Quick-Step managed to win the big two, the Ronde van Vlaanderen en Paris - Roubaix. Of course, that's admirable, but I'm not to sympathetic to the manner in which they did.
Last week they worked their asses off to beat up their Belgian rival Leif Hoste after he fell behind due to mechanical problems.
When he finally, totally exhausted already, came back to the front Stijn Devolder immediately attacked.
The day before yesterday it was kind of the same thing.
Juan Antonio Flecha and Filippo Pozzato fell and it seemed to be the sign for again QuickStep and also High Road to step it up.
This way they had the two outsiders chasing the 'peloton' for some 30 kms.
Is this new? Have I missed something?
In the Tour de France for instance, most of the time the peloton slows down when a big name has fallen or had a problem, at least when they're not too close to the finish yet.
Is this a difference in culture, between a one day classic and a race over three weeks? Are cyclists and teams more sympathetic to each other when they're suffering together for a few weeks in a row?
Or do you think like me that QuickStep is just racing ugly?
First of all, it's not about being choir boys, it's about winning the race.
I could hardly see any coverage of RVV, so I'll only talk of Paris-Roubaix, but when Flecha and Pozzato had their problems, the race was already "on" with the Arenberg trench being close.
As you said, usually you'd wait for an injured favourite until the race is really launched. In P-R the leaders' race is really launched when the bigger teams start riding fast to place their leaders in favourable position before Arenberg.
From that moment there's no more waiting possible.
I probably have a weird memory, but in my opinion Quickstep didn't really work much in RvV....they had Devolder on attack for a long while, so they didn't need to work.
In Paris-Roubaix, Flecha and Pozzato was extremly unlucky to get behind so close to Arenberg, but honestly, they can't really be counted as top favorites or anything.....I think Quickstep was much more concerned with Ballan and Cancellara at the time.
In the Tour de France for instance, most of the time the peloton slows down when a big name has fallen or had a problem, at least when they're not too close to the finish yet.
Is this a difference in culture, between a one day classic and a race over three weeks? Are cyclists and teams more sympathetic to each other when they're suffering together for a few weeks in a row?
Or do you think like me that QuickStep is just racing ugly?
Tour de France, Vino fell before the end of a stage and the pack set a blistering pace up and over a hill, the entire Astana team fell back to help pace him back, but couldn't manage. A combination of tactics to put time into a rival, and the fact the end of the stage was approaching all helped.
And yes, there is a great difference between a one day, and a stage race. With a stage race, burning your team out to put just 2 minutes on a rival over one flat stage for example is pointless as the rival will then have a full fit team to rip you apart later on, when your own team is dying. With a classic, there is no need to have a regard for your own team mates, you can kill them off by putting the pace ridiculously high at strategic times to catch rivals unaware. Its strategy, and when done successfully, results in a win (Boonen).
As to whether they are racing ugly, you could claim that its unsportsmanlike to put the pace up when a rival falls, but as we all know, the Paris- Roubaix and other classics are a matter of luck, as well as fitness, toughness and pure strength. If you were 2km from the finish of a race in a break of 2, and your companion got a puncture, would you wait? I don't think you would. You'd take the win and offer the condolances that are necessary.
In the Tour de France for instance, most of the time the peloton slows down when a big name has fallen or had a problem, at least when they're not too close to the finish yet.
Is this a difference in culture, between a one day classic and a race over three weeks? Are cyclists and teams more sympathetic to each other when they're suffering together for a few weeks in a row?
Or do you think like me that QuickStep is just racing ugly?
Tour de France, Vino fell before the end of a stage and the pack set a blistering pace up and over a hill, the entire Astana team fell back to help pace him back, but couldn't manage. A combination of tactics to put time into a rival, and the fact the end of the stage was approaching all helped.
And yes, there is a great difference between a one day, and a stage race. With a stage race, burning your team out to put just 2 minutes on a rival over one flat stage for example is pointless as the rival will then have a full fit team to rip you apart later on, when your own team is dying. With a classic, there is no need to have a regard for your own team mates, you can kill them off by putting the pace ridiculously high at strategic times to catch rivals unaware. Its strategy, and when done successfully, results in a win (Boonen).
As to whether they are racing ugly, you could claim that its unsportsmanlike to put the pace up when a rival falls, but as we all know, the Paris- Roubaix and other classics are a matter of luck, as well as fitness, toughness and pure strength. If you were 2km from the finish of a race in a break of 2, and your companion got a puncture, would you wait? I don't think you would. You'd take the win and offer the condolances that are necessary.
