Running is far more dependent on talent than it is on coaching

We’re talking about different things. There have been many great HS and collegiate runners that have had tremendous success without a training partner. I don’t know if elite teams make a difference but when running was an amateur sport, it was difficult to put teams together, even with a conscious effort.

I havent read through all 5 pages but the title is right. I think it's why there is so much debate about training philosophy. You can take a really talented runner and have them do mostly interval training, or mostly long slow+ threshold and they will succeed with either plan.

I wasn't saying it was required, I am just trying to find other reasons some schools (Great Oak or NP or Jesuit or whatever) often beat the whole rest of their state. Having a group of kids all on one team makes "doing hard things" seem much more manageable (psychologically). I know how much better I ran when I had eight guys dragging me around the track...

But you are right, there are exceptions who can do it alone, of course.

I think you should teach your kid (and all kids) that we all need a robust group of good friends and training partners to instill a real sense of community in our training and racing. Nothing beats training with my life-long friends from college cross country. Yes, I do 90% of my runs alone but most of my best races/workouts were with those guys (and still are).

It's 1000 percent genetics.

That's why the kid in third grade who runs a 5:08 can do that. It's why Bill Rodgers can spend a year or two in the bar with Winstons and set an American record. It's why Ryan set an AR and was clearly a huge dude in the first place.

It's why Kipchoge has never been injured. It's why Padilla ran 30 miles a week and still beat you. It's why Salazar racewalked a 2:08. It's why the 3000 mark will outlive us all.

Hell, Pat Petersen ran 2:10.04 a billion years ago and probably covered 7 miles horizontally while doing so. And today that time will earn a black page on Letsrun.

Jack Daniels did this coaching video where he stated 4 things that were required for success in running: Talent, opportunity, motivation, coaching. In that order, with coaching being far less important than the other three.

It's partially the coach. And it's partially the student body. You could hire Craig Virgin for a coach, but if you couldn't get kids to come out for x-c because they'd rather play football or soccer how is a guy like Craig Virgin going to be successful? He's getting all the kids being cut from football and soccer. What is he suppose to accomplish with these cast offs?

I'm now retired from coaching x-c and track, but in the spring I'd get cast offs from the sprint squad. They were told do either go see if the distance coach needed more bodies to run the 4x800 relay or they could turn in their uniforms. Well none of them wanted to quit the team, so I would always make them feel welcome to join or squad.

And every so often I'd find a "diamond in the rough." I had one young man who wasn't fast enough for the 4x400. His first 800 running for me was 2:28. He progressed during the season. On our third to last meet of the season, not counting the State Meet, he ran a 2:06. After that meet the head coach took him away from my group and reinstated him on the 4x400 relay. He ran :53's 400's after that, second fastest guy on that squad. Before that he was running :58's.

It boils down to coaching and the kids that aren't ready to turn their uniform in yet. For disclosure my high school had a student body between 550/600 kids.

Based on your premise every coach that had successful athletes is lucky. Probably some truth to that.

The plan you laid out is a version of coaching.

The trick is getting the athlete to do it consistently. That's where a good coaching happens

This is the correct answer.

Yes, just wrong order. Opportunity is first or nobody ever knows you have talent.

Doesn’t the existence of XC/Track at a HS provide opportunity?

Not necessarily. Good high school coaches get kids out to the sport (even with the restrictions placed on them with other competing sports). Many schools do not provide much direction for kids, or competitive opportunities. I coach club kids, but would see talented kids at some schools (where I coached usually talented kids outside that framework whose parents wanted more than the school provided) stagnate because they got neither knowledgeable coaching or many racing opportunities - 2 meets that led to two more (but very few progressed that far). Since their experience was 2 months of XC (if they didn't do another sport) and 2 months (if that) of track, they simply didn't get better - similar performance through all four years, if they lasted that long. Yet you could see some latent ability in more than a few. It was sad as this was their experience with the sport, little as it was, and they didn't know the difference. So yes, opportunity and all that implies should be of primary importance.