National Championships 2012

[Matron]

Originally Posted by awaldram

As the interest in this forum
Most users ever online was 554, 06-07-2012 at 01:13 PM
I guess more people are interested in discussions on British swimming and its direction than what the water temperature is off Brighton peer

I'm afraid that most of these 554 "users" are automatic robots trawling the internet. The Boss had to change the registration process a while back because these spambots were wreaking havoc with new registrations on the site.

I agree that it's such a shame the site usage has dropped. There are still loads of really great discussions & advice in the site archives though.

[ambresolaire]

Originally Posted by awaldram

There was a guy with interesting ideas, Yes he was a very valuable asset to the vibrancy of the forum.

He was a complete plank.

[selkie]

Other countries with v. hard qualifying standards who have relented and allowed swimmers with A standards to enter the meet:

http://swimswam.com/2012/07/italy-ge...-at-11th-hour/

"Despite earlier releases to the contrary, both Germany and Italy have expanded their Olympic rosters in the final days seemingly contrary to their own Olympic criteria, but within line of reasonability and presenting the best possible Olympic squad."

[BIGBrian]

Quite.

A selection policy that means you don't fill all the spots in all the events is just the wrong selection policy.

[Steve]

Although they both appear to be filling empty spots with already selected swimmers as GB has done. (not that I'm agreeing with the GB policy)

[city4nil]

Originally Posted by Leprechaun

I just wonder whether you (AW & BB) believe that British Swimming / ASA really take time to read this ongoing stuff here.

Why not wrap it all up succintly and drop in on Mr Sparkes' desk? It seems to me that no-one is permitted to make a counter-argument. Is this site here just for your own self-aggrandissement or protest movement?

I never ever thought I'd be agreeing with a fictious mythical Irish Fairy.

Counter arguements or even opinions will be shouted down as per ( on here )

[city4nil]

Originally Posted by Leprechaun

Not a bad day at any office, particularly as I have dispensed with offices.

It just seems that every time one logs into this previously esteemed forum, all one gets is you and AW bleating on about the inequities of the system. My simple humble suggestion is that you direct your gripes to the Hon Mr Sparkes. You may have a point, or you may be a complete ass, but I havent a view, why not engage the authorities rather than conduct a 2 or 3 person gripe-fest on this site?

Funny as and you now what my dear fellow - correctamundo !

Dear Sparkie,

Bleet bleet

yours

nobody

subject over - letter in round file

[lane4]

Originally Posted by Silver Fox

A quote from above...Maybe the low number of active posters is a result of insulting off topic posts by people who have no opinion on the subject?.

It seems to me that the reduction in active posters was the result of Juicy Lucy being banned

No, it's cos he wasn't banned soon enough!

[lane4]

Originally Posted by BIGBrian

Exactly, Molly Renshaw would be a much better prospect at Rio in four years time for going to the Olympics in London than she will be sitting at home watching it on the TV.

It's not about who might be prospects 4 years from now!
It was about achieving the selection policy for THIS year. Which sadly Molly did not. End of story really.

[BIGBrian]

Originally Posted by lane4

It's not about who might be prospects 4 years from now!

Shouldn't it be?

Originally Posted by lane4

It was about achieving the selection policy for THIS year. Which sadly Molly did not. End of story really.

I don't disagree that she didn't meet the selection criteria.

It's the selection criteria that I disagree with

[chris_lamb]

Originally Posted by BIGBrian

A selection policy that means you don't fill all the spots in all the events is just the wrong selection policy.

I disagree. We shouldn't send people who are going to struggle to finish last just because they are the best we've got.

[BIGBrian]

Originally Posted by chris_lamb

I disagree. We shouldn't send people who are going to struggle to finish last just because they are the best we've got.

Why not? What's the worst that could happen? They could be the best we've got in 4 years time, and they'd have the benefit of an Olympic experience under their belt. That's got to be worth something, hasn't it?

[chris_lamb]

Originally Posted by BIGBrian

Why not? What's the worst that could happen? They could be the best we've got in 4 years time, and they'd have the benefit of an Olympic experience under their belt. That's got to be worth something, hasn't it?

If you're the best in an event you don't need to bother training all that hard to qualify.

[lane4]

Originally Posted by BIGBrian

Shouldn't it be?

No. It's about who's the best right now! That is the point of holding any competition.

[Apostle]

Originally Posted by chris_lamb

I disagree. We shouldn't send people who are going to struggle to finish last just because they are the best we've got.

What sort of message does that send our swimmers who would have spent years training to be the best we've got, only to be told ' sorry, we dont want to embaress ourselves by coming down the field at the games'

She came second. There were two places. Send her. Forget about fina times.