Are Saxo the most tactically inept team in the peloton?

[Cerberus]

In what time frame and by what measure? Astana have GT's and classic wins, Rabo have GT and classic wins, Caisse have GT and classic wins, as do Liquigas, Katusha have classic wins (and a lot of other stage and race wins), as do Quick Step, Lotto and Columbia.

Yes, Saxo are successful especially when compared to FDJ or Footon.

Dodging the issue again I see. I already picked a time frame and a measure. I picked CQ ratings. You weren't satisfied to because it didn't suit you point. So pick a time frame and pick a measure. Obviously I'll reserve the right to point it out if you pick something obviously *** like cutting of the time priod at some arbitrary point before this year or start it in 1980 or decide the truest measure of a teams success is number of green jerseys won.

Once you've picked a reasonable (and objective) measure and time frame you can list the number of teams beating Saxo bank by that measure. It's not hard, I did it and you of cause wasn't satisfied. I'm not going to keep playing the game of listing all the ways Saxo Banks is successful only to have you nitpick each one. I've played that game once, now it's your turn. Let's see you avoid the topic for the 3rd time in a row.

*Listen to the sound of crickets*

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I see that you still haven't learnt to chill out. I've no more avoided the topic than you've moved the goal posts and tried to obscure, obfuscate and worm your way out of a discussion of Riis the tactician. We've got that you don't think tactics matter - other than that you've just gone round and round in circles.

You picked the CQ ratings but as I point out to you there are a number of flaws in the methodology - which you have continued to ignore instead choosing to go for the internet warrior approach. CQ is fine if we take out places, podiums, points won in national championships, world championships and olympics. You re-weight the figures and if Saxo still come out on top then I'll happily accept that Saxo are the 'most successful team'. (A figure which doesn't even take into account resources etc, so we'd probably have to refigure that as well).

Finishing second after you have screwed up your tactics is not a success - unless you are very easily satisfied - or you are a fanboy.

Sound of crickets? More like the sound you slapping your monkey while posting. As I said - put your **** away and try to engage your brain. It's a discussion not a who is the hardest internet warrior competition.

Now, I know that you are having problems accepting that people hold different opinions to you, but you're just going to have to live with it.

So anyway, you've a little task to do now. Run along - re-work the CQ figures and then we'll talk.

 

[Cerberus]

I see that you still haven't learnt to chill out.

You picked the CQ ratings but as I point out to you there are a number of flaws in the methodology - which you have continued to ignore instead choosing to go for the internet warrior approach. CQ is fine if we take out places, podiums, points one in national championships, world championships and olympics. You re-weight the figures and if Saxo still come out on top then I'll happily accept that Saxo are the 'most successful team'.

Feel free to reevaluate every team in the top 10 for the last decade taking out every secondary placement, World Championships national championships etc. I don't have 50 or 100 or however many hours to give over to the project but I'll certainly salute you dedication to proving you point. If you're not inclined to put in the work name measure of success and tally up how Saxo does. Come on let's see you ignore the issue a 4th time in a row.

*Listen to the sound of crickets*

Finishing second after you have screwed up your tactics is not a success - unless you are very easily satisfied - or you are a fanboy.

True enough, I don't suppose you'd care to name a Tour de France that Saxo should have won and explain how this would have been accomplished by a tactical genius such as yourself?

*Listen to the sound of crickets*

Now, I know that you are having problems accepting that people hold different opinions to you, but you're just going to have to live with it.

Yes, you're certainly a good example of how to treat those with other opinions with respect.

Sound of crickets? More like the sound you slapping your monkey while posting. As I said - put your **** away and try to engage your brain. It's a discussion not a who is the hardest internet warrior competition.

Such anger, did Riis kick you puppy or something?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I treat you the way you deserve. I'm merely responding to your posting. You chose to go down the internet warrior route so why should I treat your opinions with any respect? Chill out and stop being a **** and I might take your points on board.

I don't know about Riis kicking any puppies but you've certainly been sucking on the teat of his kool aid machine.

Now who's avoiding the topic by claiming you don't have time... what makes you think that I do? If you want to use a flawed methodology to 'prove' your point then great but that doesn't stop it being a flawed methodology and it doesn't stop your 'proof' being based on dubious foundations.

It's already been said that some people think Saxo got their tactics in the TDF wrong last year and why - why don't you explain why their tactics were spot on and why Dertie was so unbeatable?

 

[Cerberus]

Now who's avoiding the topic by claiming you don't have time... what makes you think that I do? If you want to use a flawed methodology to 'prove' your point then great but that doesn't stop it being a flawed methodology and it doesn't stop your 'proof' being based on dubious foundations.

I don't think the methology is seriously flawed, but certainly if you think it is so flawed how come you cannot name a single better meusure. Besides you semme to be forgetting it's your thread and your point, if Saxo Bank is such a horrible faulire how come you're unable to name any measure by which that is the case.

*Listen to the sound of crickets*

It's already been said that some people think Saxo got their tactics in the TDF wrong last year and why - why don't you explain why their tactics were spot on and why Dertie was so unbeatable?

Contador was unbeatable or close to it because he was the best of the GC contenders in the TTs as seen by him gaining time in those and the best climber as seen by him gaining time against everyone both the times he bothered to attack. No one has shown how these 2 gigantic advantages could be overcome. He also had the strongest team making any attack from far out even more pointless than usual.

 

[Magnus]

In what time frame and by what measure? Astana have GT's and classic wins, Rabo have GT and classic wins, Caisse have GT and classic wins, as do Liquigas, Katusha have classic wins (and a lot of other stage and race wins), as do Quick Step, Lotto and Columbia.

What's your point?

 

[Cerberus]

What's your point?

She doesn't have one, she's just obfuscating to avoid acknowledging the obvious fact that Riis' alledged incompetence in no way is reflected in Saxo Banks results.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Ho hum. I've already told you that I think that 1 TDF and 1 Giro with a super-charged Basso is not a very good return for a team which has put all its resources into the TDF especially over the last few years. I'd expect a better return than 1 in 15 over the last 10 years in GT's.

Now here's the difference between you and me. If Riis guides Schleck to Paris in Yellow I'll be more than happy to reconsider my opinion of the team and its tactics, but if Schleck fails will you be willing to reconsider that tactics don't matter and that Riis might have got things wrong in this race? Will you still be claiming that Dertie is unbeatable and will you still be making excuses?

Do you think that tactics don't matter in defending the jersey for the rest of the race when the team is minus its best mountain domestique?

LOL at all the Saxo homeboys coming out. Why so defensive and why so sensitive? Talk about living your lives vicariously through sport. Magnus - if you haven't got my point yet then there is no hope for you.

 

[Cerberus]

Ho hum. I've already told you that I think that 1 TDF and 1 Giro with a super-charged Basso is not a very good return for a team which has put all its resources into the TDF especially over the last few years. I'd expect a better return than 1 in 15 over the last 10 years in GT's.

And again Saxo has not put all their resources into the TDF as evidenced by their excelent results in the classics. Still I sense you think GT victories are the measure of success, remind me of which teams have done better in that period?

Now here's the difference between you and me. If Riis guides Schleck to Paris in Yellow I'll be more than happy to reconsider my opinion of the team and its tactics, but if Schleck fails will you be willing to reconsider that tactics don't matter and that Riis might have got things wrong in this race? Will you still be claiming that Dertie is unbeatable and will you still be making excuses?

That depends on how they win or lose the race. If Contador kicks away in the mountain and Schleck cannot follow I don't see how this is a matter of tactics. If Contador manages to hang on in the mountains and take the 41 seconds in the ITT it's still not a matter of tactics. If Andy Schleck manages to take more time in the mountains or puts in an incredible effort in the ITT to hang on it's still not a matter of tactics, it's a matter of raw strenght. If they win by forcing a split on a stage with sidewind that's solid tactic, not brilliant mind you, because it's not like splitting the field on a windy stage is novel, but it's solid. If they miss a side wind split then that's not smart, it's not proof of being the most incompetent team in the field, because lot's of people miss splits, but it's not good sign.

Do you think that tactics don't matter in defending the jersey for the rest of the race when the team is minus its best mountain domestique?

A bit, but not that much, they obviously shouldn't let a contender into a break and let that break have 10 minutes, but that's obvious.

Tell me what do you think Saxo should do to tactics wise? I'll go first.
I think Saxo should try to keep thing together untill the final climb or possible the next final on stage 14 because the distance is short. Then Andy should attack and try to drop Contador if it works good, if not try to hang on to Any Contador makes and try to defend the jersey on the ITT. Is this imaginative or novel? No, but it works if Andy is stronger on the climbs or shows unexpected strenght in the ITT, it runs the risk of having Contador gain time on a counterattack compared to a more conservative approach but Andy IMO needs the extra time. Sidewind is an option of course but requirtes well sidewind.

What do you think, what brilliant stratagems would you try? Would it be testimony to Riis' tactical genius if Andy can put out 50 watt more than Contador on a climb or proof of his incompetence if he puts out 50 watt less, or are there perhaps other factors that determine who drops who on a climb? Do Contador and Andy have smarter DS than the rest of the contenders or are they just better climbers?

ETA: I'm going to make a bet with myself that whatever happens Mrs John Murphy is going to decide it's proof of Riis tactical incompetence.

 

[Roadrage]

To answer the question: "Hell, no."
They are, in fact, doing much better than Mrs. John's lame attempts to belittle them.

 

[roundabout]

Their attempt on stage 11 was pretty inept. What if Schleck had a puncture after pretty much the whole team was used up?

 

[Magnus]

Their attempt on stage 11 was pretty inept. What if Schleck had a puncture after pretty much the whole team was used up?

And what if they had succeeded in dropping Contador?

At this point of the race it seems Schleck needs more time on Contador and they're pretty much equal when climbing.

 

[Cerberus]

And what if they had succeeded in dropping Contador?

At this point of the race it seems Schleck needs more time on Contador and they're pretty much equal when climbing.

Honestly I agree the move seemed odd, making the attempt is fine, but I think it was evident fairly early that the wind just wasn't hard enough to really split the field so the attempt should IMO have been called of earlier.

 

[Magnus]

Honestly I agree the move seemed odd, making the attempt is fine, but I think it was evident fairly early that the wind just wasn't hard enough to really split the field so the attempt should IMO have been called of earlier.

For sure. When Contador was brought into place by Vino continuing seemed pointless.

 

[Cerberus]

For sure. When Contador was brought into place by Vino continuing seemed pointless.

The funny thing is that I think this is actually the first time in a thread dedicated to condemning the utter incompetence of Riis that someone pointed out a concrete tactical mistake by Saxo.