Symmonds lost this race the only way he could...

Forgive my lack of knowledge, but where is Rudisha?

Why no race?

A Duck wrote:

He lost THAT race in the only way he could. Not some other mythical race in your mind. THAT race. That race was the race that happened today/last night and of which was being written.

I just wish he had executed the original race plan, 50/52.

I'm sure he does too, listen, it is possible for two things to be true at the same time, he understands that he paid for the hot pace when it hit his legs in the last hundred, and he is thrilled to get silver.

Imagine if Rojo made a thread like this about Rupp after the 10k, you would have been boiling!

I'm sure he does listen, but not to you. You are easily put in the category among with the trolls that bash Rupp and others, think about it. However much you dislike it, think about it. And think about the fact that everyone else in this thread disagree with you.

Earth to Idiot wrote:

Criticizing and joking about Symmonds lame ideas, is completely different than the relentless personal attacks on Rupp before every single one of Rupp's races.

Hes not as bad as the Rupp haters, but his putting himself on their level. Calling Symmonds a midget is no better than calling Rupp gay.

Some of those that are not fans of Rupp are at least intelligent, unlike A Duck.

Der Hund wrote:

Forgive my lack of knowledge, but where is Rudisha?

Why no race?

Injury.

Rental Canova said Symmonds ran tactically a great race and placed as well as possible.

Hmmmmm .... Who's opinion do I value more ADuck or Canova.

It's very funny you say the "original plan" was to run 50.0 + 52.0 = 1:42.0, but running the first lap in 50.38 was "too fast".

May be you don't understand the difference between a "plan", that is the strategy for the competition, and the "goal", that is a hope.

Every athlete can "hope" to win WCh, having a "plan" for his training in order to reach to proper shape, and a "strategy" in the competition in order to "try" to achieve his goal.

For example, I explained my athletes Edwin Soi and Thomas Longosiwa how to beat Mo Farah in 5000m : to run every km at the pace of 2:31.0, for finishing with the WR in 12:35.0.

I think if they follow my plan, they are able to beat Mo Farah... but I doubt they are able to do !

Renato Canova wrote:

It's very funny you say the "original plan" was to run 50.0 + 52.0 = 1:42.0, but running the first lap in 50.38 was "too fast".

May be you don't understand the difference between a "plan", that is the strategy for the competition, and the "goal", that is a hope.

Every athlete can "hope" to win WCh, having a "plan" for his training in order to reach to proper shape, and a "strategy" in the competition in order to "try" to achieve his goal.

For example, I explained my athletes Edwin Soi and Thomas Longosiwa how to beat Mo Farah in 5000m : to run every km at the pace of 2:31.0, for finishing with the WR in 12:35.0.

I think if they follow my plan, they are able to beat Mo Farah... but I doubt they are able to do !

Great that you take your time to comment on threads like these Canova.

I think anyone would love, just love, to see anyone set a hard pace at the 5000m, even if it fails.

Barakus Obama wrote: I think anyone would love, just love, to see anyone set a hard pace at the 5000m, even if it fails.

Personally, I would like to strangle the coaches who "invented" the sit back and kick style of "winning" races. The recent U.S. 5k and 10k were ugly hobbyjogs by a pack of fearful hobbyjoggers.

I do think Aman ran a beautiful race tactically, much better than Symmonds' race. I'm not sure whether it would have made a difference, but Symmonds was nowhere near as smooth as Aman through the middle of the race.

1) Look at their positions at the 200m mark. Aman had to run just a little bit faster than Symmonds, but he was in dramatically better position: Symmonds was blocked by a wall of guys that was not going to be easy to pass.

2) Because of that opening 200, Symmonds had to surge TWICE between 300 and 400 to get up with the leaders. Whatever energy he saved by going out a little slower in that first 200 was now gone, and then some. This section had to be smoother: either he had to get out quicker, or he had to be more patient, trusting his ability to squeeze through as he has so often in the past.

3) Aman wanted to be right on the lead, but as relaxed and smooth as possible. He also had to protect himself from getting too boxed. Twice people came up on his outside shoulder, and both times he challenged, but subtly. When Symmonds did it, he challenged but ultimately let him past. That way, Aman was still running relaxed, but Symmonds had to surge. The next time, Aman was in real danger of getting boxed on the backstretch of the second lap. He stayed smooth, but did just enough to protect himself. If he gets boxed there, there's no way he wins.

Ultimately, the key was that Aman expended a lot less energy than Symmonds did between 200 and 700. He was a few meters slower over that stretch than Symmonds (less than the margin of victory), but more importantly, he ran significantly more smoothly.

Between 100 and 200, Symmonds and Aman each had a guy coming up on his outside shoulder. Aman fought his off - probably running slightly faster than he wanted to, but putting him in great position. Symmonds let his go. He almost looked like he slowed a little to let him go. But letting that one guy go was equivalent to letting 4 guys go. It would have been just a little bit more energy for a lot better position, tucked on the rail right behind Solomon.

I don't agree with your analysis.

Aman started faster than Symmonds, and after could be more relaxed, but the effort Symmonds did for going in front was nothing of speciali, due to the big decrease of the pace during the second 200m (26.8, so for his effort Symmonds ran about 26.4, that for somebody who wants to win WCh is absolutely normal).

After the bell, the tactical behavior of Symmonds was perfect, while Aman did some mistake, and was lucky, during the second turn, because Souleyman still didn't start his effort.

If Souleyman started a little earlier, Aman could be boxed having Solomon and Symmonds in front, and Souleyman outside.

This is the worst position for a runner, when you arrive in the final furlong.

The fact is obvious : Aman was stronger than Symmonds and than all the other finalists, and was the strongest in the season.

Therefore, no regrets for Symmonds, but great joy for the best possible result.

If you watched any of his interviews or workouts over the last few months or so, he's in better speed shape than ever and his strength is through the roof right now. I personally hated the back running tactic he has done in the last few years and also personally thought that if he could improve his speed he could front run and make a run at a high finish on a world stage....that, or, move up to the 1500m. He has said that he knew he needed to be able to go out in 49-50.xx to be in the hunt and he did just that. I'm not sure why people have such a problem. He made it to the world stage, you're in your recliner eating Pringles.... and consequently have nothing to do with his success or racing strategy. If he won, you chodes would be calling him out for "doping" or something, but since he didn't you're all saying how he "blew it". Maybe you should go blow something. He's still a stud and did something no one else has been able to for the last 41 years, which is impressive to me

Can we all just agree that Nick Symmonds is seriously one of the greatest track and field dudes ever? Just based on his beginnings, attitude, personality, and success. Plus the dude can lay pipe like a machine.

Between this thread and the concern about Mary Cain running in lane 2, I think there's a huge misunderstanding about tactics on these boards. The prevailing wisdom (or at least the most frequent posters) seem to think that the best strategy for a championship race is to prioritize 1) running on the rail at all times and 2) running as even as possible with no accelerations or deccelerations.

As Symmonds points out, those are great strategies if one is running a time trial and shooting for some sort of record. It's also great if you're David Rudisha and can get to the rail because no one else can keep up with you. Finally, it's a great strategy for passing a bunch of people in the homestretch to cement your 4th or 5th place finish-- see Symmonds in the '12 Olympics or Osagie yesterday. But in a championship race anyone who isn't David Rudish has to deviate from this ideal. Symmonds did and Aman did. Soulieman actually got stuck on the rail and had to swing way wide-- but you've got to do what you've got to do.

Exactly. Symmonds said "we had talked about 50.0/52.5". He never said that was the hard and fast race plan. In fact right after he said that he explained why hitting pure splits wasn't his focus, rightly explaining why he focused on position. I also don't understand the assumption that because he admitted his legs tied up the last 50m means the fast early pace was the reason he didn't win. That's just faulty logic. Souliman didn't tie up as much the last 50m, but he didn't win. Aman went out faster than Symmonds and didn't tie up at the end. Had Symmonds gone out slower and been hanging out in the back, he would have had to beat Aman and some other part of the race and still closed faster than Aman who closed very well.

Couldn't agree more.

As I said earlier:

"Aman started faster than Symmonds. Aman finished faster than Symmonds. Aman made more tactical blunders than Symmonds. And Aman won.

Aman was significantly better than Symmonds on this day. There is nothing that Symmonds could have done that would have resulted in gold. "

Of course Renato is correct. I watched it again wondering if Symmonds couldn't have waited to make his first move with less energy on the backstretch at 600 instead of on the homestretch at 400. It would have been just as hard (if not harder) then. It's amazing how bunched up they were at 600 given the pace. Soulemain has to go into lane 3 to pass on the backstretch.

Ok, I agree with that. I thought Aman's tactics were very good on the whole, but there definitely a risk of getting boxed on the second lap. In retrospect, his tactics were fine, but he could have gotten in trouble. Was that luck, or just well measured effort - doing just enough to maintain his position? I think some of both.

26.4 is not too fast, but he had to give a much higher effort than 26.4 with multiple surges. Symmonds and Aman hit the 400m mark almost shoulder-to-shoulder, but my argument is that Aman's effort to that point was significantly less.

Ok, there's A LOT of truth to that. High praise to Nick. My analysis is probably overkill, given the situation. Aman was the best runner in the race, and he proved it. Silver for Symmonds is a huge, huge victory.

Perfect tactics are only possible in retrospect.

A Duck wrote:

Was too keyed up...went out too fast.

No you imbecile. Aman is the superior runner, just deal with it. Any way he ran it he'd still lose to Mo.

Aman's Endurance > Symmond's Endurance

Aman's Speed > Symmond's Speed

Aman's Kick > Symmond's Kick

Aman's Talent > Symmond's Talent

Aman's 800 > Symmond's 800