Rio 2016 Marathon Qualification, whos trying?

pistol_75

average_runner wrote: »

I think if you improve from the ground up, you will have a better runner than Sonia. Her daughter is actually doing very well apparently.

But they can go to the Olympics if they are competitive, for example in the marathon, competitive could be top 30, i am not saying they have to win medals.

No one is saying they have to be as good as Sonia, she was fantastic.

We're all for improving from the ground up, but you can't ignore the here and now as well.

rom

http://comiteolimpicoportugal.pt/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Atletismo.pdf

Individual Events
NOCs may enter up to three (3) qualified athletes for each event on the athletics program. In addition they can enter a maximum of one (1) reserve or P alternate athlete for the same event, provided he/she has achieved the entry standard.

- This would make a lot of sense if there are full allocation

Qualification period: 1 January 2015 to 11 July 2016

Entry Standards: To be approved by IAAF Council in April 2015

http://www.iaaf.org/competition/standards - not listed here.

Where did you get 2:18:30 from ?

average_runner

RayCun wrote: »

What is the goal you hope to achieve by putting another hurdle in the path of athletes? By saying, it is not good enough to meet the standard set by the Olympics, we won't send you unless you are in the top 30 in the world.

Do you think Irish athletes will decide to work harder? Or is it to save money?

What's the goal in sending someone to finish 68th?

Chivito550

Ah the classic "don't send em if they ain't got a chance of medalling". These type of comments NEVER come from athletics people.

Don't feed the wind-up merchants.

tang1

average_runner wrote: »

What's the goal in sending someone to finish 68th?

She was injured, unless as was stated above we introduce a once over prior to the games to make sure everybody is healthy very little can be done. Would you give up your dream of running in the Olympics?

dublin runner

average_runner wrote:

What's the goal in sending someone to finish 68th?

Sure send no one then. Realistically a medal is unlikely so why bother?

Maybe it may have to do with rewarding athletes for dedicating their lives to training, the development of the sport and giving hope to the next generation of athletes.

pistol_75

average_runner wrote: »

What's the goal in sending someone to finish 68th?

118 people started the race.

What is your goal recently T?

Chivito550

Let's set up a sub 18 criteria at Parkruns and club organised 5k's. What's the point in wasting volunteer time, resources on those running slow times? You might have to actually become an "average runner" then.

I don't think you would like that would you?

NetwerkErrer

average_runner wrote: »

I do agree with you, if they aren't going to be competitive then they shouldn't be going. By coming 66th, 68th, its not promoting the sport in Ireland or doing it any good, as no one is paying attention. Better off investing in the facilities instead.

JTG latest podcast addresses the whole funding thing and how the walkers have developed a professional setup and how the other events are in total disarray.

To say it's not promoting the sport is not true. One of my main inspirations when I started running as a junior was a guy who lived a few doors away who ran in the Olympics in 1972, nearly 2 decades before I was born and he never made it out of the heats. As a kid, seeing someone from your area reaching the Olympics is crazy and it inspires.

Do you really think that the athletics team in London didn't inspire one kid who knew them? They inspired 1000's. Even if the results didn't make the main stream media, those athletes inspire within communities and I can guarantee that kids took up sport because of them. Hell, I'm just a shoddy midpack weekend warrior but my mates have taken more of an interest in athletics and running I started running again. Now, I won't inspire anyone to be an Olympic hopefuls:D but someone like Linda Byrne, Catriona Jennings, Maria Mc and Ava Hutchinson will. Just because it's not there to see in bold print on the front page doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on the sport.

If they are not sent, what message does it send to kids and even the smallest of piece of inspiration is taken away.

thirstywork2

average_runner wrote: »

What's the goal in sending someone to finish 68th?

Jesus what is with the negative attitude?
You never send someone or the athlete never has a goal of finishing 68th.
Sometimes we have stinkers(Sonia in Atlanta for example)

You can find many Irish athletes who finished way down on their debut of first few championship races.

Paul Robinson,Mark English didn't make finals of European U23 champs,so do we decided to tell them you cant go unless you make the final?
Karen shinkins is an Irish record holder at 400m (indoors) and finished 30th in the World Juniors & 30th in the Olympics but still went on to winning medals after.

Look at some of the Australian guys in the marathon in the past few years.They are no world beaters but come championships(with experience) they perform.

RayCun

average_runner wrote: »

What's the goal in sending someone to finish 68th?

You don't know where someone will finish before the event.

Meeting the Olympic qualifying standard is extremely difficult, but it is an achievable goal for the best Irish athletes. It's something they can realistically target. I'm not saying its a ceiling for their ambition, but people can tell themselves that if they take 3 seconds or 5 minutes off their time, or can jump or throw another 30cm, they will qualify for the Olympics. That's a massive carrot to dangle in front of any athlete, that will drive improvement.

(In some events they have to also be in the top 3 in Ireland, but there at least they can see the competition, they know the 2/3 people they have to be better than)

If you tell people that they have to achieve the qualifying standard AND be in the top 3 in Ireland AND be in the top 30 in the world... the step up is too high. You'll discourage rather than encourage. Everyone wants to win an Olympic gold, but there have to be achievable goals along the way - qualify, get to the next round, get to the final, get to the podium.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Ah the classic "don't send em if they ain't got a chance of medalling". These type of comments NEVER come from athletics people.

Don't feed the wind-up merchants.

Never said that, please read what i said above before accusing me of something.


So you consider JTG not athletics people too, they were saying the same thing

dublin runner

Agree with NE above. I remember watching an RTE documentary about London 2012 and Mark Kenneally. Found his story completely inspiring, despite having never ran a race or trained in my life.

It's all about inspiring the next generation. I will never compete in the Olympics but maybe some 10 year old followed his story and well, who knows? We may see them medal one day.

walshb

You could say don't send anyone that "finishes" outside the top 3........

If all countries had that attitude there wouldn't be any decent races. Meet the qualifying time and the race is good to go!

Although, in T&F you have measurements that can give you quite a good indicator of how well your athlete will perform. If they are clearly the weaker of the athletes then maybe sending them should be considered?

average_runner

thirstywork2 wrote: »

Jesus what is with the negative attitude?
You never send someone or the athlete never has a goal of finishing 68th.
Sometimes we have stinkers(Sonia in Atlanta for example)

You can find many Irish athletes who finished way down on their debut of first few championship races.

Paul Robinson,Mark English didn't make finals of European U23 champs,so do we decided to tell them you cant go unless you make the final?
Karen shinkins is an Irish record holder at 400m (indoors) and finished 30th in the World Juniors & 30th in the Olympics but still went on to winning medals after.

Look at some of the Australian guys in the marathon in the past few years.They are no world beaters but come championships(with experience) they perform.

Yes we all have bad days, excluding that.
Never said anything in relation to what your saying above. Never said they had to make finals

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

Never said that, please read what i said above before accusing me of something.

Your attitude is the same as that. It doesn't matter that you didn't say those words. Athletics people do not think like this. Athletics people want as many representatives in a major championship as possible as it creates excitement for juniors, inspiring them to do likewise. There is so much more to athletics than being competitive in the Olympics.

Either you are just on a wind-up (probable given your recent posts) or you are not really an athletics person. Nobody in the athletics community (I don't count fun running in this) would think like this.

dublin runner

walshb wrote:

Don't send anyone that finishes outside the top 3........

No way. First or nothing baby! Who really wants an Olympic silver or bronze? Worthless!! Haha.

Krusty_Clown

Murph_D wrote: »

And then there is Chris Harrington. Does he have any chance do you think? At least he seems to be putting in the effort.

He's got plenty of time, but based on recent race times, he has a significant uphill battle. To put it into perspective, Sergiu Ciobanu is trying to get the qualifying time. Sergiu was nearly four minutes ahead of Chris in the Ballycotton 10 mile. Still, Chris seems to be massively motivated, so who knows what he can pull off in the next 18 months. Were I a gambling man though? It's be hard to see him getting into a top position against the likes of Pollock, Fagan(?), Hehir, Kenneally, Frazer, Ciobanu, Clohisey et al. At the same time, his goal seems to have been to try to get there, so it's as much about the journey as the destination, so whatever happens (if he can remain injury free), trying to achieve the goal will see huge improvements in his ability/performance.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Your attitude is the same as that. It doesn't matter that you didn't say those words. Athletics people do not think like this. Athletics people want as many representatives in a major championship as possible as it creates excitement for juniors, inspiring them to do likewise. There is so much more to athletics than being competitive in the Olympics.

Either you are just on a wind-up (probable given your recent posts) or you are not really an athletics person. Nobody in the athletics community (I don't count fun running in this) would think like this.

What kid on the street is going to see a Irish runner in 68th spot for example, won't even have tv coverage or be in the media. Top 30 you have a better chance.

Don't start labelling someone that you don't know.

walshb

dublin runner wrote: »

No way. First or nothing baby! Who really wants an Olympic silver or bronze? Worthless!! Haha.

Classic Roy Keane attitude!:)

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

What kid on the street is going to see a Irish runner in 68th spot for example, won't even have tv coverage or be in the media. Top 30 you have a better chance.

Don't start labelling someone that you don't know.

In relation to global marathons (Olympics and Wcs) would 68 or so race in the marathon final?

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

What kid on the street is going to see a Irish runner in 68th spot for example, won't even have tv coverage or be in the media. Top 30 you have a better chance.

Don't start labelling someone that you don't know.

Top 30 in the 400m is second last in your heat. What are your thoughts on that?

Top 30 in the marathon appears decent to you because of the size of the field. So if top 30 is your criteria then I take it it is only in the marathon you have these beliefs so?

dublin runner

average_runner wrote:

What kid on the street is going to see a Irish runner in 68th spot for example, won't even have tv coverage or be in the media. Top 30 you have a better chance.

You'd be surprised. There's athletes who have competed in the Olympics, Europeans etc. in my club. Pretty inspiring for any athlete. Especially the younger athletes.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Top 30 in the 400m is second last in your heat. What are your thoughts on that?

Top 30 in the marathon appears decent to you because of the size of the field. So if top 30 is your criteria then I take it it is only in the marathon you have these beliefs so?

Talking about marathon here, obviously other events require different criteria, but reasonable ones.

average_runner

dublin runner wrote: »

You'd be surprised. There's athletes who have competed in the Olympics, Europeans etc. in my club. Pretty inspiring for any athlete. Especially the younger athletes.

Yes club runners will know, but there could be more potential out there to tap into.

Krusty_Clown

I'd give my left and right testicles to come 68th in the Olympic marathon.

kit3

average_runner wrote: »

What kid on the street is going to see a Irish runner in 68th spot for example, won't even have tv coverage or be in the media. Top 30 you have a better chance.

Don't start labelling someone that you don't know.

Speaking from experience, kids are madly enthused by the Olympics - they follow every last bit of it if there is an interest in the house and will always follow any Irish interest closely. They see it as a huge achievement to be in the Olympics & understand what it takes to get there

Chivito550

Rob Heffernan and Olive Loughnane both finished way down the field in their first Olympics. Both became World Champions.

Dodge

Imagine being an Olympic standard runner and some lad on the internet isn't happy to see you finish in 60th position.

You've trained for years, achieved the standard set out by the relevant bodies and been selected by the national association as one of the few they deem acceptable to represent the nation at the every-four-years Summer Olympics.

But some lad on the internet isn't happy about it...

kit3

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I'd give my left and right testicles to come 68th in the Olympic marathon.

Have you run that by Emer ??? :eek:

kit3

Dodge wrote: »

Imagine being an Olympic standard runner and some lad on the internet isn't happy to see you finish in 60th position.

You've trained for years, achieved the standard set out by the relevant bodies and been selected by the national association as one of the few they deem acceptable to represent the nation at the every-four-years Summer Olympics.

But some lad on the internet isn't happy about it...

Ha, reckon you wouldn't give a toss what some lad on the internet thinks

Chivito550

kit3 wrote: »

Speaking from experience, kids are madly enthused by the Olympics - they follow every last bit of it if there is an interest in the house and will always follow any Irish interest closely. They see it as a huge achievement to be in the Olympics & understand what it takes to get there

Exactly. I was never involved in athletics as a kid but loved watching it. I remember watching Gary Ryan racing Frankie Fredericks in his first round heat of the 200 and qualifying for round 2. I thought that was pretty cool. Would it have been better if they didn't waste the money sending him to Atlanta?

walshb

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I'd give my left and right testicles to come 68th in the Olympic marathon.

So would I, well, maybe just the left one, but maybe an elite marathon runner wouldn't?

Clum

Championship marathons are usually much slower than their city counterparts. With the exception of Wanjiru going flat out from the gun in Beijing the real racing in a championship marathon starts after the halfway point. This slows the race down.

Being able to run the qualifying time actually gives all entrants a great chance of a top 20 finish. So anybody who can run the qualifying time has a chance of finishing top 20. Of course things may not go to plan and inevitably people finish out of the top 50.

2.15 in London Olympics would have secured a top 20 finish.
2.15 in Moscow World Championships would have secured a top 20 finish.
2.15 in Zurich Euro Championships would have secured a top 10.

If they can do it in qualifying there's the chance they'll do it at the championships so send them. Don't hold them back because maybe they'll have a mare and not win a meddle. Nobody can predict what's going to happen in a marathon.

pistol_75

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I'd give my left and right testicles to come 68th in the Olympic marathon.

Well if you got the job done you just might or even better based on your times

pistol_75

Clum wrote: »

Championship marathons are usually much slower than their city counterparts. With the exception of Wanjiru going flat out from the gun in Beijing the real racing in a championship marathon starts after the halfway point. This slows the race down.

Being able to run the qualifying time actually gives all entrants a great chance of a top 20 finish. So anybody who can run the qualifying time has a chance of finishing top 20. Of course things may not go to plan and inevitably people finish out of the top 50.

2.15 in London Olympics would have secured a top 20 finish.
2.15 in Moscow World Championships would have secured a top 20 finish.
2.15 in Zurich Euro Championships would have secured a top 10.

If they can do it in qualifying there's the chance they'll do it at the championships so send them. Don't hold them back because maybe they'll have a mare and not win a meddle. Nobody can predict what's going to happen in a marathon.

Exactly. Should we have stopped John Treacy from running in LA because he had never run a marathon before?

Krusty_Clown

pistol_75 wrote: »

Exactly. Should we have stopped John Treacy from running in LA because he had never run a marathon before?

I'm sure Treacy was selected based on some other criteria though (e.g. 10k/half marathon performance), much as Britton was given the opportunity to run her debut marathon in the European Championships. Agree with the general sentiment though.

kit3 wrote:

Have you run that by Emer ???

I'm sure she'd be on board. She'd probably offer to do the clipping.

pistol_75

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I'm sure Treacy was selected based on some other criteria though (e.g. 10k/half marathon performance), much as Britton was given the opportunity to run her debut marathon in the European Championships. Agree with the general sentiment though.

I know things were different back then but I think he only entered or decided to run a day or 2 before, as in all his training had been towards the 10K albeit with some pretty decent long runs.

tHE vAGGABOND

I do think this is a good debate to have, btw and no need for folks to get upset. We need to talk about these things..

Next, of course all of us internet warriors would love to be selected for the olympics. Second, of course those selected worked their arses off and should get a chance. But we send a lot of people who don't get out of their first heat, and I do often wonder if we should better support fewer people. Should we give those fewer folks more resources - I think it's a valid debate. [How do you select them, its simple, these folks consistently do well during their season, be that at indoors, at college meetings in the states [since most of our T&F prospects are over there], at major races / meetings, at euro's etc]

Rob Heffernan and Olive Loughnane both finished way down the field in their first Olympics. Both became World Champions.

There is the other debate right there, should younger folks be allowed go, over someone who wants to go to one last championship to crown off their career - that is often a very hard call..

Send the person in their early 20's for the excellent experience, or send the person who is doing well in their mid-30's who wants one last go.

If this was sprinting, and someone got to the Olympics that would be great, but what if they get knocked out in heat 1 at 8am on morning one of the games with 20 people watching RTE? Is that a success [and does it matter!]? For them it is, getting to the games after years of hard work there, but as a nation and for the AAI and for the development of athletics?

It's the same with the Marathon and people finishing well down the race IMHO - but I could well be wrong...

walshb

Maybe in future to save time and money and make the viewing more "enjoyable" and quicker they will lower/higher the times/distances/heights/points needed across all events. No heats. Just semis and finals almost. The qualifying standards made a lot more stringent at elite level? Anyone for that? Could that do any harm, apart from us not seeing many Irish at championships?

NetwerkErrer

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

I do think this is a good debate to have, btw and no need for folks to get upset. We need to talk about these things..

Next, of course all of us internet warriors would love to be selected for the olympics. Second, of course those selected worked their arses off and should get a chance. But we send a lot of people who don't get out of their first heat, and I do often wonder if we should better support fewer people. Should we give those fewer folks more resources - I think it's a valid debate. [How do you select them, its simple, these folks consistently do well during their season, be that at indoors, at college meetings in the states [since most of our T&F prospects are over there], at major races / meetings, at euro's etc]

There is the other debate right there, should younger folks be allowed go, over someone who wants to go to one last championship to crown off their career - that is often a very hard call..

Send the person in their early 20's for the excellent experience, or send the person who is doing well in their mid-30's who wants one last go.

If this was sprinting, and someone got to the Olympics that would be great, but what if they get knocked out in heat 1 at 8am on morning one of the games with 20 people watching RTE? Is that a success [and does it matter!]? For them it is, getting to the games after years of hard work there, but as a nation and for the AAI and for the development of athletics?

It's the same with the Marathon and people finishing well down the race IMHO - but I could well be wrong...

Fair points but we don't have the depth to make choices like that, It's not like GB where they can choose to send a 20 year old instead of a 30 year old because we don't have 5-6 athletes who made the standard. We rarely have a team in the first place not to mind being able to pick and choose who we can send. It's very rare to have that choice in a small country but when it's a prospect v an experienced athlete, that choice can only be made on an individual basis and you can't set in stone a procedure for picking one over the other, it will always be a judgment call if the situation has arisen.

Chivito550

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

I do think this is a good debate to have, btw and no need for folks to get upset. We need to talk about these things..

Next, of course all of us internet warriors would love to be selected for the olympics. Second, of course those selected worked their arses off and should get a chance. But we send a lot of people who don't get out of their first heat, and I do often wonder if we should better support fewer people. Should we give those fewer folks more resources - I think it's a valid debate. [How do you select them, its simple, these folks consistently do well during their season, be that at indoors, at college meetings in the states [since most of our T&F prospects are over there], at major races / meetings, at euro's etc]

There is the other debate right there, should younger folks be allowed go, over someone who wants to go to one last championship to crown off their career - that is often a very hard call..

Send the person in their early 20's for the excellent experience, or send the person who is doing well in their mid-30's who wants one last go.

If this was sprinting, and someone got to the Olympics that would be great, but what if they get knocked out in heat 1 at 8am on morning one of the games with 20 people watching RTE? Is that a success [and does it matter!]? For them it is, getting to the games after years of hard work there, but as a nation and for the AAI and for the development of athletics?

It's the same with the Marathon and people finishing well down the race IMHO - but I could well be wrong...

Did you go to National Indoors this year? If you did you would have seen the buzz when Dara Kervick got the euro indoor qualifier. It certainly inspired me as I raced in the heat after him. This sort of thing creates excitement amongst the athletics community, particularly kids. And this was euro indoors. Could you imagine the excitement for the Olympics. Who gives a toss what Jonathon Beer Belly thinks. It's the excitement and inspiration to those who actually want to run is what is most important. Sending few athletes kills the sport. The depth over time will decrease as youngsters choose other sports that have less stringent criteria. I don't believe it to be a valid debate at all actually. It's rather short sighted.

As far as I'm concerned, if you reach the IAAF standard that should be the end of it. They are damn tough standards to achieve, particularly on the track and even more so in the field.

NetwerkErrer

Chivito550 wrote: »

Did you go to National Indoors this year? If you did you would have seen the buzz when Dara Kervick got the euro indoor qualifier. It certainly inspired me as I raced in the heat after him. This sort of thing creates excitement amongst the athletics community, particularly kids. And this was euro indoors. Could you imagine the excitement for the Olympics. Who gives a toss what Jonathon Beer Belly thinks. It's the excitement and inspiration to those who actually want to run is what is most important. Sending few athletes kills the sport. The depth over time will decrease as youngsters choose other sports that have less stringent criteria. I don't believe it to be a valid debate at all actually. It's rather short sighted.

As far as I'm concerned, if you reach the IAAF standard that should be the end of it. They are damn tough standards to achieve, particularly on the track and even more so in the field.

I agree, Raising the standard wouldn't increase performance. The standard is only ever raised by countries when there is significant depth at that level already. The more depth you have, the higher the standard needs to be to get the only the very best outliers from that level to qualify so you don't have the headache of picking from 30 Q times. Raising it without depth is a recipe for disaster.

The people at that level are already competitors. We don't need a higher standard, it's a bigger depth that is key to strong performances. The more people competing, the greater the chance of outliers and then you can raise the standard.

RayCun

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Should we give those fewer folks more resources - I think it's a valid debate. [How do you select them, its simple, these folks consistently do well during their season, be that at indoors, at college meetings in the states [since most of our T&F prospects are over there], at major races / meetings, at euro's etc]

There were 17 T&F individual athletes, and a relay team, sent to the 2012 Olympics. My guess is that keeping 8 at home and spending their money on the other 9 would not have significantly improved performances in the 9 (or split them 14/3).
And also that if you asked a panel of experts before the Olympics to select the 9 that outperform the 8, they wouldn't agree, and many of them would get it wrong.

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

There is the other debate right there, should younger folks be allowed go, over someone who wants to go to one last championship to crown off their career - that is often a very hard call..

I think it was only the women's marathon last time around that had this problem, maybe the walk. Might be an issue in the marathon again next year. In most cases we are not heaving with athletes capable of qualifying.

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

If this was sprinting, and someone got to the Olympics that would be great, but what if they get knocked out in heat 1 at 8am on morning one of the games with 20 people watching RTE? Is that a success [and does it matter!]? For them it is, getting to the games after years of hard work there, but as a nation and for the AAI and for the development of athletics?

To have a 100m sprinter qualify for the games would be a success, for the nation and AAI and development of athletics. Holding out the promise of a place on the Olympic team for those who can achieve the standard is a driver of that success

tHE vAGGABOND

Slight tangent, but if you're in Athlone at the national indoors, I think we already have you

What I really want is the next Cian Healy to pick T&F and not Rugby [he still has two schools records I believe, for shot and hammer, correct me if wrong]. Or someone who plays GAA and has everything needed to be a long distance runner to get support and give it a real go. We need world class athletes to pick our sport and not others - that's the challenge if we want to win medals and grow the sport. Maybe it's an impossible challenge..

That is done by supporting those folks to a decent level, which by listing to JTG and following a number of serious folks on twitter, the AAI dont do terribly well..

RayCun

or Shane Long, the former hurdles champion.

Or there's a kid in my club who is an excellent high jumper. But he's also an excellent soccer goalkeeper.

The money isn't there in athletics to keep someone who is as good in both. And cutting Olympic teams down to the bone isn't going to change that, it wouldn't free up that kind of cash. But if you have a kid who likes athletics, the dream of Olympics qualification could be the thing that keeps them in the sport.

dublin runner

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Slight tangent, but if you're in Athlone at the national indoors, I think we already have you

What I really want is the next Cian Healy to pick T&F and not Rugby [he still has two schools records I believe, for shot and hammer, correct me if wrong]. Or someone who plays GAA and has everything needed to be a long distance runner to get support and give it a real go. We need world class athletes to pick our sport and not others - that's the challenge if we want to win medals and grow the sport. Maybe it's an impossible challenge..

That is done by supporting those folks to a decent level, which by listing to JTG and following a number of serious folks on twitter, the AAI dont do terribly well..

Sorry but that really won't happen. Rugby has the money, professionalism and recognition. GAA is more professional than athletics, better organised and players are treated better. I really don't want to make this GAA vs. Athletics but the likes of Pollock aren't even funded.

walshb

One can apply the whole athletics vs. other sports to any place on earth. There are far more financially appealing sports to go for.

RayCun

Also, to get on the Ireland rugby squad you have to be in the top 25? in the country, which is a lower bar than making the Olympics team. And you're competing against five other countries for success, not the whole world

walshb

RayCun wrote: »

Also, to get on the Ireland rugby squad you have to be in the top 25? in the country, which is a lower bar than making the Olympics team. And you're competing against five other countries for success, not the whole world

You compete against the whole world in rugby too. They have a WC event!

Apples and oranges. Team sports vs. Individual sports.