2012 Olympics: Swimming

Phelps as anchor? Going into the relay, all you knew is that he died in the 400 IM and swam slower than he did at Trials, and you're going to have him anchor? I'm glad Phelps split well, but that's pure hindsight. Don't sell Agnel's split too short, a 46.7 in jammers isn't all that much slower than Lezak's split in a full-body cheating suit. It was a risky move that backfired, complicated by the fact that Troy is the head US coach. Hindsight is wonderful, but everyone here acting like they know so much more than some of the best coaches in the world is just plain ridiculous, and a little sad. All we need is some belching and beer to complete the picture. Having Grevers on the relay would almost certainly not made any difference. On paper the Australians should have crushed everybody, but relays have their own magic. Sheesh, the French swam a great relay -- and so did the US by the way -- time to give them credit rather than just bash a coaching decision. The French swam great, and Lochte did his very best, and everyone should respect him for that. But Lochte should never have been put in that position. He was the slowest person on that relay, once you back out the start, which tells you all you need to know about the coach's decision, given he was in the anchor position. Lochte is a brilliant swimmer and has earned every bit of success he has, but he rarely swims the 100 and did not know how to pace it. His coach should have known that, recognizing Lochte's fantastic 400 IM did not mean he was ready to swim a fast 100. Phelps's slow 400 IM merely proved he is not prepared to swim 400s; it did not prove he is generally unfit. A conversation with Bob Bowman could have confirmed this. Phelps should have been in the anchor position.

Phelps as anchor? Going into the relay, all you knew is that he died in the 400 IM and swam slower than he did at Trials, and you're going to have him anchor? I'm glad Phelps split well, but that's pure hindsight. Don't sell Agnel's split too short, a 46.7 in jammers isn't all that much slower than Lezak's split in a full-body cheating suit. It was a risky move that backfired, complicated by the fact that Troy is the head US coach. Hindsight is wonderful, but everyone here acting like they know so much more than some of the best coaches in the world is just plain ridiculous, and a little sad. All we need is some belching and beer to complete the picture. Having Grevers on the relay would almost certainly not made any difference. On paper the Australians should have crushed everybody, but relays have their own magic. Sheesh, the French swam a great relay -- and so did the US by the way -- time to give them credit rather than just bash a coaching decision. The French swam great, and Lochte did his very best, and everyone should respect him for that. But Lochte should never have been put in that position. He was the slowest person on that relay, once you back out the start, which tells you all you need to know about the coach's decision, given he was in the anchor position. Lochte is a brilliant swimmer and has earned every bit of success he has, but he rarely swims the 100 and did not know how to pace it. His coach should have known that, recognizing Lochte's fantastic 400 IM did not mean he was ready to swim a fast 100. Phelps's slow 400 IM merely proved he is not prepared to swim 400s; it did not prove he is generally unfit. A conversation with Bob Bowman could have confirmed this. Phelps should have been in the anchor position.