UK Athletics want to select smaller teams for global championships but their policy flies in the face of popular opinion

About 20 years ago I knew an ambitious British runner whose main goal was to run in the World Cross Country Championships. He realised the ceiling of his talent was to squeeze into the squad and after years of gruelling training he eventually managed it in his early 30s by qualifying for a couple of global events.

Ultimately he finished outside the top 60 and several minutes behind the winner, but he achieved his dream and is now able to tell his grandchildren that he ran for Great Britain at the World Cross. As my friend and many other proud international athletes over the years will agree, these championships are not all about winning medals.

The problem is, the medals mentality is dominating UK Athletics’ selection strategy right now. Jack Buckner, the governing body’s new chief executive, said recently: “There will be a bit of a shift in our selection philosophy which is going to be quite hard in some ways. We will be moving towards a philosophy more about performance. It will have a slightly sharper edge. You need to really focus on the big hitters. We could have a list of six to 10 names and we need to be all over them. We need to identify where the medals are coming from and have the right resources in place.”

Buckner has made a positive start to his role at UKA but in this case he appears to have misjudged the mood of the people. An AW poll this week asked if UKA should send smaller elite teams of probable finalists and potential medallists to global championships? Or should they field as big a squad as possible to maximise development opportunities? At last count 71.8% want squads that are “as big as possible” with only 3.3% preferring “small select squads” and 24.9% choosing “somewhere in between”.

Athletes and fans have gone further than a mere click of the keyboard to vote too. Some have taken to social media to voice their concern. Established GB internationals claim the policy is driven by UKA’s cash-strapped position – although the governing body denies this – whereas others have made jibes about the number of support staff soon out-numbering the actual competitors.

Katharine Merry went to the 1993 World Championships as a teenager before going on to win Olympic 400m bronze in Sydney seven years later. She says she would not qualify for that World Champs with the current selection policy and adds: “Not every athlete can be a medallist or top eight at a Champs, but all deserve to showcase their best on the biggest stage they can. This is why athletes train. To be the best they can be and reach the highest possible level with their talent.”

What would Mo Farah have achieved during his 2011-2017 heyday if he hadn’t endured the stinging experience of being knocked out of the 5000m heats at the 2008 Olympics?

Katarina Johnson-Thompson finished 14^th in the Olympic heptathlon – a long way behind winner Jess Ennis – in London in 2012 but the experience put her in good stead to win a world title seven years later in Doha.

At the same home Games, meanwhile, a young runner called Eilish McColgan finished a distant ninth in her 3000m steeplechase heat but look what she’s gone on to achieve. There are plenty more examples like this too.

What is exasperating about UKA’s selection stance is that it see-saws from one extreme to another. Less than two years ago, for example, Buckner’s predecessor Jo Coates unleashed a plan entitled ‘age of the athlete’ where one of the targets was to have athletes representing Great Britain and Northern Ireland in every single track and field event at major championships by 2032. This ambitious but very worthy goal was not original either as UKA proposed the same idea at the turn of the millennium.

It is also only six years since UKA launched a campaign with the hashtag “#represent” which was devised by a creative agency – probably at considerable cost – and primarily promoted the beauty and honour of competing for your country.

In the run-up to London 2012, however, the GB team adopted a tougher selection strategy similar to the one Buckner is now suggesting will happen on the road to the Paris 2024 Olympics. Charles van Commenee, the GB head coach at the time, famously said that “nobody is going to jump higher by lowering the bar”.

Van Commenee added: “When you raise the standards, you will have a more successful team and success breeds success. When you are in a championship and in the first two days you’ve got a dozen going out in the first round then that doesn’t set the right tone for the rest of the team and for the people watching us.”

With reference to under-performing “championship tourists”, he continued: “I think at major championships you shouldn’t fail, so I don’t want to send people with a high probability of failure.”

There is definitely some logic in that approach and it is important to add that UKA’s strict selection strategies only apply to global championships. Events like the Commonwealth Games, age-group championships and of course this month’s European Indoor Championships are always regarded as development opportunities for up-and-coming athletes.

Since the days of Van Commenee, the selection strategy now appears to be coming around in full circle and looks set to be repeated. Is it what athletes and fans want, though? Clearly not.

Surely UKA is underestimating the sheer achievement of making a national team for a major championship. If ever you need to be reminded of this, just remember the scenes of joy and emotion two years ago when Chris Thompson won the Olympic marathon trials in Kew Gardens.

Thommo probably realised he would not win Olympic medal in Japan. Making the top 10 would be a long shot – and he ultimately finished first Brit home in 39th. But, really, who cares?

What mattered is that he earned the right to stand on the same start line as Eliud Kipchoge at the greatest show on earth and is part of an exclusive club of super-athletes who go by the name of “Olympian”.