Cause she has played like 300 tournaments this year, and has proven on countless occasions that she is unable to compete with players ranked below her and can't compete with other GB players. That's why.
You say that, but they cut Susan's funding, cause she wouldn't move to MK, and they pretty much admitted that they'd rather send Cann over Susan. But yeah, it's unlikely that they will send Cann, cause they'd be an outcry I would presume...
It's harsh but I wouldn't send either of them, they're just not good enough to warrant taking a spot off someone better deserving from another country.
Well, the spot is there to be taken so might as well, although both are past there peak, Susan is still able to compete, although Cann is no longer able to. Let's face it, they're better the south American australasia and African entrants, so it's still worth for them to go.
I seem to recall Cann giving Saina Nehwal a bit of a hard time in the commonwealth games but that must have been two years ago, I can't recall her having done a single thing since. Egelstaff looks the better player. She can moan all she wants about having her funding cut, but if she isn't willing to move to MK where all the coaching and facilities are then what does she expect. Hardly giving the right signals is it? You make a good point about some of the dross that'll be there from the western continents, so if it'd be one of their places they would be taking then I'd agree Susan should go.
How exactly would another countries player be more worthy, since they would be lower ranked, hence less worthy?
I was talking specifically about the circumstance where the Host country (of the Olympics) can qualify a player simply to give them some representation in the sport. In that instance a place is taken from the general pool of spaces and given to the host country. The position isn't earned by merit, it is given simply to give the home crowd a player to cheer.
Yeah because those facilities did soooo much for Cann. They fact is there is no setup in GB that knows or is capable of producing world class singles players. The only person who came close in recent years was Andrew Smith and he only got to such a high ranking because he waved goodbye to MK and trained in Malaysia. So in my opinion her funding should have been increased and encouraged to train in asia.
Here is an updated ranking fight for the GB'S Including full 10 events only within qualy period. Womens singles Susan 26557.7533 (if she can defend the dutch open title it will add another 2330) Elizabeth 23241 Mixed Doubles adcock/bankier 48680 robertson/wallwork 43462.23 Womens doubles No Mens singles Ouseph Rank 22 Definately qualified Mens doubles Adcock/Ellis Safe Unless Indian pair or canadian pair behind them have a freak result at the India open SS
I wasn't even thinking about it like that . It was more from the assumption that budgets have to be justified and when a player turns their back on the facilities/coaching being offered then it would act to undermine the system. See it as someone trying to build their little empire in MK or as someone genuinely trying to build a world class setup in MK. Either way she turned her back on it and I'm sure it would make it difficult for them to then justify their expenditure on said facilities if people start giving up on it. Obviously I'm assuming a lot as I don't really know how the whole thing's administered and where the dividing lines between Badminton GB, Badminton England and Badminton Scotland fall. I'm also pretty sure that Badminton had it's funding cut recently due to poor results (and they've been pretty damn poor!)
Whatever is happening behind the Curtains, I am rooting for Nathan Robertson to qualify for his Olympics. Come on man, exercise your authority to kick out Bankier/Adcock. You deserve a better closure to your final moments of your glittering career.
No he doesn't, he gets far too many privileges as it is already, that's it for him. He even had a chance to play MD and he turned it down so it's his own fault. And I'm glad he isn't going to the Olympics
I'm pretty sure I saw you refer to him as "knob head" in some other thread (apologies if I got that wrong), what have you got against the guy? What privileges are you referring too? PS: it shouldn't need saying but Adcock and Bankier should be first choice...results and ranking have proven them to be by far the best pairing.
I haven't actually called him that on this forum (but doesn't mean I haven't thought it) The problems I have with the guy is the amount of privileges he gets, what privileges I hear you ask? Well, he has had the best choice of partners, he has always been able to choose who he is partnered with. Furthermore what really annoys me is his ability to manipulate the coaching and management set up, to actually influence and change other partnerships in order for him to remain as the strongest pair. See this result for example: http://bwf.tournamentsoftware.com/p...38C&t2p2=BC3088B7-E39F-4B1A-8FFE-60CEA982D5FB On the surface, looks like a pretty simple straightforward defeat for Robertson/Wallwork, which it was. However not long after this result, Blair/Bankier were split, due to "other" influences. In fact the only reason they played a few more tournaments after that, is because the transport was booked! No player should be above the management, and he always seems to be, always using that silver medal he won almost like blackmail to get his way. Another point, the whole reason why Robert Blair switched back to playing for Scotland, was down to an altercation between him and Robertson. Blair felt Robertson had too much influence and openly complained about it. He gave the coaching staff and ultimatum, and Robertson used his influence to effectively throw Blair out (very good Scotsman article on this by the way) During the National Championships last year, Robertsons partner was injured and had to withdraw, Robertson immediately found a new partner and was allowed to swap partner. Any other player and they would struggle to change a draw at such short notice, but for Robertson, anything is possible (although this is fairly minor) Lastly (for now) he had the option to play both events in the run up to OG12, ad potentially qualify for MD with Clark. They would have most likely qualified without too much trouble for OG12, but Robertson effectively told Clark that he didn't want to play MD and only wanted XD which he thought was easier, leaving Clark without a partner and subsequently retiring (BBC article on this) shows his influence again, luckily he is going to be beaten at his own game... EDIT: cannot find the Scotsman article but found this, hope it helps... http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olliewilliams/2011/03/badminton_2011_preview.shtml And here's the other BBC Article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/badminton/17355585
Absolutely agree and if it is anyone that thinks robertson is a knobhead and more, that would definitely be me. He doesn't deserve anything better than getting denied a Olympics spot.
