[quote]asdfasfasfds wrote:
Except that Scott really didn't push the pace (Coe's splits were like 58.9, 58.9 (1:56.9), 56.4 (2:53.3), 39.2 ). 59s are an honest pace but it isn't the type of pace to run the kick out of a 3:50 runners legs. Scott just didn't have it on that day.
And for what it is worth, I think the extended kick (500-600m) works better. Leading the whole race turns you into a rabbit. Unless you are better than the field (Elliot) or have an advantage (altitude in 68) your in trouble.
But as far as bad tactics, what about Johnny Gray always going out hard and dying. In olympic years he had season best of sub 1:43 3 times and came up with 1 bronze.
[quote]
If you got those split times from off the Youtube video of the race, I have to confess they're slightly wrong; I actually posted them originally and I made a slight mistake.
The second 400m was 58.0 not 58.9, but the remaining splits are all correct. It was a typing error. Sorry!
So in fact Scott did inject a slight increase in pace, but it wasn't enough to do what he wanted.
First lap 58.9, then 58.0 then 56.4. The pace got gradually quicker from the very beginning. What I think happened was that while the first lap was decent for most Championship races, the second lap is when things usually start slowing down. Perhaps Scott sensed the pace was slowing in the first 100m of the second lap and decided he didn't want this to happen. He increased the pace on the second lap, knowing that races generally only get faster once the 3rd lap starts.
I don't think it was a bad tactic. Scott was the second fastest miler at the time, and should have been able to manage a 58.0 second lap at the front, without it adversely effecting his chances. The fact that he started to die on the 3rd lap shows he just wasn't in the right shape that day. Had the second lap drifted to 61.0, I doubt Scott would have medalled that day. I'm glad he made it a true miler's race and ensured that the best man won. Too many Championship races at that time were won off slow pace with tactics rather than ability often the winning formula. If I remember correctly, Scott had been having a few injury problems leading up to LA, and I think there must have been a lot of pressure on him to perform well in his own country.
I also don't agree with the comment by someone that Scott had a poor kick! That's just not true. He had a feared kick and won many races with it. While it wasn't quite as good as Coe or Ovett's at their peak, it was still one of the best at the time over the last 100-200m. I remember him going past Coe in the last 50m at Zurich in 86.
About 10 days after the LA final, Scott ran a very good race to come second (behind Coe) in Zurich in 3:33.46 beating Abascal, Deleze and Spivey. His last 300m was about 39.7! So, he clearly was in decent shape at the end of the season. Perhaps LA was a few weeks too early or he just didn't have it psychologically that day.