IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v5y2005i3p73-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Running strategy of female middle distance runners attempting the 800m and 1500m “Double” at a major championship: a performance analysis and qualitative investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Brown

Abstract

Historically, athletes attempting the 800m and 1500m double have been world class athletes with a genuine medal chance in one or both events. However, an athlete would not be expected to attempt the double if this jeopardised their chance of winning a medal in a single event. Therefore, the approach to attempting the double must allow the athlete to race 6 times during a games and recover sufficiently between races. The purpose of the current investigation was to compare the strategies of female athletes attempting the 800m and 1500m double with those entering a single event. A manual race analysis system was devised to analyse the performances of these two types of athlete, finding that the double event athletes preferred to run at the back of the leading group during the early stages. A supporting qualitative analysis revealed that the reason for not leading in the early stages was to preserve energy. The decision to attempt the double had to consider the risks involved and strategy was influenced by the opponents, the order of the events, the athlete’s best event and confidence in the athletes ability to take up the challenge of competing in two events.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily Brown, 2005. "Running strategy of female middle distance runners attempting the 800m and 1500m “Double” at a major championship: a performance analysis and qualitative investigation," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 73-88, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:5:y:2005:i:3:p:73-88
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2005.11868339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2005.11868339
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2005.11868339?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:5:y:2005:i:3:p:73-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPAN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.