162 replies to this topic

[Rudolf]

DrJH, on Aug 22 2008, 09:39 AM, said:

Rudolf, I didn't state that a precondition to commenting on Mottram's run was that one needed to be a sub 13.40 5k runner. Simply that running at a higher level can give more of an insight into the factors involved. I haven't run in the Olympics either, and have never met Mottram. However, I am probably the most experienced 5k runner to post on this subject. Doesn't the fact that I am prepared to cut him some slack say something? I am sure there are plenty of factors I am not privy to surrounding his run. I can only speculate as to his thought processes and maybe shed some light on his approach.

As far as Nic Bideau goes, I'm not a fan. However, he has a vast network of contacts and access to the best. Ron Clarke once said that his grandmother could have coached Herb Elliott to a world record. I imagine similarly with Mottram, the difficult thing would be not to waste his talent.

I think people need to be better informed of all the circumstances before they lay the boot in.

I did mention Nic, as an example, that You can coach somebody else and not have the same previous PB or the racing experience.
But I agree with the assesment, it is about not to mess up the talent, so the results are very questionable.


As far as the heat strategy goes, I can turn Your argument completely around :

Buster could come to heat with attitude - I show You I am the best and strongest, I will run the heat in 13 minutes or so, showing that I believe I am in such a form, that I do not worry about saving energy etc.

And If You go with me, You will get tired for teh final, if You let me go, that I will just keep the pace  such, that nobody will be able to catch me last lap and could have easy 13:20 run with no need for sprinting last 600m at all, so possibly saving more energy than those running 13:37 and sprinting last lap.

Running heat slowly and only willing to run 600m hard could be seen by oposition as sign of weakness - the need to conserve the energy (from the fresh guy, who did not do 10km or 1500m days before and the guy who did minimum racing leading to the games)

Edited by Rudolf, 22 August 2008 - 09:54 AM.

[DrJH]

Rudolf, I can see your reasoning. However, not many who go almost flat out in the heat back up well for the final. They probably wouldn't have gone with him anyway. I think he just expected to be in the first 4 however the heat panned out, and when it became apparent he couldn't match them in a short finish it was too late to change tact.

[Sparkie]

Quote

imo mottram and jamieson and corrigan made the same tactical mistakes this olympics and jamieson also did it in Osaka...they get stuck ina slow race where they get hopelessly out-kicked in the last 100-300m...when will they learn!!!?

I don't think tactics would have made much difference to Jamieson and Corrigan - they simply weren't amongst the 12 best runners out there yesterday.  I don't think Jamieson did much wrong - she had good position and a fast pace - she simply didn't  have the goods at the pointy end of the race.  That is the difference between her run and Mottram's - Craig could have run differently and altered the end result.

I must say I was disappointed when I read Lachlan Renshaw's time, but having watched the heat afterwards, he gave himself every chance to qualify, but again, didn't have the goods.  Better to not die wondering...

[Ron1]

Rudi:  You don't get a gold medal for running a fast heat.  Mottram was trying for gold in the final against some really strong competition.  Everything had to be done to perfection to do this.  The other heats were slow so those runners would have been fresher had Mottram ran too hard in his heat.

[Rudolf]

littleaussie, on Aug 22 2008, 10:22 AM, said:

Rudi:  You don't get a gold medal for running a fast heat.  Mottram was trying for gold in the final against some really strong competition.  Everything had to be done to perfection to do this.  The other heats were slow so those runners would have been fresher had Mottram ran too hard in his heat.

hehe, but You do not get a medal if You are not in teh final.

Running Bekele and Lagat tired woukld give better chance at medal.

Second point I erepeat - if they went with Buster, than they would split the field and likely decides teh 4 places without the need for fast finish, if they let him go, he could slow down and just control the pace with no need of sprint finish, either way better preparation for final, than the lactic 600m sprint.

But the manin point is this - not getting to final is a failure, dissapointement, not good for sponsors, etc.

Getting to final by running gutsy heat and finishing in any place in first 6th is world class, great performnace etc,
getting the full public support.

Nobody would criticize 6th place or so as failure etc.

The attitude medal or nothing, is somehow incorrect.

[Colin]

Said "end of story"..but...

DrJH, on Aug 22 2008, 07:15 AM, said:

It's okay sitting at home being an armchair critic, but the comments of yourself and the detractors demonstrate a lack of insight into that level of running. I don't pretend to be an expert on synchronised diving or beach volleyball so don't make comments on the merits of the participants.

Here we go again...this is what irks me. As I said, one cannot have a debate, when the other guy, after unsuccessfully getting his point across on its own merits, throws "expertise" into it. Not only that...its insulting.

OK, let me make a point without any level of insight, about the same as my level of insight as my diving insight I claimed to the family last night...I said to them that I am now "one of those once in 4 yr experts" and even gave out scores, more thanhalf of which I got absolutely correct. There you go.

Mottram prepared for up to 4 yrs for this, came into the race with fresher legs than two of the favourites, had one shot at getting into the final, and chose the wrong tactics. This is not the first time he has done this ..I am not a reader of 'aura', sorry Rudolf.

littleaussie, on Aug 22 2008, 09:50 AM, said:

As Mick Thomas says: "Monday's experts.  You can't put a bet on at the finish of a race

I'm not a betting man...but with my 'limited insight' I got up after a couple of laps and told the family "he is unlikely to make it", "why they asked...how do you know"... I said "  he won't beat at least Lagat and Bekele the way he is running, plus there are others too and if I he  depends on a non auto time it is unlikely at this pace".

This 'armchair critic' kept saying "why doesn't he make Bekele run faster, he can run 52 sec in last lap, he's not going to miss out". It was always clear that Bekele would not run in front after the 10km, and his ability to finish fast. You don't need to be a Monday expert to know that.

littleaussie, on Aug 22 2008, 10:22 AM, said:

Mottram was trying for gold in the final against some really strong competition.  ....

Well I'd rather be an 'armchair critic with lack of insight after reading the Monday morning paper' , than believe in things as unlikely as the tooth fairy.

Edited by Colin, 22 August 2008 - 10:47 AM.

[DrJH]

I think the only way this one is going to be settled is By Craig replying himself.

I'm not trying to denigrate you by bringing up 5k experience, merely that it could be some of the reason for your negative assessment of Mottram. I prefer to be as well informed as possible before I'm too critical. Having been in 5k heat/final situations in the past may make me more open minded and sympathetic towards the factors involved.

You can employ any tactic you like and produce the goods if you're good enough. If he had tried to run them off their legs but died and missed the final it doesn't make that tactic wrong either, just the ability on the night to carry it out. Without being in the know I'm not willing to criticise the tactic or the methodology behind it.

Colin, you talk of him beating Lagat and Bekele. He didn't need to beat either of them, only finish in the top 4.

Hopefully your tactical assessments are better than your diving scores. Otherwise nearly half of them will be wrong!

[Ron1]

Colin I accept your right to criticise and offer your opinion - but is based on hindsight; it is from the sidelines from a person who has never competed at that level.  Mottram and his crew are well aware of the situation without every "expert" in the country jumping on his back.

Rudi:  You are not only are pushing your own barrow but have an axe to grind too.  

Rudi you don't get as gold medal  making the final if your legs ae buggered in that sort of competition.  Moreover, you are in so much of a hurry to make fun of my response that you don't mention the contenders from the other slow heats.   Your point is  mute and indictates that you haven't read other's opinions.

Edited by littleaussie, 22 August 2008 - 11:42 AM.

[Colin]

DrJH, on Aug 22 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

I think the only way this one is going to be settled is By Craig replying himself.

I'm not trying to denigrate you by bringing up 5k experience, merely that it could be some of the reason for your negative assessment of Mottram. I prefer to be as well informed as possible before I'm too critical. Having been in 5k heat/final situations in the past may make me more open minded and sympathetic towards the factors involved.

Colin, you talk of him beating Lagat and Bekele. He didn't need to beat either of them, only finish in the top 4.

Hopefully your tactical assessments are better than your diving scores. Otherwise nearly half of them will be wrong!

Craig already said what his tactics were... that's what we are commenting on.

My lack of insight is not a reason for 'negative assessment'. It is not negative, merely a response to what Craig himself said his tactics were...and they were wrong, the outcome tells us that.

Bekele + Lagat = 2. 4-2 = 2. There were more that 2 other potential guys who all wanted to get into final, with good credentials, who could run a good last 400m...or didn't you notice, or as Craig himself said he didn't know who one guy was.

I said "more than half" ...it could have been 9 out of ten. If I wanted to say the scores "were in same ballpark" i.e. low 70's, high 60's then all were right. The judges themselves have a variation like that between them. You are just trying to be smart again. (you can see its making me cranky hey?)

littleaussie, on Aug 22 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

Colin I accept your right to criticise and offer your opinion - but is based on hindsight; it is from the sidelines from a person who has never competed at that level.  Mottram and his crew are well aware of the situation without every "expert" in the country jumping on his back.

Its not about 'hindsight' and/or being an "expert" as DrJH wants it to be. It (the comments) has little to with actual 5000m racing. It is the same in any sport, its a generic opinion.

If Craig Bellamy hypothetically puts an understrength team against a lowly club in a must win semi because he is resting his key players for the final, and they lose....then he will be righfully criticised by every 'armchair critic' in hindsight.
You don't think about how you are going to win the final, when you haven't even qualified.

Although these guys have cliches like "one game at a time" etc, every top coach will say "we concentrate on getting into the final, then we concentrate on winning it...if a key player gets injured in semi, so be it, we are in the final".
Its a level playing field for all in the heats.

cheers

[DrJH]

Colin, for all we know, Mottram may have been doing rep 300s in 37 in training. If that was the case the tactics he used were spot on. Certainly better than risking blowing up. The thing is, we don'tknow, therefore shouldn't be too critical.

Likewise I didn't know you were getting 9 out of 10 in your diving scores, and shouldn't have made fun of you!

[Rudolf]

this is not a crime trial and we are not teh jury.

This is a forum, when each of us can have own view and express it.

I posted all my views and have nothing more to add to it.


and there is no need to get personal and start fighting.

[Ron1]

Colin:   What I am saying is I can understand why Buster made the choices he did considering his history.    He has mixed it with  Bekele and Lagat before and has matched them over the last 400-500m.  All he did was think like a contender. He thought the way Lagat and Bekele did.  Why aren't you criticising them given they adopted pretty well the same tactic as Mottram?  

It is easy to be critical after the fact; but before the event it would have thought it fair to think that that Mottram's race plan was the best way to go.  The only thing missing I think was Mottram's abilty to reassess in the heat of battle.  It's very easy for us to point this out after the race is run.    

Re: your comparison between a football team and a 5000m race.  Well, had the coach played his best players and they were all buggered on grand final day and lost I am sure the same critic would get stuck in.  That is just the way it is I suppose.  A bet each way.  

I think a 5000m is markedly different to a football final.  It is athlete against athletes - not side against side.  Running 5000m is more individual; it's all go from start to finish.  I take your point though.

[2feetoffground]

Colin, on Aug 22 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

Bekele + Lagat = 2. 4-2 = 2. There were more that 2 other potential guys who all wanted to get into final, with good credentials, who could run a good last 400m...or didn't you notice, or as Craig himself said he didn't know who one guy was.

quite right! There were never 4 spots only really 2; the fact that he did not know who James Kwalia C'Kurui was (he ran a 13:04.70 in July) is telling.

Lets give some credit to his competition who kept the pace slow so they could 1) get through to the final fresher and 2) get rid some of the competion.

Edited by 2feetoffground, 22 August 2008 - 02:22 PM.

[EatEm]

" To finish first, first you must finish"

Or for Buster .....

"To get into the final I have to run a  XX:XX"

Simple in my muble, non insightful, uninformed, arm chair ridden, layman view .... and he failed to do it.

He should of been reviewing his 'game plan' with every step, and if things weren'y going his way than done something about it on the move.

These quotes from Busters coach, Nic Bideau, in todays Age newspaper ....

"He's (buster) very effective when it's fast paced"
"That works out well .....but when the race is slow, the tension is  slowly building, he's not as effective."
"If the pace was faster, he would have been OK"

One day we might know what happened but maybe he just had a crap day .....!!

littleaussie said .....

"Rudi you don't get as gold medal making the final if your legs ae buggered in that sort of competition"

and you don't get a gold medal watching the final from the sideline either .....

Edited by EatEm, 22 August 2008 - 01:30 PM.

[Ron1]

Whatever you say EatEm.  You're the expert.  You would have showed 'em.  What would Mottram know?

[FakePlasticTrees]

littleaussie, on Aug 22 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

It is easy to be critical after the fact; but before the event it would have thought it fair to think that that Mottram's race plan was the best way to go.  The only thing missing I think was Mottram's abilty to reassess in the heat of battle.  It's very easy for us to point this out after the race is run.

But it wasn't after the fact. Check the first page of this thread. Here's a quote from Colin

Quote

However, if tonight is a tactical battle between favourites it will be a slow pace and Mottram may miss out. He musn't repeat Osaka and has to force the pace early so that even outside top 4 , he still goes through.

One from Rudolf

Quote

I thnink that Buster is in heat 3, so that explains teh time of his race - last heat.

Tacticaly - he will know the times from other heats, so should pace properly.

Even the expert commentator (whoever that was) on tv was saying he needer to pick it up earlier than he did.

I'm a big fan of Craigs and am still in shock a bit that he missed out when from my laymens point of view what he needed to do seemed so easy* and everybody seemed to know it except his camp.

* As easy as running that f**king fast for 5k is  

[moby]

DrJH

Thanks for your insights.  Good to consider it from a different perspective in terms of his mindset as opposed to the outside watcher.

However, the thing I can’t get away from is that pretty much everyone else considered he was going to have a potential problem qualifying top 4.  Look at the title of this thread.  Listen to Steve Ovett throughout the entire heat highlighting that finishing top 4 was far from guaranteed.  He himself basically admitted he had to finish top 2 of 13 and he did say afterwards that if he knew he’d have to run 13:39 to qualify he would have made sure he did so.  So he’s admitted he got it wrong by not covering both Q and q possibilities.

littleaussie, on Aug 22 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

What I am saying is I can understand why Buster made the choices he did considering his history.    He has mixed it with  Bekele and Lagat before and has matched them over the last 400-500m.

Not off a slow pace as far as I’m aware.

littleaussie, on Aug 22 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

All he did was think like a contender. He thought the way Lagat and Bekele did.  Why aren't you criticising them given they adopted pretty well the same tactic as Mottram?

Because that is the best way for them to run their races.  It is not the best tactic for Mottram.

[EatEm]

littleaussie - I made it VERY CLEAR that I am not an expert - I was merely pointing out that you don't get gold (or any other colour) from being on the sidelines.

Simple as that

Edited by EatEm, 22 August 2008 - 03:48 PM.

[DrJH]

I think Colin's pre-race assessment was based on his (misguided) assumption that his poor race in Osaka was due to poor tactics rather than the well documented injury/acclimatisation problems.

Again Bekele and Lagat have been brought up. He didn't have to beat them in the heat, just fill a top 4 position.

It's hard to review a 'game plan' when it is too late to do anything about it.

Also, with regards Colin's football analogy, probably a better one for me would have been when I was Penrith's doctor. If John Lang had made a seemingly strange decision that led t a loss, I would have asked him his reasoning prior to criticising him in a public forum.

Often there's more to things than is obvious from outside observation.

[wombatface]

DrJH, on Aug 22 2008, 10:07 AM, said:

Rudolf, I can see your reasoning. However, not many who go almost flat out in the heat back up well for the final. They probably wouldn't have gone with him anyway. I think he just expected to be in the first 4 however the heat panned out, and when it became apparent he couldn't match them in a short finish it was too late to change tact.

There are a few (besides Frank Shorter) who back up well. In the Steeplechase, Mekhissi-Benabbad Mahiedine ran a season's best in the heat followed by a PB in the final to win the silver medal. Youcef Abdi ran a PB in the heat followed by a PB in the final for 6th place.

A steady 13:40 pace shouldn't have felt 'flat out' if Craig was in sub-13 form. I really don't think they expected the pace to be so slow for so long. I think they just presumed it would be a 13:45 paced race with a kick bringing the time under the small q.

Regarding Ron Clarke's grandmother being able to coach Herb Elliott... I doubt she would have had Percy's ability to inspire his athletes. Just as Arthur Lydiard inspired his athletes, etc, etc.

[why156]

some points...before the heat we were fed stories in the paper that Geb thought that Mottram was a medal chance , thus Mottram prob went into the race with a soft attitude ..im one of the best I wont need to worry about a fast pace , I can do top 4 finish.
This year Mottram has toned down his press statements of previous years, trouble is hes had the same attitude but just hasnt said to the press.
Preparation.
If someone said prior to the race that he would need to run 1.51-52 last 2 laps to place top 4 in the heat how would u have rated his chances?
I bet u would have doubts, we've seen him run 1.54 -1.56 finishes but 1.51-52?
Even Bideau admits he was shocked at the pace of the last 1k run.
This comes down to preparation.They had not considered this possibility or trained for it. His lead up to the olympics on shorter distances was ordinary. 3.56 mile and 3.36 is good but not olympic champ class speed.
Now he has identified a weakness, they can work on it but Bideau says i dont know how. If i was Craig id be looking for someone who can tell him how.

[Rudolf]

Victorallias blog has his own version of what and why and also suggestion how to.

[Colin]

DrJH, on Aug 22 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

I think Colin's pre-race assessment was based on his (misguided) assumption that his poor race in Osaka was due to poor tactics rather than the well documented injury/acclimatisation problems.

No

Stop telling me what I think and why I thought it... you can be pretty insulting to be honest about other people's ability to make assessments (not criticism) if it doesn't match yours. Even his coach agrees that the tactics were wrong and his coach agrees he doesn't have the kick off a slow pace.

Lets forget about Osaka and so called "well documented" problems , shall we...we won't agree on that spin that they gave. So move on.

My pre race assessment was based purely on the fact that with Bekele and Lagat (rememeber you were wrong about his form too) in the race, the pace was likely to be slow, Bekele would be at the back and rely on his 52 sec last lap (he did in 10km), and that in that scenario Mottram had to beat 2 other people (you still can't add up) who were likely to outkick him in a slow race.

I said so before the race, it happenned in the race and almost everyone, his coach included, believe that...except you of course.

Move on and accept it and give someone the credit for making a correct prediction and analysis in a non-back handed way.

Told you that your personal references to 'lack of expertise' would make me cranky.  

Now , on a brighter note.

Of all the athletes in Australia Mottram imo is the most talented, and even on the world stage I hold him in high regard. I like the way he has in the past taken on the Africans at their game, and shown the stereotypers that distance running does not depend on East African genetics. This has worked for him when he ran hard against him.

However times equivalent to them (12:55) or victories in more minor events won't turn the tide. I believe, and hope amongst hope, that he is very much capable of a good medal at OG... and if he does that, then more athletes like him will do the sport instead of AFL,  etc.

Australia and the western world imo needs a Mottram to perform to his potential (and he has it) at the biggest stage.

My assessments (not criticism), both pre-race and post , are based purely on observations of him in the past and more specifically in this last race, and are made because I am disappointed and kind of wish he would change...not that he reads here or gives a fcuk what you or I say.

...but if his coach agrees then at least they are on the same page. Now if his coach can't work out a better strategy (as the other poster said) then maybe someone else can.

cheers and good night

[undercover brother]

oh this is really good

[DrJH]

Colin, it's hard to 'move on' from Osaka when it seems fundamental to your assertion that Mottram is a serial poor tactician. The fact that you aren't prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt ('spin') seems to indicate a bias against him from the start.

You assert that 'his coach agrees he doesn't have a kick off a slow pace'. That doesn't seem compatible with his quote from the Australian:

"People say why didn't he just run faster? Well, he didn't because he hasn't needed to before, he has beaten those guys in the last 600 metres before.

"He expected he would be able to do it again but they were better than they have been before. It wasn't his fastest, I don't know totally why, it was a bit to do with tension and when it is hot, it is harder.

"He just didn't sprint as well as he normally does. No one saw it coming because he was running comfortably and I thought he could match them at the end."

This to me seems more of an admission that:

1. The others were better than before, and

2. He didn't sprint as well as usual.

Whether you agree with Bideau or not, he is certainly not admitting a fault with the tactic.

You are also critical of my ability to add up. Let me correct your maths. 3 Finals. 14, 13 and 12 starters respectively. To get through in his (3rd) heat he needs to beat 8 runners. To be a fastest qualifier he needs to run a faster time than at least the 24 slowest. If he had only beaten '2 other people' he definitely wouldn't have made the final!

As far as your prediction goes, you were spot on - he missed the final.

I'm pleased that you still hold him 'in high regard' though. If he ever reads all this he'll be overjoyed that you're right behind him!

[Ron1]

Sorry Colin. Thanks FPT for taking the time to dig that up.  The fact remains that  hindsight is easy and usually laced with should'ves which is plain unhelpful.  I can't see the point to be honest.  Nothing wrong with criticism; but there is a bit of a band-wagon element to this thread.
  
I still hold that it is understandable and sensible for CM to race like a contender rather than an also-ran just happy to make the final.  

James Kwalia C'Kurui.  Come on fair go.  Like you all could remember that after you'd just ran a 5000m and had a microphone shoved in your face after seeing your dreams gone for good.  I think it understandable that he couldn't recall the guys name.  Seriously how petty can you get to prove a point?

I would have thought it understandable that CM just thought he had the goods to qualify and the pace was going to be fast enough even if tactical.  I am sure you all would be able to know exactly your ETA in the heat of battle.  

I think CM will be kicking himself enough without others sinking the boot in.  He knows the score.

Edited by littleaussie, 23 August 2008 - 07:54 AM.

[Colin]

LittleAussie, thanks for that. Good to see that we can disagree and move on.

DrJH,

Stop referring to Osaka , we had our argument about that last year, you believed their excuses, I didn't, Rudi saw some bad aura, I didn't. But that performance had nothing to do with my pre race prediction  and post race assessment.
Is that so hard for you to take , or do you not like to admit (other than  back handed) that someone with much less credentials than you can understand track racing?

DrJH, on Aug 22 2008, 11:21 PM, said:

You assert that 'his coach agrees he doesn't have a kick off a slow pace'. That doesn't seem compatible with his quote from the Australian:

Whether you agree with Bideau or not, he is certainly not admitting a fault with the tactic.

Don't read News Ltd...read Fairfax instead Bideau admitted it. Can't find link to yesterday's article now, sorry.

DrJH, on Aug 22 2008, 11:21 PM, said:

You are also critical of my ability to add up. Let me correct your maths. 3 Finals. 14, 13 and 12 starters respectively. To get through in his (3rd) heat he needs to beat 8 runners. To be a fastest qualifier he needs to run a faster time than at least the 24 slowest. If he had only beaten '2 other people' he definitely wouldn't have made the final!

I'm very sure you understand, so you could only be mischievous, to make me sound less credible.

I very clearly said that he needed to be in top 4 in slow race (said so before race in fact) and that discounting Lagat and Bekele leaves only 2 others to beat him (not him to beat them). Again 2+2=4 ok. And at least one of them, as has been pointed out has run faster this year, and kicked faster too...they should have known he was in field... so whether one has run OG or not it is bad tactics (oh and agreed by coach).

Lets have a debate without misleading andmischievousness

DrJH, on Aug 22 2008, 11:21 PM, said:

As far as your prediction goes, you were spot on - he missed the final.

Say it... I know its hard. As far as my prediction went I was spot on with the race tactics. edit: Knowing who else was going to be in the race, and what they needed, how they have done it before, I made a prediction of tactics. It was up to whoever to make the final in such a scenario.
You try to make it sound like all I did was guess that Mottram would miss final.

Lets have a debate without "you need to have experienced this", "you lack the expertise" or "you were only right for the wrong reason" etc. Engage in the debate with your facts against mine and nothing else, without trying to portray the opponents view as being of less value and your views will be held in greater respect. The past and present achievements of the contributor means nothing here if the facts are not backed up.

You can have the last word, I may contribute further but not in response to you.

cheers

Edited by Colin, 23 August 2008 - 12:32 PM.

[Rudolf]

since I have never jumped more than 5m in PV, not even 4 or even 3, actually I never try to be honest,
I did not feel I am qualified to congratulate Hooker to his win or to assess it as great performance

[DrJH]

Colin, Colin, Colin. You shouldn't get so cranky!

All I've tried to do here is give some balance where everyone is being so critical of Mottram. People are happy enough to lay the boot in and yet can get so defensive when their own motives/reasoning/credentials get called into question.

You dismiss my Bideau quote with: 'Don't read News Ltd...read Fairfax instead'. With this close minded approach to the press, I wonder how much other information you've shut yourself off from? I can only assume the 'spin' you refer to with regards Osaka comes via Fairfax.

You use the line: 'Mottram had to beat 2 other people (you still can't add up)', whereupon I corrected your mathematical mistake in the nicest possible way - and you accuse me of being 'mischievous', to make you sound 'less credible'! I know you said you were cranky, but when you came up with that line I had visions of you sitting at the computer, face turning red, frothing at the mouth with steam coming out of your ears!

I think the readers can make up their own minds about 'mischief' and 'credibility'.

I said previously 'as far as your prediction goes, you were spot on - he missed the final'. I can't make it much clearer than that. Should I kneel down and face Kings Langley while I say it?

I brought up 'experience' and 'credentials' (rather than malevolence, sour grapes, tall poppy syndrome, etc) as possible reasons why the critics were so quick to write off his run as 'bad tactics'. It's easy to say: slow race - suits kickers - less speedy runner may miss out - and then lay the boot in. We saw that with most of the distance events - it's hardly rocket science! More nous is required to justify the reasoning and mindset that produces such a run.

Rudolf, I don't have a problem with uninformed comment if it's positive. It's the uninformed negative stuff that irks me, and there's plenty of it on this thread.

[Ron1]

Rudolf, on Aug 22 2008, 08:22 PM, said:

since I have never jumped more than 5m in PV, not even 4 or even 3, actually I never try to be honest,
I did not feel I am qualified to congratulate Hooker to his win or to assess it as great performance

Rudi DRJH said: "Rudolf, I didn't state that a precondition to commenting on Mottram's run was that one needed to be a sub 13.40 5k runner. Simply that running at a higher level can give more of an insight into the factors involved."

Be fair Rudi.

Fake Plastic Trees:  Colin said: "Lets have a debate without 'you need to have experienced this', 'you lack the expertise' or 'you were only right for the wrong reason' etc. Engage in the debate with your facts against mine and nothing else, without trying to portray the opponents view as being of less value and your views will be held in greater respect."

I can't find those direct quotes can you?  

I agreee with what Dr JH said:  "I can't believe the knockers! Have any of you ever run heats of a 5k? What about a fast enough 5k to be on the same lap as Mottram (even last night)? But of course you must all have intimate knowlege of the Mottram camp and his preparation! If he's going into the meet with the attitude that he can mix it with any of them (one of the few to have beaten Bekele), why wouldn't he just aim for the first 4? He wasn't there just to make the final, but to do well in the final. The way to do that is to get through with as little effort as possible. It's a gamble (ie fewer qualifiers from a slower heat), but obviously his form led him to think he was up to it."

That is how I felt and thought when I came upon this thread.   I didn't see this as suggesting that others needed to experience the Olympics to comment but that maybe if they had they'd have a less harsh approach to the way Craig Mottram ran the race.  My feeling exactly.

I have noticed that the further removed the general public become from athletics the less understanding, and thus, less forgiving they are of athletes like Mottram when they don't come back with a swag of medals.  Also Colin, that DrJH chose to discuss the matter with you suggests to me that he does indeed value your opinion -he just disagrees.  For what it is worth that is how I perceived it.

Cheers.

[Ian Hamilton]

Edit
Stuffed up, sorry.

Edited by Ian Hamilton, 23 August 2008 - 04:58 PM.

[Ron1]

Mottram  

Edited by littleaussie, 23 August 2008 - 04:45 PM.

[Ian Hamilton]

I originally posted this on the: 'We're Still With You Buster' thread but this thread seems to be where the action is.  

I would add though that I don't think anyone is trying to lay the boot in or employ the tall poppy syndrome as Jamie implies, its more frustration and therapy for us posters on behalf of a good runner and genuine person who we all really wanted to do justice to himself and make the final.  To do that he had to run under 13.42.39, and once there, as the following shows, anything is possible and after his comments below and body language I think he knew that also. As I've said you've got to really feel for the bloke.

                       ........................................................................

QUOTE (Steve 'The Footman' @ Aug 22 2008, 12:48 AM)
He went to Beijing to get a medal. If he cold not out kick four people in the heat then that was not going to happen no matter if he had got through.


I seem to remember Suleiman Nyambui of Tanzania in the 5k final at Moscow just scraped in as the last non auto qualifier by a fraction of a second and went on to win the silver missing out on gold to Yifter the Shifter by less than one second. There are probably other examples not only in athletics but other sports (John Sieben, swimming, WR from lane 8?).

Most of us have been in situations where we've run lousy three days before a race but have come good on the day.

Surely the number one objective is to make the final by using the best tactics available and then re-evaluate from there. Got to agree with Colin, Jimboy, Tigerboy etc on this one.

To quote Craig from his post race interview with Paddy Walsh:

Q. I think you probably knew it was 42.39 was the magic number wasn't it.

A. I don't know I didn't check the times I thought I'd be good enough to come in the top four so I don't usually worry about them. Obviously tonight it could be a factor and it looks like it is.

Watching it again you really feel for him, it was a tough interview by a bloke who was carrying Australian distance running hopes on his shoulders. We all wish him the best for the future.

Correction: Just found it on the net. Nyambui was the first non automatic qualifier, 13.30.2. There was 1.7 seconds between first and fourth non auto qualifiers.

[BennyMid]

Ian Hamilton, on Aug 23 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

To quote Craig from his post race interview with Paddy Walsh:

Q. I think you probably knew it was 42.39 was the magic number wasn't it.

A. I don't know I didn't check the times I thought I'd be good enough to come in the top four so I don't usually worry about them. Obviously tonight it could be a factor and it looks like it is.

The above bolded comment is the one that one that dissapoints me the most.
Even my 13yr old knows to check what time she needs to do to qualify.
Especially if she is in the last heat.
AND she has only been running for 2 years.
Attitude has a lot to do with winning races.

The plan should habe been simple in my mind.

He either had to do 42.39  OR get in the top 4 . Nothing complicated there IMO.
So run the race by running the pace needed to achieve the qualifing time

benny

[Rudolf]

DrJH, on Aug 23 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

Rudolf, I don't have a problem with uninformed comment if it's positive. It's the uninformed negative stuff that irks me, and there's plenty of it on this thread.

yes exactly, this is what the problem is :

firstly opionions of pthers are uninformed, Yours is informed, becasue of what ?

secondly dragging in teh polairy - positive and negative.

There is no such thing,

comments are iether correct or incorrect.

But the ones You do not like You label negative/


why do You approve uninformed positive - they are good only to create false egos and false feel of achievements.


If teh comments describes teh reality, the facts as it is, in brutal honesty, maybe not 100% accurate (but nobody is going to be 100% accurate, it is enough to be more accurate than his coach) they could not be labe4led negative.


You know people are pseimist, optimist but they are also people who are realist.

To a pessimist, the realist could be seen as optimist.
To an optimist, the realist could be seen as pesimist.

If there is a problem it needs to exposed and be discussed from every angle possible, to get the clearest puicture there could be.


Only if Yoy brutaly identift the current situation and the reason for the current situation, only than You have a chance to actualy design thje way out of it.


This was not done after Commonwealth Games, not done after Osaka, and YOu now want to prevent this to be done after Beijing.

So we should all stick the heads to teh sand and pray, than next time somehow miraculously it will be OK,

but my feel is that if we all stick heads to the sand we will just all get the buts unprotected kicked again in Berlin, than we will pray for London etc.

There is a time to face the music and say - well this is obviously not working, and if I do not change what I am doing (and likely with whom I am doing it) I am not going to get different outcome.

This is one of the basic rules of NLP.


Obviously here on the forum we can only see, that the curent system, arrangementys, logic etc are not working, we can brutaly describe the situation.


we do not have enough info to track down details to see which parts are not working where the problems are what needs to be changed and how.


We are not attemting to this here we are at first step - to admitt what the situation is.


You call this uninformed and negative, but this does not make ours comment uninformed and negative, this only shows Your personal take and understanding of it and Your attitute to it and to the public discussion.

I am getting the feel here, that in Your view we are only good enough to clap to success but otherwise we should just shut up or at max we are only alowed to say - we are behind You and chearing You for next olympics.


Buster is not the only one underperforming at this olympics actaully appart from Sally and Tamsyn, every other runner is or was, so this attitude of not calling it as it is and pretending etc is not helping the whole running situation in australia at all.

This is attitude not only abouit Buster, this is more serious and having much wider scope.
Supose Buster would have been lucky and squeeze into final, this debate would not exist and we would pretend all is perfect


So I ask again, what time do I need to run to became elegible for comments (not just for the cheers).

[DrJH]

Rudolf, I think people should give others the benefit of the doubt until they know otherwise. 'Arrogant', 'ignorant', 'unprofessional' and 'silly' were just some of the descriptions given to Mottram.
My comments about him weren't derogatory.

I reasoned that maybe because I had been in closer situations to his (but by no means at the same level) I possibly had a bit more empathy for him and as a result was less willing to be critical.

The situation is pretty simple. Either he was as fast in a short finish as he thought, but didn't produce it for some reason, or was deluded about his short kick and therefore was employing the wrong tactics. Not knowing his training, form or thoughts going into the event I'd rather keep an open mind about the run.

Personally, I would have known all about my opposition and times required. Maybe that's the attitude that stopped me reaching the heights Mottram has.

[wombatface]

Ian Hamilton, on Aug 23 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

QUOTE (Steve 'The Footman' @ Aug 22 2008, 12:48 AM)
He went to Beijing to get a medal. If he cold not out kick four people in the heat then that was not going to happen no matter if he had got through.


I seem to remember Suleiman Nyambui of Tanzania in the 5k final at Moscow just scraped in as the last non auto qualifier by a fraction of a second and went on to win the silver missing out on gold to Yifter the Shifter by less than one second. There are probably other examples not only in athletics but other sports (John Sieben, swimming, WR from lane 8?).

Most of us have been in situations where we've run lousy three days before a race but have come good on the day.

Surely the number one objective is to make the final by using the best tactics available and then re-evaluate from there. Got to agree with Colin, Jimboy, Tigerboy etc on this one.

To quote Craig from his post race interview with Paddy Walsh:

Q. I think you probably knew it was 42.39 was the magic number wasn't it.

A. I don't know I didn't check the times I thought I'd be good enough to come in the top four so I don't usually worry about them. Obviously tonight it could be a factor and it looks like it is.

Watching it again you really feel for him, it was a tough interview by a bloke who was carrying Australian distance running hopes on his shoulders. We all wish him the best for the future.

Correction: Just found it on the net. Nyambui was the first non automatic qualifier, 13.30.2. There was 1.7 seconds between first and fourth non auto qualifiers.

Also from swimming: Kieren Perkins only made the 1500m final at the '96 Olympics by 0.24 seconds and won gold from lane 8.

littleaussie, on Aug 23 2008, 07:45 AM, said:

Sorry Colin. Thanks FPT for taking the time to dig that up.  The fact remains that  hindsight is easy and usually laced with should'ves which is plain unhelpful.  I can't see the point to be honest.  Nothing wrong with criticism; but there is a bit of a band-wagon element to this thread.
  
I still hold that it is understandable and sensible for CM to race like a contender rather than an also-ran just happy to make the final.  

James Kwalia C'Kurui.  Come on fair go.  Like you all could remember that after you'd just ran a 5000m and had a microphone shoved in your face after seeing your dreams gone for good.  I think it understandable that he couldn't recall the guys name.  Seriously how petty can you get to prove a point?

I would have thought it understandable that CM just thought he had the goods to qualify and the pace was going to be fast enough even if tactical.  I am sure you all would be able to know exactly your ETA in the heat of battle.  

I think CM will be kicking himself enough without others sinking the boot in.  He knows the score.

True, I wouldn't know exactly my ETA. If I were Craig, I'd know I'd been running about 28-minute 10k pace for the first 4k.

I feel terribly sorry for Craig, just as do most others on this thread. I hope he bounces back next year and onwards to London. As for an event, someone suggested the 3k steeple. Not such a bad idea (if he wants an Olympic medal) - with his 3k speed he'd be good for 8 minutes after some hurdles coaching - many of the Kenyans get away with agricultural hurdle technique.

DrJH, on Aug 23 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

Personally, I would have known all about my opposition and times required. Maybe that's the attitude that stopped me reaching the heights Mottram has.

Don't be so hard on yourself Jamie Your attitude is fine. Opportunity was more likely the problem. If you had the advantage of running as a 'professional' for a number of years, you may have shaved 10 to 20 seconds off that 13:27.

[lebusqp]

Watching the race, I assumed at 4k the kick down would bring Buster home in about 13.40-42 anyway.
If Buster was in 3.33/12.55 shape he would have finished in the top 4. He also would have run the last 600 fast enough to better 13.42. From where I was sitting it looked very much like the run of a guy who wasn't in 3.33/12.55 shape.
I think his tactics were not the problem as much as his form/fitness. Buster is a strong finisher, at his best in a longish kick down. When the Qatari runner charged I thought it would help Buster's chances. At his 05/06 best he would have been with them to the top of the straight. The 08 version just didn't have the legs. I assume he thought he was in the 05/06 form but actually wasn't OR he just had a bad day.

[Ian Hamilton]

DrJH, on Aug 23 2008, 03:04 AM, said:

Not knowing his training, form or thoughts going into the event I'd rather keep an open mind about the run.

Fair enough, but "I didn't check the times I thought I'd be good enough to come in the top four so I don't usually worry about them" would give a clue as to his thoughts also, that he believed his training and form was good enough to beat one or more of the world class Africans who finished ahead of him without having to give a thought to non auto qualification.

I suppose the one good thing to come out of it is that he will give it a thought next championship meet, because the one thing everyone seems to agree on, including Craig, is that with a bit of forethought he could have knocked off those extra couple of seconds.  As mentioned before once in the final anything could happen (Nyambui, Lloydy, Sieben, Perkins, the speed skater (perhaps not) etc, etc).

[FakePlasticTrees]

Ian Hamilton, on Aug 23 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

I would add though that I don't think anyone is trying to lay the boot in or employ the tall poppy syndrome as Jamie implies, its more frustration and therapy for us posters on behalf of a good runner and genuine person who we all really wanted to do justice to himself and make the final.  To do that he had to run under 13.42.39, and once there, as the following shows, anything is possible and after his comments below and body language I think he knew that also. As I've said you've got to really feel for the bloke.

This is exactly how I felt.

f**k look at Bekele.

Quote

Fake Plastic Trees: Colin said: "Lets have a debate without 'you need to have experienced this', 'you lack the expertise' or 'you were only right for the wrong reason' etc. Engage in the debate with your facts against mine and nothing else, without trying to portray the opponents view as being of less value and your views will be held in greater respect."

I can't find those direct quotes can you?

I don't think they are direct quotes, rather paraphrasing what others had said.

Bloody good run from Bekele

Edited by FakePlasticTrees, 23 August 2008 - 10:26 PM.

[20thCenturyBoy]

Bekele is the greatest!
To lead like that and still pull away...truly awesome.

[markc]

great final.  love watching the turnover, i take a lot of technique tips from their running.

bekele deserved it.

[lebusqp]

These are the guys who were in Buster's heat and their best performances.
B.Lagat               1.46, 3.26, 7.33, 12.59 -08 best 13.16.
J.Kwalia C Kurui  3.37/3.50, 7.28, 12.54  -08 best 13.04.
K.Bekele             3.32, 7.25, 12.37, 26.17  -08 best 12.58.
T.Longosiwa         7.32, 12.51 -08 best 13.14.
C.Mottram           3.33, 7.32, 12.55, 27.34 -08 best 13.11.
M.Al-Outaibi         3.38, 7.46, 12.58  -08 best 13.12.
K.Takezawa         7.53, 13.19, 27.45.
M.Rizki                 7.42, 13.04 -08 best 13.04.
A.Garcia              3.35, 7.32, 13.02 -08 best 13.20.
P.Bandi                1.48, 3.38, 7.54, 13.25  -08 best 13.29.
A.El Idrissi            3.40, 7.53, 13.06  -08 best 13.06.
A. Ibrahim            unknown.

Had he gone to the front, who's to say that 7 guys wouldn't have queued up behind him for 11 laps and then blown by him after he'd done all the pacemaking.  Really, only Takezawa, Bandi and Ibrahim aren't in the same class as Buster. 4 opponents had faster 08 times and 4 others have previously run faster than Buster's 08 time.

[Ian Hamilton]

littleaussie, on Aug 22 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

The fact remains that  hindsight is easy and usually laced with should'ves which is plain unhelpful.  I can't see the point to be honest.

Yes, hindsight is some times easy but unhelpful?  Now the race is over and the final run and won won't there be dozens of athletes, coaches, CoolRunning members etc with hindsight reviewing what occurred and hopefully learning from it, surely thats the point?  

Interesting to note that the three non auto qualifiers finished 7th, 11th and DNF and the four who finished ahead of Craig in the semi ran 1st, 8th, 9th and 12th.  Also, that 7th, Barrios, was the first non African and slowest (ie third) non auto qualifier .

PS     Good luck to Troopy in two hours time.

Edited by Ian Hamilton, 24 August 2008 - 07:52 AM.

[Rudolf]

no white face under 13:30


Bekele and company showed how to make Lagat redundant

[wombatface]

Why has this thread been removed from the home page?

[Ron1]

Fake Plastic Trees:
These are the quotes that Colin made up:

"you need to have experienced this"

"you lack the expertise'" or

"you were only right for the wrong reason" etc.

The words were inside quotation marks. That is not paraphrasing.  To properly and honestly paraphrase Colin would have had to have said:  DR JH you said that I needed to experience this.  Or Dr JH you said that I lacked the expertise.  But that is only on the condition that the source actually said those things and the paraphrase made what was said clearer.

The thing is DrJH didn't say those things in those words and thus he has no grounds to quote them and your claim that they are just paraphrasing is incorrect.  This is because they were not what DRJH said and because they are restated inside quotation marks.  To restsate something inside quotaton marks one has to be able to reproduce those exact words.   Are you serious FPT or just trolling?  

Colin when restating something to  supposedly make it clearer has put his own spin on it.  That is wrong and leads to confusion.  He (Colin), to be fair and proper, must at least say that DRJH implied or inferred those things.  

Colin has 'quoted' me before and I know I didn't mean or actually say the things he 'quoted'.  

It is not a fair way to conduct a discussion. I don't think Colin is being malicious.  I think we must stick to the time-honoured method of only quoting what is actually said.   And when paraphrasing only do it to improve understanding.  If there is any doubt of the meaning of that being restated, then qualification is necessary and  it made clear that you think it is implied or inferred.  Anything else is simply unfair and wrong according to accepted practice.

Edited by littleaussie, 24 August 2008 - 04:33 PM.

[FakePlasticTrees]

littleaussie, on Aug 24 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

Fake Plastic Trees:
These are the quotes that Colin made up:

"you need to have experienced this"

"you lack the expertise'" or

"you were only right for the wrong reason" etc.

The words were inside quotation marks. That is not paraphrasing.  To properly and honestly paraphrase Colin would have had to have said:  DR JH you said that I needed to experience this.  Or Dr JH you said that I lacked the expertise.  But that is only on the condition that the source actually said those things and the paraphrase made what was said clearer.

The thing is DrJH didn't say those things in those words and thus he has no grounds to quote them and your claim that they are just paraphrasing is incorrect.  This is because they were not what DRJH said and because they are restated inside quotation marks.  To restsate something inside quotaton marks one has to be able to reproduce those exact words.   Are you serious FPT or just trolling?

What the f**k are you going on about? Trolling? Trolling for what? For some reason you asked me to provide the links to something Colin had said, why did you ask me? I'm not your little worker bee. Just because I'd provided the other quotes from the front of the thread. Why didn't you ask Colin? So I gave a guess as to where Colin may have come up with these things. Because on every f**king thread where somebody criticises an elite somebody always says something like "when you can run like them then you can comment on it"*. We've had that debate on countless freaking threads. As somebody said earlier how would you ever have coaches if they aren't allowed to give instructions to their charges because they can't run as fast as them. It's a bullshit argument.

* Not a direct quote rather quotation marks around a paraphrasing of all similar comments.

[Ian Hamilton]

When it comes to commenting on the CR site what are the criteria for posters, is it former athlete of certain level, qualified coach, expert (whatever that is), grammatical correctness, etc, etc?

Edited by Ian Hamilton, 25 August 2008 - 06:32 AM.

[DrJH]

The difference with a coach is that they have been put in that position by the athlete. Through interaction of the two the coach can make informed criticism.