| |
Main
Date: 11 Jul 2007 10:51:13
From: Bounty Bob
Subject: cycling tactics
|
I will never get why it is more important that the other
guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
yourself. Especailly the stage 3 one where the guys
in the break at various times seemed very cooperative
and worked together, then boom..
I'd rather someone in the peloton win than do some
work and not win.... Stupidity.
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 05:27:57
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Jul 11, 6:14 am, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> > Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
> > it interesting. It's not like running races, triathlons,
> > or (god help us) RAAM. If you put some effort into
> > understanding these tactical motivations, you'll get more
> > out of watching. If this still isn't making any sense,
> > take up racing, or read Tim Krabbe's "The Rider."
>
> > At the amateur level, working and not winning is
> > putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
> > pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
> > lose from a break or lose from the pack.
>
> > Ben
> > expert on losing
>
> ------------
> This is of course is all crap. The reason most people race, at the amateur
> level, is because it's the best way to see the race. Most, don't delude
> themselves to think that they can actually win, but have an interest in
> racing. Have you ever tried to watch a race standing on the side of the
> road? Much better seat, if you're in it.
At the amateur level, it's the best way to understand
the race, but not the best way to see it.
To clarify my point about "working and not winning is
putting in your best effort, blah blah blah" - if you're
an amateur and you get in a break, you might as well
work unless everybody else is a complete jackass,
because it's more interesting than riding around in a
pack and you might get some experience. Negative racing
for amateurs is silly. The pros don't have this
luxury. They have to be willing to back up a threat
of not-working by not working.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 16:27:35
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
In article
<1184218077.600778.132680@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com >
,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Jul 11, 6:14 am, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
> > > it interesting. It's not like running races, triathlons,
> > > or (god help us) RAAM. If you put some effort into
> > > understanding these tactical motivations, you'll get more
> > > out of watching. If this still isn't making any sense,
> > > take up racing, or read Tim Krabbe's "The Rider."
> >
> > > At the amateur level, working and not winning is
> > > putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
> > > pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
> > > lose from a break or lose from the pack.
> >
> > > Ben
> > > expert on losing
> >
> > ------------
> > This is of course is all crap. The reason most people race, at the amateur
> > level, is because it's the best way to see the race. Most, don't delude
> > themselves to think that they can actually win, but have an interest in
> > racing. Have you ever tried to watch a race standing on the side of the
> > road? Much better seat, if you're in it.
>
> At the amateur level, it's the best way to understand
> the race, but not the best way to see it.
>
> To clarify my point about "working and not winning is
> putting in your best effort, blah blah blah" - if you're
> an amateur and you get in a break, you might as well
> work unless everybody else is a complete jackass,
> because it's more interesting than riding around in a
> pack and you might get some experience. Negative racing
> for amateurs is silly. The pros don't have this
> luxury. They have to be willing to back up a threat
> of not-working by not working.
Yes, this makes clearer to me something I was talking
around in a recent message to this thread.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 05:21:57
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Jul 10, 9:36 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 11, 5:56 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" wrote:
>
> > Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
> > it interesting.
>
> You should write that paper on n-person game theory and cycling.
I'm just thinking back to when I made that plot of
obesity versus D/R vote percentage and Fat Stevie
invented the phrase "Chung Chart" for it. So speaking
of game theory, it seems obvious why _you_ would hold
back and want me to start writing the paper.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 05:19:13
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Jul 11, 2:30 am, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
>
> If yesterday's breakaway had held it together in the last 7Km, they would
> have got first, second, third and fourth. Which is to say, they would all
> have got points. But, more to the point, they'd all have got time - not
> just time bonuses but real actual time. The man who came in last of the
> four would still get more points and more time coming in fourth than he
> would coming in in the peloton.
>
> This is, purely and simply, beggar my neighbour. They're all concentrating
> so hard on not letting one of the guys they've shared the work with all
> day getting the win, that they're prepared to sacrifice it all to McEwan
> or Cancellara or even (if God intervenes personally) Tom Boonen.
Sitting up and looking at the other riders isn't
purely spite. It is a device for getting them to
work. It's like a reverse game of chicken, where
they are daring each other to start riding.
The OP doesn't understand this, but you should.
Also, time is hardly ever significant to riders in
a break like yesterday's. It's more important if
one of the riders is in virtual yellow, and that has
to wait until a few more days into the race or a
hilly stage, either of which make the other teams
less likely to chase hard and bring down the gap.
> > At the amateur level, working and not winning is
> > putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
> > pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
> > lose from a break or lose from the pack.
>
> Bollocks. If you came second or third in four decent flat stage breakaways,
> you'd have a very good chance of riding under the Arc de Triomphe in a
> dandy yellow top. Mind you, it might not be easy to get into the third or
> fourth breakaway, but by that time your DS would have started paying
> attention and got your team working for you.
Are you smoking crack? First, in flat stages in the
first week the sprinters' and MJ teams will cut the
break's advantage to near zero by the end. More
importantly, in modern Grand Tours, nobody in a
threatening position gets away in more than one long
break. You can pull a Voeckler once, but not twice
in the same Tour.
The only people I can recall in the last ~8 years who got
into long breaks and became threats for the overall were
Pereiro (and maybe Dessel) last year, and Kivilev (RIP) in
2001. They all did it in one stage's break. Kivilev only
was allowed to gain so much time in the long break to
Pontarlier because he had lost a huge chunk of time the
day before when the entire Cofidis team got caught behind
a split in the echelons. Even so, Bruyneel admitted
he made a mistake by not putting some work in to bring
the gap down.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 10:51:58
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
in message <1184217553.493141.169060@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com >,
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org ('bjw@mambo.ucolick.org') wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2:30 am, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> If yesterday's breakaway had held it together in the last 7Km, they
>> would have got first, second, third and fourth. Which is to say, they
>> would all have got points. But, more to the point, they'd all have got
>> time - not just time bonuses but real actual time. The man who came in
>> last of the four would still get more points and more time coming in
>> fourth than he would coming in in the peloton.
>>
>> This is, purely and simply, beggar my neighbour. They're all
>> concentrating so hard on not letting one of the guys they've shared the
>> work with all day getting the win, that they're prepared to sacrifice it
>> all to McEwan or Cancellara or even (if God intervenes personally) Tom
>> Boonen.
>
> Sitting up and looking at the other riders isn't
> purely spite. It is a device for getting them to
> work. It's like a reverse game of chicken, where
> they are daring each other to start riding.
> The OP doesn't understand this, but you should.
I do. But, in the end, if they aren't going to work, you need to dump 'em,
and you need to dump 'em before you tow them to the line. Messing about
waiting while the peloton gallop up is bad tactics. And if you're playing
for yellow, it's frankly better to tow them to the line than to lose the
breakaway. Of course, if you're not playing for yellow...
> Also, time is hardly ever significant to riders in
> a break like yesterday's.
But on Tuesday, as it happens, it was. And on Sunday. And yesterday, as it
happens. And on Stage 13 last year. And...
In fact, it's common. Not usual, perhaps - I haven't done the analysis.
It's more common earlier in races, obviously.
>> Bollocks. If you came second or third in four decent flat stage
>> breakaways, you'd have a very good chance of riding under the Arc de
>> Triomphe in a dandy yellow top. Mind you, it might not be easy to get
>> into the third or fourth breakaway, but by that time your DS would have
>> started paying attention and got your team working for you.
>
> Are you smoking crack? First, in flat stages in the
> first week the sprinters' and MJ teams will cut the
> break's advantage to near zero by the end. More
> importantly, in modern Grand Tours, nobody in a
> threatening position gets away in more than one long
> break. You can pull a Voeckler once, but not twice
> in the same Tour.
Auge already has. Pereiro, if I remember correctly, did more than once (I
think more than twice) last year.
> The only people I can recall in the last ~8 years who got
> into long breaks and became threats for the overall were
> Pereiro (and maybe Dessel) last year, and Kivilev (RIP) in
> 2001. They all did it in one stage's break.
I'm pretty certain (and will check) that Pereiro had had at least one
successful break before stage 13 last year. That's why he was the one in
the stage 13 break who got yellow.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
IMHO, there aren't enough committed Christians, but that's care
in the community for you. -- Ben Evans
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 16:22:39
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
In article
<u6ahm4-sq8.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk >,
Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
> I do. But, in the end, if they aren't going to work, you need to dump 'em,
> and you need to dump 'em before you tow them to the line. Messing about
> waiting while the peloton gallop up is bad tactics. And if you're playing
> for yellow, it's frankly better to tow them to the line than to lose the
> breakaway. Of course, if you're not playing for yellow...
I see your point. It has been made before, many times.
We see riders in breaks do it over, and over, and over;
year after year; one, or perhaps more will sit up and
wait for the peloton to catch them. I figure the riders
know the score, and I do not. Occasionally a rider after
as stage will admit to misplaying his position, and when
they do not I figure they did what they meant to do.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 19:44:59
From:
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
> (snip) The reason most people race, at the amateur
> level, is because it's the best way to see the race. Most, don't delude
> themselves to think that they can actually win, but have an interest in
> racing.
(huh?)
Have you ever tried to watch a race standing on the side of the
> road? Much better seat, if you're in it. One of the problems of TV
> coverage, is that it's damn near impossible to judge the grade or road
> conditions with TV cameras. Don't know why, it's the same problem hockey
> has. On TV it's a bore, in person it's quite fun. There is of course an
> exception, that is RAAM. The excitement of that event could be covered by
> TV, but isn't.
I'm sorry but in my bazillion years racing I don't know even one
person who entered bike races just to get a better view of the race.
In fact the harder the race the less you see. At 31 mph it's pretty
much macadam, stems, butcrack and rear wheels. Oh and the occasional
terrified glance at the HRM. If you entered the race to spectate I'm
not sure how you could make it down a tricky descent or the bottom two
turns at Nevada City for instance. However with RAAM though strange
enough a sport as it is, definitely benefits from televised coverage
(as opposed to say hanging out at the side of the road to cheer on the
favorites in Tucumcari or wherever).
I enjoy watching the tactics and gamesmanship of big time bike racing.
It gets pretty complex. Compound that with having to think while
flirting with the ol' AT, taking into account the strengths and
weaknesses of your breakmates, past rivalries/incidents and actually
handle the bike and God help me it gets interesting. Personally I
think everyone in that break was just gassed by the time they hit the
1K kite or thereabouts. No one could drop the others and so no one
thought they could ride away with it, so everyone was looking at each
other. Everyone playing the brinksmanship game. And then as we saw
they all lost. Cool!
-Rick
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 14:38:16
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Jul 11, 8:47 am, Bounty Bob <b...@bob.net > wrote:
> amit.gh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 6:52 am, Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrock...@azurservers.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Bounty Bob <b...@bob.net> writes:
> >>> What a load of crap that is. People have said basically
> >>> the same crap they said when I pointed out this stupidity
> >>> last year. There were 4 of them and one would have won
> >>> it if they hadn't started looking at each other. So
> >>> apparently all 4 thought one of the others would win
> >>> so why the fuck get in the race at all? Surely there's
> >>> a heap of riders better than them.. might as well not
> >>> bother riding at all.... This is not a case of not winning
> >>> this is case of not bother to try to win. It's pathetic
> >>> not tactical.
> >> Agreed 100 per cent
> >> I was screaming at the Stupid Wzankerz
> >> If I owned the team they were on, they'd be fired on the spot for
> >> that bullshit, and the coaches, DS etc; too for not teaching them better
> > Cycling is a team sport and handing the win to another team (for
> > nothing in return like GC time) is a big faux pas.
>
> Right and its not like there's a bigger chance
> of another team winning if say 180 riders finish in
> a bunch than say 4 riders finish ahead of them?
I'm telling you how cycling people think. If one rider hands a win to
another when they aren't benefitting in return there is always
speculation that there is a deal in the works.
So yes, sometimes to win you have to be the most willing to lose (see
Pozzatto's win at Het Volk).
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 05:52:00
From: Jenko
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:03:08 -0700, DirtRoadie <DirtRoadie@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I still remember the escape of Bauer, Chiapucci, Maasen, and Pensec
> >but I don't recall the results of THAT stage (Well, true, I don't even
> >recall who won). Anyone?
>
> Maasen was first.
Yep. First Kazakh rider to win a Tour stage. Or was it Merkcx?
Jenko
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 10:12:13
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
Jenko wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:03:08 -0700, DirtRoadie <DirtRoadie@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I still remember the escape of Bauer, Chiapucci, Maasen, and Pensec
>>> but I don't recall the results of THAT stage (Well, true, I don't even
>>> recall who won). Anyone?
>> Maasen was first.
LeMond was 47th.
http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/eta_tdf_1984_1993/tdf1990_1.php
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 15:58:55
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
Jenko schreef:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> Maasen was first.
>
> Yep. First Kazakh rider to win a Tour stage. Or was it Merkcx?
Thanks.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 12:03:51
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Jul 11, 6:52 am, Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrock...@azurservers.com >
wrote:
> Bounty Bob <b...@bob.net> writes:
> > What a load of crap that is. People have said basically
> > the same crap they said when I pointed out this stupidity
> > last year. There were 4 of them and one would have won
> > it if they hadn't started looking at each other. So
> > apparently all 4 thought one of the others would win
> > so why the fuck get in the race at all? Surely there's
> > a heap of riders better than them.. might as well not
> > bother riding at all.... This is not a case of not winning
> > this is case of not bother to try to win. It's pathetic
> > not tactical.
>
> Agreed 100 per cent
>
> I was screaming at the Stupid Wzankerz
>
> If I owned the team they were on, they'd be fired on the spot for
> that bullshit, and the coaches, DS etc; too for not teaching them better
>
Cycling is a team sport and handing the win to another team (for
nothing in return like GC time) is a big faux pas.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 22:47:17
From: Bounty Bob
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 11, 6:52 am, Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrock...@azurservers.com>
> wrote:
>> Bounty Bob <b...@bob.net> writes:
>>> What a load of crap that is. People have said basically
>>> the same crap they said when I pointed out this stupidity
>>> last year. There were 4 of them and one would have won
>>> it if they hadn't started looking at each other. So
>>> apparently all 4 thought one of the others would win
>>> so why the fuck get in the race at all? Surely there's
>>> a heap of riders better than them.. might as well not
>>> bother riding at all.... This is not a case of not winning
>>> this is case of not bother to try to win. It's pathetic
>>> not tactical.
>> Agreed 100 per cent
>> I was screaming at the Stupid Wzankerz
>> If I owned the team they were on, they'd be fired on the spot for
>> that bullshit, and the coaches, DS etc; too for not teaching them better
> Cycling is a team sport and handing the win to another team (for
> nothing in return like GC time) is a big faux pas.
Right and its not like there's a bigger chance
of another team winning if say 180 riders finish in
a bunch than say 4 riders finish ahead of them?
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 03:47:31
From:
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Jul 11, 11:30 am, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
> Yes, but we've seen this again and again in stage races over the past few
> years, and it's BAD tactics.
>
> If yesterday's breakaway had held it together in the last 7Km, they would
> have got first, second, third and fourth. Which is to say, they would all
> have got points. But, more to the point, they'd all have got time - not
> just time bonuses but real actual time.
Neither time nor points meant anything to anyone in the break except
Vogondy. and after it became clear that even if the break had stayed
clear it wouldn't be with enough of a gap, that reason, too,
evaporated.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 13:53:45
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
in message <1184150851.767947.84320@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com (' rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com') wrote:
> On Jul 11, 11:30 am, Simon Brooke <s...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>> Yes, but we've seen this again and again in stage races over the past
>> few years, and it's BAD tactics.
>>
>> If yesterday's breakaway had held it together in the last 7Km, they
>> would have got first, second, third and fourth. Which is to say, they
>> would all have got points. But, more to the point, they'd all have got
>> time - not just time bonuses but real actual time.
>
> Neither time nor points meant anything to anyone in the break except
> Vogondy. and after it became clear that even if the break had stayed
> clear it wouldn't be with enough of a gap, that reason, too,
> evaporated.
This is simply wrong. The gap maxed out at over ten minutes and stabilised
for a long time at five. When Willems and Auge attacked at 8Km to go, they
still had 1'20". After stage two, Willems was 0'55" back on GC, Auge was
3'54". So if they'd held on to 42" of break (which they could have done)
Willems got yellow. He didn't need the stage win; he would get a 12 second
time bonus for second place. Similarly, Auge couldn't get yellow unless
Willems cracked completely. So those two could have done a trade - bury
themselves together to get to the line, ignoring Vogondy and Ladagnous who
were tiring. Willems gives Auge the stage win, Auge gives Willems the
jersey, both men benefit. Even if Vogondy and Ladagnous had hung in there,
Auge, with a lead-out man, would have a better chance in a sprint.
But supposing Auge had worked to get Millar the yellow on Sunday. He'd have
some seconds already on the peloton, and on everyone else in yesterday's
break. So if yesterday's break had succeeded, the logic would have been
reversed and Auge would have taken yellow. Anyone who can get into two
breaks - as Auge has already done - can get the yellow without winning
either of them. But /only/ if he can make the breaks stay away. And he can
help to make the break stay away by working like stink and not caring who
gets the stage.
Do you remember Voeckler? Of course you do. Voeckler is in many ways not a
very special rider - his palmares are not that great. But his escape on
stage 5 in 2004 got him the jersey, and so we all remember. But do you
remember who won that stage? Do you remember what position Voeckler
finished in? Hint: there were five riders in the break, and the winner was
Australian. Voeckler got the jersey because, of the five riders in the
break, he was highest on GC at 3'0" down. The stage winner was 6'49" back
on GC, and others in the break were 7'16", 9'09" and 10'12" respectively.
None of them could beat Voeckler on GC, provided he stayed with the group.
So Voeckler didn't have to win the stage, he only had to stay within three
minutes of the leader. He could afford to bury himself to lead someone
else home.
On Sunday, David Millar was in exactly the same position. If he had buried
himself to get Auge home just 11 seconds in front of the peloton, he'd
have worn the yellow jersey instead of the spotty one. If Auge had got
home 3 minutes up on the peloton on Sunday, he could have buried himself
to get Willems home, and snatched the yellow himself.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 10:05:00
From:
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Jul 11, 11:07 am, Bounty Bob <b...@bob.net > wrote:
> What a load of crap that is. People have said basically
> the same crap they said when I pointed out this stupidity
> last year. [...] It's pathetic
You said the same thing last year, got explanations you didn't like,
then asked again? Hmmm. What are you going to do next year?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 06:54:32
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:05:00 -0000, rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
>On Jul 11, 11:07 am, Bounty Bob <b...@bob.net> wrote:
>
>> What a load of crap that is. People have said basically
>> the same crap they said when I pointed out this stupidity
>> last year. [...] It's pathetic
>
>You said the same thing last year, got explanations you didn't like,
>then asked again? Hmmm. What are you going to do next year?
Get picked up as an Assistant DS for ProTour team, or so I've heard.
All the big teams read RBR and I'm sure they are scouting him out.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 04:36:01
From:
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Jul 11, 5:56 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" wrote:
> Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
> it interesting.
You should write that paper on n-person game theory and cycling.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 10:02:50
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>> Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
>> it interesting.
rechungREMOVETHIS wrote:
> You should write that paper on n-person game theory and cycling.
He still saving up for the amphetemines he need to do the math.
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 20:56:38
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Jul 10, 5:51 pm, Bounty Bob <b...@bob.net > wrote:
> I will never get why it is more important that the other
> guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
> yourself. Especailly the stage 3 one where the guys
> in the break at various times seemed very cooperative
> and worked together, then boom..
>
> I'd rather someone in the peloton win than do some
> work and not win.... Stupidity.
If you ride unselfishly in the break ... you'll lose.
The goal is or should be to do the least amount of work
necessary to convince the others to also work. If they
think you're free riding, they are under no obligation
to tow you to the finish. They then have to force you
to work by stopping working themselves. It is basic
game theory.
Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
it interesting. It's not like running races, triathlons,
or (god help us) RAAM. If you put some effort into
understanding these tactical motivations, you'll get more
out of watching. If this still isn't making any sense,
take up racing, or read Tim Krabbe's "The Rider."
At the amateur level, working and not winning is
putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
lose from a break or lose from the pack.
Ben
expert on losing
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 13:14:53
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
> Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
> it interesting. It's not like running races, triathlons,
> or (god help us) RAAM. If you put some effort into
> understanding these tactical motivations, you'll get more
> out of watching. If this still isn't making any sense,
> take up racing, or read Tim Krabbe's "The Rider."
>
> At the amateur level, working and not winning is
> putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
> pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
> lose from a break or lose from the pack.
>
> Ben
> expert on losing
------------
This is of course is all crap. The reason most people race, at the amateur
level, is because it's the best way to see the race. Most, don't delude
themselves to think that they can actually win, but have an interest in
racing. Have you ever tried to watch a race standing on the side of the
road? Much better seat, if you're in it. One of the problems of TV
coverage, is that it's damn near impossible to judge the grade or road
conditions with TV cameras. Don't know why, it's the same problem hockey
has. On TV it's a bore, in person it's quite fun. There is of course an
exception, that is RAAM. The excitement of that event could be covered by
TV, but isn't.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 09:55:44
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:14:53 GMT, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>> Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
>> it interesting. It's not like running races, triathlons,
>> or (god help us) RAAM. If you put some effort into
>> understanding these tactical motivations, you'll get more
>> out of watching. If this still isn't making any sense,
>> take up racing, or read Tim Krabbe's "The Rider."
>>
>> At the amateur level, working and not winning is
>> putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
>> pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
>> lose from a break or lose from the pack.
>>
>> Ben
>> expert on losing
>------------
>This is of course is all crap. The reason most people race, at the amateur
>level, is because it's the best way to see the race. Most, don't delude
>themselves to think that they can actually win, but have an interest in
>racing. Have you ever tried to watch a race standing on the side of the
>road? Much better seat, if you're in it. One of the problems of TV
>coverage, is that it's damn near impossible to judge the grade or road
>conditions with TV cameras. Don't know why, it's the same problem hockey
>has. On TV it's a bore, in person it's quite fun. There is of course an
>exception, that is RAAM. The excitement of that event could be covered by
>TV, but isn't.
The excitement of RAAM could be covered by a postage stamp.
Ron
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 10:30:55
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
in message <1184126198.645553.91290@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org ('bjw@mambo.ucolick.org') wrote:
> On Jul 10, 5:51 pm, Bounty Bob <b...@bob.net> wrote:
>> I will never get why it is more important that the other
>> guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
>> yourself. Especailly the stage 3 one where the guys
>> in the break at various times seemed very cooperative
>> and worked together, then boom..
>>
>> I'd rather someone in the peloton win than do some
>> work and not win.... Stupidity.
>
> If you ride unselfishly in the break ... you'll lose.
> The goal is or should be to do the least amount of work
> necessary to convince the others to also work. If they
> think you're free riding, they are under no obligation
> to tow you to the finish. They then have to force you
> to work by stopping working themselves. It is basic
> game theory.
Yes, but we've seen this again and again in stage races over the past few
years, and it's BAD tactics.
If yesterday's breakaway had held it together in the last 7Km, they would
have got first, second, third and fourth. Which is to say, they would all
have got points. But, more to the point, they'd all have got time - not
just time bonuses but real actual time. The man who came in last of the
four would still get more points and more time coming in fourth than he
would coming in in the peloton.
This is, purely and simply, beggar my neighbour. They're all concentrating
so hard on not letting one of the guys they've shared the work with all
day getting the win, that they're prepared to sacrifice it all to McEwan
or Cancellara or even (if God intervenes personally) Tom Boonen.
While we're on this, what is it with God and Tom Boonen? Monday, God smites
every other sprinter in the whole bloody peloton, and Torpedo Tom still
can't snatch a win. Yesterday, God arranges the final sprint on wet pave,
Boonen's favourite... and he gives it away to a prologue specialist!
> At the amateur level, working and not winning is
> putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
> pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
> lose from a break or lose from the pack.
Bollocks. If you came second or third in four decent flat stage breakaways,
you'd have a very good chance of riding under the Arc de Triomphe in a
dandy yellow top. Mind you, it might not be easy to get into the third or
fourth breakaway, but by that time your DS would have started paying
attention and got your team working for you.
Speaking of which, what the %£$& was Saunier Duval's DS smoking yesterday?
That was /awful/.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; part time troll.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 12:26:53
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
Simon Brooke wrote:
> Speaking of which, what the %£$& was Saunier Duval's DS smoking yesterday?
Marijuana. According to the downhill MTBers its very relaxing.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 19:07:18
From: Bounty Bob
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Jul 10, 5:51 pm, Bounty Bob <b...@bob.net> wrote:
>> I will never get why it is more important that the other
>> guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
>> yourself. Especailly the stage 3 one where the guys
>> in the break at various times seemed very cooperative
>> and worked together, then boom..
>>
>> I'd rather someone in the peloton win than do some
>> work and not win.... Stupidity.
> At the
> pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
> lose from a break or lose from the pack.
What a load of crap that is. People have said basically
the same crap they said when I pointed out this stupidity
last year. There were 4 of them and one would have won
it if they hadn't started looking at each other. So
apparently all 4 thought one of the others would win
so why the fuck get in the race at all? Surely there's
a heap of riders better than them.. might as well not
bother riding at all.... This is not a case of not winning
this is case of not bother to try to win. It's pathetic
not tactical.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 12:52:45
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
Bounty Bob <bob@bob.net > writes:
> What a load of crap that is. People have said basically
> the same crap they said when I pointed out this stupidity
> last year. There were 4 of them and one would have won
> it if they hadn't started looking at each other. So
> apparently all 4 thought one of the others would win
> so why the fuck get in the race at all? Surely there's
> a heap of riders better than them.. might as well not
> bother riding at all.... This is not a case of not winning
> this is case of not bother to try to win. It's pathetic
> not tactical.
>
Agreed 100 per cent
I was screaming at the Stupid Wzankerz
If I owned the team they were on, they'd be fired on the spot for
that bullshit, and the coaches, DS etc; too for not teaching them better
--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
MISSING PERSON ALERT
Please call the Police
The BBC (http://azurservers.com/rbr/blind-bbc.jpg) have lost a
Candidate in the Sedgefield Bye-Election. Missing from what is
described by the BBC as a FULL list of Candidates is British National
Party's Andrew Spence - Just another example of the BBC's impartial
reporting unfortunately
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 20:51:34
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Jul 10, 9:03 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com > wrote:
> I still remember the escape of Bauer, Chiapucci, Maasen, and Pensec
> but I don't recall the results of THAT stage (Well, true, I don't even
> recall who won). Anyone?
http://www.veloarchive.com/biographies/chiappucci.php
> It's a funny thing, Armstrong will forever be seen as never having won
> on Mt. Ventoux and Lemond will never be viewed as a winner on L'Alpe
> DHuez. But they were both right there with the respective "winners."
So as not to lose GC time, and perhaps to save ammunition for later.
Long breaks put sponsor names on TV for hours and hours. IOW, no
matter what happens to the break, it isn't futile.
Every once in a while, they work. Sometimes, in spite of having known
specialists in them.
I'm glad I recorded the stage today. "The human drama of athletic
competition". --D-y
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 19:03:08
From: DirtRoadie
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Jul 10, 6:51 pm, Bounty Bob <b...@bob.net > wrote:
> I will never get why it is more important that the other
> guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
> yourself. Especailly the stage 3 one where the guys
> in the break at various times seemed very cooperative
> and worked together, then boom..
>
> I'd rather someone in the peloton win than do some
> work and not win.... Stupidity.
I does seem like such a waste, but they are racing against each
other.
But, I suppose the underlying question comes down to "What is the
value of second place?"
Is it valuable for the individual (or the team) to do a LONG breakaway
(even at 20 mph) and then finish second?
Even tomorrow, would anyone remember second (especially if it does
not affect GC)?
I still remember the escape of Bauer, Chiapucci, Maasen, and Pensec
but I don't recall the results of THAT stage (Well, true, I don't even
recall who won). Anyone?
It's a funny thing, Armstrong will forever be seen as never having won
on Mt. Ventoux and Lemond will never be viewed as a winner on L'Alpe
DHuez. But they were both right there with the respective "winners."
DR
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 06:48:30
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:03:08 -0700, DirtRoadie <DirtRoadie@aol.com >
wrote:
>I still remember the escape of Bauer, Chiapucci, Maasen, and Pensec
>but I don't recall the results of THAT stage (Well, true, I don't even
>recall who won). Anyone?
Maasen was first.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 10:45:01
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
in message <1184119388.163699.184280@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
DirtRoadie ('DirtRoadie@aol.com') wrote:
> On Jul 10, 6:51 pm, Bounty Bob <b...@bob.net> wrote:
>> I will never get why it is more important that the other
>> guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
>> yourself. Especailly the stage 3 one where the guys
>> in the break at various times seemed very cooperative
>> and worked together, then boom..
>>
>> I'd rather someone in the peloton win than do some
>> work and not win.... Stupidity.
>
> I does seem like such a waste, but they are racing against each
> other.
> But, I suppose the underlying question comes down to "What is the
> value of second place?"
> Is it valuable for the individual (or the team) to do a LONG breakaway
> (even at 20 mph) and then finish second?
They've invested one hell of a lot of energy in that breakaway. Take Auge,
for example. He was in a long breakaway on Sunday, and in a long breakaway
yesterday. He's currently 183rd on GC, four places off lanterne rouge; but
he's only 4'14" back. So if he'd come in 2'7" in front of the peloton both
days, he'd be swapping his red strip for a yellow one. It doesn't matter
if he's fourth in the bloody breakaway, provided he gains 2'7". He can say
to the guys around him, "stay more than two minutes up and I won't contest
the stage win". He can work his balls off for Willems. He can give Willems
the stage on a plate. It doesn't matter. The stage is the stage, but a
yellow jersey is a meal-ticket for life.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ring of great evil
Small one casts it into flame
Bringing rise of Men ;; gonzoron
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 21:34:48
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:51:13 +1000, Bounty Bob <bob@bob.net > wrote:
> I will never get why it is more important that the other
>guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
>yourself. Especailly the stage 3 one where the guys
>in the break at various times seemed very cooperative
>and worked together, then boom..
>
> I'd rather someone in the peloton win than do some
>work and not win.... Stupidity.
You should be a coach or the director of a big team.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 03:28:14
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
Bounty Bob schreef:
> I will never get why it is more important that the other
> guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
> yourself.
Of course that is not the complete picture. Part of it is: if you feel
your own chances are slim, next best thing is to get a win for the team.
If the break gets caught at least there's a chance of that happening.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 10:48:15
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: cycling tactics
|
in message <46943231$0$323$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl >, Ewoud Dronkert
('firstname@lastname.net.invalid') wrote:
> Bounty Bob schreef:
>> I will never get why it is more important that the other
>> guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
>> yourself.
>
> Of course that is not the complete picture. Part of it is: if you feel
> your own chances are slim, next best thing is to get a win for the team.
> If the break gets caught at least there's a chance of that happening.
For Willems, perhaps. He has a sprinter on his team, a good one. Not for
Auge. But even for Willems, if he buries himself towing the breakaway to
the line, then his team gets one of the top four places for the stage. In
the bunch sprint, he team gets one of the top twenty. One chance in four
is a hell of a lot better for the team than one in twenty.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
'graveyards are full of indispensable people'
|
|
