musette said:
But CSC's Bobby Julich told Cyclingnews that:... "When you are second or third, you can try to make moves but at the same time something may go wrong in that situation. We made the main decision in the time trial because it would be very hard to gain time especially without time bonuses at the finish anymore. There wasn't much talk because we had Jens up the road and we wanted to play that card for a stage win, because he was riding super-strong today. I think Discovery had the same thing in their mind which is why we weren't as aggressive."
If Bruyneel had people in #2 and 3, he wouldn't be going for the stage win (at least not in Stage 5). That Jens was up the road didn't mean Riis had to go for the stage win. Julich's observation that Discovery had the same strategy as CSC and that that validates CSC's Stage 5 strategy is flawed because:
General classification after stage 4
1 Floyd Landis (USA) Phonak Hearing Systems 12.37.38
2 David Zabriskie (USA) Team CSC 0.29
3 Bobby Julich (USA) Team CSC 0.34
4 George Hincapie (USA) Discovery Channel 0.45
5 Nathan O'Neill (Aus) Health Net p/b Maxxis 1.08
The differences are:
(1) CSC was only 29" behind Landis, which, even though large given the circumstances, was a lot less of a difference than Hincapie's 45".
(2) CSC had two people up there, and therefore a slightly better chance in case Landis could be dislodged.
(3) Hincapie is a stronger in a field sprint than Zabriskie or Julich. This is in part because of Hincapie's role, a long time ago, as more of a sprinter, before he made an effort to strengthen himself in the mountains to improve his support of Lance.
(4) Hincapie has a stronger team, for climbing in Stage 5, than Julich/Zabriske. This increased Hincapie's chances of winning the stage, in the event that Eki's breakway did not succeed.
Team CSC
2 Bobby Julich (USA)
3 Lars Ytting Bak (Den)
4 Fabian Cancellara (Swi)
5 Karsten Kroon (Ned)
6 Stuart O'Grady (Aus)
7 Christian Vandevelde (USA)
8 Jens Voigt (Ger)
9 David Zabriskie (USA)
Discovery
51
Paolo Savoldelli (Ita)
52
Michael Barry (Can)
53 Janez Brajkovic (Slo)
54
Thomas Danielson (USA)
55 Viatcheslav Ekimov (Rus)
56 Vladimir Gusev (Rus)
57 George Hincapie (USA)
58
Jason McCartney (USA)
Hincapie has five or six of his teammates around him (in a group of around 40 cyclists) at the end with him in Stage 5. Even before the stage, Bruyneel probably thought Savoldelli and Danielson and probably Barry and McCartney would be with Hincapie at the end in a field sprint.
Because the riders surrounding Hincapie that Bruyneel chose for the TofCA were better climbers on average than Zabriskie and Julich's teammates (Cancellera and O'Grady -- I don't think they would be there), that was another reason that Bruyneel's strategy of going for the stage win with Eki after there was a bit of a climb made sense. Bruyneel thought he probably would have some numbers at the end, which he did, if Eki did not succeed and he were to try and win the stage through a field sprint.
(5) Hincapie has been showing good sprinting form, including through already having won a stage at the TofCA.
(6) In Discovery's case, the person with the opportunity to win the stage in the event that breakway involving Eki did not succeed was also the highest DC cyclist on GC (Hincapie). That meant that, in the event the "backup (Hincapie)" stage win strategy for DC paid off (after the Eki stage win strategy failed), Hincapie would gain a 10" bonus and would reduce slightly the distance to Landis in the event something unexpected came up in later stage and time could be taken out of Landis.
