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

Page 61 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
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.
Look, this is neither here nor there. The way PR played out yesterday was unusual, even for PR. It wasn't to be expected that the crash would have taken out the two favorites at that point, or that Boonen could have relied on such a powerful Martin (at least in this being his first PR) to make the gap practically impossible to close. But that's what happened. I'm not required to like the race we got though, or am I not allowed to have a preference?

That Cancellara was perhaps not in his best form, doesn't necessarily mean that without the crash he wouldn't have been able to do something. Perhaps not, perhaps he'd have gotten dropped anyway. But we will never know. The same for Sagan. In the end even Boonen came up short. Hats off to the winner, but it was just a shame we didn't get the big battle for which I had hoped.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re: Re:

Dekker_Tifosi said:
Logic-is-your-friend said:
Vanmarcke/GVA better start winning some PR in the coming years or Belgium will lose its lead!

Belgium: 55 victories
Rest of the world: 54 victories
They won't
Tiesj will
Stuyven has a much better chance for PR than Benoot, to my mind.
 
Re: Re:

Dekker_Tifosi said:
Logic-is-your-friend said:
Vanmarcke/GVA better start winning some PR in the coming years or Belgium will lose its lead!

Belgium: 55 victories
Rest of the world: 54 victories
They won't
Tiesj will
I think Tiesj is too much of a lightweight (physically) for winning PR at his age. I'm not saying he'll never be able to win it, but i see him doing better (sooner) at RVV, or even AGR. He's not "just" a classic / cobbles rider. I think he's a better climber than (the overrated) Wellens. He has a special profile, and he reminds me somewhat of Criquielion.

Cannibal72 said:
Dekker_Tifosi said:
They won't
Tiesj will
Stuyven has a much better chance for PR than Benoot, to my mind.
Looking at their physical attributes, i would tend to agree.

rhubroma said:
Look, this is neither here nor there. The way PR played out yesterday was unusual, even for PR. It wasn't to be expected that the crash would have taken out the two favorites at that point, or that Boonen could have relied on such a powerful Martin (at least in this being his first PR) to make the gap practically impossible to close. But that's what happened. I'm not required to like the race we got though, or am I not allowed to have a preference?

That Cancellara was perhaps not in his best form, doesn't necessarily mean that without the crash he wouldn't have been able to do something. Perhaps not, perhaps he'd have gotten dropped anyway. But we will never know. The same for Sagan. In the end even Boonen came up short. Hats off to the winner, but it was just a shame we didn't get the big battle for which I had hoped.
Sure, you can have your opinion. But saying Boonen had Martin doing the donkey's work, but ignoring what Stuyven did for Cancellara is a bit disingenious. Fact of the matter is, if they were good enough, surely they could have bridged the gap that was 30 seconds at that moment. If you get a flat at PR, you also have to bridge such a gap. And they knew the risk of not racing in the front, they chose to take that risk. This is more tactical error on their behalf than "bad luck".
 
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
Dekker_Tifosi said:
Logic-is-your-friend said:
Vanmarcke/GVA better start winning some PR in the coming years or Belgium will lose its lead!

Belgium: 55 victories
Rest of the world: 54 victories
They won't
Tiesj will
I think Tiesj is too much of a lightweight (physically) for winning PR at his age. I'm not saying he'll never be able to win it, but i see him doing better (sooner) at RVV, or even AGR. He's not "just" a classic / cobbles rider. I think he's a better climber than (the overrated) Wellens. He has a special profile, and he reminds me somewhat of Criquielion.

Cannibal72 said:
Dekker_Tifosi said:
They won't
Tiesj will
Stuyven has a much better chance for PR than Benoot, to my mind.
Looking at their physical attributes, i would tend to agree.

rhubroma said:
Look, this is neither here nor there. The way PR played out yesterday was unusual, even for PR. It wasn't to be expected that the crash would have taken out the two favorites at that point, or that Boonen could have relied on such a powerful Martin (at least in this being his first PR) to make the gap practically impossible to close. But that's what happened. I'm not required to like the race we got though, or am I not allowed to have a preference?

That Cancellara was perhaps not in his best form, doesn't necessarily mean that without the crash he wouldn't have been able to do something. Perhaps not, perhaps he'd have gotten dropped anyway. But we will never know. The same for Sagan. In the end even Boonen came up short. Hats off to the winner, but it was just a shame we didn't get the big battle for which I had hoped.
Sure, you can have your opinion. But saying Boonen had Martin doing the donkey's work, but ignoring what Stuyven did for Cancellara is a bit disingenious. Fact of the matter is, if they were good enough, surely they could have bridged the gap that was 30 seconds at that moment. If you get a flat at PR, you also have to bridge such a gap. And they knew the risk of not racing in the front, they chose to take that risk. This is more tactical error on their behalf than "bad luck".
It's disingenuous of me to think Stuyven's got the same motor as Martin? That's rich. The gap was up around 2 mins I think at one point. Now you think that's "easy" to real back with a deisel like Martin setting the pace? He's one of the best, if not the best, rouleurs in the world for Christ's sake. :eek:

In fact Martin made that gap stick, not the others, and not the eventual winner. It's what it was, I know.

Tactically, it's true, Cance and Sagan should have been up further, although it is also true that being out of the wind as much as possible is astute when it comes to the latter part of the race. They were thus also just pretty damn unlucky, even for PR.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
It's disingenuous of me to think Stuyven's got the same motor as Martin? That's rich. The gap was up around 2 mins I think at one point. Now you think that's "easy" to real back with a deisel like Martin setting the pace? He's one of the best, if not the best, rouleurs in the world for Christ's sake. :eek:

In fact Martin made that gap stick, not the others, and not the eventual winner. It's what it was, I know.

Tactically, it's true, Cance and Sagan should have been up further, although it is also true that being out of the wind as much as possible is astute when it comes to the latter part of the race. They were thus also just pretty damn unlucky, even for PR.
You are not looking at the facts. Whether Martin has a bigger engine, or whether Martin is half as much a natural coblerider as Stuyven, has nothing to do with the facts at hand:

You are forgetting Martin had already done alot of work before the peloton split up trying to chase the leaders (because Ettix had once again nobody in the break), so he was not as fresh as you are making it out. The fact of the matter is, Stuyven brought Cancellara and Sagan back within 30 seconds of the group Boonen. Whether you think Stuyven has a smaller engine than a half cooked Martin is completely besides the point. In fact, the fact that you say the gap was 2 minutes at one point only shows how much work Stuyven had done. He took 50 seconds off the gap, going from 1m20 to 30 seconds.

Cancellara had not done more work in the back than Boonen did in the front, quite the opposite. So everyting was still possible when Stuyven was cooked.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Gigs_98 said:
I want to cry right now. I watch every freakin race in the whole season and the first big one day race, of the whole year which I miss is described by long time fans like Eshnar as the best Paris Roubaix they have ever seen. Seriously, how high are the odds that I will ever get the chance to see such a PR again. :cry:

Oh and btw, the penultimate WT one day race I didnt watch was Gent Wevelgem 2015, no f***ing joke :eek:
I know it's not quite the same, but here's the final 70 kms.

https://youtu.be/kNSKEq1QFOQ
 
Jul 5, 2011
858
0
0
It was a factor that the race was broadcast from start to finish. We often hear how 50k's or more were covered in the first hour, but yesterday we got the chance to see how a number like that really works. The intensity of the early miles was quite something, it was full gas from the start and never seemed to ease up. The line out was stretched to breaking point repeatedly. Echelons formed in the relentless wind over the plains giving a continual attrition. In fact I found the situation at the back of the peloton, when it was shown, as compelling as that at the front. Then the cobbles began and the main drama of the race started to unfold.
IMO the front five totally deserved to be leaders into the velodrome and Hayman was the strongest of those when it really mattered. Maybe a few others would have been equally deserving of a place in the vanguard, notably Tony Martin, but that is the lottery element of PR, there are always hard luck stories. I enjoyed it for the brilliant spectacle that it was without dwelling too much on whether it was the greatest ever.
 
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
rhubroma said:
It's disingenuous of me to think Stuyven's got the same motor as Martin? That's rich. The gap was up around 2 mins I think at one point. Now you think that's "easy" to real back with a deisel like Martin setting the pace? He's one of the best, if not the best, rouleurs in the world for Christ's sake. :eek:

In fact Martin made that gap stick, not the others, and not the eventual winner. It's what it was, I know.

Tactically, it's true, Cance and Sagan should have been up further, although it is also true that being out of the wind as much as possible is astute when it comes to the latter part of the race. They were thus also just pretty damn unlucky, even for PR.
You are not looking at the facts. Whether Martin has a bigger engine, or whether Martin is half as much a natural coblerider as Stuyven, has nothing to do with the facts at hand:

You are forgetting Martin had already done alot of work before the peloton split up trying to chase the leaders (because Ettix had once again nobody in the break), so he was not as fresh as you are making it out. The fact of the matter is, Stuyven brought Cancellara and Sagan back within 30 seconds of the group Boonen. Whether you think Stuyven has a smaller engine than a half cooked Martin is completely besides the point. In fact, the fact that you say the gap was 2 minutes at one point only shows how much work Stuyven had done. He took 50 seconds off the gap, going from 1m20 to 30 seconds.

Cancellara had not done more work in the back than Boonen did in the front, quite the opposite. So everyting was still possible when Stuyven was cooked.
Which facts am I not looking at? Did or did he not (Martin) make that gap stick? Now who's being the disingenuous one? Martin was quite capable of holding off Stuyven and co, as the facts you have refered to demonstrated. Stuyven was cooked, but so where the others. Boonen had the benefit of riding Martin's wheel and didn't have to close the gap, so the residual energy levels worked in his favor. Cancellara and Sagan weren't able to close it, but such would have required superman.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Logic-is-your-friend said:
rhubroma said:
It's disingenuous of me to think Stuyven's got the same motor as Martin? That's rich. The gap was up around 2 mins I think at one point. Now you think that's "easy" to real back with a deisel like Martin setting the pace? He's one of the best, if not the best, rouleurs in the world for Christ's sake. :eek:

In fact Martin made that gap stick, not the others, and not the eventual winner. It's what it was, I know.

Tactically, it's true, Cance and Sagan should have been up further, although it is also true that being out of the wind as much as possible is astute when it comes to the latter part of the race. They were thus also just pretty damn unlucky, even for PR.
You are not looking at the facts. Whether Martin has a bigger engine, or whether Martin is half as much a natural coblerider as Stuyven, has nothing to do with the facts at hand:

You are forgetting Martin had already done alot of work before the peloton split up trying to chase the leaders (because Ettix had once again nobody in the break), so he was not as fresh as you are making it out. The fact of the matter is, Stuyven brought Cancellara and Sagan back within 30 seconds of the group Boonen. Whether you think Stuyven has a smaller engine than a half cooked Martin is completely besides the point. In fact, the fact that you say the gap was 2 minutes at one point only shows how much work Stuyven had done. He took 50 seconds off the gap, going from 1m20 to 30 seconds.

Cancellara had not done more work in the back than Boonen did in the front, quite the opposite. So everyting was still possible when Stuyven was cooked.
Which facts am I not looking at? Did or did he not (Martin) make that gap stick? Now who's being the disingenuous one? Martin was quite capable of holding off Stuyven and co, as the facts you have refered to demonstrated. Stuyven was cooked, but so where the others. Boonen had the benefit of riding Martin's wheel and didn't have to close the gap, so the residual energy levels worked in his favor. Cancellara and Sagan weren't able to close it, but such would have required superman.
lol lol lol

Stuyven brought Cancellara and Sagan back within 30 seconds of the group Boonen. If they wanted to bridge, they could have done it then and there. They didn't. This has nothing to do with Martin. Sagan and Cancellara couldn't/wouldn't bridge a 30 sedond gap on their own. If they were better, they would have bridged. If they were smarter, they wouldn't have had to.

End of story.
 
End of your story. You refuse to acknowledge the decisive factor Martin played in keeping that split alive.It was obvious that by the time Stuyvens dropped off, the others were too cooked to bridge the gap, which Martin was still driving.

You don't consider that to come back to 30 sec. on Maritn required Stuyvens to literally bury himself, while it was evident that it also took its tole on Cance. But Martin wasn't going that deep, so it was all about him. LOL
 
Re: Re:

Kwibus said:
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.
I had no illusion bu t perhaps secretly wish he could. For sure, a feiather-weight crosser, not used to racing for longer than 6 hours and unprepared, having to replace an injured teammate, that was hard to do.

I think he's end of contract with Giant by December. So that should mean he will sign again for a road team? What is weird is that when I remember his U23 years, he seemed like one of the least performers among top crossers of his generations, Gert-Jan Bosman had better results on the road while a far lesser talented crosser. :)
 
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
I didn't like that they got eliminated. I love both of them, but it was how the race unfolded. Etixx took their chance allthough quickly their numbers were down to just 2 as well. Luckily 1 of them was Der Tony though.
I really wanted to see Cancellara and Sagan duking it out as well, but they got held up and then never managed to come back because the race exploded and their teams failed and they didn't have the legs to do it.
Boonen who I really like, but isn't really my favourite did gain a few stars in my liking book though for smashing the race apart.

I can watch a race and see my favourites get knocked out, but then I'm still fully capable to see that it was a grande majestic incredibly amazing race.
 
Re:

rhubroma said:
End of your story. You refuse to acknowledge the decisive factor Martin played in keeping that split alive.It was obvious that by the time Stuyvens dropped off, the others were too cooked to bridge the gap, which Martin was still driving.

You don't consider that to come back to 30 sec. on Maritn required Stuyvens to literally bury himself, while it was evident that it also took its tole on Cance. But Martin wasn't going that deep, so it was all about him. LOL
Stuyven did all the work, got a few moments help from Popo, but all the others just rode in his wheel. By the time Stuyven brought them back, Martin was already cooked. Cancellara/Sagan... did no more work in the back than Boonen/Vanmarcke... did in the front. Sure, Cancellara lost Stuyven, and Boonen lost Martin.

But you are literally saying Martin was stronger than Stuyven + Cancellara with "Maritn required Stuyvens to literally bury himself, while it was evident that it also took its tole on Cance. But Martin wasn't going that deep, so it was all about him." So "lol" indeed. It took its tole on cancellara, sitting in Stuyvens wheel, but it didn't take its tole on Boonen sitting in Martins wheel. Your logic makes no sense whatsover.

The only thing that matters was that the second peloton was brought back to 30 seconds when Martin was out of the picture (you need to look at the race again if you think Martin was still going strong at that moment), and that Sagan and Cancellara were not good enough to bridge 30 seconds. Maybe they ware equally strong, but certainly not much stronger or they would have bridged the gap at that moment. And being careless or stupid can cost you a race just as much as bad luck or bad tactics. They had nobody to blame but themselves for being in the second peloton and they have nobody to blame but themselves for not being able to bridge a 30 second gap.

But according to you, Martin was so strong and still fresh, when Stuyven took 50 seconds off the gap? Looks like Martin was not that fresh anymore if Stuyven could reduce the gap that much. Also, if Stuyven can close 50 seconds... why would it require "superman" (your wording) to close the last 30 seconds?
 
But Boonen didn't have to close the friggin gap!!!

I don't follow your "logic."

What don't you understand about bringing the gap down requiring more effort (even following wheels) than it did for those in the lead (who didn't have to bridge the gap)? Hence Boonen and co. were less tired than Cance and the others. Plus, at that point, the race was entering its most crucial phase. Too much for Cance, but it is no fault of his that he wasn't able to bridge up. It was simply too much to ask.

And I still think Cance and Sagan were more unlucky then using bad tacticts. Normally one tries to stay out of the wind as long as one can before Arenberg. This year the unexpected happened, even for PR.
 
Re: Re:

Kwibus 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
I didn't like that they got eliminated. I love both of them, but it was how the race unfolded. Etixx took their chance allthough quickly their numbers were down to just 2 as well. Luckily 1 of them was Der Tony though.
I really wanted to see Cancellara and Sagan duking it out as well, but they got held up and then never managed to come back because the race exploded and their teams failed and they didn't have the legs to do it.
Boonen who I really like, but isn't really my favourite did gain a few stars in my liking book though for smashing the race apart.


I can watch a race and see my favourites get knocked out, but then I'm still fully capable to see that it was a grande majestic incredibly amazing race.
To the first bolded, this was all I was reacting to.

To the second bolded, in fact, which was a shame for anyone wanting to see the big battles. Instead they were caught off gaurd and then out ridden, but only because of the deficit they had accumulated. I understand what you are saying, but personally I was disappointed in the fact that what we got was the desperate chase and not the mano a mano confrontation.

I guess when some get knocked out for reasons like crashes, before the fight was to really begin, then, yes, that's a bummer for me.
 
Back on topic. Martin is a diesel engine when in form. You need 2 orr 3 riders working to bring back Martin or a guy like Kiriyenka or a Van Den Bergh type.


Anyway apparently Van Marcke will be at a new team in 2017. He'll have many suitors.
 
Jul 1, 2013
110
0
0
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
rhubroma said:
But Boonen didn't have to close the friggin gap!!!

I don't follow your "logic."
Ok. No problem. My logic is, they had themselves to blame for having to chase. And they have themselves to blame for not being able to bridge. That's all.
If this is your logic, you are mostly right. But it has nothing to do with what rhubroma writes. He (like me) was looking forward to the clash of titans and it didnt materialize. Happy for winner and race, but this was the last chance for their battle. (Still I rated it 9.) Also I think you overestimate those GPS gaps and make strong conclusions about weakness of Cancelara & Sagan. At the point where Stuyven stepped back and Cancellara and Sagan attacked (cca 60 km to go) the gap was about 40 sec. At 57 km to go the gap was about 35 seconds. Then Boonen group started to cooperate very effectively. So it was Cance&Sagan vs about 10 riders. At 48 km to go the gap was cca 45 sec, at 46 km to go Cancellara crashed. Would they close the gap - we can guess only. They would still be probably done (especially Sagan). But they vere very strong in this race and leading group had to work hard to keep them off. Sagan and Cancellara deserve more credit for their race.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY