Counting the numbers: A Column By Len Johnson

The late Senator Pat Kennelly was a long-time numbers man and fixer for the Australian Labor Party. Once, on being told his opponents had the numbers in an imminent vote, he replied in his halting stammer: “I d-don’t care who’s got the n-n-numbers, brother, as long as I get to c-c-count the v-v-votes.”

I can identify with Kennelly on several points. First, I had a childhood stammer; second, the ALP Victoria senator was for a long-time chairman of the Albert Park Committee of Management, in which Athletics Victoria’s new home is situated; and, third, I’ve been focused on the numbers myself lately.

It began with Sally Pearson being acclaimed the international female athlete of the year award by the council members of the International Athletics Foundation. Sally was voted number one, in effect.

And, of course, the political year in Australia ended with the minority Labor government effectively picking up an extra ‘number’ through the appointment of an opposition member as parliamentary speaker. That changed the numbers in the national parliament in a significant way (Pat Kennelly would have loved that).

The numbers that had me thinking most, though, were those around the Victorian championships 5000 metres. There were some good numbers, and some bad ones.

Definitely good was the number of competitors. Seventy-six men (out of 86 entries) ran the race – held over four divisions; 18 ran the women’s championship. This compares favourably with the ‘good old days’: the first year I ran there were over 100 entries for a championship run as five heats and a final.

(This matched the experience in the recent New South Wales 3000 metres championships in which 126 men ran in seven grades of the men’s title, and 43 women in three grades.)

Not so good, was the standard at the sharp end of the pyramid. Craig Mottram won the men’s title easily in 13:46.60, comfortably doing what he wanted to do, which was run the sort of pace expected in the Zatopek:10 on 10 December.  Sarah Klein took out the women’s title in 17:02.71.

If you want another interesting number, it was Mottram’s first Victorian title at 5000 metres, though he has a world championships’ bronze medal and six national titles to his name.

Yet another interesting number is the one that was not in evidence – the multiple runners breaking 14 minutes in the only 5000 metres race before the Zatopek.

I remember pre-Zatopek 5000s being stacked with good runners. Traditionally, during the period in which he won four Zatopeks on the trot, Steve Moneghetti would run a ‘bad’ 5000 off his full training load.

‘Bad’ would be anywhere between 13:45 and 13:55, and ‘Mona’ would be fourth or fifth with two or three more runners breaking 14 behind him. Just as traditionally, Moneghetti would go through half-way in the Zatopek a couple of weeks later at the same pace, or faster.

Even as late as 2005, admittedly at the start of a domestic season culminating in a home Commonwealth Games, Louis Rowan ran 13:44.20 and led six others under 13:50. Two years earlier, Mark Tucker ran 13:33.03 in a pre-Zatopek 5000.

A quick check at the ranking lists in pre-2000 years showed that I wasn’t viewing the past through rose-coloured glasses. Anything up to 10 runners would be under 14 minutes in the main pre-Zatopek 5000.

The other notable difference then was club competition that provided two or more opportunities to race 5000 in the lead-up to the Zatopek. Now, we don’t have the races and athletes and coaches seem to prefer to train though most of the pre-Christmas period. Few athletes can come out and run a fast 10,000 without at least one lead-up track race, but plenty seem intent on trying.

The other worrying numbers published recently are the qualifying standards for the national championships. I’ve already written of my bewilderment at Athletics Australia’s decision to separate the Olympic selection trials from the 2012 national championships, the former to be held around the Melbourne World Athletics Challenge meeting, the latter in April.

The numbers are clearly set to restrict field sizes – only seven men have bettered the 1:47.75 required for automatic entry in the men’s 800 in 2011, for example, and three the 21.00 for the 200.

Presumably fields will be filled up to some pre-determined level. Presumably again, AA will follow down the rankings in doing this, but will all athletes who don’t have the automatic qualifying standards know they should enter anyway because they may get in as additional competitors. Any additionals must be those next in line, not those ‘in the know’.

Finally, will all those who run the trials also turn out for the nationals. You’d think those who succeed will be satisfied at having achieved Olympic selection, while those who do not might be tempted to push their claims overseas rather than at a diminished national championships.

I hope enough athletes decide a national title is worth winning in any circumstances. Otherwise we may be looking at numbers even Pat Kennelly would not be bothered counting.