I haven't been following the ManGame much over the past few years so I can't speak to the problems or merits of PCM15. And obviously I don't have any emotional attachment to the DB, so while to me as an outsider it seems kinda healthy and "normal" that 80 Hill, 63 Resistance riders don't perform, I understand that the ManGame has its own inner workings that have been established for years, so I can't argue that point. I have, however, reported a lot of sprints lately.
knockout wrote:
4. Sprint finishes are a desaster. We barely see any working leadout trains and the sprint results seem to be very random.
I agree that from a gameplay perspective, sprints can be very frustrating. I see nice sprint trains pretty regularly forming with 2 to 2,5 kilometers to go, and from the teams you would expect, too, at least in "regular" sprint stages in stage races. However, often you have two trains side by side that randomly just decide to cross paths, throwing everything out of whack. Or the train works but delivers the sprinter with 1km to go, which is just too early. The result is that the top favorite rarely wins.
However, from a results perspective, I still think there's some stability. I went through my reports to check every sprint stage I did this year, a total of 10 (not the greatest sample size, but something). Of those 10, 6 were won by a rider I had as a Top 4 sprinter in my preview (none by the Top Sprinter, which underscores my previous point). Of the 30 podium positions, 20 were scored by a Top 5 sprinter from the preview, only one from a sprinter that didn't make the list of favorites (curiously one of the victories, Kuboki on stage 5 in California).
In my opinion, that's a pretty decent average considering the fact that there are often 10 to 15 sprinters seperated by just two or three points in the sprint stat. While it is pretty bad that the top sprinter never won a stage and only on the podium four times, he also never finished outside the Top 10. I think you can only expect so much predictability in those circumstances and while the sprint preparations are often messy, the results are somewhat stable, at least in my opinion. There is also often consistency within a race, with three repeat winners (Manninen at the Olympia's Tour, Silvestre in Poland and Holloway in Uppsala) and generally the same guys in contention, so it feels kinda realistic and not too random either, at least that's my experience.
Edited by cunego59 on 22-04-2020 11:41
I don't follow sprints that closely because even my sprinters don't know how to do it, so I have a question for you cunego: How much does leadout strength seem to play a part from your view? Given that the team that's in control seems to often not be in control with 1km to go, or as you say they put their man in the wind too early. I agree the results in PCM18 are often better than the actual sprints look like they'd give, from my experience, but still a shame if good leadouts aren't rewarded as they used to be, so hopefully there is evidence of the former.
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant." [ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT] Xero Racing
A discussion on the merits of PCM18 and sprinting, as the self-titled Sprint Team i have to comment here:
Sprints suck! Sooooooo bad!
An obvious fix to some of the problems would be to make all flat stage finishes 100% straight (no corners, no junctions, no roundabouts, nothing!) and spline 3-4 wide.
This will give enough physical room for leadout trains for form, not cross paths, not squeeze each other out, and for exiting riders to move cleanly out the way. You also maintain a level speed and remove the reliance on good positioning, which is something no stat controls and the AI just cannot handle.
Genuinely i feel this would solve a lot of the sprinting problems, and make it wothwhile for a team to invest in a leadout (because honestly, i won't be keeping any leadout riders at the moment and just stacking 79+ sprinters to give myself as many lottery tickets as possible).
Things that we can't fix quickly:
Breakaway strength - PCM18 upped the power breakaways have. This works well in mountains and hills, makes these days far more open. But by not improving the AI chase on flat days it's hurting sprints. Either catches are just not made, or are made so late lead-outs can't form. The AI has always been poor at leadouts on every game, but when combined with the new way SP seems work (or it's ACC working differently, basically something changed) it makes sprints a 100% lottery.
Stat Inflation - There are simply too many high SP riders. It's insane! And it's breaking the game badly. This all feeds into the above problems and makes things a lottery. If we had only 10 80+SP riders in the game and 20 above 76/77 the other issues won't matter as much, as your lottery is 1-in-10 if everyone turns up, as opposed to now where any sprint is a wide open lottery
You can go back several years and look through flat stages inside stage races. The Top10's were consistent, the same riders would be in amongst the fight day to day. Nowadays the Top10's are all over the place. Still full of sprinters, but you have no way to guarantee your sprinter will be in there at all anymore.
This is wildly different to most other main catagories, you have an 80+ MO rider you know he'll be pretty consistently fighting, same in TT, in CB, in HL. Sprints, f*cking who knows.
_____
I don't mind PCM18. I stayed well clear of anything uphill anyway so can't comment. Cobbles seem fine to me for the most part, and TT's work well. Is it better than 15? Honestly, probably about the same with all things considered.
cunego59 wrote:
I haven't been following the ManGame much over the past few years so I can't speak to the problems or merits of PCM15. And obviously I don't have any emotional attachment to the DB, so while to me as an outsider it seems kinda healthy and "normal" that 80 Hill, 63 Resistance riders don't perform, I understand that the ManGame has its own inner workings that have been established for years, so I can't argue that point. I have, however, reported a lot of sprints lately.
Things is... one dimensional riders used to not perform in the ManGame either. But this changed with one version of the game. Can't really remember which one. The one we were using the time Alarcon won a Grand Tour (a rider with such weak supporting stats should have no right winning a Grand Tour in my opinion).From that version of the game stats like stamina, resistence and recovery seemed to be less important and more focused on the "main stats".
But as far as I remember people were not very vocal when one dimension riders started suddenly performing. They just started adapting to the new environment. And that's what we should be doing now too in my opinion.
The hilly issue looks bad only in stage races. In classics there are no major differences if you look at the summary I made last week. Or at least nothing people can't adapt to. In stage races I think this can be fixed in opting for less "mountainy" stages.
For sprints. Yeah they seem random. But that is always going to happen with sprints in the ManGame given how many sprinters about the same level are.
@TMM from my experience with the game, the strong trains once formed are actually helped by corners in the final kilometers as it gives the others less of a chance to make up the ground. Bigger, linear roads would actually increase the randomness of having the "2nd tier" sprinters perform. Like cunego said, it's often the case that the good sprinters are left in the wind too early and this gives a huge advantage to the "2nd tier" sprinters if the road allows them to make up the ground.
Edited by alexkr00 on 22-04-2020 13:35
Would just be good if we could make a choice soon (as in very soon):
A: Go back to 15
B: Stay with PCM18 (+), no changes to system, make some profile updates (natural selection)
C: Stay with PCM18 (+), make some DB/System updates (and profile updates), in that case next would be to find out what need to be changed, so that managers know what to expect.
It is an endless debate, and no matter what is decided, some will like it others will not, just as when crashes was banned.
Just can't see any reason to drag it much longer as we won't get much more evidens to what the pros and cons are.
Maybe test the theories of sprints to see what helps, because IMO thats the major issue! I can probably adapt to the HI/MO thing despite having put quite some millions into Koretzky, but sprints not working is a huge upset. Maybe because I have spent 7 or so millions to make Coquard a beast. I have 1mio in wages tied up to get sprint results, so for me that is a worry. I can just adapt. Sure. But I don’t really want to. My team has build a story on Coquard developping which means quite a lot to the RPG feeling.
TheManxMissile wrote:
An obvious fix to some of the problems would be to make all flat stage finishes 100% straight (no corners, no junctions, no roundabouts, nothing!) and spline 3-4 wide.
This will give enough physical room for leadout trains for form, not cross paths, not squeeze each other out, and for exiting riders to move cleanly out the way. You also maintain a level speed and remove the reliance on good positioning, which is something no stat controls and the AI just cannot handle.
Genuinely i feel this would solve a lot of the sprinting problems, and make it wothwhile for a team to invest in a leadout (because honestly, i won't be keeping any leadout riders at the moment and just stacking 79+ sprinters to give myself as many lottery tickets as possible).
100% agree. This should absolutely happen if you want more consistency, or simply more realistic gameplay. Possibly the most eggregious example I ever saw is coming up shortly in Denmark, absolutely ridiculous.
TheManxMissile wrote:
Things that we can't fix quickly:
Breakaway strength - PCM18 upped the power breakaways have. This works well in mountains and hills, makes these days far more open. But by not improving the AI chase on flat days it's hurting sprints. Either catches are just not made, or are made so late lead-outs can't form. The AI has always been poor at leadouts on every game, but when combined with the new way SP seems work (or it's ACC working differently, basically something changed) it makes sprints a 100% lottery.
I would push back on this a bit. Of the 10 sprint stages mentioned, only one went to a breakaway. And yes, you have some stages where the breakaway gets caught late, but that doesn't seem to be nearly as big a problem in my experience and it doesn't happen that often. However, most of my races were CT, so maybe it's different in PT.
TheManxMissile wrote:
Stat Inflation - There are simply too many high SP riders. It's insane! And it's breaking the game badly. This all feeds into the above problems and makes things a lottery. If we had only 10 80+SP riders in the game and 20 above 76/77 the other issues won't matter as much, as your lottery is 1-in-10 if everyone turns up, as opposed to now where any sprint is a wide open lottery
Again, I completely agree that there are too many sprinters that are too good and that's a big part of the problem, but it doesn't feel like a complete lottery. The Top 6-10 are mostly somewhat consistent, although with high variance between them sometimes, but even that not always. The Olympia's Tour for instance had six of the nine sprint podium positions by three riders, at the Tour of Pologne, the two sprint stages had the same 1-2. This is anecdotal, of course, and there's definetely a decently big random element to it, but how could it not? I think it's reasonable that sprints are the most volatile discipline.
As for leadouts: It differs from stage to stage. Holloway's first win in Uppsala is the most impressive example of a leadout working I can think of. That went perfectly. Lo Cicero came very close after a good leadout as well recently. But there were many times when I thought that it seemed actually harmful to have a leadout because the best position often tends to be one or two riders behind the sprinter that has his own train.
That said, if you're asking the question whether the rider with the sprint train won or not, you're asking if one of at most two riders won, or one of the 10-15 others - because there are just so many other sprinters who are just as good or only slightly worse. What I think the main use of a sprint train might be is not to increase the chance of a win, but to increase the likelihood of a rider in the Top 4-6. To reduce the overall variance a little, maybe at the cost of a slightly lower chance at the 1st place. I think there's still some value to strong leadouts, but it's certainly debatable and in the current format, I would agree with Manx that the money is probably better spent elsewhere. I can see that reversing when the ways to the finish line are clearer.
I don't see how sprints are fixable with how many 80-84 sprinters in the DB? Lowering them all won't make a difference because they'd still be too similar. Lowering the FA's might work though.
SotD wrote:
Maybe test the theories of sprints to see what helps, because IMO thats the major issue! I can probably adapt to the HI/MO thing despite having put quite some millions into Koretzky, but sprints not working is a huge upset. Maybe because I have spent 7 or so millions to make Coquard a beast. I have 1mio in wages tied up to get sprint results, so for me that is a worry. I can just adapt. Sure. But I don’t really want to. My team has build a story on Coquard developping which means quite a lot to the RPG feeling.
If anyone wants to develop certain scenarios, put together the start list and give me the stage files, I can offer to run a few of them to give you a more factual basis. For instance have the same startlist and profile but one variant ends with corners and one with 5km of straight roads and I report the final 5-10km of both 20 times. Or have a startlist without any leadouts and one where two or three riders have a strong train and see how the results play out, if leadouts do give an advantage or even a disadvantage. If maybe one or two other reporters or even non-reporters do the same, maybe that would give some clarity. But I don't know the scenarios worth checking.
@Cunego - My point on breakaway strength isn't too many break wins, more that PCM AI hates making trains if a break has not yet been caught, and we're seeing more strong breaks + late attacks with PCM18. This in turn makes leadouts less common and less useful. Which all feeds back into making a lottery of 10, vs a lottery of 3 from a good leadout.
Where you talk about Olympia or Pologne, i'll offer Poland where the variance in the Top10 on the sprints vs on the same two stages (with a similar strenght field) on PCM15 was wild. PCM15 we had a two-time winner, a consistent Top5 and roughly similar Top10. PCM18 it was just all over the place for winner, podium, top5 and top10. This has been repeated in races like Qatar and the GT's have shown increased variance vs PCM15.
There are ways we can make these less of a problem, and that is to make lead-out type riders, and sprinters in general, have cheaper renewals.
@alexk - I would agree with you under normal circumstances that a lead-out helps. Certainly where i've been playing PCM19 recently (which i assume is similar to 18, and using the 2010DB HTC) setting a good leadout will guarantee me a podium finish. But the AI just cannot do a leadout train the same way a human can.
I've seen, it's happened to my team a few times, but it's so rare! More often the corners mess up positioning and leadouts having the opposite effect we expect from them. To be fair this was also an issue on PCM15 (and it's always been a weak point of PCM), but it is worse on 18. Certainly on 15 we would see more two-train finishes through corners working.
That said, if you're asking the question whether the rider with the sprint train won or not, you're asking if one of at most two riders won, or one of the 10-15 others - because there are just so many other sprinters who are just as good or only slightly worse. What I think the main use of a sprint train might be is not to increase the chance of a win, but to increase the likelihood of a rider in the Top 4-6. To reduce the overall variance a little, maybe at the cost of a slightly lower chance at the 1st place. I think there's still some value to strong leadouts, but it's certainly debatable and in the current format, I would agree with Manx that the money is probably better spent elsewhere. I can see that reversing when the ways to the finish line are clearer.
The issue for me is that my sprinter can get two results being the best rider. He can either win, or collapse entirely. Bryan Coquard have more sprint results outside the top 10 than inside. I could absolutely accept that he doesn't win the sprints, but he NEEDS to be in the top 3 more often than not - atleast top 5! And currently he isn't. I would say the same applies for a rider like Ben Swift without knowing for sure. It's hugely frustrating to build a perfect train for the perfect sprinter only to see him finish 11th. It can happen - of course, but not more often than not.
We need to fix that otherwise the game is too skewed imo. It's fair that sprinters need other stats - EG. need 75FL to be the best sprinter, that is relatably and can be fixed with training (for most sprinters atleast), but seeing the 3rd-5th best sprinter winning because they benefit from not having to work with a train simply isn't good enough for a game like this - And this needs to be figured out how to solve IMO. More so than any other aspect.
Now I just quoted you, but it's a general though/note, not something you specifically need to respond to
In terms of hills I do also agree that it seems fixable. Puncheurs aren't useless. Onetrick ponies might be, but that is always a gamble between games - even within the same game it can be somewhat of a gamble. So I don't feel like it's a massive issue that the MO stat means more than before when it feels like it's solveable through changing the stages ever so slightly in difficulty - if that is what we want/need.
Clement Koretzky works OK - but very different from before. He is no longer a GC rider clearly - he is probably almost equal in oneday races, and seems to be more aggressive as a stagehunter. I can adapt to that, and sign a different rider for those oneweek long GC races without too much fuss with Koretzky being still fairly usefull - albeit not at the previous level.
In terms of escapees I agree - the amount is high - but is it too high? The Vuelta seem to be a bit over the top, but maybe the sprinters and the sprint teams just wasn't strong enough? That's also a thing maybe to look at in the future for raceplanning ideas:
At the moment it makes absolutely NO SENSE to bring a top tier sprinter to a GT, unless he also is a very strong puncheur who can therefor win on mutliple terrains. The very best sprinters are not, however, and thus are wasted in GT's. Maybe we could somehow differentiate to make sure the best pure sprinters have enough racedays to be used in a GT - or maybe make the cost lower for sprinters than for GC riders. If it costed 14 racedays to enter er GT it might be interesting. I mean, I have enough racedays for Coquard to make him ride every single interesting race that isn't a GT right now, but if I take out 21 racedays I will get less overall points for sure. A 2/3 kinda option might intrigue to get more sprinters into the biggest races of the world. I know some would be against it, but I would be for - even if I didn't have Coquard - simply because I feel like we don't see the best riders in the GT's which we do IRL. The same could apply for puncheurs.
What I do like, however, is the variety of breakaway riders. SO many different riders were present in breaks in the Vuelta - not the same 10 riders every time. Some were more present than others for sure, but we got some very cool and interesting battles, which I don't think we have had that many of in the past.
Tamijo wrote:
Would just be good if we could make a choice soon (as in very soon):
A: Go back to 15
B: Stay with PCM18 (+), no changes to system, make some profile updates (natural selection)
C: Stay with PCM18 (+), make some DB/System updates (and profile updates), in that case next would be to find out what need to be changed, so that managers know what to expect.
It is an endless debate, and no matter what is decided, some will like it others will not, just as when crashes was banned.
Just can't see any reason to drag it much longer as we won't get much more evidens to what the pros and cons are.
There have been a couple of posts by roturn and reporters in this thread that have given me confidence that the current issues can to a large degree be fixed by adapting next season's stages. I think we should just trust them to do a good job at that.
Also we definitely need to combat stat inflation, but in the long run this can be done in a subtle way during off-seasons by lowering the stats of free agents and reducing the amount of newly added riders that can reach high main stats without training.
Anything that remains after those fixes is most likely not really an 'issue', but just a change in the performance model that managers should adapt to.
And the races are clearly more fun and less predictable this season, so let's please not go back to 15. I vote B.
knockout wrote:
Was thinking about writing a much longer rant but will make it kinda short:
1. At the start of the season, i felt like pcm18 would be game breaking for the MG due to being unable to handle puncheurs without great mountain stats. That was wrong as some of the following hilly classics have shown although they are weaker than in past seasons. However, we seem to see quite a lot of races where strong hilly riders are awfully far behind their stats which imo didnt happen quite as often in pcm15. In pcm15 the reports might not have been as entertaining with less attacks and such but the results were mostly good on hilly races which imo is much more important.
(2. Based on my own team only: Placing of depth riders seems to be hugely randomized. I've seen many times that the supposed 2nd best rider finished behind the 6th or 7th best rider)
3. We can see some of the advertised improvements over pcm15: More interesting/realistic start of stages + breakaway compositions. Riders like Stoltz attack on flat stages instead of mountain stages and we see more late attacks. More different combos of attackers instead of the same few couple of riders. Cobbled races are very entertaining. Generally, races seem to be more active which probably makes the races more interesting for reporters (?)
4. Sprint finishes are a desaster. We barely see any working leadout trains and the sprint results seem to be very random.
The results on hills and sprints look terrible to me. The more I see of the "mo/hi is linked to the effort", the more unlogical is it to me and while it might not be game breaking for most, it still takes a lot of fun out of the game for me and i see myself take longer breaks between commenting on races and skipping to the end of reports for the results than I ever have in past seasons.
so basically, from my POV,
... i dont care at all about TTs (i think they have too high of an impact in pcm18 but thats just my opinion and nothing based on facts. whether its realistic to lose as much time in a tt as seen e.g. in TdSwiss S2? no idea, i havent checked any RL results for TTs in a looong time)
... no clue about mountain AI. Seems to be alright imo but havent followed enough
... sprints are a desaster.
... hilly races work completely different than i think it should and the results look bad to me
... cobbles are good
Based on that i dont think i will ever get back to the activity/motivation levels of previous years as long as we stick to pcm18. No idea whether 19/20 will be any improvement but i would prefer going back to 15 since those things that i care about, work better there. The one thing that would stop me from disbanding if we stick to pcm18 for a longer time is that i want to see Lopez maxed on my team.
I can see myself as a bit of a special case because of my lack of interest in entire disciplins like TTs and as someone who never followed RL cycling closely but i dont think there is any kind of DB adjustments that solve the issues I have with this PCM version (while keeping the DB as interesting as it is).
Agreed with your assessment.
1.) There are certainly still times when punchers are viable, but it's been incredibly reduced. And I'd reckon it's more noticeable at lower levels than PT, where good punchers are fading into the climbing domestique position more quickly.
2.) I've actually noticed this too, and it hasn't been mentioned yet. It happens even on the terrains where AI is generally good. Take for instance Sinkeldam - at times, like in Kigali, the game makes him super powerful and he ends up 6th. At other time, he's inexplicably finished outside the top 100 in pure cobble races, losing to guys on my team with like 60 cobble that are riding for dev purposes. Without crashes, I feel like that's hard to explain. These kinds of things happened in PCM 15 sometimes too of course and are not always bad, but definitely can make buying depth less appealing.
3.) This is definitely true, and an improvement over PCM 15. Things are less predictable and formulaic in general. Or at least, they feel that way after we got used to the AI mechanics on PCM 15 for so long.
4.) Everything is wrong with sprints. Trains are not only rarely present, they are a curse when they are. If you launch at the end of a train, you are basically cursed unless the train has gotten a huge gap, because the person who wins is often the often who launches the latest. Sprinters don't just start to lose speed at the end, they full on crack and instantly lose 10-15 positions on pure flat stages. This means the winner is completely random and is just based on who the AI decided should launch despite being 15-20 positions back most of the time. It's insane.
I also agree that the mtn/hill system in this PCM is simply illogical. I get why it was introduced, to allow different climbs in the same stage to have hill/mtn activated to different degrees, but it barely does that at all while completely destroying how climbing works more generally. They could have achieved a the goal without losing anything simply by allowing the mtn/hill ratio to change at different points within the stage or something. Claiming that effort strength or percentage incline is the only thing separating punchers from climbers in cycling just doesn't make any sense to me. If anything, the climb length should make more of the difference.
I don't know the solution because people do not want to go back to 15. But the status quo is unacceptable imo
Edit: I will add that in sprints especially, the results aren't the only problem. How the results are gotten to is important. It's why MG races aren't simmed. We want good racing as much as good results.
Edited by baseballlover312 on 22-04-2020 15:33
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
I am with you here DD - I would also vote B. I hope the sprint thing can be atleast somewhat fixed though and maybe proven well before the off season so people know what to expect - same applies for hills I guess.
For cobbles I have no clue why Maxime Daniel is performing so horrible, but I haven't really looked that much into numbers yet, so there could be an easy solution for it and maybe even a trainable solution.
I do however think we need to make it possible for riders with below 60 MO/HI to get a quick fix. Not for free of course, but we need to make it possible for riders that are completely broken get up to some standard.
It could be as simple as the current rule, but up to +5 stats pr. season instead of +2 in those segments.
This would mean I could purchase Vlatos from 52 MO to 57 in one season. If the same fee rule applies as usual that would cost: 100K + 200K + 400K + 800K + 1600K = 3,1mio, which is obviously too much, but maybe one could say:
1st training 100K
2nd-5th training x 1,5 (Cummulative)
So 100 + 150 + 225 + 338 + 507 = 1.320K
It may look like a HUGE upgrade, but really it's about getting riders up to what they could before. Several riders are hurt by a very low MO stat - this could help those become atleast somewhat usefull.
SotD wrote:
In terms of escapees I agree - the amount is high - but is it too high? The Vuelta seem to be a bit over the top, but maybe the sprinters and the sprint teams just wasn't strong enough? That's also a thing maybe to look at in the future for raceplanning ideas:
You might be right about this one. Only a few top sprinters in the race might have left the work on a couple of teams and my team was pretty shitty. I think it was down to only Vermeltfoort and Lammertink to chase down breakaways, with Conti and Tolhoek definitely not strong enough to actually reel a break back in.
When some say lower the FA, does that mean lowering top riders either not renewed or rider from managers/teams not continuing, before new transfer begin.
I'm against lowering FA's because I really value the historical continuity of the DB highly. Then again, I've also always been against raising any FA's, but we've been doing that forever.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
baseballlover312 wrote:
I'm against lowering FA's because I really value the historical continuity of the DB highly. Then again, I've also always been against raising any FA's, but we've been doing that forever.
Riders with a specific value to the game I wouldn't touch, but riders that have perhaps been a domestique for the same team for ages and are now released - sure, why not.
As an example - if I stop the game I have to problems with Vlatos becoming a 79TT'er or Kastrantas 73HI if that helps the game as a whole... It's not like someone would really need them, but obviously they would be picked up. With Kastrantas lowered, maybe it would invest time into developping young riders instead.
This is perhaps another thing that could change.
If a young rider who isn't developped to 4.100 maybe we could change his stats? Nothing should be lost from that really.
Eg. Pascal Ackermann is dropped from my team. Freeze him at his current stats and make him 4.100 - Decent rider, but won't be a new 80 SPR rider. Same for van Niekerk (won't happen because it's Aidan ofcourse) - Decent stats as they are. No need for better ones to be picked up. Young enough to be trained better if you want.
SotD wrote:
In terms of escapees I agree - the amount is high - but is it too high? The Vuelta seem to be a bit over the top, but maybe the sprinters and the sprint teams just wasn't strong enough? That's also a thing maybe to look at in the future for raceplanning ideas:
You might be right about this one. Only a few top sprinters in the race might have left the work on a couple of teams and my team was pretty shitty. I think it was down to only Vermeltfoort and Lammertink to chase down breakaways, with Conti and Tolhoek definitely not strong enough to actually reel a break back in.
As reporter of that one I can say it was only Isostar - LimeBike doing something to catch those "sprinter stage" breakaways. As they had to also protect Keizer's GC ambitions, they always ended with to low level MO riders losing time on climbs, and then Per (the fast man) burning himself out to close a too wide gap.
Generally speaking off course not always same.
Edited by Tamijo on 22-04-2020 16:28
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
