• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

2017 Liège-Bastogne-Liège - April 23rd - 258k

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Red Rick said:
DFA123 said:
Except it wasn't a sprint, was it? It was a race where a group of about 30 riders, including a couple of fast finishers who can handle hills, made it to the final climb. And, on that final climb, the two best punchy climbers in the race absolutely destroyed all the sprinters. Dropping them comfortably, with one going on to solo easily to victory. None of the 'sprinter-puncheurs' came close to winning.

Yes. True. Makes the race even worse.

Sprinters have a shot if it's a sprint
Best punchy riders know they can wait for a sprint
Many purer climbers have at least one punchier rider in their team, so if all attacks fail, they'll just ride before Ans. It's ridiculous.

Make the finish flat and all of a sudden the punchy riders have to drop the sprinters.
Yeah, the race was awful as a spectacle. But the likes of Matthews and GVA (let alone Kristoff or Sagan :rolleyes: ) aren't going to be winning here any time soon. Even in a very conservative edition like this, they were destroyed in the finale.

I don't think there should be a flat finish in LBL. The sprinters have more than enough races catered to their attributes in the first part of the season and during the GTs. This race should be won by punchy climbers like Martin, Alaphilippe, Valverde or Kwiatkowski. And it was.
For the same reasons I dislike the Ronde. Because of its flat finish it's always decided in a bunch sprint and cobbles specialists who should win there never get a chance...am I right?
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
ice&fire said:
Red Rick said:
DFA123 said:
Except it wasn't a sprint, was it? It was a race where a group of about 30 riders, including a couple of fast finishers who can handle hills, made it to the final climb. And, on that final climb, the two best punchy climbers in the race absolutely destroyed all the sprinters. Dropping them comfortably, with one going on to solo easily to victory. None of the 'sprinter-puncheurs' came close to winning.

Yes. True. Makes the race even worse.

Sprinters have a shot if it's a sprint
Best punchy riders know they can wait for a sprint
Many purer climbers have at least one punchier rider in their team, so if all attacks fail, they'll just ride before Ans. It's ridiculous.

Make the finish flat and all of a sudden the punchy riders have to drop the sprinters.
Do we need another Milano-Sanremo?

No.

We need a race where favorites have to do something themselves to get the best shot at winning.

Before the AGR changed routes, all the Ardennes races could be neutralized in the last 1km. Do you want good racing or not?
Then they need to find narrower roads and a series of climbs with shorter flat sections in between; and change the course before someone finds the trick to win with formulaic tactics.
 
Re:

HelloDolly said:
They need to change La Flethce and LBL now.....

Valverde and co are racing these races with their eyes closed as they know them so well

And I dont blame the peloton (as most on here do) for this outcome...Valverde is by far the strongest and has a very strong team...Lots of riders attacked today...They problem is so many riders are on the same level so making atacks stick is very hard ..

Wellens, Kreuziger, Heano, Fralie, Villella, Formolo all tried ....
What more would you have them do ??
The course is too predicable with or without Valverde ....

And Valverde is too strong ...unbelieveably so

Making the finish flat doesn't help the sprinters.

It means the best hilly riders have to force a selection themselves, or risk getting tactically *** over.
 
Re:

HelloDolly said:
They need to change La Flethce and LBL now.....

Valverde and co are racing these races with their eyes closed as they know them so well

And I dont blame the peloton (as most on here do) for this outcome...Valverde is by far the strongest and has a very strong team...Lots of riders attacked today...They problem is so many riders are on the same level so making atacks stick is very hard ..

Wellens, Kreuziger, Heano, Fralie, Villella, Formolo all tried ....
What more would you have them do ??
The course is too predicable with or without Valverde ....

And Valverde is too strong ...unbelieveably so
Nonsense. Why change the parcours just because one rider is so much stronger than everyone else? LBL is the monument for hilly puncheurs - and Valverde is the best of those so should be winning. Other monuments are designed for sprinters, rouleurs, or pure climbers - why mess around with the one that isn't?

Why not remove all mountains from the TdF to make it less predictable as well? :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
HelloDolly said:
They need to change La Flethce and LBL now.....

Valverde and co are racing these races with their eyes closed as they know them so well

And I dont blame the peloton (as most on here do) for this outcome...Valverde is by far the strongest and has a very strong team...Lots of riders attacked today...They problem is so many riders are on the same level so making atacks stick is very hard ..

Wellens, Kreuziger, Heano, Fralie, Villella, Formolo all tried ....
What more would you have them do ??
The course is too predicable with or without Valverde ....

And Valverde is too strong ...unbelieveably so
Nonsense. Why change the parcours just because one rider is so much stronger than everyone else? LBL is the monument for hilly puncheurs - and Valverde is the best of those so should be winning. Other monuments are designed for sprinters, rouleurs, or pure climbers - why mess around with the one that isn't?

Why not remove all mountains from the TdF to make it less predictable as well? :rolleyes:


There's nothing wrong with the strongest winning

There's something wrong if the strongest can win by only riding the last 500m.

It's not hard.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
HelloDolly said:
They need to change La Flethce and LBL now.....

Valverde and co are racing these races with their eyes closed as they know them so well

And I dont blame the peloton (as most on here do) for this outcome...Valverde is by far the strongest and has a very strong team...Lots of riders attacked today...They problem is so many riders are on the same level so making atacks stick is very hard ..

Wellens, Kreuziger, Heano, Fralie, Villella, Formolo all tried ....
What more would you have them do ??
The course is too predicable with or without Valverde ....

And Valverde is too strong ...unbelieveably so
Nonsense. Why change the parcours just because one rider is so much stronger than everyone else? LBL is the monument for hilly puncheurs - and Valverde is the best of those so should be winning. Other monuments are designed for sprinters, rouleurs, or pure climbers - why mess around with the one that isn't?

Why not remove all mountains from the TdF to make it less predictable as well? :rolleyes:

In that area you can make the route so that much mor riders with different styles can win and the race will be much more entertaining.
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
For the same reasons I dislike the Ronde. Because of its flat finish it's always decided in a bunch sprint and cobbles specialists who should win there never get a chance...am I right?
Well, obviously not. RVV is a race for riders with anaerobic endurance and good rouleur skills - and a decent sprint is handy as well. The winner nearly always has those attributes. LBL is a race with lots of short climbs, designed for riders with good aerobic endurance and who have a kick on the punchy climbs. The winner should have those attributes as well.

Adding a load of flat at the end will mean teams start hedging their bets and split their team between sprinters and climbers. It's different than the cobbled classics, because the favourites for Liege don't have the rouleur skills to go in a small break or solo from 25-50km out, now that domestiques are so strong in the peloton. Nor should they have to imo.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
DFA123 said:
HelloDolly said:
They need to change La Flethce and LBL now.....

Valverde and co are racing these races with their eyes closed as they know them so well

And I dont blame the peloton (as most on here do) for this outcome...Valverde is by far the strongest and has a very strong team...Lots of riders attacked today...They problem is so many riders are on the same level so making atacks stick is very hard ..

Wellens, Kreuziger, Heano, Fralie, Villella, Formolo all tried ....
What more would you have them do ??
The course is too predicable with or without Valverde ....

And Valverde is too strong ...unbelieveably so
Nonsense. Why change the parcours just because one rider is so much stronger than everyone else? LBL is the monument for hilly puncheurs - and Valverde is the best of those so should be winning. Other monuments are designed for sprinters, rouleurs, or pure climbers - why mess around with the one that isn't?

Why not remove all mountains from the TdF to make it less predictable as well? :rolleyes:


There's nothing wrong with the strongest winning

There's something wrong if the strongest can win by only riding the last 500m.

It's not hard.
Why? Liege is a race for punchy climbers. They're not guys with huge rouleur engines. They win races by beating other riders on punchy climbs.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
HelloDolly said:
They need to change La Flethce and LBL now.....

Valverde and co are racing these races with their eyes closed as they know them so well

And I dont blame the peloton (as most on here do) for this outcome...Valverde is by far the strongest and has a very strong team...Lots of riders attacked today...They problem is so many riders are on the same level so making atacks stick is very hard ..

Wellens, Kreuziger, Heano, Fralie, Villella, Formolo all tried ....
What more would you have them do ??
The course is too predicable with or without Valverde ....

And Valverde is too strong ...unbelieveably so
Nonsense. Why change the parcours just because one rider is so much stronger than everyone else? LBL is the monument for hilly puncheurs - and Valverde is the best of those so should be winning. Other monuments are designed for sprinters, rouleurs, or pure climbers - why mess around with the one that isn't?

Why not remove all mountains from the TdF to make it less predictable as well? :rolleyes:


In case you dont know the course is not about the hills but the route and teh Tour changes its route every year :rolleyes: ...I never said tak eout the hills ....I aid change the route

Try a good anology if you want a debate or at leaset understand the point before calling it nonsense as that is what you are speaking
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Red Rick said:
DFA123 said:
HelloDolly said:
They need to change La Flethce and LBL now.....

Valverde and co are racing these races with their eyes closed as they know them so well

And I dont blame the peloton (as most on here do) for this outcome...Valverde is by far the strongest and has a very strong team...Lots of riders attacked today...They problem is so many riders are on the same level so making atacks stick is very hard ..

Wellens, Kreuziger, Heano, Fralie, Villella, Formolo all tried ....
What more would you have them do ??
The course is too predicable with or without Valverde ....

And Valverde is too strong ...unbelieveably so
Nonsense. Why change the parcours just because one rider is so much stronger than everyone else? LBL is the monument for hilly puncheurs - and Valverde is the best of those so should be winning. Other monuments are designed for sprinters, rouleurs, or pure climbers - why mess around with the one that isn't?

Why not remove all mountains from the TdF to make it less predictable as well? :rolleyes:


There's nothing wrong with the strongest winning

There's something wrong if the strongest can win by only riding the last 500m.

It's not hard.
Why? Liege is a race for punchy climbers. They're not guys with huge rouleur engines. They win races by beating other riders on punchy climbs.

Well, if there's flat terrain, maybe they should be able to ride on that as well. Now you're selecting on one single skillset alone, and you're doing that in a way that it locks the race, not in a way that it opens up the race.
 
Re:

Velolover2 said:
Making the final flat wouldn't eliminate the pucheurs. Alaphilippe, Albasini, Valverde, Alaphilippe, Gilbert and Dan Martin should still be favorites in races where you have to attack from far out. They are the best on steep, short hills.
Why give sprinters any chance in Liege though? You'd just get a situation where a largish peloton - with the likes of Matthews hiding in it - were chasing a small gap to a few puncheurs. Some of whom wouldn't be working because they had sprint options behind. They'd get caught; some sprinter would win and it would be awful.

LBL has had a good variety of winners in the last decade. World class climbers like Valverde and Schleck, Puncheurs like Martin, outsiders like Iglinskiy, fast finishing reasonable climbers like Gerrans and Poels. It's fine as it is. Not every race needs the threat of a sprint.
 
Re: Re:

Alexandre B. said:
frisenfruitig said:
Alexandre B. said:
The guy has been 10 meters in the wind for the whole race.

The same can be said about guys like Kwiat/Martin or Matthews though. Should he attack for no reason so you are happy?
Everyone was bitching about Gerrans in 2014. Everyone is praising Valverde today. There's almost no difference between both wins.

I don't blame Matthews for following in this particular race, but we're talking about freakin' Valverde here.

The main reason I struggle to like valverde is because he is pretty conservative. But can you really blame him? He has the best sprint out of the main competitors, and the finish into Ans and Huy really suit him. That's why I wish Valverde didn't have such a good sprint. Then he'd be forced onto the attack all the time, and he'd still have a good chance of winning.

Mind you, Gerrans didn't do anything wrong in 2014. It's just there were better options (Caruso and Pozzo, the only guys who attacked) and it was an extraordinarily boring race. Can't say anything about today as I missed it.
 
Re:

HelloDolly said:
And maybe not through that part of Liege as it looks terrible...Surley there must be a better part of that city

There are. I had never been here before this week and to my surprise, much of the city is very attractive. The sign in and start are in the ugliest part of the centre and the finish is in the ugliest suburb. I have no idea why the city authorities want to misleadingly represent their city as a bit of a dump on the day of its biggest international tv exposure.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
DFA123 said:
Red Rick said:
DFA123 said:
HelloDolly said:
They need to change La Flethce and LBL now.....

Valverde and co are racing these races with their eyes closed as they know them so well

And I dont blame the peloton (as most on here do) for this outcome...Valverde is by far the strongest and has a very strong team...Lots of riders attacked today...They problem is so many riders are on the same level so making atacks stick is very hard ..

Wellens, Kreuziger, Heano, Fralie, Villella, Formolo all tried ....
What more would you have them do ??
The course is too predicable with or without Valverde ....

And Valverde is too strong ...unbelieveably so
Nonsense. Why change the parcours just because one rider is so much stronger than everyone else? LBL is the monument for hilly puncheurs - and Valverde is the best of those so should be winning. Other monuments are designed for sprinters, rouleurs, or pure climbers - why mess around with the one that isn't?

Why not remove all mountains from the TdF to make it less predictable as well? :rolleyes:


There's nothing wrong with the strongest winning

There's something wrong if the strongest can win by only riding the last 500m.

It's not hard.
Why? Liege is a race for punchy climbers. They're not guys with huge rouleur engines. They win races by beating other riders on punchy climbs.

Well, if there's flat terrain, maybe they should be able to ride on that as well. Now you're selecting on one single skillset alone, and you're doing that in a way that it locks the race, not in a way that it opens up the race.
Well, some of them can ride on it. Valverde and Kwiatkowski, for example, are decent rouleurs. But they're not going to be able to hold off a 50 strong peloton full of sprinters and their domestiques for a significant distance. Especially when other riders in a bunch have sprinters behind so aren't pulling.

They already need multiple skillsets to win on this course - huge aerobic endurance, good anaerobic endurance, a decent sprint, good positioning etc... They shouldn't have to be world class rouleurs as well - PR and RVV are the races for those skills.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Velolover2 said:
Making the final flat wouldn't eliminate the pucheurs. Alaphilippe, Albasini, Valverde, Alaphilippe, Gilbert and Dan Martin should still be favorites in races where you have to attack from far out. They are the best on steep, short hills.
Why give sprinters any chance in Liege though? You'd just get a situation where a largish peloton - with the likes of Matthews hiding in it - were chasing a small gap to a few puncheurs. Some of whom wouldn't be working because they had sprint options behind. They'd get caught; some sprinter would win and it would be awful.

Yeah, like we had in Amstel this year after the route change.
 
Re: Re:

Ikbengodniet said:
DFA123 said:
Velolover2 said:
Making the final flat wouldn't eliminate the pucheurs. Alaphilippe, Albasini, Valverde, Alaphilippe, Gilbert and Dan Martin should still be favorites in races where you have to attack from far out. They are the best on steep, short hills.
Why give sprinters any chance in Liege though? You'd just get a situation where a largish peloton - with the likes of Matthews hiding in it - were chasing a small gap to a few puncheurs. Some of whom wouldn't be working because they had sprint options behind. They'd get caught; some sprinter would win and it would be awful.

Yeah, like we had in Amstel this year after the route change.
Not sure of the point you're making; Amstel had plenty of climbing in the last 20km. The decisive selection was made on the last of them 3km from the finish by two hilly puncheurs. Amstel with 15km of flat at the end would have been a bunch sprint for sure.
 
Re:

DFA123 said:
Except it wasn't a sprint, was it? It was a race where a group of about 30 riders, including a couple of fast finishers who can handle hills, made it to the final climb. And, on that final climb, the two best punchy climbers in the race absolutely destroyed all the sprinters. Dropping them comfortably, with one going on to solo easily to victory. None of the 'sprinter-puncheurs' came close to winning.

Your posts make too much sense for this forum - Many in this forum see what they want to see.