Is it time to get excited over 10.08 Gemili?

Gemili qualified for London 2012 at the UK trials coming second to Dwain Chambers having already achieved the Olympic A standard

The UK trials in Birmingham last weekend saw the confirmation of Great Britain’s next big sprinting hope as Adam Gemili finished second to Dwain Chambers in the 100m final winning his place in the Olympic team. He was thrust into the spotlight during last month’s junior meeting at Regensburg, where it wasn’t the fact that he won the race that made headlines; the impressive time of just 10:08 illuminated this prodigious talent and announced him not just on the national stage but that of the world. A time of 10.08 is not the most amazing time where modern standards are taken into account, however Gemili is just 18 years old and was a Chelsea FC trainee up until just 6 months ago. So early in his athletics career is he that the sport can only be classed as an extended hobby at this point, with Gemili still unsure whether his long-term future lays in the sport. After consulting his coach late last year, he decided that this year he would give athletics a chance for a calendar year and assess his progress before making any long-term decisions. Recent history tells us however that British athletes who show such promise as juniors in the 100m, rarely convert to world-class medalists or times in the future. When building up Gemili as a future star, which he clearly has the talent to be, we should air on the side of caution and realise the next few years are vital to realising such potential and that at this point it is merely potential.

To put his performance into context, as was earlier alluded to,10.06 is not even classed as a world-class run, especially if the recent US trials are any reference point. The US trials run last month were won in 9.80 seconds by comeback kid and former World champion Justin Gatlin who will be joined at the Olympics by Tyson Gay and Ryan Bailey (who ran 9.86 and 9.93 respectively). These times are incredibly fast considering that these athletes would hope still not to have peaked yet this early in the season, however the significance of this race was not just in the times of the three qualifiers mentioned but also in the fact that the athlete that came 6th  in the race ran 10.02! This is nearly three tenths of a second quicker than the time that was needed to win the UK trials. It must be noted that conditions are remarkably better in the USA and much more suited to running these sorts of times; even after taking this into account it illustrates the gulf in class between British sprinters and those at the top of the sport.

This leads to the question as to why we as a sprinting nation are quite so far behind even the USA. This is before we even begin to take into account athletes of Jamaica whose 100m final in their Olympic trials will in all probability finish with all 8 runners being faster than the UK’s best, with perhaps even all of the finalists breaking 10 seconds in the final. One would first conclude that a huge difference in training conditions and facilities would lead to the opinion that we have no right to be placed at the top table of sprinting any more, this is a view that has great credence and so it is better to investigate this from a different angle.

In the time since Britain last had a 100m Olympic champion in 1992 with Linford Christie, lots of athletes have shown great potential as junior athletes. To use a few examples for the purpose if this article I am to use the talents of Dwain Chambers and Mark Lewis Francis. Chambers was a quite brilliant junior athlete,  he set a world junior record in the time of 10.06 in 1997, at the age of just 19. He did go on to some international success notably breaking the 10 second barrier on numerous occasions and winning bronze at the world championships in 1999. One would argue that he didn’t reach the level that a junior who at the time broke the world junior record, would be expected to, however as is well documented various performance enhancing drug ban issues make his case very difficult to analyse. As a result it is of more interest to analyse the relative failure of Mark Lewis Francis, once described by Olympic champion Donovan Bailey as “the most unbelievable young talent I have ever seen”.

Mark Lewis Francis much like Gemili ran incredible times at the tender age of 17/18. Like Gemeli, Lewis Francis was a revelation at junior level and still holds records at U15,16,17 and 18 levels. In addition, when faced with a similar dilemma to that faced by Gemeli this year, he opted to stay a junior in 2000 and snubbed the Olympic games in Sydney to become world junior champion at 100m and 4x100m. More importantly this came after announcing himself at Crystal Palace just months before the games when running in an event watched by the eyes of the whole athletics world, it resulted in him running 10.10 seconds in poor conditions at the age of just 17 years old! A year later he ran at the world championships and ran a wind assisted 9.97 seconds in the early rounds before failing to reach the final; in the same year he achieved a new personal best of 10.04 at just 18 years old,which at the time put him in contention with the world’s elite. With two years of such great success before even reaching the age of 20, the world expected Lewis Francis to become the best in the world or at least one of the main contenders.

Gay and Gatlin are both the same age as Mark Lewis Francis (29) and were far below the Brits level up to the age of 21. However they are now each past world champions and regular sub 10 second runner, as Lewis Francis ponders retirement.

An athlete of such talent really should have achieved incredible career highs, however the reality is that Lewis Francis never ran faster than 10.04 and went backwards as an athlete from the year 2002 onwards. He will be best remembered for his winning leg in the 2004 Olympics 4x100m and less impressively for a European silver medal. The fact that he was a far superior athlete as a junior than both Gatlin and Gay (who are the same age as Lewis Francis) better by more than two tenths of a second in terms of 100m PB, shows just quite how much talent he possessed and how much potential of yet another great British hope was not fully realised. Gatlin and Gay are among the favourites for Olympic gold and are former World champions whereas in contrast Mark Lewis Francis has failed to reach the British team and is contemplating retirement, no doubt followed by a lifetime of people asking him what could and SHOULD have been.

Recent history shows us that British young sprinters often fail to reach their full potential, and there must be reasons outside of injuries and mere bad weather to blame. Something must be done to ensure that athletes brimming with potential such as young Gemili do not turn out to be the next Mark Lewis Francis, in terms of career success. It is integral to use athletes who have been in a similar position such as Mark and Dwain, to use their experiences and shortcomings to find out possible reasons for failure, and ultimately improve the chances of the next generation. The potential of Gemili is very encouraging and his performances up to this point deserve to be celebrated, however it is important that we do not get carried away and expect this athlete to reach the top merely on talent alone. We wait with crossed fingers and hope that our newest potential global star enjoys the luck, coaching expertise and guidance that eluded past hopes of British sprinting.

Is playing for the shirt really enough?

Has pride in the shirt masked the fact we’ve gone backwards?

Though there was an air of inevitability before the tournament regarding the failure of England to end their quarter-final hoodoo, it is worth analysing just how much of a success the tournament was. Can the fact that England reached a quarter-final as group winners and never lost a match before penalties be taken at face value? Or should we delve deeper into the performances and philosophy that resulted in such a result, or lack of result, depending on your expectations of the nation.

It is important first and foremost to acknowledge the lack of preparation time that was allowed for the new manager before this tournament; there is little doubt that basing Roy Hodgson’s potential as a successful England manager purely on this tournament would therefore be absurd. In addition, the fact that Hodgson matched the best performance of any England manager since 1996 must encourage a positive outlook on what is to come in his reign. Hodgson’s major success seems to be his achievement in regaining some pride in the players, to play for the shirt. A major problem that had been identified with the previous managerial regime was the lack of effort and interest when wearing the three lions, a trait heavily linked with the lack of an English-born manager. If nothing else was gained during this tournament there can be absolutely no doubt that the players gave their all for the cause in terms of effort, and a welcome change it most certainly was.It must be noted that the employment of Gary Neville seems to have had a major impact in this respect and he maybe in this respect deserves as much credit as Hodgson.

When identifying positives, the defensive players in addition to the two central midfielders demand huge acclaim for their performance. England, defensively were as good as anything in the tournament. Bar 15 minutes of madness in the game against Sweden, England conceded just a single goal, and that was one of individual brilliance from Samir Nasri. England under Hodgson are incredibly difficult to beat or even to break down and score against. It is of little doubt though, that where they have gained in defensive stability from Hodgson’s tactics, they have ultimately become a team of little attacking threat and flair.

England have adopted a new way of playing in which they set up in a rigid 442 formation, one that Hodgson has adopted throughout his managerial career with mixed results. This formation breeds solid foundations in which the central midfielders have much defensive responsiblity together with the wide midfielders, who are asked to stay narrow and protect their full backs throughout. Where this formation encourages counter attacking football in the domestic game, as has been displayed by many of the premier league teams of the last 10 years, it struggles to cope with the lack of  tempo found at international level.

Under Fabio Capello at the 2010 World cup, England set up with a 442 formation and struggled to keep the ball for long periods. The tournament itself is remembered as one  of total failure following a dramatic 4-1 reverse to Germany, who themselves produced a clinic of counter attacking football. The England team returned disgraced and it took a long time for the nation’s pride in the team to return. Following the tournament itself, Capello bemoaned the ability of English players to retain the ball in major tournament football, and as a result vowed to learn from his failings. His response was to change the shape of the team to a 4231, or 433 formation of many interpretations. He like many experts of international football came to the conclusion that in the modern game you cannot win a game if you do not have the ball for such long periods. Extra bodies in the centre of midfield are a must in order to gain control in the centre of the park and it’s importance has been illustrated by its use by the World and European champions Spain, who even resorted to fielding up to 6 midfielders at once during this tournament.

England endured a successful qualifying campaign under Capello and began to adjust to the modern continental formation that serves all of the top European nations so well, creating a confidence that this tournament would be an improvement. After beating Spain in his last game, albeit a friendly, Capello resigned for unrelated reasons. The worry following this tournament must be that even though England managed to show much improved passion and defensive play, the problems of past tournaments persist. It can be argued that all of the good work that Capello had achieved since his major failings of the World Cup 2010, in changing England’s philosophy into a proven formation at this level in which they try to keep possession of the ball, has been undone. This leaves them in precisely the same position, analysing the same failings that they were two years ago albeit with more pride in the effort given by the players.

While Hodgson argues that statistics aren’t important, they do make for pretty grim reading. The fact that England enjoyed less than 40% possession on average throughout the tournament (in games that include Sweden and Ukraine, both massively inferior to England in the World rankings) shows the fact that England couldn’t retain possession. It isn’t as if England effectively played on the counter attack either, illustrated by the lack of chances that were created by england (just 2.8 shots on target per game on average).  His use of this formation in which England let the opposition have the ball in areas of the pitch not deemed a danger to them defensively, though impressive in terms of goals conceded, created a situation in which an already depleted England midfield was out on their feet in tiredness by the third game of the group. In addition to this, the formation adopted eradicated much of the attacking threat offered by the England wingers, and undoubtably had a huge bearing on below par performances by Ashley Young in particular. He was stifled by his defensive responsibility leading to him not possessing the fitness or field position to hurt the opposition in the areas of the pitch in which he is most effective. It is of no coincidence that the one time in the competition that a winger, namely Theo Walcott, had a good game was in the only game in which England went behind and as a result had to free their wingers from their defensive shackles. Interestingly this game proved the only one in which England enjoyed more possession than their rivals (52%), and is generally thought to be their best performance of the tournament. This adds much credit to the opinion that a strong attack is a successful means of defence rather than letting the opposition dominate the ball  for long periods trying to nick the odd goal on the break. You simply cannot allow international teams to keep the ball for such long periods. Unlike in the Premier League, international teams slow the game down to their own pace and don’t leave as much space to exploit on the counter attack, therefore making it very difficult for such a formation to work; especially against the more accomplished teams with good passers of the ball who don’t make many mistakes to exploit.

It is feasible that Hodgson will learn from those same misgivings that Capello did, and that England will go on to adopt a new formation with fresh young players and refreshing impetus in the future. It is also understandable that after coming into the job with such short notice, he had little choice but to go with “what he knew”. It is however extremely difficult not to feel that during this tournament from a footballing point of view England have gone backwards 2 years and need much work in order to ever sit at internationals top table at major tournaments.

Plastic Brits or Failing Tits

It has been well publicised in the British media recently that there is a general unrest at the emergence of so called “plastic brits”. Those are the athletes who have an underlying allegiance to Britain through upbringing or family. Those who choose to compete for Britain even though their roots lay elsewhere and often also their upbringing. What would we as a nation prefer though? Is a successful athlete competing for Britain as infuriating as the near regular sight of a British athlete failing to even qualify for the final after years of funding and hype?

With the Olympics on the cusp of everyone’s lips, the general opinion is that the key perpetrators (Porter, Aldama) are jumping on the London bandwagon and taking the place of “true brits” in what would be their home Olympics. It begs the question, if “true brits are good enough to deserve to compete on the highest stage, why are we such an easy target for turncoats?

Britain enjoys a rich athletics heritage boasting World and Olympic champions throughout history; however in recent times these successes have dried up alarmingly, leaving us happy when athletes manage to reach top level finals. This is a sorry state for British sport and to their credit UK athletics have gone the way of the England cricket board and looked for outside help; This came in the form of Dutch supremo Charles van Commenee (hired UK national head coach in 2008) after his success in guiding the Netherlands to their most successful Olympics in history. The fact that we felt the need for a foreign coach highlights the failure of the current methods being used at the time, see similar appointments in football notably Eriksson taking the England head coach role. Where many don’t see this approach in football having been a roaring success (yet also not a total failure), the same cannot be said of Cricket.

The ECB has enjoyed much success since the appointments of overseas management, and the plethora of new ideas brought with them. Since Duncan Fletcher took over as Manager of the England team in 2000 and later during the long term appointment of Grant Flower which is on-going, England have gone from the worst ranked test team to becoming the best test cricket team in the world while also enjoying world cup triumph in the 20/20 format. If UK athletics enjoys even a shade of the success that the similar approach has resulted in regarding Cricket, then Britain are on the right track.

Another similarity to cricketing success comes in the fact that in this time the next generation of cricketers contained many with southern hemisphere origins rather that “true brits” (see Strauss, Pietersen). These are very similar in their allegiance to those “plastic brits” currently gracing UK athletics. Whether it is superior training techniques or even perhaps a greater sense of a “winning mentality”, the facts illuminate the view that these “plastic brits” have had a positive effect during their integration in the team, while proving their allegiance and passion while representing Britain/England.

Therefore by taking such current success into account, and that similar success of those countries that have enjoyed sporting success using a new generation of multi culturism (France won the 1998 world cup with a team of players in which less than 10 % were born in France); it is feasible to suggest that by embracing the inclusion of the “Plastic Brits” into UK athletics, in the situation that they are the best athlete for the team in terms of performance, it may result in a positive effect on both current and future success in the sport. So long as they qualify based on their quality of performance, there is a case that can argue that British success in the Olympics will inspire the next generation of athletes and we should be doing all we can to embrace rather than fight the success of those with British allegiance.

What is success?!

With the Olympics residing on local shores this summer, the expectations of the British athletics team have intensified. With such expectation UK chief Charles van Commenee has committed to his long term goal based on a medal haul of 8 including one gold for the games, insisting that if this goal is not realised he will step down.

8 Medals to the athletics purists, those whose memories stretch as far as Barcelona 92- Sydney 2000 and its successes of 6 Medals at each championships plus many other near misses, doesn’t seem such a coup when taking into account it’s a home Olympics and that extra passion and lift that accompanies that. However when you take into account the disgraceful performance of the British team in Athens 2004 and Beijing 2008, with a maximum just a measly four individual athletes achieving medals at each; the achievement of Van Commenee’s goal would be definite progress and in truth a magnificent achievement.

You could argue that a difference of a few medals is not such a big deal, and to a certain extent that view would be absolutely correct, however when digging deeper in analysis of the games it becomes evident that British athletes that didn’t achieve medals were not even in the same league so to speak as those who won medals.

In addition to the above, what made 2008 an even bigger failure is the fact that other than Phillips Idowu winning silver in the triple jump; the other three medals were that of relative suprise (Ohorugu winning gold, Danvers the silver), or total shock (Mason winning silver in the Men’s high jump). None of the big hopes managed to deliver and we had the embarrassment of only 11 of our 56 athletes even finishing in the top 8 positions in their individual events! The height of this failure can be measured by the fact that in the Sydney 2000 games, 12 male athletes finished in the top 8 places in their individual event, more than the 2008 total of male, female and relays combined.

After identifying the mammoth size of the task attributed to the British team at this summer’s games it will be interesting to discover where these 8 medals can be achieved. One thing is clear in that if the team manage to achieve the target set by the most stern of taskmasters in Van Commenee (for validation just ask Kelly Sotherton who was previously coached by him), we are in very safe hands for future success in the sport.