Negative Split Strategy for HS Cross Country

Let's break it down:

"World records are set by people with great conditioning" - that's not true?

"which doesn't describe the average high school runner." - come on. the average highschooler certainly does not have great conditioning.

"That's why negative splitting isn't good for most runners." - you can debate that but evidence shows most runners do not have the ability to finish the second half faster because they are not conditioned for it.

"And the top runners are good enough to handle a fast early pace and still gut out a competitive finish.

So they think about early positioning." - You don't think the better runners can handle a fast start and that positioning comes into play?

"And some can lurk in the back and move up." - it's not the same for everyone.

Simply look at how races are run.

Everyone goes out fast.

Are everyone just horrible racers?

In high school? Yes.

When you don't have good endurance, it's an even bigger mistake to go out faster than you can maintain for the entire distance.

Most of the posters on here have to be trolls. No serious student of the sport thinks positive splits are better (at least at 1500 meters and longer).

The strategy that is optimal physically isn't necessarily the same strategy that is optimal mentally/emotionally.

Most young runners aren't fully invested in the sport. They're trying it out. When it hurts, they back off. They find little motivation in being at the back of the back. In a video game they want to quit and start over if the game isn't going well. Expecting them to have the confidence to go out slow and pick up the pace is likely to lead to disappointment among inexperienced runners. That disappointment can prevent longer term engagement in the sport that is helpful in developing more effective strategies.

If you have established a culture on your team where the best, most experienced runners, do run even splits, then that culture can be a powerful tool for the younger, least experienced, runners to develop the confidence necessary to go out slower and move up. Role models are important.

I cringe when people talk about "pace" in a cross-country race. There are certainly a multitude of courses that are essentially track on grass, but you still potentially have mud, wind, etc. that have real impacts that can differ along the route.

=====================

One possible approach for younger runners:

Early in the season it's difficult to know how good other teams are going to be or even what teams are going to be at some invitationals. However, it's pretty rare that there are huge changes from one year to another in the overall distribution of times, unless conditions are significantly different.

As a coach you should be able to figure out roughly where you would like each kid to finish within a field. Set a goal to be near that position by the mile, then set incentives for them to move up after that. Send two volunteers to the mile mark. Have one count runners and the other record on paper or on video the places of each runner on your team. Then compare that to finish places. Provide some type of reward/recognition for those who have finished at/near their goal place and who also improved their overall place from the 1st mile to the finish.

====================

As your runners mature, they should be able to develop a broad array of strategies they can use to optimize their place.

Even/negative splits may be the best strategy in most situations when the course is flat and firm and little wind, but how often do those conditions really exist - that depends a lot on where you live/race.

For those that would argue, that the "effort" should increase as if you were running a flat, fast course on a windless day - that's an abstraction that is not going to translate well to most young runners.

My recommendation is to use training to get them to know what the first mile should feel like. Use that combined with a goal for roughly what place they should be in at the mile. Have them focus on competing after that in the race.

=====================

Note: There are some great invitationals that create a horrible situation for JV runners. They might allow 7-10 runners in the varsity race and then put everyone else into the JV/Open race. The varsity race might have 200-300 kids, which the course might handle fine, but when you put 700+ kids in the JV/Open race on the same course the idea of running even splits isn't remotely optimal. The first two miles feel like you're in the school hallway changing classes - passing people is a matter of changing gears over and over. It's certainly not optimal physically, and it's brutal mentally.

I tend to think the optimal strategy is to go out about 5-10 seconds off the spot you want to finish in (realistically) for approx. the first 400m, then settle onto the pace you want to hold for the race. The middle mile is where you should start most of your work passing people, then try to hold that effort for the last mile (it should feel like its harder each mile). Given all the variables on across country course it's stupid to try to hit splits, and instead you should try a comparatively easier start to those who charge out, and then settle onto a pace that will hopefully take you right past all the people that have been slowing down since the first 400. No one has ever won a cross country race in the first 400.

That said staying back too far or too long is a poor decision, because you will not run your fastest overall. At the end you shouldn't be dragging across the line after dying 2 miles in, or sprinting the last 100 to catch 3 people, as that shows you could have worked harder in the middle mile, and helped your team's score in a much greater way. Finding the right start effort and progression will take some trial and error, and you shouldn't assume HS kids aren't capable of smarter pacing.

The idea that a fast start is best comes from the fact that winners often go out fast, but it's a stupid one, because everyone else goes out too hard, so the fastest kids win, and no one changes strategy. On the occasion that a less talented kid (still fast enough to be a contender) goes out conservatively and puts their start sprint energy into the middle mile they may do much better than objectively more talented kids. Obviously this strategy won't work with a kid that should be winning the race by a lot, though it may help come Footlocker, where the first 400-800 is almost always very fast.

And how psychologically reinforcing is it when dozens of people are passing you in the latter stages of the race?

Better to be the one doing the passing. And if a kid's legs aren't loaded up with lactate acid after the first 400, that's just what they'll be doing to all the neophytes who follow your advice.

Worst case scenario is that you finish the race feeling you could do better next time.

exactly, if the worst situation is you get to the last 800 and have "too much left" that is not a bad thing.

XCool wrote:

I tend to think the optimal strategy is to go out about 5-10 seconds off the spot you want to finish in (realistically) for approx. the first 400m, then settle onto the pace you want to hold for the race.

Going out hard for the first 400m is way too long for most HS runners (even the good ones). 400m of time is a significant amount of time to be running at too fast a pace and will quickly put you into oxygen debt from which you will never recover.

100-200m is far more reasonable, and I would err on the 100m side. Only reason you want to get out fast is to get your body/mind into racing mode and not get boxed in, especially during championship races.

I was suggesting going out more reasonably, but without letting the spot you want to be in get away.

formerD1 wrote:

Going out hard for the first 400m is way too long for most HS runners (even the good ones).

Interestingly, watch this and listen to the commentary.

The first 10 minutes or so is a discussion of the "stupidity" of these elite athletes sprinting the first 400m.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCdQTQyo7jU