Australia Attempting to Rebound from Olympic Disappointment

emily-seebohm, morning-splash, australian-dolphins-swim-team

Photo Courtesy: Rob Schumacher-USA TODAY Sports

Morning Splash by David Rieder.

After the seven-day meltdown in London, Rio was meant to be the rebound, the long-awaited opportunity for the Australian Dolphins swim team to flex its muscle as a world swimming powerhouse.

On day one, that’s exactly what happened. Mack Horton held off Chinese rival Sun Yang to win gold in the men’s 400 free, and then sisters Bronte and Cate Campbell propelled the Australians to an expected win in the women’s 400 free relay.

Of course, four years earlier in London, day one had been similarly golden, featuring a stunning upset when Melanie Schlanger held off Ranomi Kromowidjojo of the favored Dutch squad to win 400 free relay gold.

But from there, nothing went right for the Aussies. Emily Seebohm posted the fastest time of the meet in the women’s 100 back—in prelims. One day later, she could not hold off Missy Franklin for gold. Heavily favored and always-brash James Magnussen lost a heartbreaker in the men’s 100 free, losing to Nathan Adrian by one hundredth.

Most disastrous of all, the men’s 400 free relay team that arrived in London as heavy favorites ended up finishing fourth.

Australia managed just 10 medals in the pool London, and only one of those—the women’s relay on day one—was of the golden variety. Five countries won more, and the United States ended up winning 16, half of the 32 awarded.

Embarrassed in 2012, there was plenty of reason for 2016 to be different. Australia had won seven gold medals at the 2015 World Championships, all of them in Olympic events. In the lead-up to the meet, Swimming World picked Australia to win 19 medals, eight of them gold.

Seebohm and Mitch Larkin in the backstrokes, the Campbell sisters in the women’s sprint freestyle events and Cameron McEvoy in the men’s 100 free all arrived in Rio as popular gold medal picks in individual events.

But in the end, those five accounted for just one individual medal—Larkin’s silver in the men’s 200 back.

Photo Courtesy: Jack Gruber-USA TODAY Sports

The Olympics unraveled from day two through day eight. Seebohm finished seventh in the 100 back and did not final in the 200 back. Cate Campbell went out under world record-pace in the women’s 100 free final before she stunningly fell to sixth in the final strokes. Bronte ended up fourth in that race, five one-hundredths outside the medal picture.

In the men’s 100 free, McEvoy could not come close to his form from earlier that year. In qualifying for the Games, McEvo he swam the second-fastest time ever, but in the Olympic final, he ended up seventh.

Of course, that same race provided the swim that would be named Swimming Australia’s “Golden Moment of the Year:” 19-year-old Kyle Chalmers storming back to win gold in World Junior Record-time.

There were other memorable moments for Aussie fans, like Emma McKeon’s surprising bronze in the women’s 200 free and Madeline Groves’ gutsy silver medal-winning effort in the women’s 200 fly, but the final medal tally was again a lackluster 10.

Swimming Australia, certainly, was none too pleased. In February, less than six months after the Olympics, the organization announced key changes to its elite-level structures, including shifting the organization’s selection meets much closer to major championships, following the model used by USA Swimming, beginning in 2018.

“Our rationale behind the Trials shift is to create ‘more and significant competition’ leading into our Benchmark Events,” Australian head coach Jacco Verhaeren said in that press release.

Alright, so what does “more and significant competition” mean, and why does Verhaeren want it? The implication is that members of past Olympic teams have become a bit complacent after making the team while swimmers who breakthrough over the following few months have no opportunity to see their success rewarded.

If that analysis is correct, Verhaeren’s reasoning is sound. It’s a system that has worked marvelously for the U.S.—a country which again swept half the gold medals awarded in the pool in Rio and ended up with 33 total medals.

But remember, many believed Australia had enough talent to challenge the Americans for global supremacy at the Olympics. Clearly, that did not happen, but just because the talent underperformed doesn’t mean it was not there to begin with.

Simply put, Seebohm, the Campbells and McEvoy—and to an extent, Larkin—did not swim up to expectations and up to their capabilities. Australia’s Olympic team was much better than a 10-medal squad. The swimmers just didn’t prove it.

Perhaps the Aussies will put up a respectable showing at this week’s National Championships in Brisbane or at the World Championships this summer in Budapest, even as Groves, Magnussen, Cate Campbell and others all sit out the meet. It would certainly be a step towards reviving the legacy of Australian dominance in the pool.

But in swimming, success will always be judged, first and foremost, by the Olympics. And after two consecutive disappointing trips to the Games, true redemption cannot come until Tokyo.

All commentaries are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Swimming World Magazine nor its staff.

Name*

Email*

Welcome to our community. We invite you to join our discussion. Our community guidelines are simple: be respectful and constructive, keep on topic, and support your fellow commenters. Commenting signifies that you agree to our Terms of Use