114th Paris-Roubaix - UCI World Tour (10/4-2016)

Page 60 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Maaaaaaaarten said:
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.
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.

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. :)
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.

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." :eek: Verily it was anticlimatic.
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.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,093
4
0
Kwibus said:
I know your feeling. That's why these days I always record important races if I can't see them live.
I avoided news/internet like the best in the world to avoid spoilers. So I watched it like ot was live and I don't regret it's almost 3 at night since I think I just watched the best rave I've ever seen.
Ah, lucky you. Even if I avoid spoilers, I don't feel the thrill with recorded races because I know the die has already been cast, even if I don't know what number it showed.
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
Re:

hrotha said:
Sagan and Cancellara had +100 km to fix the situation. They were very much not taken out of contention by that crash.
Seems to me they weren't good enough. They had to close a gap of 30 seconds at some point. If they were really at top shape, they could have done it.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Maaaaaaaarten said:
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.
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.

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. :)
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.

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." :eek: Verily it was anticlimatic.
I have no idea what I'm reading here. I preferred any of the other 4, but Haymann won fair and square. The race was edge of seat from km 0 to 80 and then with 120km to go again.
Ofcourse it was a great race. So you say it sucked because Hayman won? And because Sagan, Cancellara werent able tomclose the gap, well that was their problem and they were clearly not that superior.

What I also liked from this race was that it was pretty much every man for himself. Which made the race incredibly open.

Edit: yes you are entitled to your own opinion, but you have to accept the fact that nobody can take you serious anymore :D
 
Re: Re:

Kwibus said:
rhubroma said:
Maaaaaaaarten said:
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.
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.

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. :)
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.

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." :eek: Verily it was anticlimatic.
I have no idea what I'm reading here. I preferred any of the other 4, but Haymann won fair and square. The race was edge of seat from km 0 to 80 and then with 120km to go again.
Ofcourse it was a great race. So you say it sucked because Hayman won? And because Sagan, Cancellara werent able tomclose the gap, well that was their problem and they were clearly not that superior.

What I also liked from this race was that it was pretty much every man for himself. Which made the race incredibly open.

Edit: yes you are entitled to your own opinion, but you have to accept the fact that nobody can take you serious anymore :D
Sore loser. :p :D
 
Re: Re:

Cannibal72 said:
rhubroma said:
Maaaaaaaarten said:
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.
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.

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. :)
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.

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." :eek: Verily it was anticlimatic.
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.
Surely before Arenberg their position would have been much better. They got caught out. In any case, Panzer made the race, for which I was ruing the day after his view on Nibali at TA. :mad:
 
The opinion anyone is entitled to does not change the facts. Anyone is entitled to believe that the earth is flat, that does not change the fact that it isn't.

When a crash even before Haveluy, those who were obstacled by it usually come back before Aremberg. In this case, it wasn't. Why? Because the said riders were not good enough. At a moment, the Cancellara-Sagan group cut the gap with the Boonen-Vanmarcke group down to 30 seconds. It would have been easy for a strong man of the pack to bridge that gap alone on Mons-en-Pévèle or on Auchy. 30 seconds is bridgeable on one section alone for a hot favourite in top form (Van Petegem had a bigger gap to bridge on the Carrefour de l'Arbre in 2003). If they couldn't bridge that gap, it means that they were not good enough. Besides, Cancellara crashed alone, like a man, which shows how much he lacked clear-mindedness. Besides, there's the bad positioning at the moment of the crash, already mentioned, which is no bad luck, it's their own mistake. In Haveluy, you got to be in front. They all know that.

The best riders were in front, period. Paris-Roubaix is not a race where luck plays a bigger part than any other races.
 
Clearly the above poster has forgotten to take his meds, or else has been hitting the bottle hard again.

Since we're talking about states of opinion and not matters of fact, as the above poster erroneously claims, then I say whenever some of the race favorites are taken out of contention, because of a crash that happened to leave a main rival in the ideal position, with the perfect teammate to maintain the gap, then it becomes frustrating to watch.

Plus anyone that thinks pulling back 40 secs., not 30, in 3 ks after all that chasing was feasable is clearly not in a right state of mind.
 
Re: Re:

BigMac said:
Lars said he suffered heavily but it was cool to do it.

He raced after three crashes, then almost got back Aremberg and then you had a heavier crash and he knew that was the end of it. He said his experience as a cyclocrosser eased his bike handling on the cobbles and that he could easily avoid crashes. :)

Also he's scheduled to race the Tour of Belgium, the ZLN Tour, the Nats and the Dauphiné!! :eek:
http://www.wielerflits.nl/nieuws/155244/lars-van-der-haar-in-parijs-roubaix-zwaar-afgezien-maar-gaaf-om-te-doen.html
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re:

rhubroma said:
Clearly the above poster has forgotten to take his meds, or else has been hitting the bottle hard again.

Since we're talking about states of opinion and not matters of fact, as the above poster erroneously claims, then I say whenever some of the race favorites are taken out of contention, because of a crash that happened to leave a main rival in the ideal position, with the perfect teammate to maintain the gap, then it becomes frustrating to watch.

Plus anyone that thinks pulling back 40 secs., not 30, in 3 ks after all that chasing was feasable is clearly not in a right state of mind.
The man is 100% right!
They (the main favorites, Sagan and Cancellara) were badly positioned - Their mistake!
Their teams were badly positioned - Their mistake again, they're the leaders!
They had 120km to race and catch that group, in which only ONE MAN worked for aprox.50km. They manage to cut only 30sec in 70km - That's poor riding!
Cancellara fell all by himself, because of bad bike handling - Clearly his mistake!
Sagan wasn't strong enough to bridge that gap after Cancellara fell, in fact gap only rise after that - He was not the strongest, that's for sure!
Conclusion is that the best and the strongest riders of the day were in front.
 
Re:

rhubroma said:
Clearly the above poster has forgotten to take his meds, or else has been hitting the bottle hard again.

Since we're talking about states of opinion and not matters of fact, as the above poster erroneously claims, then I say whenever some of the race favorites are taken out of contention, because of a crash that happened to leave a main rival in the ideal position, with the perfect teammate to maintain the gap, then it becomes frustrating to watch.

Plus anyone that thinks pulling back 40 secs., not 30, in 3 ks after all that chasing was feasable is clearly not in a right state of mind.
Come on this is Paris - Roubaix. It's part of the race.
You judge the race on the fact that you wanted Cance and Sagan in the finale, but they got pushed out by other teams who did everything to kill them when they had the chance. Allthough I realllly like Cance and Sagan and I wished them more luck this was simply part of racing. If they really were superior they would've made it back, but they weren't.
I'm not saying that if they were to ride the final they wouldn't have won, but superior they certainly were not.

I judge the race on how the race unfolded and that was just nerve wrecking. If you judge the race without rider bias then you can not say it was a bad race. It's just not possible since it was a race that was raced REALLY HARD for more then 100km and Cance and Sagan were a big part of that. Since they lost connection with the front of the race it became epic.
So they certainly contributed to the fact that this race was great.
 
Re: Re:

Echoes said:
BigMac said:
Lars said he suffered heavily but it was cool to do it.

He raced after three crashes, then almost got back Aremberg and then you had a heavier crash and he knew that was the end of it. He said his experience as a cyclocrosser eased his bike handling on the cobbles and that he could easily avoid crashes. :)

Also he's scheduled to race the Tour of Belgium, the ZLN Tour, the Nats and the Dauphiné!! :eek:
http://www.wielerflits.nl/nieuws/155244/lars-van-der-haar-in-parijs-roubaix-zwaar-afgezien-maar-gaaf-om-te-doen.html
He only was back in training for 2 weeks before Roubaix so it was unlikely he would finish it. He wants to try it again in good shape though.
 
Re: Re:

Kwibus said:
rhubroma said:
Maaaaaaaarten said:
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.
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.

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. :)
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.

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." :eek: Verily it was anticlimatic.
I have no idea what I'm reading here. I preferred any of the other 4, but Haymann won fair and square. The race was edge of seat from km 0 to 80 and then with 120km to go again.
Ofcourse it was a great race. So you say it sucked because Hayman won? And because Sagan, Cancellara werent able tomclose the gap, well that was their problem and they were clearly not that superior.

What I also liked from this race was that it was pretty much every man for himself. Which made the race incredibly open.

Edit: yes you are entitled to your own opinion, but you have to accept the fact that nobody can take you serious anymore :D
This.
 
Come, come now. I'll I've been saying is the race wasn't good for me, because Sagan and Cancellara were eliminated before they had a chance to have a go at it. Some might have liked to have the two big contenders eliminated a such, but not me. And if you think they weren't among the strongest in the race then there is really no point in taking any of you serious either. :p
 
Re:

rhubroma said:
Come, come now. I'll I've been saying is the race wasn't good for me, because Sagan and Cancellara were eliminated before they had a chance to have a go at it. Some might have liked to have the two big contenders eliminated a such, but not me. And if you think they weren't among the strongest in the race then there is really no point in taking any of you serious either. :p
Why does it matter if they were the strongest are not? If you want to see a battle of the strongest, just watch time trials. The beauty of cobbled classics is the combination of tactics, luck and strength. This edition had everything, and Cancellara simply wasn't strong enough to get back on.

Not really sure why you assume Sagan was among the strongest either. This is the fourth time he's ridden Roubaix and he has still yet to do anything really noteworthy on the pave.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
rhubroma said:
Come, come now. I'll I've been saying is the race wasn't good for me, because Sagan and Cancellara were eliminated before they had a chance to have a go at it. Some might have liked to have the two big contenders eliminated a such, but not me. And if you think they weren't among the strongest in the race then there is really no point in taking any of you serious either. :p
Why does it matter if they were the strongest are not? If you want to see a battle of the strongest, just watch time trials. The beauty of cobbled classics is the combination of tactics, luck and strength. This edition had everything, and Cancellara simply wasn't strong enough to get back on.

Not really sure why you assume Sagan was among the strongest either. This is the fourth time he's ridden Roubaix and he has still yet to do anything really noteworthy on the pave.
Let me say it again. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, mine is that I don't like races that are so adversely effected by crashes, PR or not PR. And TTs aren't the only races in which we get to see a show of strength between the top contenders. Every race is potentially about that, but also tactics, guts, etc.

I can never appreciate, however, when a race is won or lost because of a crash or mechanical, especially when it takes out the two I was most curious about. Now I didn't like the 2014 Tour after Froome and then Contador crashed out for the same reason.

And it doesn't matter if it was their own fault or not. That doesn't make it any more or less agreeable. I'd have preferred them all, the favorites that is, to have gotten through Arenberg and then have a big battle mano a mano. But, alas, that was not to be. Though I'm perfectly legitimized to hold the opinion that I wasn't happy with the outcome. Others can reason otherwise with equal legitimacy, but I find it poor form to say I don't know what I'm talking about, just for disliking how a particular narrative unfolded for the reasons it did. To then say that Sagan and Cancellara were weaker, when they had to chase down an insurmountable gap is either a false reading of the race, lack of understanding or else intellectual dishonesty IMOP.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
DFA123 said:
rhubroma said:
Come, come now. I'll I've been saying is the race wasn't good for me, because Sagan and Cancellara were eliminated before they had a chance to have a go at it. Some might have liked to have the two big contenders eliminated a such, but not me. And if you think they weren't among the strongest in the race then there is really no point in taking any of you serious either. :p
Why does it matter if they were the strongest are not? If you want to see a battle of the strongest, just watch time trials. The beauty of cobbled classics is the combination of tactics, luck and strength. This edition had everything, and Cancellara simply wasn't strong enough to get back on.

Not really sure why you assume Sagan was among the strongest either. This is the fourth time he's ridden Roubaix and he has still yet to do anything really noteworthy on the pave.
Let me say it again. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, mine is that I don't like races that are so adversely effected by crashes, PR or not PR. And TTs aren't the only races in which we get to see a show of strength between the top contenders. Every race is potentially about that, but also tactics, guts, etc.

I can never appreciate, however, when a race is won or lost because of a crash or mechanical, especially when it takes out the two I was most curious about. Now I didn't like the 2014 Tour after Froome and then Contador crashed out for the same reason.

And it doesn't matter if it was their own fault or not. That doesn't make it any more or less agreeable. I'd have preferred them all, the favorites that is, to have gotten through Arenberg and then have a big battle mano a mano. But, alas, that was not to be. Though I'm perfectly legitimized to hold the opinion that I wasn't happy with the outcome. Others can reason otherwise with equal legitimacy, but I find it poor form to say I don't know what I'm talking about, just for disliking how a particular narrative unfolded for the reasons it did. To then say that Sagan and Cancellara were weaker, when they had to chase down an insurmountable gap is either a false reading of the race, lack of understanding or else intellectual dishonesty IMOP.
I'm sorry, are you implying Sagan and Cancellara were new to the concept of PR? Every year there are contenders that crash out or lose because of a crash. Greg Van Avermaet and Benoot at RVV, Sagan & Canc at PR... it even happens at the Tour, Giro, Vuelta... each year competitors crash out.

As for the situation in PR yesterday, they (Sagan & Canc) lost because they were too far in the peloton. In fact, had Cancellara been so superb, he could have taken over from Stuyven when Stuyven closed the gap to 30 seconds. The group up front was freewheeling at this time. They took their chance not being at the front all the time and they paid the price. Simple. Cancellara's crash was completely his own fault as well.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS