Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brooks Johnson says Beijing drops not a factor...

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Again, are you guys really paying attention to this issue?
    Preparation? This was the most prepared team in US history. Conversely, the "great" teams of the past had FAR less preparation!

    This is about losing, and people needing to blame something, even when there is no blame to be passed around.

    Pass style is not an issue, just something to feel right about.

    Practice time is a non issue here. No US team has had more practice. NO team has had as many pieces worked out in so many different places.

    This is not about any of the above. This is about racing and getting the baton around the track. Read gh's post.

    And lastly, stop the lies, Brooks was never fired or asked to step down. He made the decision to walk away to prevent silliness down the line. Love him or hate him but he always talked straight.

    Comment


    • #32
      I think "lies" is a bit strong; Brooks may not have been fired or asked to step down but w/ all the heat that's coming down on several fronts, getting out while the getting is good is certainly the conventional wisdom of what happened.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by guru
        Originally posted by Smoke
        As he pointed out, this is the most practiced squad we have ever had. The baton exchange was not missed, the stick was in the outgoing runners hand on both drops.
        Yep, a problem that would not have occured using an upsweep pass, especially effective for safety. I haven't had a 4x1 or 4x2 of mine drop a stick in 8 years of bringing it up. But American squads would never think of using the upsweep.

        And therein lies the rub. The old school way of thinking says downsweep all the way - free distance advantage dontcha know(and not necessarily true). Nevermind batons hitting the deck. Simply a cost of doing business.

        We need someone willing to think outside the box. That most certainly was not Johnson.
        Up sweep??? The most inefficient and also a risky pass. Placing the stick in the hand works well. Thrusting the stick from a great height with the outgoing hand at strange angles usually leads to problems. Poor coaching at the root of it.

        The problems with the changes is your sprinters and your coaching.

        We foreigners always anticipated the strong chance of a drop with the US teams. Full of hubris, and usually anchormen trying to operate in unfamiliar conditions.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by mal
          The most inefficient and also a risky pass. Placing the stick in the hand works well. Thrusting the stick from a great height with the outgoing hand at strange angles usually leads to problems. Poor coaching at the root of it.
          The front and back end of this paragraph seem contradictory.
          I don't know what "placing the stick in the hand" means in terms of technique and "thrusting the stick from a great height with the outgong hand at strange angle" perfectly describes the over hand palm up, pass, not the upsweep.
          Thankfully, we are all free to have an opinion and practice our own preferred technique.

          Comment


          • #35
            A New Approach To Relay Teams Selections

            We need to wake up. We need to take the approach of many countries (as well as the '08 USA Basketball Team) and select a TEAM early and work them for 2-3 years in preparation of the games.

            I would recommend that immediately after the 2009 USATF Championships that 10 individuals for each relay (400M, 1600M, 400W & 1600W) be selected. There would be some type of 'minimum standards' set for commitment to training, races, etc. over the next three years.

            10 members would permit intra-team competition at meets and enhance training and issues of absences and injuries.

            After the 2012 USOT I would give the US Olympic Track Team Head Coach the discretion to select at least one member from the 100 or 200 meters not yet on the team. Same procedure with the 400 flat USOT. Within 60 days of the Olympics the Head Coach will select the final members of the team.

            While the 4x400 has been less of a 'risk' as noted earlier, this relay should receive the same amount of attention, traing and oversigt.

            It is obvious that other countries (with teams working together probably for years) are highly effective in the 4x100 because of their technique in passing even though they may not be as fast in the flat races.

            I am glad the USAT is placing some emphasis on this. Over the years, we have been embarassed by shoddy passing and what appears to some to be a "who cares" attitude by some of the members.

            I think the USA Olympic Basketball Team and its approach was a good example of what it takes to make a commitment to winning and going out and doing it. Worth serious consideration. I say: "If it's worth doing, it's worth OVERDOING".

            Comment


            • #36
              There is a much simpler solution. Make actual relay teams compete in the trials. This way you have people who practice together & know each other intimately. Its patently ridiculous that your individual race performance get you a relay spot. Its the only instance in our sport where you get a free ride to the Olympics. It would also make the OT meet even more exciting. Have the 8 best relay teams in each event race in a final on the final day of the meet, winner takes all, just like in the Games. Our Trials is setup to copy the Games in every aspect, but we still do the stupidity of picking relays by committee.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by MJR
                There is a much simpler solution. Make actual relay teams compete in the trials.
                I've been in favor of this idea for the 4 x 1 for a while. Apologies for a football analogy - but it's clear that the NFC champion team could beat assembled AFC Pro-bowlers, because they are a team. The same holds in the relay, as France showed in the early 90's.

                Garry and others have objected that a sprint relay team that loses while the fastest 100m runner sits on the sidelines will get even greater flack than those that lose from a dropped baton. But if the fastest 100m runner will really make a difference, recruit him for your team! The 4 x 100 trials in the US would be very exciting and highly competitive - and the competition would start well before the gun goes off in recruiting team members.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by MJR
                  There is a much simpler solution. Make actual relay teams compete in the trials. This way you have people who practice together & know each other intimately. Its patently ridiculous that your individual race performance get you a relay spot. Its the only instance in our sport where you get a free ride to the Olympics. It would also make the OT meet even more exciting. Have the 8 best relay teams in each event race in a final on the final day of the meet, winner takes all, just like in the Games. Our Trials is setup to copy the Games in every aspect, but we still do the stupidity of picking relays by committee.
                  Gee, that's a wonderful idea! :wink:

                  The only exception, as I noted earlier in this thread and elsewhere, would be to have the relay trials away from the "normal" Trials meet, perhaps at one of the big early season relay carnivals.
                  There are no strings on me

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by guru
                    Originally posted by MJR
                    There is a much simpler solution. Make actual relay teams compete in the trials.
                    Gee, that's a wonderful idea! :wink:
                    The only exception, as I noted earlier in this thread and elsewhere, would be to have the relay trials away from the "normal" Trials meet, perhaps at one of the big early season relay carnivals.
                    No, it's not a great idea. A sprint doubler would simply have too much on his/her plate, especially considering that the OT is arguably tougher than the OG. We don't need to eat our young just before the Games.

                    We also don't know who's 'in form' till the END of the OT. But then it IS appropriate to get them together and practice and RUN IN MEETS!. (JMHO)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I disagree. If they're going to do that at all, they should do it at the Trials where the 100/200 are going to be run. It's better that way for a number of reasons, including proximity to the Games and similarity to the conditions of the Games (i.e., running the relay after the individual events).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I can't think of a better way to kill off potential 100 and 200 medals than to make a Tyson Gay go through 8 rounds of the 100 and 200 (oh,wait, he didn't make that this year did he?) and then tack more relay stuff on the end.

                        These guys need fewer races, not more.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Marlow
                          No, it's not a great idea. A sprint doubler would simply have too much on his/her plate, especially considering that the OT is arguably tougher than the OG. We don't need to eat our young just before the Games.
                          Umm, that's why I said not to run the 4x1 trials at the regular Trials.

                          :roll:
                          There are no strings on me

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by gh
                            I can't think of a better way to kill off potential 100 and 200 medals than to make a Tyson Gay go through 8 rounds of the 100 and 200 (oh,wait, he didn't make that this year did he?) and then tack more relay stuff on the end.

                            These guys need fewer races, not more.
                            Again, like I said....

                            There are no strings on me

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by gh
                              I can't think of a better way to kill off potential 100 and 200 medals than to make a Tyson Gay go through 8 rounds of the 100 and 200 (oh,wait, he didn't make that this year did he?) and then tack more relay stuff on the end.

                              These guys need fewer races, not more.
                              So you would have him attempt that for the first time at the Olympic Games? I'm not sure that's such a good idea.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by tandfman
                                Originally posted by gh
                                I can't think of a better way to kill off potential 100 and 200 medals than to make a Tyson Gay go through 8 rounds of the 100 and 200 (oh,wait, he didn't make that this year did he?) and then tack more relay stuff on the end.

                                These guys need fewer races, not more.
                                So you would have him attempt that for the first time at the Olympic Games? I'm not sure that's such a good idea.
                                If he crashes and burns at the OG, at least he was there and gave it a shot. If he crashes and burns at the OT, he's probably toast for the OG.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X