Depends on how you look at things. You could also call the outsiders smart for not attacking, as making the race any harder than it already was would have made them all lose out.
In the end the riders make the race interesting, not the course. You can't instruct the riders to attack, but you can design the course to favour attacking.
I'd say the weather was as big a factor as anything. It dampens everyone's enthusiasm for a long range attack. Plus from what little I've seen Italy weren't exactly letting the bunch hang around, even from a long way out.
Edited by ianrussell on 30-09-2013 12:40
Good assessment from Rod Ellingworth on Team GB's performance: "All of them sat on the bus with 100km to go is very disappointing. Luke [Rowe] and Cav [Mark Cavendish] were average, the other guys were well below average."
ShortsNL wrote:
Depends on how you look at things. You could also call the outsiders smart for not attacking, as making the race any harder than it already was would have made them all lose out.
Because they fared so much better by following wheels right? Making the race hard wears out the domestiques, so you can isolate the leaders early and make the race more suitable for tactical moves. In that scenario, riders not gifted enough to win in the head to head with the favourites stand a chance, as small as it might be.
Now the"problem" for that is that some riders have to be willing to sacrifice themselves, which wasn't going to happen when half the peloton decides they'd rather go hide in the hotel because it rains.
ShortsNL wrote:
In the end the riders make the race interesting, not the course. You can't instruct the riders to attack, but you can design the course to favour attacking.
The course is very important for a race to be interesting. That's why races like the Scheldeprijs or Flèche Wallonne are boring more often than not, while Paris - Roubaix and Lombardia tend to be good races.
kumazan wrote:
Because they fared so much better by following wheels right?
It increased their chances from nothing to next to nothing. If you want an example of an outsider winning a race that is too hard and too long by conserving energy and following wheels, look at Milan San Remo.
A race that's too hard because of terrain, weather, distance and general form of the peloton makes for a less exciting race with less attacking. A race that makes it hard to control attacks from the peloton makes for a more exciting race.
The tactical scenario you're describing is a good one, but it works in races where:
-the outsiders' helpers have the energy to spend on wearing out the favourites
-the outsiders have the energy to attack after the peloton has been chasing
-the a race is hard to control by the favourites.
In this case, the helpers were too exhausted because the race was too hard, the outsiders were too exhausted as well, and the race could be controlled too easily by Belgium and Italy thanks to their huge numbers.
I know I am sounding like a Captain Hindsight here, and I honestly don't know what the ideal race difficulty is, or how to design a profile that makes the race hard to control, but I do believe these aspects were of influence today.
ShortsNL wrote:
It increased their chances from nothing to next to nothing. If you want an example of an outsider winning a race that is too hard and too long by conserving energy and following wheels, look at Milan San Remo.
Dozens of race are won that way every season. Long, short, flat, hilly and mountanious. You just picked MSR because it happens to be long and supports your point.
ShortsNL wrote:
A race that's too hard because of terrain, weather, distance and general form of the peloton makes for a less exciting race with less attacking. A race that makes it hard to control attacks from the peloton makes for a more exciting race.
Maybe. But I don't think a race with ~3400m of altitude gain is too hard. The last sentence is definitely true, and generally happens in long races/stages.
ShortsNL wrote:
The tactical scenario you're describing is a good one, but it works in races where:
-the outsiders' helpers have the energy to spend on wearing out the favourites
-the outsiders have the energy to attack after the peloton has been chasing
-the a race is hard to control by the favourites.
In this case, the helpers were too exhausted because the race was too hard, the outsiders were too exhausted as well, and the race could be controlled too easily by Belgium and Italy thanks to their huge numbers.
And it was a total fuck up by Belgium to try and control this race for Gilbert, who quite obviously stood no chance here* (I know it's me being Captain Hindsight now, but I've said this several times before the race). We didn't see any mid-race strong breakaway like it happens many times in the Worlds, which is key in wearing out the domestiques. As I said before, the fact that many riders (including the whole UK team which had a strong outsider in Froome had he bothered to prepare the race) abandoned early didn't help.
*I mean going mano a mano with the best, of course.
ShortsNL wrote:
I know I am sounding like a Captain Hindsight here, and I honestly don't know what the ideal race difficulty is, or how to design a profile that makes the race hard to control, but I do believe these aspects were of influence today.
Of course every factor influences the race, denying it is stupid. I don't believe there's an ideal difficulty, but I definitely don't think this was too hard. We have had at least 2 harder in the last 20 years and both were better races. And this was also a better race than the last two, which were way softer.
Kind of having mixed feelings about Rui Costa winning the Race. No doubt he was way the smartest but in the oder hand he did nothing but weehlsucking. First let Uran close the Gap and then let Nibali work 4 him. I really fell bad 4 Purito and Nibali they were 4 me the strongest ones in the Race. I think Purito did everything he had to do, Nibali was the strongest amoung them all if u consider the crash but also was the bumbest of all 4 doing all the work allone and I think he underestimate Costa but on the other hand they were on Italy so he had to try. 4 Valverde I have no word, he was as dumb as only Valverde can be.
Just watched the race. Wasn't as bad as some are making it out to be. A bit gutted by the result in the end though.
When Nibali chased down Purito, I was sure Alejandro would finally get his win. But unfortunately, Valverde is no Indurain...
Anyway, props to Rui Costa. Cool as ice. I actually said to myself with two laps to go: "Damn, this is gonna end up with a Costa victory." I like the guy though, it's just that the final breakaway had three other riders I'd prefer winning.
After celebrating until today there are things i don't understand when people try to reduce what Rui Costa just did:
- Why didn't Contador, Cancellara, Sagan, Gilbert or any other favorite dropped on the penultimate climb "wheelsucked" Nibali and Rodriguez? (Not mentioning Froome)
- With several 9, 8, 7 and 6 riders teams should a guy who aims top 10 and with just a 3 men team attack early?
- When there is a 3 men group with two win favorites and a top 10 candidate should the top 10 candidate do any work?
- If you had any energy left how would you use it? Chasing a spanish with another spanish and an italian on your wheel? Or keeping it to a precise, surgical attack?
Rui did everything just brilliant. And he did it alone. Maybe that was the spanish problem. I believe Purito attack was on his own, with Valverde being the fastest of the 4 last men, why the hell do you attack?
This was all about Purito ego, he cried because he's tired of being 2nd, not because his team mates who didn't do anything the whole race helped them or not.
Valverde was 3rd ahead of all the other guys starting in Nibali, and including every classics specialist or great climbers in the world. When his team mate attacks and he has to control 2 guys and then your team mate who attacked can't hold just like he couldn't what can you say?
I say that portuguese thank you Purito so much and that Rui Costa is the world champion!
fickman wrote:
4 Valverde I have no word, he was as dumb as only Valverde can be.
That was the only word I could think of as well. The only thought I could gather was Valverde was only going for a sprint, if he had attacked when Costa went, then he could have dragged Nibali up and if his legs had started to go then Nibali could have been in with a shout of winning and it would have been his fault. Either way, Costa timed everything tactically perfect, allowed Nibali to do the work, then waiting for Nibali to practically give up because if he had dragged Valverde to the finish then he would have lost anyway, so Costa went and gambled on at least getting silver. I guess Valverde didn't have the legs as he should have attacked the final climb after Nibali had caught Purito again!
Oh well, it was entertaining and it was over 7 hours racing, I'm guessing they were slightly tired after all those climbs!
Squire wrote:
When Nibali chased down Purito, I was sure Alejandro would finally get his win. But unfortunately, Valverde is no Indurain...
If Valverde was Indurain, the winner would have been Purito.
I know, I was hoping nobody would call me out on that
But had Valverde done an Indurain impression, I would have been happier, because he would have come out of it looking good. And on the off chance that Costa would have bridged across with Valverde in his wheel, even better. I think rainbow stripes would suit him I'm still a bit at a loss about how Spain could lose in that situation.
The most likely explanation is that Valverde didn't have the legs to cover Costa. He could barely get ahead of Nibali for bronze. I don't like all the criticism directed at him when all he does is ride to the best of his abilities. Although he's frustrating at times.
But heck, I realised Valverde hasn't won a race since February and has had 13 podiums. I guess he has lost a bit of his killer instinct.
Some technical dull bit about race length vs entertainment...
Riders have a limited amount of energy to spare in a race. Not the same for all riders, the "strongest" ones have more. Not strongest by physical strength as in weight-lifting, but rather riders with the most endurance.
Basically there are up to 5 sources for a cyclist's energy :
- TPA (less than one second move, that's sheer energy)
- phospho-creatine (for sprints or any neuromuscular effort) up to 15 seconds
- glycogen ("sugar" ) that lasts up to one hour (threshold, or critical power output work)
- glycogen + fat (+ re-synthetized lactates) that might last you up to 2 or 3 hours but doesn't add to the former, that's used for tempo
- and fat (might last almost forever, see Paris-Brest-Paris for example). Used for any effort above 35 % of critical power output.
And yes it's the same for me. And for you. And for you too who's bothered reading this.
That being said, if you assume most riders will give as much as they can no matter the length of the races, what does it say ? That (track) sprinters mostly use PC, whereas TT specialists mostly use glycogen. Riders who finish a 7+ hour race have been burning fat only for many hours.
To find a race exciting, or I'd rather say spectacular, you must expect riders to use their glycogen, alone or with something else, or something more powerful when they need to sprint or attack.
Why don't riders really attack in long races ? They save their glycogen for money time, and how much they've left is up to their sensations.
Why does the tempo keep increasing ? Because the best rider can sustain a higher pace than the weaker ones before using their glycogen. So the weakest keep getting dropped. And again. Because that's what happen when you're out of glycogen : you get dropped.
The fireworks generally starts very late, only when riders feel they can make it to the end on glycogen (+ lactates) only.
In a race that lasts 3 hours max you might see plenty of attacks, because making it to the end at a high pace will be no challenge.That's a classic in youth/low amateur categories. It requires a high CPO (critical power output ~= VO2 max) and a high anaerobic threshold (VT2). An actual endurance sport also requires a high aerobic threshold (VT1), that says how efficiently one uses fat (and saves glycogen). That's why the long and great races are usually those crowning great champions (cheat aspect aside), because it requires all the core qualities of cycling to make it, not just the two thirds.
What makes the race spectacular is not necessarily what makes it interesting. In the end it's a sport, not a show, and I like it like that.
Edited by Aquarius on 30-09-2013 20:26
If Valverde had the energy to pursue Costa, then pass him and win would Purito be all happy with a 3rd or 4th place instead of his silver medal?
Or you believe that if Valverde chased immediately, Rui Costa would have just slow down, then turn back and say something to Valverde, make him look to Nibali and try to attack for 2nd?
kimiopn wrote:
I believe Purito attack was on his own, with Valverde being the fastest of the 4 last men, why the hell do you attack?
Easy, because it was the most sensible thing to do. If you have two in a group of 4, leave it all for the sprint and then you lose, you failed as hard as you could. Attacking with the slowest guy means the fastest one can just follow wheels all the way to the finish, meaning that, in case the attacker isn't chased down, you win, and in case he is, you are fresher than the others.
Of course Valverde is mentally limited, and he couldn't quite follow such a complex race plan.
Squire wrote:
The most likely explanation is that Valverde didn't have the legs to cover Costa. He could barely get ahead of Nibali for bronze. I don't like all the criticism directed at him when all he does is ride to the best of his abilities. Although he's frustrating at times.
But heck, I realised Valverde hasn't won a race since February and has had 13 podiums. I guess he has lost a bit of his killer instinct.
The problem is that we don't know whether he could follow Costa or not, he just didn't try. Given it's Valverde we're talking about, I'm more inclined to think he just thought "bah, it's not Nibali", and let him go.
As for his killer instinct, he's always had a tendency to make quite some near misses. Now that he's getting older, it's more noticeable.
Edited by kumazan on 30-09-2013 20:34
Squire wrote:
The most likely explanation is that Valverde didn't have the legs to cover Costa. He could barely get ahead of Nibali for bronze. I don't like all the criticism directed at him when all he does is ride to the best of his abilities. Although he's frustrating at times.
But heck, I realised Valverde hasn't won a race since February and has had 13 podiums. I guess he has lost a bit of his killer instinct.
The problem is that we don't know whether he could follow Costa or not, he just didn't try. Given it's Valverde we're talking about, I'm more inclined to think he just thought "bah, it's not Nibali", and let him go.
You pick on everything I think about but decides to leave out of the post
I thought about adding "but he could've at least tried". I may be a bit biased though, and tend to cut Valverde some slack. But I agree with you.
At least he's the most medal-winning rider in worlds history, although it doesn't mean much without the rainbow stripes.
Easy, because it was the most sensible thing to do. If you have two in a group of 4, leave it all for the sprint and then you lose, you failed as hard as you could. Attacking with the slowest guy means the fastest one can just follow wheels all the way to the finish, meaning that, in case the attacker isn't chased down, you win, and in case he is, you are fresher than the others.
Of course Valverde is mentally limited, and he couldn't quite follow such a complex race plan.
So you believe the tactic was made like Rodriguez was slowest and so the first to attack (on a downhill) and then have Valverde on wheels for a sprint as plan B?
Wait, but you said:
kumazan wrote:
If Valverde was Indurain, the winner would have been Purito.
So Rodriguez attacks, no one responds, Rodriguez wins. But if someone attacks and Valverde responds, Rodriguez also wins???
That is a complex plan, but specially to Purito.
You are very rude saying Valverde is mentally limited. Crying Rodriguez didn't had the legs to win it just like Nibali couldn't follow or Valverde couldn't counter attack Costa on a turn and with Nibali in front of him. Then Nibali steered at Valverde so he could go on his wheel but Costa was far already. Didn't you saw that?
Do you have visual limitations? It was so fast, it was hard to see, i know.
Even if Rui Costa hadn't placed the attack perfectly, and Valverde managed to follow his attack, do you think Rui Costa would have just stopped and waited for the other two and Purito would have won for lack of chase?
Now if you consider what Contador or the rest of the spannish team did or even all the other favorites did, to blame Valverde is really really stupid.
You must've been watching a different race than the rest of us, kimiopn
kimiopn wrote:
Even if Rui Costa hadn't placed the attack perfectly, and Valverde managed to follow his attack, do you think Rui Costa would have just stopped and waited for the other two and Purito would have won for lack of chase?
I sure as hell don't think he would've continued like he did if Valverde and Nibali got on to his wheel. That'd be handing Valverde the gold and giving Nibbles a good chance of taking silver from him
