Jo72 wrote:
You are really overanalysing this. I snickered at the DNF because you rabid fans almost deserved this but I was stupid.
It would have been MUCH better if she had ran 4:29 or 4:32 (frankly, after the dnf, I don't believe more than ~4:29 would have been possible even with ideal pacing, so I was also wrong because I would have guessed closer to 4:25-26) because this should have ended speculations and shut you up.
Now you can fantasize and speculate at will because of a fast 1200m + DNF because she could not face getting ca. 8th place in around 4:30 although it would have been a respectable time.
And rehearse for them umpteenth time that there happens to be no good 20 yo US 1500m runner atm. Who cares?
I took it for granted in the whole debate, but apparently was wrong, that when we speak about potential of one of the ALL TIME top 3 female 400+800m runners, we are not bothering with Mu being better than current US sophomores.
And you can easily look up what you (or some other fans) wrote 3 days ago which were FAR more ambitious claims both for the race yesterday and for the near future potential, namely 1000m WR and 1500 AR. Not freaking 4:10/4:29 which was granted by most "naysayers" except for the most sceptical who'd guessed low 4:30s.
Sure, I don't know what might be in two years with different training. Maybe she can get a ca. 4:03-05 1500, like Brazier ran 3:35. But I doubt this because she is FAR better relatively speaking in the 400 than he is, thus more of the 400/800 type (of course I am aware that these types are simplifications, they still fit reasonably well, last night was another data point in favor of this "simplistic" scheme).
And why should she? She can dominate 800m, be very good in 400 and relay, why even bother with being 10th best 1500m in the US?