Where do we stand? (Part II)

                                         Javelin thrower Neeraj Chopra, India's best bet for
                                        Tokyo Olympics. _Photo by G. Rajaraman.

Can Asian Games standards be compared to Olympics and World championships? The just-concluded games produced no world-leading result in athletics for the year. It did have an unofficial world best in an event that has just about started making its presence felt through the world, the mixed relay. Bahrain clocked 3:11.89 for the gold.

We love comparing efforts in Asian Games by saying “This would have fetched him gold or a medal at least in the last Olympics”. One example doing the rounds of an athletics timing in Asian Games being compared to an Olympic gold medal in Rio is Jinson Johnson’s effort of 3:44.72 for gold in the 1500m in Jakarta. It happens to be better than what American Matthew Centrowitz clocked (3:50.00) for the gold in the Rio Olympics. This has been highlighted in sections of the media to drive home the point that the Kerala man could be in contention for a medal in 2020, not in so many words, though.

The unpredictability of middle distance

He might well be, but not because his latest timing is better than the Rio gold medallist’s but because the middle distance events are always unpredictable, especially when the first 1000-plus metres happens to be slow in a 1500m or the first lap or 600m happens to be near jogging pace in an 800m. Centrowitz’s timing was the slowest for the 1500m gold in an Olympics since 1932.

Fermin Cacho clocked 3:40.12 to win the Olympic 1500m gold in Barcelona in 1992 in front of his home fans as he took off from 250 metres out to destroy the field that included the peerless Algerian Noureddine Morceli. It was the slowest Olympic final since 1956. The Spaniard could turn around six times to make sure that no one was close to him and still win comfortably. He would take the silver behind Morceli in the next edition in Atlanta where the great Morocccan, Hicham El Gurerouj took a tumble going into the final lap and never recovered. El Guerrouj was beaten by Kenyan Noah Ngeny in Sydney despite being the overwhelming favourite. The Moroccan would have the final word, though, in Athens, and he took the 5000m gold as well to go as icing on the cake that the 1500m gold was. El Guerrouj still holds the world record in the 1500m at 3:26.00, timed in Rome on 14 July, 1998.

Centrowitz had the credentials in 2016 when he took the start in the 1500m final, but he was not the favourite. He was a former World championship silver and bronze medallist and a fourth-place finisher in the London Olympics in 2012.

When you compare a winning time with one clocked a few years back in an Olympics or World championships to suggest that your athlete has reached the standard that can win global medal you also have to see how many others had clocked the same (Rio gold medal) time the same season. More than 1000 athletes did in 2016! And that included Johnson also at 3:44.9 (hand-timing) and Centrowitz with 3:34.09 at 21st place. Johnson qualified only for the 800m with a stunning 1:45.98 in Bengaluru but could not go beyond the opening round in Rio, clocking 1:47.27.

Johnson realistic

Sensibly, Johnson has explained to the media on his return from Jakarta that middle distance races in championships invariably produce timings that need not match season bests and forecasts since the athletes are running for medals and tactics would determine the pace.

The semifinals in Rio were much faster, the second ‘fastest loser’ to go through to the final clocking 3:40.20. Johnson knows it and has acknowledged it.

Johnson was surprisingly beaten by team-mate Manjit Singh in the 800m in Jakarta and looked determined to compensate for the disappointment of ending with the silver. Manjit clocked a PB 1:46.65 for his first international title. That happened to be the first Asian Games gold in 800m since Charles Borromeo won in New Delhi in 1982. Manjit's success after 36 years and that of Arpinder in triple jump after 42 years only go to show how much Indian athletics had stagnated through decades.

There has been much praise for Russia-born US coach Galina Bukharina who has been credited with six medals, the women’s 4x400 gold and the silver in men and women’s 400m, men’s and mixed 4x400 relay and the men’s 400m hurdles (Ayyasamy Dharun in national record of 48.96s).

But why is it that not many are talking about the others, mostly Indian coaches, who helped Johnson, Manjit, Tejinder Pal Singh Toor (shot put) and Swapna Barman (heptathlon) win gold medals and three others (sprinter Dutee Chand, steeplechaser Sudha Singh and long jumper Neena Pinto) take silver? Even triple jumper Arpinder Singh, who took a surprise gold against higher-ranked Chinese, was under Indian coach S. S. Pannu when he registered his personal best and national record of 17.17m in Lucknow in 2014.

The women’s 4x400 team of Priyanka Panwar, Tintu Luka, Mandeep Kaur and M. R. Poovamma had clocked a Games record 3:28.68 in winning the gold in the last edition in Incheon. That team was trained by Indian coaches. It did not have a training base abroad. That record still stands despite the excellent effort of the team moulded by Ms. Bukahrina. Hima Das, Poovamma, Saritaben Gayakwad and V. K. Vismaya clocked 3:28.72 to beat the challenge of Bahrain which was without its second best runner, Kemi Adekoya, due to an injury. Adekoya, just to recall, had clocked a Games record 54.48s in defending her 400m hurdles title. She had won the 400m also last time.

Was it the strategy?

Hima Das (PB 50.79) leading off against Bahrain’s third best runner Aminat Jamal (PB 53.02) has been hailed as a master-stroke by Ms. Bukharina. In the event, Das ran 52.1 and Jamal 53.7. Bahrain slipped further behind when the reserve runner Essa Iman Isa Jassim, coming in for Adekoya, put in a lap of 54.0 as against Poovamma’s 52.0. The gap had widened beyond repair for Bahrain by the end of the second leg. The sprint double winner, Edidiong Odiong ran spiritedly though she is not a regular one-lap runner. Her 52.96 against Sarita Gayakwad’s 52.29 allowed India with a comfortable lead by the time V. K. Vismaya took over on the anchor. The result was a foregone conclusion, a victory for India in 3:28.72 as against Bahrain’s 3:30.61.

But how much did debutant Vismaya clock?. She was unruffled and held onto the lead against the top Asian, the 2017 World Championships silver medallist in the 400m, and No. 2 in the world this season, Salwa Eid Naser. The Kerala girl timed 52.23s against the Nigeria-born Bahrain runner’s 49.93s, a gap of 2.30s. Obviously, Naser did not exert herself looking at the hopelessness of the task though she has a PB of 49.08 against Vismaya’s 53.30. Let’s not get confused with the suggestion that Vismaya ‘beat’ Naser or about the 'brilliant strategy' of Ms. Bukharina in putting an injured Hima Das on leg one and Vismaya on anchor having paid rich rewards. Any combination would have sufficed against a team that had a runner who could clock only a 54.0 relay split despite a running start.

Once the AFI decided to drop the ‘non-campers’ from the 4x400m relay team, the path was cleared for the inclusion of Vismaya and Jisna Mathew both of whom had failed to progress to the final of the Inter-State meet in Guwahati, the final selection trials. It needed a time trial in Jakarta to decide the fourth place and there Vismaya (52.47) prevailed over Jisna Mathew (52.80). Soniya Baishya (53.43) and Vijayakumaru (53.90) followed.

Why was Sarita Gayakwad considered as a certainty and kept away from the time trials along with Poovamma?

The medal-winning athletes and their coaches, without exception, deserve attention and accolades, cash awards and promotions. But let us not go overboard in presuming that we have reached world standards. Let us not start penning improbable stories like we did before the Rio Olympics about the relay teams. Let us wait and see how much our athletes can improve in the next two years, with the exception of Neeraj Chopra that is, to determine where we stand vis a vis Tokyo Olympics. Chopra is already among the world’s best with his latest performance. He has to achieve consistency in the big meets among the top throwers, especially the 90-metre-plus Germans who look formidable.

The AFI needs to be complimented for the rich haul of medals in Jakarta. It has obviously planned meticulously and brought off the desired results with the aid of the coaches, Indian and foreign. Not all athletes might have justified their inclusion and eyebrows would be raised over the performance of some of them at home and in the Games. The training stints abroad, at considerable expense to the exchequer, were not totally productive. We will leave the debate for another day!

-(Concluded)

(Updated 6 Sept 2018)

Where do we stand? (Part I)

Jinson Johnson on way to 1500m gold in Asian Games_Photo by G. Rajaraman.

The best-ever medal haul by India in an Asian Games has understandably sent the country into jubilation mode. Tweeple have run out of superlatives in describing Indian success. Internet sites have kept track of every medal that the country earned through the fortnight, discussed medal chances on a daily basis and analyzed India’s long-term priorities and goals.

Not unexpectedly, there is discussion in the media and on the internet and forums about India’s chances at the Tokyo Olympics two years from now in the backdrop of this “outstanding” success.

“It gives us an idea about where we stand,” said Somdevdev Varman on television as the tennis star, a double gold medallist in the 2010 Games, and a former Davis Cupper, discussed the peformances with Olympian hockey player Viren Rasquinha about what lay ahead.

So, where do we stand?

With a bunch of teenagers ready to storm the world scene, especially in shooting_notwithstanding the disappointment for 16-year-old pistol shooter Manu Bhaker in these Games_with a javelin thrower (Neeraj Chopra) already in the 88-metre bracket, and with a World junior champion in the women’s 400m (Hima Das) breaking barriers as though nothing was beyond her, not to speak of the established stars, the picture looks rosy.

Yet, it would be logical to tread cautiously as the authorities assess India’s chances. It is easy to raise expectations and then lament once reality strikes you at the Olympics. It is encouraging, however, to note that all the authorities, barring perhaps a few federations have worked determinedly in this exercise of pushing forward for Olympic success during the past couple of years to achieve the primary target in the Asian Games, that of winning the country’s best-ever medal collection.

Can this success convert itself into Olympic medals? It may, it may not. So many factors go into the winning of an Olympic medal.

Static slot in medals table

India has not improved its position (8th) in the medals tally from the last time in Incheon. The medals have increased, gold from 11 to 15 and silver from 10 to 24. The total of 69 medals bettered the 65 won by India in 2010. The highest gold collection of 15 in the inaugural games in 1951 at home was also equalled.

India earned its record medals from 18 of the 36 sports it had entered. The other 18 included a 49-member squad in canoeing and kayaking that drew blank.

It may be pointed out that 1951 had only 11 nations including the host competing and this cannot be compared to today’s Asian Games of 46 OCA members and “African imports” in countries like Bahrain and Qatar or the presence of Central Asian Republics like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. While this is true, it is also pertinent to observe that the inaugural games had just six sports discipline compared to 40 in the present edition and only 169 medals were given away compared to 1552 in Jakarta and Palembang.

It is   disturbing to view India’s unchanged position in the medals table amidst the euphoria created by the unprecedented medal haul. India was 11th in Beijing 1990 with just one gold, eighth in Hiroshima 1994, ninth in Bangkok 1998, eighth in Busan 2002, eighth in Doha 2006, sixth in Guangzhou 2010 and eighth in Incheon 2014.

The top three having been China, Japan and South Korea (not necessarily in that order for second and third), since 1978 (China entered the fray in 1974 in Teheran and was third then behind Japan and Iran), India has languished behind countries like Iran, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and North Korea in various editions. Kazakhstan fared poorly in boxing this time. The sport having given that country six gold last time, could not manage to provide even one gold on this occasion.

A host country having an advantage is understandable. Like Iran in 1974, Thailand in 1978 and 1998 or Indonesia now (14 of its 31 gold medals came from the popular local martial arts sport, pencak silat, and a few others from other new additions to the programme). But it is time India firmly established itself as the No. 4.

Interestingly, if one takes only Olympic sport for the 2020 Games, India comes No. 4 with 14 gold and 21 silver in this edition of the Games compared to 14 gold and 15 silver for Iran and 14 gold and 20 silver for Uzbekistan. Chinese Taipei, now seventh with 17 gold will only have 11 gold.

It is pertinent to note here that Uzbekistan claimed four gold medals in the Rio Olympics, three in boxing and one in weightlifting after having won no gold in these two disciplines in the 2014 Asian Games! A history of a strong background in a sport helps but Asian Games success need not necessarily convert into Olympic medals nor can reversals in Asiad be considered as definite precursors for Olympic failures.

In assessing any team in relation to its Olympic prospects based on what was achieved in the Asian Games, it is also necessary to understand the strengths of a team. Iran won its Rio Olympic gold in weightlifting (2) and wrestling (1), sports in which it has been traditionally strong at the Asian and global levels.

In this context, it is important to analyze India’s medals in Jakarta towards Olympic success. And the top-most medal-earner happens to be athletics, 19 medals in all. Can Indian athletes bag medals in the Tokyo Olympics in 2020? Say three to four medals?

Yes, it is possible says Arpinder Singh, the gold medal winner in triple jump, the country’s first gold in the event since Mohinder Singh Gill, now based in the US, took it in 1970.

Such optimism coming from a leading athlete in the country should be encouraging as administrators draw up plans towards ‘Target Tokyo’ and the Government prepares to chart the course for Olympic medals two years from now.

But, we have to be realistic, too, in assessing our strengths in athletics. At this point, only javelin thrower Neeraj Chopra, who threw to a national record of 88.06m that placed him at sixth in the world lists for the season, looks to be true world-class and a medal contender in 2020.

Contrary to what is being constantly projected, it is not necessary for Chopra to enter the 90-metre club that the Germans dominate at this stage, for him to be in contention for a medal in Tokyo. Personal bests need not always be matched in big championships. It would be beneficial to get into the 90-metre bracket for the confidence it can generate in the young superstar before Tokyo but he can still be a contender if is consistent in the range of 87-88m.

Who else apart from Chopra?

Apart from Chopra, not many appear to be in contention at this point when it comes to Tokyo calculations. Things can change of course. As Arpinder has pointed out, Hima Das (400m), Dutee Chand (short sprints) and Jinson Johnson (middle distance) could also be among the contenders. He does not rule himself out. It must be mentioned sprint medals are invariably beyond the reach of Indians. 

Now that the IAAF has drawn up a new qualification system, based on world rankings in the main, qualification itself would be tough, especially in the sprints. Rankings will take into consideration the quality of the meet and it will no longer be dependent on some meet in some location in the world where a few countries get together and "achieve" qualification marks in many events. The IAAF is yet to announce the detailed qualification system with qualifying marks but has stated that such marks would be utilised only in "exceptional" cases and the broad selection would be based on world rankings to be re-introduced from next year. The upper limits in each event have already been determined, for example 56 each in sprints in either section, 40 each in both hurdles in each section, 45 each in steeplechase and so on.

Though Tokyo is still far away, it is a good time to look at where our athletes stand, as Somdevdev Varman opined in that TV discussion.

The chart below should provide a fair assessment about India’s current strengths and where our athletes are placed in relation to world’s leading performers:

SB: Season Best, PB: Personal Best; NR: National record; DQ: Disqualified. Lists up to Sept 2, 2018;
Rio '16-6th pl: 2016 Olympics-6th place                                                                                                 

 It is all well to target medals, but it is essential to look around to see what the prospects are, even at this early stage, so that preparations can be aimed towards bridging that gap.

If nine of the events in Jakarta had seen no ‘African imports’ (mainly from Nigeria, Kenya and Morocco) representing Qatar or Bahrain, India would have converted its silver (and one bronze) into gold, thereby enlarging its gold collection in athletics to 16. But then, transfer of allegiance is all too common nowadays and Asia will have to accept it.  If nothing else, these African athletes, good in a variety of track events, do help improve Asian standards.

Most of us remember Saif Saeed Shaheen (formerly Stephen Cherono) who shifted his loyalty from Kenya to Qatar in 2003. He still holds the world record in the 3000m steeplechase, at 7:53.63, set in Brussels on September 3, 2004.

Athletes seek transfer from other countries and regions, too, from Ethiopia, Kenya, Cuba and Mexico to the US, from Nigeria, Mozambique, Tunisia and Morocco to Italy, from Ghana and Ethiopia to the Netherlands and so on. Such transfers take place in other sports also though much lesser in numbers.

 (Contd in Part II)