Gkolomeev Swims NCAA “A” Cut in First Finals Session of H2Okie Invitational

The Alabama men made a huge statement in the men’s 50 free on the first night of the 2014 H2Okie Invitational in Blacksburg, Virginia.

The highlight of the night was an Alabama 1-2-3 finish in the sprint race led by a 19.11 NCAA Automatic Qualifying Time from the defending NCAA co-champion in the event Kristian Gkolomeev.

Gkolomeev was the 2nd qualifier coming out of prelims, but whereas the Virginia Tech men were unable to match their quality from the morning, the Crimson Tide men came alive in finals. Gkolomeev was followed by teammates Brett Walsh (19.74) and Alex Gray (20.03) for a 1-2-3 finish; Walsh and Gray were both just 20.74 in prelims.

CJ Fiala, the top qualifier in prelims, was a 20.60 for 4th place – adding three-tenths from his morning swim. Of four Virginia Tech swimmers in the A-final, Adam Stacklin was the only to improve his time.

Morgan Latimer had a better go of it for the Hokies in the B-Final, which he won in an NCAA consideration time of 20.15.

Given the result of that individual 50, it’s no surprise that the Alabama men also won the men’s 200 free relay at the beginning of the session, though not by as big of a margin as one might expect given the individual results. Gkolomeev (19.33), Gray (19.77), Luke Kaliszak (20.10), and Walsh (19.27) combined to swim 1:18.47. That’s a provisional (“B”) standard, but Alabama will still need to find a relay qualification standard (“A”) either at this meet or at SEC’s to send their relays to Iowa City.

Virginia Tech held their own in a runner-up finish of 1:19.12. That included a 19.94 leadoff from Fiala – the second-fastest time of his career and easily his best mid-season swim. Virginia Tech also took 3rd place in this relay when their “B” went 1:20.79, and if they’d combined their best four legs, they could’ve made this a much closer race heading into the anchor legs.

Women’s 200 Free Relay – Timed Final

The Alabama women, though maybe not in as headline-grabbing of a time, also won the 200 free relay by swimming 1:30.95. Their relay included Bailey Scott (22.67), Temarie Tomley (22.88), Justine Panian (22.48), and Emma Saunders (22.92). That relay is made up of a freshman, a sophomore, and two juniors, and given how they’ve each progressed in the 50 in the last year (Scott’s best flat-start 50 coming into this meet was just a 23.0), they will do some damage at both the 2015 and 2016 NCAA Championships if they can qualify without burning all of their steam at SEC’s.

Women’s 500 Free – FINALS

Virginia Tech sophomore Jessica Hespeler wasn’t able to match her prelims time in the women’s 500 free, but she still walked away with the win, the two fastest time of her career, and some new confidence heading into the second semester of training.

Hespeler won this race in 4:46.86, leading most of the way and holding off Villanova’s Emily Mayo (4:47.56) in a tough last 150 yards. Mayo’s closing kick carried her to a new lifetime best by four seconds.

South Carolina’s Victoria Mitchell took 3rd in 4:48.34.

Men’s 500 Free – FINALS

South Carolina’s Egyptian star Marwan el Kamash won the men’s 500 free in 4:20.82 in what was a tough wire-to-wire battle against Virginia Tech’s Michal Szuba (4:21..04). Both swimmers have a reason to feel good about their results in those races, though Kamash with the victory is likely to feel a little better.

For him, this is a mid-season best time by four seconds – noteworthy as his home country won’t be sending him to Short Course Worlds, so he has no other mid-season meet to focus on.

F0r Szuba, it’s the same mid-season best – six seconds better than he was in November of last year, and in fact faster than he was at the ACC Championships last year.

South Carolina freshman Tom Peribonio took 3rd in 4:23.71, and Virginia Tech’s Jake Ores was 4th in 4:27.54.

Women’s 200 IM – FINALS

It was a Hokie sweep in the women’s 200 IM, as Virginia Tech took the top three spots, and five of the top six spots, in the A-Final.  That was led by Fiona Donnelly in 1:58.67 ahead of Klaudia Nazieblo (2:00.45) and Holly Harper (2:01.41).

The difference for Donnelly came on the long-axis strokes, the backstroke and the freestyle, where she was much more assertiv in her splits than in the morning. Whereas in the heats, she trailed Nazieblo after both the backstroke and breaststroke legs, in finals she was in the lead at both splits.

Donnelly then had the motor to pull away for a win that was bigger than the race showed, whereas Nazieblo, perhaps fatigued by being forced to swim from behind, was much slower on her closing split.

South Carolina’s Heather Merritt (2:01.76) was the only swimmer to break up the Hokie run at the top, though Alabama’s Kaylin Burchell had the third-fastest time overall out of the B-Final in 2:00.69.

Women 50 Free – FINALS

Despite the Alabama and Virginia Tech teams occupying the top three spots in the 200 free relay, the two teams struck out on the podium in the individual 50. That race was led by William & Mary’s Megan Howard who won in 22.74 – the lone NCAA ‘B’ standard in the event on the day.

South Carolina freshman Meredith Vay (23.20) and William & Mary sophomore Jaimie Miller (23.26) took 2nd and 3rd, respectively, with Holly Harper being the top-finishing Hokie in 4th with a 23.36.

Alabama’s Temarie Tomley won the B-Final in 23.34, and her teamate Justine Panian won the C-Final in 23.36.

Women’s 400 Medley Relay – FINALS

Led by a fantastic butterfly leg from Maggie Gruber, the Virginia Tech Hokies won the women’s 400 medley relay in 3:39.33.

Gruber split 53.44 to overcome a two-second deficit to Alabama after the first half of this relay. Their strength was the biggest weakness for Alabama, who got only a 56.41 split from Leah Bird on their fly leg.

Otherwise, Alabama had the fastest split on every other leg of this relay. That includes a 54.17 from Emma Saunders, a 59.31 from Kaylin Burchell on the breaststroke, and a 49.85 from Tomley on the freestyle leg.

But that’s the beauty of the medley relay, and the Hokies’ four was four-tenths more complete for victory. Alabama took 2nd in 3:39.74, and Virginia Tech’s “B” relay took 3rd in 3:41.53. On that B-medley for Virignia Tech, Fiona Donnelly split 53.36 – even faster than Gruber’s swim – on the fly leg.

Men’s 400 Medley Relay – FINALS

The Alabama men almost took down the Pool Record, and easily took down the victory, with a 3:11.16 in the men’s 400 medley relay. Virginia Tech took 2nd in 3:12.06.

Alabama’s relay included Connor Oslin (47.50), Pavel Romanov (53.97), Brett Walsh (47.67) and Kristian Gkolomeev (42.02), with the breaststroke and freestyle legs being the strengths.

Virginia Tech got a good fly leg from Morgan Latimer (46.73) to close out what was a very good finals session for him.

Live meet results available here.

Team Scoring – After Day 1

While Alabama and South Carolina have gotten some good shots in after one day, the Virginia Tech Hokies are still easily the deepest team at the meet , and they hold significant leads in both the men’s and women’s scoring after one day. Villanova’s distance group, meanwhile, is holding them ahead of William & Mary’s sprint group on the women’s side.

Women

  1. Virginia Tech – 420
  2. Alabama – 200
  3. South Carolina – 199
  4. Villanova – 146
  5. William & Mary – 122
  6. Ohio – 72
  7. Liberty – 48

Men

  1. Virginia Tech – 422
  2. Alabama – 290
  3. South Carolina – 228
  4. William & Mary – 115
  5. Villanova – 73

2
Leave a Reply

Subscribe
Notify of

2 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Flyin'
10 years ago

Also might be of interest that Matt McLean, who is training with the Gamecocks, time trialled a 500 and went 4:16

Dan
10 years ago

BAMA means business.

About Braden Keith

Braden Keith

Braden Keith is the Editor-in-Chief and a co-founder/co-owner of SwimSwam.com. He first got his feet wet by building The Swimmers' Circle beginning in January 2010, and now comes to SwimSwam to use that experience and help build a new leader in the sport of swimming. Aside from his life on the InterWet, …

Read More »