Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Virgin London Marathon (Keitany 2.18.37; Kipsang 2.04.43)

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Re: Virgin London Marathon (Keitany 2.18.37; Kipsang 2.04.43

    Originally posted by 26mi235
    Keitany worked out the strategy to win the championship race. The best chance to beat her is to red-line it earlier and force her to keep up or let a gap open and hope she can close it fast enough. When you can close the last 10k that fast off of a reasonable quick pace, och. So, who is the Silver favorite?
    If the pace is slower, and the race comes down to a shorter sprint at the end, I think Shobukhova (assuming she is healthy) still has an edge over Keitany.

    Another possibility is for one runner to go out at a suicidal pace to take Keitany with her, and another runner taking over both of them late in the race.

    A big question is whether Keitany could go out at a proper pace without pacers. She won twice in London (with pacers), and lost twice in NYC without pacers. She was too conservative in her debut in 2010, and too aggressive last year.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Virgin London Marathon (Keitany 2.18.37; Kipsang 2.04.43

      Keitany ran the closing 10,008 in 31:33 (maybe the last 10,000). She is not going to wait for the last couple of ks although note that she closed fast than the men's winner at the end. If it somewhat slower than London's 20mi time, she is going to just be able to go faster than 31:33

      " Unofficially I have 1:47:09 for 20 miles.
      so a 31:28 split for Mary today from 20 miles to finish.",Read morehttp://: <a href="http://www.letsrun...z1stVxfzpJ</a>

      which is a 31:28 10,000 pace. If you have to run 0.1% further on a road course (margin added), that takes almost 20 more seconds off, so we are taking 31:06 - that is 75s on a track. If they run the second 15kms the same pace they ran the first (and it was good tempo, just not fast), then she drops another 20 seconds or more so we are now in the 30:40 range...

      Now, the question is, how did she alter her training and racing since she was dusted in the close in NYC (if I have that correct)?

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Virgin London Marathon (Keitany 2.18.37; Kipsang 2.04.43

        Originally posted by 26mi235
        which is a 31:28 10,000 pace. If you have to run 0.1% further on a road course (margin added), that takes almost 20 more seconds off, so we are taking 31:06 - that is 75s on a track.
        Sounds like you're doing a 1% adjustment - 0.1% of 31:28 is 2 seconds, not almost 20 (and 31:28 minus almost 20 seconds isn't 31:06 anyway...)

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Virgin London Marathon (Keitany 2.18.37; Kipsang 2.04.43

          140 minutes x 60 seconds/minute = 8400 seconds. 8400/1000 = 8.4 (I was getting the hours mixed with the minutes so I have too large a number, but still 9 (0.1% is minimum extra). ops:

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Virgin London Marathon (Keitany 2.18.37; Kipsang 2.04.43

            Originally posted by 26mi235
            Now, the question is, how did she alter her training and racing since she was dusted in the close in NYC (if I have that correct)?
            NYC was just a bad race. That performance was not indicative of how fit she was last November. I think she was in a better shape than she was in London last April. She just had a very poor race plan. If you compare London 2011 and London 2012, the progress she made in the last 12 months is not extraordinary.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Virgin London Marathon (Keitany 2.18.37; Kipsang 2.04.43

              I do not think that race plan covers it. In the first 20 miles at NYC and London she was slower in NYC than in London; in the last 10k she was slower in NYC than in London; probably any length greater than a kilometer during the last 10k she was faster in London than NYC. It might be that aside from the effects of hills (especially mile 2 NYC) she was probably faster for every single mile in London than in NYC.

              Of course, one conclusion is that she was not ready to run a 'hilly' marathon and she might not be very good at them. I know that I generally like and did relatively well in hilly races, including much hillier than NYC, but I did not want to run a hilly marathon. A lot of people have trouble with Boston, and in aggregate the hills are 'down'.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Virgin London Marathon (Keitany 2.18.37; Kipsang 2.04.43

                But her first half was about 3 minutes faster in NYC. Going out fast and fading is physically more taxing than running at an even pace or in a negative split.

                And she ran most of that all by herself. That should be mentally harder, and she could not draft behind other runners, either. In London, she was running with the pacer(s), and then with Kiplagat and Jeptoo.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Virgin London Marathon (Keitany 2.18.37; Kipsang 2.04.43

                  Then I mis-remembered, I thought that she had gone out a little slower than in London.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Virgin London Marathon (Keitany 2.18.37; Kipsang 2.04.43

                    but she ran 67 first half in NY which would be almost suicidal on the flat London course ever mind the notoriously tough NY one. She wasn't necessarily in better form in London just ran a better strategy on an easier course with pacemakers !!
                    i deserve extra credit

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Virgin London Marathon (Keitany 2.18.37; Kipsang 2.04.43

                      sorry didn't read till end of thread before posting
                      i deserve extra credit

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X