Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boston Boost Games 2021

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Wiederganger View Post
    Compare to SAFP who everyone is saying is a co-fave for 100m gold. SAFP has run 4 times so far: 11.51, 11.62, 23.19 & 22.66. If we take into consideration that pesky wind, she has effectively run 11.23, 11.24, 22.66 & 23.05 basic. Why do we consider someone who has run 11.2 a gold medal candidate? Presumably based on their pedigree & experience. I think Schippers has this, and equally peaks well like SAFP, so we have to give her a wee bit slack here, and see what the next races tell us. But for now, gold medal contender, no.
    Well, for one, the conditions in which SAFP ran her 11.2x's
    were dreadful. I'd consider both runs to be at least a tenth of a second faster than those "basic" times. She was only .07 behind Richardson after all.

    In addition, her current times so far are pretty much in line with what she's usually opened with. She's usually runs 22-high/23-low and 11.1/11.2 for her openers in her best seasons.

    In contrast, Schippers' season openers during her peak years were much better than what ever seen of her so far. So far this is looking more like her 2019 season than her 2015-2017 season.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Speedster View Post
      SMU looked deceptively slow on TV as the angle was awful, appreciating the challenges of camera angles at some of the street races, 22.08 is fast for this time of year, straight or otherwise. Reports of niggles is interesting with a crowded bunch in her preferred 200m for this year..
      Yes, I think you're right re the camera angle, it probably made her look 'slower' than she was. The time is fast, I agree, but I think I was expecting a time quite a bit under 22 after her other outings, so then when she said she'd had some niggles I was like "ah, ok, makes sense now".

      Originally posted by Speedster View Post
      Schippers didn't look good from the first step, the start was slow and then eased toward the end. The contractual nature of the event might be an indication as well as the travel required to race

      The point on SAFP getting cut slack is an interesting one but I guess she gets a pass as we've seen this before and an impressive bounce. The conditions in Gateshead were as bad as I think I've seen for a Diamond League and therefore hard to judge against and her 2019 final and her good season last year feel close whereas Schippers better form seems further off. The journey to Tokyo is different for both with a more competitive JAM Trials awaiting where Schippers has to peak once mainly with the NED team a near certainty if healthy.
      Yes, there was a suggestion Schippers only ran in Boston due to contractual commitments. I also agree she was out of it from the first few steps, totally left behind.

      I get why SAFP always gets a pass of course, she is the greatest women's 100m runner of all-time. I do just wonder why everyone is so confident she will be a 10.7 woman this season, and not, say, a 10.8 woman like in 2016, (when she opened with 11.18) or a 10.9 woman like in 2018 (when she opened with 11.5) or like in 2011 (when she opened with 10.9). Has she got one final 10.7 in her? I agree Gateshead was insignificant, early season, and terrible conditions, but she was still beaten by 3 women who are medal candidates. I wonder how much the extra delay will ultimately affect her at 34. We'll soon see!

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Track78 View Post
        The other thing is Schippers has been on a downward trajectory ever since 2015. SAFP's 2019 was one of her most dominant seasons ever. If you look at 2015 where they ran for gold/silver in the 100m, SAFP has run equal that time as recently as 2019, Schippers is nowhere near that. I don't mean any disrespect by saying this, but Schippers was much more lean back in 2015.
        I agree with all of this. I guess I'm trying to establish why, and understand whether she can get back to some semblance of her best form. I think her coach switch after 2016 was a disastrous move TBH, she piled on too much muscle with Reider's training approach, and lost her speed endurance, which was her key weapon. Moving back to Bennema hasn't reaped any rewards yet, just persistent injuries and only being able to train at 80%. But....if she has been training at 100% over winter, as she has suggested, then there is a chance she can be her best since 2017 perhaps. Not enough for gold, but maybe a challenger. But she aint showing that yet!

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Paced View Post

          Well, for one, the conditions in which SAFP ran her 11.2x's
          were dreadful. I'd consider both runs to be at least a tenth of a second faster than those "basic" times. She was only .07 behind Richardson after all.

          In addition, her current times so far are pretty much in line with what she's usually opened with. She's usually runs 22-high/23-low and 11.1/11.2 for her openers in her best seasons.

          In contrast, Schippers' season openers during her peak years were much better than what ever seen of her so far. So far this is looking more like her 2019 season than her 2015-2017 season.
          ..Or SAFP's 2016...where she ran 10.8 in Rio, not 10.7...

          Agree Schippers is looking more like 2019 than 15-17. The only difference I would again mention is the training effort, and 2019 training at 80%. But if she is at 100% then she's lost it.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Wiederganger View Post
            I get why SAFP always gets a pass of course, she is the greatest women's 100m runner of all-time. I do just wonder why everyone is so confident she will be a 10.7 woman this season, and not, say, a 10.8 woman like in 2016, (when she opened with 11.18) or a 10.9 woman like in 2018 (when she opened with 11.5) or like in 2011 (when she opened with 10.9). Has she got one final 10.7 in her? I agree Gateshead was insignificant, early season, and terrible conditions, but she was still beaten by 3 women who are medal candidates. I wonder how much the extra delay will ultimately affect her at 34. We'll soon see!
            I cant speak for anyone else, but IMO, I dont necessarily think SAFP will be running 10.7x this year. I simply think that because of what she has done in her career and more recently in 2019 & 2020, she is still capable (my pic for favorite) to win Gold in Tokyo. It just so happens that every ear SAFP won gold, she ran 10.7x. But doesn't mean she will, the Gold could very well be won in 10.8 (2017) or 10.9 (2011). Winning gold is separate from running a fast time.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Wiederganger View Post

              ..Or SAFP's 2016...where she ran 10.8 in Rio, not 10.7...

              Agree Schippers is looking more like 2019 than 15-17. The only difference I would again mention is the training effort, and 2019 training at 80%. But if she is at 100% then she's lost it.
              In 2016 SAFP pulled out of a few meets due to her toe injury before running 11.18 (+1.5) to finish 8th in Eugene, 0.37 behind English Gardner. She looked much better in Gateshead and has no injury as far as I'm aware. I do agree with the sentiment that SAFP's past accomplishments do not guarantee her success this year, but her performances thus far this season do not cast doubt on her ability to regain top form.

              Schippers opened 2017 in 22.29 and didn't run slower than 22.45 all season, and that 22.45 was into a -2.3 headwind. In 2016 she opened with 22.25 which was her slowest time all year. Even in 2015, the year she transitioned to full time sprinting, she opened with 22.63 which was her slowest time all season. Schippers opening this season with a 22.91 is a cause for concern for anyone expecting a sub-22 from her.

              Comment

              Working...
              X