UKSport Targets 35 Medals from Swimming in Delhi

[Linny]

Craig Lord reported on this (http://www.swimnews.com/News/view/7507) today and having had a wee look at the UKSport headline medal targets (http://www.uksport.gov.uk/docLib/MISC/2010-Medal-Targets-Summer-Olympic-Sports.pdf), in the absence of a world championships, swimming's medal target is at the Commonwealth Games whereas athletics' medal target is at the European Championships.

Both swimmers and athletes could be going to either or both I guess so this gave rise to a few questions in my mind -

Why are they set this way round?

Do the governing bodies of the individual sports decide which one they are to have their medal targets set for or does UKSport? How is it decided?

Does swimming's medal target being at the Commonwealth Games mean that more money will be directed to support the athletes going there than to the European Championships? How is that to be divied up to the home countries when they are each supported by their own funding bodies?

If Scotland is only targetting 5 medals in Delhi (so ambitious are we), despite achieveing 12 in Melbourne, does that mean England and Wales are expected to win more for GB in its entirety to be on track being as the target for GB as a whole is only 2 less than in Melbourne?

Finally, if we are on track for 2012, and we want to be better in London than at any other Olympic Games, why is "on track" winning less medals than in Melbourne?

[GettingFaster]

Finally, if we are on track for 2012, and we want to be better in London than at any other Olympic Games, why is "on track" winning less medals than in Melbourne?

I really, REALLY wanted to post that it should be "fewer" rather than "less", but Linny will get cross with me if I do that.

Bet KB will post instead.

[saturdaynighter]

"Do the governing bodies of the individual sports decide which one they are to have their medal targets set for or does UKSport? How is it decided?"

i would think it's mutual self-preservation (if that isn't oxymoronic) - ''let's all decide what we think we can achieve, safely, then anything better will seem like great progress''

if GB swimmers don't beat last time's medal haul (in terms of numbers), i think there'll be a few raised eyebrows and furrowed brows - certainly the girls must be reaching their Sweetenham peak!

[lane4]

It's important to understand that for whatever reason (deliberate planning, or strategic error?), both England and Australia fielded severely weakened teams at the 2006 Commonwealth Games. For example, the men's 200 backstroke included no representatives at all from England and Australia. The selection policies they had in place hindered their medal haul, and significantly boosted Scotland's - who were in good form and ready to make the most of England and Australia's weakened teams. Both England and Australia will be MUCH stronger this time around.

Melbourne 2006 can also lay claim to what must have been one of the worst ever Canadian national teams, a somewhat underwhelming South African showing, and of course, no Kirsty Coventry. It looks like Kirsty will be absent in 2010 too, but both South Africa and Canada are expected to be MUCH stronger than 4 years previous.

Perhaps the UK/Scottish medal targets are reflective of this situation?

[Linny]

It's important to understand that for whatever reason (deliberate planning, or strategic error?), both England and Australia fielded severely weakened teams at the 2006 Commonwealth Games. For example, the men's 200 backstroke included no representatives at all from England and Australia. The selection policies they had in place hindered their medal haul, and significantly boosted Scotland's - who were in good form and ready to make the most of England and Australia's weakened teams. Both England and Australia will be MUCH stronger this time around.

Melbourne 2006 can also lay claim to what must have been one of the worst ever Canadian national teams, a somewhat underwhelming South African showing, and of course, no Kirsty Coventry. It looks like Kirsty will be absent in 2010 too, but both South Africa and Canada are expected to be MUCH stronger than 4 years previous.

Perhaps the UK/Scottish medal targets are reflective of this situation?So you are saying, that Scotland didn't actually do well at all in 2006 and the only reason it looked good was because everyone else conveniently decided to not bother fielding anyone or kinda decided to be crap all at the same time?

I don't remember anyone telling me this at the time! I feel so disillusioned.

[Taxiandbank]

So, as the Australian trials get underway lets have some predictions. Who will medal, who will be the strongest nation, male and female, who will be the outstanding swimmers?

I'll start the discussion. Wales over Australia 200 Bk men.
Canadian men and Australian women will head the medal tables.
And Brent Hayden may be the outstanding swimmer of the games.
We shall see............;)

[lane4]

So you are saying, that Scotland didn't actually do well at all in 2006 and the only reason it looked good was because everyone else conveniently decided to not bother fielding anyone or kinda decided to be crap all at the same time?

I don't remember anyone telling me this at the time! I feel so disillusioned.
No I didn't say that at all. I said they were in good form! And they took their chances when presented to them. You can only beat who you're up against and they still had to do a good job to win 12 medals. Several swimmers stepped up to the plate and got the job done, Tait, Carry, McClatchey, Dale, Balfour etc. Sure, most of them were based outside of Scotland for their training but that's a different debate.

[saturdaynighter]

So, as the Australian trials get underway lets have some predictions. Who will medal, who will be the strongest nation, male and female, who will be the outstanding swimmers?

I'll start the discussion. Wales over Australia 200 Bk men.
Canadian men and Australian women will head the medal tables.
And Brent Hayden may be the outstanding swimmer of the games.
We shall see............;)

having looked at some of the Aussie rankings, it's a good job they're only allowing 2 (or is it 3?) per nation to swim

i reckon England will have a good haul of medals but not many that are golden coloured - i can see Fran, Jo, Hannah, Gemma, Liam (and others) having 2 or 3 medals each in their cases on the way home - concentrated success at the very top of our athletic tree

I bet almost every Aussie features individually at some stage