This is my official argument against the Olympic team that was chosen. Well, Gabby's inclusion. Yes, this is all
so two weeks ago. At first I was working on this post because I was really ranty and I knew if I didn't get it out, my frustration with this decision would be plaguing me for a long time because I'm irritable like that and doing this would give me some peace. I'd come to the place where I felt like I was probably not going to end up posting this because just writing it out was enough to get it out, but then in the last week or so there's been huge backlash against any disagreement with the team selection (at least in some regions of the gymternet), so now I'm doing this because I feel I need to give my stand. And so that's why I'm posting this two weeks post-decision.
And, to put forward the disclaimer once again, the title is vs.
Martha Karolyi because, while it is Gabby's inclusion that I disagree with, it is Martha's selection process that made the decision and that's where my blame lies.
So, this format of this is basically going to be responses to the arguments in favor of Gabby's inclusion, because most of these hold about as much water as a paper bag.
Come on, Gabby's an awesome gymnast!
Yeah, she is. So are the alternates who outperformed her.
And name me another team who wouldn't snap up the opportunity to have Maggie on their team, aside from China who could take her or leave her. Most teams would have the same response to the opportunity for Amelia or Brenna.
So let's not pretend Gabby's spot would have gone to a mediocre athlete and she was the only awesome one in contention for it.
We NEED her bars!!
The short answer to that: No.
The long answer: People really like to exaggerate the US weakness on bars. It's not up to par with their other events, but they keep pace with the majority of the world, and their consistency is good enough that they can outperform better teams who often have to absorb large errors (read: Russia). At the 2014 Worlds, the US had the highest bars total in the team final, and at the 2015 Worlds, the second-highest.
In 2012, Jordyn Wieber went up on bars in the team final, and Simone is easily better than Jordyn was. The back end of Laurie and Maddie is also at least as good as the back end of Kyla and Gabby was in 2012 (I'd be tempted to say- as a huge Kyla Ross fan- definitely better, but the domestic scoring was rather wacky, so we'll see how much that deflates). And yet no one was saying bars would be the undoing of the US in 2012.
But the Amanar has been devalued and the US has fewer Amanars this year, so they have to augment their bars lineup!
The biggest problem here is it's impossible to run a narrative of "the US are the runaway favorites for gold" alongside a "the bars lineup has to squeeze every possible tenth or else everything crumbles" argument. But aside from that, Mykayla would have addressed the whole weaker vault lineup issue. And bars would still have had a stronger lineup than 2012. Not to mention that the US has gotten stronger on beam and floor, too, especially on floor where they are untouchable if they hit.
Martha likes having built-in backup on the team, and if Mykayla was on the team, there would be a hole for backup on bars
So was Aly or McKayla the built-in bars backup in 2012?
Ultimately, no one on this team- and certainly no one outside of Simone- was necessary. Especially the fifth member, regardless of whether it was Gabby or Mykayla or anyone at Trials. The four-person core would have been favorites for gold on their own, no fifth member needed, so the fifth member was just frosting anyway. And Mykayla provides more both from a team total perspective and from an individual success perspective. Gabby's average score on bars in 2016 is .12 higher than Simone's 2016 bars average, and that's including Gabby's 15.65 at Classics. On the other hand, Mykayla's 2016 vault average is .36 higher than Laurie's, and 1)Laurie was overscored at Trials most everywhere and I'd say her vault was also comparatively high at Nationals and 2)Mykayla scored higher on vault at the 2014 Worlds than she did at home. Gabby also doesn't bring any potential for an individual medal that isn't provided just as well by another member on the team. She isn't guaranteed a bars final spot at all, and she would need a lot of help from other gymnasts making mistakes to be able to get a medal there. The only place where she could really get an individual medal is in the AA, and she's been outstripped in the AA at home. Aly and Laurie would both be at least as able to get an AA medal as Gabby. Mykayla, on the other hand, brings the potential for a second vault medal, which she would absolutely be realistically in the running for. Mykayla augments both the team total and the potential medal haul.
Her beam wasn't an important routine for her, so her falls weren't actually that important
One of the biggest arguments in favor of Gabby being on the team, even back at the beginning of the year when I was the only one saying "Hmm, I don't think she really fits this puzzle," was that she could be put up on any event at any time and be expected to put up a good score. Her falls proved she can't. They are also part of the overall progress of her getting worse this year.
She peaks late and will bring her best when she needs to. Remember 2012 and 2015!
Alright, first thing, she'll bring it "when she needs to?" Why exactly isn't the selection process "when she needs to?" To me, "she'll care if she gets a medal out of it" is about the the most unflattering argument you can use for an athlete. It rubbed me the wrong way when it was Aliya at the 2013 Worlds qualification, and I'll always have the same reaction to that argument.
Alright, on to the actual argument. The first major issue is that Gabby's performance this year is nowhere near her 2012 or 2015 performances. In 2012, Gabby was second at Nationals, and tied for first after the first day, and won Trials. So no, you can't use 2012 as a precedent for this year. In 2015, Gabby was definitely more middle-of-the-pack, but this year she's had exactly one beam routine without either a fall or a near-fall, which was absolutely not the case last year. She had more hit beam routines across fewer days of competition. Across Classics and both days of Nationals, there was also only one day where she was out of the top three AA. This year, she's very firmly out of the top three. She's also had issues with her bars this season, not so last year. Not only did Gabby not get in Olympic shape by Trials, she's gotten worse throughout the season. That doesn't fit an upward trajectory argument.
And beyond that, did she really improve all that much between Nationals and Worlds/Olympics in 2012 and 2015? As mentioned above, in 2012 Gabby already was competing at the very top of the pack at the end of the season. Her biggest issue at Trials was a stalled handstand on bars day one. Her 2012 Trials really were pretty much comparable to Laurie's this year. If Laurie were to have the caliber of performances in Rio Gabby did in London, would we be saying anything about her improving so much from Trials? And honestly, was her 2015 Nationals to Worlds improvement really that impressive? She got the AA silver, yes, but if Maggie had gone up on all four in qualifications- which I said last year, and I stand by now, I would have made the same decision Martha did if I were in her position with that team- Gabby likely wouldn't even have made the final, and would only have had fifth place in the bars finals to her name individually. Aside from her wonky night one floor, Gabby's scores were pretty similar at Nationals and at Worlds. She mostly capitalized on decisions that weren't right in hindsight and her teammate's errors. Ultimately, in neither the case of 2012 nor 2015 does the argument that she sees marked improvement internationally from the domestic season have much fact-based evidence to back it up.
Also, nobody else would have gotten anything like this kind of consideration. You know who else would likely really have used that extra month and shown improvement come the Olympics? Maggie. She had an injury that really cut her training time and was basically a competition behind everybody else. She made awesome progress by the time she competed. But for Maggie, not only did she not get the benefit of the doubt because she was behind everyone, but that kept her from getting even an alternate spot. Martha said she wasn't in the picture due to her injury and subsequent recovery, yet those very same reasons gave just as much reason to believe she would have improved during camp.
Nationals and Trials aren't really important to Martha in choosing the team
So what exactly is important to Martha in choosing the team? This Olympics, it looks like Martha made her decision based on 2015. You can't pull out the consistency argument for Gabby, because she didn't show consistency this year. Why didn't she take into account the performances close to the Olympics?
Carly fell twice at Trials in 2004! Brenna was messing up all of last year and got on the team! If you look at the whole picture and not just the most recent meets, Aly was messing up, but everyone had her on the team!
Carly: Was national co-AA champion. Was third AA at Trials even counting two falls. Had potential to be a contributor on all of the other events as well. Gabby was fourth AA at Nationals and seventh AA at Trials with her two falls. She has bars, and otherwise only has potential to outdo Laurie on vault, which Mykayla would have added much more to, and I've already gone into why bringing Mykayla makes more sense for the success of the team. Not to mention Carly also underperformed in the Olympic TF, so are you sure that's the parallel you want to draw?
Brenna: And look how well that turned out. I say this as one who was pulling for Brenna to make the team in May.
Aly: Here are the differences between Aly and Gabby-
1)Aly was one of the most reliable on beam in the country (even if she had errors and didn't get her full D score, she would hit her routine) and had the second-best floor, so she had key routines regardless of her inconsistencies elsewhere. Gabby only had bars, where there were plenty of gymnasts who had usable routines that could score reasonably close to Gabby's and had more to contribute elsewhere, and she was also easily outstripped there by Maddie and Ashton.
2)Aly has gotten better throughout the season, not worse.
No other gymnast would have gotten this response after one bad meet
Gabby didn't have one bad meet. She was lackluster in the entire domestic season. Yes, she was good at American Cup and Jesolo. Why is that more important than Nationals or Trials?
Aly and Mykayla won't score well internationally, and Martha definitely took that into account
Actually, there's not much evidence to support an argument that Aly and Mykayla's execution will be scored harsher than at home, it actually tends to be the opposite.
Aly did experience a notable score drop in Glasgow, but historically she actually scores better internationally, and there are a couple things that make last year's outcome a fluke. First, she happened to have one of her worst days of competition in the qualification round. Second, she got Wieber-ed on her connections on beam. And she's changed her composition this year to address the wonky connections deal, so drop the whole "Aly's beam connections!!! They will be the death of her again!!" deal.
Mykayla actually scored higher on vault in Nanning than she had in the domestic season. So there's that argument blown.
Yes, there are arguments in favor of Gabby's inclusion and legitimate reasons she's on the team. But that doesn't mean everyone has to think the selected team was the best option.
