Riis123 wrote:
Edit: In other words, according to you, a startlist consisting of Carlos Betancur, Mads Kaggestad, Anders Lund, Theo Bos, Julian Arredondo, Benjamin Noval etc. is as 'strong' or as 'weak' as one consisting of Valverde, Contador, Gilbert, Froome, Sagan etc. since we should only compare the startlist to those who are riding. Have I understood it correctly? And sorry I couldn't take that response more seriously, its just so.... yeah, I dno what to say.
Absolutely true, i can only agree with fjhoekie, it is all about relative strenght of riders against each other. You dont need superstars to have a "strong race". Not sure why it should be laughable opinion...
fjhoekie wrote:
I shall elaborate my previous post as it seems like you did not understand as I had intended.
Sure, you can compare startlists all you want, and compared to maybe 3 OR 4 years back you can say something about sttength. My point was that die the rise and decline of riders the top will change very quickly. Can you for example comaper Naesen with Cancellara? No. Cancellara would've​ declined further, and therefore no comparison van be made.
You can only say something about depth of startlists, how many favourites are there? Comparing riders with historical riders is practically useless.
Now as for you as a person, Riis, I have very little respect for you and the way you respond on people. You should work on that. Just because I don't like you does not mean I treat you differently than any other person.
After reading a couple of your posts, I don't necessarily respect you either. Or, I don't, but thats hardly relevant to the point. And don't start lecturing me how to behave on a internet forum - the tone of your initial post was condescending enough, hence why I responded the way I did. It think that was pretty obvious.
Look, I know where you are going. I understand it. We just fundamentally disagree. I say you can say about any given race 'Hey, thats a rather weak startlist compared to previous editions' which maybe can be caused my sickness, illness, riders not focussing on the race anymore etc. etc. You don't subscribe to that notion. Thats cool.
Riis123 wrote:
Edit: In other words, according to you, a startlist consisting of Carlos Betancur, Mads Kaggestad, Anders Lund, Theo Bos, Julian Arredondo, Benjamin Noval etc. is as 'strong' or as 'weak' as one consisting of Valverde, Contador, Gilbert, Froome, Sagan etc. since we should only compare the startlist to those who are riding. Have I understood it correctly? And sorry I couldn't take that response more seriously, its just so.... yeah, I dno what to say.
Absolutely true, i can only agree with fjhoekie, it is all about relative strenght of riders against each other. You dont need superstars to have a "strong race". Not sure why it should be laughable opinion...
people are confusing the strength of a field and the quality of the race. They are two different things.
Of course one field can be stronger than another as Riis said.
However the riders in the field are what make the race. A weak field can make just as exciting a race as a strong field. That is down to the riders on the day. As Avin points out.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Riis123 wrote:
Edit: In other words, according to you, a startlist consisting of Carlos Betancur, Mads Kaggestad, Anders Lund, Theo Bos, Julian Arredondo, Benjamin Noval etc. is as 'strong' or as 'weak' as one consisting of Valverde, Contador, Gilbert, Froome, Sagan etc. since we should only compare the startlist to those who are riding. Have I understood it correctly? And sorry I couldn't take that response more seriously, its just so.... yeah, I dno what to say.
Absolutely true, i can only agree with fjhoekie, it is all about relative strenght of riders against each other. You dont need superstars to have a "strong race". Not sure why it should be laughable opinion...
Your confusing the strength of a field and the quality of the race. They are two different things.
Of course one field can be stronger than another as Riis said.
However the riders in the field are what make the race. A weak field can make just as exciting a race as a strong field. That is down to the riders on the day.
Beautifully summarising what I've said. At no point did I say good startlist -> good race if thats what Avin thinks I said (honestly, it doesn't matter what I say, he will try his hardest to disagree anyways as you probably have noticed by now).
Wrong in all ways, shapes and forms. A startlist cannot be bad, or weak, or good, or strong. It's the riders making the race, and the riders riding the race should only be compared to other riders racing, not those who are not racing for whatever reason.
I just spilled my coffee. That was such a funny reply. Lol
There is a difference between absolute strength and relative strength, you are talking about the latter, I am talking about the former.
Edit: In other words, according to you, a startlist consisting of Carlos Betancur, Mads Kaggestad, Anders Lund, Theo Bos, Julian Arredondo, Benjamin Noval etc. is as 'strong' or as 'weak' as one consisting of Valverde, Contador, Gilbert, Froome, Sagan etc. since we should only compare the startlist to those who are riding. Have I understood it correctly? And sorry I couldn't take that response more seriously, its just so.... yeah, I dno what to say.
Gosh. Of course you can say whether a start list is loaded or a bit mediocre comparing different years to each other.
For example, the Tour de France 2012 had a relatively lacklustre startlist or peloton going into the race compared to the strength of the 2013 startlist. Overall a lot better depth the year after since Contador was back, Quintana was a force, Rodriguez was present, Valverde was good again etc. etc.
Likewise, the 2015 Giro had a very mediocre startlist (Contador, 2 Astana riders, Urán and Porte - Amador finished 4th) compared to that of 2017 which has so much more depth and which cycling fans already can tell will be in insane amount of good GT-riders (considering its the Giro).
Basically, Im trying to tell you your post is completely nonsensical.
Yet 2015 Giro was the best GT since 2010 Giro. And 2017 has such a bad route for the 100th Giro so I expect the 2017 Giro to be a mediocre one. Only one or two stage where action before the final climb can happen(action still might not happen from far in these two stages, mind you). Or three if riders are really desperate.
In 2015 Giro Aprica and Sestriere were definite action from far stages. Cervinia also gave a chance to atak from far but not too much ( like Bormio and Ortisei this year)
Also the Verbania stage was good with the climb summiting 40 km from the finish. Also there were some beatifully designed medium mountain stages, like La Spezia and San Giorgio del Sannio.
Also Campiglio stage had Passo Daone for a team to split up the peloton before the final climb since the flat between the teo climbs was short enough for a team to continue pacing. ( pretty similar to Asiago perhaps?)
Riis123 wrote:
Edit: In other words, according to you, a startlist consisting of Carlos Betancur, Mads Kaggestad, Anders Lund, Theo Bos, Julian Arredondo, Benjamin Noval etc. is as 'strong' or as 'weak' as one consisting of Valverde, Contador, Gilbert, Froome, Sagan etc. since we should only compare the startlist to those who are riding. Have I understood it correctly? And sorry I couldn't take that response more seriously, its just so.... yeah, I dno what to say.
Absolutely true, i can only agree with fjhoekie, it is all about relative strenght of riders against each other. You dont need superstars to have a "strong race". Not sure why it should be laughable opinion...
Your confusing the strength of a field and the quality of the race. They are two different things.
Of course one field can be stronger than another as Riis said.
However the riders in the field are what make the race. A weak field can make just as exciting a race as a strong field. That is down to the riders on the day.
Beautifully summarising what I've said. At no point did I say good startlist -> good race if thats what Avin thinks I said (honestly, it doesn't matter what I say, he will try his hardest to disagree anyways as you probably have noticed by now).
OT
Spoiler
It DOES matter what you say, i always react to the actual post, not on person. Sadly the same thing cant be said about you, you often argument "ad hominem". Like when you are posting rubbish about me being sour because of results of Sagan, even when he is not the object of our discussions. He is my favourite cyclist, but i dont watch cycling because of him, i like the sport and i will watch it even without Sagan when his career is over, like i did for past 23 years.
So please end this personal rubbish and stay on topic, i am trying to do the same since our "romance" yesterday. And dont attack others in the same way, like Croatia or fjhoekie, it only shows how disrespectful you are. Thanks
Yep, 2015 Giro was an exceptionally good race, I was only speaking about the depth of the GC-riders. Mind you, Im not saying that a relatively bad start lists equals bad racing - sometimes quite the opposite! This was mainly due to just how doped Astana were that year, they were incredible. Definitely one of the best GTs I've seen.
And again agree on your second point. The 2017 route isn't great by no means, but its not all bad either.
You and I know you have been playing the man and not the ball recently on me. Don't try to act like you doesn't and make yourself morally superior. It has gotten way too personal.
Back to Roubaix itself, I expect a similar race to last year, with eventually a small group battling it out on the Velodrome. Favourites from such a race should probably be Boonen, Demare, Boasson Hagen, Degenkolb and Kristoff.
I also wonder if the amazing Erviti will top 10 again...
Manager of Team Popo4Ever p/b Morshynska in the PCM.Daily Man-Game
Back to Roubaix itself, I expect a similar race to last year, with eventually a small group battling it out on the Velodrome. Favourites from such a race should probably be Boonen, Demare, Boasson Hagen, Degenkolb and Kristoff.
I also wonder if the amazing Erviti will top 10 again...
Yes, thats always good. I still just don't really get it, but no point trying to wrap my head around that, we are different.
Ugh, no Sagan?
fjhoekie wrote:
Sagan maybe, but I'm not convinced after he said he isn't feeling too well. At least I believe I've read that somewhere.
I wrote it in here, I think its on CN. That coupled with his mediocre history in this race also leads me to believe he isn't the man to beat this Sunday, but its literally impossible to predict this race. Especially a year without no peak Cancellara or Boonen, its a free for all.
I would not listen to these PR games, when somebody says he does not feel well. Last time he was not feeling well at all, it was WC in Qatar and we know who won. Maybe he will be shit or unlucky, but not because he said it openly to media.
I know my opinion will trigger a lot of people here but I don't rate Sagan's chances. His best result is 6th. I take Kristoff and Dege over him any day. Kristoff and Degenstache have insane stamina and thats exactly what you need here.
He's just not a Roubaix rider. He just doesn't have the power on secteurs of Roubaix. I remember in 2014 when he (smartly) tried to undercut and attack on flat before Carrefour he had a 30 sec gap and then Vanmarcke attacked behind and his gap melted so quickly he barely held on to the group.
I think Naesen will do really well despite inexperience.
My under the radar list of riders to watch:
Stuyven (no one talks about him)
Demare (if he has great legs he might even win this)
Lampaert will have a great ride
You should always state your opinion no matter what reactions they might cause or who they are triggering, its a cycling debate, its not gonna hurt anybody. Just because it might go against conventional wisdom doesn't make it any less true, quite the opposite on this forum at times, IMO.
Needless to say I completely agree. I've written pages up and down on why Sagan isn't a Roubaix rider. I will definitely take Degenkolb over him, I think Kristoff is in some shady form, I don't quite know where he is atm, so thats up in the air for me.
I dont see any triggers here, we all saw that Roubaix is one of the flat classics he never finished inside top5 and that can be said about only handful of races, so it is only natural that people downplay his chances. Combined with not so great classics campaign, where he had bad luck in some races and lacked the killer instinct or better tactics in other.
Then again lets not forget how some of his Roubaix performances went...last two years, which is probably best reference...2015 he punctured several times and in very bad moments, you cant do much with that. Last year he was held together with Spartacus in that big crash and nobody cooperated with these two, while Panzerwagen won it for first group in the meantime. So question is, could he really done a lot more given the circumstances during 2015 and 2016 Roubaixs?
I think he can end anywhere between 1st and last, you never know with him, but he is one of the riders you can really never rule our of the race.
14, 15 and 16 are the references. He was bad, relatively to his 'normal level' in both 2014 and 2015 in the classics. So Im ready to throw these attempts out the window.
Its hard to say anything about last year. Bad luck, but at the same time, he obviously just didn't bridge as he would have been able to on a couple of hellingen.
I think his sprint on the Velodrome can be his biggest problem, sprinting after such an intense 6 hour effort (with no hills, not playing in his favour) is hard against Kristoff and Degenkolb. But then he obviously can do solo, but I highly doubt he has the motor to do that - in Roubaix.
Not sure about that engine/motor/stamina thingy, how you would define that? Because if he have similar sense of the meaning, i think that only GVA is better finisher/can give better effort after the long 250-300km, draining race, right behind him is Sagan in my eyes and he proved that many times in recent years. I still think that 99% of the peloton would choose anybody else over GVA or Sagan for the finish on the Velodrome, including Degenkolb, Kristoff or Boonen. Of course it depends on daily form too...
It think that was pretty obvious. 
