Top of the table

Here's the official table of results in the FINA report from Mexico. Makes good reading.

We have a superb silver plate to commemorate topping this table; if I can get a good photo of it I'll post it.

Meety success

Well, it's started. people have started to trash the NZ results at the recent World Junior Championships. Understandable really as we only won five golds, making us third on the medal table. The trashing centres around the PB rate which was 57% and lays the 'blame' on allowing swims in non-qualified events.

The reaction raises important questions about how meets and team performances should be analysed. We've been through this before, starting in 2002 when I published the following:

2002 Commonwealth Games Results Analysis

There is no single, satisfactory way of analysing results from a major competition. PB’s, medals, records and rankings are each relevant but no single one of them tells the story of the individual and team performances relative to the opposition in any meet’s particular circumstances. Ian Thorpe won a series of events in Manchester but very few of his swims were PB’s. In the recent US Nationals Erik Vendt did not win the 400m IM but was under the world record in losing!

The CWG results were then analysed split into two parts – qualified swims and non-qualified swims. The qualified swims were those in which the swimmer achieved the SNZ/NZOC qualifying time for the competition and on which their selection for Manchester was based. The non-qualified swims are those events in which swimmers had not achieved the SNZ/NZOC qualifying time but were entered in order to ‘get them into the meet’, give them a chance in one of their other strong events or to keep them busy during the 6 days of competition! The analysis was split in that way because, although all events should have been swum purposefully, the team evaluation should be based on the ‘selection’ events rather than including events which have been added for strategic purposes. As an example, Liz Van Welie’s programme of selected events was:

Swimming day 1 200m IM Heats and Final
Swimming day 6 200m Butterfly Heats and Final
400m IM Heats and Final

Clearly this was an unsatisfactory schedule so the 100m Butterfly was added to Liz’s programme on day 3 (heats and semi-finals). Her heat and semi-final times were slightly slower than her entry time but so what? Liz’s outstanding success in Manchester should be judged on the way she prepared and competed in her selection events. The data from the additional ‘non-qualified’ swims was therefore shown separately so that a full picture of the team performances could be seen.

The main analysis was centred on the amount the NZ swimmers’ race performance attacked the GAP between a) their entry time and the pre-meet number 1 and b) between their entry time and the gold medal time. Those two statistics could well be the most important ones of all. Setting PB’s may make swimmers and coaches feel good but it ignores the possibility that we may be getting better yet falling further behind at the same time. The PB itself doesn’t give enough information and may be irrelevant to the evaluation – Thorpe doesn’t do a PB and wins, Vendt does a PB and doesn’t win. The average GAP attack for all qualified swims at Manchester in 2002 was 16.4% against the pre-meet number 1 and 12.6% against the winning time. The GAP attack of pre- to post-meet rankings averaged 20.9% (e.g. Pre-meet ranking of 7th means there are 6 possible places above that. If the swimmer finishes in 4th place they have moved 3 places out of the possible 6 or, in other words, closed 50% of the GAP.

New Zealand Records (NZR) and New Zealand Age Group Records (NZAGR) were indicated as appropriate. Two of the records in Manchester were set in the swimmer’s ‘last’ swim of an event whilst 5 were set in preliminary rounds with a slower performance following in the more important later round. This was a significant and worrying fact and still remains as a concern although major strides have been taken by some programmes. Following the 2002 Games SNZ Squad qualification at the short course Winter Championships considered only the ‘last’ swim in an event specifically because of this apparent inability to lift the performance above an already high level. Anything faster in an earlier round was not taken into consideration.

Brining this criteria into force for all selections may be a dangerous move as coaches may allow their swimmers to drift back into the 'heats are only for cruising' attitude we saw back then. Things have improved dramatically in that regard although there is still room for big improvement across the board.

As we move off of Beijing and start to focus on Rome, Delhi and London we need to have an agreed, accepted, common method of analysing results. It shouldn't be 'merely' PB's, it shouldn't be 'only' wins unless the meet is a pinnacle event at whatever age, i.e. World Juniors is a pinnacle event for 18 and unders and winning is important, Regional Championships are not pinnacle events and PB's are the thing. It has to be an agreed combination of factors which reflect the effectiveness of the programme, the preparation and the on-site execution.

Phelps WR count

Whoever predicted 1-3 for the world record count by Michael Phelps at the US Olympic Trials was surprisingly correct. I thought he would post quite a few more than that.

I have my suspicions as to who it was but, whoever, congratulations.

PB measures

Clive Power's report from the recent, very successful FINA World Junior Championships in Mexico will show a 57% PB strike rate from the New Zealand swimmers. John Leonard recently posted the stats from the US Olympic Trials.

The average from the heats was 44% and from finals was 74%, both significantly up from four years ago. That's more like it.