I would say this is pretty clearly a tune up for the 1000m at Millrose. Let's see how that goes.
Also, it's a standard Vig move to put good guys in lower heats and let them pummel the competition.
I would say this is pretty clearly a tune up for the 1000m at Millrose. Let's see how that goes.
Also, it's a standard Vig move to put good guys in lower heats and let them pummel the competition.
Just watched this:
Have to say some of the comments actually did surprise me.
Trialswatcher wrote:
Well, I WAS optimistic.
But a 1:51.62 opener at Penn State yesterday?
How would he get by the 800 in 1:51 to even run a competitive 1000M?
This is a real lower tier type result , even for an opener. The race went in 1:48.xx , so there was an oppty to run fast, unless he won second heat easily?
I was at the meet, and he looked strong. It as pretty clear that he was just working out. After the 800 race he paced the 3K runners. The goal was to have someone run a sub 8:00 3K, but nobody was able to stick with Andrews and maintain the pace. It looked to me like Andrews would have had no problem finishing sub 8:00 if he wanted to. He dropped out with about 800m left.
Bringing this back because so many of us were wrong!
Bump it again when the lazy momma' boy runs to his potential.
Here is how I expect Andrew's Beijing experience to play out
He will sit way back in his 1500 heat - kick like mad over the final 200 to advance to the semi. Over the next day people on lets run will blow the board up saying how Andrews will medal.
In his semi once again he will sit too far back. Kick like mad and come up short and not advance.
hate the winger wrote:
Here is how I expect Andrew's Beijing experience to play out
He will sit way back in his 1500 heat - kick like mad over the final 200 to advance to the semi. Over the next day people on lets run will blow the board up saying how Andrews will medal.
In his semi once again he will sit too far back. Kick like mad and come up short and not advance.
That's what happened to Dave Wottle in the Munich 1500. His kick lucked out in the 800, and then he ran out of luck in the 1500 semis, if I recall correctly.
Thank for bumping as it also points out how few of us were right. Your welcome.
Man am i good. i got an email with a link to this thread, saying , "Nice job, Rojo."
I was shocked I wrote the following as the 2nd post.
Now to be fair. Maybe I had heard from Vig his workouts were going well or something. I don't remember but it's possible. Either that or i am just a genius.
You might be a little biased. Pat Casey and Will Leer ran faster in July last year and you label Leer as an underdog...not the medal contender you're making Andrews out to be. I think Andrews has plenty of potential and the move up to 1500 makes sense, but you're equating a B-season as indicative of medal contention.
dude its ROJO. HE IS THE FOUNDER OF THIS SITE THAT I TROL ON
tse wrote:
You might be a little biased. Pat Casey and Will Leer ran faster in July last year and you label Leer as an underdog...not the medal contender you're making Andrews out to be. I think Andrews has plenty of potential and the move up to 1500 makes sense, but you're equating a B-season as indicative of medal contention.
You clearly do not understand championship racing if you think that Casey and Leer are at Andrews' current level.
Being a medal contender is about being able to run a 53 second final 400m or 25 second final 200m off of 3:35 pace. Just because somebody can hang on for a fast time in a rabbited race does not mean that they can be in contention to make a podium.
I'm not sold on Andrews medalling in Beijing, but if he is 4-6th with 200m to go, just thinking about that gives me goosebumps. If it were Leer or Casey in that same situation, I'd say their race is over.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
You clearly do not understand championship racing if you think that Casey and Leer are at Andrews' current level.
Being a medal contender is about being able to run a 53 second final 400m or 25 second final 200m off of 3:35 pace. Just because somebody can hang on for a fast time in a rabbited race does not mean that they can be in contention to make a podium.
I'm not sold on Andrews medalling in Beijing, but if he is 4-6th with 200m to go, just thinking about that gives me goosebumps. If it were Leer or Casey in that same situation, I'd say their race is over.
I get what you're saying, everyone knows Andrews potential. My point was more a critique of Robert claiming he called his shot, not a comparison of Leer vs Andrews. But to say Leer's race would be over in a 3:35 race, when he's run 3:35 very consistently, and Andrews would give you goosebumps, when he's run 3:35 or faster twice 3 years apart, "clearly" seems unfair.