Progress against the field
From Manchester 2026 to Rome 2026, the field gained 1:17 on Zoe Anderton.
Over the same races everyone got 2:23 quicker, so 1:06 faster on the clock looks better than it was.
How this is worked out ⓘ
A finish time moves for two reasons: the athlete, and the race — its course, its floor, its day. For each pair of races in a row in one category, we take everyone who raced both and use the middle of how much they moved (the median) as "the race". Whatever is left is the athlete. Doubles are compared only when the same two people raced both, and told as the pair's; relays are left out. A pair with fewer than 15 athletes in common is not shown.
Every race
5 races · 4 events
-
Rome23 Sep 2026Individual Open · Women1:23:2450/239Beat 79%
↑ 160 days after Malaga 2026 1:15 worse than the field Why ↓Close ↑
3:48 slower on the clock in a race that was 2:33 slower for everyone: 1:15 lost to the field.
The fieldCompare these two →2:33 slower This athlete3:48 slower -
Malaga16 Apr 2026Individual Open · Women1:19:36 PB68/271Beat 75%
↑ 36 days after Glasgow 2026 1:59 better than the field Why ↓Close ↑
3:21 faster on the clock, and the race was 1:22 faster for everyone, so 1:59 of it was this athlete.
The fieldCompare these two →1:22 faster This athlete3:21 faster -
Glasgow11 Mar 2026Individual Open · Women1:22:5749/318Beat 85%
↑ 49 days after Manchester 2026 2:01 worse than the field Faster on the clock, behind the field Why ↓Close ↑
1:33 faster on the clock, yet the race was 3:34 faster for everyone, so 2:01 was lost on the field.
The fieldCompare these two →3:34 faster This athlete1:33 faster -
Manchester21 Jan 2026Doubles Open · Women1:22:39 PB54/193Beat 72%
-
Manchester21 Jan 2026Individual Open · Women1:24:30233/825Beat 72%