• scorpion_runner
      • why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 8:51PM
      • scorpion_runner
      • He is a weak runner. He came in 8th in the 100 meter run, and gatlin and tyson were really fast.

        And considering that this was tyson's first run, his body and legs had more energy. He was fast as hell on his leg, probably the fastest, with gatlin being fast as well.

        It should have been brommel to gatlin and then to gay, clearly. ...gay and gatlin are the only runners who have beaten Bolt.
    • Idontreallyknow
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 8:52PM - in reply to scorpion_runner
      • Idontreallyknow
      • It's about chemistry. But yeah, Gay who couldn't make the U.S. team in the 100 and Gatlin who can't beat Bolt would've beaten him there
    • lease
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 8:53PM - in reply to scorpion_runner
      • lease
      • The anchor runner carries the baton the shortest distance of the four. All things (like starting ability and curve running) being equal, ideally your fastest runner should lead off--the first runner carries the baton the longest.
    • Sprinter Guy
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 8:54PM - in reply to scorpion_runner
      • Sprinter Guy
      • Bromell isn't a weak runner. The problem is that he is running injured. He was injured before these Games even started. He's been having Achilles problems.

        Whoever decided it was a good idea to let him run, especially anchor, should find a new job. Costed us the Silver and put Bromell's long-term health on the line.
    • i chose D2
      registered
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 8:56PM - in reply to scorpion_runner
      • i chose D2
        registered
      • should've left Lawson out there. He had a good exchange with Gay in the prelim and looked like he ran a good split.
    • scorpion_runner
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 8:57PM - in reply to Idontreallyknow
      • scorpion_runner
      • Idontreallyknow wrote:
        It's about chemistry. But yeah, Gay who couldn't make the U.S. team in the 100 and Gatlin who can't beat Bolt would've beaten him there
        I'm not saying they would have won...but they would have done better than brommel...and a fresh tyson would have definitely put some bite on bolt...dude closed that distance quick as hell on his leg.

        we would have taken silver for sure.
    • stovetop sfuffing
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 8:58PM - in reply to scorpion_runner
      • stovetop sfuffing
      • No one can come close to beating Bolt when he has a running start, so that was a given. But losing to Japan? Has sprinting ever been so weak for the American men?
    • uslostspeed
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 8:59PM - in reply to Sprinter Guy
      • uslostspeed
      • US sprinting used to be lights out. This is the worst all around showing I can remember. I remember a time it would be silly talk to suggest not a single gold and no medal whatsoever in the 200m.
    • Fred Gwynne
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 9:03PM - in reply to lease
      • Fred Gwynne
      • lease wrote:
        The anchor runner carries the baton the shortest distance of the four. All things (like starting ability and curve running) being equal, ideally your fastest runner should lead off--the first runner carries the baton the longest.
        if that is true why did Jamaica run Bolt on the anchor.
    • Idontreallyknow
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 9:04PM - in reply to Fred Gwynne
      • Idontreallyknow
      • Fred Gwynne wrote:
        lease wrote:
        The anchor runner carries the baton the shortest distance of the four. All things (like starting ability and curve running) being equal, ideally your fastest runner should lead off--the first runner carries the baton the longest.
        if that is true why did Jamaica run Bolt on the anchor.
        Bad at starting. If he has a lead or is close, they will win
    • Brainy smurf
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 9:08PM - in reply to Sprinter Guy
      • Brainy smurf
      • Sprinter Guy wrote:
        Bromell isn't a weak runner. The problem is that he is running injured. He was injured before these Games even started. He's been having Achilles problems.

        Whoever decided it was a good idea to let him run, especially anchor, should find a new job. Costed us the Silver and put Bromell's long-term health on the line.
        Yes
    • notmuchtimetotrain
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 9:11PM - in reply to lease
      • notmuchtimetotrain
      • lease wrote:
        The anchor runner carries the baton the shortest distance of the four. All things (like starting ability and curve running) being equal, ideally your fastest runner should lead off--the first runner carries the baton the longest.
        Incorrect. How long your run depends on where you get/give the stick in the zone. The first runner only runs farther than the last runner if he hands off at the end of the zone and the anchor receives at the end of the zone. Second or third leg can run longer because they can receive at the beginning of the zone and handoff at the end. You don't put your fastest person first. You put your best starter who can run a curve well first.

        Brommel anchored because the U.S. thought they would have the lead that way. They were wrong.
    • Ph
      registered
    • Iowa800
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 9:22PM - in reply to lease
      • Iowa800
      • Many teams put their top runner 2nd because they can run the furthest distance with the baton and put pressure on other teams. The Jamaican women ran Thompson second and the USA put Gatling there. If you plan on being in a dogfight at the last exchange you can put your best runner at anchor. NO ONE PUTS THEIR FASTEST RUNNER FIRST, even in middle school.
    • asfs
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/19/2016 10:10PM - in reply to stovetop sfuffing
      • asfs
      • stovetop sfuffing wrote:
        But losing to Japan? Has sprinting ever been so weak for the American men?
        We haven't been this embarrassed by Japan since Pearl Harbor.
    • flaciddistance
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/20/2016 6:42AM - in reply to lease
      • flaciddistance
      • lease wrote:
        The anchor runner carries the baton the shortest distance of the four. All things (like starting ability and curve running) being equal, ideally your fastest runner should lead off--the first runner carries the baton the longest.
        Rubbish.

        Clearly you are a distance guy.

        It depends on th estrength of the team. Usually they make the curve guys run the shortest. The second leg is usually the longest in most iterations.

        For your education. The legs are all 100 m, with the international zone the same distance behind the back of the box. There are plenty of things happening in the change and the only constant is the athlete's run in point. They can't go behind or touch the international zone.
    • Sleepy
      registered
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/20/2016 10:41AM - in reply to uslostspeed
      • Sleepy
        registered
      • You can thank the long sprint season in the USA for burning out the men sprinters by this time every year. There should be a pool of sprinters that are are paid to work together instead running in numerous meets to make a living. That's why Bolt is usually so fresh in the Worlds and Olympics. Norman and Lyles brothers should be the first ones put on a stipend. If Norman runs for USC he'll be burnt out by Worlds next year.
    • Coach
      registered
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/20/2016 10:57AM - in reply to Sleepy
      • Coach
        registered
      • The order of Rogers to Gatlin to Gay was used at last year's world relay championships that near the Jamaican team, yes Bolt anchored that team. Last year Bailey anchored. Rogers is a good dependable starter. The placement of the first 3 runners was fine. Gatlin is a great straightaway runner and Gay still a good curve runner. In retrospect a hurt Brommel should not have been used. But of course it wouldnt have mattered as Gatlin screwed up.
        I would love to watch Mitchell coach his relays to see if hes the problem or the athewathletes or both.
    • lease
      • RE: why the hell was Brommel on the anchor?!! 8/20/2016 5:19PM - in reply to flaciddistance
      • lease
      • flaciddistance wrote:
        lease wrote:
        The anchor runner carries the baton the shortest distance of the four. All things (like starting ability and curve running) being equal, ideally your fastest runner should lead off--the first runner carries the baton the longest.
        Rubbish.

        Clearly you are a distance guy.

        It depends on th estrength of the team. Usually they make the curve guys run the shortest. The second leg is usually the longest in most iterations.

        For your education. The legs are all 100 m, with the international zone the same distance behind the back of the box. There are plenty of things happening in the change and the only constant is the athlete's run in point. They can't go behind or touch the international zone.
        I guess people missed my "all things equal (like starting ability and curve running)" caveat. Anyway:

        The idea in the 4x100 is to have the baton carried the whole time by someone who's at (or close to) top speed. Each outgoing runner gets a 10m "fly" zone for acceleration, then a 20m zone in which to complete the pass. But no good sprinter can reach his or her top speed, or even approach it, with 20 meters of acceleration or less--so any outgoing runner who takes the baton in the first half of the exchange zone is slowing down the team.

        [Hence having your fastest sprinter "take the baton early in the zone" is counterproductive, because s/he's still accelerating. How do we know that? Because the incoming runner is able to catch up to the outgoing one!]

        Okay, so we know that ideally every pass will be made in the second half of the exchange zone. In fact, the *ideal* would be to complete it just before the baton exits the zone: that way, the outgoing runner is nearly up to the speed of the incoming runner and the baton is slowed down the least.

        But let's say, for safety's sake, that you aim at completing each pass about three-quarters of the way through the zone--after 15m of the 20m allowed for an exchange, in other words. Then your leadoff runner has the baton for 105m, your #2 and #3 runners have it for 100m, and your #4 has it for 95m.

        All else being equal (did you catch it that time?), you'd like your fastest runner to have the baton for the longest distance. And that means your fastest runner should lead off--as Ben Johnson led off for Canada in the 1984 OG. (It also helped that he was the world's best starter at the time.) And your slowest runner should carry the baton for the shortest distance.

        Now, I grant that all conditions are rarely equal, but IF your fourth-fastest sprinter can understand his/her role in the relay and stay cool-headed, s/he will be on the anchor. This way, your fastest people run first, often putting pressure on other teams that find themselves way behind in the early going--and sometimes prompting them to mess up their own passes.

        I have coached relays that won major conference titles--or came much closer to winning than they "should" have, based on seed times--following precisely this reasoning.

        But I'll admit that someone who coached college sprinters for a quarter-century, as I have, would probably have a few success stories regardless.