With several prominent absences in the men’s field and an evenly-matched trio of 2023 winners in the women’s race, WTCS Montreal was always likely to come down to fine margins. That ultimately proved to be the case as the contenders were gradually whittled down over the course of the race until Matthew Hauser and Beth Potter struck clear to win the golds.
To go with the breakdown of the splits from Montreal, in this article, we take a broader overview of the dynamics of the race.
The Swim
Vittoria Lopes took control of the swim from the opening strokes in the women’s race. In the above swim distribution graph, you can see that two clear packs formed out of the water. Athletes that swam within 20 seconds of Lopes’ time (8:48) were able to make the front pack.
If we compare the front pack to WTCS Cagliari, WTCS Yokohama and WTCS Abu Dhabi, we can see that the peak of the first group occurred earlier in Montreal than in any other race. Furthermore the density of athletes rose more steeply in Montreal than anywhere else. That means that more athletes swam fast times than at any of the preceding three races.
For the most relevant comparison over the Sprint distance, consider the distribution from Abu Dhabi below.
Whereas a big concentration of women emerged within 20 seconds of Lopes in Montreal, in Abu Dhabi the peak density was close to 40 seconds.
This could suggest that athletes are getting fitter and sharper as the season progresses and so their swims are improving. The presence of Katie Zaferes is a good example of an athlete that has improved. However that does not fully explain why the field clustered so much more compared to Abu Dhabi.
Maybe Montreal was a freak occurrence and the swim breakaway will be back at the next few races. We will have to wait and see.
The second peak in the women’s swim distribution shows the Potter-Lehair group that lost time. They were part of the biggest concentration of athletes in the water. With a loss of around 40 seconds, that matched the pattern of Abu Dhabi and Cagliari.
Meanwhile the men’s race was even more concentrated than the women’s in the swim and showed no real signs of splitting in the water as such. The peak density of 0.030 at the 12 second mark was higher than any concentration in the women’s race. By comparison, the women’s density at the 12 second mark was about 0.018.
The men’s race therefore bunched together a lot more in the swim.
You can see a slight split happen around the 20-25 second point. However, at that moment the density was still around 0.020 which was one of the peaks in the women’s field. As a result, there was no part in the swim exit in which any true gap emerged.
The reason for the field fragmenting was therefore more a consequence of the early pressure on the first bike lap. Those that had the legs to make up a few seconds did so. The unfortunate athletes that could not ultimately slipped into the chase pack.
The Bike
There was not a lot to separate the women’s field on the bike.
A crash on lap 1 ruined Nicole Van Der Kaay’s day. In the above graph, you can see how her crash derailed her first lap and that over the subsequent laps not being in the pack resulted in a series of considerably slower splits.
The Potter-Lehair group rode faster than the Spivey-Coldwell main group until they bridged. On the one hand this indicates the sterling effort of the chasers. On the other, it suggests the main pack were not as cohesive and fast as they could have been.
Unsurprisingly, Taylor Knibb clocked one of the fastest laps of the day on lap 2 when she launched her attack. However, a late rally on lap 2 meant that she and Summer Rappaport only had a notable lead by the end of lap 3.
The above bubble plot also shows how the Potter-Lehair chase were able to close a substantial gap over the first two bike laps.
The men’s field were also similarly balanced throughout the bike.
One key point that the above plot highlights is how Vasco Vilaca’s day was cruelly wrecked by a crash on lap 5. With the main pack lost and no real company to support him, he also conceded another 20 seconds on the final lap. What made it especially unfortunate was that Vilaca had logged one of the best laps of the race on lap 1 to jump into the front pack. Until lap 5, then, he had done everything almost perfectly.
On another day his work would have paid off.
Kristian Blummenfelt was a force in the third pack throughout. Lap 2 was where he really stood out, although on all subsequent laps he was one of the best cyclists.
On the flip side, his first lap showed his big weakness.
As we saw in the swim distribution, there was no real break in the swim. As a result, even though Blummenfelt lost half a minute in the water, there was no reason for him to fall behind into the third pack. There were plenty of athletes around to form a pack with or to use as stepping stones through the field.
In actuality, Blummenfelt was one of the slower men on lap 1. That indicates that his short-burst speed is not up to the level of his sustained effforts. Whereas Vilaca was able to spike his power to jump through the field, Blummenfelt did not have that gear. Right now, Hayden Wilde is probably the best exponent of that aspect in the world.
For Blummenfelt, though, it is fairly low-hanging fruit to attain. He obviously has a lot of space to improve in the water. Yet a lot of men lose time in the swim and still recover (Manoel Messias and Jelle Geens) medalled after doing so. Rather than worrying about the first discipline, if Blummenfelt can improve his first bike lap speed, he will improve his position and probably save effort over the course of the bike.
Alternatively, he can continue to smash the bike but from a more advanced position. Instead of chasing packs, a better first lap could put him on the front foot and even open the window for him to break away.
For four laps, it looked as if the lead group had successfully cut off the chase. However, by the end of lap 5 the packs had come back together.
Perhaps Vilaca’s crash spooked the front pack and caused them to slow a little. Based on the lap times, it seems the entire field slowed a little on the fifth lap.
However, the key moment seemed to come on lap 4 as the chase pack and the third pack essentially merged. With greater numbers, they were able to pull the front pack in on lap 5. Once the front pack had formed, everyone also seemed to take the chance to gather themselves which could be why lap 6 was the slowest of the men’s laps.
The Run
With only two run laps of slightly differing lengths, there is only so much the lap times can tell us. Instead, we will focus on the run distributions of the fields.
Both the men’s and women’s run distributions were a lot smoother than at WTCS Abu Dhabi.
There was a bit of a lull after the top women’s splits by Beth Potter and Leonie Periault. Whereas they clocked 16:08, Jeanne Lehair was the next quickest woman in 16:25. Thereafter, the concentration of runners rose at a steeper rate as more women logged similar splits.
In both races, the peak density of athletes ran splits around 60 seconds slower than that of the winners (Potter and Hauser). While that is similar to the men’s race in Abu Dhabi, the women’s peak density in March was actually around the 40 second mark.
