WOC Long Final

[Scott]

Well, the GPS traces do suggest that they were, erm, running rather close together, although Mamleev's unit seemed to lose signal for a big chunk of the course. It would be interesting to see Splitsbrowser...

[Scott]

And for all the conspiracy theorists out there: Mamleev's GPS trace has now mysteriously vanished from the online TracTrac thingy - note the gap in start times between Khramov and Öberg...

MissingMamleev.jpg (47.29 KiB) Viewed 5323 times

[greywolf]

And for anyone who likes a bit of controversy, the prizegiving was delayed while the jury considered (and rejected) a protest from the Finnish team alleging that Mamleev had followed Hubmann...

where "considered" = "scrunched up and threw rapidly into the bin"
GPS had Mamleev bang to rights, but unless he actually attached a bungee cord to Hubmann there was no way he'd get DQ'd, because it would open a huge can of worms...he was hardly the only competitor "running parallel" with someone else. Very tough on Haldin who did brilliantly from start number 1.

IMHO 2 mins [edit: yes i know MM started 4 mins ahead of DH] is far too small a start interval for a Long race...even the VM has 4 mins ...think the IOF have compressed it for the benefit of TV....but not sure there was any live TV coverage anyway

[Scott]

even the VM has 4 mins

Actually, the start interval at Varsity is 6 minutes - not that that's been enough to stop Cambridge considering following as a legitimate tactic.

following.jpg (98.09 KiB) Viewed 5259 times

[EddieH]

Well let's face it Haldin was very poor in qualifying, and lucky to make it. Mamleev earned his start position.

Of course he benefitted, but is he supposed to deliberately slow down?

[graeme]

edit: yes i know MM started 4 mins ahead of DH

4 mins gives you the same order through the butterflies. Not that they're especially effective anyway.

Fact is, it's part of the game - you still have to qualify well. If only a certain cheese-eating surrender monkey had run a bit faster team GB might have podiumed.

[ba-ba]

from ultimateO:

“I was surprised when Daniel came, because I hadn’t done any mistake“, Mamleev said. “Then we were together almost all the time. There were some controls where we had other route choices, but in such open forests you see each other very well“. Dangerously honest, the Italian added: “during the last controls I was just so tired I reliefed on Daniel’s technique. I am very thankfull for his help!”

[running wild]

Looks like that final remark should diqualify him.
But the what about GG?
Kept with Thierry G from the butterfly until the final loop.
That was after losing 4 minutes to him on the first part of the course.
I can remember a time when the British elite openly laughed at French orienteers and made fun of them- now they are struggling to keep with them.

[JEP]

From the splits, Mamleev seemed to be within a second or two of Hubman at every control from 10 until finish and GG with Thiery from 12 to 31. That comes with a 2 minute start interval for long. Used to be 3 minutes.

IOF seem more interested in presentation than fairness these days. Several examples of that this year.

It takes pretty cleverly designed butterflies to overcome this. One of this years WCs had three loops in the butterflies which were different lengths. Not sure whether or not it made a difference. The women's race butterflies at WOC were a bit different but again not sure if it made a difference.

[Spookster]

The women's race butterflies at WOC were a bit different but again not sure if it made a difference.

If you look at the way Niggli and Kaupi split at the butterfly and came right back together again after them, I'd say they make little difference. Of course if a fast runner is with a slower (possibly following) runner, butterflies probably split them apart, but in a WOC final there are no slow runners!

[Gross]

Start intervals & 'following' will always be a problem! AB got his medal in 99 by tagging onto someone (allegedly)... Mammlev may or may not of got a tow, GG may or may not of got a tow & if you look through the splits I'm sure there are other from Sunday's race... Only the people themselves know if they got a tow or not... the rest of us need to take things on face value & accept it as part of the sport. Congratulations to Mammlev on his medal.........

[Adrian]

Orienteering ain't cross-country running, and you have to question the WOC course organising system that has allowed this to happen. Mamleev followed Hubmann for an hour and got away with it. That ain't going to get orienteering into the Olympics.

Since it's possible to be four, even six minutes down and get a medal, there needs to be much more sepration of runners. Three minutes between starts would be better, but more important is to have more butterflies, and of different lengths.

What beggars belief is that, with all their experience, the IOF could have seen this coming but somehow weren't clever enough to deal with it beforehand.

[graeme]

It's fairly straightforward to see who got a tow and who didn't, from the splits and the TV coverage. There's plenty of stats out there to tell you how much it helps - blind following at elite level is worth about 8%, running as a cooperating pair more like 4%. This is all well documented and well known to the IOF.

It's also well known to the teams - if there wasn't a big potential gain from qualifying well, a team wouldn't sacrifice its weakest member to the worst qualifying start time. It's convenient not to talk about hard choices, but essentially GBR traded Rhodri's non-qualification for GG's top 10.

I guess they prefer this to the alternatives. There's a feeling that running legs in a different order is unfair (and of course it is, but not as much as following). There's a feeling that a 30 sec stop-go for the slower runner is unfair (and of course it is, but not as much as following). The small butterflies don't really work either - at this level the followers are quite capable of hanging in for a km, and 4 mins down is enough for a medal.

You can't minimise packing without very long start lists, but you can
make sure that one person doesn't benefit unduly. The system used in the Ukraine worked fine. Hagaby also works fine (sort of triple butterfly, look it up...) But they both put constraints on the planning, so it depends on the area. The SHI in Northern Ireland had the fairest format I've seen (4 unequal loops), but had still more planning constraints.
In Hungary, the best strategy would probably have been a long common section with the big route choice legs, followed by a 3-loop Hagaby (6 options splits starters up 12 mins apart).

But first you have to publicly acknowledge the issue, and take at face value what's staring you in the face. They'll get there eventually.

(and don't hide controls in relays either!)

[EddieH]

Adrian wrote "Mamleev followed Hubmann for an hour and got away with it. That ain't going to get orienteering into the Olympics."

I cannot believe this statement. Have you seen the cycle points race?

As it stands this is part of what happens in this sport - there is even a move towards more mass-start races. You may not like it - it certainly doesn't suit me, but there it is.

In the WOC situation it is necessary to qualify, so Mamleev earned the position that enabled him to get this bit of luck.

And following or not, luck can come into play in finding a control that you were about to miss just as someone comes out of it - luck does come into play when you pass the right side of a bush to see the control when you'd have missed it otherwise.

Luck does come into play when a long golf put drops into the hole.

Luck does come into play when a batsmen misses a ball by a minute fraction and goes on to make 200.

Luck does come into play when an inoccuous shot in football spins off a defender past the goalkeeper ...........

In my opinion it is sports where such elements of lck exist that are the most interesting spectator wise.

[Scott]

Well let's face it Haldin was very poor in qualifying, and lucky to make it. Mamleev earned his start position.

That's true, but at the same time it's not hard to see why Haldin might be feeling a bit hard done by. "If only you'd done better in qualifying, then you too could have had the chance to follow someone and get a medal" doesn't (to me, at least) feel like an adequate response.

It'd be interesting to know exactly how the Finnish team "knew" that Mamleev had been following Hubmann in order to put in a complaint. Had the coaches just surmised from watching TracTrac on the big screen, or did Hubmann actually decide to tell them himself?

I also think it's a bit farcical that the IOF (presumably?) have decided to remove Mamleev's GPS trace from the online TracTrac thing, which just leaves them looking pretty silly.