Strategy in TDF and why some thing it's boring...

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Brianb, Jul 25, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brianb

    Brianb Guest

    Well the other day I said that LA should have tried to gain time on LU by going with Hamilton, and
    that it was dangerous to try to sit on a one minute lead. Of course I was roundly condemned, with
    one poster even calling me a troll!

    I don't know much about cycling, obviously. But it seems for most of the time, there's no benefit to
    try to gain on your competition. Most days nothing happens. I think this is b/c of the wind
    advantage offered by the peloton. To escape you have to break away, do all the work yourself, and
    then be able to hold that position until the end.

    As a result of this, there's really very little "racing". The only real racing is in ITT, TTT, and
    in stages that end in a climb (where wind resistance is of little advantage b/c of slow speeds).

    So you have days like today, where LU and LA are in the peloton behind the breakaway team which is
    20 minutes ahead. Why don't LA and LU follow them and try to gain time on each other. Make a "race"
    of it, so to speak.

    "No, no, no! you idiot!, they should stay with the peloton...don't waste energy trying to gain
    advantage!".

    OK, then, that's why people don't quite get cycling. Most of the time they're not really racing,
    just going for a ride in the country. A fast ride, a long ride, at speeds I couldn't do
    (obviously), but they're not really "racing" per se. The real racing is done in only a few stages
    at only a few times.
     
    Tags:


  2. Nick Burns

    Nick Burns Guest

    "brianb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Well the other day I said that LA should have tried to gain time on LU by going with Hamilton, and
    > that it was dangerous to try to sit on a one minute lead. Of course I was roundly condemned, with
    > one poster even calling me a troll!
    >

    Who is "LU"?

    > I don't know much about cycling, obviously. But it seems for most of the time, there's no benefit
    > to try to gain on your competition. Most days nothing happens. I think this is b/c of the wind
    > advantage offered by the peloton. To escape you have to break away, do all the work yourself, and
    > then be able to hold that position until the end.
    >
    > As a result of this, there's really very little "racing". The only real racing is in ITT, TTT, and
    > in stages that end in a climb (where wind resistance is of little advantage b/c of slow speeds).
    >
    > So you have days like today, where LU and LA are in the peloton behind the breakaway team which is
    > 20 minutes ahead. Why don't LA and LU follow them and try to gain time on each other. Make a
    > "race" of it, so to speak.
    >
    > "No, no, no! you idiot!, they should stay with the peloton...don't waste energy trying to gain
    > advantage!".
    >
    > OK, then, that's why people don't quite get cycling. Most of the time they're not really racing,
    > just going for a ride in the country. A fast ride, a long ride, at speeds I couldn't do
    > (obviously), but they're not really "racing" per se. The real racing is done in only a few stages
    > at only a few times.
     
  3. [email protected] (brianb) wrote in news:68a6629.0307250608.46424311 @posting.google.com:

    <crap about TDF riders not really racing most of the time snipped>

    > OK, then, that's why people don't quite get cycling. Most of the time they're not really racing,
    > just going for a ride in the country. A fast ride, a long ride, at speeds I couldn't do
    > (obviously), but they're not really "racing" per se. The real racing is done in only a few stages
    > at only a few times.

    Sure they are racing. Just not the guys high in the GC; they would get chased down. Everyone else is
    pretty much free to race as they like.

    So idiots with 5 second attention spans don't get it... so what? They are happy watching the *much*
    more exciting sports like Nascar, poker, and golf on ESPN. BTW, when did Lars quit Metallica to take
    up cycling?

    - Boyd S.
     
  4. [email protected] (brianb) wrote in news:68a6629.0307250608.46424311 @posting.google.com:

    <crap about TDF riders not really racing most of the time snipped>

    > OK, then, that's why people don't quite get cycling. Most of the time they're not really racing,
    > just going for a ride in the country. A fast ride, a long ride, at speeds I couldn't do
    > (obviously), but they're not really "racing" per se. The real racing is done in only a few stages
    > at only a few times.

    Sure they are racing. Just not the guys high in the GC; they would get chased down. Everyone else is
    pretty much free to race as they like.

    So idiots with 5 second attention spans don't get it... so what? They are happy watching the *much*
    more exciting sports like Nascar, poker, and golf on ESPN. BTW, when did Lars quit Metallica to take
    up cycling?

    - Boyd S.
     
  5. Trg

    Trg Guest

    This is more pronounced in the grand tours like tdf. That's why over the years they've added things
    like the green jersy, the polka dot jersey, the white jersey, special awards for arriving in the
    best time in 5 cities, etc. It's to give the spectators (and 180 other non-GC contenders) more to
    get interested in than just the yellow jersey.

    "brianb" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message news:
    [email protected]
    > Well the other day I said that LA should have tried to gain time on LU by going with Hamilton, and
    > that it was dangerous to try to sit on a one minute lead. Of course I was roundly condemned, with
    > one poster even calling me a troll!
    >
    > I don't know much about cycling, obviously. But it seems for most of the time, there's no benefit
    > to try to gain on your competition. Most days nothing happens. I think this is b/c of the wind
    > advantage offered by the peloton. To escape you have to break away, do all the work yourself, and
    > then be able to hold that position until the end.
    >
    > As a result of this, there's really very little "racing". The only real racing is in ITT, TTT, and
    > in stages that end in a climb (where wind resistance is of little advantage b/c of slow speeds).
    >
    > So you have days like today, where LU and LA are in the peloton behind the breakaway team which is
    > 20 minutes ahead. Why don't LA and LU follow them and try to gain time on each other. Make a
    > "race" of it, so to speak.
    >
    > "No, no, no! you idiot!, they should stay with the peloton...don't waste energy trying to gain
    > advantage!".
    >
    > OK, then, that's why people don't quite get cycling. Most of the time they're not really racing,
    > just going for a ride in the country. A fast ride, a long ride, at speeds I couldn't do
    > (obviously), but they're not really "racing" per se. The real racing is done in only a few stages
    > at only a few times.
     
  6. Trg

    Trg Guest

    This is more pronounced in the grand tours like tdf. That's why over the years they've added things
    like the green jersy, the polka dot jersey, the white jersey, special awards for arriving in the
    best time in 5 cities, etc. It's to give the spectators (and 180 other non-GC contenders) more to
    get interested in than just the yellow jersey.

    "brianb" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message news:
    [email protected]
    > Well the other day I said that LA should have tried to gain time on LU by going with Hamilton, and
    > that it was dangerous to try to sit on a one minute lead. Of course I was roundly condemned, with
    > one poster even calling me a troll!
    >
    > I don't know much about cycling, obviously. But it seems for most of the time, there's no benefit
    > to try to gain on your competition. Most days nothing happens. I think this is b/c of the wind
    > advantage offered by the peloton. To escape you have to break away, do all the work yourself, and
    > then be able to hold that position until the end.
    >
    > As a result of this, there's really very little "racing". The only real racing is in ITT, TTT, and
    > in stages that end in a climb (where wind resistance is of little advantage b/c of slow speeds).
    >
    > So you have days like today, where LU and LA are in the peloton behind the breakaway team which is
    > 20 minutes ahead. Why don't LA and LU follow them and try to gain time on each other. Make a
    > "race" of it, so to speak.
    >
    > "No, no, no! you idiot!, they should stay with the peloton...don't waste energy trying to gain
    > advantage!".
    >
    > OK, then, that's why people don't quite get cycling. Most of the time they're not really racing,
    > just going for a ride in the country. A fast ride, a long ride, at speeds I couldn't do
    > (obviously), but they're not really "racing" per se. The real racing is done in only a few stages
    > at only a few times.
     
  7. "brianb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Well the other day I said that LA should have tried to gain time on LU by going with Hamilton, and
    > that it was dangerous to try to sit on a one minute lead. Of course I was roundly condemned, with
    > one poster even calling me a troll!
    >
    > I don't know much about cycling, obviously.

    You are correct.

    >But it seems for most of the time, there's no benefit to try to gain on your competition. Most days
    >nothing happens. I think this is b/c of the wind advantage offered by the peloton. To escape you
    >have to break away, do all the work yourself, and then be able to hold that position until the end.
    >
    > As a result of this, there's really very little "racing". The only real racing is in ITT, TTT, and
    > in stages that end in a climb (where wind resistance is of little advantage b/c of slow speeds).
    >
    > So you have days like today, where LU and LA are in the peloton behind the breakaway team which is
    > 20 minutes ahead. Why don't LA and LU follow them and try to gain time on each other. Make a
    > "race" of it, so to speak.
    >
    > "No, no, no! you idiot!, they should stay with the peloton...don't waste energy trying to gain
    > advantage!".
    >
    > OK, then, that's why people don't quite get cycling.

    Go find another sport then, dumbass.
     
  8. Lindsay

    Lindsay Guest

    On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:11:52 GMT, "Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"brianb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> Well the other day I said that LA should have tried to gain time on LU by going with Hamilton,
    >> and that it was dangerous to try to sit on a one minute lead. Of course I was roundly condemned,
    >> with one poster even calling me a troll!
    >>
    >
    >Who is "LU"?

    The dude from Metallica but that's not important here.

    Lindsay
    ----------------------------
    "One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the
    difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's
    remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license."

    P.J. O'Rourke
     
  9. Guess Who

    Guess Who Guest

    It's also why they started putting in time bonuses. I remember them from the Coors Classic. "trg"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > This is more pronounced in the grand tours like tdf. That's why over the years they've added
    > things like the green jersy, the polka dot jersey, the white jersey, special awards for arriving
    > in the best time in 5 cities,
    etc.
    > It's to give the spectators (and 180 other non-GC contenders) more to get interested in than just
    > the yellow jersey.
    >
    > "brianb" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message news:
    > [email protected]
    > > Well the other day I said that LA should have tried to gain time on LU by going with Hamilton,
    > > and that it was dangerous to try to sit on a one minute lead. Of course I was roundly condemned,
    > > with one poster even calling me a troll!
    > >
    > > I don't know much about cycling, obviously. But it seems for most of the time, there's no
    > > benefit to try to gain on your competition. Most days nothing happens. I think this is b/c of
    > > the wind advantage offered by the peloton. To escape you have to break away, do all the work
    > > yourself, and then be able to hold that position until the end.
    > >
    > > As a result of this, there's really very little "racing". The only real racing is in ITT, TTT,
    > > and in stages that end in a climb (where wind resistance is of little advantage b/c of slow
    > > speeds).
    > >
    > > So you have days like today, where LU and LA are in the peloton behind the breakaway team which
    > > is 20 minutes ahead. Why don't LA and LU follow them and try to gain time on each other. Make a
    > > "race" of it, so to speak.
    > >
    > > "No, no, no! you idiot!, they should stay with the peloton...don't waste energy trying to gain
    > > advantage!".
    > >
    > > OK, then, that's why people don't quite get cycling. Most of the time they're not really racing,
    > > just going for a ride in the country. A fast ride, a long ride, at speeds I couldn't do
    > > (obviously), but they're not really "racing" per se. The real racing is done in only a few
    > > stages at only a few times.
     
  10. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

    >Well the other day I said that LA should have tried to gain time on LU by going with Hamilton, and
    >that it was dangerous to try to sit on a one minute lead. Of course I was roundly condemned, with
    >one poster even calling me a troll!
    >
    >I don't know much about cycling, obviously. But it seems for most of the time, there's no benefit
    >to try to gain on your competition. Most days nothing happens. I think this is b/c of the wind
    >advantage offered by the peloton. To escape you have to break away, do all the work yourself, and
    >then be able to hold that position until the end.

    If Armstrong had gone with Tyler, they would have been chased down and there would have been no
    break. Riding in the tour takes such huge effort that you have to pick which breaks you will let go,
    because they are not a threat, and which you have to chase down. If Armstrong is in a break, you can
    be sure that it would get chased down. Thanks to radios, no one sneak off and the team managers know
    who is in the break and how much of a time gap they have on their team leader. That way they can
    help make the decision of whether to cover a break, or just let it go.
    -----------------
    Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)
     
  11. MMcC <[email protected]> writes:

    > Dude, if you don't like it, don't watch. The TdF and the sport of cycling has been around for 100
    > years and has managed to survive without you and some others "not quite getting it".

    Although it must be said that it has changed a lot in those 100 odd years.

    I don't think it's entirely without reason that the sport enjoyed its greates popolarity in the
    years of Coppi and Bartali (although maybe that's just the local prejudice here?). I think there
    *was* more racing throughout the race - at least in some of the stories one reads, like where
    Bartali came back from a huge deficit to win the Giro (48?).

    I think it was also tougher then in some ways. I mean, the Alpe d'Huez is hard today, but imagine it
    not even being paved...

    --
    David N. Welton Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/ Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Free
    Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/ Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/
     
  12. Mmcc

    Mmcc Guest

    On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:07:24 GMT, [email protected] (David N. Welton) wrote:

    >MMcC <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> Dude, if you don't like it, don't watch. The TdF and the sport of cycling has been around for 100
    >> years and has managed to survive without you and some others "not quite getting it".
    >
    >Although it must be said that it has changed a lot in those 100 odd years.

    Of course, but most sports evolve over time, with some tweaking done here and there as time goes
    on. Soccer isn't exactly the same as it was 100 years ago either. Still, it's annoying when
    someone who just became interested in the sport starts suggesting wholesale changes to make the
    sport "better". If a person thinks it's boring then there's plenty of other things they can do
    with their time. I don't expect that sports like Cricket or Baseball should be changed just to
    make them suit my tastes. I fully accept that I may not "get" those sports but millions appreciate
    them the way they are.

    >I don't think it's entirely without reason that the sport enjoyed its greates popolarity in the
    >years of Coppi and Bartali (although maybe that's just the local prejudice here?). I think there
    >*was* more racing throughout the race - at least in some of the stories one reads, like where
    >Bartali came back from a huge deficit to win the Giro (48?).
    >
    >I think it was also tougher then in some ways. I mean, the Alpe d'Huez is hard today, but imagine
    >it not even being paved...
     
  13. "brianb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Well the other day I said that LA should have tried to gain time on LU by going with Hamilton, and
    > that it was dangerous to try to sit on a one minute lead. Of course I was roundly condemned, with
    > one poster even calling me a troll!
    >
    > I don't know much about cycling, obviously. But it seems for most of the time, there's no benefit
    > to try to gain on your competition. Most days nothing happens. I think this is b/c of the wind
    > advantage offered by the peloton. To escape you have to break away, do all the work yourself, and
    > then be able to hold that position until the end.
    >
    > As a result of this, there's really very little "racing". The only real racing is in ITT, TTT, and
    > in stages that end in a climb (where wind resistance is of little advantage b/c of slow speeds).
    >
    > So you have days like today, where LU and LA are in the peloton behind the breakaway team which is
    > 20 minutes ahead. Why don't LA and LU follow them and try to gain time on each other. Make a
    > "race" of it, so to speak.
    >
    > "No, no, no! you idiot!, they should stay with the peloton...don't waste energy trying to gain
    > advantage!".
    >
    > OK, then, that's why people don't quite get cycling. Most of the time they're not really racing,
    > just going for a ride in the country. A fast ride, a long ride, at speeds I couldn't do
    > (obviously), but they're not really "racing" per se. The real racing is done in only a few stages
    > at only a few times.

    You pretty much answered your own question. The nature of stage racing is what it is because the
    laws of physics dictate the best strategy. Since you can't deny the effects of wind resistance and
    gravity, you have to employ them to your best advantage in the context of team competition. The GC
    podium guys race the way they do precisely because it gives them the highest probability of success,
    and they're definitely keeping their eyes on the final prize. Every so often, someone slips under
    their radar to take advantage of that and pull off an exploit, ala Tyler Hamilton in Stage 16. But
    none of the current podium contenders would ever have been allowed enough reign for such a move to
    work; you can be sure they'd have done it if they thought they had a chance in hell of succeeding.
    It took a savvy DS like Riis to know when to play that card.

    Stage racing just IS a drawn-out, strategic, tactical game. So is Chess; most of the moves are
    minor, but the big moments are both anticipated and quite dramatic for those who understand the
    game. But then not so many people get that either... ;-)

    SB
     
  14. MMcC <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:07:24 GMT, [email protected] (David N. Welton) wrote:

    > >MMcC <[email protected]> writes:

    > >> Dude, if you don't like it, don't watch. The TdF and the sport of cycling has been around for
    > >> 100 years and has managed to survive without you and some others "not quite getting it".

    > >Although it must be said that it has changed a lot in those 100 odd years.

    > Of course, but most sports evolve over time, with some tweaking done here and there as time goes
    > on. Soccer isn't exactly the same as it was 100 years ago either.

    > Still, it's annoying when someone who just became interested in the sport starts suggesting
    > wholesale changes to make the sport "better".

    Sure... but to tell you the truth, I think in some ways, he may not be entirely off the mark. A lot
    of people my age (jeez... a few more years till 30...WTF happened) over here in Italy find the sport
    'boring' as well. Not as high a percentage as in the US, maybe, but it's certainly not as popular as
    one might hope.

    --
    David N. Welton Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/ Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Free
    Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/ Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/
     
  15. K. J. Papai

    K. J. Papai Guest

    "Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<HUaUa.10195$%[email protected]>...
    > "brianb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Well the other day I said that LA should have tried to gain time on LU by going with Hamilton,
    > > and that it was dangerous to try to sit on a one minute lead. Of course I was roundly condemned,
    > > with one poster even calling me a troll!
    > >
    >
    > Who is "LU"?

    Lars Ulrich -- METALLICA Dude!

    Lars and BrianB are not racers and also cannot grok racing.
     
  16. "MMcC" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    > This reminds me of people, usually Americans, who are new to soccer. They have all these
    > suggestions to make the game "better"... do away with the offside rule, make the goals bigger,
    > unlimited substitutons, etc etc etc. The fact that it's enjoyed the world over by billions just
    > the way it is is lost on them.

    One thing the marketers should do if they want to sell soccer to US viewers: Show how much time
    is left in the game. US sports fans are so used to last-second heroics that they need to know
    how much game remains. Instead, the clock runs up to 90 minutes then keeps going into "injury
    time," that indefinite period that makes the presence of the clock meaningless. Any MIT junior
    could show them how to connect the ref's watch (or whatever the official timepiece is) to a
    system that would make the actual time remaining available to TV viewers. It surprised me that
    during the US's run in the World Cup the broadcasters didn't think of it.
     
  17. On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:02:37 GMT, "Rico X. Partay" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"MMcC" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >> This reminds me of people, usually Americans, who are new to soccer. They have all these
    >> suggestions to make the game "better"... do away with the offside rule, make the goals bigger,
    >> unlimited substitutons, etc etc etc. The fact that it's enjoyed the world over by billions just
    >> the way it is is lost on them.
    >
    >
    > One thing the marketers should do if they want to sell soccer to US viewers: Show how much time
    > is left in the game. US sports fans are so used to last-second heroics that they need to know
    > how much game remains. Instead, the clock runs up to 90 minutes then keeps going into "injury
    > time," that indefinite period that makes the presence of the clock meaningless. Any MIT junior
    > could show them how to connect the ref's watch (or whatever the official timepiece is) to a
    > system that would make the actual time remaining available to TV viewers. It surprised me that
    > during the US's run in the World Cup the broadcasters didn't think of it.

    Errr ... because it's meaningless, cuz the ref's clock doesn't show the remaining time either?
     
  18. You are joking of course? It builds the tension; you know the whistle will go, but you don't know
    when. Seems to work everywhere else in the world.

    Was someone just talking about stupid Americans trying to change other peoples sports to suit their
    limited intelligence?

    F.

    > One thing the marketers should do if they want to sell soccer to US viewers: Show how much
    > time is left in the game. US sports fans are so used to last-second heroics that they need to
    > know how much game remains. Instead, the clock runs up to 90 minutes then keeps going into
    > "injury time," that indefinite period that makes the presence of the clock meaningless. Any
    > MIT junior could show them how to connect the ref's watch (or whatever the official timepiece
    > is) to a system that would make the actual time remaining available to TV viewers. It
    > surprised me that during the US's run in the World Cup the broadcasters didn't think of it.
     
  19. [email protected] (brianb) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Well the other day I said that LA should have tried to gain time on LU by going with Hamilton, and
    > that it was dangerous to try to sit on a one minute lead. Of course I was roundly condemned, with
    > one poster even calling me a troll!
    >
    > I don't know much about cycling, obviously. But it seems for most of the time, there's no benefit
    > to try to gain on your competition. Most days nothing happens. I think this is b/c of the wind
    > advantage offered by the peloton. To escape you have to break away, do all the work yourself, and
    > then be able to hold that position until the end.
    >
    > As a result of this, there's really very little "racing". The only real racing is in ITT, TTT, and
    > in stages that end in a climb (where wind resistance is of little advantage b/c of slow speeds).
    >
    > So you have days like today, where LU and LA are in the peloton behind the breakaway team which is
    > 20 minutes ahead. Why don't LA and LU follow them and try to gain time on each other. Make a
    > "race" of it, so to speak.

    They both know that they won't have a chance to get away from the peloton on the flat stages. In
    fact the only reason Hamilton managed to hold on until the finish was because the only riders who
    where initially threatened by Hamilton on GC was Basso, Mayo and Zubeldia. Basso only had Brushegin
    to help him in the group and the Euskaltel riders aren't strong enough to take any time on Hamilton
    on the flats and downhills. And when they started taking in time on him on the last climb, Mayo gets
    a puncture and the chase came to a halt. By the time the peloton started working together for real,
    Hamilton already had the time he needed to stay away until the end. If Armstrong had followed him
    there would have been alot more riders helping to get them back earlier so there would have been no
    breakaway.

    > "No, no, no! you idiot!, they should stay with the peloton...don't waste energy trying to gain
    > advantage!".
    >
    > OK, then, that's why people don't quite get cycling. Most of the time they're not really racing,
    > just going for a ride in the country. A fast ride, a long ride, at speeds I couldn't do
    > (obviously), but they're not really "racing" per se. The real racing is done in only a few stages
    > at only a few times.

    No way that you could keep up with the peloton on any stage of the tour regardless of how flat it
    is. You need the experience of knowing how to keep someones wheel and how to sit in a peloton to
    have any chance whatsoever. Even a lot of cycling pros riding for the first time at a the level of
    the tour have trouble staying in the peloton before they get used to the high pace.
     
  20. "Gerrit Stolte" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Errr ... because it's meaningless, cuz the ref's clock doesn't show the remaining time either?

    That's why I used the phrase "or whatever the official timepiece is," to indicate that they
    should use whatever the official timepiece is if it's not the ref's clock. I mean, *someone*
    must know how much time is left, right?

    "Stephen Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > It builds the tension; you know the whistle will go, but you don't know when. Seems to work
    > everywhere else in the world.

    I disagree. Knowing exactly when the game will end generates much more tension, if that's what
    you're after. (And "seems to work everywhere else" is like saying, "We should do it this way
    because we've always done it this way," i.e. not much of a reason.)

    > Was someone just talking about stupid Americans trying to change other peoples sports to suit
    > their limited intelligence?

    Your snotty tone aside, I'll just say that I wasn't suggesting a change to the game at all, just
    to the way it's shown to US TV viewers. See the difference?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...