At the national titles in Adelaide this week, the Australian Swimming Team sent a clear warning to Olympic rivals that they will be a force to be reckoned with in Rio.
The performances have been positively framed to reassure a fanatical sporting public that their status as a global swimming powerhouse is not under threat.
Hope is rampant that swimming will once again provide the basis for a successful Australian Olympic campaign in Rio, leaving history to judge London as an isolated failure.
Nobody wants to ask questions that might raise the possibility of repeated Olympic failure.
The ‘F’ word is outlawed in a nation suffering a steady decline in international sporting success since hosting the Olympics in 2000.
Have our swimming stars peaked too early? Can they continue this form in Rio? Will the American’s find their best form come August?
Matt Grevers, Missy Franklin and Nathan Adrian are just some of the American swimmers who have the potential to dash Australian gold medal dreams in Rio.
These swimmers have more than two months until they have to peak for their national trials, held just five weeks out from the Olympics. With a clear understanding of the performance standards of their opposition, they can train away from the spotlight in a quest to peak when it matters most.
In contrast Australian swimmers have four months of intense media spotlight, the hopes of a nation resting on their ability to continue the high standards set over the week.
Australian failure at the London Olympics has largely been symbolised by the defeat of sprinter James Magnussen by American Nathan Adrian. While Adrian swam a personal best for the 100 metres in the final, Magnussen fell short of the time he had posted in the April trials.
Has Magnussen been used a scapegoat to hide the deeper structural problems of Australian Olympic planning in the way swimmers are forced to peak months out from the games?
Another failure in Rio must result in an evolution of scheduling methods if Australia does not want to be left behind in an evolving sporting landscape.
Jim
Guest
Obviously the Yank system is working and ours is not. Why were the Americans able to save save their best swim for the finals and not leave that swim for the heats, semis or even worse month or weeks before hand. Australian swimming selection system is not working anymore, lets change it to the system that has given the yanks so much gold.
Rob
Guest
Interesting our swimmers have to peak 4 months before the olympics in the trials, then stay at their peak for 4 months US swimming have their trials 5 weeks before the Olympics so that they dont peak too early The proof is in the pudding. The USA always peak at the Olympics whereas the Aussies peak months before Based on London and now Rio you would have to say we are getting it wrong
craig swanson
Guest
That is pure conjecture. Our men did not win gold because they acted like a bunch of arrogant numb nuts instead of responsible, professionals. Australia has always punched above her weight in world sport..swimming is no different. So we only win five gold at an Olympics. Remember America chooses its athletes from an enormous talent pool. I am hoping that we can have another Olympics in the pool some day similar to the '56 Melbourne games when we dominated the Yanks to win a record tally of the gold stuff. Or when Shane Gould powered Australia to a large gold haul in 1972. When were trials held back then? I am betting the same period as they are today.
craig swanson
Guest
They failed due to the lack of quality of the athlete.. Not because of when the trials are held. That is a nonsense argument.
jamesb
Guest
I'd leave trials as they are, 3-4 months out. Apart from London, its worked well in the past. If you look back at the swimming trials in 2012, there were a some disappointing times and was perhaps a precursor to what was to happen in London. I'll give you a couple of examples. In the men's 400m freestyle, 2012- David McKeon, 3:46.36 2016- Mack Horton, 3:41.65 Five seconds the difference In the men's 1500m freestyle 2012- Jarrod Poort, 15:13.38 2016- Mack Horton, 14:39.54 34 seconds the difference Maybe at the time, Australia didn't had the talent. Also there was old swimmers around like Leisel Jones. Stephanie Rice was heading closer to retirement while young swimmers like Mack Horton was only 15 at the time, while McEvoy was 17. So you had the old and the young, and not much in between.
Brad Cooper
Guest
Quick answer, Johnno, 'cos its off topic. I certainly would because of the money. But this answer presumes swimmers from the past like me would have risen as high in today's sport: which seems as futile as wondering "What if I'd had different parents". Thanks,
Brendon
Guest
Not a detrimental affect on results? 0 mens gold in the past 2 olympics? Only 5 in Sydney, only 2 in Atlanta? Athens where we got 7 (only 1 more than Phelps) did Australia perform. Even then Liesel Jones did her usual choke job and we should have got more.
Brendon
Guest
Having swimmers cool off, go back into heavy training and then taper off again means theres no guarantee that those swimmers who performed well at the trials in April are going to perform well again in Rio in August. The US knows that the swimmers they pick are ready and performing. We just cross our fingers that our swimmers who performed in the trials can perform again 4 months later. The results show otherwise.
Johnno
Guest
Brad quick swimming question. Your retired medium age for swimmers back in your day, if you were around today would you of stayed in sport until 28-30? or even older 30-35.
Johnno
Guest
Scrap trials and pick teams based on cumulative merit. what happened to Thorpe in 2004 trials and what he had to be put through there and Craig Stevens for that matter too was a joke, it just showed how farcical trials can be.
Brad Cooper
Guest
Trials timing is always tricky. Argument is mostly about the adequacy of time left over for swimmers to prepare for the Olympics. American trials are criticised for not leaving swimmers enough time to rebuild a deep "training base/block" on which to taper effectively again for Olympics (having supposedly spent some of that base to taper for their trials). But obviously, there's no way of fully testing all this. Americans always seem to do well, so who's to say they might have done better? Likewise the Australians. Performance at any given Olympics is not much of a test of trials timing. Americans may also claim that having trials close to the Olympics gives their team a strong bias to current form. Also, their trials could give their swimmers an edge in race fitness, while Australians may struggle to find pre Olympics competition serious enough to re-ignite race fitness. Pro's and cons either way.
Craig Swanson
Guest
US appears the only country that has their trials close to the Olympics. We have always had ours months out and in the past that has not had a detrimental affect on results. So why change what is not broken?
jameswm
Roar Guru
"If aussie swimmers underperform in Rio then the trials MUST be switched to closer to the meet starting with the 2017 swimming world champs" Why? What if they underperform for other reasons? Having them this far out means you have time for 1-2 light weeks recovery (they are all currently spent), 2 months' hard word, and 2-3 weeks to taper and sharpen up. The Yanks barely have time to recover and settle in after theirs. I assume the Yanks time their trials more to fit in with the College season than for any physiological reason. They can't get any faster, unless they didn't do a full taper for their trials.
Brendon
Guest
YES! Except Athens 2004 australian swimming has not met expectations at the olympics. 2000 only brought 5 gold and considering it was at home that was under expectations. Athens 7 gold, Beijing 6 but 0 mens gold. No male swimmer has won gold since 2004. It just wasnt Magnussen that failed at London. Going into London James Roberts had one of the best 100m free times but failed to even make the final. Plus remember how poorly the mens 4x100 free performed. Simple question Swimming Australia needs to ask themselves is "how many aussie swimmers performed pb's in finals in 2012 compared to american swimmers?" The answer is obvious. If aussie swimmers underperform in Rio then the trials MUST be switched to closer to the meet starting with the 2017 swimming world champs. That way aussie swimmers will have 2017 w'champs, 2018 comm games and 2019 w'champs to get used to trials closer to the meet.
Torchbearer
Guest
Agreed, there will be zero attention now for our swimmers until the Olympics...all sport is footy until then. This is a much debated and complex issue, most top countries, china, Japan, UK, NZ, Canada, France, SA are having their trials now. The US is an exception.
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
Intense media spotlight? This is 2016 not 2000. Do you honestly think there will be intense media spotlight on our swimmers over the next couple of months? I love swimming but it hardly has the spotlight it used to. Footy seasons will continue to take the spotlight until a few weeks before the Games begin and that's when everyone will get interested again. The only spotlight on the swimmers will be if there is an injury or some sort of pre-games controversy. The spotlight usually falls on some drama in athletics like the Jana Pitman rubbish or a selection controversy. We won't hear much about the swimmers again until right before the games.