One of the guys from House of Run (I know, I know...) said something years ago that, for me, made total sense.
But, as no one is racing that way, I assume the reasoning is flawed. I have never raced track, for context.
His take for any athlete competing from 1500 to 10000 (he used Cheptegei as the example, it was before the 2021 Olympics):
The athlete and his team determine the fastest he should be able to run on race day (considering current level of fitness, athlete sensations, weather, load from heats if apply... and so on). Today's tracking, data analysis and sports science allow for a very precise estimate.
Let's say they agree he could run 26:30, i.e.
Any top tier track athlete can be a human metronome, pretty much nailing the lap time he wants. Plus they can check every 200/400.
And they are even more exact if they lock a constant pace. And that's the whole idea:
Running the most even laps possible (as it has been proven the most efficient way of managing energy) to clock a time slightly slower than how fast he and his trainers determined the athlete should be able to run that given day. In order to prevent blowing out and saving enough in the tank to close the final lap as the fastest one.
If he feels good enough, he could turn up the pace with 1k, 2 laps... to go, approaching or even exceeding his estimated upper projected performance for this race.
And every athlete should run that way, doesn't matter what the other racers are doing.
So. What's wrong in this reasoning?
Thanks in advance!