• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!

2023 Women's WT CQ Game

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Top scorers

The top 30: remember, these are only the points gained in WWT (& World Championship) events
VOLLERING Demi
1940​
1194​
3​
KOPECKY Lotte
1210​
1042​
4​
VAN VLEUTEN Annemiek
1193​
1855​
0​
REUSSER Marlen
1037​
477​
9​
NIEWIADOMA Katarzyna
819​
756​
2​
WIEBES Lorena
815​
1615​
2​
LABOUS Juliette
704​
842​
4​
LUDWIG Cecilie Uttrup
667​
971​
3​
PERSICO Silvia
643​
994​
5​
LIPPERT Liane
578​
904​
1​
REALINI Gaia
566​
101​
7​
GEORGI Pfeiffer
554​
405​
9​
LONGO BORGHINI Elisa
523​
1280​
0​
CHABBEY Elise
510​
804​
0​
BROWN Grace
500​
774​
2​
VAN ANROOIJ Shirin
490​
420​
22​
SCHWEINBERGER Christina
456​
267​
1​
DYGERT Chloe
450​
2​
23​
PALADIN Soraya
450​
305​
3​
CONSONNI Chiara
448​
764​
5​
MOOLMAN-PASIO Ashleigh
431​
640​
0​
KOOL Charlotte
413​
194​
15​
BALSAMO Elisa
412​
1129​
0​
MARKUS Riejanne
395​
410​
0​
BAUERNFEIND Ricarda
386​
429​
5​
SPRATT Amanda
353​
253​
4​
STEELS Claire
344​
94​
0​
HENDERSON Anna
335​
206​
6​
MAGNALDI Erica
333​
255​
0​
GARCIA CAÑELLAS Margarita Victoria
332​
831​
0​

But a high score isn't necessarily great if the rider was very expensive. The 21 who made a profit of 100 points or more:
VOLLERING Demi
746​
REUSSER Marlen
560​
REALINI Gaia
465​
DYGERT Chloe
448​
STEELS Claire
250​
DEIGNAN (ARMITSTEAD) Elizabeth
222​
KOOL Charlotte
219​
SCHWEINBERGER Christina
189​
KOPECKY Lotte
168​
GEORGI Pfeiffer
149​
PALADIN Soraya
145​
HENDERSON Anna
129​
PIKULIK Daria
126​
COLES-LYSTER Maggie
116​
VAN DER DUIN Maike
114​
KRAAK Amber
111​
RAYER Eglantine
110​
TANG Xin
109​
WYLLIE Ella
109​
JASTRAB Megan
106​
SPRATT Amanda
100​

There were 608 women who scored CQ points in these races. Among the 4 billion or so women who didn't score at all are 13 that wer picked by managers in this game, including Chantaal Van den Broeck-Blaak, who was selected 5 times despite a well publicised retirement.

Riders who were available at no cost have an incalculably high percentage return on investment: there were 111 of them, but most scored very few points. However, they included:
DEIGNAN (ARMITSTEAD) Elizabeth
222​
24​
TANG Xin
109​
0​
BARKER Elinor
87​
1​
MIERMONT Dilyxine
57​
0​
PIETERSE Puck
56​
0​
LEPISTÖ-HENTTALA Lotta
54​
3​
ZENG Luyao
41​
0​
CHANG Yue
27​
0​
KANG Qiao
22​
0​



The highest %age returns that had the same minimum of 20 points scored were
DYGERT Chloe
450 pts scored​
2 cost​
22500.0 %​
NOSKOVA Nikola
64​
2​
3200.0​
VAN EMPEL Fem
84​
5​
1680.0​
NASKOVICH Taisa
64​
4​
1600.0​
REALINI Gaia
566​
101​
560.4​
RAYER Eglantine
134​
24​
558.3​
PATERNOSTER Letizia
89​
19​
468.4​
BORRAS Marion
56​
12​
466.7​
GRIFFIN Mia
91​
21​
433.3​
OLAUSSON Wilma
30​
7​
428.6​
RAGUSA Katia
122​
31​
393.5​
OSTOLAZA ZABALA Usoa
38​
10​
380.0​
WYLLIE Ella
149​
40​
372.5​
STEELS Claire
344​
94​
366.0​
TERUEL RIBES Alba
28​
9​
311.1​
VETTORELLO Giorgia
27​
9​
300.0​
BÄCKSTEDT Zoe
95​
32​
296.9​
DE FRANCESCO Danielle
147​
52​
282.7​
COLES-LYSTER Maggie
183​
67​
273.1​
TSERAKH Hanna
102​
42​
242.9​
CHRISTIE Henrietta
118​
49​
240.8​
ZABELINSKAYA Olga
67​
30​
223.3​
REUSSER Marlen
1037​
477​
217.4​
KOOL Charlotte
413​
194​
212.9​
ALLEN Jessica
36​
17​
211.8​
JØRGENSEN Tiril
63​
30​
210.0​
BEEKHUIS Teuntje
91​
44​
206.8​
JASTRAB Megan
211​
105​
201.0​

The impeccable picks
VOLLERING Demi
KOPECKY Lotte
REUSSER Marlen
REALINI Gaia
DYGERT Chloe
DEIGNAN (ARMITSTEAD) Elizabeth
 
Jan 27, 2021
30
17
2,610
Visit site
Thanks for a brilliant job AC in an absolutely gorgeous contest. Superb results service throughout the year.
Great honor to be the first winner of this contest with one pregnant and one who has retired. A bit of luck is allowed

Thanks to Demi and Lotte for an outstanding season this year

Its gonne be hard to defend this double
 
The best possible team:
costscoreteams
VOLLERING Demi
1194​
1940​
3​
REUSSER Marlen
477​
1037​
9​
REALINI Gaia
101​
566​
7​
GEORGI Pfeiffer
405​
554​
9​
SCHWEINBERGER Christina
267​
456​
1​
PALADIN Soraya
305​
450​
3​
DYGERT Chloe
2​
450​
23​
KOOL Charlotte
194​
413​
15​
SPRATT Amanda
253​
353​
4​
STEELS Claire
94​
344​
0​
HENDERSON Anna
206​
335​
6​
PIKULIK Daria
178​
304​
1​
VAN DER DUIN Maike
147​
261​
2​
DEIGNAN (ARMITSTEAD) Elizabeth
0​
222​
24​
JASTRAB Megan
105​
211​
9​
COLES-LYSTER Maggie
67​
183​
0​
3995​
8079​
116​
If this had been entered as a team, it's popularity ranking would have been only 29th of 33. Rufs' winning team would be 4 places higher, so popularity was often based on misjudgement: popular picks who failed to meet their cost include Collective Wisdom team members Fisher-Black, Klein, Cavalli, Vos, De Wilde, Gigante and Rivera. Zoe Backstedt was the most popular pick, and made a decent profit on a very low cost, but did not have the big breakthrough year that I suspect many of those picking her had expected.

The best team that is made up entirely of unselected riders
VAN VLEUTEN Annemiek
1855​
1193​
MARKUS Riejanne
410​
395​
STEELS Claire
94​
344​
MAGNALDI Erica
255​
333​
ADEGEEST Loes
337​
316​
KRAAK Amber
165​
276​
LACH Marta
337​
257​
WILLIAMS Georgia
171​
194​
KERBAOL Cédrine
111​
187​
COLES-LYSTER Maggie
67​
183​
WYLLIE Ella
40​
149​
DE FRANCESCO Danielle
52​
147​
RAGUSA Katia
31​
122​
CHRISTIE Henrietta
49​
118​
TANG Xin
0​
109​
GRIFFIN Mia
21​
91​
3995​
4414​


Rufs' winning team scored 62% of the highest possible; it's the only team that included both Vollering and Kopecky, who made a habit of taking the top two spots in races together.
VOLLERING Demi
1194​
1940​
KOPECKY Lotte
1042​
1210​
DYGERT Chloe
2​
450​
SPRATT Amanda
253​
353​
FISHER-BLACK Niamh
368​
278​
DEIGNAN (ARMITSTEAD) Elizabeth
0​
222​
BREDEWOLD Mischa
393​
198​
NELSON Josie
102​
111​
BÄCKSTEDT Zoe
32​
95​
NOSKOVA Nikola
2​
64​
LEPISTÖ-HENTTALA Lotta
0​
54​
UNEKEN Lonneke
137​
37​
YSLAND Anne Dorthe
60​
11​
BANKS (STEDMAN) Elizabeth
0​
5​
VAN DEN BROEK-BLAAK Chantal
280​
0​
BRENNAUER Lisa
94​
0​
3959​
5028​
 
If we had taken CQ points from all races, instead of just the WWT (+WC)

Surprisingly different from the 'official game', difference in position is since I last posted this at the end of July.

1​
DJW
6675​
5
2​
Rufs
6526​
-1
3​
SamuCuenca
6407​
-1
4​
Madrazo
6377​
0
5​
Skidmark
6201​
2
6​
LibertineSeguros
6139​
-4
7​
JonEzeitza
6076​
5
8​
SlowClimber
6002​
2
9​
LukasCPH
5859​
-4
10​
Shalgo
5786​
-1
11​
ArchieBoy
5783​
3
12​
ArmchairCyclist
5781​
-4
13​
BR2
5751​
3
14​
Ricco
5698​
-3
15​
DJSprtsch
5528​
-2
16​
Salvarani
5462​
4
17​
Alvarakas
5432​
-2
18​
Leadbelly
5401​
0
19​
PostmanHat
5371​
5
20​
LosBrolin
5319​
-3
21​
Hfgon1
5203​
2
22​
Bminchow
5125​
-1
23​
TRiley36
4918​
-4
24​
MuddyWaters
4783​
-2
25​
EvansIsTheBest
4738​
0
26​
Josedin
4611​
0
27​
RoteLaterne
4464​
0
28​
JumboVismaFan
4276​
0
29​
RedheadDane
4157​
0
30​
Del1962
4049​
0
31​
AmisVelo
3761​
0
32​
Comodoro
3636​
0
CollectiveWisdom
5625​

Not only a different winner, but some notable changes in position throughout the table
In order of position in the real table
position on WWT/WC gamePosition if all races includedDifference
Rufs
1​
2​
-1​
Skidmark
2​
5​
-3​
Shalgo
3​
10​
-7​
Madrazo
4​
4​
0​
DJW
5​
1​
4​
LibertineSeguros
6​
6​
0​
ArmchairCyclist
7​
12​
-5​
JonEzeitza
8​
7​
1​
Ricco
9​
14​
-5​
LukasCPH
10​
9​
1​
Salvarani
11​
16​
-5​
SlowClimber
12​
8​
4​
ArchieBoy
13​
11​
2​
SamuCuenca
14​
3​
11​
DJSprtsch
15​
15​
0​
BR2
16​
13​
3​
Alvarakas
17​
17​
0​
PostmanHat
18​
19​
-1​
Bminchow
19​
22​
-3​
Leadbelly
20​
18​
2​
Hfgon1
21​
21​
0​
LosBrolin
22​
20​
2​
RoteLaterne
23​
27​
-4​
TRiley36
24​
23​
1​
MuddyWaters
25​
24​
1​
EvansIsTheBest
26​
25​
1​
JumboVismaFan
27​
28​
-1​
Josedin
28​
26​
2​
Del1962
29​
30​
-1​
RedheadDane
30​
29​
1​
AmisVelo
31​
31​
0​
Comodoro
32​
32​
0​




Some managers did considerably better than others at picking riders who were focussed on the top level events that counted for the game, others not so much:
Points gained from lower level races
SamuCuenca
2434​
DJW
2125​
BR2
2084​
LosBrolin
1983​
SlowClimber
1939​
Leadbelly
1936​
Alvarakas
1824​
Hfgon1
1809​
PostmanHat
1797​
Josedin
1770​
ArchieBoy
1767​
TRiley36
1763​
LibertineSeguros
1751​
Madrazo
1738​
JonEzeitza
1735​
EvansIsTheBest
1716​
MuddyWaters
1683​
DJSprtsch
1667​
LukasCPH
1632​
Bminchow
1623​
Rufs
1498​
Ricco
1460​
ArmchairCyclist
1401​
RedheadDane
1323​
Salvarani
1321​
JumboVismaFan
1307​
Comodoro
1298​
Skidmark
1278​
Del1962
1209​
RoteLaterne
1204​
AmisVelo
1112​
Shalgo
1021​
CollectiveWisdom
1916​

So essentially Samu's riders spent effort getting 2434 points that did him no good at all in this game.

In terms of concentration on the races that mattered for the game, this is the percentage of their riders' total points that actually mattered.
Shalgo
82.4 %​
Skidmark
79.4​
Rufs
77.0​
Salvarani
75.8​
ArmchairCyclist
75.8​
Ricco
74.4​
RoteLaterne
73.0​
Madrazo
72.7​
LukasCPH
72.1​
LibertineSeguros
71.5​
JonEzeitza
71.4​
AmisVelo
70.4​
Del1962
70.1​
DJSprtsch
69.8​
ArchieBoy
69.4​
JumboVismaFan
69.4​
Bminchow
68.3​
RedheadDane
68.2​
DJW
68.2​
SlowClimber
67.7​
PostmanHat
66.5​
Alvarakas
66.4​
Hfgon1
65.2​
MuddyWaters
64.8​
Comodoro
64.3​
Leadbelly
64.2​
TRiley36
64.2​
EvansIsTheBest
63.8​
BR2
63.8​
LosBrolin
62.7​
SamuCuenca
62.0​
Josedin
61.6​
CollectiveWisdom
65.9​


The riders that got most points that didn't count (of those that had been chosen for the game)
lower level%age of points from top level
KOPECKY Lotte
530​
69.5​
WIEBES Lorena
418​
66.1​
CAVALLI Marta
378​
25.7​
DRONOVA-BALABOLINA Tamara
330​
35.0​
BROWN Grace
305​
62.1​
LIPPERT Liane
299​
65.9​
LUDWIG Cecilie Uttrup
289​
69.8​
SCHWEINBERGER Christina
281​
61.9​
KOPPENBURG Clara
275​
28.2​
FIDANZA Arianna
268​
18.5​
BREDEWOLD Mischa
267​
42.6​
VOLLERING Demi
265​
88.0​
BARIL Olivia
260​
47.5​
DE WILDE Julie
250​
15.3​

So riders like Cavalli, Koppenburg, Fidanza and De Wilde have shown that they are capable of a good haul, while showing scant respect to their managers here.
On the other hand, Lizzie Deignan wasted no effort, with all 222 of her season's points being relevant to the game, and Naimh Fisher-Black got 278 of her 279 points to the benefit of the 15 teams that picked her, Katia Niewiadoma being almost as efficient with all but 15 of her 834 points being valid here.

To her credit, @Libertine Seguros identified early in the year Lilibeth Chacon as a rider that she would have selected if this had been a game in which all races counted; for a cost of 93, she would have earned 340 points, but only 5 of them were at the top level. Dominika Wlodarczyk scored 483 out of 488 in lower level races, and the highest CQ score for the year with zero in this game would have been Linda Zanetti (277).

If all races had counted, the best possible team as identified above would have scored 10517, but a score of 11419 would be possible by taking out Georgi, Paladin, Spratt, Van der Duin, Jastrab and Coles-Lyster, and substituting in Kopecky, Kerbaol, Zabelinskaya, Vigilia, Kulynych and Gontova in their stead.
 
In case your response to all the numbers above is TLDR, the reason I have done all that (apart from being a numbers junky with not much else to do today and a want to understand the women's peloton better) is that I am seriously considering making the game next year a closer parallel to the men's season long game by having all races count, so simply the CQ score for the year. I think I would be inclined to keep the team size and budget the same.

I know most of you are polite enough to say "whatever suits you best", but leaving that aside, what would your preference be?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvansIsTheBest
In case your response to all the numbers above is TLDR, the reason I have done all that (apart from being a numbers junky with not much else to do today and a want to understand the women's peloton better) is that I am seriously considering making the game next year a closer parallel to the men's season long game by having all races count, so simply the CQ score for the year. I think I would be inclined to keep the team size and budget the same.

I know most of you are polite enough to say "whatever suits you best", but leaving that aside, what would your preference be?
Whatever suits you best. But more seriously, I would prefer to simply use the CQ score.
 
I made two possible teams for this game: one which was made up of riders that I wanted to do well, and one that had riders I expected would do quite well (it included both AVV and Vollering).
I picked the former and ended up outside the top 10. Had I chosen the other one, then I believe I would have won the game by over 300 points.

I don't regret my decision though, and the fact that Rufs managed to win despite having two non-active riders in the team as well as some other riders that struggled with injuries throughout the season (although I think we all had some of those), makes that accomplishment even more impressive. So a huge congratulation to Rufs for becoming the inaugural winner of the competition.
 
And a big thank you to @Armchair cyclist for devoting time to keeping track of the scores in both this and all the other games you're in charge of. Going forward, it would be much easier for me if all CQ points counted in this game, because it can be hard to predict if a rider will get most of her results in WWT races or in other races instead. I picked Tamara Dronova because she had scored almost 87% of her 2022 points in WWT and WC races. She actually managed to improve her overall score this year, however she only got 178 points in WWT races versus 352 last season.

However it should only be @Armchair cyclist's decision to make. For someone who has proven that he's exceptionally bad at updating the scores in his own game, I can fully understand it, if AC doesn't feel like spending more time on it than necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rufs
Although CQ don't make a down load on at all a regular basis for the women, the mechanical copy and paste of a few pages of numbers is not that arduous, and the system that I use for the classics game, which is what I used here this year, is not very efficient. I don't think I can promise weekly updates, as Skidmark provides for the main game, but the effort and time needed to produce numbers is very close between both systems, so given the unanimity of feeling so far, all CQ points it will be.

Unless anyone wants to persuade me otherwise, I shall suggest that we stick to the same budget and squad size (so 16 riders and 4000 points), so you can start preparing your shortlists on that basis.