Re: Re:
Libertine Seguros said:
Brullnux said:
GuyIncognito said:
Henri Pélissier continues to win his argument that shorter stages make for more exciting racing
Ultra short stages like this (anything below 130/140km) do usually create really exciting races, especially when used after a hard day or a rest day. In moderation.
This is it, if they were all short days then the race would just become the same as it was but over shorter distances. It's the mix of stages that makes these work because if the riders weren't tired from such a long and difficult stage yesterday, this wouldn't happen. I do think that we are seeing a trend that putting a short stage at the end of a mountain block is a positive move, because it's meaning riders are less afraid of them, so they don't race as conservatively in the earlier stages, meaning there's more fatigue to play a role in the short stages.
The odds of having a stage this good must be akin to winning Tatts
lotto 
I cannot recall a single stage creating so many points of discussion. We can use this stage to discuss further the possibilities of any future trends in regards to 'ambush' strategies, how the outcome of this stage will influence future GT parcours, or whether this stage means that we really don't need to reduce the size of the teams....
And then of course there is the fierce debate over the enforcing - or not - of the time limit rule.
I have replied to Libertine's post because it makes the great point about why this stage was potentially effective.
An easier mountain - or 'hilly' - stage immediately after a Queen stage can cause carnage. Well you still need all the planets to align, but it's possible.
I think that the shorter stage makes it more plausible for a few domestiques to go full gas from the beginning and give their team leader a chance at holding on to some time gains. If yesterday's stage was 200kms, then there is no way that the 2 Moviestar and 2 Tinkoff helpers would have lasted until close enough to the end, in order for their leaders to survive. To quote Libertine again: "less afraid".
In addition to that you obviously need a tired peloton - stage 14 over 4 HC/1C mountains thank-you very much - that contains many riders and teams with little interest in the outcome of the stage. IMO the stage needs to be hard enough to take the interest of the sprinters teams out of it, but not so hard as to destroy the breakaway domestiques too quickly. This is partly why the TDF's experiments with these type of stages haven't worked as well, because they have attempted to mix a queen stage and a short stage into one lethal one....which generally hasn't turned out to be so lethal. Most teams are not going to have riders who are capable of blasting all the way up the Madeleine and then continuing up another HC climb later. No, this kind of an ambush situation is much more feasible with 4-5% climbs that don't reach 2,000 metres....
Much is being made about Froome being kept behind because of a crash, and whilst that ultimately led to his demise, that isn't really very important in this particular discussion, as we see countless times, dangerous GC riders getting a little bit of a break early in a stage, but 97% of the time this amounts to nothing. So it was the stage design itself, and where it was positioned within the three weeks, and which stage it came after, that matter here. This stage discussion is also all about ATTITUDE (as well as altitude). The breakaways success was possible because of it. It might have been stage 9 of this years TDF that I recall, where Valverde built up over a minutes advantage - in a big group too - early on, but his success was shortlived. In this instance the stage was probably too early in the race for an ambush, and Sky were much stronger, though this is also because it was early in the race as well as for the stronger team members themselves. But it was even more about the planets aligning - or not - because it related to everyone's own agenda (okay then, possible mutual dislike for Piti then lol ), their ATTITUDE. From memory that breakaway had about as many participants as this one in the Vuelta, but hardly anyone was willing to work. Sort of off topic, but why go in a breakaway if you are not willing to work? To save energy to win the stage of course. But you don't have the opportunity to get to that point unless you - or enough members of your breakaway - are willing to work. And if you don't think that you have a chance to win the stage then what the hell are you doing in the breakaway in the first place???
Sky might have bought them back anyway; they had their two roulours (never know how to spell this) doing their thing, but it would have been much harder to bring them back in their had been some co-operation in the breakaway group. Which brings me to another point that has been raised on these boards recently, about beating Sky by attacking them (or at least making the racing harder) on the flatlands and hilly stages. You tire out their limited number of roulours and then some of their climbers have to expend some energy BEFORE they even get to the climbs.
Yes, this is starting to make more sense.
Of course you can't do this on totally flat stages though, because Sky won't have to do any work with half a dozen sprinters teams baying for blood.
Which might make it even harder to beat Sky at the Tour. Although it does seem that in recent years the TDF has been including more lumpy stages and less pancake - or "stupid pointless" - flat stages.
Back to Libertine's point about a "mix of stages". This is precisely what is wrong about the recent trend in the TDF (and for that matter the Vuelta _/ ) to have more mountain stages, but in reality no more difficulty in the mountains overall. No queen stages, just eight high mountain stages between 140-190 kms; they all start to look the same after a while (although at least this year they had some balance with descent finishers). It's the difference which makes a difference. I'd much rather see one Alpine stage of 230 kms and 5 HC/1C climbs then have two stages each of 150 kms.
What we don't want to see is the Vuelta giving us a handful of Fuente De's next year. They would be missing the point entirely.
And the more difficult stages (or time trials) before the easier ones in a run of GC stages is of course advisable. Getting back to the general rate of attrition, and less afraid factors giving a better chance for better racing.
How much of a morale boost and an impact will stage 15 have on teams next season? Will teams start to feel like they can at least try to beat Sky away from the high mountains (not Quintana in general, he will try to win on the climbs, as he should)? How could Dumoulin go if the Tour has 100kms of ITT and his team selects a group of strong roulours? Sure he will lose some time in the high mountains, but if Froome is in yellow then his team is working all day on those high mountains. And then after those high mountains? It's time for an ambush.
And if you're strength is time trialling then you try to add more time trialling (or at least TTT, I know how much LS loves those
) even if the TT kms aren't there. Which going off recent trends they probably won't be
Obviously Dumoulin wants his teammates to be as fresh as possible for their ambush stage, so they all finish 53 minutes behind on the stage before
No, because that rule will be properly implemented.
But you can still take it easier than normal of course. And pick your spots.
If more GC teams are willing to risk an ambush then just the threat of it will make Sky less imposing in the high mountains too. Instead of burning all of your matches (and making it impossible for any rider to move more than fifty metres ahead of the peloton), you'd save one or two, on just the 'possibility' that something crazy might happen from the beginning of the lumpy stage the following day.
Maybe you can defeat a strong nine man team if you are willing to make enough stages full gas from the start.
Or at least make it a little more interesting.
We need to do something soon anyway. Unfortunately AC can't give us this theatre forever.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram