|
|
Post by ronb on Dec 1, 2009 21:47:48 GMT -5
I have some interesting stats from the Junior Women's race (because I coached people in that race), I may do the same for the other races, but it took some time. I did not include 2007, because the course was different There were 73 people who competed in 2008 and 2009. 6 of them were slower in 2009 67 of them obviously improved in 2009 The average improvement was 64.3 seconds. The smallest improvement was 5.2 seconds. The largest improvement was 3:02. Some assumptions as for the reasons. 1. Conditions 2. Gain in relative strength from one year to the next. (and the ability to handle more volume/intensity) Anybody have additional thoughts, and perhaps the relative percentages of the above factors that affected the performance. My additional thought is as follows: Using times to measure cross-country races is somewhat meaningless. Cross-country is about racing, not about times, and the "same" course can vary significantly from year to year, with conditions, measurements, etc. Drop the times from cross-country, don't even time them - that would be just fine with me... |
|
|
|
Post by nscoach67 on Dec 1, 2009 21:59:30 GMT -5
Ok, how about the position comparisons? Does that have any statistical importance?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tzdimslaw on Dec 2, 2009 10:21:10 GMT -5
I have some interesting stats from the Junior Women's race (because I coached people in that race), I may do the same for the other races, but it took some time. I did not include 2007, because the course was different There were 73 people who competed in 2008 and 2009. 6 of them were slower in 2009 67 of them obviously improved in 2009 The average improvement was 64.3 seconds. The smallest improvement was 5.2 seconds. The largest improvement was 3:02. Some assumptions as for the reasons. 1. Conditions 2. Gain in relative strength from one year to the next. (and the ability to handle more volume/intensity) Anybody have additional thoughts, and perhaps the relative percentages of the above factors that affected the performance. Good analysis. I have done something similar for the Western International cross country race since 2006, but I have not posted the results of that analysis every year. My first analysis is found here: tnfnorth.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2061&page=2As you can see, the purpose of my analysis was to estimate the effect that course conditions had on the extremely slow results seen at the International in 2006. I used all the years of data available to me to determine the number of seconds an athlete could be expected to improve from one year to the next, and then any additional change in times I attributed to different course conditions. I have become less confident in my methods as time has passed because I've realized that many of the top runners do not compete every year, so are excluded from my analysis. If the top runners are consistently good from year, their level of improvement would be lower, so my 'average improvement' is actually an overestimate. This would not affect my results if it is the same quality of runner that takes a year off each time, but I cannot be confident that this is the case. Also, it is possible that improvement should be measured as a percentage to standardize for skill level, rather than in seconds. I had standardized for skill level by looking at just the top 50, but it is hard to argue that the winner is in the same class as the 50th-placing runner. If the Guelph course had been used for more than just the last two years, you would be able to do a similar analysis. Based on my results (I concluded that the 10k course in 2006 slowed runners by 60 seconds, on average), and from what I heard about Guelph's course this year, I would guess that more than half of the average improvement could be attributed to course conditions. I am curious: in addition to the (mean) average, did you also calculate the median improvement of those girls? |
|
mpd
Junior Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by mpd on Dec 2, 2009 10:31:21 GMT -5
I have some interesting stats from the Junior Women's race (because I coached people in that race), I may do the same for the other races, but it took some time. I did not include 2007, because the course was different There were 73 people who competed in 2008 and 2009. 6 of them were slower in 2009 67 of them obviously improved in 2009 The average improvement was 64.3 seconds. The smallest improvement was 5.2 seconds. The largest improvement was 3:02. Some assumptions as for the reasons. 1. Conditions 2. Gain in relative strength from one year to the next. (and the ability to handle more volume/intensity) Anybody have additional thoughts, and perhaps the relative percentages of the above factors that affected the performance. My additional thought is as follows: Using times to measure cross-country races is somewhat meaningless. Cross-country is about racing, not about times, and the "same" course can vary significantly from year to year, with conditions, measurements, etc. Drop the times from cross-country, don't even time them - that would be just fine with me... I was standing with Dave Reid at OFSAA this year and he said the same thing. The only use of it is to see how far people are behind each other. Which would be a cool idea. Just take splits as people cross the line... Bairu Gillis - +1:11 Brunsting +1:22 etc. |
|
pg
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by pg on Dec 2, 2009 13:58:33 GMT -5
Running in europe at one time it was common for group times to be given. Very similar to cycling. Even at worlds this has been done from time to time. It's easier now with technology to split peoples times up with chips etc. I am afraid Canada is drifting into the mindset of times for xc and course records. This is very recent. Ihave always said show me any 10k xc course and I can easily find at least 100m on either side. Throw in mud, temperature,loose gravel,short grass,long grass and you have several more variables to consider. Never ever say, "my best time for 10k xc is..."
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Dec 2, 2009 19:51:06 GMT -5
As usual, there are several interesting sub-threads, within our main threads, so here is another one... Reading the names of such great Canadian runners as Bob Rice, Richard Charette, and Alain Boucher, I immediately thought of the University of Ottawa, and added in John Halvorsen and Coach Dennis Landry. I don't think all of those 4 guys ran Cross-Country in the same year for Ottawa, but what a group of great runners !!! And where has Ottawa gone now??? If there ever was a case of the importance of having a good Coach to assemble a great team, that was it. Hey, and they were in Canada - amazing, eh  But that was just before the "Go South or be a failure" era in Canadian distance running, which we are still trying to recover from... |
|
|
|
Post by jbrecher on Dec 2, 2009 20:56:48 GMT -5
And now, the big question: will 4 of the top 6 want to run worlds? Sounds like Bairu is in. So: Gillis, Brunsting, Wiebe, Genest, Wykes. Anyone have info? To recap the discussion on this point thus far: 1. Bairu has twittered about his intention to run worlds in 2010; 2. mlfs11 thinks Wiebe will go. 3. In a Flotrack interview, Brunsting said he doesn't think he'll go; and 4. oldster says Wykes won't go. If all of the above are true, then both Gillis and Genest must go for there to be a senior men's team. Have either of them publicly indicated their intentions in this regard? Gillis mentioned in his post-race interview on Flotrack that he'll be making his marathon debut in Houston next month, so perhaps his decision will depend on how he recovers from that race. It also stands to reason that the odds of Genest wanting to run worlds are increased by the fact that he won't be running either CIS indoors or FISU in 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by Young Pratticus on Dec 2, 2009 21:44:45 GMT -5
Is there any news on which women wish to go? Kendra had mentioned that she wanted to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocknroll on Dec 2, 2009 22:04:30 GMT -5
I heard yesterday via facebook that they will not be sending a senior mens team.
|
|
|
|
Post by nscoach67 on Dec 2, 2009 22:24:40 GMT -5
I was standing with Dave Reid at OFSAA this year and he said the same thing. The only use of it is to see how far people are behind each other. Which would be a cool idea. Just take splits as people cross the line... Bairu Gillis - +1:11 Brunsting +1:22 etc. Again, Junior Women There were 73 people who ran both courses in 2008 and 2009. 53 people improved their position in the race. Of those the average improvement was 29.75 positions higher. The median was 22. There were 2 people that had the exact same position from one year to the next. (one of those individuals has been chatted about for many years here) The maximum improvement was 121 positions. This person is a 2nd year juvenile. The makeup of the group was: 11 1st year juniors 11 2nd year juniors 10 1st year juveniles 15 2nd year juveniles 2 1st year midgets 4 2nd year midgets On the side that did not improve, the average lack of improvement was 26.75 positions. The median was 28 positions. The makeup of the group was: 7 1st year juniors 4 1st year juveniles 8 2nd year juveniles 1 1st year midget |
|
|
|
Post by nscoach67 on Dec 3, 2009 20:10:06 GMT -5
Now that I have seemed to have killed yet another thread, here is a comparison of time behind the leader 2009, and 2008 for the top 30 placers in the Junior womens race:
2009 2008 2009 2008
1 11 00:00.0 01:31.5
2 10 00:09.2 01:12.4
3 4 00:11.6 00:24.4
4 17 00:35.3 01:48.3
5 21 00:45.0 02:04.5
10 48 01:04.8 02:35.2
11 25 01:05.2 02:13.3
13 59 01:19.4 02:44.5
14 19 01:19.9 01:56.8
15 24 01:22.3 02:12.7
16 35 01:27.3 02:26.0
17 62 01:30.9 02:52.4
19 63 01:34.4 02:54.3
20 31 01:34.7 02:21.2
22 32 01:36.4 02:21.8
25 37 01:39.2 02:29.0
26 33 01:40.2 02:23.4
28 54 01:43.6 02:41.9
29 124 01:44.2 03:53.0
30 69 01:47.3 03:03.3
|
|
But that was just before the "Go South or be a failure" era in Canadian distance running, which we are still trying to recover from...