Picks for Nationals

onemanfanclub Posted: 19 March 2005, 4:29 AM   Ok, I couldn't keep out of this for ever... (Kiwis only) Sprint: Chris Karl Jamie Rachel Tania Claire Classic: Chris Neil if Darren IS out, Mark Penny Tania Rachel Middle: Karl Greg Chris Tania Rachel Marquita Most sorely missed: Stu Last in sprint: Not me! Long odds bet: see above =) Relay: Battle between Auckland/CM/PAPO but look out for the HV dark horse! The real question: with trials not that far away, just how hard will those who are unlikely to topple Chris and Karl for a title but are a good chance for the WC team be trying? Maria Mutola scares me too...   darren Posted: 19 March 2005, 12:05 PM   Greg, the winning time for long distance was changed to 105mins (mens) and 75mins (womens) and middle to 30mins (with only one race for the elite grades) back in 1999 if my memory serves me correctly. I'm pretty sure it was after the WOC in Scotland.... big squad discussion...bla, bla, bla. It was decided we needed longer classic races to help us prepare for the big races international races for which we regularly out in the forest for these times. The WOC long final has a 90min EWT (I think?) for men. So the theory goes, if we are able to race hard for 105min, we might have a shot at a resonable result. Personally I think its still valid as we are still not tough enough internationally over these distances. Apparently you are a sprint specialist? Why don't you start specialising and stop whinging about the classic winning times every chance you get!   Greg Posted: 19 March 2005, 12:52 PM   Sorry but sounds like you are having a cry again, and if my memory serves me correctly it was YOU that wanted the change(hence whinging about something to get a change). Now the winning time for WOC classic is 100 mins not 90 any more so on your theory we should set our winning time to somewhere around 115-120 mins. Thought this was a 'Nationals Picks' if you have anything else you want to take a dig at start another topic.   darren Posted: 20 March 2005, 1:32 AM   Greg, young fella, it seems we are both talking crap. I just checked WOC2005 bulletin #2 and it appears the Long EWT's are 95 for men and 70 for women.   Martin Posted: 20 March 2005, 5:22 AM   Why dont people focus on qualifying for the classic (EWT 45min women & 60min men) first... Seems logical given you have to qualify to get to the final, and it has already been stated that there is a big difference in preparing yourself for a 105 or 85 min winning time, there's an even bigger difference to a 60min time!   Ellmo1769 Posted: 20 March 2005, 12:32 PM   Men Classic Brent Karl Chris Middle Brent Karl Mark L Sprint Karl Ross Neil Women - I have no idea Classic Tania Penny Rachel Middle Rachel Tania Penny Sprint Rachel Tania Penny   addison Posted: 21 March 2005, 3:13 AM   Nic you have Greg in your picks but not Brent? Brent has been caning Greg of late and is looking a hell of a lot faster   Greg Posted: 21 March 2005, 6:37 AM   Everyone has their own thoughts on the matter Simon, not only am I the only elite thats been on a training weekend on maps in the Hawkes Bay recently, but remember I'm living with Brent now so I know all of his sercets of late This message was edited by Greg on 21 March 2005, 2:39 PM   onemanfanclub Posted: 24 March 2005, 9:20 AM   I don't have as much inside goss as others do so I can only go on recent big races. The way I saw it (and it pains me to say it) is that Brent has one stunner at Oceania against Greg's consistent results in spring. Also remember anyone worrying about Brent just needs to hook him up with some chick the night before the race... BTW, I went for a first O in ages last week, and discovered both legs and head to be missing, so I've changed one of my picks - fully looking forward to that sprint last place, but I'll call it a moral victory over those hiding in M21A   Jamie Posted: 28 March 2005, 10:36 AM   I think I win the picks...although there is actually some surprising quality in some of the efforts, Nic, Neil etc And Brent definitely wins Mr Inconsistent :-)   onemanfanclub Posted: 28 March 2005, 11:10 AM   Anyone out there with the time and lack of life to come up with some sort of points system to see who was REALLY closest? I call that a draw at best Jamie! Anyway, awesome effort by everyone, and awesome weekend Hawkes Bay! This message was edited by onemanfanclub on 28 March 2005, 7:14 PM   Ellmo1769 Posted: 28 March 2005, 12:53 PM   Well if we use the points system Neil suggested on page two then I take a total of 14 points out of a possible 36 for the M/W 21 E.   Ellmo1769 Posted: 28 March 2005, 1:01 PM   I took the time to calculate Neils picks for M/W 16 and came up with 7 out of a possible 36 points. I gave him a point for Jacks placing in the 18 grade for the sprint because there seemed to be a bit of a default in the 16s. I think I should have had a go at picking them with this poor score from the guy in the know.   Greg Posted: 29 March 2005, 1:41 AM   Jamie how can Brent win Mr Inconsistent, he was crap all weekend when you were, 2nd, 11th, 3rd and 14th. How inconsistent is that   Jamie Posted: 29 March 2005, 8:11 AM   I think we are all a bit more sophisticated than that... I was a solid close 11th and we all know the relay means jack compared to anything else, well at least it always have when I have done well at it! Brent on the other hand was running hot in the sprint - then blew it, was solid in the classic, was running hot in the middle - then blew it, then was solid in the relay. On second thoughts maybe there is some symmetry there. Mr Inconsistent is a far more worthy title than Mr Average anyway Greg.