What is the 'team' ahead of 'individual' hype?

Troll thread...

I would say that NAU's individuals did quite well. Notre Dame's individuals also did quite well. Nobody was going to beat Connor Mantz yesterday. So let's say that one of NAU's or ND's guys tries to go with Mantz or attempts to bridge up to him. That runner (or multiple runners) ends up bonking and blowing up. Who did that help? It didn't help the team or the individual. Grijalva and Young were not at their top yesterday and would have paid the price if they tried to go with Kiptoo, Mantz, Wildschutt, or Masai. Then the team would have paid the price.

How did your team do yesterday?

My personal view is that the "team" mantra is subtle but maybe produces better results on the margins. If done right it can create a motivation during training. There is certainly a set of runners who will train harder and dig deeper for fear of letting others down rather than for themselves. Armies have been using that tactic to get men to run into fire forever. Over time this should lead to better more consistent training.

I also suspect it helps on race day. If this message board was in charge of Nico's race day strategy he would have led the race till he broke or won. If you are running for yourself that is a perfectly fine strategy because you aren't impacting anyone else. If you are running for your team an even or negative race split is a better strategy. Thinking of the team should allow you to develop a sound running strategy for an even race and then try to tough it out when that goes bad.

Do you really not understand team strategies or are you just dumb or trolling?

Do you think in a soccer game every player on the field runs as hard as they can from the start of the game?

Team strategies lead to wins. Individual strategies sometimes lead to wins but usually end in failure.

I've rarely seen the scenario where someone capable of finishing in the top 5 rolls the dice by trying to keep up with the leader and drops out of the top 10. The only time I recall that happening was in 1974 when Virgin tried to keep up with Rose and ended up in 15th place.

Most experienced runners have a good feel for the right pace. It's likely Young would have run the same way regardless what school he ran for.

Experienced runners also don't need other runners to push them in practice and interval workouts shouldn't be all out anyway.

I agree with this. This, I guess, is why I like the current Oregon team.

Led by Teare and Hocker, or maybe Hocker and Teare, they are so good on their own that the coach becomes a figurehead.

Coach Smith would be better off letting everyone on the team race as fast as they want because they have the capability to get the times.

Gary Ard was a Modesto JC athlete, in a dual meet he.....

Anchored the 4x1 and 4x4, won the long jump and the tiple jump, and came in second in the 200, The thing here wasn't about Gary Ard, it was about scoring points for his team.

He would end up at Kansas as a long jumper his best event.

Did you miss the race yesterday? Watch it and tell me who are the 2 leaders that are stride for stride at 1/2 way and where one of them finishes.

josh1988 wrote:

Do you think in a soccer game every player on the field runs as hard as they can from the start of the game?

No obviously not but I also don't think every distance runner sets off at a pace way to hot if racing for themselves. That's just saying that runners are incapable of pacing a race well unless 'racing for the team'.

Obviously the guys leading the first half didn't win. Would they have won if theyd ran with team mates in 20th until a kick in the last 200m once they are sure they won't blow up? Also no.

Surely let your top guys run their race. Trust they aren't idiots. If Nico was told he could race for himself, he wasn't about to lead the first mile in 4 flat. Stupid argument to think that's what happens without the team.

Not understanding risk/reward considerations during the NCAA xc championship just advertises that you never experienced them.

I recall a state qualifier in high school.

We went out "as a team," and other teams were running faster than us. So many, in fact, we weren't in a position to qualify. I went ahead, and grabbed the final individual qualifier spot. Should I have stayed with the team, kept us together, then we'd all miss going to state?

Sick burn..me think maybe you haven't either tho..

I'd be careful about conflating running as a team vs running with your team. Although it would be pretty fantastic if a coach insisted all their runners crossed the finish line together holding hands.

I'm also impressed by people's belief that all these 18 to BYU 30 year olds have acended the normal impulse control of a college student. It hasn't been my experience.

Finally, good job at your state qualifier -- That team was trash and you got yours.

There a difference between running for your team and being in the top 10 and running for your team and being in 50th. That’s why they also talk about the team being in a good position. 10k and especially a hilly 10k is a mental grind. Being around your teammates whom you’ve spent many hours training with is a mental advantage. The East African runners get this but Americans are just starting to get the concept. Notice all these fast times are coming as pro groups have formed the last 15 years. Before that it was just individuals and Americans were really really slow.

Running "conservatively" is actually the most effective race plan for many in a 10k. Typically optimizes results. This "could have finished higher" is complete ignorant BS. They optimized their race by placing themselves.

I guess Conner Mantz let his team down by selfishly taking off on his own?

Actually his case illustrates the point that this whole "run as a team" thing only works for a select few schools who have a core group of runners of very similar ability. If that's not the case, it's a stupid strategy, because you end up with better runners sacrificing valuable places just so the slowest runner on the team doesn't have to run by themselves.

I recall when I was in high school, one of our local girls' XC teams was known for running with all of their top 5 in lock-step. There seemed to be universal agreement that this was awesome, and was why they always dominated the county meet: because they were using teamwork when all the other teams were packed with selfish individuals. But then when they got to the state meet, they just looked kind of stupid because our county was actually fairly weak, and they had this pack of 5 girls in like 50th-54th place or something like that. And one or two of those girls might have been able to contend for the top 10 at least.

no farah wrote:

Just watched NCAA race.

Why is there so much conversation about running for your team ahead of running individually.

NAU saying it's a team sport and there isn't room for people who want to run for themselves.

Surely running as hard as you can is best for the team? Who cares if you want to try and win it? If you run your best, what difference ??

Gotta think about what's in the team's best interests IMO. Back at NCAA 2017, Grant Fisher played it safe and ran his way to 5th place after dropping the rest of the chase pack in the last mile or so. He stayed back from the top group and although he doomed his chances of finishing in the top 3, by running the way he did he virtually secured 5th place by running conservatively. The difference between 1st and 5th is 4 points. Obviously, there are a lot of guys who could go for it, like a Conner Mantz, and even if they blew up in the last kilometer or two would still finish relatively high- but why risk it if your goal is a team championship?

Take Chris Solinsky. Went for the win in '06 and ended up a dismal 73rd, which really hurt Wisconsin's team score that year in what ended up being a battle to the wire with Colorado. Jenny Simpson's last NCAA xc race also comes to mind.

If the team race is tight like it was on Monday, the risk-reward ratio is too skewed for it to be in the team's best interests for one to race recklessly. Maybe said athlete wins and saves their team a few points- that's great, but the other side of that coin could be a bad blowup that dooms a team's podium or title chances.

Tyrone Herro wrote:

Take Chris Solinsky. Went for the win in '06 and ended up a dismal 73rd, which really hurt Wisconsin's team score that year in what ended up being a battle to the wire with Colorado.

This can't be true. 1974 Craig Virgin finishing 15th is the only time a favorite trying to keep up with the leaders fell out of the top 10.