Another WR to Jones

"David White" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It took until the 5th day of competition in the Commonwealth Games before
we
saw a world record in an able-bodied event. About 20 minutes ago Leisel
Jones broke her 100 m breaststroke WR with 1:05.09. That took 0.62 off her
previous record that she set in the trials in the same pool in February.
She's now taken 1.11 s off the record prior to the trials. She turned in
30.83. She had previously (and unexpectedly) won the 50 m breaststroke in
30.55. She also won the 200m breaststroke, so she has the breatstroke
treble.

David

The Aussies also nearly got a WR in the 4x100m freestyle relay. I think if
they had chosen to swim one of their stronger swimmers in the last place
instead of swimming fastest to slowest, they might have done it!
Pauline

The women's 4x 100m free relay that is!

"Inwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David White" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It took until the 5th day of competition in the Commonwealth Games before
we
saw a world record in an able-bodied event. About 20 minutes ago Leisel
Jones broke her 100 m breaststroke WR with 1:05.09. That took 0.62 off
her
previous record that she set in the trials in the same pool in February.
She's now taken 1.11 s off the record prior to the trials. She turned in
30.83. She had previously (and unexpectedly) won the 50 m breaststroke in
30.55. She also won the 200m breaststroke, so she has the breatstroke
treble.

David

The Aussies also nearly got a WR in the 4x100m freestyle relay. I think if
they had chosen to swim one of their stronger swimmers in the last place
instead of swimming fastest to slowest, they might have done it!
Pauline

"Inwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Aussies also nearly got a WR in the 4x100m freestyle relay. I think if
they had chosen to swim one of their stronger swimmers in the last place
instead of swimming fastest to slowest, they might have done it!
Pauline

Would you care to suggest _why_ you believe the order in which relay
swimmers do their portions would make a difference to the total time?

jtaylor said:

"Inwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Aussies also nearly got a WR in the 4x100m freestyle relay. I think if
they had chosen to swim one of their stronger swimmers in the last place
instead of swimming fastest to slowest, they might have done it!
Pauline

Would you care to suggest _why_ you believe the order in which relay
swimmers do their portions would make a difference to the total time?

The only arguments I've ever liked in connection with relay order go:

1)Clean water - send the fastest first in the hope that your anchor won't
have to fight through the churn

2)Monster pride - sometimes, as a coach, you can tell when someone is so
close... they just need a good excuse to hurdle the self doubt and not
just step up but vault. Relay anchor can be a good opportunity esp if it
looks like the race will be close

3)Technical - some people, even very good sprinters, are simply just much
better at flat start than takeovers

4)Tactical - racing teams you kinda know it can be nice to slip in a
relatively unknown ringer in the middle. Especially if said ringer
_shouldn't_ be all that hot and you're missing a little depth.

Hmm, well... I guess that's about it and I'm stretching pretty bad on the
#4. I guess I don't see any reason either 😉

--Mike

Michael Edey said:

jtaylor said:

"Inwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Aussies also nearly got a WR in the 4x100m freestyle relay. I think if
they had chosen to swim one of their stronger swimmers in the last place
instead of swimming fastest to slowest, they might have done it!
Pauline

Would you care to suggest _why_ you believe the order in which relay
swimmers do their portions would make a difference to the total time?

The only arguments I've ever liked in connection with relay order go:

1)Clean water - send the fastest first in the hope that your anchor won't
have to fight through the churn

2)Monster pride - sometimes, as a coach, you can tell when someone is so
close... they just need a good excuse to hurdle the self doubt and not
just step up but vault. Relay anchor can be a good opportunity esp if it
looks like the race will be close

3)Technical - some people, even very good sprinters, are simply just much
better at flat start than takeovers

4)Tactical - racing teams you kinda know it can be nice to slip in a
relatively unknown ringer in the middle. Especially if said ringer
_shouldn't_ be all that hot and you're missing a little depth.

Hmm, well... I guess that's about it and I'm stretching pretty bad on the
#4. I guess I don't see any reason either 😉

No.

The force does not increase if with you the force already is.

I had the same discussion with my girlfriend last night when she
claimed that they should have changed the order of the swimmers. My
response was to ask her which was the greater amount of money:

$1 then $2, OR
$2 then $1

Michael Edey said:

jtaylor said:

"Inwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Aussies also nearly got a WR in the 4x100m freestyle relay. I think if
they had chosen to swim one of their stronger swimmers in the last place
instead of swimming fastest to slowest, they might have done it!
Pauline

Would you care to suggest _why_ you believe the order in which relay
swimmers do their portions would make a difference to the total time?

The only arguments I've ever liked in connection with relay order go:

1)Clean water - send the fastest first in the hope that your anchor won't
have to fight through the churn

2)Monster pride - sometimes, as a coach, you can tell when someone is so
close... they just need a good excuse to hurdle the self doubt and not
just step up but vault. Relay anchor can be a good opportunity esp if it
looks like the race will be close

3)Technical - some people, even very good sprinters, are simply just much
better at flat start than takeovers

4)Tactical - racing teams you kinda know it can be nice to slip in a
relatively unknown ringer in the middle. Especially if said ringer
_shouldn't_ be all that hot and you're missing a little depth.

Hmm, well... I guess that's about it and I'm stretching pretty bad on the
#4. I guess I don't see any reason either 😉

--Mike

"Colin Priest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I had the same discussion with my girlfriend last night when she
claimed that they should have changed the order of the swimmers. My
response was to ask her which was the greater amount of money:

$1 then $2, OR
$2 then $1

But $ are not people, and they are not racing through water. Mike has given
some of the possible reasons why the order of swimmers in a relay may be
significant. I would be surprised if any swimmers who have swum in a
freestyle relay have not considered the best order of the swimmers (or their
coaches thought about it for them). Perhaps that is always a complete waste
of time and effort and we should all just draw straws.
Pauline

Quoted message said:

Michael Edey said:

jtaylor said:

"Inwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>

> The Aussies also nearly got a WR in the 4x100m freestyle relay. I think
> if
> they had chosen to swim one of their stronger swimmers in the last
> place
> instead of swimming fastest to slowest, they might have done it!
> Pauline
>

Would you care to suggest _why_ you believe the order in which relay
swimmers do their portions would make a difference to the total time?

The only arguments I've ever liked in connection with relay order go:

1)Clean water - send the fastest first in the hope that your anchor won't
have to fight through the churn

2)Monster pride - sometimes, as a coach, you can tell when someone is so
close... they just need a good excuse to hurdle the self doubt and not
just step up but vault. Relay anchor can be a good opportunity esp if it
looks like the race will be close

3)Technical - some people, even very good sprinters, are simply just much
better at flat start than takeovers

4)Tactical - racing teams you kinda know it can be nice to slip in a
relatively unknown ringer in the middle. Especially if said ringer
_shouldn't_ be all that hot and you're missing a little depth.

Hmm, well... I guess that's about it and I'm stretching pretty bad on the
#4. I guess I don't see any reason either 😉

--Mike

Michael Edey said:

jtaylor said:

"Inwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Aussies also nearly got a WR in the 4x100m freestyle relay. I think if
they had chosen to swim one of their stronger swimmers in the last place
instead of swimming fastest to slowest, they might have done it!
Pauline

Would you care to suggest _why_ you believe the order in which relay
swimmers do their portions would make a difference to the total time?

The only arguments I've ever liked in connection with relay order go:

1)Clean water - send the fastest first in the hope that your anchor won't
have to fight through the churn

2)Monster pride - sometimes, as a coach, you can tell when someone is so
close... they just need a good excuse to hurdle the self doubt and not
just step up but vault. Relay anchor can be a good opportunity esp if it
looks like the race will be close

3)Technical - some people, even very good sprinters, are simply just much
better at flat start than takeovers

4)Tactical - racing teams you kinda know it can be nice to slip in a
relatively unknown ringer in the middle. Especially if said ringer
_shouldn't_ be all that hot and you're missing a little depth.

Hmm, well... I guess that's about it and I'm stretching pretty bad on the
#4. I guess I don't see any reason either 😉

--Mike

Not sure if this is much of a factor in major competitions, but when I
used to compete at a local level where events were swum consecutively
with little interruption, the additional few minutes of rest for the
last swimmer could be significant.

Inwood said:

"Colin Priest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I had the same discussion with my girlfriend last night when she
claimed that they should have changed the order of the swimmers. My
response was to ask her which was the greater amount of money:

$1 then $2, OR
$2 then $1

But $ are not people, and they are not racing through water. Mike has given
some of the possible reasons why the order of swimmers in a relay may be
significant. I would be surprised if any swimmers who have swum in a
freestyle relay have not considered the best order of the swimmers (or their
coaches thought about it for them). Perhaps that is always a complete waste
of time and effort and we should all just draw straws.

To give it a context, my girlfriend suggested that having the fastest
swimmer last was always the best option.

The only reasons I've ever changed the order of a relay is because one
of the swimmers was a weak starter, or was prone to go early on a
changeover.

Quoted message said:

Pauline

Quoted message said:

Michael Edey said:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:02:13 -0400, jtaylor wrote:

>
> "Inwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>
>
>
>> The Aussies also nearly got a WR in the 4x100m freestyle relay. I think
>> if
>> they had chosen to swim one of their stronger swimmers in the last
>> place
>> instead of swimming fastest to slowest, they might have done it!
>> Pauline
>>
>
> Would you care to suggest _why_ you believe the order in which relay
> swimmers do their portions would make a difference to the total time?

The only arguments I've ever liked in connection with relay order go:

1)Clean water - send the fastest first in the hope that your anchor won't
have to fight through the churn

2)Monster pride - sometimes, as a coach, you can tell when someone is so
close... they just need a good excuse to hurdle the self doubt and not
just step up but vault. Relay anchor can be a good opportunity esp if it
looks like the race will be close

3)Technical - some people, even very good sprinters, are simply just much
better at flat start than takeovers

4)Tactical - racing teams you kinda know it can be nice to slip in a
relatively unknown ringer in the middle. Especially if said ringer
_shouldn't_ be all that hot and you're missing a little depth.

Hmm, well... I guess that's about it and I'm stretching pretty bad on the
#4. I guess I don't see any reason either 😉

--Mike

"Mark P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michael Edey said:

jtaylor said:

"Inwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

> The Aussies also nearly got a WR in the 4x100m freestyle relay. I think
> if
> they had chosen to swim one of their stronger swimmers in the last
> place
> instead of swimming fastest to slowest, they might have done it!
> Pauline
>
Would you care to suggest _why_ you believe the order in which relay
swimmers do their portions would make a difference to the total time?

The only arguments I've ever liked in connection with relay order go:

1)Clean water - send the fastest first in the hope that your anchor won't
have to fight through the churn

2)Monster pride - sometimes, as a coach, you can tell when someone is so
close... they just need a good excuse to hurdle the self doubt and not
just step up but vault. Relay anchor can be a good opportunity esp if it
looks like the race will be close

3)Technical - some people, even very good sprinters, are simply just much
better at flat start than takeovers

4)Tactical - racing teams you kinda know it can be nice to slip in a
relatively unknown ringer in the middle. Especially if said ringer
_shouldn't_ be all that hot and you're missing a little depth.

Hmm, well... I guess that's about it and I'm stretching pretty bad on the
#4. I guess I don't see any reason either 😉

--Mike

Not sure if this is much of a factor in major competitions, but when I
used to compete at a local level where events were swum consecutively with
little interruption, the additional few minutes of rest for the last
swimmer could be significant.

Free relays, I've always settled on going fastest to slowest. The
psychological advantage of being out in front, added to what has already
been mentioned, that of having clean water is valuable. In my experience, a
swimmer will fight much harder to hold onto what they have (a lead) than
they will to take that lead away from another person...by putting a swimmer
in a position to lose what their team mates won for them, I've seen much
better splits than leaving it up to one swimmer to bring it back...that
takes the heart and confidence that few swimmers really posses, at least
with the age of kids i work with. Everyone loves to see the big gun on the
end eating through the field, but I don't see it very often.

Steve