Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australia giving up on the sprints?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • AS
    replied
    The attitude of Athletics Australia to relays seems to have turned 180 degrees (again):

    He also wants to get relays back on the agenda - Australia didn't have any representatives in the men's and women's sprints in Beijing.

    "The onus is on these guys to put relays as a priority, rather than chasing 9.99sec," he said. "If anyone in Australia believes they have got Usain Bolt then please let me know.

    "If they haven't, then they need to start thinking differently about how they approach relays.

    "Australia should always be able to produce a relay team that makes the world championships or Olympic final."
    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 88,00.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Vault-emort
    replied
    Originally posted by Speedster
    Not sure how this could have happened with the scheduling, this is basic stuff you expect the governing body and state associations to get right.
    You've been overseas a coupla years now speedy, probably forgotten how incompetent AA are..

    Leave a comment:


  • Speedster
    replied
    That's a real shame and must be the first time in a long time that its not had a meet. Canberra's track is on the the fastest around with it's new surface, good place to get a qualifier with its nice winds. A lot of the meet records there are very good.

    Not sure how this could have happened with the scheduling, this is basic stuff you expect the governing body and state associations to get right.

    Leave a comment:


  • El Toro
    replied
    Re: Australia giving up on the sprint meets....

    Originally posted by Vault-emort
    Supposedly some interstate athletes will be invited to the ACT Championships. Shame that they'll be seen by two men and a dog at this snorefest.
    V-e, that is blatantly and insultingly incorrect. I've sometimes seen 2 dogs....

    Leave a comment:


  • Vault-emort
    replied
    Australia giving up on the sprint meets....

    News in yesterday's Canberra times...

    The Canberra meet (usually IAAF permit), probably the second/third most prestigious meet in Australia, has been cancelled....

    Supposedly due to a clash between the date and the final day of the Youth Olympics because AA won't be able to supply enough officials...

    Like it took them until now to realise the clash of dates????? WTF????

    Another example of AA's lack of clues in running the sport.

    This was also the only relay qualifying meet in Oceania...

    Sheesh...

    Supposedly some interstate athletes will be invited to the ACT Championships. Shame that they'll be seen by two men and a dog at this snorefest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vault-emort
    replied
    Sorry Toro, I'm just not sure what a comparison of PB years is supposed to show.

    For example Boyle's PB was set in 1968 (and at altitude) although she was ranked higher in the world in a number of subsequent years and still rated in the world's top ten for even more.

    Leave a comment:


  • El Toro
    replied
    Further comparison, this time between AUS and WORLD all-time lists. Instead of number of performers I used % of each list to take into account the different depths. World list sourced from Peter Larsson's legal performances.

    Leave a comment:


  • El Toro
    replied
    Originally posted by Vault-emort
    Toro, sorry if this sounds picky, but:

    would it not be better to use - for example - numbers of athletes at a certain standard (let's say 11.50) each year, rather than just ''years of the PB"
    It would be different but I don't know if it would be better. The thread was based around a perceived failure of current sprinters to be as good as Norman/Boyle, which is why I looked at peak performances (PBs in all-time list) and depth of peak performances (ave of scores) rather than overall depth.
    Originally posted by Vault-emort
    eg - 2000 looks like a low point in your graph, but we had 8 women at 11.50 or better that year, making it one of the best ever years for standards
    Debateable. What's better, a dozen at 11.50 or two sub-11? If you are talking Boyle impact, then sub-11 it must be. If you are talking health of the sport, then possibly a dozen at 11.50 but this would depend if they were all up and comers or past peak and getting slower or a mix. Overall depth would be nice to do and would give a different view of 2000 (very good sprinters not far off PBs, if I remember correctly) but I don't have the annual data sets and just counts below a threshold doesn't give enough quality information.

    Originally posted by Vault-emort
    and I reckon if it's by "Olympiad", the divisions should start in the post-Olympic year - eg 1997-2000, 2001-2004
    Well, it was four years only because Boyle/Norman both hit the big time in 68 (40years/10). If they had done it in '78, I might have done it in 6 lots of 5 because I wasn't analysing Olympiads as such.

    Like most things, a range of different views is required to synthesise the best analysis but you can only work with the available data. However, if you want to transcribe your old AA annuals into Excel.... :twisted:

    Leave a comment:


  • Vault-emort
    replied
    Australian women under 11.50 (inc conversions) - the early seasons are not calendar years - they're "Australian seasons"(ie Oct/Nov to Sep/Oct). Only athletes eligible to represent Australia are listed.

    Can't find all years as my stats are all over the place - but here's a start:

    67/8 3
    68/9 0
    69/0 1
    70/1 1
    71/2 1
    72/3 0
    73/4 4
    74/5 0
    75/6 3
    76/7 1
    77/8 3
    78/9
    79/0
    80/1
    81/2 1
    82/3 3
    83/4 1
    84/5 0
    85/6 0
    86/7 1
    87/8 0
    88/9
    89/0
    90/1
    91/2
    92/3
    93/4
    94/5
    95/6
    96/7

    98 5
    99 3
    00 8
    01 1
    02 2
    03 1
    04 3
    05 3
    06 2
    07 4
    08 2

    Leave a comment:


  • Vault-emort
    replied
    Toro, sorry if this sounds picky, but:

    would it not be better to use - for example - numbers of athletes at a certain standard (let's say 11.50) each year, rather than just ''years of the PB"

    eg - 2000 looks like a low point in your graph, but we had 8 women at 11.50 or better that year, making it one of the best ever years for standards

    and I reckon if it's by "Olympiad", the divisions should start in the post-Olympic year - eg 1997-2000, 2001-2004

    Leave a comment:


  • El Toro
    replied
    I looked at the women's all time list and compared each 4 year period commencing in an Olympic year by number of performers as well as the average of performances scored using the current IAAF tables. Without any depth of world ranking information, this was the best quality measure I could think of. Hand times (+.24) were included if no other time was available or was more than 1/10 better than an athlete's electronic time. Click on the thumbnail for a full sized chart.

    Leave a comment:


  • deroki
    replied
    There is something to be said for encouraging national competition and not using World Champs/Oly results as the only standard of improvement, but I still can't help but think that part of the problem for the Aussie sprinters is having to peak twice in one year. How many of the sprint medalists in the last few years have been at or close to peak in March? And the Aussies have to do this 3 years out or 4 (at least).

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    Originally posted by Powell
    Originally posted by sprintblox
    An 18-year-old Aussie girl just ran 11.33
    But she didn't even make the final at the World Juniors.
    so what... when Aussies start to view their national champs with equal or greater pride than they do a world champs you will see Aussies in WC finals.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by Vault-emort
    Originally posted by Powell
    Originally posted by sprintblox
    An 18-year-old Aussie girl just ran 11.33
    But she didn't even make the final at the World Juniors.
    you're only as good as your last world junior race....
    Nah. Juniors are young, and I don't think it's so very unusual for there to be a significant performance improvement in a matter of months, particularly where the World Juniors are off-season, as they are for Australians. No reason why she shouldn't now be better than her last world junior race.

    Leave a comment:


  • El Toro
    replied
    Breen is running in the Queanbeyan gift in a couple of weeks. I believe she won last year, so that fast race will hurt her handicap. I might make the effort to go out and take some pictures if any of you Australians are interested, just don't ask me to go to interclub.....

    Recent article (not online) said she is training with Matt Beckenham's squad and is still in heavy training, so she should better that time easily by nationals.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X