Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the timing of the U.S. selection meet

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • the timing of the U.S. selection meet

    Originally posted by tm71 View Post
    The failure of the us team in this meet has been MOSTLY mental not physical!
    It certainly seems more than coincidental that so many disparate pieces of the machine are malfunctioning! gh has long railed about the fact that our Trials are too early (8 weeks prior, I believe). Add on to that (that) other countries pre-select and demand shows of 'fitness', does (IMO) put us at a disadvantage. Perhaps if we moved the Trials (USATF) to mid-July (yes, I know, the collegians would hate it) and have some good domestic meets that they are compensated for in the interim, we could help our selections to keep their eye on the prize.
    Rather than just declaring a number like 30 (which IS doable), USATF needs to rethink the whole process of qualifying and preparing.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    It certainly seems more than coincidental that so many disparate pieces of the machine are malfunctioning! gh has long railed about the fact that our Trials are too early (8 weeks prior, I believe). Add on to that (that) other countries pre-select and demand shows of 'fitness', does (IMO) put us at a disadvantage. Perhaps if we moved the Trials (USATF) to mid-July (yes, I know, the collegians would hate it) and have some good domestic meets that they are compensated for in the interim, we could help our selections to keep their eye on the prize.
    Rather than just declaring a number like 30 (which IS doable), USATF needs to rethink the whole process of qualifying and preparing.
    Great to see that other knowleable and intelligent posters share my sentiments. There have to be many changes made at many levels: selection meets, preparation, coaching and even scouting.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tm71 View Post
      Usatf officials who came up with the project 30 moniker.
      Should we possibly suggest downsizing to Project 15?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by billychuck View Post
        Should we possibly suggest downsizing to Project 15?
        No because for the 2011-2013 meets it was in the low to mid 20s. how about making it simple and concrete for each athlete like setting a SB at this meet (not in May or June) and expecting they will give up their spot if injured or unfit (like young and spearmon should have)
        Last edited by tm71; 08-25-2015, 06:17 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tm71 View Post
          No because for the 2011-2013 meets it was in the low to mid 20s. how about making it simple and concrete for each athlete like setting a SB at this meet (not in May or June) and expecting they will up their spot if injured or unfit (like young and spearmon should have)
          Right...how many times has it been said that you just cannot expect athletes to peak twice in 8-10 weeks..more often than not it won't work...and, make those who do qualify for team to prove their fitness 4 weeks out or be replaced. Otherwise, this is going to be the norm.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by gm View Post
            You do realize that was a previous regime, yes? It was a Doug Logan thing started in 2009, aimed at the 2012 OG.
            exactly, and the concept, as I call, was allowed to die a quiet death. But it has remained a handy peg to hang one's hat on when in fantasy mode.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gh View Post
              exactly, and the concept, as I call, was allowed to die a quiet death. But it has remained a handy peg to hang one's hat on when in fantasy mode.
              How about simple goals for each individual athlete like setting their SB at this meet (not in may or June) and giving up their spot if injured and unfit? How about changing the selection process and preparation ?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                Perhaps if we moved the Trials (USATF) to mid-July (yes, I know, the collegians would hate it)
                But let's face it, it's the collegians that have the biggest problem with peaking for the majors. As cruel as it sounds, eliminating half of them from the team would only improve team USA's medal chances.
                Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                Comment


                • #9
                  the whole U.S. team has trouble peaking when they have to peak in June for an August meet. Insanity.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    On the whole, I doubt replacing the collegians with the guys that lost to the collegians would yield very much.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      the timing of the U.S. selection meet

                      there are all kinds of (good) comments about this in various WC event threads; I'll move the best of them over here, since they tend to drift off-topic in the event setting.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tm71 View Post
                        How about changing the selection process and preparation ?
                        The hand-wringers will say that we can't change anything because
                        that's the way we've always done it
                        or
                        that's not the American way
                        or
                        we've done fine before with this
                        or
                        someone will sue us if we don't pick them

                        to which I say: the old way ain't working any more, and the American way is WINNING, and we are NOT doing so well any more, and if the criteria are clear and they sign off on it beforehand, they've got no (stable) grounds for a suit. so a change is in order!

                        If producing champions and medalists is our goal, they are better ways . . . if we try.

                        Even the Kenyan way is superior to ours: have the Trials later (they had the 10K at theirs!) and only guarantee the first two spots. That's the deal, folks, if you want to definitely (cleave that infinitive!) go, finish 1st or 2nd! Than have some OBJECTIVE criteria that picks the 3rd (e.g., Stowers and McCorory, maybe even . . . gasp . . . Nick!).

                        If we all whine about this long enough, maybe they'll change just to shut us up!! ;-)

                        TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT in 2017! If we do no better, try something else!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                          The hand-wringers
                          Actually, the handwringers are the ones concerned that the USA is losing its luster and needs to make changes.

                          First, the meet isn't over. The total medal count or placing score hasn't been determined.

                          Second, The USA won 25 and 26 medals the last two championships, easily eclipsing the second best country. So whatever worked then might not be the problem (if there is a problem.)

                          Third, many of the reasons the USA has "lost" medals aren't due to a meet held in late June - The LJ fiasco, Simpson's shoe, Jackson's lost steps, Tinsley's crashing through hurdles, Symmonds staying home.

                          Can someone point out where the USA has lost medals due to having to peak twice?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm not saying changes might not be needed but instead of whipping out the fainting couch maybe we should analyze what has happened and how it could be fixed (if it needs fixing).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The cry to move the Trials date is but a whimper when team USA does well at the Olympic Games or World Champs but it becomes a holler when the results seem dismal.
                              In Jamaica, for example, the men and women 100-400 and both hurdles are as competitive as the USA events (I do not look at times as track conditions are different) yet the Jamaicans seem to not have a problem peaking twice.
                              I think it is more a problem of coaches not nailing down the timing of the double peak.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X