Kris wrote:And it's not really hindsight when (to the spectator) we seem to get relay tactics wrong more often than not these days.
We don't have the depth or the superstars that other nations can call on. Rather, our tactics have to be set up to try to swing things in our favour. In these relays, you generally don't gain time on the medal positions; if you fall behind, you are reliant on those in front of you making mistakes. For the best team result, I think it is vital to stay with the front of the race as long as possible.
With that in mind, I'd pick the relay by considering how likely it is that the runner will keep in touch with the front group during that leg (in the knowledge that things get more spread out as the race moves on). If I think it gave the team a better chance of staying in touch with the leaders, I would put the 'stronger' runner earlier in the race.
There is a huge amount of pressure when things go to plan and you are near the front of the race on last leg. That is why it is tempting to save your best runner. However, I'd prioritise getting into that position first and foremost. It takes guts to set the team up like this, not least from Nathan who will have had to deal with the pressure from the minute the team was selected. It didn't work out, but that doesn't mean the tactics were wrong - we need to be brave in these races if we want a top result.
This is exactly the mindset we had as a management team when we selected the relay line-ups for the men's team this year. We've had a number of international relays recently when Sasha has been sent out on 3rd leg and the race is already over and he's been wasted. We adopted an approach which several WOC teams (eg. France with Gueorgiou; Switzerland with Hubmann and Norway with Lundanes) took last year, where their premier runner was sent out on second leg to break things up and try to put their final leg runner in a strong position for a medal/podium placing. We got 2/3rds of the way there...