Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

[RMc]

I haven't seen a post yet that asks the most important question about the women's AOY:
Why isn't Paula Radcliffe the AOY? And why isn't she even in the top 10?
Paul Tergat ranks 7th after breaking the WR by a minute, but Radcliffe isn't even in the top 10 despite producing what is probably the Performance of the Year in her prime event. Doesn't make much sense to me.

[michael lewis]

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

It's arguably one of the toughest women's world records EVER at a time when we don't even get to see such things anymore!!

[michael lewis]

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

I know this will piss a lot of people off and I could NOT care less: Mutola is a fabulous athlete whose days of real competition are behind with the retirement of the only rivals she's ever had, and who wins hands down because there is no competition. Her times are unimpressive when averaged out over a season, she only runs as fast as she needs to win - nothing wrong with that but if she had to run REALLY fast to win, she'd lose. Nothing Mutola has done in her entire career comes close to Radcliffe's marathon, which is about as good as a 1:51.5 IMHO.

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

I'd predicted Sanchez and Radcliffe. When I saw Paula was not in the Top 10 I assumed the marathon wasn't included for some reason. If it was she's an easy number 1 and not placing her in the Top 10 is just plain stupid.

[Jon]

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

>Nothing Mutola has done in
>her entire career comes close to Radcliffe's marathon, which is about as good
>as a 1:51.5 IMHO.

On the mercier scoring tables, Paula's marathon time is worth a 1:49.52 800m run!!!

[michael lewis]

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

Thanks! I was going to say around 1:50 but I figured I didn't need to deal with the flack. It seems fair to say it's a whole lot better than 1:55.

[Jon]

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

>It seems fair to say it's a whole lot better than 1:55.


Yep... Mutola's 1:55.55 SB equates to a 2:23:44 marathon run.

However, it must be stressed that there are some flaws with the mercier scoring. The online mercier calculator I used was based on performances between 1995 and 1998, and women's marathon running has come on a whole lot more since then (whereas women's 800m hasn't really progressed since). Still, Paula's WR is probably the best mark acheived by a female athlete in the past 5 years or so. With all her wins and records on the road (only one race where she was beaten this year - and that was a relay), it's a travesty how she didn't make the top-ten.

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

Hope the powers that be don't shoot me for revealing this before it is revealed to the masses, but Radcliffe was 12th in the voting. If you stop to consider that this was a World Championships year and she didn't run in that most important of all meets and she only had one race all year then keeping her out of the top 10 doesn't seem all that farfetched to me. You have to remember that there are precedents in the TFN world rankings where people have set world records and haven't even ranked in the top 10 in their event let alone overall so no matter how good the marathon record is it isn't everything.

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

I think she should've been slightly higher, yes, but not AOY. Note that she did win the Performance of the Year.

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

Aha! So I'm not the only one giving stuff away! (Or did somebody mention the POY earleir?)

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

I have got a superb reason for Radcliffe not to be the AOY: I am not convinced that she was even number one in the marathon despite her world record. Ndereba was the world champion after all and even though Radcliffe stomped her good in London it's arguable which was the most important of the two races overall. If it is that close between them then you cannot have Radcliffe as AOY without Ndereba being close behind her.

[Jon]

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

>Hope the powers that be don't shoot me for revealing this before it is revealed
>to the masses, but Radcliffe was 12th in the voting. If you stop to consider
>that this was a World Championships year and she didn't run in that most
>important of all meets and she only had one race all year then keeping her out
>of the top 10 doesn't seem all that farfetched to me. You have to remember that
>there are precedents in the TFN world rankings where people have set world
>records and haven't even ranked in the top 10 in their event let alone overall
>so no matter how good the marathon record is it isn't everything.




OK, she missed the WCh (through injury), I understand that would decrease her overall rating. But she's won every single individual race she's competed in, won the world half-marathon championships, set 4 world records in four different events (ranging from 5km to Marathon), and now has a winning streak of 14 individual finals (excluding the relay from last week). To think she was ranked 12th?!?!?!

BTW, what do you mean "she only had one race all year"...??!!

[Jon]

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

>I have got a superb reason for Radcliffe not to be the AOY: I am not convinced
>that she was even number one in the marathon despite her world record. Ndereba
>was the world champion after all and even though Radcliffe stomped her good in
>London it's arguable which was the most important of the two races overall. If
>it is that close between them then you cannot have Radcliffe as AOY without
>Ndereba being close behind her.


Radcliffe competes in more than one event...

[stevehj197]

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

Garry Hill posted about 3 weeks ago that Radcliffe was NOT the winner, because her only accomplishments this year were OFF the track, and the name of the magazine was TRACK & Field News."

[lagsun]

Re: Why not Radcliffe as AOY?

>OK, she missed the WCh (through injury), I understand that
>would decrease her overall rating. But she's won every single individual race
>she's competed in, won the world half-marathon championships, set 4 world
>records in four different events (ranging from 5km to Marathon), and now has a
>winning streak of 14 individual finals (excluding the relay from last week). To
>think she was ranked 12th?!?!?!

BTW, what do you mean "she only had one
>race all year"...??!!

She didn't compete on the track and ran 1 marathon. Although she had some outstanding road performances, I believe T&FN doesn't factor in road races (other than marathons) into the AOY equation.