Negative Split Strategy for HS Cross Country

Splits wrote:

Here are splits from one of our runners today: 4:58, 10:56, 16:41 and finished the 5k in 17:16.

Yes neg split may not be ideal but neither is this kind of pacing. Running under control would be more ideal but then you are off the back and you feel out of it. You need to be mentally strong, most HSers are weak.

The splits in the quoted post suck. This same guy could have run much faster. To do so requires the mental strength to run an even pace without regard to what the other runners are doing. The greats can do that. Hell, I can do that. However, this poster is exactly right: few young runners can. They are mentally too weak to run exactly 3 miles each at the same pace in a row.

Original poster here -- thanks for all the feedback.

I posted this about my kid's coach. Background is, both parents ran middle school through D-1 track and XC, and still compete in occasional road races 5K-marathon. We have 3 kids who run. The HS has hired 4 XC coaches in 5 years. I believe current coach's experience is one year of competitive running in HS, no prior XC coaching.

I really don't want to be "that parent" who questions/criticizes the coach's strategy, but watching a recent race had me scratching my head. The kids ran in a group at the back of the pack until they were given a 1-mile split time, they were then supposed to run the next mile faster and start picking off the other runners. Mile 3 was supposed to be the fastest.

What happened? They went out slow, slowed down, and most finished slower and further back than the previous year. My kid does better with a quicker start -- not a crazy sprint to the front start -- but a start that puts you within striking range of your competition before hitting the trails.

Unfortunately the coach insists that "all runners will benefit from this strategy." I personally think that there is no "one size fits all" strategy for all runners. And I think this is an especially bad strategy for HS XC. It's been a long time since I ran XC, and wanted to hear what others thought. Thank you.

AMEN!!!!

Wow, this thread is horrible.

"getting out fast" in xc is a myth...even for kids who can win.

I attended a low key DI college meet this week where I saw a pack of 5 go out in 435...all but one of them got beat by runners in the next pack. The event winner was probably in 15th place through 5k.

Sure, you need to maintain contact, but what I think this "newbie" coach is trying to avoid is runners sprinting the first 200-800, jogging for 2+ miles, then "JV kicking" at the end.

Given moderate terrain, a good 17 flat split could be: 520, 530,535-40.

The key is to not positive split too much. If your kid is tough enough, he should be able to stick to a script like the one I've outlined. Unfortunately, lots of HS kids are pansies these days; especially midpackers.

To the OP.

You are right in that one strategy does not fit all. But you have to be honest about where your child is at. Is he competing for the overall win? If so he should not be in the team's pack. Does he have another team mate who runs the same time as he does? If so he should be going out with that team mate. Etc.

My personal HS experience was I had a coach just like your son's. Pack oriented, go out slow, negative split, etc. I reluctantly played along with the role Fr. and So. year. I raced well but didn't think I was hitting my potential as I THOUGHT I was a front runner even though I wasn't. I was a role player for the team and the coach needed consistent finishes from me. Jr. year much to my surprise coach took me aside and said I was no longer going to run with the pack. My strategy changed and I was "let loose" to run up front. Even then I was never directed to go out in the lead. Always 3 to 5 seconds back through the first mile then do as I will. In hind sight my coach was successful in keeping the team consistently placing well by holding the runners back and keeping them together to work on passing fading runners (when you go out slow this has to be your #1 goal - pass people who are fading). Only the select few elite who had the skill and base training were allowed to go out fast. We were rewarded with three team medals over four years at state, although we never won state. And my Jr. and Sr. years were very successful individually speaking. Although I can honestly say I never once led a XC race at the mile mark I did place top 4 in every race entered.

So I ask you... is your son a true front runner? Or a role player for the team?

If he's a true front runner who will win races he should be allowed to go out with the lead pack. If not, he needs to play his role for the team.

The most important XC scorer is number 5.

If packing up early helps keep the scores of #5 and #4 down, the team can afford to lose a few points at #2 and #3.

I think we all agree that unless #1 is interchangeable with #2 and #3, they should be allowed to run their own race.

If your last race was 17:00 for 5k, the first mile split of your next race should be 5:20ish most likely run with half mile splits of 2:35 and 2:45. Any faster is not about being competitive and any slower sets your race up against runners who are slower than you.

some people say follow the crowd but that's not right I agree with your teacher doing a negative split may be a bit easier and feel better but I try to have my splits as equal as possible you should try different strategies and see what works remember everyones different

For 99% of XC courses it is NOT difficult to pass people on 90+% of the course

It is NOT difficult to negative split in XC. There is no magical XC pixie dust that forces one to go out faster than one is capable of maintaining.

For the vast majority of runners even splits or slightly negative splits are ideal for distance races (i.e., HS XC races).

That is all that there is to say on this topic.

It depends on team talent and training, but it's most likely that coach is ignorant. Times and splits are irrelevant in xc. Many kids always went out slow because they were afraid of three distance until i offered a cash bounty for leading at the mile. Neither one was ever close but they went from out of the scoring and maybe being the number 5 guy to regular scorers at 3 and 4.

Its a race. When the gun goes boom you pass as many people as you can. Period.

Negative splitting requires a lot of discipline and supreme conditioning, which most HS kids (even the good ones) don't have, so generally it is an unrealistic strategy.

In a HS meet everyone knows who the fast kids are, and while you don't want to start off too fast, positive splitting isn't necessary bad as long as it isn't severe (like 20 seconds slower for mile 2).

My favourite strategy was to let the lead pack build a lead of up to 20-30 or so meters (less than 10 seconds) and then claw my way back. Believe it or not, the energy required to go that extra 20-30m faster in the early stage of the race is quite significant, as you pay much more for slight increases in speed at that range.

So in short, staying in contact with the lead pack (which still means you are going out pretty hard) and then limiting your positive split as much as possible seems to result in the best chance to place high and have a good time.

If you look at NCAA meets, the winners are usually front runners (Chelanga, Cheserek) or those who hang back just a bit while staying in contact and then win at the end (Rupp).

"Negative splitting requires a lot of discipline and supreme conditioning, which most HS kids (even the good ones) don't have, so generally it is an unrealistic strategy."

If he tells them to go out "slow", they will probably go out on pace, if he tells them to go out "fast", they're going to go crazy for the first 1200-1600m, then die.

Going out fast and dying is a strategy. It's a $hitty one, but it IS a strategy.

World records are set by people with great conditioning, which doesn't describe the average high school runner.

Most people who do not have really good fitness usually do better by going out hard and holding on as best they can because they can't finish hard even on a slow pace.

That's why negative splitting isn't good for most runners.

And the top runners are good enough to handle a fast early pace and still gut out a competitive finish.

So they think about early positioning.

And some can lurk in the back and move up.

Trying a negative split race is good training but not usually optimal racing.

If it was you'd see everyone doing in XC.

Track is a different beast.

Star wrote:

World records are set by people with great conditioning, which doesn't describe the average high school runner.

Most people who do not have really good fitness usually do better by going out hard and holding on as best they can because they can't finish hard even on a slow pace.

That's why negative splitting isn't good for most runners.

And the top runners are good enough to handle a fast early pace and still gut out a competitive finish.

So they think about early positioning.

And some can lurk in the back and move up.

Trying a negative split race is good training but not usually optimal racing.

If it was you'd see everyone doing in XC.

Track is a different beast.

Incorrect on virtually every single point.

But regarding your "proofy" statement - "Trying a negative split race is good training but not usually optimal racing. If it was you'd see everyone doing in XC." That is truly hilarious. People run like morons because they are not very intelligent and are scared to do something different (like be way behind for the first mile).

People do NOT automatically adapt to the optimal strategy. If they did there would be no need for ANY thread about what is the optimal strategy, training regimen,... Everyone would already be doing what is optimal. LOL.

Like OFandS said, it is a race and you have to put your all into it. Many who go out slow don't end up giving their all.

I like the idea of leading at the mile. The trick then would be to keep them from trying to lead at the 100 or the 400 and hanging on to lead at the mile but rather to run almost even to lead at the mile.

A couple of times in HS we messed around with a strategy we called kill #7. Our 7th runner was to run the first two miles as fast as he could and was expected to jog the last mile. The top 3 had to stay with him for the first mile. The next 3 had to stay with him for the second mile. This kept 1, 2 and 3 from going out too fast but they had lots of time to make up ground. Since 5 and 6 weren't that much better than 7 it got them out faster for 2 miles but like fD1 said, the few seconds slower they ran in the first mile to stay with 7 meant a lot.