 mick finn
|
Posted: 29 August 2007, 10:39 AM
Ditto Nic, looking forward to the rundown (runup?)
Also had gut-feeling that Japan was the one but will be good to see the data to back it up..
|
|
SJ
|
Posted: 29 August 2007, 3:42 PM
Sounds like Ukraine was kinda similar to JWOC Lithuania in that there were a few differences between training maps and the real race maps... Fortunately though the training maps were more green and inconsistent than the races.
|
|
ACW
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 6:06 AM
Same happened at the Swedish WOC in 1989... delicious, very runnable, (but technical) maps for training. And then the Classic Race(oldspeak!)was green and a bit ordinary
|
|
onemanfanclub
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 1:57 PM
OK, all to be revealed tonight (which has nothing to do with Jamie or Jager making nude appearances anywhere)
BORING DISCLAIMER BIT - SKIP TO THE NEXT POST IF YOU'RE JUST INTERESTED IN THE TOP 20 AND NOT HOW STATISTICALLY VALID IT IS!
First of all there's been a few changes over the history of WOC and NZ's involvement that need to be considered before anyone tries to treat this as serious analysis.
Point 1: Changes in finals regime.
The results below come from WOC's where there was: no final as such, just an individual race, which in some years the number of runners each country was allowed depended on previous results; finals of 60 runners with up to 4 runners from each country; finals of 45 runners with up to 3 from each country; and no doubt a few other regimes I don't know about. If all other variables had remained constant, then obviously it's harder to get a higher placing in some regimes than others.
Point two: Changes in international depth
Between the first NZ appearance at WOC that I could find (1976) and now (2007) there has been an immense growth of international depth in orienteering, both in the number of countries taking part and in the number of countries producing highly competitive individuals or squads. I believe that this has "on average" kept pace with the changes in "point one", so these two factors mostly cancel each other out (ie I'm arguing a 20th place in any one race in 1995 is comparable to the same result in 2005). In the top 20 lists that follow this argument covers all but the last few places on the men's list, I'd accept that the various 40-something places achieved in the 90's could be better results than some of those 35+ results in more recent WOC's, but by ignoring that, the lists were a lot easier to compile ;-)
Point three: more opportunities
Middle distance (aka short) was introduced in 1991. Sprint in 2001. Annual (as opposed to usually biennial) WOC's began in 2004. So in 15 years we've gone from one opportunity every two years to get an individual result to three opportunities every year. That means someone who's good enough to place highly now has 6 times more opportunities than their predecessors. But it doesn't actually make it EASIER to get a high place in any one race (unless you argue that no individual final now contains ALL the best men or women at WOC, but refer to point two which will remind you there are far more "best" men and women than there used to be) So this needs to be considered by anyone counting up who makes the top 20 the most times in the hope that will answer the question of who NZ's best ever is, but the highest places on the list will always be a reflection of who has had the best results "on the day" so to speak. (Sorry, I hope that makes more sense than I think it does)
Point four: changes in NZ team selection
Up until 1999, NZ WOC teams were always "full-size" and it was rare for someone who should have been in the team to miss through unavailability. Since 2001 (with one exception) teams have tended to be smaller and our best orienteers haven't always been available. Look through the top 20's and I think you'd find that nobody with a result from this decade has been to every WOC in that same period, and you'd probably say that most of those would have made the team in other years had they been available. You COULD argue that this partly cancels out point three, as NZ's best haven been able to take full advantage of the greater number of opportunities. Oh look, some straws, I think I'll just grasp at them for a while.
OK that's enough boring bits, here comes the interesting bit.
|
|
onemanfanclub
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 2:10 PM
NEW ZEALAND'S 20 BEST MALE AND FEMALE INDIVIDUAL RESULTS (as in 40 in total) AT WORLD ORIENTEERING CHAMPIONSHIPS...
(counting down... L = long, classic, M = middle, short, S = sprint, where the same placing has been achieved more than one, most recent result gets precedence, sources NZOF Statistics, cheers Bryan, NZOrienteering magazine, cheers Mick, and woc 2007 coverage)
20:
Ross Morrison, 42nd, S, UKR 2007
Tania Robinson, 31st, L, GER 1995
19:
Greg Barbour, 39th, L, CZK 1991
Trish Aspin, 30th, L, AUS 1985
18:
Al Landels, 38th, L, GER 1995
Antonia Wood, 30th, M, NOR 1997
17:
Al Landels, 37th, L, USA 1993
Tania Robinson, 30th, L, GBR 1999
16:
Ross Morrison, 37th, M, UKR 2007
Tania Robinson, 30th, M, SUI 2000
This message was edited by onemanfanclub on 4 September 2007, 5:38 PM
|
|
onemanfanclub
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 2:18 PM
15:
Darren Ashmore, 35th, S, JPN 2005
Rachel Smith, 28th, M, SWE 2004
14:
Rob Jessop, 34th, S, FIN 2001
Marquita Gelderman, 27th, L, GER 1995
13:
Darren Ashmore, 34th, M, JPN 2005
Antonia Wood, 26th, L, NOR 1997
12:
Al Landels, 33rd, M, USA 1993
Tania Robinson, 25th, L, NOR 1997
11:
Al Landels, 33rd, L, GBR 1999
Jenni Adams, 25th, M, GBR 1999
This message was edited by onemanfanclub on 4 September 2007, 5:40 PM
|
|
onemanfanclub
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 2:25 PM
10:
Karl Dravitski, 31st, M, JPN 2005
Tania Robinson, 24th, L, USA 1993
9:
Chris Forne, 31st, L, UKR 2007
Tania Robinson, 24th, M, GER 1995
8:
Al Landels, 30th, L, CZK 1991
Tania Robinson, 24th, M, NOR 1997
7:
Chris Forne, 30th, S, SUI 2003
Tania Robinson, 24th, S, JPN 2005
6:
John Robinson, 28th, L, GBR 1976
Tania Robinson, 23rd, L, UKR 2005
This message was edited by onemanfanclub on 4 September 2007, 5:42 PM
|
|
onemanfanclub
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 2:36 PM
And the big 5... (I suggest the younger maptalkers and other recent arrivals to the orienteering scene are sitting down when they get to #1)
5:
Rob Jessop, 28th, M, USA 1993
Tania Robinson, 21st, S, SUI 2003
4:
Chris Forne, 28th, L, JPN 2005
Rachel Smith, 21st, L, JPN 2005
3:
Chris Forne, 28th, S, UKR 2007
Tania Robinson, 19th, M, DEN 2006
2:
Chris Forne, 27th, S, JPN 2005
Tania Robinson, 16th, M, JPN 2005
1:
Al Landels, 24th, M, NOR 1997
Katie Fettes, 10th, L, CZK 1991
|
|
onemanfanclub
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 2:47 PM
So by the overly simple measure of which WOC's provided the most of the above results, NZ's most successful was Japan 2005 (8 results, most of which will stay there for a few years yet), followed by Norway 1997 and Ukraine 2007 (5 each). Honourable mentions to the teams at USA 1993 and Switzerland 2003 (4) and Scotland 1999 and Czechoslovakia 1991 (3). Looking forward to having to update the top 20 in future years...
I'm tired now, so I'll leave any more discussion of what if anything this all means over to the rest of you for now.
|
|
James
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 3:05 PM
Nick, what about Tania's results from germany '95?
24th middle
31st long.....
|
|
rob.g
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 3:06 PM
Awesome effort, Nick.
|
|
Chris Forne
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 3:54 PM
Don´t agree that points one and two cancel. Surely they add. It´s much harder to get a good result when there is a qualifier than when there was not. Eg, my 30th in the Sprint at Switzerland was much easier to achieve than say Karls 31st in the middle at Japan. With Qualifiers its similar to coming 31st out of ~135 runners rather than 30th out of ~45 runners.
|
|
Chris Forne
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 3:56 PM
I am predicting that next year will be our best ever. Even Jamie sounds serious. Several top 10´s I say. I´m beginning my training now.
This message was edited by Chris Forne on 30 August 2007, 11:58 PM
|
|
Keith
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 5:12 PM
Whistl this is quite intresting, Surely you've got to take account of qualify standards and how far after the winners time you are etc. That list could've been generated from maprunner.co.uk (have you seen this nic?). ie for the sprint in 2001 I seem to remember their being some odd critear with no qualifier.
http://www.maprunner.co.uk/component/option,com_dbquery/Itemid,156/task,ExecuteQuery/qid,2054/previousTask,PrepareQuery/
This message was edited by Keith on 31 August 2007, 1:14 AM
|
|
Alistair
|
Posted: 30 August 2007, 6:35 PM
Thanks for that Nic. I'm not going to get into which points would cancel each other out or not, but rather add another couple of points just to try and confuse you all a bit more ;-)
Placing results can be compared relatively well but surely a more interesting result of comparing performances would be to look at such things as percentage time after a mean time of the top 3-5. Or some statitician could probably plot this using normal curves etc. But then of course you'd get bigger spreads on such terrain as this year's middle and less on simple sprint/continental terrains... Again there are probably statistical methods for removing this distortion too.
Then of course the 3 vs 4 from each country and 45 vs 60 in the final could be said to cancel out the depth of field etc. but these changes also have the following effects:
A. Only 3 of each of the top nations (say Nor,Swe,Swi,Fin,Rus,etc) get 3 places in the final - statistacally these countries have had all of their runners placed in the top 20-30 which means that it's easier now to make the top 30.
B. There are now more countries which in some terrains compensates A above but as these are predominently eastern European countries it is in typically less technical terrrain that this compensation works.
C. Only 45 making the final means that like Chris says it's tougher to qualify but it also means that it's easier to get a better final place. When there were 60 qualifiers fewer top runners missed qualifying which meant more competition in the final - especially to get into the top 40 where most of these runners would be.
Another small point is that the 2min start interval (earlier 3mins) has lead to more groups forming in long races which means that the time differtial between a runner in the 20s & 30s should be smaller than it was before. This will lead to a more compact field which in turn will make the placing obtained more volatile to change (a smaller difference between 25th and 40th place now I suspect).
Another more controversial point would be regarding how various results were obtained - like the Australian in 1993 who blantantly sat on a Swede the whole race to get a top 20 place. Should these type of results be discarded - there's at least one of these in the above list.
Conclusion: Like ranking systems - who knows?!
Conclusion (the real one ;-) ): What do I care - you're still chasing me :-)
Of course I hope than none of you who are serious about making teams will bother to try to do any of this analysis - you should get out and train instead; for once I have my bionic hip installed it'll be time for a comeback.... ;-)
And of course - well done to the team this year - I think you've made some great results, sorry I couldn't be there to carry the drinks this time.
|
|
© Ruffneck Productions