Australia's Mollie O'Callaghan pipped by Dutch swimmer Marrit Steenbergen in women's 100m freestyle final
A silver and bronze medal on Friday night dropped Australia (five gold, two silver, six bronze) into second spot on the medal tally behind the US (five gold, 10 silver, five bronze).
Mollie O'Callaghan started as the hot favourite in the women's 100m freestyle final, but her late charge wasn't enough to beat Dutchwoman Marrit Steenbergen, who prevailed by 0.12 of a second.
It means O'Callaghan's bid to surpass Ian Thorpe's Australian record of 11 world championship gold medals will have to wait for another day.
'Look, I'm tired,' O'Callaghan said after the race.
'Like, I'm not gonna lie, last night was a big night. None of those girls did what I did last night.
'I'm happy to walk away with a medal.
'Honestly, I would always love to win. But honestly, to get on the podium after such a s***-show of a year, I'm pretty happy.
'It just shows the strength that I have and the block I can do in the future knowing that I've barely done any training for this.'
The only other medal for Australia on Friday night was a bronze to the men's 4x200m freestyle relay team of Flynn Southam, Charlie Hawke, Kai Taylor and Maximillian Giuliani.
The quartet entered their final as big underdogs, but they came within a whisker of nabbing silver.
Great Britain won gold in a time of 6:59.84, with China (7:00.91) just edging Australia (7:00.98).
While day six didn't result in a gold rush for Australia, things could be different on Saturday night.
McKeown is a two-time Olympic champion in both the 100m and 200m backstroke.
The 24-year-old won the 100m world championship backstroke final ahead of arch rival Regan Smith on Wednesday.
And McKeown will have the chance to add the 200m crown to her name on Saturday night when she goes up against the likes of Smith, Xuwei Peng, Anastasiya Shkurdai and Claire Curzan in the final.
McEvoy qualified fastest with a time of 21.30 seconds for the men's 50m freestyle final, and the Olympic champion is hoping to come up trumps on Saturday night.
'I can't complain, it's only 0.05 off what I did to win Paris,' McEvoy said of his Friday night semi-final swim.
'It's good, but the job's not done. I've got one more tomorrow.
'I need to let the finals atmosphere kind of lift me up a bit. Don't think about the end time. Don't go down that rabbit hole. Let the body speak for itself and see where I end up.'
Australians Alexandria Perkins and Lily Price both qualified for the women's 50m butterfly final, while Matt Temple qualified sixth fastest for the men's 100m butterfly final.
During the daytime heats on Saturday, Isaac Cooper will feature in the men's 50m backstroke, Meg Harris and Olivia Wunsch are in the women's 50m freestyle, while Sam Short will be hoping to overcome illness to compete in the men's 1500m freestyle.
O'Callaghan said tiredness from a busy schedule meant she wasn't at her best in Friday night's 100m freestyle final.
Thorpe is sure it's just a matter of time before the 21-year-old surpasses his record mark of 11 world championship gold medals - possibly even in Saturday night's 4x100m mixed freestyle relay final.
'I'm certain and I can't wait to see Mollie surpass that,' Thorpe told the Nine Network.
'What she has the opportunity to do is create her own legacy in swimming, which will continue to inspire people in future generations … leading into the Brisbane Olympics in 2032.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
From finals longshots to champions: Why Vixens' win was a triumph for Australian netball
'You'd be hard pressed to beat it,' McMahon said. Melbourne finished fourth on the ladder and were underdog finalists, but they pipped the red-hot favourites 59-58 in front of a boisterous and energetic crowd of 15,013. It was also the farewell moment for Vixens coach Simone McKinnis, who had already announced her resignation after 13 years at the helm. On Sunday morning at the spiritual home of netball in Melbourne, Royal Park, the Vixens, slightly bleary-eyed, happily signed autographs and posed for photos with their loyal fans. It was a far cry from earlier in the season, when their campaign was in peril with a 2-4 win-loss record. Vixens captain Kate Moloney knew the odds were stacked against them, but they never gave up. 'I got told there was a stat that it was a 14 per cent chance we could finish fourth at that stage after around six,' Moloney said on Sunday. 'Pretty incredible that we're able to get on a good run and got ourselves in the top four. And once you're there, anything's possible. 'The group just fought every week. We had challenges week in, week out, to make sure that we could get to this grand final. But I think it really match-hardened us.' The magnitude of what the Vixens achieved took a moment to dawn on McKinnis. 'I think maybe I was in a little bit of shock because you know it's there in the distance … and you know that that's what you're after, but you're never really thinking about it,' McKinnis said on Sunday. McMahon, who led the Vixens to the 2009 title, and now serves as netball's high-performance chief in Victoria, said: 'I'm just incredibly proud of this team and what they've been able to achieve this year. 'To have a start like we had, backs against the wall, and be able to fight our way out of that situation and find ourselves holding up the trophy at the end of the season is a great testament to their resilience and just their drive and passion.' The drama of the finals series and the sold-out grand final crowd was a landmark moment for a sport that was dogged by an ugly pay dispute in 2023, which was eventually resolved when a collective agreement was signed that included players sharing revenue with Netball Australia for the first time. Loading And only two months ago, Netball Australia announced it had entered a three-year broadcast deal with Whoopi Goldberg's All Women's Sports Network (AWSN) that will expose Australian netball to more than 65 countries. 'There's been a lot of work done behind the scenes over the last 18 months to two years,' Ellis said. 'I think a lot of the credit has to go to our CEO Stacey West, who came in at a particularly difficult moment for the sport, and she steadied the ship. 'We've got a great story to tell. The story that was told a couple of years ago ... probably wasn't great. That's not to say that everything's perfect [now, but] there is an awful lot of work going on behind the scenes. 'I keep saying to everyone 'let's not carried away, there's still plenty to do in the next 18 months to make sure that we put our game on the best footing possible for the next 10 years'. 'Certainly, it would be nice to ... look at last night and put the line in the sand, and say, 'right now, all eyes towards the future, we are telling a story of optimism and growth and excitement'.'
