Was this Bekkelys only tactic? Seems he only won as other runners who took the lead more?
You're actually not wrong: Bekele on the track actually mostly did sit and kick. The races where he didn't sit and kick are more legendary (esp. 2008 Olympic 5k), so we remember that more. But in the 10k especially, he would wait for the final lap (see 2003, 2009 for some really great races).
I do think there is a distinction to be made here. Bekele was the world record holder, and did sometimes win from the front. So there was no question Bekele could win under other circumstances. (See also: XC)
The critique of Mo Farah was that there was exactly one way he could win: his particular brand of sit-and-kick. This turned out to be a "dominant" strategy, so nobody could counter it, every race was the same, and Farah always won. But all Farah did was prove that he was the best at one particular style, and force every race into that mold, which feels "cheap". (I actually think this undersells Farah)
Farah's sit-and-kick wins felt like: everyone runs 9400m together. Then Farah goes to the front and he has the best speed, so he wins.
Bekele's sit-and-kick wins felt like: the second-best runner desperately tries to drop Bekele, they succeed in dropping everyone else, and then the Great Man DESTROYS them over the last 400m.
But, yes, you are right: Bekele used sit-and-kick more than any other strategy.
Was this Bekkelys only tactic? Seems he only won as other runners who took the lead more?
You're actually not wrong: Bekele on the track actually mostly did sit and kick. The races where he didn't sit and kick are more legendary (esp. 2008 Olympic 5k), so we remember that more. But in the 10k especially, he would wait for the final lap (see 2003, 2009 for some really great races).
I do think there is a distinction to be made here. Bekele was the world record holder, and did sometimes win from the front. So there was no question Bekele could win under other circumstances. (See also: XC)
The critique of Mo Farah was that there was exactly one way he could win: his particular brand of sit-and-kick. This turned out to be a "dominant" strategy, so nobody could counter it, every race was the same, and Farah always won. But all Farah did was prove that he was the best at one particular style, and force every race into that mold, which feels "cheap". (I actually think this undersells Farah)
Farah's sit-and-kick wins felt like: everyone runs 9400m together. Then Farah goes to the front and he has the best speed, so he wins.
Bekele's sit-and-kick wins felt like: the second-best runner desperately tries to drop Bekele, they succeed in dropping everyone else, and then the Great Man DESTROYS them over the last 400m.
But, yes, you are right: Bekele used sit-and-kick more than any other strategy.
Bekele ran 26:17 and probably could run 26:05 in modern shoes with wavelight (let's say 2008 Bekele). So you couldn't drop him and he always had a great kick. Basically impossible to beat in his prime when he's firing on all cylinders
Was this Bekkelys only tactic? Seems he only won as other runners who took the lead more?
You're actually not wrong: Bekele on the track actually mostly did sit and kick. The races where he didn't sit and kick are more legendary (esp. 2008 Olympic 5k), so we remember that more. But in the 10k especially, he would wait for the final lap (see 2003, 2009 for some really great races).
I do think there is a distinction to be made here. Bekele was the world record holder, and did sometimes win from the front. So there was no question Bekele could win under other circumstances. (See also: XC)
The critique of Mo Farah was that there was exactly one way he could win: his particular brand of sit-and-kick. This turned out to be a "dominant" strategy, so nobody could counter it, every race was the same, and Farah always won. But all Farah did was prove that he was the best at one particular style, and force every race into that mold, which feels "cheap". (I actually think this undersells Farah)
Farah's sit-and-kick wins felt like: everyone runs 9400m together. Then Farah goes to the front and he has the best speed, so he wins.
Bekele's sit-and-kick wins felt like: the second-best runner desperately tries to drop Bekele, they succeed in dropping everyone else, and then the Great Man DESTROYS them over the last 400m.
But, yes, you are right: Bekele used sit-and-kick more than any other strategy.
Why would it be a criticism of Farah to sit and kick? He had the best closing speed so why would he want to push the pace? Ingebrigtsen has the best speed in the 5000m, he doesn’t push the pace at that distance, either.
As is the case for Ingebrigtsen, it’s an unknown whether Farah could have won off of a near WR pace.