You are reading a single comment by @ewanmac and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
why didn't the fastest runner in the field go hard right from the gun?
Because it's hard work!
It may pay off, but often only if the bunch underestimate the TT'er as per:
-
I don't get it either. Nor do I get why they seem to be so gormless tactically. This is my understanding of elite distance running:
- Mo Farah has the fastest last few laps in the world
- Mo Farah does not have the fastest PB in the world
- taking it out slow is a bad idea if you want to beat Mo Farah
- in almost every big race in the last 5 years, Mo Farah's opponents have taken it out slow
- Mo Farah has much golden roundels
- Mo Farah has the fastest last few laps in the world
rhb
kl
@ewanmac
I've been meaning to ask, why is elite track running so tactical?
I mean I know each athlete will have different strengths and weaknesses for example Mo and Centrowitz are both considered to have a fast finish so a slow easy race with a sprint finish would suit them. But i expect neither of them would have won a time-trial type event, so why didn't the fastest runner in the field go hard right from the gun? In an Olympic final surely there must be 4 or 5 runners all with a realistic hope of winning on a good day so why don't they go hard from the gun? In the 5k the Ethiopians looked like they might push the race from the start but it was pretty half hearted.
In cycling the answer is the huge impact of aerodynamics and the benefits of drafting... At the speeds the elites run (~23km/h for Mo) there could be some aero benefit to sitting in the group but if it was seriously important they'd all be wearing skinsuits.
Is it all just psychological? Is it misplaced confidence in their own sprinting prowess? Have they already mentally abandoned hope for gold and are conserving every for the minor placings? In the absence of aero benefit surly the runner with the fastest 5kTT should be the victor, but they rarely appear to race like that.