2011 Tour de France Stage 11: Blaye-les-Mines Lavaur 167.5 km

[King Of The Wolds]

For someone who likes cycling, Libertine sure does hate cycling.

+1, although he did claim to enjoy a race once, I think, back on the Beeb site.

To be fair, even as a lover of sprints, and as somebody who's enjoyed the last week and a half immensely, the Tour would have benefitted from a bit more GC action so far. An ITT would have been perfect.

 

[El Pistolero]

I think it's extremely charitable to call the Gap stage a mountain stage. Greipel's win was hardly 'epic'. A sprint, by definition, is not 'epic'.

The whole stage was epic. I'm not talking about Greipel's win alone.

 

[Jamsque]

I absolutely agree that an ITT or a mountain finish to sort out the GC and stop the crash madness would have been welcome some time in the first week. I don't think lack of GC action = boring racing, though.

This is what I don't get: it is really easy to look at the profile for a cycling race and guess what kind of action is likely to happen. If you hate sprints, watching two hours of coverage of a pan-flat stage with a single cat 4 climb in it is probably not a good idea.

 

[Anonymous]

Just saw the finish. I said it yesterday, and Mellow tried to throw water on it, but yet again, another day proves that I knew what I was talking about the day before: Cavendish is a different rider with Renshaw than without.

 

[The Hitch]

actually nibali attacked a few times. like on the stage where anton fell.

inb4 some1 says pics or it didn't happen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRq9_fB88TM

Yeah. I cant believe I wrote that first post. What was I thinking .

One of my favourite memories of that years Vuelta was Nibali going head to head with J Rod on that mountain where neither could pass cos it was lined with fans.

Not to mention that he went on both those early cat 3 finishes in Jaen and Malaga.

Course he was nowhere near as epic as in this years Giro, but Nibali definately has the balls to attack. I dont think he attacked in the first mountain stage though - Xorrat del Cati, so my point is still valid though

 

[King Of The Wolds]

Cavendish is a different rider with Renshaw than without.

He certainly was in last year's Tour. He won by twice the distance without him.

In reality, of course Renshaw makes a difference (Cav says so much himself), but Oss did a perfect Renshaw impression yesterday. He just got beaten by a stronger man on the day.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I absolutely agree that an ITT or a mountain finish to sort out the GC and stop the crash madness would have been welcome some time in the first week. I don't think lack of GC action = boring racing, though.

This is what I don't get: it is really easy to look at the profile for a cycling race and guess what kind of action is likely to happen. If you hate sprints, watching two hours of coverage of a pan-flat stage with a single cat 4 climb in it is probably not a good idea.

No, lack of GC action doesn't equal boring racing. Seeing if Rui Costa could stay clear of the pack on Super-Besse was one of the only bits of exciting racing not involving crashes we've had.

I hate sprints, and yes, watching two hours of coverage just out of blind hope that the wind picks up or something is a bad idea (Sunday's stage is a complete and utter waste. With virtually nothing but mountains left, they decide to stick a sprint on a weekend day. Stupid), but when a 25-30 minute "highlights" show can waste time on pre- and post-race analysis, some pointless chit-chat with a rider, and STILL have almost all the time spent with the bikes be filler, you have a garbage stage.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Just saw the finish. I said it yesterday, and Mellow tried to throw water on it, but yet again, another day proves that I knew what I was talking about the day before: Cavendish is a different rider with Renshaw than without.

Seriously, stop trolling, I know you've followed cycling for more than just this month so don't post crap you know to be untrue.

Cav today was still, even with Renshaw, a long way from his best.

Go watch the Bourdeaux stage from last year, or Paris, to see Cav on form, winning by 5 or 10 bike lengths, all on his own.

 

[Jamsque]

We've had this discussion before, but I think you expect too much Libetine. Not every stage can be full of crosswinds and vertical climbs and hairpin descents. Tours are supposed to be just that: tours. They should take in all aspects of a country's terrain.

I disagree that a 160km flat stage that ends in a sprint is a garbage stage, it's a perfectly valid part of the variety of a tour. If every day had an uphill finish we'd be begging for some flat sprints for variety and to stop the Omega-Pharma Lotto train from delivering Gilbert to easy win after easy win.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

A 160km flat stage that ends in a sprint IS a garbage stage.

Either make it 80km and save us all the effort, or make it 260km and make the sprinters work for their money. They already get more chances to win than anybody else anyway, without making it easy.

 

[The Hitch]

A 160km flat stage that ends in a sprint IS a garbage stage.

Either make it 80km and save us all the effort, or make it 260km and make the sprinters work for their money. They already get more chances to win than anybody else anyway, without making it easy.

What do you care if its 80 or 160k. Coverage only shows the last 120 anyway, If its a sprint stage they might as well do 160 so that more towns get to see Le Tour pass by.

 

[hrotha]

A 160km flat stage that ends in a sprint IS a garbage stage.

Either make it 80km and save us all the effort, or make it 260km and make the sprinters work for their money. They already get more chances to win than anybody else anyway, without making it easy.

Eh, HTC ran out of helpers for a while, even Lampre did after it seemed like they had everything under control. That the breakaway would be caught wasn't a given. There was suspense, it's just that, unlike in the stage Rui Costa won, this time the bunch took it.

 

[Jamsque]

A 160km flat stage that ends in a sprint IS a garbage stage.

Either make it 80km and save us all the effort, or make it 260km and make the sprinters work for their money. They already get more chances to win than anybody else anyway, without making it easy.

Would you rather the Tour de France was a bike race around France punctuated by bus trips or a bus trip around France punctuated by bike races?

 

[Mambo95]

Cavendish is a different rider with Renshaw than without.

Renshaw is certainly a big asset, but he's won at least eight Tour stages without him.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'd just be in favour of opening up larger gaps earlier on, whether it be in the form of a 25-30km ITT like 2008 or an early mountaintop finish, so that the natural order is established. For too long in this year's race you've had all of the GC men and their teams, the sprinters and their teams, the peripheral GC men who might do a good race if things go their way and the guys in a good position thanks to the TTT preserving their high GC, all squabbling over who's at the front and, especially after what happened on stage 1, getting really nervy about making sure they're at the front in case there's a crash. And with too many riders fighting over too little space, those crashes are inevitable.

If you put in a proper challenge early that sorts the GC contenders from the secondary guys, then those secondary guys no longer have a high GC to protect; losing time ceases to matter so much, and so being at the front isn't so important to them, and so you get fewer crashes.

jeez Libertine, apart from the nasty crashes and some of those certainly exacerbated by the weather, this Tour has been continual surprises and a real mix...and this is true racing. ...all the elements needed for a wonderful fight for leadership.

As far as your comments about what needs to happen for this Tour to be successful in your eyes, I'm finding this all sounding formulaic....
which is what I thought we need to avoid.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Would you rather the Tour de France was a bike race around France punctuated by bus trips or a bus trip around France punctuated by bike races?

Would you rather the Tour de France was the best bike race it could possibly be, or the best tourism advert it could possibly be?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

jeez Libertine, apart from the nasty crashes and some of those certainly exacerbated by the weather, this Tour has been continual surprises and a real mix...and this is true racing. ...all the elements needed for a wonderful fight for leadership.

As far as your comments about what needs to happen for this Tour to be successful in your eyes, I'm finding this all sounding formulaic....
which is what I thought we need to avoid.

OK, apart from the crashes, what has been continual surprise?
Cavendish has won 3 sprints, but stuffed up the first sprint of the race as per usual. Gilbert won a Gilbert stage like everyone said he would. The break went on the intermediate stage.

I guess Greipel outsprinting Cavendish, Thor defending on Super-Besse and HTC not winning the TTT have to count as surprises, but I wouldn't call that 'continual'.

 

[Mambo95]

A 160km flat stage that ends in a sprint IS a garbage stage.

Either make it 80km and save us all the effort, or make it 260km and make the sprinters work for their money. They already get more chances to win than anybody else anyway, without making it easy.

I can see your point about having shorter stages. Back when Maertens was winning, there were sometimes three stages in a day. However, quite rightly, those days are gone.

However, there need to be flat sprint stages. All types of stages need to be embraced, and the geography of France means that there's going to be a fair few every year. The balance this year has been good.

An overkill of mountains creates something like this year's Giro. It may have been epic, but there was little excitement. It was almost like an exhibition race.

Sprints stages on the other hand, while there's a few hours of nothingness, offer 15-20 minutes of heart thumping build-up and a crescendo. Only the sprints make my heart beat faster. There's genuine excitement there.

 

[Mambo95]

I guess Greipel outsprinting Cavendish

Take this for example. You've boiled this down to the basic facts. The last 20km of that stage were great entertainment. OPL pushing it on the climb, is Cav still there? Phil off the front, the Yellow Jersey jumping on. Martin covering, who will chase. Tommy want's Tony to work, he says no. The Green Jersey really on the line. Gilbert goes alone. HTC short on numbers. Gilbert caught. Now the struggling for places on the sprint. Greipel v Cav - right down to the line - a wheel in it.

Seriously, that's more excitement than you got from riders grinding up the Zoncolan and slightly different speeds.

Not epic. But 20km of uncertainty and changing situations.

 

[Parrulo]

Yeah. I cant believe I wrote that first post. What was I thinking .

One of my favourite memories of that years Vuelta was Nibali going head to head with J Rod on that mountain where neither could pass cos it was lined with fans.

Not to mention that he went on both those early cat 3 finishes in Jaen and Malaga.

Course he was nowhere near as epic as in this years Giro, but Nibali definately has the balls to attack. I dont think he attacked in the first mountain stage though - Xorrat del Cati, so my point is still valid though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6J-Q7fyoRU

go to minute 8 he also tried to ride them off his wheel basso style. nibali's vuelta performance is seriously underrated. best moment on that video tho is when purito attacks and doesn't even looks back because he thinks he got a gap when in fact nibali answered without even getting out of the saddle.

anyway from this video and mostly from the peña cabarga one comparing them to the giro this year its obvious how much nibali matured as rider over the past year.

sorry for off topic nibali rant

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Only in my most combative moments have I called for the complete eradication of sprint stages. The sprint itself may give 15-20 minutes of excitement (I think more 15-20 seconds, mind), but the time before that is just dead air. Hence I call to make that shorter (after all, the same thing will happen after 100km as after 160km, so save the riders' legs) or much longer (so as to make the sprint less predictable and turn the smallest of obstacles into a challenge à la Milan-San Remo).

 

[Mambo95]

Only in my most combative moments have I called for the complete eradication of sprint stages. The sprint itself may give 15-20 minutes of excitement (I think more 15-20 seconds, mind), but the time before that is just dead air. Hence I call to make that shorter (after all, the same thing will happen after 100km as after 160km, so save the riders' legs) or much longer (so as to make the sprint less predictable and turn the smallest of obstacles into a challenge à la Milan-San Remo).

But are the mountain stages, or the uphill 'Gilbert' stages any better? Where the stages won by Gilbert and Evans not just sprints with different characters?

The mountain stages are more about who is getting dropped, rather than who is winning. On a mountain, usually Contador attacks and that's it. The Giro this year was a dud. It may have been 'epic' with a 'legendary' parcours, but the racing was generally poor. Even without Contador, there would have been more grinding than racing (did Nibali and Scarponi ever really race for second?)

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yea, the Giro was a bit of a letdown; not enough intermediate stages, too many MTFs. Zoncolán, Etna, Großglockner, Sestrières and Gardeccia was already a high number without the totally pointless additions of Montevergine (another exciting sprint) and Macugnaga.

The Gilbert stage was every bit as predictable as most sprints, because it clearly wasn't long enough or steep enough to introduce unpredictability. The Mur-de-Brétagne was better as it was hard enough to give both the Classics men and the genuine climbers a feeling they could win, but ultimately the racing up there wasn't the best. Contador's dominance in the Giro bred dullness, because he was so far ahead of everybody else, and most of my favourite races this year have not had him in them. But at least you can watch the fight for other placings develop, rather than just being there at the same time as the HTC train strangle everybody.

This year has actually been pretty poor for stage race cycling. Paris-Nice became a win-the-TT-win-the-race event, but Tirreno-Adriatico was good (perfect example of the kind of thing we need in the way of intermediate stages that can break up the GC). Catalunya was one weak MTF and six sprints, while Castilla y León threw out the weakest MTF in living memory as its queen stage. País Vasco was raced en masse by the GC contenders, so it all came to the TT. The Giro was dominated by one single rider and overshadowed by another, the TT settled the Dauphiné and nobody seemed all that intent on trying to take the lead off Wiggins, but Suisse was a good race also sadly overshadowed by one rider. The best stage race of the year has probably been the Vuelta a Asturias.

 

[Jamsque]

Would you rather the Tour de France was the best bike race it could possibly be, or the best tourism advert it could possibly be?

It isn't either-or, in fact it has to be both, and you know this. The Tour de France is more than just a bike race, and so the route has to do more than just provide (your definition of) exciting racing.

It's a tourism advert, so it has to visit as many different areas of France as is feasible. It's an advert for cycling, so it has to allow as many fans as possible the chance to see their heroes go by. It's the biggest event in the sport, so it has to attract the biggest names in the sport, be they climbers, puncheurs, time trial-ists or sprinters.

The Tour always has to strike a balance between these competing influences, and I think it does very well. A Tour de France with two 80km flat stages, as much as it might please you, would not be the Tour de France, and multiple 250km+ stages are just not realistic in a three week race.

 

[El Pistolero]

But are the mountain stages, or the uphill 'Gilbert' stages any better? Where the stages won by Gilbert and Evans not just sprints with different characters?

The mountain stages are more about who is getting dropped, rather than who is winning. On a mountain, usually Contador attacks and that's it. The Giro this year was a dud. It may have been 'epic' with a 'legendary' parcours, but the racing was generally poor. Even without Contador, there would have been more grinding than racing (did Nibali and Scarponi ever really race for second?)

Think we can all safely say that Gilbert has been 100 times more exciting than Cav this season and this Tour.

And yes, I think a Gilbert uphill sprint is more fun because it last longer. Sprints last 15 seconds and are quite chaotic(which I don't really like)

Uphill sprint is also mano a mano while sprints are dominated by a certain team on easy stages.