Cr wrote:
15 seconds slower for mile 2 makes sense, but the NP splits were way worse than that. They were like 20-30 seconds slower average for both mile 2 and mile 3, so probably like 30-40 seconds slower mile 2 than mile 1, and then on top of that 10-20 seconds slower mile 3 than mile 1.
GO had it about right—their splits indicate about 15-20 second slower for mile 2.
UM NO.. NP averaged 15:13 and GO averaged 15:21
LL88RUN wrote:
Cr wrote:
15 seconds slower for mile 2 makes sense, but the NP splits were way worse than that. They were like 20-30 seconds slower average for both mile 2 and mile 3, so probably like 30-40 seconds slower mile 2 than mile 1, and then on top of that 10-20 seconds slower mile 3 than mile 1.
GO had it about right—their splits indicate about 15-20 second slower for mile 2.
UM NO.. NP averaged 15:13 and GO averaged 15:21
Annnnd this has nothing to do with pacing at all.
Cre wrote:
LL88RUN wrote:
UM NO.. NP averaged 15:13 and GO averaged 15:21
Annnnd this has nothing to do with pacing at all.
Cross Country is about racing and it's October 12.
Great Oak and Newbury Park were very close and ran amazing. There is no right or wrong way. They each have a win this season.
Some will never learn :)
Cr wrote:
15 seconds slower for mile 2 makes sense, but the NP splits were way worse than that. They were like 20-30 seconds slower average for both mile 2 and mile 3, so probably like 30-40 seconds slower mile 2 than mile 1, and then on top of that 10-20 seconds slower mile 3 than mile 1.
GO had it about right—their splits indicate about 15-20 second slower for mile 2.
There was no 2 mile split.They got a 1 mile split and something close to 2.1. FinishResults calls it 2 mile for intensive purposes but if you read milesplit, dyestat, prepcaltrack or if you were there ( I'm guessing you were not) you would have known this.
I was @ Clovis 2019 wrote:
Cr wrote:
15 seconds slower for mile 2 makes sense, but the NP splits were way worse than that. They were like 20-30 seconds slower average for both mile 2 and mile 3, so probably like 30-40 seconds slower mile 2 than mile 1, and then on top of that 10-20 seconds slower mile 3 than mile 1.
GO had it about right—their splits indicate about 15-20 second slower for mile 2.
There was no 2 mile split.They got a 1 mile split and something close to 2.1. FinishResults calls it 2 mile for intensive purposes but if you read milesplit, dyestat, prepcaltrack or if you were there ( I'm guessing you were not) you would have known this.
It's "intents and purposes."
EnglishMuch wrote:
I was @ Clovis 2019 wrote:
There was no 2 mile split.They got a 1 mile split and something close to 2.1. FinishResults calls it 2 mile for intensive purposes but if you read milesplit, dyestat, prepcaltrack or if you were there ( I'm guessing you were not) you would have known this.
It's "intents and purposes."
No man, the intent was that it was intense! .....with purpose.
I was @ Clovis 2019 wrote:
Cr wrote:
15 seconds slower for mile 2 makes sense, but the NP splits were way worse than that. They were like 20-30 seconds slower average for both mile 2 and mile 3, so probably like 30-40 seconds slower mile 2 than mile 1, and then on top of that 10-20 seconds slower mile 3 than mile 1.
GO had it about right—their splits indicate about 15-20 second slower for mile 2.
There was no 2 mile split.They got a 1 mile split and something close to 2.1. FinishResults calls it 2 mile for intensive purposes but if you read milesplit, dyestat, prepcaltrack or if you were there ( I'm guessing you were not) you would have known this.
Actually I did know there was no 2 mile split. My post was accurate. Look at the 2.1 mile splits and extrapolate a bit. Given they were all around 14:30 - 15:40 the .1 is about 29-33 seconds.
Procrastinating. Approximate 1, 2, and 3 mile splits for NP and GO top 5 (using their average pace plus to extrapolate the .1), with the slowdown from mile one in parentheses for miles 2 & 3--
NP
Young - 4:30 / 9:25 (4:55) (+25) / 14:00 (4:35) (+5)
Aschbrenner - 4:36 / 9:42 (5:06) (+30) / 14:33 (4:51) (+15)
Sahlman - 4:42 / 9:56 (5:14) (+32) / 14:53 (4:57) (+15)
Goldstein - 4:42 / 10:01 (5:19) (+37) / 15:07 (5:06) (+24)
L. Young - 4:48 / 10:05 (5:17) (+29) / 15:05 (5:00) (+12)
GO
Verdugo - 4:48 / 9:55 (5:07) (+19) / 14:43 (4:48) (+0)
Yager - 4:49 / 9:58 (5:09) (+20) / 14:43 (4:45) (-3)
Simone - 4:50 / 10:02 (5:12) (+22) / 14:53 (4:51) (+1)
Abbes - 4:50 / 10:02 (5:12) (+22) / 14:58 (4:56) (+6)
Joseph - 4:49 / 10:02 (5:13) (+24) / 14:59 (4:57) (+8)
I don't think it can really be argued that NP didn't pace themselves very well at all. The fact that they still almost won is a testament to their talent. They burned the first mile, then slowed down by an average of 31 seconds, and their third mile was an average of 14 seconds slower than their 1st mile. GO slowed down 21 seconds from miles 1-2, and their third mile was, on average, only 2 seconds slower than mile 1. That's a big difference in pacing. GO followed the blueprint one of the other posters alluded to, slowing down by 15-20 seconds for mile 2, and they were able to come back strong in mile 3. NP overshot the mark by a decent amount in mile 1 and paid the price in miles 2 & 3.
Creaky Bones wrote:
Procrastinating. Approximate 1, 2, and 3 mile splits for NP and GO top 5 (using their average pace plus to extrapolate the .1), with the slowdown from mile one in parentheses for miles 2 & 3--
NP
Young - 4:30 / 9:25 (4:55) (+25) / 14:00 (4:35) (+5)
Aschbrenner - 4:36 / 9:42 (5:06) (+30) / 14:33 (4:51) (+15)
Sahlman - 4:42 / 9:56 (5:14) (+32) / 14:53 (4:57) (+15)
Goldstein - 4:42 / 10:01 (5:19) (+37) / 15:07 (5:06) (+24)
L. Young - 4:48 / 10:05 (5:17) (+29) / 15:05 (5:00) (+12)
GO
Verdugo - 4:48 / 9:55 (5:07) (+19) / 14:43 (4:48) (+0)
Yager - 4:49 / 9:58 (5:09) (+20) / 14:43 (4:45) (-3)
Simone - 4:50 / 10:02 (5:12) (+22) / 14:53 (4:51) (+1)
Abbes - 4:50 / 10:02 (5:12) (+22) / 14:58 (4:56) (+6)
Joseph - 4:49 / 10:02 (5:13) (+24) / 14:59 (4:57) (+8)
I don't think it can really be argued that NP didn't pace themselves very well at all. The fact that they still almost won is a testament to their talent. They burned the first mile, then slowed down by an average of 31 seconds, and their third mile was an average of 14 seconds slower than their 1st mile. GO slowed down 21 seconds from miles 1-2, and their third mile was, on average, only 2 seconds slower than mile 1. That's a big difference in pacing. GO followed the blueprint one of the other posters alluded to, slowing down by 15-20 seconds for mile 2, and they were able to come back strong in mile 3. NP overshot the mark by a decent amount in mile 1 and paid the price in miles 2 & 3.
Thanks for posting those numbers. At a race like NXN I don’t know that GO could get away with pacing themselves like they did at Clovis. The field will be deeper and the course will be softer, both of which make it harder to move up. NPs strategy of getting out fast will likely work very well at NXN, although Goldstein and Appleford will probably want to get out barely slower.
Crowd Sorcerer wrote:
Creaky Bones wrote:
Procrastinating. Approximate 1, 2, and 3 mile splits for NP and GO top 5 (using their average pace plus to extrapolate the .1), with the slowdown from mile one in parentheses for miles 2 & 3--
NP
Young - 4:30 / 9:25 (4:55) (+25) / 14:00 (4:35) (+5)
Aschbrenner - 4:36 / 9:42 (5:06) (+30) / 14:33 (4:51) (+15)
Sahlman - 4:42 / 9:56 (5:14) (+32) / 14:53 (4:57) (+15)
Goldstein - 4:42 / 10:01 (5:19) (+37) / 15:07 (5:06) (+24)
L. Young - 4:48 / 10:05 (5:17) (+29) / 15:05 (5:00) (+12)
GO
Verdugo - 4:48 / 9:55 (5:07) (+19) / 14:43 (4:48) (+0)
Yager - 4:49 / 9:58 (5:09) (+20) / 14:43 (4:45) (-3)
Simone - 4:50 / 10:02 (5:12) (+22) / 14:53 (4:51) (+1)
Abbes - 4:50 / 10:02 (5:12) (+22) / 14:58 (4:56) (+6)
Joseph - 4:49 / 10:02 (5:13) (+24) / 14:59 (4:57) (+8)
I don't think it can really be argued that NP didn't pace themselves very well at all. The fact that they still almost won is a testament to their talent. They burned the first mile, then slowed down by an average of 31 seconds, and their third mile was an average of 14 seconds slower than their 1st mile. GO slowed down 21 seconds from miles 1-2, and their third mile was, on average, only 2 seconds slower than mile 1. That's a big difference in pacing. GO followed the blueprint one of the other posters alluded to, slowing down by 15-20 seconds for mile 2, and they were able to come back strong in mile 3. NP overshot the mark by a decent amount in mile 1 and paid the price in miles 2 & 3.
Thanks for posting those numbers. At a race like NXN I don’t know that GO could get away with pacing themselves like they did at Clovis. The field will be deeper and the course will be softer, both of which make it harder to move up. NPs strategy of getting out fast will likely work very well at NXN, although Goldstein and Appleford will probably want to get out barely slower.
It really will be interesting to see what happens at NXN. Getting out fast does work in many races, assuming it’s not too fast, which is what looks like happened at Clovis for NP. Both NP’s strategy and GO’s strategy can work well, if you are running within your limits. If NP makes the same mistake (a couple guys going out faster than their capability), the likelihood of a blowup is much higher than with GO’s strategy. Also, GO’s margin of error is much greater with the depth and team spread. Also, looks like the entire pack moved closer to NP’s 2. If they can get even closer or possibly break up the NP 1-2, it could be a great day for GO.
One other thing to think about. I watched that workout on milesplit (7x1k). That is a VERY hard workout at VO2 Max (or faster). It is only one workout, but if that is typical of what they have been doing all season, they may not have the room to improve over
The next couple of months like some of the other teams like LV that seems to be a bit more cautious. Corner Canyon is also going to be really dangerous if Allred can somehow get into top 5 at NXN form. There is quite a bit of change that can happen in nearly 2 months.
My argument that NP got out too hard rests on the premise that an evenly-paced race will yield the fastest time and thus the highest place. That's definitely true physiologically, so if you accept that premise, then it's much better to pace like GO did than NP did, regardless of circumstance. On the college level, we've seen CU do what GO did (beat a more talent team, usually Wisconsin or Stanford, by pacing better) a number of times at PAC-12s and NCAAs.
The thing that GO can't really afford to do is run in as tight a pack as they did at Clovis. They're each going to have to run to their own ability, while still pacing properly. If that means separating prior to hitting the first mile, they have to do it. The challenge is that runners are better than others at pacing, and running as a pack helps keep everyone from going out too hard. But they can't afford it this year, given how good NP and CC are.
NP
Young - 4:30 / 9:25 (4:55) (+25) / 14:00 (4:35) (+5)
Aschbrenner - 4:36 / 9:42 (5:06) (+30) / 14:33 (4:51) (+15)
Sahlman - 4:42 / 9:56 (5:14) (+32) / 14:53 (4:57) (+15)
Goldstein - 4:42 / 10:01 (5:19) (+37) / 15:07 (5:06) (+24)
L. Young - 4:48 / 10:05 (5:17) (+29) / 15:05 (5:00) (+12)
GO
Verdugo - 4:48 / 9:55 (5:07) (+19) / 14:43 (4:48) (+0)
Yager - 4:49 / 9:58 (5:09) (+20) / 14:43 (4:45) (-3)
Simone - 4:50 / 10:02 (5:12) (+22) / 14:53 (4:51) (+1)
Abbes - 4:50 / 10:02 (5:12) (+22) / 14:58 (4:56) (+6)
Joseph - 4:49 / 10:02 (5:13) (+24) / 14:59 (4:57) (+8)
Imma let you finish but I just want to say St. Charles East, IL deserves some MF respek.....
Bob Liking 14:29
Micah Wilson 14:38
Aidan King 14:51
Luke Schildmeyer 14:52
Zack Loomis 14:54
I have to believe at the NXN meet running that tightly would be tough, given the way the field compresses before the first turn, and you can only have 3 runners on the line, with the rest starting behind them.
Creaky Bones wrote:
My argument that NP got out too hard rests on the premise that an evenly-paced race will yield the fastest time and thus the highest place. That's definitely true physiologically, so if you accept that premise, then it's much better to pace like GO did than NP did, regardless of circumstance. On the college level, we've seen CU do what GO did (beat a more talent team, usually Wisconsin or Stanford, by pacing better) a number of times at PAC-12s and NCAAs.
The thing that GO can't really afford to do is run in as tight a pack as they did at Clovis. They're each going to have to run to their own ability, while still pacing properly. If that means separating prior to hitting the first mile, they have to do it. The challenge is that runners are better than others at pacing, and running as a pack helps keep everyone from going out too hard. But they can't afford it this year, given how good NP and CC are.
I do not accept your premise regardless of circumstance. Have you been to NXN before? I've been on four occasions now and would agree even pacing works well if you're going to be placing in about the top-25 overall. If you plan to finish in the front of the mid-pack and you get out at what will be an even pace that means you are now in the back 10-20% of the race. Trying to go around 50% or more of the field is going to waste a lot more energy than going out 5-10 seconds too fast the first mile. The best lines at NXN are dramatically faster than the worst lines and it's the worst lines you'll have to take if you're trying to move up close to 100 spots after the first mile.
GOs top guys were not at 100% at Woodbridge. Especially someone like Mateo Joseph who didn't even run track last season. That guy is going to continue to get faster and nobody should be surprised if he ends up ahead of NP's Aschbrenner. Mateo Joseph is a man-child and a huge talent that didn't show his true caliber at Woodbridge.
NXN Stats
203 finishers
101st (midpack) place at the mile = 4:55.5
4:55.5 = 15:16 for the full 5K
15:16 would be 14th place overall, which means one would have to move up 87 spots with even pacing
200th place at the mile was 5:13.2
5:13.2 = 16:11 for the full 5K
16:11 would be 95th place overall, moving up 105 places with even pacing
There were 5 runners overall that moved up 50 spots or more after the first mile, with the greatest being 55 spots. This excludes Connor Wells of LV who clearly fell or lost a shoe or took a nap after 1/2 mile or something as he was 202nd at the mile (5:20.0) and then moved up to 63rd by the end.
There were only 26 runners overall that moved up 25 spots or more after the first mile and that includes Wells. Here's your split and place at the mile:
4:43.1 - 1st
4:44.5 - 26th
4:47.4 - 51st
4:51.5 - 76th
4:55.5 - 101st
4:59.9 - 126th
5:03.9 - 151st
5:07.5 - 176th
5:19.2 - 201st
Everyone seems very focused on NP and GO and maybe rightfully so. I like GO’s chances because they have several kids that are just coming back (Abbes and Joseph most notably), have a coach who has seen it all and had his teams rise to the occasion many times, and have soooo much depth.
On the flip side, NP’s top 5 are as talented as anyone in the nation, but are going to rely on some very young, inexperienced runners, have much less depth and have a coach with very limited experience (1 state meet and 1 trip to NXN). Anything can happen on any given day, but as close as they teams were last Saturday, I think GO has a much higher probability of winning than NP. I agree that CC and LV should not be slept on.
ric flair wooooooooooooo wrote:
NP
Young - 4:30 / 9:25 (4:55) (+25) / 14:00 (4:35) (+5)
Aschbrenner - 4:36 / 9:42 (5:06) (+30) / 14:33 (4:51) (+15)
Sahlman - 4:42 / 9:56 (5:14) (+32) / 14:53 (4:57) (+15)
Goldstein - 4:42 / 10:01 (5:19) (+37) / 15:07 (5:06) (+24)
L. Young - 4:48 / 10:05 (5:17) (+29) / 15:05 (5:00) (+12)
GO
Verdugo - 4:48 / 9:55 (5:07) (+19) / 14:43 (4:48) (+0)
Yager - 4:49 / 9:58 (5:09) (+20) / 14:43 (4:45) (-3)
Simone - 4:50 / 10:02 (5:12) (+22) / 14:53 (4:51) (+1)
Abbes - 4:50 / 10:02 (5:12) (+22) / 14:58 (4:56) (+6)
Joseph - 4:49 / 10:02 (5:13) (+24) / 14:59 (4:57) (+8)
Imma let you finish but I just want to say St. Charles East, IL deserves some MF respek.....
Bob Liking 14:29
Micah Wilson 14:38
Aidan King 14:51
Luke Schildmeyer 14:52
Zack Loomis 14:54
Those splits are wrong. Haha nice try
Experience beats talent wrote:
Everyone seems very focused on NP and GO and maybe rightfully so. I like GO’s chances because they have several kids that are just coming back (Abbes and Joseph most notably), have a coach who has seen it all and had his teams rise to the occasion many times, and have soooo much depth.
On the flip side, NP’s top 5 are as talented as anyone in the nation, but are going to rely on some very young, inexperienced runners, have much less depth and have a coach with very limited experience (1 state meet and 1 trip to NXN). Anything can happen on any given day, but as close as they teams were last Saturday, I think GO has a much higher probability of winning than NP. I agree that CC and LV should not be slept on.
Yeah tell Kosgei that experience beats talent.
Crowd Sorcerer wrote:
Experience beats talent wrote:
Everyone seems very focused on NP and GO and maybe rightfully so. I like GO’s chances because they have several kids that are just coming back (Abbes and Joseph most notably), have a coach who has seen it all and had his teams rise to the occasion many times, and have soooo much depth.
On the flip side, NP’s top 5 are as talented as anyone in the nation, but are going to rely on some very young, inexperienced runners, have much less depth and have a coach with very limited experience (1 state meet and 1 trip to NXN). Anything can happen on any given day, but as close as they teams were last Saturday, I think GO has a much higher probability of winning than NP. I agree that CC and LV should not be slept on.
Yeah tell Kosgei that experience beats talent.
Ok, drugs/cheating then? :). Always the exception I guess.
NICEJACKO wrote:
ric flair wooooooooooooo wrote:
Imma let you finish but I just want to say St. Charles East, IL deserves some MF respek.....
Bob Liking 14:29
Micah Wilson 14:38
Aidan King 14:51
Luke Schildmeyer 14:52
Zack Loomis 14:54
Those splits are wrong. Haha nice try
I agree.
There is video online that show much different splits then those.