tactics

Older readers will remember that I consider Paula Radcliffe to be the David Bedford of women. Now she's announced that she is to run 10,000m after all, I eagerly await the proof of my wrongness, or wrongniosity.

To expand upon my thoughts, I think, essentially, that the kind of race that Radcliffe runs, while it works in smaller events and venues, is tactically naive in the Olympic setting. I just think her opposition are more savvy in the Olympics, and feel there's more at stake.

Radcliffe wins, basically, by breaking her opponents on the wheel of her early race pace. She leads from the front, and sets a fast pace, which destroys her pursuers if they try to keep up with her.

But as whatsername, Kelly Holmes, proved in the 800m, if you have a good idea what the eventual winning time is, and you pace yourself, you'll catch up with the front runner, who will have no strength left for a sprint finish.

The other way to beat Radcliffe is to stay with her when she picks up the pace, forcing her to pick up the pace even more. Eventually you'll force her to run so fast that her own race place and lap pacing will be out of the window. This is what really happened in the marathon. She didn't leave them behind as expected, and had to push herself harder. The moment that broke her was when she pushed herself to catch up to the runner in 3rd, only to see another competitor go past the both of them, leaving her in 5th.

It's big fish in a small pond syndrome. She, like Bedford before her, doesn't seem to know any other way of runnng, and the key people in the Olympics know how to counter what she does too easily.