The Worst Race Tactics Ever?

Skuj wrote:

But he ran great in 83 off that slow pace, and came 2nd. Why on earth would he and his coach think he even had a chance in hell by taking the lead so early right after a fast 400m? It just doesn't make sense. And we are not talking about Keino, who was a very different character.

He ran second in 1983. Second. Not first.

The goal was not to run "great". it was too win. The chances of winning by pushing were not very good. The chances of winning by not pushing were basically zero for a guy like Scott. He was hoping someone else would push it but if not, he had to do it himself.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Skuj wrote:

Steve Scott 1984 Oly Final.

This was my vote before I even opened the thread. Everybody was asking, "....what the hell is he doing!?"

K Bekele in the olympic 5000, basically turned it into a 200 against El G

Gave El G the Gold

worst ever

He lost the OTs to Spivey (5th). His confidence was not 100%.

He was not El Gerrouj 1999, he was not Rono 1988, he was not Elliott 1964, he was not Keino 1968. It has been done, but by runners who KNEW they could do it. SS could not even win his own national championships.

When you are in a race, and 2 laps to go comes up, you KNOW if you can run away from everybody. He was telling himself "I SHOULD be able to do this" (and in '82 - '83 he might well have been able) but reality was something very different.

O NoYou Dit ent wrote:

K Bekele in the olympic 5000, basically turned it into a 200 against El G

Gave El G the Gold

worst ever

He tried it again in '89 against the 2nd fastest 1500 runner ever...and it worked! So not always a bad move in a 5000

This is because her coach was Al Schmidt....

Off the Grid wrote:

He lost the OTs to Spivey (5th). His confidence was not 100%.

I don't know of his confidence part but that race, while I wouoldn't place that as one of the worst tactics, is yet another classic example of, and I think wellnow would like to hear this, sprinting ability. As far as I'm concerned, there are 2 different kinds of "finishing speed", one is fast and the other is "quick". Some runners are VERY quick and they just shoots out before everybody finds out what had happened. In a way, Yifter was like that. When he ducked his head down, he's gone. Mastercova was another. And Spivy was certainly like that too. They could gain 20m in a matter of a few steps!

Steve Scott is very strong and he could press the pace in the final 300m to destroy his opponents--much like an ax. But these guys mentioned above are like a sharp Japanese sword. If there was a runner like that in the final of 1976 Olympics 1500m final, John Walker may have not won it.

I actually had a talk with Regina Jacobs with this topic before. When she won the silver medal in 1500m to Masterkova, it was like that, Regina had long legs and arms and swing them like a windmill and, while she's very fast, she just couldn't move or react too quickly. As I recall, in that race, about 200m to go, Masterkova took off and, going around the curve, gained 20m on Reigna. By the time Regina regained her full-speed, she was long gone. In that final 100m, Regina might have even been gaining on Masterkova (I can't recall...) or perhaps at least she wasn't going away from her; but the race was already over. 1977 World Cup 10000m was like that too--Craig Virgin against Yifter. Virgin tried everything, including almost stopping to let Yifter take the lead but, when Yifter woke up and decided to go about 300m to go, within 5 steps, he gained about 20m on Virgin and the race was over. Who knows, Virgen might have been fresher at the finish and could have gone 5 more laps at that speed; but he just wasn't quick enough.

Cram was probably expecting the 64s of other championship.:) Personally I don't think Scott's tactics were horrible. I save that for the guys that run super fast for 100-200m in the middle of the race and spend a ton of energy fighting for the lead and trying to make multiple moves. See Pre in 72 for an example. In modern distance running, you pretty much make one move and hope it works out.

Average_Joe wrote:

asdfasfasfds wrote:

Except that Scott really didn't push the pace (Coe's splits were like 58.9, 58.9 (1:56.9), 56.4 (2:53.3), 39.2 ). 59s are an honest pace but it isn't the type of pace to run the kick out of a 3:50 runners legs. Scott just didn't have it on that day.

He waited a bit too long but he did take off. So much so that it immediately shook things up. I remember the quote from Cram in an interview afterwards, talking about the move: "When Scott went, I thought, Crikey, we're really going to run today" Clearly Cram thought he was injecting pace.

But you are correct that he did not have it on that day. That's why his "taking off" ended up not being as fast as it would have been in 82-83.

[quote]asdfasfasfds wrote:

Except that Scott really didn't push the pace (Coe's splits were like 58.9, 58.9 (1:56.9), 56.4 (2:53.3), 39.2 ). 59s are an honest pace but it isn't the type of pace to run the kick out of a 3:50 runners legs. Scott just didn't have it on that day.

And for what it is worth, I think the extended kick (500-600m) works better. Leading the whole race turns you into a rabbit. Unless you are better than the field (Elliot) or have an advantage (altitude in 68) your in trouble.

But as far as bad tactics, what about Johnny Gray always going out hard and dying. In olympic years he had season best of sub 1:43 3 times and came up with 1 bronze.

[quote]

If you got those split times from off the Youtube video of the race, I have to confess they're slightly wrong; I actually posted them originally and I made a slight mistake.

The second 400m was 58.0 not 58.9, but the remaining splits are all correct. It was a typing error. Sorry!

So in fact Scott did inject a slight increase in pace, but it wasn't enough to do what he wanted.

First lap 58.9, then 58.0 then 56.4. The pace got gradually quicker from the very beginning. What I think happened was that while the first lap was decent for most Championship races, the second lap is when things usually start slowing down. Perhaps Scott sensed the pace was slowing in the first 100m of the second lap and decided he didn't want this to happen. He increased the pace on the second lap, knowing that races generally only get faster once the 3rd lap starts.

I don't think it was a bad tactic. Scott was the second fastest miler at the time, and should have been able to manage a 58.0 second lap at the front, without it adversely effecting his chances. The fact that he started to die on the 3rd lap shows he just wasn't in the right shape that day. Had the second lap drifted to 61.0, I doubt Scott would have medalled that day. I'm glad he made it a true miler's race and ensured that the best man won. Too many Championship races at that time were won off slow pace with tactics rather than ability often the winning formula. If I remember correctly, Scott had been having a few injury problems leading up to LA, and I think there must have been a lot of pressure on him to perform well in his own country.

I also don't agree with the comment by someone that Scott had a poor kick! That's just not true. He had a feared kick and won many races with it. While it wasn't quite as good as Coe or Ovett's at their peak, it was still one of the best at the time over the last 100-200m. I remember him going past Coe in the last 50m at Zurich in 86.

About 10 days after the LA final, Scott ran a very good race to come second (behind Coe) in Zurich in 3:33.46 beating Abascal, Deleze and Spivey. His last 300m was about 39.7! So, he clearly was in decent shape at the end of the season. Perhaps LA was a few weeks too early or he just didn't have it psychologically that day.

O NoYou Dit ent wrote:

K Bekele in the olympic 5000, basically turned it into a 200 against El G

Gave El G the Gold

worst ever

Have to say I agree that this was a bad tactic. Don't know about the worst ever.

I remember screaming at the TV, asking how on earth Bekele hoped to outkick EL G in a relatively slow pace which ended up being more like a 1500m race.

Bekele should never have let the pace play into the hands of EL G. The best 5000m runner did not win.

Likewise, Coe's tactics in Moscow 800m were basically giving the gold medal on a plate to Ovett. You'd have thought he'd learnt his lesson, but in the European 1500m final in 86, Coe extends his nonchalant, running every curve wide tactic from 2 laps to 3.75! If the difference between running in lane 1 and 2 is 3.5m every bend, the Coe must have run at least an extra 20 - 25m than Cram that day. He was also too far back at the bell. You just can't give an athlete like Cram such an advantage and hope to pull it back.

why do people constantly talk about running the kick out of fast runners? Its possibly one of the dumbest arguments you can make.

Runners have a good 'kick' and win because they're fitness level is greater than the rest of the field.

ding ding ding what??....... wrote:

Runners have a good 'kick' and win because they're fitness level is greater than the rest of the field.

What about the runners with good kicks that don't win?

ding ding ding what??....... wrote:

why do people constantly talk about running the kick out of fast runners? Its possibly one of the dumbest arguments you can make.

Runners have a good 'kick' and win because they're fitness level is greater than the rest of the field.

A big part of me agrees with you. People always talk about Wheating's kick - maybe he is just that much fitter than everyone at the NCAA level, after all he pulled a pretty sweet 3:37/1:46 double last weekend.

And Andrews' kick - same, the boy may just be fit. He now has one of the top times in the country in the 800 with his 1:46.xx.

On the other hand, the fittest man does not always win. Bekele lost to El G at 5000 meters. I would argue the WR holder and 12:37 man is more fit for the 5k than a 1500 specialist with a 12:50 pr, wouldn't you?

weIInow wrote:

Despite Skuj's unfounded criticism of Steve Scott, I must agree with Nobby here. When one does not have the turnover to outkick even the most modest of opponents, one must go to the front and work to open up the largest possible gap on the field. Steve Scott and his coach knew his limitations -- and his strengths -- and forged a courageous race plan to give him his best chance at gold. This is basic coaching and elementary racing strategies. I'm surprised Skuj did not recognize it.

Do you seriously think that leading in a fast 1500m, with 1100m to go, is working to your strengths and limitations in a field like that? He was going to run away from those guys (and help them a great deal too!)?

His 10th place finish was almost predictable once he made that move at 400m.

Outside of Keino in Mexico City 68 (which was an aberration due to the altitude), has a runner ever won gold in the Olympic 1500 by taking off early, building a big lead and "holding on"?

Trying to gap the field in general is suicide. Yeah he didn't have a great last 100m. But it shouldn't have matteredAt 1200m (62.73/2:06.42/3:02.94) the pace was just under 3:03 and a 3:44 would make the team. Running a 41s 300m (54.5 pace) should have been doable even after the faster 3rd lap. I am pretty sure Holman had the best 800m speed in the field by over a second so a slow 700m and then 800m fast should have been right up his alley. Without knowing all the details it is hard to figure out was it injury (Spivey in 88), pressure, or bad tactics that do in the runner.

Skuj wrote:

He was going to run away from those guys (and help them a great deal too!)?

Why would running away from them help them? I do not understand your logic, Skuj. Yes, I suspect his plan was to try to run away from them. As already stated he knew he could not outkick runners in the field and felt his best chance to win -- yes, win -- was to go for it early. It did not work, but it was a courageous and well-thought-out plan. I am surprised that you are not aware of this type of race strategy.

Ask yourself would you be talking about Scott if he had run a more conservative race? He likely still would have finished back in the pack and those knowledgeable about SS would have questioned why he did not "go for it" earlier in the race. Instead he still finishes back in the pack, but you choose to criticise him. That is your right, even though it is ill-informed.

Because there is NO WAY that he was going to run away from them, that's why!!Compare to his 88 run....he ran well, he was very happy with that performance. No, he didn't win there either. Yes, I have read the book.

Elliot and Rono both lead for the last 800 meters or so.

z runner wrote:

Outside of Keino in Mexico City 68 (which was an aberration due to the altitude), has a runner ever won gold in the Olympic 1500 by taking off early, building a big lead and "holding on"?