British Swimming have confirmed the 30 Swimmers who will compete at the World Championships in Russia later this year.
Eight swimmers had already assured themselves of selection by meeting the automatic qualifying standard at the British Championships last week, but for the remainder this was the news they had been waiting all week to hear.
A further 17 swimmers, comprising everyone who swam within 2% of the consideration time, are also selected. This group includes all 6 relay squads who will now also have the opportunity to qualify for the Rio Olympics.
So far, so much as expected. The biggest interest comes in the discretionary selections. Five swimmers are added to make the team up to the maximum of 30.
British Swimming say the criteria used for this group included “provision of relay cover and alternates to rest key athletes that have large schedules” and “individual performances over the last 12 months and performances at the British Championships 2015.”
Proven performance as a relay team member was hence a key aspect and this explains the inclusion of Liam Tancock and Adam Barratt, for the men’s medley relay, and Jemma Lowe, who will be expected to take the heat off Rachael Kelly in the women’s and mixed medley relays. Barrett may also be a possible alternate for the men’s 4×100 free. These swimmers may yet be offered individual swims.
Molly Renshaw is given a chance to build on her improvements over 200m breaststroke in 2014, while Jess Thielmann gets her senior international debut and a chance to show she can transfer her excellent NCAA form to long course competition.
Automatic selections:
- James Guy
- Chris Walker-Hebborn
- Adam Peaty
- Roberto Pavoni
- Jazz Carlin
- Siobhan-Marie O’Connor
- Hannah Miley
- Elizabeth Simmonds
- Roberto Pavoni
Additional selections:
- Thomas Laxton
- Calum Jarvis
- Ross Murdoch
- Robbie Renwick
- Nick Grainger
- Andrew Willis
- Aimee Willmott
- Eleanor Faulkner
- Rebecca Turner
- Sophie Taylor
- Rachael Kelly
- Francesca Halsall
- Ben Proud
- Duncan Scott
- Lauren Quigley
- Stephen Milne
- Dan Wallace
Discretionary selections
- Liam Tancock
- Adam Barrett
- Jessica Thielmann
- Molly Renshaw
- Jemma Lowe
Caleb Hughes being ignored for selection even though he was closer to selection qualifying time than every one of the wildcards! And, he wasn not rested or tapered for trials! It is like X factor with selections and making it to the big meet. Absolute joke as usual from head coach on selection, picking people who swum terribly at the qualifying trials and being rewarded for it. Being picked off performances in the last 12 months as a wildcard!? Ridiculous when the trials mean nothing and somebody you have beaten in the 100m fly final gets picked before the second finisher. Won’t be long before Britain has no qualifying trials and all names are picked off of who has swum well at some stage in their career.
I think in Caleb’s case a decision must have been made to focus on the 10km – he has a chance to qualify for OW worlds in a few weeks and those in turn are the first chance to qualify for Rio
He is focussing on 10km as qualifying is next Saturday and has a chance but why should he be denied the chance to represent GB in the pool and give up his spot to the less deserving when he out swum the wildcards. Surely swimming as well as he did unrested and in tapered is the true meaning of the word wild card.
? – absolutely agree 100% on what you said. It makes a mockery of it all. Shameful of them.
Does Lowe’s inclusion indicate that SMOC will be skipping the 100m fly?
I think it’s probably mostly a relay pick, but it would not be surprising if Siobhan skipped the fly to focus on the IM
same old faces …….sickening. how on earth can British swimming justify the selections? once again picking the under performers just because their faces fit (old pals act).
Lets not bother with trials any more. lets just pick our mates eh?
Well done British swimming.!!
I feel sorry for Braxton timm!? Wonder why some people even turned up to trials. May as well have trained through as pre selected swimmers!
Swim Nerd – totally agree
While it’s frustrating that old faces like Tancock get the nod over upcoming talent, you can kind of understand the logic that there really isn’t any other back up for CWH – who is a potential triple medalist and going to be very busy. Barrett is probably the most contentious choice – let’s hope that pays off in August. Thielmann over Davies is the biggest shock for me though. Georgia could have also served as a relay back up, if not be the main pick for the medleys come August, as well as being a medal contender for the 50. From what I can see, Thielmann is not even in World Top 20 this year in her preferred events. If giving experience is the argument, then that could probably be applied to a number of other athletes – in particular ones that have not already had the benefit of the highly competitive and pressurized US college environment.
I think (but of course can’t be sure) that Jess may be an alternate for the 4×200 – she was 5th in the 200 at trials. Siobhan is likely to have a heavy programme, as will Jazz, so helpful to have some extra backup. Lauren Quigley can cover the backstroke for the medley relay.
Got it – that makes sense
Siobhan o’connor came third in the 100fly, so Jemma was not picked to rest Siobhan! Rachel Kelly won the 100 fly!
That’s entirely correct and I have amended above to reflect.
If It’s true that Caleb wasn’t rested or tapered and he wanted to qualify, he only has himself to blame. If he had gone he would only swim the 1500 and a place is better going to a more versatile swimmer who can help others.
I am curious to know when the final team has to be submitted to the WC/Kazan organisers.
if before that date, someone did an outstanding time, like Ms. Davies, that was, say top 6, in the world, and was in an event where we had, currently, no representation on the squad, or at least there was a spare berth, do you think BS might consider a late addition?
was a squad size of 30 self-imposed?
I am only a keen observer but having these trials so early, if you didnt make the team, and you are too old for any of the age-group championships, what do you aim for next? Its a long year without having a peak to aim for…
I’m not sure of the cut off date but it will be much closer to the event. That said, unless something dramatic happens like both backstrokers breaking their legs, it’s almost certain that nobody will be added to this squad.
The 30 limit is self imposed, I guess for funding reasons.
As for what you do now if you didn’t go? I guess some will take time off then refocus on Rio; others will look to compete at summer nationals and aim to show the selectors why they were wrong not to pick them!
The policy was applied as stated – As well as Braxston Timm and Caleb Hughes swam, they didn’t only miss automatic selection, they missed the 2% ‘buffer zone’ which would have all but secured qualification. If Caleb wasn’t tapered or rested that is his problem and hopefully he’ll qualify in OW. Everybody knew the policy long before Trials, it was applied as stated, nobody can really complain. If you don’t meet the criteria, you can’t really feel hard done by.
You can definitely feel hard done by when people 4-5% off of the selection times are being picked for a world championships ahead of you. And somebody you have beaten has also been picked ahead of you.
That’s the entire point of a discretionary pick – whether we agree with the concept or not. The policy was clear, if you don’t meet the specified criteria, you don’t have much of an argument. Whether 2.01% or 5.00% outside the QT – You are in the same boat, you failed to meet the stipulated criteria and have to rely on the discretion of British Swimming. The public want medals from the funding their money pays for – Adam Barrett, Jemma Lowe and Liam Tancock are far more likely to help Britain deliver medals in the pool than many of those left out. Harsh, cut-throat, unfair.. maybe, but it is what the taxpayer wants. British Cycling garnered huge success (and praise) with a similar model.
Oh yes? There are people in the squad who did not meet the criteria, so your post is totally wrong
In the squad relying on discretionary picks – As I have stated. Read my above comment, MP, it really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp. British Swimming are doing as the public have asked – Teams geared towards medals.
So assuming the dicretionary picks are all relay covers then it is logical that Caleb Hughes misses out, albeit with an excellent time in world ranking terms. All the swimmers picked below Caleb in the Pullbouy tracker are relay primary swimmers or cover. For me some swimmers from L’boro were under par and the one where this could have the biggest impact on the team is Adam Barrett so they have got to be giving him the chance to come back into form.
Agree CT, all of those selected as ‘picks’ give Britain much needed depth in relays where we are in with a shout of medals.
My previous post is in reply to Dee
Surely if someone qualified for their main event in the qualifying time and they were just outside the times in other events they will allow them to swim these events e.g. Hannah 200m Fly and 200 IM
Yes that’s allowed for by the selection policy so we will almost certainly see people in other events.
Either the GB selectors believe in the concept of performing when it matters or they do not. They say they do, some of their selections suggest they do not.
So what would you have done differently?
Me? Unless there is a jolly good reason I would not have chosen Adam Barratt over a man that beat him on the day of selection. He failed to perform. Isn’t that supposed to be the message?
The fact that he may well go on to swim superbly (and yes he may well do) is not relevant. The same could be said of any number of swimmers who have not been given that opportunity.
I think that is supposed to be the message but I think when medals are involved the decision makers have to make a call. Assuming we are talking about Medley relay place maybe they think he could get back to last years pace, which is by a margin quicker than other UK swimmers have been, and so pick him. Could his proven speed from 2014 deliver a medal with CWH, Peaty and Jarvis/Proud? I think so. So I think it is relevant and as Dee said the public want medals.
Linny – Totally agree with your post
CT – You are obviously ignoring the facts and the evidence. Trials are Trials. What Linny says is 100% right in my opinion. You are obviously not the parent, coach, relative or friend of those swimmers who have been overlooked to the expense of those who are going to Kazan despite finishing behind them at Trials. Nor are you fair in your judgement. And I foresee huge pressure on those who have been selected despite flopping at Trials. In Kazan surely they must perform better than they have ever done, or this false policy of taking them in the HOPE that they perform, will surely backfire on those who have decided to apply it.
You are right I am not on this occasion. What I have tried to do is suggest why they may have selected a particular swimmer for this team. You are right trials are trials but the selectors had discretionary selections which were always going to be a matter of opinion or pragmatism. I feel for those not selected who performed well at the trials.
CT – Sure, the Selectors must choose the very best team who, in their eyes, has the best chance in Kazan. But then, why swim Trials? If they think a certain swimmer should go, but he finishes third at Trials and still take that swimmer to Worlds, then what is the purpose of swimming in London last week?
Surely to give the athletes the chance to meet the qualifying times. If the second place finisher had met the criteria, the decision would be made and this discussion wouldn’t be happening. As it happened, and not saying it’s fair, it seems the selectors consider all times outside the standards as useless as each other- so the only other consideration factor available to them is past form.
The most corrupt British swimming regime ever . Lets take has beens and buddies. Somebody needs to stop this era of favouritism before it gets out of hand.
I think a sense of perspective is needed. It seems quite clear what logic the selectors used for the wildcards; that doesn’t mean we have to agree with the picks (and with discretion there will always be people who don’t), or that they are necessarily correct, but conspiracy theories and allegations of corruption are way wide of the mark in my view.
Some of the above comments are totally misguided in my opinion.
The squad is more or less exactly what I would have chosen, except that the selectors added a few more and took the full compliment of 30.
If any swimmer is unlucky it’s Craig Benson, who scored 947 fina points yet misses out. No fault of the selectors , the other breaststrokers were just a bit better.
If some of you bothered to read the article above which relates to all these posts you would know that everyone who achieved the 2% target was selected.
Which means you can only be arguing about the five
discretionary places.
4 of those were for relay duties. The fifth was Molly Renshaw . Who would argue with her selection? She is young and broke a tough long standing British record last year. It wouldn’t surprise me were she to break it again this year. I’m just glad the selectors chose to beef the squad up to 30, I didn’t think they would in these times of thrift.