Each member of a relay team may run one leg only. Any four athletes from among those entered for the competition, whether for that or any other event, may be used in the composition of the relay team for any round. However, once a relay team has started in a competition, up to a total of four additional athletes may be used as substitutes in the composition of the team. If a team does not follow this Rule, it shall be disqualified.
Ran 3 second faster than 12 hours ago. That blocked handoff off really did kill the US earlier.
Yeah, that 2:58.48 would have won their original heat.
yeah, but that's kind of the point (ie the USA men not being able to show up when it counts even though on paper they are superior athletes individually). this was essentially a time trial with none of the other chaos and nerves going on like in the original heat which is a huge part of the competition.
Each member of a relay team may run one leg only. Any four athletes from among those entered for the competition, whether for that or any other event, may be used in the composition of the relay team for any round. However, once a relay team has started in a competition, up to a total of four additional athletes may be used as substitutes in the composition of the team. If a team does not follow this Rule, it shall be disqualified.
If we can sub all four runners, then the decision to run the Bailey-Smith-Deadmon-McKiver quartet in the qualifying round is actually defensible. Here's why:
In sports (and in life), a good philosophy is to play to your strengths. The U.S. strength in the 400m is our depth. We have 10 of the 21 fastest men in the world this year in that event, all under 44.50. Botswana is better at the top, but we have the superior depth. So, when thinking about how to beat Botswana, it makes sense to utilize our depth by running our B team in the qualifying round and saving all our top guys for the final so they can be fresh.
Our B team proved that they were good enough to qualify for the final. Yes, it was a bit of a gamble, but ultimately it gave us our best chance of beating Botswana by having 4 fresh guys ready for the final. Botswana had to run 3 of their 4 best guys in the qualifying round, so we will have the advantage of being fresher in the final.
Yeah, that 2:58.48 would have won their original heat.
yeah, but that's kind of the point (ie the USA men not being able to show up when it counts even though on paper they are superior athletes individually). this was essentially a time trial with none of the other chaos and nerves going on like in the original heat which is a huge part of the competition.
Yes, you're right. I should have mentioned that having to navigate traffic with a full field would have slowed that time down. Even if they didn't win their qualifying heat, this quartet was good enough to finish top 3 and advance. The 2nd finishing team in their heat ran 3:00.15, and third was 3:00.23. These guys are clearly capable of running sub-3 in a full field.
Each member of a relay team may run one leg only. Any four athletes from among those entered for the competition, whether for that or any other event, may be used in the composition of the relay team for any round. However, once a relay team has started in a competition, up to a total of four additional athletes may be used as substitutes in the composition of the team. If a team does not follow this Rule, it shall be disqualified.
If we can sub all four runners, then the decision to run the Bailey-Smith-Deadmon-McKiver quartet in the qualifying round is actually defensible. Here's why:
In sports (and in life), a good philosophy is to play to your strengths. The U.S. strength in the 400m is our depth. We have 10 of the 21 fastest men in the world this year in that event, all under 44.50. Botswana is better at the top, but we have the superior depth. So, when thinking about how to beat Botswana, it makes sense to utilize our depth by running our B team in the qualifying round and saving all our top guys for the final so they can be fresh.
Our B team proved that they were good enough to qualify for the final. Yes, it was a bit of a gamble, but ultimately it gave us our best chance of beating Botswana by having 4 fresh guys ready for the final. Botswana had to run 3 of their 4 best guys in the qualifying round, so we will have the advantage of being fresher in the final.
Yes, but if the B team doesn't qualify, we don't make the final. Remember last year with Quincy Wilson? A heroic performance by Vernon Norwood saved the USA's spot in the final. Vernon could have run the qualifier this year.
Carl Lewis criticized the coaches who choose the relay team. If they're friends with an individual athlete's coach, that athlete has a better chance of being chosen for a relay.
If we can sub all four runners, then the decision to run the Bailey-Smith-Deadmon-McKiver quartet in the qualifying round is actually defensible. Here's why:
In sports (and in life), a good philosophy is to play to your strengths. The U.S. strength in the 400m is our depth. We have 10 of the 21 fastest men in the world this year in that event, all under 44.50. Botswana is better at the top, but we have the superior depth. So, when thinking about how to beat Botswana, it makes sense to utilize our depth by running our B team in the qualifying round and saving all our top guys for the final so they can be fresh.
Our B team proved that they were good enough to qualify for the final. Yes, it was a bit of a gamble, but ultimately it gave us our best chance of beating Botswana by having 4 fresh guys ready for the final. Botswana had to run 3 of their 4 best guys in the qualifying round, so we will have the advantage of being fresher in the final.
Yes, but if the B team doesn't qualify, we don't make the final. Remember last year with Quincy Wilson? A heroic performance by Vernon Norwood saved the USA's spot in the final. Vernon could have run the qualifier this year.
Carl Lewis criticized the coaches who choose the relay team. If they're friends with an individual athlete's coach, that athlete has a better chance of being chosen for a relay.
Yes, I understand your point. It was definitely a gamble. But now that I've thought it about it some more, I think it's a gamble worth making. Botswana went 1-3-8 in the individual 400m, plus they have Tebogo. We have little to no chance of beating that squad with tired legs. But if we have 4 fresh legs and 3 of theirs are tired from running the qualifying round? Our chances improve significantly.
It's basically a question of do you play it safe by devising a strategy that gives you an excellent chance of making the podium but only a small chance of beating Botswana for gold (which would be running one or two of our best guys in the qualifying round and running them again in the final), or do you take a calculated risk that has a small but non-zero chance of failing in the qualifying round but maximizes your opportunity for gold? The decision-maker(s) opted to go for the latter, and I like it.
Now Botswana has 3 tired legs, and we're set up to have these four guys all fresh and ready for the final:
Jacory Patterson Khaleb McRae Vernon Norwood Rai Benjamin
Suddenly, I like our chances. Botswana should still be favored, but it's not inconceivable that we could win.
Yes, but if the B team doesn't qualify, we don't make the final. Remember last year with Quincy Wilson? A heroic performance by Vernon Norwood saved the USA's spot in the final. Vernon could have run the qualifier this year.
Carl Lewis criticized the coaches who choose the relay team. If they're friends with an individual athlete's coach, that athlete has a better chance of being chosen for a relay.
Yes, I understand your point. It was definitely a gamble. But now that I've thought it about it some more, I think it's a gamble worth making. Botswana went 1-3-8 in the individual 400m, plus they have Tebogo. We have little to no chance of beating that squad with tired legs. But if we have 4 fresh legs and 3 of theirs are tired from running the qualifying round? Our chances improve significantly.
It's basically a question of do you play it safe by devising a strategy that gives you an excellent chance of making the podium but only a small chance of beating Botswana for gold (which would be running one or two of our best guys in the qualifying round and running them again in the final), or do you take a calculated risk that has a small but non-zero chance of failing in the qualifying round but maximizes your opportunity for gold? The decision-maker(s) opted to go for the latter, and I like it.
Now Botswana has 3 tired legs, and we're set up to have these four guys all fresh and ready for the final:
Jacory Patterson Khaleb McRae Vernon Norwood Rai Benjamin
Suddenly, I like our chances. Botswana should still be favored, but it's not inconceivable that we could win.
can someone confirm that we can swap out all 4? i’ve heard 50% saying one way and the other 50% saying the other.