What would the US have finished in World CC team results w/ best lineup racing?

Teg would have to run a 10k enroute durring a 12k race. As we all know, teg doesnt run the 10k, so count him out

I don't think it's possible to project except in the loosest sense where any runner not in the top ten, American or otherwise, might have finished in this race if they were there that day. Obviously if there was a stronger American team -- I follow distance running in a general and not an obsessive way, and didn't know much of the U.S. team this year -- we would have done better. But these specific predictions seem a wee tad... nerdy? I am sure you all would admit this is a much more inexact science than you've made it sound.

I honestly don't think it would matter what the US line up is. They're not going to win. The East Africans are simply better than everyone else. Even with a "Dream Team," I don't think the US squad could have finished better than 4th. And given the amount of international talent and the crappy race conditions, I think a 15th place finish for Ritz is very generous.

Our best guys of the pool that you mentioned, on their best day, would allow the USA to place 3rd in the world. 3rd isn't bad.

Despite the rather generous nature of these predictions/comparisons, this is another general indicator of the rising standard of US running. 3rd or 4th best team in the world is nothing to sneeze at.

Aaaaachooooo

What about Goucher... I mean I know he has had injury problems this year but typically when you put him against the world he has had some suprisingly good results in World XC, or is he too "old".

Does anyone honestly think that is still clever?

norphxc wrote:

Teg would have to run a 10k enroute durring a 12k race. As we all know, teg doesnt run the 10k, so count him out

Mr Kow Dung Onshoo wrote:

Aaaaachooooo

POD :)

And while I don't know if Qatar or Eritrea brought their best teams, it's interesting to see that the depth of the squad they brought wasn't tremendously better than that of the USA. America is still lacking that high-end, top-5 type, truly world-class guy... But I'm optimistic that if our top guys stay on a similar tier with their second class... and if the sports profile in the US builds... someday soon a high school kid will emerge who can challenge the top Africans at this distance. Webb already at that highest level, but at a shorter distance. The fact that Meb medaled in the Olympics should not be forgotten. But when everyone is at their best, Webb is the only guy we have who is truly a threat to win. That's why we get so disappointed when he doesn't come on top... or even medal. Because we really believe he can get it done. He deserves credit for being that guy.

Apologies to Lagat... I forgot him while writing this. I have nothing against him, I really like his attitude in interviews I've read/heard. But obviously his case is different than Webb's. LetsRun message boards don't implode after a Lagat loss.

Either way, if Webb can get it done... someone will emerge who can challenge at the longer distances. I'm just hoping he's in junior high so we don't have to wait too long.

What if Kenya and Ethiopia and all of the other countries fielded their best team?

No one sends their best team to these IAAF championships (marathon, half-marathon, xc, etc) because there simply isn't enoough money involved to lure the big dogs. It's been that way since at least the mid-late 80s.

Alan

Another way to look at this question is how well the U.S. would have placed in a World XC Championship of the DNSers? I'm guessing we still lose to Kenya and Ethiopa. Who else?

The women's team with Goucher or Flanagan would've medaled.

"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, it'd be Christmas every day."

As someone else pointed out, rarely does a country send all of its best distance runners to WXC. That would be especially true in an Olympic year.

The lineup we had were the runners who a) qualified and b) were willing to go. Those were the selection criteria. That means it was our best (and only) lineup. From what I hear, they competed well.

Who knows, running in this meet might herald the kind of breakthrough that Bill Rodgers had after *he* (as a mostly-unknown) ran well in WXC.

proverbial wrote:

"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, it'd be Christmas every day."

As someone else pointed out, rarely does a country send all of its best distance runners to WXC. That would be especially true in an Olympic year.

The lineup we had were the runners who a) qualified and b) were willing to go. Those were the selection criteria. That means it was our best (and only) lineup. From what I hear, they competed well.

Who knows, running in this meet might herald the kind of breakthrough that Bill Rodgers had after *he* (as a mostly-unknown) ran well in WXC.

Right, well... I think this board is for speculation like this. It's interesting (for most on this board) to assess how far US distance running has come.

My query was hypothetical. I was hoping someone with more knowledge of the competitive landscape than I have could break it down more precisely than I did.

I think that pointing out that this is an Olympic year is especially important. As has already been said, most countries aren't bringing their "A" Team. Why? I don't konw. But if it is the same internationally as it is in America, most of the runners don't want to deal with WXC when they're trying to train and peak for the Olympics.

I think that if you want to truly imagine how good the best US squad would do at WXC, then you have put them in race where they're racing the other top international teams. Edinburg was like the Junior Olympics of WXC.