|
|
Post by Stealth on Nov 11, 2008 12:23:18 GMT -5
Coach King and I were discussing last week how you can never really tell how your team is doing in large meets.
Which leads me to my question? Do you like large meets with hundreds of competitors and teams of different abilities or small meets with equally matched teams and runners.
I guess we are really comparing the Huntington Invite with 8-10 teams to a mega-meet like a Culver or New Prairie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Austen on Nov 11, 2008 21:09:06 GMT -5
It depends on the competition for me. I Prefer smaller invitationals with several great teams to run against. It's fun doing battle because it brings the best out of you. However, it's also an awsome feeling to toe the line with hundreds of other runners and just let the pack pull you.
|
|
|
|
Post by srd13 on Nov 12, 2008 22:20:08 GMT -5
BIG meets by far, #1 I run better in them, also they are MUCH more exciting. In little meets it is boring because it's like me and 2 1/2 guys running together and it's pretty boring. I love being in a huge pack and looking around and seeing a bunch of guys I know and a huge crowd makes it all the better.
Also in big meets it's great because you get back on the bus, flip through the results and see some stud's name below yours and you're like WHOA, i didnt even see him and i beat him!
the one advantage i think to small meets is that you can go head-to-head with some powerhouses and match up almost like its a dual meet, like the huntington invite this year with us and carroll, and like logansport with us and western. it's also way easier to see how the team is doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stealth on Nov 14, 2008 9:58:46 GMT -5
I have to admit, I like the tactics of small competitive meets. You know exactly who you need to be for the team to be successful, you know how other teammates are doing. You can latch on to an opponent, work them, hang on and try to out kick at the end, let them pull you to a good race, etc.
I love the head to head.
Large races seems to just confuse the issue.
|
|
