It seems to me that cross-country split times have two important functions:
(1) during the race, they help runners to gauge their effort and strategize,
and (2) after the race, they enable fans/statisticians/coaches to
reconstruct the progress of a race, to see who had the most effective pacing
strategy, and to appreciate things like spectacular mid-race surges and
finishing kicks.
Given those two functions--race pacing and race reconstruction--I can see
why US races stick with mile splits. In terms of athletes pacing themselves,
it shouldn't matter if they are receiving kilo splits or mile splits, but if
it has to be a choice between 2k splits or mile splits, then mile splits are
more frequent and therefore a greater aid.
In terms of reconstructing the race, the same argument holds--splits every
1609 rather than 2000 mean that runners' strategies are more frequently
monitored for later analysis. And, as an unintended fringe benefit, mile
splits in a 10k mean that you also get a split on what is almost the last
quarter mile of each runner, which is very useful in tight races, much like
having the last 300 in a 1500. I for one would like to know the split for
Kelly's last .2!
AGB
