Beijing 2008 - disaster!

ledgehack

hawkwing wrote: »

Brazil 187,508,000 --population--1 gold
indonesia pop-- 231,627,000-- 1 gold
We are doing ok

shouldnt ok not be good enough?

Pherekydes

hawkwing wrote: »

Brazil 187,508,000 --population--1 gold
indonesia pop-- 231,627,000-- 1 gold
We are doing ok and Curley deserved to go more than hundreds who were there. The Olympics would be sad if you were not allowed go unless you could guarantee a top 5 finish--how many athletes from the world would be there then?

Don't forget India, which has 1 gold medal for its one billion people!

titan18

ZiggyStardust wrote: »

Can you name a few people in other sports that has a proven chance of delivering. To me athletics is on a par (with the exception of maybe boxing) success wise with any other sport in the olympics. Rowing, cycling, swimming etc. So where would you have given athletes money too.



Is this just athletics you are talking about? So according to you, Ireland should not bother (waste money) trying to qualify for the World Cup or Euro championships in football and even if we do qualify we should stay at home.
What nonsense.

How about Ireland ban all sports and everyone concentrate on GAA.

It was just athletics that I was on about.Swimming aswell,I suppose.And why dont we ban GAA and concentrate on other sports and maybe tehn we can do well at international sports

ledgehack

ye ur man won that medal gets free train rides across india for the rest of his life!!

ledgehack

somehow i dont think banning gaa would go down too well

cfitz

ledgehack wrote: »

how do we know it is impossible?

and i am in no way saying that a top ten finish in the world is a failure.....but could it not be a case of trying for a medal, but i would be happy with a top 10place??

A possible comparison could be:

At the start of the football championship Kerry might say we're going to try some new players in the Munster championship because this is part of the best plan for winning an All-Ireland final in September.

At the start of the football championship should Carlow follow the same strategy.

Carlow might try to survive as long as possible in the Championship and build on their achievements the following year.

So someone like Roisin McGettigan will set her own goals when she gets to a Steeplechase Final. She can decide to run with the leaders and see what happens or she can run further back hoping to achieve a top-8 position say.

In my opinion going for the win everytime is always honourable but setting realistic goals is also valid and can be a good thing.

ledgehack

thats true...

using roisin mcgettigan as an example however...she finished 14th in an olympic final and was devastated...yet still was hailed as a hero

should roisins ambition be not what we strive for every time?

shels4ever

cfitz wrote: »

A possible comparison could be:

At the start of the football championship Kerry might say we're going to try some new players in the Munster championship because this is part of the best plan for winning an All-Ireland final in September.

At the start of the football championship should Carlow follow the same strategy.

Carlow might try to survive as long as possible in the Championship and build on their achievements the following year.

So someone like Roisin McGettigan will set her own goals when she gets to a Steeplechase Final. She can decide to run with the leaders and see what happens or she can run further back hoping to achieve a top-8 position say.

In my opinion going for the win everytime is always honourable but setting realistic goals is also valid and can be a good thing.

Thats a very valid point, even for me each race i have to decide that, do i give it a lash and see what happens, or run my own race. Thats the great thing about the spot there are many races in each race, the ususal first , second and thrid but then everyone else racing their own personal targets ie racing the clock.

ledgehack

but when it comes to medals the only race that matters is the 1st 2nd or 3rd

shels4ever

Thats not true at all, its the only one the public or people outside the sport care about, If i had seen an irish man breaking the national 1500m record and coming last in a final i would could that as godo as winning a medal. The olympics are about competing at the highest level and giving you all, if you come short thats ok but once you have given your best there is no shame in coming 5th or 100th

Pride Fighter

VW08 wrote: »

I thought Dervla o Rourke had an injury too.

Who????

fatgav

OP's point is poorly made, but there is an argument for looking at the selection procedures. I don't agree with sending athletes on sentiment, and for that reason disagreed with sending Pauline Curley. It's also a joke to tell her she's going at the end of July when she set her time in April, but that's besides the point. This isn't just for athletics - I believe this should be enforced for all sports, so resources aren't stretched too thin. There should be very clear and strict guidelines, be it A standard only or something that includes those who make the B standard and have future medal/top 8 potential.

ledgehack

i totally agree with that....the most they can give if their best...

however should we not strive to ensure that the facilities are in place to allow the best be good enough for a medal??

titan18

shels4ever wrote: »

Thats not true at all, its the only one the public or people outside the sport care about, If i had seen an irish man breaking the national 1500m record and coming last in a final i would could that as godo as winning a medal. The olympics are about competing at the highest level and giving you all, if you come short thats ok but once you have given your best there is no shame in coming 5th or 100th

I agree with you there if someone brakes a national record or even puts in a strong personal best and gets to a semi-final at the least,its worth sending them over.But we sent over people who werent going to make it out of the heats in their competition.What is the point then?

ledgehack

well we have to send someone....they were probably the best we had...why not send them?

ZiggyStardust

ledgehack wrote: »

i totally agree with that....the most they can give if their best...

however should we not strive to ensure that the facilities are in place to allow the best be good enough for a medal??

Facilities?? well thats another matter and has been discussed and discussed before.

titan18

ledgehack wrote: »

well we have to send someone....they were probably the best we had...why not send them?

They're not good enough so it isnt worth sending them.It sends out a message that this is the standard we have and for the aspiring athletes,it says that this is the standard you need to get to the Olympics.But it shouldnt be,the standard has to be high in what we send over if we're ever going to compete at the highest level.

shels4ever

titan18 wrote: »

I agree with you there if someone brakes a national record or even puts in a strong personal best and gets to a semi-final at the least,its worth sending them over.But we sent over people who werent going to make it out of the heats in their competition.What is the point then?

Your giving them a chance to improve, if they did their best and fail then its no loss. If the manage to get through then its a huge bonus, look at Chamney I though he did really well and finished 5th. No shame in that at all.

Dodge

titan18 wrote: »

But we sent over people who werent going to make it out of the heats in their competition.What is the point then?

Not in athletics we didn't.

ledgehack

he did do well.....but is there anyway that he could have done better?

ledgehack

Dodge wrote: »

Not in athletics we didn't.

Did we send over anyone who shouldn't have been there??

shels4ever

ledgehack wrote: »

he did do well.....but is there anyway that he could have done better?

No , he got the B standard and we didnt have anyone with an A standard in the 800m .

ledgehack

well theres the crux.....should we not strive to have numerous athletes making the a standard?

aburke

titan18 wrote: »

We shouldn't have sent over some of the athletes.

Anybody without a chance of getting out into a final or semi-final didnt need to go.Fionnualla Britton and Pauline Curley shouldn't have gone.Some of them have been injured for a while and are going over for the experience.Why should they?

Based on your logic, we would have no international rugby team, no international soccer team, hardly any international athletes or team in any sport at all.

Rugby and Soccer teams have NO chance of making the World Cup semi-final either [based on past record/rankings].

Dodge

ledgehack wrote: »

well theres the crux.....should we not strive to have numerous athletes making the a standard?

Do you think they're not?!?

All athletes had the talent to progress. Some were unlucky with injuries, others weren't on top form. No real need for a tribunal about it.

Of the B standards, only curley could be argued to have been token, and even then you don't need to have the standard to enter someone in the marathon

ZiggyStardust

titan18 wrote: »

They're not good enough so it isnt worth sending them.It sends out a message that this is the standard we have and for the aspiring athletes,it says that this is the standard you need to get to the Olympics.But it shouldnt be,the standard has to be high in what we send over if we're ever going to compete at the highest level.

What do you want in the Olympics. 5 in each event. Pretty boring then IMO.

I touched on this before, but lets take the sport the whole country knows and most support - Football. Ireland are ranked ~50 in the world. Do Ireland have a chance of winning the World Cup? Sadly no. Can you imagine the uproar in the country if the FAI qualified for the World Cup but said they were not going to send the team.

C'mon, athletes who qualify have every right in the world to be there. Everyone of them will not outperform, but as Tingle statistically said we have about 70% who did.

ledgehack

aburke wrote: »

Rugby and Soccer teams have NO chance of making the World Cup semi-final either [based on past record/rankings].

well thats not very optimistic now is it?

hawkwing

ZiggyStardust wrote: »

What do you want in the Olympics. 5 in each event. Pretty boring then IMO.

I touched on this before, but lets take the sport the whole country knows and most support - Football. Ireland are ranked ~50 in the world. Do Ireland have a chance of winning the World Cup? Sadly no. Can you imagine the uproar in the country if the FAI qualified for the World Cup but said they were not going to send the team.

C'mon, athletes who qualify have every right in the world to be their. Everyone of them will not outperform, but as Tingle statistically said we have about 70% who did.

Well said !!and hopefully and end to this post

ledgehack

unfortunately an outperformance is still not good enough to compete among the best?

titan18

Dodge wrote: »

Not in athletics we didn't.

Fionnuala Britton
Joanne Cuddhihy
Pauline Curley(was never going to do anything in the marathon)
Michelle Carey

Even Chamney shouldnt have gone as he didnt have the A standard.
I have my doubts about O'Rourke and O'Keefe aswell,considering they were injured and in O'Keefe's case,she shouldnt have been allowed go as she isnt training properly.


A semi final in athletics is equivalent to the group stage for the World Cup in soccer and rugby imo.Ireland will always qualify in rugby and we have an outside chance in soccer

shels4ever

ledgehack wrote: »

well theres the crux.....should we not strive to have numerous athletes making the a standard?

yes but if you look at the standards if he race maybe 1 second faster he would have that, but i dont think that would change how he would have done in the games. We do need to improve , but need to understand our limits also when it comes to the games, ever 4 years people expect us to win , but if you look at any golden league even during the 4 years how many runners do we have?

Dodge

titan18 wrote: »

Fionnuala Britton
Joanne Cuddhihy
Pauline Curley(was never going to do anything in the marathon)
Michelle Carey

Even Chamney shouldnt have gone as he didnt have the A standard.
I have my doubts about O'Rourke and O'Keefe aswell,considering they were injured and in O'Keefe's case,she shouldnt have been allowed go as she isnt training properly.


A semi final in athletics is equivalent to the group stage for the World Cup in soccer and rugby imo.Ireland will always qualify in rugby and we have an outside chance in soccer

Britton made the world championship final
Cuddihy has made the european final
A PB by Carey would've seen qualification

And how is Pauline Curley's 63rd palce affected you? She has absolutely ZERO funding from any body, yet still qualified for the Olympics, and you want to begrduge that?

thirtyfoot

titan18 wrote: »

O'Keefe's case,she shouldnt have been allowed go as she isnt training properly

This is getting hilarious. How do you know, are you her coach? Do you train with her day in, day out? Are you a throws coach yourself? If so, who have you coached? She has thrown 72m and doesn't train correctly? Your argument (which could be valid) is weakened when you spout this sh*te.

For the craic, purely for the craic, based on Eileen's current workout schedule (which you obviously know), how would you change it?

By the way she may have got injured by training on a dodgy surface as she wasn't allowed throw in Morton Stadium due to the infield being off limits to hammer throwers because of an agreement with an Eircom League Division 1 side. Who knows?

titan18

Tingle wrote: »

This is getting hilarious. How do you know, are you her coach? Do you train with her day in, day out? Are you a throws coach yourself? If so, who have you coached? She has thrown 72m and doesn't train correctly? Your argument (which could be valid) is weakened when you spout this sh*te.

For the craic, purely for the craic, based on Eileen's current workout schedule (which you obviously know), how would you change it?

By the way she may have got injured by training on a dodgy surface as she wasn't allowed throw in Morton Stadium due to the infield being off limits to hammer throwers because of an agreement with an Eircom League Division 1 side. Who knows?

If you read my post a few pages back,you would know.She threw in the discus final in the National Championships.Seriously,is that acceptable for someone who wants to do well in the hammer throw?According to RTE,she doesnt have a throwing coach,she left 2 of tehm as she though she knew better and was training with a mans's hammer.

cfitz

titan18 wrote: »

If you read my post a few pages back,you would know.She threw in the discus final in the National Championships.Seriously,is that acceptable for someone who wants to do well in the hammer throw?

I doubt that would have had any significant affect on her Olympic performance.

TheRoadRunner

Lads. I have read through this thread and have not contributed yet.

Can I just say to regular posters such as Tingle and aburke. Lads you are wasting your time arguing with these blow ins.

titan18

cfitz wrote: »

I doubt that would have had any significant affect on her Olympic performance.

Its a different event,different throwing style.What happens if she got injured competing in it?Why would she put herself at risk by competing in a different event prior to the Games?

cfitz

titan18 wrote: »

Its a different event,different throwing style.What happens if she got injured competing in it?Why would she put herself at risk by competing in a different event prior to the Games?

She took 3 of her 6 throws and every one of them was far longer than the next best competitor. It's a bit like if Padraig Harrington played hurling with his kids in the back yard a few weeks before the PGA...

VW08

titan18 wrote: »

According to RTE,she doesnt have a throwing coach,she left 2 of tehm as she though she knew better and was training with a mans's hammer.

She probably wanted to train with heavier hammers that the women have, so that when the big competitions come around she'd be able to throw lighter hammers further. I dont see the problem with that, Id say alot of compeditors do it.

premierstone

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Lads. I have read through this thread and have not contributed yet.

Can I just say to regular posters such as Tingle and aburke. Lads you are wasting your time arguing with these blow ins.

thats hardly helpfull roadrunner is it, so if someone hasnt been posting here as long as your good self then there opinion isnt welcome?? Maybe its attitudes like that are the reason we dont have more success in athletics! is that the motto at morton ''no blow ins welcome'' :P

shels4ever

premierstone wrote: »

thats hardly helpfull roadrunner is it, so if someone hasnt been posting here as long as your good self then there opinion isnt welcome?? Maybe its attitudes like that are the reason we dont have more success in athletics! is that the motto at morton ''no blow ins welcome'' :P

i dont find that true at all in Athletic i find all clubs and most runners are more then helpful

thirtyfoot

premierstone wrote: »

thats hardly helpfull roadrunner is it, so if someone hasnt been posting here as long as your good self then there opinion isnt welcome?? Maybe its attitudes like that are the reason we dont have more success in athletics! is that the motto at morton ''no blow ins welcome'' :P

I don't think he means that but maybe that people are coming in and spouting stuff which is just wrong and false. They are entitled to post it but when its explained by people who maybe know a little more about the sport (primarily because its their main sport) they still don't listen.

It might be akin to me saying that the Tipp hurlers lost last week because the hurleys they had were too small or that half of them trained with their club a couple of weeks ago or club a club football match last week or I heard they did too much training back in April or half of them would prefer Babs at the helm or on and on. All the above is nonsense and if I spouted it and you came back and very reasonably explained why, I would accept your better judgement. But then, some people don't listen!!

premierstone

Tingle wrote: »

I don't think he means that but maybe that people are coming in and spouting stuff which is just wrong and false. They are entitled to post it but when its explained by people who maybe know a little more about the sport (primarily because its their main sport) they still don't listen.

It might be akin to me saying that the Tipp hurlers lost last week because the hurleys they had were too small or that half of them trained with their club a couple of weeks ago or club a club football match last week or I heard they did too much training back in April or half of them would prefer Babs at the helm or on and on. All the above is nonsense and if I spouted it and you came back and very reasonably explained why, I would accept your better judgement. But then, some people don't listen!!

I accept that and i dont claim to anywhere near as knowledgable as most here what i didnt like was the assumption that all ''blow ins'' were in the same boat so to speak iv actually been agreeing here with most of you i just felt that roadrunner was been a bit patronising and elitist, apologies if i took it up wrong :cool:

ChickenTikka

Plenty of throwers participate in more than their strongest event in National Championships as its a bit of fun to take part in a few events. Plenty of sprinters and distance runners participate in different distances at times other than their strong one.

Some athletes performed very well in Beijing. Some didn't perform as well as expected. That will always be the way.

It was 100% correct for the likes of Eileen O'Keefe to go. It was good experience for her despite her injury.

For athletes on B standards, if Hession was allowed go 4 years ago, surely it would have helped him this year to have the experience of an Olympic Games behind him.

We should be happy that our athletes are getting to levels of A or B Olympic standards. They are doing exceptionally well with crap facilities. So what if they are on carding grants from the Sports Council. Its small money for people of their commitment and determination. If they gave up their sport and went into business, they'd make far more money. The grants just help them survive.

TheRoadRunner

premierstone wrote: »

thats hardly helpfull roadrunner is it, so if someone hasnt been posting here as long as your good self then there opinion isnt welcome?? Maybe its attitudes like that are the reason we dont have more success in athletics! is that the motto at morton ''no blow ins welcome'' :P

Nope, it's just that performances have been explained and backed up by statistics. This is not the disaster that the uninformed / stubborn think it is.

Diamondmaker

aburke wrote: »

Ok. You're obviously in the know.
Name all these medal contenders you are aware of who didn't get the funding they need?

im saying take the top 3 or 4 or 5 athletes, the ones that had PBs in the right area, were not coming off injuries and were on good form.

Im saying take a smaller group of better prepared funded and trained athletes form the same group based on a cold hard cull based on the best analysis available of who was the most likely to deliver.

Im not at all suggeting anyone was left at home that should have come, of course we know every one who came qualified !

Some of you guys clearly outlined several people who had no real chance as they came off injuries.....so why did they came....others who were past their PB ....so wy did they come ?

Diamondmaker

ledgehack wrote: »

well we have to send someone....they were probably the best we had...why not send them?

NO we dont have to send someone for the sake of it !!!

As I said out extra effort into real contenders and not send people fothe sake of it...its public money, this is not accepatble any where else. When it does happen its bloody murder...voting machine, health care etc etc etc....

shels4ever

Your way off, in that case some of the boxers should not have gone and look how well they did, So of them found it very hard to qualify and no have a medal in their pocket.

Go read the olympic moto yourself and see what we should do.. Winning is not everything, but i guess this has been lost over the years..

aburke

Diamondmaker wrote: »

Im saying take a smaller group of better prepared funded and trained athletes form the same group based on a cold hard cull based on the best analysis available of who was the most likely to deliver.

Extending your analysis to other sports - and assuming 'delivery' equals a medal, we would have sent ZERO athletes to this Olympics.
The boxers who did medal, as far as I know, are not ranked in the top 5 in the world - open to correction on this.

Of the 50 odd Olympians sent, Diamondmaker, who would make your cut, and based on what statistics?
Who are the 'Real Contenders' you speak of?

robinph

Well you could move all of the funding to just the one athlete so that they are actually sufficiently funded and only send them, but then your screwed if something goes wrong whilst they are out there. Although there does need to be more money spent, your also better off sending as many athletes as possible even if they are unlikely to win.

Throw enough sh*t at the wall and some of it is bound to stick.