2018 Tour of Flanders

Page 25 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Who will win

  • Peter Sagan

    Votes: 40 28.0%
  • Greg Van Avermaet

    Votes: 12 8.4%
  • Philippe Gilbert

    Votes: 13 9.1%
  • Tiesj Benoot

    Votes: 13 9.1%
  • Michal Kwiatkowski

    Votes: 5 3.5%
  • Sep Vanmarcke

    Votes: 12 8.4%
  • Niki Terpstra

    Votes: 14 9.8%
  • Zdenek Stybar

    Votes: 11 7.7%
  • Wout Van Aert

    Votes: 2 1.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 21 14.7%

  • Total voters
    143
  • Poll closed .
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Irondan said:
DFA123 said:
Great race by Terpstra. Too easy in the end for Quickstep though. Sagan looked the strongest of the rest but, as usual, his tactics were shockingly poor.
His **** team isn't much help either..
I thought his team was one of the better ones in the race. Obviously nowhere near the level of Quickstep, but he had Oss and Burghardt around quite late on. He needed to work with the likes of Benoot and Vanmarcke before the Kwaremont though (who I think would have been more than willing to take a pull). Not just try to drop them all on the Paterberg and go solo - that literally had a 0% chance of working against a rider as strong as Terpstra.
Even outside that part, they should have worked when Terpstra, Gilbert, GVA were dropped earlier (think it was first time up the Kwaremont), whereas they sat and allowed them to come back easily. They weren't going to win the race from that point, but could have at least made QS and BMC suffer a lot.
 
Re: Re:

The Barb said:
DFA123 said:
Yep, and then once Terpstra is clear. He obviously should have reacted to the move much more quickly, not just wait until the Paterberg and try to drop everyone there - when the guy up the road is a much superior rouleur to him.
Seriously?

Right, he should have picked the winning attack, then if the others wouldn't ride with him just powered away solo from the QS team riding as a team. Brilliant.
The most obvious thing about this race was that a Quickstep rider - almost certainly Gilbert or Terpstra - would attack in the last 40km and that it would be extremely dangerous without a very quick response from the other favourites. It doesn't take hindsight to spot that. All the favourites should have responded very quickly and, as the guy who ultimately looked the strongest - it seems that Sagan lost out more than the others as a result.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
The Barb said:
DFA123 said:
Yep, and then once Terpstra is clear. He obviously should have reacted to the move much more quickly, not just wait until the Paterberg and try to drop everyone there - when the guy up the road is a much superior rouleur to him.
Seriously?

Right, he should have picked the winning attack, then if the others wouldn't ride with him just powered away solo from the QS team riding as a team. Brilliant.
The most obvious thing about this race was that a Quickstep rider - almost certainly Gilbert or Terpstra - would attack in the last 40km and that it would be extremely dangerous without a very quick response from the other favourites. It doesn't take hindsight to spot that. All the favourites should have responded very quickly and, as the guy who ultimately looked the strongest - it seems that Sagan lost out more than the others as a result.
Van Avermaet and Benoot tried to bridge but weren't strong enough.
 
Re:

Alexandre B. said:
This year, leaders have extreme difficulty to collaborate with each other when another strong rider is up the road.
Yeah, the Ardennes classics come in for a lot of criticism for their formulaic predictability. Rightly so at times. But the cobbled classics have been just as bad this year. The lack of co-operation between strong riders doesn't make for a great spectacle. As soon as a strong Quickstep rider gets a reasonable gap - it's race over.
 
Re: Re:

portugal11 said:
alspacka said:
BalearicBeats said:
More Strides than Rides said:
Avermaet did it! He beat Sagan! Against all odds! Bet he's super satisfied with his riding today...
He and Sagan were the only favorites to attack today (except for Terpstra of course)? I didn't see him skip any turns or anything, he tried at least.
Yes I don't understand GVA criticism here. He clearly was not as strong as previously and BMC did have Roelandts chase while he could.
roelandts had the legs to cover terpstra's attack!! But guess what? they waited for... Sagan!!
This is bullocks, again. Roelandts tried to bridge to Terpstra. Maybe you should stop talking about things you have no clue about. Actually Sagan was at the front when Terpstra attacked :eek:
 
Pedersen was out in front in the last 80 kilometres. I can’t believe how he could hang on.

Of course he had no chance in a pursuit race against Terpstra but he was so, so close to hold on to his wheel on Kwaremont. What a *** performance.
 
Mar 15, 2016
520
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
trucido said:
DFA123 said:
Great race by Terpstra. Too easy in the end for Quickstep though. Sagan looked the strongest of the rest but, as usual, his tactics were shockingly poor.
How was GvA and Vanmarcke's any better? Enlighten us.
It looked like they just didn't have the legs. They weren't in the shape to drop everyone on the Paterberg. Sagan was, and should have used some of that energy earlier when Terpstra wasn't already out of sight.
Cance > TheRest said:
Well, to their defenses, they just didn't look like they had the strength. Sagan, at least, showed that he could make the difference
Roelandts could have followed Terpstra when he made the initial attack.
 
Sagan didn't look strong to me IMO. Something is missing. His power was there at some points, but he wasn't as strong on the flat. Go figure.

At one point he was waving his hands for other riders to go around where he seemed the one to be slowing down the chase. :D

Well deserved win for Terpstra.
 
It feels like it was quite a boring race because the top 10 riders were on par with eachother. No one seemed to be much stronger than anyone else, or if they were, the excellent tactics by Quickstep (who could've won just as well with Stybar and Gilbert I think) paralyzed them.
 
Re:

Escarabajo said:
Sagan didn't look strong to me IMO. Something is missing. His power is there but not his aerobic delivery.

At one point he was waving his hands for other riders to go around where he seemed the one to be slowing down the chase. :D

Well deserved win for Terpstra.
Isn't that what Sagan is always like? He can drop anyone at almost any point in a race, but he's not a great rouleur and he is virtually never part of a successful chase.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
trucido said:
DFA123 said:
Great race by Terpstra. Too easy in the end for Quickstep though. Sagan looked the strongest of the rest but, as usual, his tactics were shockingly poor.
How was GvA and Vanmarcke's any better? Enlighten us.
It looked like they just didn't have the legs. They weren't in the shape to drop everyone on the Paterberg. Sagan was, and should have used some of that energy earlier when Terpstra wasn't already out of sight.
You are always general after the race.
If he close the Terpstra stack and could not follow another from Styber or Gilbert you would have called him utterly stupid.. Like you always did when he lose.
 
Re:

The Barb said:
Those of you saying it was obvious Sagan should've gone with Terpstra and Nibali, were you saying that an hour ago?
I don't think I was logged on then, but it seemed like probably the best thing to do at the time yes. Obviously its an in the moment thing and is very hard to decide in the race, but its not outlandish. Lets de-contextualise a moment:

So, an outsider goes. Nobody out of the favourites chases initally, then one of the QS riders (i.e, one of the favourites) goes to close it down.
Do you a) get on his wheel quickly and neutralise the move
or b) let him go and see what happens

You can probably argue for both, as both could end up trumps, but to play it safe a) seems better imo. Sagan (and gva and others) chose b), and it was the wrong call. The main issue is that choosing the wrong option is the norm, not the exception.
 
Aug 6, 2015
4,139
2
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
The Barb said:
DFA123 said:
Yep, and then once Terpstra is clear. He obviously should have reacted to the move much more quickly, not just wait until the Paterberg and try to drop everyone there - when the guy up the road is a much superior rouleur to him.
Seriously?

Right, he should have picked the winning attack, then if the others wouldn't ride with him just powered away solo from the QS team riding as a team. Brilliant.
The most obvious thing about this race was that a Quickstep rider - almost certainly Gilbert or Terpstra - would attack in the last 40km and that it would be extremely dangerous without a very quick response from the other favourites. It doesn't take hindsight to spot that. All the favourites should have responded very quickly and, as the guy who ultimately looked the strongest - it seems that Sagan lost out more than the others as a result.
it is all about sagan right? what about roelandts?
 
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
I don't see how following the most clearly in form rider (who has an average acceleration) on the wheel of a GT rider (with similarly poor acceleration) isn't an obvious choice. Sagan was basically on his wheel as well. He made the wrong choice, which is fine, but it just happens pretty frequently.
Yep, Kristoff won the same monument easily by just following Terpstra when no-one else could. And Degenkolb won Paris Roubaix by following a Terpstra attack. He's the number one wheel you should be looking out for if you want a rider whose attack will stick, and who can easily be beaten in a sprint.

Ridiculous that he wasn't marked more tightly by all the other favourites.
 
Oct 16, 2016
5
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Irondan said:
DFA123 said:
Great race by Terpstra. Too easy in the end for Quickstep though. Sagan looked the strongest of the rest but, as usual, his tactics were shockingly poor.
His **** team isn't much help either..
I thought his team was one of the better ones in the race. Obviously nowhere near the level of Quickstep, but he had Oss and Burghardt around quite late on. He needed to work with the likes of Benoot and Vanmarcke before the Kwaremont though (who I think would have been more than willing to take a pull). Not just try to drop them all on the Paterberg and go solo - that literally had a 0% chance of working against a rider as strong as Terpstra.
really? you were obviously watching different race. they were together last 8km and didnt work really hard. why do you think that it would be different 15km out?
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
Re: Re:

SKSemtex said:
DFA123 said:
trucido said:
DFA123 said:
Great race by Terpstra. Too easy in the end for Quickstep though. Sagan looked the strongest of the rest but, as usual, his tactics were shockingly poor.
How was GvA and Vanmarcke's any better? Enlighten us.
It looked like they just didn't have the legs. They weren't in the shape to drop everyone on the Paterberg. Sagan was, and should have used some of that energy earlier when Terpstra wasn't already out of sight.
You are always general after the race.
If he close the Terpstra stack and could not follow another from Styber or Gilbert you would have called him utterly stupid.. Like you always did when he lose.
If Terpstra attacks, you follow. End of story. Terpstra was the strongest in the race.
 
Very strong Terpstra yet again, in my eyes he was the favorite but he still had to pull it off, he had to make an early move.

But I'm most impressed by Pedersen, that was a true nailbiter in the final 10km. So impressive how he held on to 2nd.
 
Re: Re:

portugal11 said:
DFA123 said:
The Barb said:
DFA123 said:
Yep, and then once Terpstra is clear. He obviously should have reacted to the move much more quickly, not just wait until the Paterberg and try to drop everyone there - when the guy up the road is a much superior rouleur to him.
Seriously?

Right, he should have picked the winning attack, then if the others wouldn't ride with him just powered away solo from the QS team riding as a team. Brilliant.
The most obvious thing about this race was that a Quickstep rider - almost certainly Gilbert or Terpstra - would attack in the last 40km and that it would be extremely dangerous without a very quick response from the other favourites. It doesn't take hindsight to spot that. All the favourites should have responded very quickly and, as the guy who ultimately looked the strongest - it seems that Sagan lost out more than the others as a result.
it is all about sagan right? what about roelandts?
What about Roelandts? He wasn't the strongest rider over the final climb in the race.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Brullnux said:
I don't see how following the most clearly in form rider (who has an average acceleration) on the wheel of a GT rider (with similarly poor acceleration) isn't an obvious choice. Sagan was basically on his wheel as well. He made the wrong choice, which is fine, but it just happens pretty frequently.
Yep, Kristoff won the same monument easily by just following Terpstra when no-one else could. And Degenkolb won Paris Roubaix by following a Terpstra attack. He's the number one wheel you should be looking out for if you want a rider whose attack will stick, and who can easily be beaten in a sprint.

Ridiculous that he wasn't marked more tightly by all the other favourites.
Terpstra was stronger than all of them. Quite obvious to me.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY