Overall WOC 2005 Results

[Guest]

"Their results are some of the strongest ever for the whole team"

The above quote comes from the BOF website today. Comments?

[eddie]

well they are going to say that sports funding bodies will look at that and go hmmm lets keep the funding at that level.

in terms of the actual results good work from heather for her medal. very encouraging debuts from mhairi and ewan. oli is going to break into medal winning form in future woc's. jamie will be a bit pissed for bashing his knee. the relay teams will also be a bit narked off you would hope for both teams to be on the podium (top 6) after the last two years.

so in the end i've got an ass full of splinters from all this fence sitting that i'm doing.

[awk]

If you look simply at number of top 20 results which the BOF site does, then yes this is the most successful to date (although there were proportionally the same number in 1993: 6 from 4 races compared with 9 from 6 races this year). Heather's medal also makes this a good year, although not as good as 1993, 1995, 1999 or 2003 on that criteria.

But...this was the worst relay result in 14 years (1991 was the last time neither team achieved a podium place). The last time the men were in double figures was at least back in the 80's, the last time the women were as low as 7th was in 1995. Also, apart from Heather, there wasn't a single top 10 individual placing, and a significant majority of those other top-20 runs were in the lower reaches. Of course this was partly due to circumstances: surely Jamie would have been in there in the Long race if he hadn't got injured, and Oli's run in the relays was worthy of 'top 10' status. So, circumstances aside, not the 'great' year that the BOF page so proudly proclaims.

But certainly a 'good' year. As Dikalot says, there's quite a few encouraging signs (I won't repeat his list) , particularly given the quality of some of those left behind. So more importantly perhaps, it has the potential to be a strong step to better years in future.

[Ravinous]

Rumour has it that as the rest of the Swiss team stay on for 4 days of team building and WOC analysis, 10 times Gold WOC winner will travel home. She has managed 4 out of 4 again and is truely in a class of her own. To meet her at the airport will be her train! Yes, in 2003 when she first got 4 out of 4 Golds at WOC, those crazy Swiss named an intercity train after Simone and her head is emblazened down the side. This train will take her home to her village! How cool is that!

[harry]

Simone is a legend.

WOC is now annual with more medals on offer but also more nations than ever fighting for the top.

I think it was a transitional year for the British team. At a glance the results don't look stunning but look closer and you will see there are so many outstanding performances. Then think about the circumstances and you can't fail to be impressed.

Circumstances like, Jamie's knee, a non-start in women's middle distance, the fact that the best-performing GB man of 2005 prior to WOC wasn't even on the team.

Despite all that the number of world class results was amazing. It is also a team with more fresh faces than old stalwarts and will change again next year.

You can't gloss over Heather's medal either. The women's sport is stronger than ever and to achieve a medal especially in the close-run sprint discipline requires an outstanding performance, even for someone with as much talent and dedication as Hev.

I reckon it's at least as impressive overall as the GB Athletics' team performance. Let's hope the funding bodies agree!

[awk]

I'd agree with much, indeed most, of what you say Harry. However, one point and a query on what you say:

The one point is your last - as good as athletics? It's currently doom and gloom surrounding the athletics team, who produced a gold and two bronze. So on the medal front, athletics definitely ahead (even if taking account of the larger number of events). So what about the other measure, top 20? Well, top 20 barely gets you into the semis of most athletics events, and there was a decent number of those. Even if the top 8 or so (most finals) were a bit thin, they still had substantially more than we managed, proportionally or otherwise!

That's partly what bugs me a bit. Brutally, one medal and a cluster of 14th-20th places does not compare even with what was regarded as a disappointing athletics performance. I'm not saying that this means the orienteering team performance is disappointing (it wasn't), just trying to put some perspective on it. To claim it's one of the best ever WOC's is to my mind seriously unlikely to impress anybody outside the sport. To claim it's a good WOC with a team in transition, with a number of really good performances particularly from up and coming team members - now that makes some sense to me.

The query is that two of the circumstances you raise imply some mild questioning of selection. Is that the case? I only ask because I have to say that one or two aspects left me little mystified this year, but as someone who is just a spectator when it comes to elite orienteering, I don't pretend to have sufficient knowledge to question from a position of strength.