly we’ll never get to find out how good he could have been.

    #68870
    Profile photo of biggut
    Biggut
    Participant

    Ursus,

    You raise some interesting topics in your posts.

    On the BAL and club strength I seriously doubt it will ever be up to previous strength. No amount of tinkering with competition structure is going to counteract the negative domestic factors and until the sport is as rich as professional team sports then it isn’t likely to change much in my opinion.

    on the elite end I have several observations. You talk about not having the big game changing performers. My thoughts were that as time progresses and more people have had the opportunity to try an event then it becomes harder (technology changes aside) to produce a game changing performance. So as the amount of the world that is able to compete increases and years pass where events have developed it is more likely that the statistical outliers will have occurred. Take Paula for example. There has been no real chance of a game changing womens marathon ever since she produced her 2:15. Before that there was a chance that somebody could make that step change.

    I decided to test whether this was a UK issue or whether my theory that it is just plain less likely by looking at the top 10 all time rankings. I restricted it to men to remove the issue of GDR women from the equation. There are 72 top 10 UK performers who produced their PB this decade across the 22 individual disciplines. You may consider this to be proof that we are not performing well as this represents just under a 3rd of the performances. However in the world list there are 71 performances to the same criteria. As such this would appear to support my view that because each year is another opportunity for those “freak” performers to have performed then ground breaking performances in events become less and less likely.

    On the notion that we had better elite level performances I would ask which year you think this was true for. I tend to use comparison of the top 3 performers in each discipline to measure the health of the elite level. If the sport aims to produce the best team possible then top 3 seems to be the place to start as it reflects the number we can enter in each discipline in the Olympics. I don’t just measure 3rd ranked performance as this may give a false impression if we had somebody truly world class followed by two relatively weaker performances. Instead I compare 1st v 1st, 2nd v 2nd, 3rd v 3rd. I think that gives a pretty good measure of how we are performing at the top end. Which year would you expect to be stronger by tape and watch than this year. I usually wait until the end of the year but I could do a match now if you think there is an obvious candidate year from the past. My expectation is that this year will beat all others. Far too often we remember the great events from the past but ignore the weak ones. 1987 had a peak of 3.33.34 for 3rd ranked 1500m which is incredible, but equally it also saw a 3rd ranked 200m of 20.8 and 10k of 28:21. In fact even that peak 1500m year the 800m 3rd rank was slower than this year at 1:45.31. 1991, well one race in 1991, saw us have a 3rd ranked 5000m time of 13:10, but either side of that our 3rd ranking was an appalling 13:31 and 13:29 respectively.

    I know some people, not you Ursus, think that perception is the most important thing, but all too often our perceptions do not match the reality and this is where stats come in.

    #68871
    Profile photo of biggut
    Biggut
    Participant

    I’d also add that in terms of development I have always considered the 90s to have been lost years. I always felt that in the post professionalistion years the very top were looked after once they got there but that there was very little to help those on the way up. Things like Sportshall, emphasis on multi-discipline for youngsters and creating more coaches at the lower end able to introduce the sport I believe have had an impact. The introduction of funding at the top level has had an impact.

    Prior to 2000 there was a clear decline in overall performance. None of the developmental stuff would have had an immediate impact, but performance has steadily risen over the last 15+ years to a point where despite lower numbers it now exceeds the top 3 performances of the past. The british record situation reflects this as there was a quiet period where very few were broken. I said in 2006 that I believed we were about to see the first generation of athletes who came through the new system under the NGB coming through and that it would take another 12-15 years before the whole squad had come through that system. We are 11 years in and clearly year on year there are greater numbers of athletes making top 8 or reaching the qualifying standards across a laudible range of events.

    #68872
    Profile photo of philipo
    philipo
    Participant

    The 90s lost years… crazy rubbishy views for all of us who saw a stack of great British runners throughout the decade and even the odd Javelin thrower triple jumper etc. I believe you to be on need of some help especially when you talk of sportshall as having an impact… as for the money spent on athletics at the top end its impact has been very poor, this year at the top end especially. McNab in this weeks AW wrote more sense in one line than all the utter rubbish in Biggut’s scribblings on this site and I recommend all to read his comments.
    I suppose we have to accept even here the new fashion for bigguts “alternative facts”.
    Club athletics is closer to dying now than ever before…yet fatheads insist on telling us that the coaching set up is great(creeps like the ex-chairman) and all is well. No decent field events exponents except tiny tiny handful.

    Any body who read AW results in the nineties knows that the current Regional and county performances have never been worse.

    Ursus surely you did not fall for this nonsense peddled by Biggut.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by Profile photo of philipo philipo.
    #68874
    Profile photo of robo2
    robo2
    Participant

    The 90s lost years… crazy rubbishy views for all of us who saw a stack of great British runners throughout the decade and even the odd Javelin thrower triple jumper etc. I believe you to be on need of some help especially when you talk of sportshall as having an impact… as for the money spent on athletics at the top end its impact has been very poor, this year at the top end especially. McNab in this weeks AW wrote more sense in one line than all the utter rubbish in Biggut’s scribblings on this site and I recommend all to read his comments.
    I suppose we have to accept even here the new fashion for bigguts “alternative facts”.
    Club athletics is closer to dying now than ever before…yet fatheads insist on telling us that the coaching set up is great(creeps like the ex-chairman) and all is well. No decent field events exponents except tiny tiny handful.

    Any body who read AW results in the nineties knows that the current Regional and county performances have never been worse.

    Ursus surely you did not fall for this nonsense peddled by Biggut.

    this is getting tedious now, in the three olympics from 92-2000 we won 7 field medals (1g, 4s, 2b) in the last 3 olympics we have won 9 (2g, 3s, 4b)

    olympics
    1992 – backley – bronze
    1996 – smith – bronze
    backley – silver
    edwards – silver
    leiws -silver
    2000 – backley – silver
    lewis – gold

    2008 – mason – silver
    idowu – silver
    sotherton – bronze
    2012- ennis – gold
    rutherford – gold
    grabarz – bronze
    2016- rutherford – bronze
    hitchon – bronze
    ennis – silver

    #68875
    Profile photo of biggut
    Biggut
    Participant

    Phillips,

    First off just shouting you are wrong is the debating level of a toddler. If you can’t actually debate the points then at least admit defeat.

    Secondly please learn to read. I said in development terms I consider the 90s to be lost. People join the sport from a young age. They then take time to develope and may reach top level in their 20s. They may have a career of over a decade. The majority of the 90s athletes you recall didn’t start the sport in the 90s. Indeed the majority of our 90s medalists were already internationals before the decade began.

    What happens when your pipeline fails to perform is that people leave at the end of their careers and there aren’t the numbers coming through to replace them. It’s a steady decline not an on off switch. Then when you sort the pipeline it doesn’t just immediately mean lads of ready made senior athletes, youhave to wait for them to develope.

    The steady decline at top level in the U.K. during the 90s is utterly indisputable. This decline went on into the early part of the new millennium as established people retired. Since then we have seen improvements year on year as more high quality athletes come through than retire.

    Do you somehow believe that the weakening or strengthening standards occur overnight with the flick of s policy switch or the commencement of a program? Do you not grasp that you can’t just create high quality athletes at peak overnight by a change in policy? Improvements at the top end now are the combined improvements from many years having more kids go from 10-23 at a higher standard whilst retaining the top level members in the squad once they get there.

Viewing 7 posts - 126 through 132 (of 132 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Product Reviews View All
Don't Miss
Videos
AW Offers