Strange logic of Games selectors

Press, 16 July 1982, Page 15

Strange logic of Games selectors

By

KEVIN TUTTY

The clamour surrounding the selection of the NewZealand swimming team for the Brisbane Commonwealth Games has died, but the memories and scars will linger well into the future. Swimming eventually emerged with the team it sought, and a little extra. But competitors and several coaches have been disenchanted with the illogical selection policy of the Games selectors, (Messrs Roy Dutton, Bruce Cameron and Jack Prestney).

After the announcement of the first section of the team in early May, there was a strong ’ belief that the six nominated swimmers who were rejected, were being treated as pawns. That belief intensified when the second part of the team was named. By including a further nine swimmers and one diver, the Games selectors threw logic, and qualifying times, to the winds.

The problems started earlier in the season when the Games selectors asked for a second set of qualifying times from the national

swimming selectors. They felt the initial list was too lenient in many cases.

It was January before the second set of times was released, much too late in the view of Clive Power, the coach of the Wharenui club team in Christchurch.

That was only two months before the national championships in Hamilton - the best opportunity for swimmers to reach the target times.

“There is no way I would subject swimmers to what they w-ere. Those target times were released when most swimmers were starting their tapers for the national championships. They should have been released months before to allow them a proper chance to build up to the tarets,” said Mr Power.

After the release of the target times, the original selection times became interim qualifying times. It was agreed by the two panels of selectors that any swimmer achieving a target time would be an automatic Games selection, and those

reaching interim times would be nominated for consideration. The initial team announcement included the five swimmers who had reached target times, but tbe sixth - Richard Wells — had swum only an interim time, and then with the benefit of a flying start in a relay. There, the Games selectors made their first error.

Like Wells, the six swimmers passed over had achieved interim times but were ignored. That decision seemed more ridiculous when it was considered that Wells was ranked thirteenth in the Commonwealth in his

best event, while the worst ranking of any of the six who missed was twelfth. After that strange piece of reasoning, the selectors were obliged to include the six swimmers they originally neglected. But the selectors were not content to stop there. To add to the already intricate puzzle, three swimmers who missed qualifying times altogether were included. There was a precedent for their selections, however. When the track and field team was announced in early May, three athletes who had not reached qualifying times were included.

The selectors still retained a surprise though. They excluded Margeret Hesketh, the Wellington medley swimmer, who had swum two splendid times in the weeks before the Games nominations closed. She deserved more than the cursory consideration apparently given her. By including 10 swimmers who bad not achieved the target times they had so earnestly sought, the Games selectors were virtually saying their targets were really only guidelines to selection. With the puzzling and waiting behind them, the squad can now concentrate on preparing for Brisbane. Next Monday, the team leaves for a three week visit, and two important carnivals, in California.

It is an expensive exercise, but one the New Zealand Amateur Swimming Association believes is imperative if the team is to win medals in Brisbane. The carnivals — at Santa Clara near San Francisco and Industry Hills near Los Angeles — will provide competition stronger than the team will meet in Brisbane. To win a place in the finals will probably mean swimmers producing personal best times. ■ After California there will i be a better indication of; whether the team contains a ■ Gary Hurring or Rebecca Perrott. Certainly the poten-' tial to win medals in Brisbane is there, even though the Games selectors seemed to experience difficulty in recognising it.