Sagan and Cancellara were atrociously badly positioned, and their teams were caught out big time by the crosswinds earlier in the race. Had Trek in particular not had to work to get back to Cance in the first place, they could have positioned him much better; even if they hadn't positioned him better, they still could have allowed him to not do so much work so early.rhubroma said:Boonen was lucky, given his current form, Cancellara and Sagan were delayed by crashes. They weren't badly positioned, just 2/3 of the field got into a wreck.Maaaaaaaarten said:Being positioned well and having a strong team isn't luck. Boonen, Vanmarcke and Stannard were in contention because they were positioned well and because they had strong teams that could maintain the gap to Cancellara and Sagan when they had been caught out of position.rhubroma said:It was a shame Boonen didn't make history. I'd have liked a straight up battle between Sagan and Cancellara, but thus was not to be. The thing that bites me is that Boonen, who under other circumstances would have been a favorite, came through with luck, though not enough to win. Instead someone who will never make history won. Fate is cruel.
Also, Matthew Hayman made history by winning this race. This race will be remembered for many years to come as an exceptionally fine edition of Paris-Roubaix and Matthew Hayman will be remembered for many years to come as the winner of this race and rightly so.
As it was Hayman becamed the "strong man," which really is telling about the fiasco the race became. People are praising this though as the "best race ever." Verily it was anticlimatic.