Watching the Olympic Trials is fun but they aren't a good way to pick a team. They should get rid of it. No top Marathoner should have to peak twice in quick succession, it's not conducive to success at the Olympics.
The 10,000m world record was 27:08 on 1992 and now the standard is 27:00.
And from European POV the fastest EVER 10,000 by a man born in Europe is 27.10 by Marc Scott (3rd on Euro AT lists behind Farah and everyone's hero Mourhit)
Mixed results for the Brits to be honest - going through some of those numbers:
Marathon: only one British runner still active has beat that time previously (Mo). Callum Hawkins was 4 seconds over at London this year so maybe he can dip under that. 10km: No one is even close. Emile Cairess ran 27:43 this year in Valencia. 5km: Slightly better. Marc Scott ran 12:57 and Sam Atkin ran 13:03 this year. Andy Butchart ran 13:06 in 2019. 1500m: Josh Kerr and Jake Wightman should be fine. 3:29 PBs and a WC gold medal and bronze at the '21 Olympics.
Correcting this as I noticed that someone else has pointed out that Marc Scott ran 27:10 in 2021. Although it seems more likely he would go for the 5km instead as he has run sub-13 and he is currently ranked 11th for the 5km and 45th for the 10km.
And I also believe you're going to need to get your qualifying marks in competitions sanctioned by WA and there will be people who can't get into those races.
Why wouldn't one of the top athletes in the world be able to get into a World Athletics sanctioned meet?
How many people want to run a diamond league and how many of them actually get to run one?
Athletes who are already stablished have a much easier path to international meets than athletes who rise one year and dont have the connections to run in good meetings. For me this method is pretty unfair
Watching the Olympic Trials is fun but they aren't a good way to pick a team. They should get rid of it. No top Marathoner should have to peak twice in quick succession, it's not conducive to success at the Olympics.
If you're running your marathon trial in February or in the previous November for a marathon run somewhere from late July to October you're hardly having to peak twice in quick succession. That said, I don't totally disagree that there could be a better way to select your team.
The current world ranking system is accomplishing exactly what World Athletics wants it to accomplish which is that it heavily overweight Diamond League meets.
You may not like that's how it was set up, but it's intention is to force more athletes to compete in the Diamond League.
But isn’t there an advantage to Euro-centered athletes competing in the Diamond League, since most DL meets are ‘over there’?
Yes and often times the diamond league fields aren't even very strong. There are random NCAA meets that have zero bonus points that have people running 10.0X for the 100 or 20.1 and you go look at some of those European Diamond league meets or world athletics label meets and they have really slow times compared to NCAA runners. The bonus points need to get pulled back a bit in my opinion. They increase your result score way too much. Kiera D'Amato's 2:19 or whatever she ran at Houston is worth less than a 2:23 with good bonus points from a variety of other races. A fast time shouldn't be worth less than a decent time in a race where no one showed up. World marathon majors give bonus points to top 14 or 15. Chicago marathon only pays out 5 international athletes, so there is often less depth there. Regularly you can run 2:10/2:11 and be top 10 and get bonus points that make you ranked similarly as a 2:08 dude from Berlin who didn't get any bonus points because Berlin had so many fast runners.
No American will run under 2:08 this year - unless they are a transplant! Basically what they have done, is to make this an 'Ethiopian vs. Kenya' championship run off.
Looking at all these comments makes me really think it's a good system because a lot of posters want to say it's a bad system, but none of the reasons given have held up. Just looking at the earlier posts in this thread, here's what I've learned, in FAQ format:
Q: These times are very hard to hit. How is anyone but the very best going to hit them?
A: They probably won't, but they can get in on rankings. About half of the athletes will likely get in via the standard, and the other half via the rankings. Since if an athlete hits both they count as getting in via the standard, this means that the rankings are a much easier way to get in, so any athlete who is close to the standard should be able to get in via the rankings.
Q: But this system would have left [exceptional tactical athlete] out in [year]!
A: No, they would have easily gotten in on ranking points.
Q: Few US/etc. athletes have the standard. Does this mean the US/etc. will have very few athletes at the Olympics?
A: No, there are lots of US athletes who are currently slated to get in on rankings points, and this is unlikely to change.
Q: But the US Olympic trials will be confusing! Someone could "make the team" and then lose their spot because they were leapfrogged in the rankings.
A: Unlikely, since the trials are on the last possible weekend for qualifying. Plus, anyone who finishes in the top 3 will get rankings points, so will probably move UP in the rankings, not down. Furthermore, there are lots of US athletes currently ranked well inside the top x needed to qualify. If this is the case during US trials, those athletes won't need to worry about ranking points.
Q: This will stop the US from sending its best three marathoners
A: Unlikely, for various reasons.
Q: Oh no, we're going to lose out on Sydney McLaughlin since she doesn't race much!
A: McLaughlin ran the time standard on her way to catch the bus this morning.
I'm just the messenger here. I expected to click on this thread and read all about how World Athletics messed it up. That's certainly still possible; we won't know how the system works until it's tried. But from what I've read here it seems the only runners who will be systematically hurt by the new system are the runners who are a) not one of the best in the world at their events; b) are injured or don't want to race enough to accumulate rankings points. If you're a real medal threat, you'll be able to get the standard, and if you're the next level down you'll have no trouble getting in if you're able (and willing) to consistently race to your level.
No American will run under 2:08 this year - unless they are a transplant! Basically what they have done, is to make this an 'Ethiopian vs. Kenya' championship run off.
Limiting each country to three, World Athletics will just keeping going down the rankings list until they’ve filled the field. I’d be surprised if the Americans don’t send a full set.
What it does do, however, is create a situation where the final team won’t be known for some time.
Watching the Olympic Trials is fun but they aren't a good way to pick a team. They should get rid of it. No top Marathoner should have to peak twice in quick succession, it's not conducive to success at the Olympics.
I like the olympic trials because you don't just want the person who ran a good race in the past 12 months, you want to send the person who is competing well right NOW (a month before for the track events and six months before for the marathon). If you go based on who has the fastest times of the season you could have someone who generally isn't as good but had one race where the stars aligned. Yes you could technically have that at the trials, but it's less likely that the trials was their magical day than one of many opportunities during the rest of the 12-18 months before the trials.
No American will run under 2:08 this year - unless they are a transplant! Basically what they have done, is to make this an 'Ethiopian vs. Kenya' championship run off.
Limiting each country to three, World Athletics will just keeping going down the rankings list until they’ve filled the field. I’d be surprised if the Americans don’t send a full set.
What it does do, however, is create a situation where the final team won’t be known for some time.
The only way I see someone from the top 3 not making it is if they didn't run any halfway decent half marathon/marathon races in the entire year of 2023 and then somehow place top 3 with a time slower than the 2:08:10 olympic standard. For marathon you need two scores to get a ranking. If someone had a 2:13 or better plus a 2:11 or faster top 3 finish at the trials it is likely good enough to make it. But if someone DNF every race in 2023, but qualified for the trials from a race in 2022, they would need to run another respectable race sometime in 2024 before the submissions are made (I believe this has to be right after our trials will be held for track and field) to get a ranking. Let's say hypothetically they place 3rd in 2:10:45 and get some bonus points that make it equivalent to a 2:09 with no bonus points, they would need to run either another 2:13 marathon or a 61 minute half marathon somewhere to qualify. So really if you want to qualify but can't hit the 2:08:10 then you need to have a respectable marathon performance (2:13 or better or 61 half) from 2023 plus finish top 3 at the trials. The US will likely have 20+ guys in this situation and a couple people with the sub 2:08:10 (assuming someone like Rupp/Mantz/Korir or a couple other people may be able to hit this next fall). A 2:12:00 marathon in 2023 plus a 2:11:30 or better 3rd place finish at the trials will be enough to qualify by ranking, I'll bet some money on that. The faster they run at the trials allows for a more polarizing second best performance. For example a 2:09:30 3rd place trials finish could allow for only a 2:14 second best performance and still be fine by ranking.
Mixed results for the Brits to be honest - going through some of those numbers:
Marathon: only one British runner still active has beat that time previously (Mo). Callum Hawkins was 4 seconds over at London this year so maybe he can dip under that. 10km: No one is even close. Emile Cairess ran 27:43 this year in Valencia. 5km: Slightly better. Marc Scott ran 12:57 and Sam Atkin ran 13:03 this year. Andy Butchart ran 13:06 in 2019. 1500m: Josh Kerr and Jake Wightman should be fine. 3:29 PBs and a WC gold medal and bronze at the '21 Olympics.
Correcting this as I noticed that someone else has pointed out that Marc Scott ran 27:10 in 2021. Although it seems more likely he would go for the 5km instead as he has run sub-13 and he is currently ranked 11th for the 5km and 45th for the 10km.
Callum Hawkins ran 2:08.14 in 2019. He hasn't finished a marathon for three years. Scott has signalled his intent to go for the marathon team in 2024. The Brits are fine for the 1500, they had five people run sub-3:33.50 this year and Elliot Giles ran 3:33.56.
On the main point: they should get rid of standards altogether for most events. Tennis players and golfer qualify for their majors via rankings. If you want to compete at the biggest event in your sport, you shouldn't be able to just run a couple of times each year (marathon being the obvious exception). By the same token, gaining access to gold label and DL events needs to become a more transparent process and not just about who's agent has the best connections. If WA wants it's Rankin's system and competition structure to matter, it needs to ensure its sport is run professionally and some local baron isn't dictating who gets to compete in events that carry most ranking points.