2017 BRITISH SWIMMING CHAMPIONSHIPS
- Tuesday, April 18th – Sunday, April 23rd
- Ponds Forge International Sports Centre, Sheffield
- LCM
- Qualifying Times Analysis (for this meet)
- Qualifying Times Analysis (for 2017 World Championships GBR squad)
- Meet Site
- Psych Sheets
- Live Stream
- Live Results
WOMEN’S 100 BACKSTROKE – PRELIM
- FINA A – 1:00.61
- British 1st place standard – 58.76
- British consideration standard – 59.58
- Top 8:
- Kathleen Dawson – 1:00.26
- Jessica Fullalove – 1:00.74
- Georgia Davies – 1:00.83
- Lizzie Simmonds – 1:01.06
- Lauren Quigley – 1:01.71
- Anna Maine – 1:01.72
- Chloe Golding – 1:01.76
- Ekaterina Avramova – 1:01.78
Scottish maestro Kathleen Dawson paved the way in the women’s 100m event this morning, clocking a swift 1:00.26 to claim the top seed. Splitting 29.20/31.06, Dawson’s morning swim checks in as the fastest of 2017 for the multiple national record holder, beating the 1:00.37 earned in Edinburgh last month. The first Scottish woman ever under a minute, the Dawson has never been sub-59, so she’ll need to bust out a monster personal best to clear the British first place standard.
Right behind Dawson is last year’s bronze medalist in this event, Jessica Fullalove of Bath University. Touching in 1:00.74, Fullalove is already within a tenth of her 1:00.65 outing from last year’s final, so the 20-year-old 2014 Youth Olympic Games silver medalist is on the right track to improve even more tonight.
Don’t sleep on Loughborough’s Georgia Davies as the 3rd seed, however, lurking with her morning swim of 1:00.83 to represent the last of the sub-1:01 morning swimmers. Davies scored gold in this race at the 2016 edition of the meet in 59.64, a mark that beats Dawson’s personal best and Scottish national record by .04.
MEN’S 200 BUTTERFLY – PRELIM
- FINA A – 1:57.28
- British 1st place standard – 1:54.14
- British consideration standard – 1:55.83
- Top 8:
- James Guy – 1:59.04
- Joe Litchfield – 1:59.34
- Matthew Domville – 1:59.43
- Duncan Scott – 1:59.59
- Cameron Brodie – 1:59.99
- Luke Howdle – 2:00.12
- Michael Gunning 0 2:00.16
- Richard Nagy – 2:00.23
Last night’s 400m freestyle title winner, 21-year-old James Guy, holds a marginal lead over Sheffield’s Joe Litchfield heading into tonight’s 200m butterfly final. Guy is coming off of a personal best mark of 1:57.05 in this event from the Arena Pro Swim in Indianapolis, but even that falls well off the 1:54.14 1st place standard, or the consideration standard for that matter.
For Litchfield, he’ll need every bit of his home crowd cheering him on as he tries to nail a time good enough to qualify for the World Championships. He’s already notched a huge personal best by dipping under the 2-minute barrier for the first time in his career this morning, so he’ll need to have the swim of his life to drop even further.
A pair of University of Stirling teammates are also among the finalists, with 100m freestyle Olympic finalist and double Olympic silver medalist Duncan Scott ranked 4th alongside 5th seed Cameron Brodie. The pair earned morning times of 1:59.59 and 1:59.99, respectively. Brodie finished 4th last year in 1:58.98 and will be gunning to make sure he doesn’t’ miss out on the podium again. Scott, on the other hand, is a hugely talented athlete across several events, so if he doesn’t qualify here, he’s got multiple additional chances.
Of note, last year’s bronze medalist in this event, Jay Lelliott, finished in 12th and out of this year’s final with his morning time of 2:01.57.
WOMEN’S 200 BREASTSTROKE – PRELIM
- FINA A – 2:25.91
- British 1st place standard – 2:22.33
- British consideration standard – 2:24.48
- Top 8:
- Chloe Tutton – 2:24.96
- Jocelyn Ulyett – 2:25.25
- Molly Renshaw – 2:25.70
- Katie Matts – 2:27.24
- Hannah Miley – 2:27.41
- Georgia Coates – 2:28.15
- Abbie Wood – 2:28.47
- Megan Morrison – 2:29.56
Loughborough University saw 4 swimmers qualify for the women’s 200m breaststroke final, led by 2nd seed Jocelyn Ulyett. She touched in 2:25.25 to finish behind top seeded Olympic finalist Chloe Tutton of Cardiff, who earned the only sub-2:25 time of the session in 2:24.96.
Tutton’s competitive counterpart, Molly Renshaw, made her mark with a 3rd seeded effort of 2:25.70. The two Olympians as the top two seeds in the event, separated by just .01 of a second. In Rio, Tutton represented one of many 4th place finishers for GBR, clocking 2:22.34 to wind up off the podium. Renshaw touched in 2:22.72 for 6th in Rio’s final.
Beyond these top 3, the British competitors from this morning fall off into the 2:27/2:28 category, with last night’s 400m IM victor Hannah Miley headed to tonight’s final as the 5th seed in 2:27.41.
MEN’S 100 BACKSTROKE – PRELIM
- FINA A – 54.06
- British 1st place standard – 52.74
- British consideration standard – 53.60
- Top 8:
- Chris Walker-Hebborn – 54.71
- Xavier Mohammed – 54.90
- Luke Greenbank – 55.07
- Craig McNally – 55.62 (tied)
- Charlie Boldison – 55.62 (tied)
- Joe Elwood – 55.78
- Joseph Hulme – 55.80
- Brodie Williams – 56.20
As the women’s 200m freestyle has been lacking in recent years, so has the men’s 100m backstroke, with no breakout star leading the charge. 26-year-old Chris Walker-Hebborn scored gold last night in the 50m backstroke and threw up a modest 54.71 in this event this morning. But his 53.75 outing from Rio that shut him out of the final paired with the fact the Bath swimmer hasn’t been under 53-point since 2015 doesn’t bode well for CWH to claim as speedy of an effort as the 52.74 threshold placed before him.
Xavier Mohammed and Luke Greenbank will also be targeting the 1st place standard and consideration times tonight, with Mohammed as the only other morning swimmer in the 54-second zone. Greenbank’s personal best rests at the 54.64 registered when winning gold at the 2015 European Games, so the rising star will need to produce something special to make it to Budapest in this race.
City of Glasgow’s Craig McNally nabbed bronze in the 50m event last night and may have enough speed left to fire off a superb swim to at least land on the podium tonight in Sheffield.
WOMEN’S 800 FREESTYLE – PRELIM
- FINA A – 8:38.56
- British 1st place standard – 8:20.18
- British consideration standard – 8:26.19
**Will be recapped with final heat racing tonight.
WOMEN’S 50 BUTTERFLY – PRELIM
- FINA A – 26.49
- British 1st place standard – N/A
- British consideration standard – N/A
- Top 8:
- Sophie Yendell – 26.99
- Charlotte Atkinson – 27.04
- Alys Thomas – 27.10
- Freya Anderson – 27.12
- Lauren Mills – 27.35
- Laura Stephens – 27.41
- Raquel Matos – 27.45
- Tain Bruce – 27.62
City of Derby’s Sophie Yendell leads the field with the only sub-27-second outing of 26.99, with Charlotte Atkinson right behind in 27.04. For Yendell, at just 14 years of age, she just became the youngest Brit ever to post a 50m butterfly time under 27 seconds.
Earlier this month, 16-year-old Freya Anderson of Ellsemere earned a new British age record in this 50m butterfly event, earning a time of 27.12 in Sunderland. That outing slid under the 27.37 done by Laura Stephens at the 2016 European Championships. Anderson already matched that with her morning swim here in Sheffield, which secured a 4th seed headed into tonight’s finals.
MEN’S 50 BREASTSTROKE – PRELIM
- FINA A – 27.51
- British 1st place standard – N/A
- British consideration standard – N/A
- Top 8:
- Adam Peaty – 26.62
- Mark Campbell – 27.70
- Euan Inglis – 27.81
- Charlie Attwood – 27.89
- Lawrence Palmer – 28.05
- Chris Steeples – 28.09
- James Wilby – 28.12
- Jamie Graham – 28.31
There’s Adam Peaty and then there’s everyone else, as the British Olympic champion and world record holder tore the 50m distance to shreds this morning. Blasting over .2 off of his already speedy 26.86 world-leading time from the Arena Pro Swim in Indianapolis, Peaty scorched a 26.62 in Sheffield to come within 2/10 of the world record. He holds that mark at 26.42 from the 2015 World Championships. With Peaty opting out of the 200m breaststroke event, look for him to throw all he has left at this ‘splash n’ dash’ tonight.
I just want to take a minute to contextualise the reasons for such tough standards applied across Olympic sports in Britain. Facilities, flights, training camps, accommodation, funding – All of these things are paid for by the British tax-payer. UKSport & Central government polling alike have both indicated that the public do not deem funding also-rans as acceptable. The funding is for elite sport, the public seem to deem that as medallists & finalists. British Swimming had to react to that. Moreover, funding is based solely on Olympic success – That’s why in many sports (cycling/rowing for example) you see Britain perform far better in Olympic years. Programmes are set up as four year cycles, with everything targeting the Olympic… Read more »
It’s totally fair to consider cost, and there is no “right” answer to the questions of how many athletes the taxpayers should fund, or whether the spirit of competition is more important than winning or losing. But, governing bodies are way too quick to accept the specious idea that bringing more athletes would somehow hamper the performance of the elites. James Guy isn’t going to swim slower because they brought along a backstroker who doesn’t crack the top 16.
There might be a tradeoff in other areas of spending — i.e. perhaps better to give more funding/training support to fewer athletes, than spread it too thin- but that’s irrelevant to selectinga team for competition.
The fact is that the public $$$ for elite/Olympic sport is getting increasingly tighter; even in GBR who’s had two “historic”Olympic medal hauls in a row. The Olympic lottery funding; once lauded as a template for others to copy, is no longer bringing in the sums it has in the past and its a case of finding other $$$ sources or its belt-tightening time for many sports.
Do I think that British Swimming has over-complicated this selection process ….. certainly. However, they ARE coldly realistic about where their program “is at”. The move away from sending “the largest team possible” has been a reality for the best part of a decade. They realise that that they DO NOT have a… Read more »
Sophie Yendell scored a 14 year old are record as fastest qualifier
You think they’d have learned after the trials standards for Río. The athletes are like whipped puppies and clearly have no say.
Swim mom – I think they’d argue that they have learned from the Rio trials. While the number of Rio finalists was down from London, they doubled the number of medals that they won. Whether you deem the tough standards in 2016 a success or a failure depends on how you define those terms.
Four years period (2012-2016) makes direct comparison a bit inaccurate, especially for countries with less depth than USA. Comparison with the last global meet is more apt.
2015 Kazan (Olympic events only): 3 golds 2 bronze
2016 Rio: 1 gold 5 silver
More medals, less gold. In Olympics, gold trumps everything else.
The fewer golds wasn’t about a drop-off though – It was other nations stepping up. Most British swimmers were faster in 2016. James Guy possibly the only miss.
Bad comparison: Worlds vs Olympics. Try again. The selection policy works.
I realize that most countries evaluate their programs this way, but I still find it bizarre that they put so much stock in selection procedure being critical to the performance of individual swimmers. It would make more sense to look at how specific individuals performed, under different criteria (different seasons). Saying, “we chose the team this way and the team won X medals,” is not a great measure. Maybe a different team — different individuals, chosen through a different system – would have done better.
IMO, the only questions that (should) matter are: are you taking the best athletes? And, does the selection process allow those athletes to hit peak performance in the big competition?
SwimSwam did an… Read more »
Those “British 1st place standard” are insane, all british swimmers should really be mad.
It is not important how hard you work, unless you are a top 5 in the world, all the decisions are made by the federation.
Make much more sense qualification times like Australian (despite some strange QT) or Japanese (the best): hard but reachable QT even for non-medal olympic.
Unfortunately the success that the team had in Rio (largely a result of many talents peaking all at once) has inflated coaching staff’s ego. Last year the QTs were so hard that swimmers collapsed under the pressure at trials and hardly anyone qualified outright, but because things worked out in Rio that’s legitimised the same approach.
KYB, Your characterisation is totally false. While I agree with Emanuele, there was no collapse at 2016 trials, swimmers simply weren’t fast enough to hit the standards. That’s the way they are designed, so only the cream of the crop qualify outright, leaving selectors with 15-20 spots they can fill any way they like, provided ‘consideration’ times are met. This is not about ego, it’s about British Swimming effectively being able to hand-pick the team. It’ll come back to bite them on the arse this week – I see a few ‘stars’ missing consideration times, then what excuse do selectors use when they take them to Budapest anyway?
“This is not about ego, it’s about British Swimming effectively being able to hand-pick the team.” — doesn’t that mean it’s EXACTLY about ego? Or, the non-swimmer braintrust believing they know best? Personally I prefer the U.S. approach of letting the swimmers speak for themselves with performance in the pool. I realize it’s a little different in smaller countries (i.e. pretty much everywhere), that don’t have two or more top-level contenders in almost every event. Some might see that as an important distinction, since discretionary picks aren’t necessarily taking a spot from a medal contender. But I think there’s a lot to be said for a system truly based on merit – not potential, “development,” or just a coaching staff… Read more »
No, I don’t believe it does. Athletes from ITC programmes are seemingly favoured, as they are in Athletics with British Athletics slowly trying to base everything from the centralised programme in Loughborough. It’s no coincidence that the top British athletes flock to ITCs. That is the reality of what is happening. Independent bodies are mimicking the two most successful British sports, Rowing & Cycling, who centralised training, facilities & selection decision long before it became an unspoken UKSport plan. Evidently athletes in these groups are rewarded.