A good post. One thing which kills the US is the lack of really knowledgable coaches at the developmental level, as well as the very random nature of the US skiing development pipeline. Skiing is at best (and frankly always will be) a cult sport in the US; here in Minnesota the sport is super strong at the jr/sr high-school level (for those not from the USA this would be ages from around 13-18 years of age). So right out of the gate, in a country of 330 million people there might be 30 Diggins level talents who will never even strap on a pair of skis let alone ski enough to be identified as world class talents. The numbers involved are a tiny tiny fraction of school age kids involved in other sports such as track and field, football, futbol, etc.I don't think France can come into the event with plausible medal hopes though; Claudel is their trump card and she has one win (in a pure climb) and a couple of podiums. That doesn't compare to the firepower that the US can bring to the table. If you didn't know about having to distribute the talent across the techniques, Swirbul/Brennan/Diggins/Kern is not that demonstrably weaker in terms of depth from Matintalo/Niskanen/Piippo/Pärmäkoski, and certainly not from Gimmler/Hennig/Fink/Carl. That's with Laukli not selected too, although I guess Germany could say the same with Krehl after the race they got DQed from a few weeks back.
But the classic skiers just aren't there. I feel that in the skiathlon, the freestyle is the more important part because with it being the same athletes doing the whole race, often the classic portion is raced conservatively because nobody except maybe the Niskanen family and the occasional Russian want to go all guns blazing in the first half of the race and then blow up, but in the relay the classic is the most important part because it's where the selection is made. The Finns have a similar deficit in freestyle to that which the US have in classic; all the best Finns at freestyle are sprinter types on the men's side and on the women's side they've often called in Mari Laukkanen/Eder to make up numbers in freestyle sprints in the past and even Pärmäkoski is better in Classic but is used as anchor because she's the best finisher they have at their disposal. But starting the second half of the race in the front group and able to hang on to the coattails of the leaders is much better than losing that time and having to ski alone to catch up. Piippo was able to stay with Østberg, Fink and Carlsson for much of her leg before dropping away which limited her losses, whereas as soon as Brennan dropped the Slovenes about 200m into the second leg the US was in splendid isolation, detached from the medal hunt but under no threat from behind. Diggins is the on paper best skier on that third leg (at least over this kind of distance as she has a much better palmarès in short races than Karlsson) but she had to ski her entire leg on her own with nobody to share the workload, which limited the gains that she could make.
A Hennig-Niskanen podium would definitely go down well with me. A family affair on the top step would be best.
Unless a kid grows up in a skiing family they may already be 12-13 before they ski their first race, and frankly getting a Diggins level talent is a happy accident. Add to this the fact that many if not most of the coaches at this level (however game and motivated) just are not going to have the in depth knowledge required to really coach kids well in the many nuances of classic technique; honestly, it's semi-miraculous the US does as well as it does. There ARE some really good coaches in the US but by the time they get the top kids they are already fairly old compared to the age at which Scandinavian stars are identified. Frustrating to watch yet another ho-hum relay performance from the US today but that's where we're going to be stuck unless there are major changes all along the US skiing development pipeline (or unless classic goes away, which I hope it does not).
Last edited: