Seriously, it was sickening. "How dare" a person lead a race they want to win. How did the others who didn't lead do in comparison to Shalane?
It also proved that leading is often good.
Seriously, it was sickening. "How dare" a person lead a race they want to win. How did the others who didn't lead do in comparison to Shalane?
It also proved that leading is often good.
ttc wrote:
How did the others who didn't lead do in comparison to Shalane?
podium? by conserving energy.
none992323 wrote:
ttc wrote:How did the others who didn't lead do in comparison to Shalane?
podium? by conserving energy.
Yeah, uh uh, tell that to Meb.
The marathon is a wicked beast that involves a little luck. Good for the sport seeing a few Americans sticking their necks out there. One came up lucky, and the other did not. That's what it takes to win.
OP - Your thread subject IS a whine.
Congratulations!
ttc wrote:
Seriously, it was sickening. "How dare" a person lead a race they want to win. How did the others who didn't lead do in comparison to Shalane?
It also proved that leading is often good.
Most weren't bashing. We just didn't consider it a smart tactic for winning Boston.
For me it wasn't the leading that was the issue, but the pace/manner in which she did it. Going out on 2:15, falling to 2:18 pace by half is just too aggresive. That's barely off the women's non-mixed WR on a much more challenging course, and was exacerbated by the fact that she wouldn't let others help lead at all, in fact she made several aggressive mini-surges to defend that lead.
It was extremely aggressive running, but I still don't believe it was tactically sound if her goal was to win.
Meb stayed in the pack at the start. He did not lead that pack 100% of the time. Once he broke out, he was all alone.
You either take turns in the pack or you get out far enough ahead to demoralize the competition.
LM wrote:
It was extremely aggressive running, but I still don't believe it was tactically sound if her goal was to win.
Her goal was to get the most TV time possible. Winning would have been nice too, but that was secondary.
I admire her for going for it. Much better than sitting back and hoping the runners in front of you crash.
none992323 wrote:
Meb stayed in the pack at the start. He did not lead that pack 100% of the time. Once he broke out, he was all alone.
You either take turns in the pack or you get out far enough ahead to demoralize the competition.
Flanagan disagrees & she's right.
How many days until shalane and kara start yakking about what badasses they are, how they're gonna dominate?
ttc wrote:
none992323 wrote:Meb stayed in the pack at the start. He did not lead that pack 100% of the time. Once he broke out, he was all alone.
You either take turns in the pack or you get out far enough ahead to demoralize the competition.
Flanagan disagrees & she's right.
why is it right? Impartial running blogs all criticized the strategy.
none992323 wrote:
You either take turns in the pack or you get out far enough ahead to demoralize the competition.
She tried to do the latter, so her plan satisfies your either/or suggestion. Everyone followed her. Hindsight's 20/20.
pjb wrote:
none992323 wrote:You either take turns in the pack or you get out far enough ahead to demoralize the competition.
She tried to do the latter, so her plan satisfies your either/or suggestion. Everyone followed her. Hindsight's 20/20.
If you can't make the gap, you drop back. Hindsight? What about adapting your strategy to race conditions?
You think Greg Lemond won the tour de France at the front of the pack creating a draft for everyone the whole way?
mebfan gorun wrote:
pjb wrote:She tried to do the latter, so her plan satisfies your either/or suggestion. Everyone followed her. Hindsight's 20/20.
If you can't make the gap, you drop back. Hindsight? What about adapting your strategy to race conditions?
You think Greg Lemond won the tour de France at the front of the pack creating a draft for everyone the whole way?
Yes, hindsight.
I can come up with an irrelevant platitude in the form of a question too:
What about sticking to your race plan?
No. Why would I draw such a connection between a 2-week long, multi-stage, team cycling tour and a 2+ hour footrace? Why would you?
She bet hard on her fitness and knowledge of the course and, based on how she ran and her competitions' previous results (including at Boston), it was a strong bet, at least as such bets go. Would you have bet that Jeptoo would smash the course record?
Flanagan didn't want to sit in the pack on this one for obvious reasons.
2:22 wins it most years. Didn't work out this time.
Her time would win every year but three including this one. she's run what her 5th or 6th marathon? She's a baby in that regards compared to her competition and yet she still ran a time that would have won every year but two. She did everything she could do to win. But her best was not good enough today but you better believe she'll come back fitter and stronger next year
Maybe next time she'll do more training and less pre-race yakking to talk shows and magazine nerds about what a badass she is. Of course, this has been her MO for every race; she ain't likely to change.
LM wrote:
Most weren't bashing. We just didn't consider it a smart tactic for winning Boston.
For me it wasn't the leading that was the issue, but the pace/manner in which she did it. Going out on 2:15, falling to 2:18 pace by half is just too aggresive. That's barely off the women's non-mixed WR on a much more challenging course, and was exacerbated by the fact that she wouldn't let others help lead at all, in fact she made several aggressive mini-surges to defend that lead.
It was extremely aggressive running, but I still don't believe it was tactically sound if her goal was to win.
Pretty much this. It was almost as if her goal was to say "well I tried," rather than actually winning the race.
LM wrote:
ttc wrote:Seriously, it was sickening. "How dare" a person lead a race they want to win. How did the others who didn't lead do in comparison to Shalane?
It also proved that leading is often good.
Most weren't bashing. We just didn't consider it a smart tactic for winning Boston.
For me it wasn't the leading that was the issue, but the pace/manner in which she did it. Going out on 2:15, falling to 2:18 pace by half is just too aggresive. That's barely off the women's non-mixed WR on a much more challenging course, and was exacerbated by the fact that she wouldn't let others help lead at all, in fact she made several aggressive mini-surges to defend that lead.
It was extremely aggressive running, but I still don't believe it was tactically sound if her goal was to win.
+1
Props to her for 'going for it' but I don't think it was the best strategy and didn't think it was at the time.
She got a nice PR so I don't think she would have won the race regardless of how she ran or tactics used.
I've always been a fan of Shalane's and hope she continues to improve in the marathon.
Can you imagine if the forums had been around when Joan Benoit took off from the start in the 84 Olympic marathon? "It's warm and smoggy and Ingrid is in the field, yada, yada, yada". It always seems foolish until it works.
Anyone who c=has competed on any level knows not to get on national TV and say you will win and Shalane knows this better than any. Keep your mouth shut and be humble. She should have said "I am shooting for top 10!"