Hi ,
It looks like you're using an ad blocker, which is understandable if you don't like ads. Who does really? However, our site is free for you to use because of a mixture of adverts and voluntary donations from users. Please consider enabling ads for our website, or making a voluntary donation.
Thanks,
Ian Williams - Fetcheveryone

Elite Athletics Thread

117 watchers

Got something to say?

To contribute to the discussion, you need to either sign in or register as a user.
18 Mar
9:26am, 18 Mar 2019
7013 posts
larkim
(For some odd reason, men's 800m doesn't work, I think that's down to some peculiar names / characters in the webpage at IAAF in their names!)
18 Mar
2:11pm, 18 Mar 2019
7018 posts
larkim
Improved the spreadsheet a bit now - it also populates a table with the amount of runners from each country that would potentially eligible for selection by the NGB if the cut off on the rankings was done as I've described (which I think is the only way that the IAAF can hope to fill all of the places that they want to).

In theory (based on today's data) we have 9 women who could conceiveably be within the rankings cut off in the 1500m. It's those women that we need UKA to have a credible selection plan for - whether it is via trials or highest placed individual on the list etc.

For events where UK athletes don't have the depth, the question will be how far down the list is UKA prepared to go - would they take you as the lowest ranked athlete, just sneaking in, or will they include some sort of "B" standard to make sure that whoever we take they do at least meet some minimum criteria?

(For what it's worth, I'd hope they fill all the places they are allowed to).
SPR
18 Mar
5:42pm, 18 Mar 2019
27588 posts
SPR
Tianna Bartoletta on the changes: theycallmetb.com
18 Mar
7:33pm, 18 Mar 2019
7026 posts
larkim
Not the most compelling of arguments I have to say. For a start she completely misses the point about the high qualifying standards (as most seem to have done) - THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY QUALIFYING STANDARDS!!!!

The "high" standards are equivalent to the A standard in old money - get it, and you're top of the pile for being considered for going. The rankings standards can be simply thought of as being the "B" standards - and they are flexible so that they can dynamically respond to how well athletes are running / jumping / throwing in year. They of themselves won't result in any more or any fewer athletes going to the Olympics.

THey want 1900 athletes to go to Tokyo instead of 2005 which was the target quota for Rio. So that is a cut (5% ish). And by using the rankings for the second "cut" of the qualification, they can be quite precise about the numbers in a way that the B standards etc didn't allow for. That may be good or bad, but broadly allowing the IAAF to control the numbers attending is probably a necessary evil in the context of planning for a Games which only has a set number of accommodation spaces etc etc etc.

Of course, the other thing is the rankings themselves - creating a dynamic to encourage head to head competition (or at least more frequent competition) throughout the year. I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

I do disagree with dropping the 5k from the Diamond League down to a 3k, but even that is not that much of a stretch. INdividual events (like the Pre Classic etc) will still be able to run 10,000m on "distance night" the evening before.
SPR
18 Mar
8:06pm, 18 Mar 2019
27589 posts
SPR
Larkim - How did she miss the point on the standards? She said athletes will have to compete more for less money which indicates she understands the rankings side. She said she has no problem with high the high qualifying standards, doesn't mean she thinks they're the only standard.

TBH the blog was more about Diamond League changes and as a field eventer, she's felt the impact in the past and will probably feel it in the future as well.

TBH, that would be my only concern with rankings. I haven't looked into this in any detail but my understanding is that you get points depending on the event you're doing Diamond League is high, local BMC fairly low for example. If you need to get into the Diamond League (which is invitation only) to score high ranking points, then if your event isn't done often and/ or you're on the cusp but not in with the event director then you may have problems.
18 Mar
8:13pm, 18 Mar 2019
7028 posts
larkim
Most of the points come straight from IAAF scoring tables, no matter where the meeting takes place. There are of course bonuses for scoring in the DL, WC, etc etc, and the bonuses get less the lower the tier of competition. And there are points for positions too.

So it does make a difference where you compete, and that's going to be something the athletes have to work through over the next year or so and there'll be some athletes who are upset about not getting access to DL or similar tier meetings. That may or may not be an issue - I think it may be being exaggerated as broadly the top 10-15 will get DL invites (and be top of the rankings as ever), but lower ranked athletes will still be competing against each other at a level which allows them to qualify for major games via rankings positions.

I've re-read it and you're right, she is much more focussed on the DL, though she does drop in a comment about "the higher standards" (when I personally don't accept that there are higher standards - just differently constructed ones).
18 Mar
8:23pm, 18 Mar 2019
7029 posts
larkim
Just realised I've sounded very grumpy. Sorry! WiFi problems...

Got something to say?

To contribute to the discussion, you need to either sign in or register as a user.

About This Thread

A thread to discuss any interesting stories or developments in elite athletics.

Current UK rankings - thepowerof10.info

GOOD SITES FOR NEWS
BBC Athletics - bbc.co.uk
Athletics Weekly - athletics-weekly.com
Letsrun - letsrun.com
IAAF Site - iaaf.org
Diamond League Site - diamondleague.com

IAAF Calendar - iaaf.org
BBC Athletics Coverage - bbc.co.uk

Related Threads

race marathon world running athletics bbc athletes record sport agree pace

Close