We cross-posted just now. Exacty what I've been trying to say!Originally Posted by wycoller
We cross-posted just now. Exacty what I've been trying to say!
But I think that is part of our problem in endurance terms. We are generally not competitive on the international scene.
If you're volunteering to tell Paula Radcliffe what she did wrong, be my guest!
I agree with LJ. As RO for Coiners race i was "encouraged2 by selectors to ensure that 16/18 raced together and seeing as the U16 distance wqas already to the maximum I had no choice but to chang ethe intended u18 route and make them the same. U18 original route would have been the best part of 2 miles more and a good deal more ascent. When Coiners returns next year I may look to renistare this. It cant be great fro juniors knowing that from the age of 14 they are going to run the same route for 4 years wiothout any extra testing of their ability. Then for them to just step up to competeing in FRA series of S/M/L + one from any distance means they are having to step up and race in perhaps 3 races that are at least double (perhaps more) whatever they have raced before if the series includes 2 L and a long M. I fail to see how that is of benefit to them if they have had no chance at realistic managed progression. The idea of a separate series for U20/U23? which does not exceed M would be a good idea. But i do feel that there needs to be some change at a younger age group to allow for this progression to be abale to occur safely.
I know Lauren - and maybe the racing is a side issue - there's evidence out there for and against. It's hard to make the comparison with ladies as they weren't running distance until recently. But the men running in the 60s and 70s had an approach that produced far more depth over 5K - marathon in those days than we do now.
http://www.thepowerof10.info/ranking...ex=M&alltime=y
The half marathon all time rankings show other than Farah, we have to go to 20th place before we get to a time recorded this century. In fact Tomas Abyu in 50tyh place all time is the fastest in the last 10 years.
Gebrselassie is phenomenal - but he won the world junior 5K and 10K in 1992. In 93 he won the Senior 10K and silver in the 5K when he was only 20.
He was probably on 100 mile weeks and with some intense work thrown in and we are still talking potential for athletes in their mid 20s.
Richard I have been involved in this sport for a long time and during it I have seen athletes come and go. To be competitve on an international basis today, you have to have certain characteristics and in some cases you have to be prepared to do things that aren't right. Like it or not that is the way it is.
Some athletes can run 29-30 minutes for 10k. For them that is their limit and no amount of training will ever make them go any faster. If you want guys who are going to run 27.30- 28.00 minutes naturally then it requires a certain physique. Even then they'd have to have the determination to succeed.
Saying we are not competitive because our runners don't do long races is a non-sequiter. Just as I cannot run 10 seconds for the 100m no matter how hard I train some men will never run 27.30 for 10k. Unless those few with the potential to run such times take up the sport it is a fruitless exercise to say we are 'uncompetitive.' It is also pointless to blame the non existence of medium or long races for teenagers as one of the possible causes of failure.
Good post. We forget that medium and long fell races require navigational skills. We also know that 16- 18 year olds lack the maturity of an adult - no matter how many exams they can pass - and as far as I'm concerned that is a good enough reason to exempt them from doing anything but short races.
It may well be that blame for this or that is being apportioned. That is not my standpoint. i am not seeking to blame any lack of success on the international scene at the door of limiting maximum race distances to just 6m (despite it being seen as a worthy rule change I just cant get this metrification) What I am saying is that for some then the possibility of racing over slightly longer distances may not be a bad thing and may not be detrimental. Looking to debate this with a view to change is not a bad thing. Its not about just the very best . Why doe sit have to be about winners. I am not suggesting that we should only think about juniors who are capable of winning races potentially running longer races. Whats wrong with someone who is strong but a middle of the pack runner doing it. I thought this stared of about developing juniors and part of this is about fun and challenge. If the odd occasion to take part in longer races keep ist keen for runners then that is also a good thing. Its not just about the very elite.
Chris - I have to say I'm not sure and that isn't what I'm on about really and I did say in my last post that the racing was a side issue. I'm interested that Chris Smale and others have done long races young and I am sure that intrinsically kids are far more able to do long distances than we give them credit for.
But in terms of improving performance I don't think it is a good idea.
In terms of longer races, I am angling for a little leeway. We have our international U18/U16 spending 4 years running in races generally no longer than 4 mile. It's worse for lads, as they can be thrown in to a U20GB race where they can have an uphill only race longer than that.
And clearly they are lots of reasons why our male endurance runners, as much as I admire them, are not as good as they used to be. Other sports taking more of the pool of talent perhaps, but also we have a dumbing down approach to most things in life these days.
The target seems to be "average" and that can't be right.
Agree Alistair, and if we had the leeway as coaches to "approve" a U18 athlete to take on a 7.5 mile BM, then it might not be an elite athlete, but a competant athlete that we feel would benefit from the experience.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote