Australia's swim team arrives in Rio primed for gold (but protesting innocence)

I think that Mags will be swimming an opening leg (maybe just the heat) of the 4x1free to give him the chance of a 'proper' time that McEvoy & Chalmers will get in the individual event. But the relays will be exciting as always.

McEvoy will win 3 gold, 50-100 & 4x100 relay, plus 2 silvers in 4x200 & 4x100med. Let's not forget the 100 free is the premier event in the swimming programme, the quickest swimmer, fullstop!!!!! Horton will win 400 in WR time, gold in the 1500, Horton is not that far away from Paltrineri from his trials time & on the improve, plus silver in the 4x 200. Roberts will blow your mind!!!! My apologizes,I'm just a fan, not a pundit like you & all mine are based on hope & glory & trial times.

I wish I was as sure of the certainties of international sport as you are ..... with your use of definitives such as WILL. We can hope but as yet we cannot know so McEvoy could fly home with maybe 5 medals of which 1 may be individual gold & some possibility of a relay gold. Superstar .... not sure on what scale. In AUS eyes, fair enough but on the international scale or even in the world 'pecking order' of current champs, he'd be some way from the top of the pile. Its not a knock on him, far from it as it would be an extraordinarily creditable performance, just a little perspective re your use of the term superstar. Horton - probably at best may snag one gold in the 400 (where he has to beat Sun Yang) as he's some way behind Paltrinieri in the 1500. Again, very creditable but superstar ? Especially when you are measuring against those who may snag double individual gold or more on top of their existing CVs Roberts - what are you basing this upon other than hope ? Has he EVER delivered in either individual or relays ? He was even the slowest of the squad in the TT at Trials.

Yes I agree GT, I can't wait to pick up 2 golds on the first day with Horton in 400 free & W4X100 relay. On day 2 for Roberts to swim a 47.4 flying start to help Australia win more gold in the M4x100 relay.

Well since ur a half-full guy, I'm surprised you're not looking back to 1916 games which were cancelled lol ;) If the Eastern bloc had competed in 1984 we would have won even less gold (only Sieben and maybe the cyclists) but the NZL tally would probably been decimated even more. I think we will snag a couple of golds each in rowing, cycling, yachting, canoeing and a team sport or two this time but, as always, it's the swimmers we depend on to get the bulk of medals and the team-blood pumping. Can't wait for Day One!

Roberts will be OK, Horton & McEvoy, will come from RIO as superstars.

I look at the freestyle events & see such depth, we could actually medal in every event in the freestyle. I easily expect them to medal in both the men's & women's 4x100 & 4x200 with a possible of a couple of golds, this shows depth. In McEvoy, Chalmers, Fraser Holmes, David McKeon, Horton & the new boy Josh McCloghlin, you have a lot of depth, now throw in Maggie, Roberts, Dan Smith & your relays are strong. Now in the other events you of course have Larkin as the standout, but while not too many opportunities for medals in the other strokes, they are not exactly weak. In the women's it's really only the IMs that we don't have a medal chance. So not sure about this lack of depth you talking about.

Haha, if you were REALLY superstitious you may see that 1936 & 1976 were Olympics where AUS failed to collect a single gold medal !! Don't think its likely to happen LOL but there's be some sporting administrators looking to find the most indirect routes back to AUS should it start resembling a repeat of 1984 ! Actually I think McKeon most certainly has the talent to upset some applecarts in either/both her events. She'll probably need 0,5sec PBs to medal in both but I agree its possible. Much will centre on how she handles the pressure. McKeown could be a bolter, she looks to have bounced back well after a disastrous Kazan ... again, if she has the nerve she may be a factor. My caution is borne of hard experience of probably 40 years, and seeing how these meets play out in reality rather than on entry times. Not all of your guns WILL fire as expected. If you get a 50% hit rate then thats generally "par". You will have your inevitable bolters who get up to snag medals, even golds, but rather than adding extras to the card; they're generally the counterbalance to those expected to medal who fizzle out. Go take a look at the other sports and it IS rather tricky to see many really "sure fire" bets for Gold outside Swimming. Maybe one in trackcycling, may be one in Rowing, maybe one in sailing. Men's hockey always goes in as favourites ..... they've walked away with gold ONCE ! NZL was only one behind AUS on gold in London, until AUS picked up one "posthmously" via a doping DSQ. IF swimming doesn't pay out nearer "top end", our friends across the ditch may be brushing up on their AUS jokes. BTW, whilst those NZL golds may've all been (partially) sitting down; only one was going backwards, ie rowing. 4 were from Kayaking where you go forwards !

Tricky gauging one team against previous as various events/strokes go through different phases. You may have one or a couple of dominant figure in a particular discipline for 1-2 cycles but they may've "scared off" the following generation so you may see a fall-away for a cycle or two. In Athens & Beijing w the women, you had gold medallists in 2 strokes and silver medallist in another .... not sure if we're quite at that level but I will agree the spread with the women is looking better with women's distance finally coming "online". As per relays, its probably lineball with those Games with 2/6 likely strong/potential golds. All 6 relays medalled in Beijing (only time in my 40 year memory); it may happen in Rio but both 4X200s have members who have me reaching for my blood pressure tabs. Men are still pretty shallow with regards to spread of events. McEvoy is essentially trading places with Magnussen. Sprenger has gone but Larkin takes his place, albeit in a different stroke & with prospects of a double. Horton is a potential step-up ... but at this point, its a pencil in rather than firm ink. It was Sports Illustrated who has 11 swimming golds & 21 gold in total ! Swimming World have them at 8 Gold (W4X100, W4XMED, C1 double, Seebohm double, Larkin 200bk, McEvoy 100fr) 20 total. What is indisputable is that the culture has changed immensely for the better and the team seems more together. Most assuredly, there are very legitimate grounds for confidence. Not all will "get up", some will. There's likely to be a bolter or two but the trade-off is that they're counterbalanced by those more fancied who crash n burn. That's how these meets play out

Horton's Kazan performance raises question marks on whether he can/will "do the business" in major competition under pressure. Yes, we've been given the illness reason but how then do you explain his 800 where he not only survived heats but scored bronze defeating people who swam faster than him in both 400 & 1500 ? If he was so incapacitated, then why did he swim this event & how was he able to perform to that level ? I'm hardly an orphan re caution over Horton; many intl pundits are similarly wary. McEvoy has swum a fast 50fr at Trials, good. He's clearly a medal contender (indeed I have him down for bronze on my selections) but he's going up against some specialists at the one lapper. The probability of him medalling here is considerably below that of the 100 where he's a near sure bet (barring illness/injury). Seebohm "owned" the 100back last year but so far this year, her times have been good but hardly out of range of her competition. IF she swims to her best, she should win but if she's only at 58mid, Nielsen may take her. 200back could go any way, Seebohm got "rolled" at Aus Trials but Hocking has never broken 2.06. Hosszu could win it ....but will her heavy schedule count against her. If Larkin swims to his best, a double in on the cards. If he swims like he did at Trials, he's playing for minor coin in the 100 & could get rolled in the 200. Barring illness or injury, C1 has the 100fr. 50s are always more risky and this is where her start has hurt her in the past (2013W, 2014CG, 2015W). She has to been as favourite but not nearly as secure as the 100. The only ways they lose the W4X100 is via illness/injury to both Campbells or a break. The latter nearly took them out in Kazan. They don't need to take risks like that to win this NOT the WR. Even with C1s 100fr WR, the AUS W4XMED is only 0.22 ahead of USA on 2016 times so its a race that could go either way. Just as AUS has C1 who is over 1sec ahead of the best American; the American's breaststroker is 0.9sec ahead of AUS. If Seebohm is right "on", and AUS middle legs can leave C1 with a deficit of less than 1 - 1.2sec; they shoud win. I think this race will go to which ever country who's women's team has the momentum of the more successful meet. M4X100 COULD win .... or just as easily finish off the podium. McEvoy could swim the lights out but how far back might he be coming from ? I'm reasonably bullish on Chalmers performing well but the others ? Magnussen 2016 is NOT pre-op Magnussen and his best flat start has been 48.49. Take him away from lead-off and maybe you'll get a 47.7 split which you'd take. Roberts however ..... sorry but no sale.

NZ used this past Worlds Seven's series to tinker with finding their optimal line-ups and very rarely showed up with their best team. Aussies should medal, their record of the past couple of World Series says they've been in the top 3 teams consistently but NZ have been the super-power over the history of the series and should therefore be seen as favourites.

Cannot agree more here!!! Jacco has done an outstanding job.

You do realise that Horton (1500) and McEvoy (50) are ranked 2 in the world currently, don't you? You have them as conceivable medal chances. They're stronger than that. If McEvoy swims well, I'd expect a minimum of 5 golds - McEvoy 50-100, C1 50-100, women's 4x100free - the last 2 almost a lock, but not as big a lock as Ledecky in the 400-800 double. You also have both mens back, both women's back, mens 4x100free and women's 4x100med (6 events) where we'd be close to equal favourites. you then have Mack Horton 400 free ranked 1. So I'd say somewhere between 4 and 12 golds - McEvoy, Larkin and Seebohm - if 2 or more of them swim at PB level, the golds will really flow.

As in all sports, the most important person in the team is the coach and, for the first time in a long time, the Australian swim team has an outstanding head coach: Jacco Verhaeren. Whatever the outcome at Rio, he has already turned this team around from the public relations and performance disaster of London. Lets hope he stays.

How is NZ's womens 7s looking so secure, when Australia is ranked 1 in the world?

Common usually has doubts about the ability of swimmers like Horton and McKeon to perform on the world stage and is a glass half-empty guy most of the time :) There are bound to be some freaks who come out of (virtual) nowhere to beat some of the favourites and - for the first time in a while - Aussies are the gold-medal favourites in eight swimming events (W 50/100/4x100 free, 100/200 back & M 100/4x100 free & 200 back). A few more Aussies are in with a shot also (eg Horton) while we may have a few surprises ourselves (Bohl, McLaughlin). Being a glass half-full guy, I tend to think this swimming team will break the Aussie record for most golds and most medals ever. With regard to NZL beating AUS in the 1984 medal tally, since most of their success came via equestrian, rowing or backstroke, the joke back then was that the only sports that the Kiwis were good at were the ones where you were sitting down or going backwards.. ;)

Common, a very good summary!!! Considering Australia's best is 8 gold medals in 1956, though there was only 13 available golds available, now there is 32, but Australia has never surpassed the 8. The fact that you have predicted a median of 6 and a furthest of 9, I have also read an int'l swimming magazine of up to 11 golds, shows we are very competitive on the world stage.. Now irrespective of how many golds we do win, this shows this is a very strong Aussie swim team, maybe the strongest since 1956. This is a huge improvement on 1 gold in London & that our prediction was maybe 3 golds as best!!!!

As for this team, most certainly the team culture is much healthier and the malign influences have been moved on. A number of key talents have matured over this 4 year cycle and go in as gold favourites. As to how firm favourites, its variable and whilst there are three swimmers with very realistic chances of "doubles", it may well be that only one hits double pay and the others bat 1/2 or even 0/2. With regards to liklihood of a double, I'd rate C1 (50fr/100fr) as the most likely then Seebohm With the usual disclaimer of illness/injury interfering; my surest gold bets would be: W4X100, C1 W100fr Next best favored would be: C1 W50fr, McEvoy M100fr Clear but narrow favourites: Seebohm W100/200bk, Larkin M200bk Lineball/this event is likely to go to the team with greatest momentum from the meet: W4XMED Realistic gold chance but not favourite: Larkin M100bk Very outside gold chances/could medal-could crash: M4X100, Horton M400fr Reasonably secure medal bets but not gold: C2 W100fr, M4XMED Conceivable but not sure medal chances: McEvoy M50fr, Horton M1500, M4X200, McKeon W200FR/100fly, Ashwood W400/800, Wilson W100bk, Hocking W200bk, Groves W200fly, WMX200 Some of those favoured for gold will get up, some won't. If they can match the 7 gold from Kazan, Jaco Vehaeren is likely to be cracking open a few Heinekin or Grolsch at the end of the meet. Likewise with the minor medals, there may well be contributions from the ranks of the outsiders but correspondingly there will be the trade-off of those favoured to do so who "fizzle". The furthest that I can realistically push the gold tally is 9 (if WMXMED get up) but my baseline would be 4 (2 at worst) with a realistic median of 6. Total medals; it would be surprising if its below 11-12 but I'm struggling to push it beyond 15-16.

AOC & Sports Commission honchos will have every bodily appendage crossed & praying/making sacrifices to every known deity hoping that this swim team has a major gold medal collect (min 6-7). Otherwise they're looking at a very real repeat of the 1984 Games where NZL whipped AUS backside on the gold medal count. Why ? Whilst there is the possibility of a sizeable collect in Rio, many gold chances in swimming and other sports are far from secure bets and could easily end up as minor coin. Whereas NZL's main gold chances in rowing, kayaking, sailing, women's sevens & track cycling are looking much more "secure" Whilst the embarassment is one thing; firstly it is likely to mean the end of bloated 400+ Olympic teams in future but more importantly will be the $$$ issue. Even for those sports deemed to have been successful, ie medals or hit "benchmarks"; it will most likely be a case of holding the line with their current public finding levels. Those sports or programs that were not successful are likely to see, at minimum, funding cuts and potentially programs "wound up". Like many other Western countries, the public are no longer seeing public funding of elite sport as a priority as against health, education & infrastructure.

Good luck to the team who no doubt have worked hard for success. But our adoration of swimmers at the Olympics makes me a bit cynical. Most fans aren't interested in swimming, they just see it as a medal accumulation opportunity for Australia.