THE five athletics victories which Scotland achieved in the Sainsbury's International at the Emirates at the weekend add up to the greatest performance the country has ever enjoyed against International Association of Athletics Federation opposition, surpassing even the four wins of the 1970 Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh, perceived as the golden age of the sport.
Opposition from the US (even if it was not all out of the top drawer) and many leading Commonwealth nations, plus some of the best England has, make these successes far more significant than wins against non-IAAF nations in minor matches over recent years.
True, it was not a full programme, and had it been so, Scotland would have finished even further in arrears. Yet it was resoundingly heart-warming and encouraging. Laura Muir, Chris O'Hare, Guy Learmonth, Libby Clegg and Stef Reid will rightly go forward with increased belief in what is possible. And many of their colleagues will be inspired, having had horizons lifted by a glimpse of the possible.
It was timely evidence, as if it were needed, of the so-called "home effect" which we will enjoy at Hampden come the summer and Scotland's governing body is commended for brokering it.
Clegg and Reid might well have been considered potential gold medallists by rivals before last weekend. The other three would not. They have now advertised their capability dramatically, just as Tom McKean did over 800m the year prior to the 1986 Games in Edinburgh, in beating Steve Cram on his home track at Gateshead. "We showed our hand too soon," as coach Tom Boyle said after Cram defused McKean at the Games. But so be it.
Those considering the impact of independence might care to note that if the Scots had been part of a GB team on Saturday, Britain would have won convincingly, not the Commonwealth Select. The actual outcome was 1, Commonwealth 62; 2, GB 59; 3, USA 53; 4, Scotland 40. Yet if the best Scots had been in a GB vest, Britain would have finished with 72 points.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article