Food For Thought

Disclaimer: Before reading this you should know that I have no idea if this takes place or does not take place, but i just think that it should.

Yesterday I came across this not so complex idea while watching another country skate practice (which means I was bored waiting for it to be our turn to skate practice). Now, I fully understand not even a decade ago, we could put the fastest two athletes in every race and they would both contend for a medal easily. But I have come to the conclusion that either we have gotten much worse, everyone else has gotten much better, or the combination of the two has made it very, very difficult for us to field two people in the same race that can contend for medals. In the two worlds I have already witnessed, I have seen it twice and only once with success. Last year Mariah and Erin both won medals in the 500m track race. In 2007 Joey and Jonathon both were in contention for a medal in the 10k pts elim on track. Jonathon finished with 9 pts and fifth place while Joey ended up eliminated with a decent amount of pts as well.

Now in races 1000m and below I say you easily just go with the flat out fastest two athletes because one cannot help the other unless it's a final and for the most part they just want a medal period.

But this is where the idea comes into play: when you get into longer races where two people could really be working together is it the best idea to go with your #1 and #2 guys? Now naturally the answer seems to be yes. But for instance you have three skaters, we will call them Skater A, B, and C. Skater A is flat out your best distance skater and skater B is very, very close in talent. While skater C may be half a step behind. So unless you are absolutely 100% confident that two skaters can both contend for a medal in the same race then would it not be more functional to pair skaters together so that one of them has a greater chance for a medal.

Skater A and Skater B are put into the same race but instead of both contending for a medal they get 7th and 8th place or 6th and 9th.. point is neither earns a medal but are not far off from one. But if putting Skater A and Skater C in the race allows Skater A to finish 3rd but Skater C to finish 15th which one would you rather have? That becomes the final decision, are you trying to win medals or have two good finishes?

The point I am trying to make is that Skater A and Skater B may not know which one is better which would make them unlikely to take a backseat or to devote a race to the other so they could win a medal but Skater C knows that if he may not be able to win a medal he can still make his race meaningful if he can help earn another skater a medal.
Furthermore:
(a points race)
Skater A goes for two points while skater B stays in the pack (now it's A-2)
later on Skater B goes for two points and skater A stays in the pack (now it's A-2 B-2)
and the race continues in that fashion (you must realize the points are not going to be back to back because if that was the case they WOULD be able to both contend for a medal) what ends up happening is that they finish with close to the same point totals but no medal.
But what if the race starts and Skater C leads Skater A up towards the front but moves over on the last straight away allowing skater A to earn two points but not take as much of an energy hit. If Skater C can help skater A earn 6-8 pts. then they 'blow up' and get eliminated or fall off the pace have they not done their job? Skater A still has some energy to contend for more points and if you get to 10-11 points you are almost always standing somewhere on the podium.

Maybe it's stupid, but maybe it works.. hmm.