Capt. Phillips was paid $250K per year for his efforts.
Was he worth it? What’s his legacy, after 20 years as chef d’equipe? Is there a strong program in place, with a good infrastructure for developing international-caliber riders and horses?
[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;6468174]
I think the US selectors need a drink (with cyanide in it)[/QUOTE]
How are you so sure anyone else would have done a better job? Unless you own a crystal ball, it’s all speculation. We have 5 rider who crossed through the finish line on 5 sound horses. Team Canada, who had such an outstanding WEG, had an unfortunate day. Eventing is full of highs and lows, it’s the nature of the sport. Some of the best in the world didn’t make it around today. It isn’t fair to discredit our riders, some of whom are kicking themselves enough without us having to do it for them.
[QUOTE=FitToBeTied;6467582]
It shouldn’t be surprising. If you look at the dressage results at Barbury Castle they look a lot like the Olympic games. I think one issue we have is that scoring in events back home tends to be soft. The dressage scores for events back home tend to 5-7 points better than on the international scene.[/QUOTE]
BINGO! This is what happens when you measure your worth internally instead of externally.
I laugh at all the comments from those who are surprised and horrified that riders they have never heard of have better performances than the “stars” of the american eventing scene.
Continue to play in your own sandbox and the world will pass you by.
[QUOTE=Divine Comedy;6467965]
I truly believe that we lost it on day one. I don’t believe the selection process itself contributed to average dressage scores. I don’t believe the horses or riders were burned out, or over-competed this season. I think the US is simply not good enough on the flat. The riders and horses are talented enough to be on the top, but the education in the US is lacking.
I do feel that this fact has been evident for a number of years, and CMP hasn’t really done much to improve it. Having attended his training sessions as an auditor, the man truly is phenomenal at teaching on the flat. It’s remarkable what he can see before the rider even feels. One or two sessions of auditing flipped a switch for me and helped me turn a big corner with dressage.
However, the US riders really need to be in a program for their flatwork. One or two lessons every winter for a couple of months does not create as much improvement as we need. If you ask me, we need to hire a dressage trainer (preferably a German!) who just flies around and gives our team prospects lessons, preferably every two weeks. Two days in PA/MD, two days in VA, one day in NC. The next week, three days in FL, two in CA. Lather, rinse, repeat. Schedule can be adjusted depending on time of year and concentration of riders.
Obviously, this isn’t necessarily feasible. But my opinion is that these flat riders need to be in a program with consistent instruction in order to catch up with the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]
:yes:
[QUOTE=snoopy;6467081]
I have some serious issue with the idea of a high risk/high return combination at a championships. You did not see the British take this approach. The obvious down side to this gamble is that ANYTHING can happen out there. The vet inspection on the third day could very easily change the leader board…drastically. A drop score after XC could easily be needed if one of the higher scoring horses is not fit for SJ. Why not have a drop score that is still competitive??? Why take that gamble, especially at a championships. In this sport, you really have no idea what is going to happen so you might as well have the best you can field for all 5 places.[/QUOTE]
Otis has been pulled from the team this morning so, you can see, we need to have all five at Olympic standard so the drop score can be competitive. We now need in include either Will or Tiana as a team score.
[QUOTE=snoopy;6468239]
Otis has been pulled from the team this morning so, you can see, we need to have all five at Olympic standard so the drop score can be competitive. We now need in include either Will or Tiana as a team score.[/QUOTE]
Anyone know what is wrong? What lousy luck for Boyd, Otis and his owners.
Anyone else, pulled?
Where’s jog info?
[QUOTE=retreadeventer;6468249]
Where’s jog info?[/QUOTE]
EN is covering but there was no more news two minutes ago.
more info here-
https://www.chronofhorse.com/article/martin-withdraws-final-olympic-eventing-inspection
America finishes in 7th and 74.9 points from the Germans. That is a big difference.
Sinead would have done just as well as the others in D, maybe a bit better. Arthur could have lost it or been amazing - but given his recent success, I’d much rather have taken a chance on him than Tiana’s mount. I will say, Tiana put in a gutsy XC ride when I really thought it was going to fall apart.
I’m a bit surprised that our rider’s don’t have a dressage-specific coach. I mean, even my lowly smurf-self makes it a point to ride with a true Dressage person (perhaps I’m lucky, but, FEI dressage trainers/riders are not too hard to come by in my area).
But…
The Olympics aren’t the end-all of eventing (easy for me to say)…it was a small, short course. Heard someone mention it was like an outdoor ‘derby,’ which I tend to agree. Maybe I’m the only one, but, I think we would have had better success at the 4* level - and perhaps less questioning as to who & which horse should have been on the team. Mr. M & KOC are a great pair, but, they’d probably have a better finish in a true 4*. Ringwood Magister looked like he wasn’t quite ready - Arthur is a 4* horse without question, just a bit of a ? if he will show up. Etc.
The picture of Boyd walking Otis back to the barn during inspection is so sad.
[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;6468174]
I think the US selectors need a drink (with cyanide in it)[/QUOTE]
I find this SERIOUSLY offensive. These selectors are doing the best they can to wield the team that they feel has the best chance of medaling. I know for a fact (first hand) that they agonize over their decisions. It’s a tough job, and completely thankless. If the riders perform, the team gets all the glory and the selectors get none. If the team goes badly, the selectors get roasted. It’s all right to disagree with their (very knowledgeable) opinions, but it is NOT okay to wish for them to die.
Have some class.
We do not have the horsepower of the winning teams, IMHO. Many of the horses at the top were carefully bred and produced to perfection for eventing. Our model of producing and developing event horses has to shift, change,or be invented. We have great riders and we have good horses. We need great horses to compete at this level.
I think the US has some great horses…it is what is done with them that is the issue.
[QUOTE=voltaire51147;6468730]
The picture of Boyd walking Otis back to the barn during inspection is so sad.[/QUOTE]
It IS sad. I think Boyd has been a terrific good sport, taking on an important and somewhat thankless role as the trail blazer, given that we got the unfortunate first spot in the draw. And I positively hate that this happened to his lovely horse. I do hope it’s nothing serious.
But that’s eventing.
Snoopy–yes we have some. We need more. More importantly, we need to produce them. We have the riders.
Nancy
[QUOTE=NMK;6468848]
Snoopy–yes we have some. We need more. More importantly, we need to produce them. We have the riders.
Nancy[/QUOTE]
:yes:
[QUOTE=snoopy;6467081]
I have some serious issue with the idea of a high risk/high return combination at a championships. You did not see the British take this approach. The obvious down side to this gamble is that ANYTHING can happen out there. The vet inspection on the third day could very easily change the leader board…drastically. A drop score after XC could easily be needed if one of the higher scoring horses is not fit for SJ. Why not have a drop score that is still competitive??? Why take that gamble, especially at a championships. In this sport, you really have no idea what is going to happen so you might as well have the best you can field for all 5 places.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think anyone is wild about naming a high risk/high reward combination, but the US doesn’t have the depth of other countries. Great Britain, the Germans, the Kiwis and the Australians all have multiple horses that can FINISH on a low 40s score. The US doesn’t have many horses that can START there. Mid-40s is about the best most of those horses/riders can manage.
This is where the math gets important. Let’s take a look at today’s scores.
In order to medal, the US would have had to beat NZ with at least a 144.3. If we swap out Tiana for Sinead, and assume a fairly best case scenario of 50.
53.80 (KOC) + 70.10 (PD) + 50 (Sinead) = 173.90 - Still no medal.
Let’s pretend Phillip had a better day or Boyd trotted up and jumped clear. We’ll take Boyd’s end of XC score of 54.30.
53.80 (KOC) + 54.30 (Boyd) + 50 (Sinead) = 158.1 - Still no medal.
Let’s pretend PD had a perfect show jump round:
53.80 (KOC) + 47.10 (PD) + 50 (Sinead) = 150.9 - Still no medal.
Doesn’t the decision to take a chance on a horse that could have finished in the low 40s make some sense? Obviously and indisputably not ideal, but not without logic.
And I say this even though I would have likely put Sinead on the team, as it didn’t appear that Ringwood Magister was on his best form in the dressage ring. That said, I obviously didn’t have the benefit of seeing him go in person.
We may have the horses, we may have the riders, the selection committee does the best they can yet the US is consistently mediocre. It’s just utterly amazing to me that a coach,yes, CMP, could hang onto his job with such a flat performance. No bonus for him? How about a no bonus and you’re fired! Too late for that now, I know, but how in the world do let a situation like that continue? Is there no accountability anywhere? I sometimes think that CMP’s British accent, connection’s to royalty and his glad handing style allowed him to get away with whatever he wanted. Having his mistress be SJ coach being just the latest example. I can only hope that DOC has some kind of strategerie, some kind of plan to move forward, other than just this sort of bouncing from crisis to crisis, completely rudderless.
