WOC Final Selection Races for GB Team

[graeme]

Good luck to all those selected.

People should read this carefully before commenting:

...no athlete has been asked ...

Are you saying there's a difference between "has been asked" and "will be allowed"? Or did I read it too carefully?

From what I understand, for the points scoring for more places in future years it is better to have two people that both qualify than two that do and one that doesn't.

The qualifiers proposal is here. Top 60 score points (presumably 15 fastest losers in heats?) which means 2 in one-out is always at least as good as 2. Has there been a more recent change?

[Rich R]

Good luck to all those selected.

People should read this carefully before commenting:

...no athlete has been asked ...

Are you saying there's a difference between "has been asked" and "will be allowed"? Or did I read it too carefully?

From what I understand, for the points scoring for more places in future years it is better to have two people that both qualify than two that do and one that doesn't.

The qualifiers proposal is here. Top 60 score points (presumably 15 fastest losers in heats?) which means 2 in one-out is always at least as good as 2. Has there been a more recent change?

I stand corrected, though producing in the relay is critical to points.

[JK]

Yes - relay is critical. +/- one place in relay is worth a fair few points compared to individual, but DQing is even more of a no-no!

[graeme]

I believe from 2014 we could well only have 2 in each event if our rankings don't improve, but this is an opportunity for getting points so I am puzzled why we don't have a full complement.

Currently the proposal is that top-8 countries get 3 starters. Top-22 get 2. Scores are averages over the preceding two years, but we're guaranteed 3 as host nation in 2015. So our 2013 results only affect 2014.

As far as I can tell...

After 2012 the men were languishing in 17th place, which makes them pretty certain of 2 starts in 2014. The women are 8th, so a full quota for 2014 is possible if they hold off the Lithuanians and French. The rearborialisation of Tessa, should help, but having only two long runners could cost us.

Leaving Kris and Speake in the beer tent while running one man short in the middle looks odd too.

[maprun]

Firstly congratulations to all those selected.

I have misgivings about commenting on committee decisions, but as JK and Graeme point out we should be using every place available to increase our points to get us into Division 1 in 2014. OK so we will be entitled to three runners (assuming we use them) in 2015, but only the two best scorers would count towards points in 2015 if we are still a Division 2 country by right.

According to the selection announcement the selection policy has changed, "there has been a change to the Selection Policy applied this year with a focus on both performances at WOC 2013, and development opportunities for athletes showing the potential to perform well in the next few WOCs". So why leave 4 spaces empty, I don't recall this happening in previous years?

Like Graeme, it seems odd that neither Speake or Kris are running in the middle and also that a 7th woman has not been included to fill at least one of the vacant spaces.

[andypat]

If you leave aside the possibility that financial considerations might be playing a part in these decisions (although I'm not totally convinced you can) then it does seem to suggest that the selectors are saying there arent any other women who've shown potential to perform at the next few WOCs. Not sure if I'd entirely agree, although I definitely found it harder to "pick" the mens team than the womens. Maybe they feel the need to send a message about earning the right to represent GB at WOC?

Leaving the blank space in the middle for the blokes could be read the same way. Nobody gets a run they haven't earned, or cant give their all for. Remember the fuss on here when Claire was put down for a full house of runs last year.

But its all pretty immaterial now. Good luck to the team. I'm feeling strangely confident this time. There's definitely some athletes capable of pulling out a big performance in there!

[JK]

@Graeme - yes numbers in team only directly affect 2014, but there is a knock on affect for 2016. 2016's numbers will depend on placings in 2015 and 2014 so if we just miss out on having 3 runners for 2014 we'll have that little bit less chance of getting 3 in for 2016.

Several times I tried to make the selections myself and failed so I didn't envy the selectors their job, so well done to them and all selected. Commiserations to those who weren't, but I think it was very close so our strength in depth is improving nicely for 2015.

[afterthought]

A few thoughts on leaving a few slots unfilled, without claiming a full understanding. I did not anticipate this happening in the long (sorry) postings earlier, but having read carefully, as instructed, it seems good.

1. The priority is high finishes not maximising "points". So in principle we would sooner have 1 x 10th (50 pts) from an athlete running to their best, rather than say 2 x 30th (60 pts) from the same athlete running slightly less well in two events. The podium slots start at 60 pts and go to 120. Relay is twice an individual, points awarded down to 24th.

2. In fact the points available if you don't qualify to the final are not that great (15 max, nothing for 21st and below) and are there to help distinguish countries at the division 2/3 boundary. For the division 1/2 boundary we are interested in the high points for top-10 finishers. (Or get lucky and hope that the top 7 countries sweep nearly all the high scores.)

3. There are comments here from better than me that concentrating on one individual discipline (12 of the 13 team members) is a reasonable approach for getting best in the relay - which even aside from the chances of success and the prestige, is the thing that matters most for points.

4. As to the specific slots it's hard to spot candidates for each long who would get to the final - except for folk who are asked to concentrate on the sprint or middle, or Doug who unluckily stays in Scotland this year because the limit on seven men in a team is reached.

5. People have matched the free slot for the women's sprint with the free space for a seventh woman. The trouble here is that it seems to me on the evidence the only women who could qualify for the final are either running the middle and relay later in the week (Claire, Hollie), or are in Czech Republic wearing matching outfits at a party having just finished boosting their international experience at JWOC.
{edit: I had forgotten Ruth and Anwen, my apologies to them. They made the pool selection stage based on the JK and unfortunately did not have good runs at the second stage selection race, being >10% behind Tessa. So they too count as unlucky athletes this time round.}

6. I do not expect a change, but I see the deadline for middle entries (where we have only selected two men) is mid-day on the Wednesday, well after Scott, Kris and Matt have finished their racing.

This year Great Britain has two pretty useful relay teams who can do well if they get a bit of luck, and 14 individual runs all aiming at the final / top-30 / top-20 / top-10? Isn't that good?

Good luck to them.

[graeme]

People should read this carefully before commenting:

...no athlete has been asked to compete in more than two disciplines in total and no athlete expected to run the Long final has been asked to run another individual discipline; this decision has been taken to help the selected athletes achieve their best possible performances during the week.

excellent !

Stupid Niggli woman...