Many people are posting that Ryan Hall didn't do as well as he should have because "he wasn't aggressive enough" or he "didn't run his race". The argument is that he would have placed higher if he had gone out with the leaders. This is despite the fact that he ran positive splits, and not just a slower second half verses first half, but he basically got slower with each passing 5k. Now, I used to hear this rhetoric a lot from my college coach, and frequently it would come after I or one of my teammates ran a positive split race (usually with significant positive splits). I don't understand the logic behind these statements. Everyone knows and accepts that optimal times are achieved when I runner executes approximately even splits (some may favor a slight negative, others a slight positive). So if I have a sub par race where I am getting slower throughout, how would being more aggressive have helped? Now if it was the case that the runner in question was only getting slightly slower, or maybe the pack was pulling away very slowly, then I could see the merits of a more aggressive gameplan. But when you are slowing, and the guys you are trying to beat are very far ahead of you (in Halls case, 4-5 minutes ahead), it would seem to me that starting faster would just get you into a deeper hole later. Obviously mental fortitude is important in running, especially for the marathon, but it won't help you make up minutes or catch a physically superior runner.
I think Ryan Hall ran as fast as he could on that day, more or less, and that if he could have gone faster he would have. Going out with the leaders would have just tanked him even harder. I feel like a lot of coaches use the "aggression card" to explain bad races, and I think doing so is a cop out. The real reason for a race that is far from expectations is almost always physical (a bad training plan, bad execution of a good training plan, sickness, etc.).