She lost to huddle ( far better p.r's and endurance) rowbury ( mid 4:0x speed right now plus her season best was only 7 seconds slower than abbey's) and simpson ( 4 flat speed ). She lost to 3 really accomplished runners and would have won if not the milers came up and outsprinted her causing her to fall of the pace late and get 6th. Too bad she didnt at least get 4th place as simpson isnt going to run the 5k in moscow
Ivy leagers often fold
Looked like she was struggling early on. I would guess it was a combination of the heat and a long season. If this were in Eugene and a 15:05 type race, she might've been there at the end.
She ran much of the race in lane 2. Not sure you can spot that much distance to a field of that quality. Might not have mattered though, as she would have needed to be well clear of Rowbury before the homestretch to get top 3, IMO.
is there a way she still goes to russia?
Place Athlete Time
1 Jennifer Simpson
New Balance 15:33.77
2 Molly Huddle
Saucony 15:35.45
3 Shannon Rowbury
Nike 15:37.27
4 Kim Conley
New Balance / SRA Elite 15:37.80
5 Chelsea Reilly
Unattached 15:38.50
6 Abbey D'Agostino
Dartmouth College 15:39.17
simpson, rowbury - prob not running 5k. Reilly - can she get the standard?
I don't pretend to understand this crap.
Abbey ran most of the race in lane 2. It's what 35 meters extra a mile or something if you run in lane 2? Either way, she ran at least 50 meters more than Conley who ran on the rail and only lost by 2 seconds.
She really does have horrible tactics. She's had a couple races where she lost because she finished in lane 2 when she came into the homestretch in the lead. It's very frustrating to watch; drives me crazy. Mark Coogan needs to have a word with her about positioning. If it's a 1500 and you don't want to be boxed, there are understandable reasons for running in outside lanes. In a 5000? She can sit in 5th place on the rail and not worry about anything until the end.
She needs to learn to ride that rail.
^why would rowbury not run the 5k? She didn't make it in the 15.
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
She ran much of the race in lane 2. Not sure you can spot that much distance to a field of that quality. Might not have mattered though, as she would have needed to be well clear of Rowbury before the homestretch to get top 3, IMO.
I didn't see you commented on this too before I posted. Running in lane 2 adds on a significant amount of distance over an entire races. You'd be surprised how much. She didn't even need to beat Rowbury since Simpson is not going in the 5000 (she has a bye in the 1500). She only needed to beat Riley and Conley.
Idiot was in lane 2 the entire race. Idiot ran an extra 100 meters. Deserved to lose because of stupid tactics.
Freddy wrote:
^why would rowbury not run the 5k? She didn't make it in the 15.
Rowbury will go in the 5000 unless Cory McGee fails to get the 1500 "B" standard and then Rowbury would go in the 15.
McGee has a 4:10.55 1500 PR and the "B" is 4:09.00. She's been coming on well at the end of this season and that's not a very fast time for someone who was 2nd at NCAAs and 3rd at USAs. I'd be surprised if she doesn't get 4:09.
to be fair to abbey, when you are running really slowly like the 5k did at the beginning it doesn't matter what lane you are in. cause it is not a stress on you. It only matters when you turn up the wick and start using up energy. I'm not sure if she was in lane two when things got fast or not.
It matters. Idiot ran in lane 2 at the beginning, middle and end.
Andes wrote:
Idiot was in lane 2 the entire race. Idiot ran an extra 100 meters. Deserved to lose because of stupid tactics.
Come on, she did not run an additional 100 meters.
12.5 laps x 8 meters per lap.
I think it all more due to heat and the long season for her. The other women in the race did not have to do XC, indoor, and outdoor seasons and have to peak 2 weeks ago.
it's frustrating that good, college runners take so long to realize that success on the world stage is all about meeting the raw-speed requirements of the chosen race.
if you can't close with the speed necessary to succeed in olympic or world champ events, why are you even training for them, and sacrificing so much of your life? you wouldn't enter the lemans car race against ferrari, porsche and aston martin, when you drive a volkswagon gti.
if you aspire to run in the highest-level events, it's really very simple: calculate your raw speed, then calculate the raw speed other runners have demonstrated at the front of olympic races, and see where you fit in.
if your raw speed is not near what olympic 10K finalists close in after running a legit pace then, my dear, you are a marathoner.
if you don't mind being a mediocre 10K runner, you can stay at it, but if you see yourself as an olympian, then you are in the wrong race--you got the wrong car.
just analyze your 400m and 800m PRs--that's the proof in the pudding. it's mathematical; there's no place for applying your individual magic to make it work for you.
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 seconds...those 400m times tell the whole story.
whirledpeas wrote:
if your raw speed is not near what olympic 10K finalists close in after running a legit pace then, my dear, you are a marathoner.
LOL. Sad but too often true.
whirledpeas wrote:
it's frustrating that good, college runners take so long to realize that success on the world stage is all about meeting the raw-speed requirements of the chosen race.
if you can't close with the speed necessary to succeed in olympic or world champ events, why are you even training for them, and sacrificing so much of your life? you wouldn't enter the lemans car race against ferrari, porsche and aston martin, when you drive a volkswagon gti.
if you aspire to run in the highest-level events, it's really very simple: calculate your raw speed, then calculate the raw speed other runners have demonstrated at the front of olympic races, and see where you fit in.
if your raw speed is not near what olympic 10K finalists close in after running a legit pace then, my dear, you are a marathoner.
if you don't mind being a mediocre 10K runner, you can stay at it, but if you see yourself as an olympian, then you are in the wrong race--you got the wrong car.
just analyze your 400m and 800m PRs--that's the proof in the pudding. it's mathematical; there's no place for applying your individual magic to make it work for you.
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 seconds...those 400m times tell the whole story.
eh. There is some truth here, but you and I could both name a bunch of exceptions. Jen Simp has never broken 2 minutes for 800 yet she is world champ in the 1500. Rowbury's 800 PR is 2:00.5 yet she won a WC medal. Steve Scott ran 3:47 without much 'raw speed.' Heck, this man Elliot can't have any speed - he was a 4:40 miler in HS. Now he was a tenth or so from a USATF medal.
I suspect these four and many others don't have the 'raw speed' you are suggesting is necessary for success, yet they all succeeded.
ritz has made many us teams and has a world half medal, while lacking 400m or 800m speed. and then there are those who radically improve their speed, like rupp (even ritz improved his speed in 2009). in addition, you have those who have tons of speed but lack the endurance and so can't close with the others. champ racing is all about being able to close in low to mid 50s for men and 58-60 for women AFTER running 1100-9600m. So, Salazar may want to turn the 5000m and 10000m into the ridiculous spectacle that today's men's 5000m was, a jog until the last mile or whatever it was, where you eventually make the distance events into essentially the equivalent of the cycling sprints where everyone pedals a little bit, then slows and balances on their wheels at a standstill until the very end and maybe Lashawn Merritt becomes the 5000m champion but that's not what I look for. How about having a little bit of guts and making it a distance race?
Carolina guy wrote:
Ivy leagers often fold
Perhaps. However, many of them know how to spell "leaguers."