I can speak about the training phylosophy of Geoffrey because I know what he does in training. Don't forget last year he and Wilson Kiprop were together in training fro 10000m before African Championships, and this means that everybody well knows the training phylosophy of the other. Training phylosophy doesn't mean the particulars of training, but the basic idea of it. Under this point of view, Geoffrey uses the same methodology of Moses Mosop and Wilson Kiprop : high intensity during the extensive workouts, having a continuous eye for maintaining a high level of speed.
What changed in Geoffrey compared with last year is the mind. Now he is very much more confident in himself, and can try some solution last year not possible. He's approaching his best after the marathon run till now (Boston was his 8th marathon), unlike the most part of other Kenyans, running their best inside their first 3 marathon. This means that Geoffrey is able to maintain, and to enhance, his qualities AFTER every marathon, and this is the same phylosophy we used with the great Italian marathoners.
And, please, don't continue to compare the wind of 2011 with the wind of 1994. This is an historical inaccuracy. Of sure, nobody among the runners of 1994 could say "we didn't feel the tailwind", like the most part of athletes said this year. I remember a picture of Uta Pippig with her hair pushed by the wind in front of her face, IN THE SAME DIRECTION OF THE RACE.
However, it's true that the same wind, if against, can give a disadvantage very consistant, braking the speed (expecially uphill) but, above all, making difficult to breath, reducing the ability in taking off Oxygen from the air.
If Geoffrey was a 2:04:55 runner last year, with clear lack of personality (and this year he filled the gap), why cant we suppose he can be now an athlete for WR ? And, when we speak about Berlin 2010, don't forget we know he had some injury before the race affecting his preparation.
Same thing about Moses Mosop. Many people speak without knowing the particulars of their training. For example, last year, before WHMCh, he had one month of personal problems, and never went in training with Wilson Kiprop (this was the plan), so his shape was no better than 70%.
This year, when we went to Paris HM, I didn't change any plan during last week, because I needed a test in HM under training, in order to plan the following period.
Different wasthe situation before his HM in Milano in March 2010. Moses never ran any HM before (like in Boston about marathon). The organiser wanted somebody able to run under 1 hour, and I planned two months before to use Stramilano as debut. In the race I put also two athletes for pacing, and the second of them had to finish (Silas Kipruto, that at the end was excellent finishing in 59:39). The last 3k of Moses were 8:02, and this fact made me more happy than the total time.
I want to say again that coaches have the possibility to know everything can happen to their athletes, and, if they are honest with themselves, can have a real picture about the current situation of the athletes themselves. Other people speak without knowing the reality before the race, or supposing to know what happened AFTER the race.
The most part of times, these are pure speculations, without any link with the real facts. We need to analyse facts, not to give too much room to conjectures.