Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

30 medals?

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

  • 30 medals?

    Just a follow-up to the Task Force 30 thread of a couple of weeks ago.

    The main purpose of Task Force 30 (as I understand it) is to try to put procedures and protocols in place which would lead to the US achieving as many as 30 medals at London in 2012. Since we got 23 (17.3% of the available medals) at Beijing I was curious where people thought these additional 7 medals might come from.

    If you look at the men’s events (24) there are at least 11 (1500, SC, 5k, 10k, Mar, 2 walks, TJ, Discus, Hammer and Jav) in which we are likely not to be any more successful at garnering medals (0) than we were in Beijing. In 7 events (100, 200, 400 sweep, 110H, 400H sweep, 4x1 Relay and Dec) it will be extremely difficult to do any better since there are only 19 medals available in these events and they already produced 13 of the 14 medals which the men captured. Add to that the fact that in 9 of the men’s events we did not even have a finalist (skewed somewhat by the fact that there was no qualifying in the Marathon and 10K). This leaves only the 800, 4x1 Relay, HJ, LJ, and PV, with a total of only 13 available medals as legitimate medal possibilities.

    On the women’s side (23 events) there are at least 13 events (800, 1500, SC, 5K 10K, Mar, walk, HJ, TJ, SP, Discus, Hammer and Jav) in which we are not likely to do any better (even though we medaled in both the discus and the 10k, it is hard to argue that we will be that successful in 2012). On the women’s side we had no finalists in 6 events. That leaves only the 100, 200, 400, 100 hurdles, 400 hurdles, 4x1 relay, PV and Heptathlon. These events produced 7 of the 9 medals the women won.


    If you disregard the women’s discus and 10K, the US would need 9 additional medals to reach 30. Three are likely to come in the two 4x1 relays (could lightening strike like 10 times in the same event?) and the men’s shot (the women's 100H could be a better than even possibility). And this presupposes that the men will still sweep the 400 and 400H in London. Seems to me that anything else is uncertain at best.

    Between the men and women then, there are 28 medal possibilities left and we would need 9 (or 32 %), and that assumes that we will hold on to all of the medals we got in Beijing (excluding the aforementioned women's discus and 10K).

    Of course I realize that the purpose of the changes which Task Force 30 recommended is to improve our chances, and stranger things have happened, but that is not the way to bet.

  • #2
    Re: 30 medals?

    Originally posted by nmzoo
    Just a follow-up to the Task Force 30 thread of a couple of weeks ago.

    The main purpose of Task Force 30 (as I understand it) is to try to put procedures and protocols in place which would lead to the US achieving as many as 30 medals at London in 2012. Since we got 23 (17.3% of the available medals) at Beijing I was curious where people thought these additional 7 medals might come from.....
    Is, "I don't think they will come" an acceptable answer?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 30 medals?

      Originally posted by gh
      Originally posted by nmzoo
      Just a follow-up to the Task Force 30 thread of a couple of weeks ago.

      The main purpose of Task Force 30 (as I understand it) is to try to put procedures and protocols in place which would lead to the US achieving as many as 30 medals at London in 2012. Since we got 23 (17.3% of the available medals) at Beijing I was curious where people thought these additional 7 medals might come from.....
      Is, "I don't think they will come" an acceptable answer?
      It may be accurate, but the point of such an exercise is to figure out a strategy to improve US performance in events where we haven't been successful. I am very tempted to cite a recent US political party's 50 state strategy, but that is probably out of bounds here.

      What does need to happen to improve US performance in Jav, 800, 1500, 5000, 10000, hammer, SC? The men's polevault, SP, 100, and 200 were clearly debacles for the US where the existing strategy doesn't need significant work. The talent is produced for those events but didn't make it to the finals for whatever reason. Those events were mainly bad luck and at the risk of starting a firestorm, the result of a grinding OT process.

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't know if "Is I don't think they will come" is an acceptable answer but I think it is a correct answer.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 30 medals?

          Originally posted by Dave
          ..... The men's polevault, SP, 100, and 200 were clearly debacles for the US where the existing strategy doesn't need significant work. ... Those events were mainly bad luck and at the risk of starting a firestorm, the result of a grinding OT process.

          In 1960, the U.S. had a 2-day OT.... the men got silvers in the 100 and 200 and were DQed in the 4x1.

          In 2008 the U.S. had a "grinding" OT and got a bronze in the 100, silver and bronze in the 200 and were DQed in the 4x1.

          Advantage, 2008, 3 medals to 2.

          OK, so I'm cherry-picking results here, but the OT didn't just suddenly go bad this year. Things ebb and flow.

          I mean let's suppose that Gay is at full strength in Beijing. What does that mean? He gets silvers in the 100 and 200, knocking Dix out of both of his medals and the count stays the same. Assigning medals is a zero-sum game and where you give you also have to take away.

          Comment


          • #6
            Events were US could look for improvement in London:

            W100m (no medals in 2008)
            W200m (1)
            W400m (1)
            W100mH (1)
            W400mH (1)
            W 4x100
            M 4x100
            MLJ (0)
            MTJ (0)
            MSP (1)
            MPV (0)
            MHJ (0)

            1 more in all of those would bring another 12 medals and allow for the drop off in the unexpected medals (W10000, WDT). Sounds like a reasonable strecth target...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 30 medals?

              Originally posted by gh
              Originally posted by Dave
              ..... The men's polevault, SP, 100, and 200 were clearly debacles for the US where the existing strategy doesn't need significant work. ... Those events were mainly bad luck and at the risk of starting a firestorm, the result of a grinding OT process.

              In 1960, the U.S. had a 2-day OT.... the men got silvers in the 100 and 200 and were DQed in the 4x1.

              In 2008 the U.S. had a "grinding" OT and got a bronze in the 100, silver and bronze in the 200 and were DQed in the 4x1.

              Advantage, 2008, 3 medals to 2.

              OK, so I'm cherry-picking results here, but the OT didn't just suddenly go bad this year. Things ebb and flow.

              I mean let's suppose that Gay is at full strength in Beijing. What does that mean? He gets silvers in the 100 and 200, knocking Dix out of both of his medals and the count stays the same. Assigning medals is a zero-sum game and where you give you also have to take away.
              That doesn't address my comment about strategy. Bad luck or bad trials aside, the talent existed to get more medals in the PV, 100 and 200.

              Let's talk about what needs to change to create the talent to compete in races greater than 400M or in jumps other than the PV or in throws other than the SP or the walks. This is one of the areas where the USATF should be spending time and energy.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by AS
                Events were US could look for improvement in London:
                W100m (no medals in 2008)
                W200m (1)
                W400m (1)
                W100mH (1)
                W400mH (1)
                W 4x100
                M 4x100
                MLJ (0)
                MTJ (0)
                MSP (1)
                MPV (0)
                MHJ (0)
                1 more in all of those would bring another 12 medals and allow for the drop off in the unexpected medals (W10000, WDT). Sounds like a reasonable strecth target...
                This is a good way to understand the task - what events do we have a reasonable shot at? (no comment means definitely yes)
                Men
                100
                200
                400
                800 - a Symmonds or a Wheating could get hot
                1500 - not without Lagat
                Steeple - nope
                5000/10000/Mar - an outside shot (Lagat 5 is still there)
                110H
                400H
                4x1
                4x4
                HJ Someone like Willims just has to be hot at the right time
                PV
                LJ not that we've looked good recently, but it still is a natural USA event.
                TJ this event can blow very hot or very cold
                SP
                DT - not unreasonable to have a medal hope
                HT - nope
                JT - not without Breaux
                Dec

                Women
                100
                200
                400
                800/1500 - nope
                Steeple - there is a chance here, esp. w/Barringer heating up
                5000 - nope
                10000/Mar - it could happen
                100H
                400H
                4x1
                4x4
                HJ nope
                PV
                LJ
                TJ nooooo
                SP ditto
                DT just hapind!
                HT nope
                JT nope
                Hep could happen

                So what do we do with this info? I'd say put our most support towards the middle group - the ones that have an outside shot. The Haves will continue to have and the Have Nots won't even with help. The Haves should continue to get some support, but maximizing out potential medal haul necessitates targeting some events more than others (given our finite resources). The fly in the ointment is that some 'good' events like the Multis NEED our support since the best Amis struggle to earn big pay checks.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 30 medals?

                  Originally posted by nmzoo
                  If you look at the men’s events (24) there are at least 11 (1500, SC, 5k, 10k, Mar, 2 walks, TJ , Discus, Hammer and Jav) in which we are likely not to be any more successful at garnering medals (0) than we were in Beijing
                  the level of this is currently poor - if davis hadn't been injured past 2y, that was a definite american medal

                  have to castigate aarik for underperforming as well

                  i'm sure there'll be a 17.50+ guy by then to bring a medal back

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 30 medals?

                    Originally posted by eldrick
                    [....

                    have to castigate aarik for underperforming as well...
                    yeah, what a wuss he is.... jumped at the OT with four stress fractures in his left tibia and was unable to jump at all between then and Beijing. He really should sack-up.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The general concensus in Beijing among athletes and coaches was an average year should produce:
                      10 medals in Sprints/Hurdles/Relays
                      4 medals in Field Events
                      1 medal in Distance Events
                      15 total medals per gender

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Then I would humbly suggest that the coaches and athletes don't have much of a sense of history or statistics. And they forgot to tell the rest of the world what their fair share was.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The one trap that everybody in the sports world falls into (including me) is that in making future projections, one always starts with the existing baseline, then layers on all the things that should have gone right but didn't and adds in expected improvements.

                          I see it every day in the paper as spring training starts up in baseball. You'd think both Bay Area teams are due for huge breakout years, because you take all of last year's good players, add on new recruits and max potential and assume that the people who had bad years will go back to normal.

                          But, of course, it never works that way. As often as not, for every good break you get, you get a bad one. So while we may lament the fact that Brad Walker didn't medal like he "should have" in the vault, at the same time nobody in their right mind predicted Trafton Brown for a medal (let alone a win).... no meaningful projection for the future is going to call for a repeat of that.

                          You do get ebb and flow, but the baseline is pretty much set. I think the U.S. should be deliriously happy to get as high as 25 in the count. Anything over 20 is probably very good in the modern version of the sport.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by gh
                            I think the U.S. should be deliriously happy to get as high as 25 in the count. Anything over 20 is probably very good in the modern version of the sport.
                            Here's what 'my' baseline calibrates to:

                            Men
                            100/200/400 - 5 (medals)
                            800 on up - zip
                            Hurdles - 3
                            HJ - 0
                            PV - 1
                            LJ/TJ - 2
                            SP/DT - 2
                            HT/JT - 0
                            Dec - 1
                            Relays - 2

                            That's 16, which I instantly recognize is not conservative enough so we go -2 and end up at 14

                            Women
                            100/200/400 - 4
                            800 on up - 0
                            Hurdles - 2
                            HJ - 0
                            PV - 1
                            LJ - 1
                            TJ and throws - 0
                            Hep - 1
                            Relays -2

                            That's 11 which is not all that optimistic, so I'll say 10

                            That's a total of 24, so here's the grades I would give our team:

                            A 28
                            B 24 (where we should be as a preeminent World Power)
                            C 20
                            D 16
                            F 12

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              And to show you how quickly you can get into trouble with "baselining" let's look at the Heptathlon. JJK's last OG was '92, last WC was '93. Since then there have been 7 WCs and 5 OGs; 12 meets, 36 medals available. The U.S. total is 2.

                              Where you really get fooled about an event's strength is when you have one anomalous athlete (which JJK was) being on top for a long time. You start to think the nation is strong there, but as soon as that thin veneer is gone... poof!

                              (this in no is meant to denigrate Fountain, who looks very possible of scoring a few more medals down the road)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X