She is hot i wonder why she picked a terrible Florida team over Oregon????????
She is hot i wonder why she picked a terrible Florida team over Oregon????????
I am not a coach nor a sports administrator. However, I will teach Athletics Australia how to do their job and show them why you should take the biggest team possible to the Olympics. After the Olympics, I will revisit this post to prove to Athletics Australia that I, someone with no background in sports administration, know how to do their job better than they do.
1. Some of the stars on the team will be sick/injured and under-perform. (Coaching 101)
2. Some of the athletes who barely made the team will perform better than expected. (Coaching 101)
3. Young athletes competing for the same clubs as Olympic representatives will be inspired to continue with the sport and make future teams. (Marketing 101)
4. Parents, extended families, friends, and acquaintances of every athlete competing in the games will watch/take an interest in track and field events, creating a bigger fan base for athletics. (Marketing 101)
5. Athletes you pick for the games will become regular members of the national team, and will compete in future competitions with the experience and confidence of Olympic athletes. (Athlete Development 101)
6. You federation will be spared embarrassing lawsuits and negative publicity in the media (Marketing 101).
AA open themselves up to lawsuits every four years due to their insane Olympic qualify criteria. Aussiemiler is correct that it is a PR nightmare that could be easily avoided.
All true. Since when does a sport that is trying not to die on the vine practice exclusionary and arbitrary administration? Opps, my bad, that is WHY it is dying on the vine in the first place....catch-22.
aussiemiler wrote:
1. Some of the stars on the team will be sick/injured and under-perform. (Coaching 101)
2. Some of the athletes who barely made the team will perform better than expected. (Coaching 101)
3. Young athletes competing for the same clubs as Olympic representatives will be inspired to continue with the sport and make future teams. (Marketing 101)
4. Parents, extended families, friends, and acquaintances of every athlete competing in the games will watch/take an interest in track and field events, creating a bigger fan base for athletics. (Marketing 101)
5. Athletes you pick for the games will become regular members of the national team, and will compete in future competitions with the experience and confidence of Olympic athletes. (Athlete Development 101)
6. You federation will be spared embarrassing lawsuits and negative publicity in the media (Marketing 101).
first class flights wrote:
... forgot to add Manou
Don't encourage her.
"Tamsyn, Tamsyn, Tamsyn. Really simple business. If you know the time you need to run and you do it, yep you are off to the olympics. If you don't, you miss out. While I support Australia and Australians in all sports, I get frustrated with the amount of money invested in B grade performers. Yes I appreciate that with the right amount of money and training some people can improve but surely after a few years we are better served in spending our money on up and commers not tried and failed/not good enough."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/london-olympics/tamsyn-attacks-selection-criteria/story-fn9dirj0-1226393185156Kanye North wrote:
Pretty simple to make a rule that says: if you hit the A standard after we announce our team and we have an open spot, you get it.
Best suggestion yet, a rule that's simple, clear, effective and easily enforced. Anyone see any shortcomings?
Hope Aust Aths are reading this tread.
aussiemiler wrote:
3. Young athletes competing for the same clubs as Olympic representatives will be inspired to continue with the sport and make future teams. (Marketing 101)
^this
Also, not sure why, but I second anything RunningAussie says.
Finally, if we could predict with 99.99% certainty that LaCaze will not get a medal, what about that 0.01%? That's the part that heros are made of. Until the race is run, we don't know anything for sure.
Found this little gem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlxA5bgjje4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
KiwiG wrote:
I don't agree that sending an athlete to an Olympic Games for "experience" is appropriate. There are a ton of international events for athletes to gain top level experience. Today they can go to Grand Prix events, Diamond Leagues, and World Champs. Olympics should be for people ready to compete at that level. I think it devalues the competition to use it as a training ground. Personally.
I also agree with the approach by the Norwegian federation. New Zealand has the same approach. Merely meeting the standard isn't enough. You have to be capable of portraying a good image of your sport and of the country you are representing. It does cost a lot to send an athlete to an Olympic Games, and the countries quite rightly want to be maximum value for their money. Sending an athlete knowing they won't get past a first round helps neither the profile of the country, nor the profile of that sport within that country.
Here's someone who clearly gets the Olympic ideal!