Armstrong / contador must attack each other - sunday

[Publicus]

actually this seems entirely plausible. it seems as if they'll still be only 2 seconds apart. a crosswind will decide the tour.

If they are only 2 seconds apart next Sunday, something very wrong has occurred over the previous 7 days....

 

[lean mean &green]

I hate to disappoint but I expect Astana to ride conservatively on Sunday.

They'll ride hard tempo as long as they can and try to deter/prevent attacks in this way. I don't think they can afford to play the game of letting others wear yellow anymore after Sun either. If others attack they will mark them but I don't expect much of a shake up b/c the climb is not that long. The hard climbing is only about 600 vertical meters. It's not easy but not hard enough to decide this race. (Verbier - 8.8 km climb to 7.5 %)

From the "team" perspective it makes sense to keep AC, LA, and AK as high on GC as possible until final TT and Ventoux. (What if you commited to one rider and they crash, or are thrown out for doping control?) Neither AC or LA should attack, but certainly need to mark other contenders.

At the point the race arrives at the foot of Ventoux, and if the ITT does not produce big gaps as I expect, team tactics become almost irrelevant. If you are strong you ride that climb as fast as you can, there is no possible explanation for conserving. The strongest Astana rider WILL win this tour but we'll have to wait till the very end to see it. It is most likely AC.

LA's climbing is almost a completely uknown quantity at this point. If he has anything close to pre-2005 form he can win but it seems like a BIG leap of faith. Wether you love him or hate him, dismissing him so easily only demonstrates how little you know or how easily you're swayed by emotion.

 

[Rupert]

Don't race either but...

I don't race, so someone please help me here.

Each day Lance says Astana will not attack because they don't need too. Yet, Contador said at the presser that he will not attack LA. By that he means, if Lance flys up the road, the others have to chase him down -- he will not. Yes or no?

But if Sastre, the Garmin boys, Andy S, and Evans go up the road, Contador will cover that regardless of what the old man does.

I don't race either but I read and watch a lot - my take is that the Astanas will cover the attacks by other riders. If Lance or Alberto attacks and gets a gap, the other will sit on the wheels of anyone who chases, but not lead the charge to catch his teammate (theoretically... and I really think it will go that way - until maybe on the Ventoux..). If the teammate is caught the other sitting on in the chase group might be in a good position to then counter-attack, himself. Kloden would be in the game as long as he can hang with the front bunch, too, and so would have Levi.

 

[ilillillli]

If they are only 2 seconds apart next Sunday, something very wrong has occurred over the previous 7 days....

it almost seems as if i could've said this last sunday...

 

[euphrades]

If he were that astute then the race radio ban would benefit him. Bruyneel should be calling for radio elmination for the rest of the Tour.

Nice rebuttal. I think you said that the last time you quoted me.

I can't remember if it is you that has a notepad file that you copy and paste from.

 

[BroDeal]

Nice rebuttal. I think you said that the last time you quoted me.

I can't remember if it is you that has a notepad file that you copy and paste from.

Nope, I type everything, which is why I have so many typos, grammer errors, misspellings, and--sometimes when I lose my train of thought--missing words.

Again, if Armstrong were truly one of the smartest at reading a race then he would benefit from having no radios. So would anyone else--riders like Chris Horner and DDL--who is race astute. Funny how Armstrong was so race smart but never managed to win a real classic...

I don't see Armstrong being one to give up a potential advantage, so it calls into question why Bruyneel would be leading the charge to keep radios.

As for the actual thread topic, Contador should ride his own race as though Armstrong were on a different team. There is no way he should refuse to follow an attack by Armstrong so as not to attack a teammate. Contador should also make sure that he is the first to attack, so he puts Armstron in the position of being the "bad guy" if he chases.

 

[euphrades]

Nope, I type everything, which is why I have so many typos, grammer errors, misspellings, and--sometimes when I lose my train of thought--missing words.

Again, if Armstrong were truly one of the smartest at reading a race then he would benefit from having no radios. So would anyone else--riders like Chris Horner and DDL--who is race astute. Funny how Armstrong was so race smart but never managed to win a real classic...
\.

I think Sans Sebastian is a real classic.....and I forgot La Flèche Wallonne.

I personally think Contador will take it. Armstrong is doing better than i thought but doens't have the young legs. I am rooting for him for that only reason. I am older and i think its great he is doing so wel.

 

[lean mean &green]

euphrades,

Let me help, BroDeal HATES Armstrong. He jumps on everything Armstrong looking for a fight. You won't convince him otherwise. Don't bother and don't take the bait.

Just think about the discussion you're having. You're actually debating about wether or not a 7 time TdF winner is a good strategist or not. I mean, really? It's a tautology.

You don't have to like the guy, you can claim he's a bigger cheat than others, you can even make bad jokes about an Oedipal complex, but the argument that he is weak strategist is insane.

(Look back a page or two to what Amsterhammer said, it will now make better sense)

 

[BroDeal]

euphrades,

Let me help, lean,mean,&green is a Armstrong saddle sniffer. He jumps on everyone who questions Armstrong, looking for a fight. You won't convince him otherwise. Don't bother and don't take the bait.

Just think about the discussion you're having. You're actually debating about wether or not a 7 time TdF winner is a good strategist or not. I mean, really? It's a tautology.

The way Armstrong won the Tour was not through strategy or tactics. It was through higher power to weight and higher power to drag numbers. We saw precious little strategy other than having his team escort him to within a few kilometers of the line so he could sprint uphill. They were boring Tours precisely because of the lack of strategy and tactics. The length of a GT means that tactical variations even out over the course of the race so that the strongest--or in Armstrong's case, the most doped--rider usually wins.

A one day race is very different because it actually requires ability to read a race and instantly act on changes. The most Armstrong could do there was a semi-classic like Fleche-Wallonne or a faux classic like San Sebastion or a crap shoot in the rain like the Oslo WC. After trying for years to win LBL and Amstel, he ended up with zero wins. Funny enough, his whole team, who the fanboys worship as tacticians to rival Rommel, never managed to win one of the big races in Spring. Riders like Boonen and Devolder had the balls to leave and were hugely successful. Hincapie...well, not so much.

 

[dave.bz]

Alberto will attack but he won't gain much time. Lance will sit back while the other GC contenders chase. This way Lance will be conserving his energy for the next TT and for the bigger mountain stages to come where he will be even stronger and that's where I believe he might win the tour. But the others will have to be careful that if they do catch Alberto, Lance might attack them and take more time on all of them and perhaps even win the stage.

 

[euphrades]

euphrades,

Let me help, BroDeal HATES Armstrong. He jumps on everything Armstrong looking for a fight. You won't convince him otherwise. Don't bother and don't take the bait.

Just think about the discussion you're having. You're actually debating about wether or not a 7 time TdF winner is a good strategist or not. I mean, really? It's a tautology.

You don't have to like the guy, you can claim he's a bigger cheat than others, you can even make bad jokes about an Oedipal complex, but the argument that he is weak strategist is insane.

(Look back a page or two to what Amsterhammer said, it will now make better sense)

I like Armstrong.....and I am glad what he is doing in today's Tour...

BTW, BroDeal took my bait....

 

[the truth.]

"alberto...alberto can you just pass the bread?"

alberTO.........
christ ..ALBERTO.......the bread>>>>>>>>>>>>"

 

[fpcyclingn]

The way Armstrong won the Tour was not through strategy or tactics. It was through higher power to weight and higher power to drag numbers. We saw precious little strategy other than having his team escort him to within a few kilometers of the line so he could sprint uphill. They were boring Tours precisely because of the lack of strategy and tactics. The length of a GT means that tactical variations even out over the course of the race so that the strongest--or in Armstrong's case, the most doped--rider usually wins.

A one day race is very different because it actually requires ability to read a race and instantly act on changes. The most Armstrong could do there was a semi-classic like Fleche-Wallonne or a faux classic like San Sebastion or a crap shoot in the rain like the Oslo WC. After trying for years to win LBL and Amstel, he ended up with zero wins. Funny enough, his whole team, who the fanboys worship as tacticians to rival Rommel, never managed to win one of the big races in Spring. Riders like Boonen and Devolder had the balls to leave and were hugely successful. Hincapie...well, not so much.

Fail. Another chump who hasn't ever ridden a bike. These boards suck.

 

[grimpeur]

Fail. Another chump who hasn't ever ridden a bike. These boards suck.

Then leave...

There's a reason Contador is wearing dossard 21, he's Astana's team leader. There's a reason Armstrong is wearing dossard 22, he's not Astana's team leader. Wait, Bruyneel forgot what he said.

 

[Bagster]

I don't race, so someone please help me here.

Each day Lance says Astana will not attack because they don't need too. Yet, Contador said at the presser that he will not attack LA. By that he means, if Lance flys up the road, the others have to chase him down -- he will not. Yes or no?

But if Sastre, the Garmin boys, Andy S, and Evans go up the road, Contador will cover that regardless of what the old man does.

Now given that Lance sits in third, why would he attack Contador unless he intends to launch Alberto later. (I know they both want to win, but Popo/HZ's pulling when the group split cancels out Alberto's weak assertion that he was countering the attack by the Silence rider).

Do they want to settle this in the ITT, and then respect each other's position climbing Ventoux?

A few points:
1. Neither Alberto or Lance need to do any attacking at all at this stage of the race. It is up to Scheklet, Sastre and Evans to attack because they are the ones who have to make up a lot of time.
2. With the exception of Evans you can probably add well over a minute to the real time that Andy S and Carlos are down because that is what they are likely to lose to both Lance and Alberto in the final TT.
3. Because of that they will be forced to attack and attack hard prior to the TT stage. Of course AB and LA will have to cover those attacks but that is all they will have to do and they will probably do it in tandem.
4. If the others are unable to put any time into LA and AB before the TT it is pretty much game over for them and the race will go to the Ventoux stage as a two horse race. That is where you will see the real LA/AB battle begin as all of the other challengers will most likely be minutes down.
5. Despite what the anti LA idiots on here state, most commentators who know anything about reading a race and form would be pretty hesitant in betting that LA won't be in with a shot at Ventoux. Will he be good enough to beat AB? I don't think so. If he does it would be a sensation and a big 10 size foot in the mouths of the hateboyz on here who were openly saying he would be gone last week. Then again I see they just keep moving out the dates of his demise, they are better at hedging their bets than making considered predictions.

 

[Bagster]

Fail. Another chump who hasn't ever ridden a bike. These boards suck.

I disagree, the boards don't suck, idiots like Brodeal suck. He is one of those people who dislike domination in sport. LA won seven tours because he was the best rider...period. People like Bro can't handle that hence the ridiculous statement he made. Any sport where one person dominates can get boring I guess that made the tours that Eddie, Bernie, and Mig won boring also. Especially so if you dislike the guy who is kicking **** year after year because he just continues to rub it in. If LA wins this tour then I'm sure that Bro and his mates will have several (no doubt dope filled) conspiracy theories as to how he managed to do it. The theory they won't have of course is that he won it because he was the best...losers hate that reason.

 

[rhubroma]

Nope, I type everything, which is why I have so many typos, grammer errors, misspellings, and--sometimes when I lose my train of thought--missing words.

Again, if Armstrong were truly one of the smartest at reading a race then he would benefit from having no radios. So would anyone else--riders like Chris Horner and DDL--who is race astute. Funny how Armstrong was so race smart but never managed to win a real classic...

I don't see Armstrong being one to give up a potential advantage, so it calls into question why Bruyneel would be leading the charge to keep radios.

As for the actual thread topic, Contador should ride his own race as though Armstrong were on a different team. There is no way he should refuse to follow an attack by Armstrong so as not to attack a teammate. Contador should also make sure that he is the first to attack, so he puts Armstron in the position of being the "bad guy" if he chases.

In short Armstrong pre-cancer was a fairly "come-up-short" in the classics guy, to not mention his way off pace results at the Tour, with the former races more suited to his natural abilities, who was pretty freekin strong, but lacked the excellent tactical skills or that "sixth-racing sense," which came natural to guys like Michele Bartoli and, above all, il Grillo Paolo Bettini. Bettini is proof that the Italian's "old school" pre-radios preparation in the tough hardman's world of Tuscan top amatuer cycling and then as a pro at Mapei, would just have schooled a guy like Armstrong in the spring classics or worlds events.

Whereas Armstrong post-cancer, just won the arms race. That and he, and his DS Bruyneel, brought cycling management of a team and the Tour (for that was pretty much all Armstrong road) to the unnatural level we have arrived at today. As I've mentioned before, the more money and more management comes in, the more humanity goes out. And not just in cylcing.

I would venture to say this is also why it was a hell of alot more entertaining for me to watch Bettini win his Olympic and two Worlds' gold metals, than it was to watch Lance win his 7 Tours in a row. It is a question of culture and style, which, in the broader sense, I think, touches upon the wider issues you suspected were brought up in that Sports Illustrated article you previously posted.

 

[BroDeal]

Fail. Another chump who hasn't ever ridden a bike.

What I am saying is this: The Tour is almost always won by the rider who is the strongest, strongest being some combination of time trialing and climbing performance. The race is long enough that tactical mistakes (unless they are catastrophic) among the contenders will even out over the course of the race. The cream will rise to the top.

Attributing wins in the Tour being the result of tactical genius is largely bogus. If tactics were such a large component of winning then we would see a much larger group of potential winners. The betting odds before the Tour would reflect this, but they don't. Instead the number of realistic winners with reasonable odds of winning is quite small.

If the Tour is nearly always won by the strongest, are we to believe that the strongest riders just happen to also be the most tactical savvy riders? There is a good chance that the stronger the rider is, the less tacticallly astute he would likely be because he has been able to overcome using strength while a weaker rider is forced to use guile. Or put it this way: Being the strongest rider in a group ride is easy. You can let gaps open up, you can make all sorts of mistakes, you can waste energy, and you can still keep up with the group. A much weaker rider has to really stay on his toes; he cannot afford to make the same mistakes that the stronger rider can.

There are exceptions. Sastre did not look like the strongest rider last year; Evans did, but it is hard to say how much Evans' crash took out of him.

People often attribute some sort of genius to Bruyneel, but when has he been able to win without the strongest rider in the race? It is easy to be a genius when the odds are stacked massively in your favor.

 

[jilbiker]

Sunday and the ramainder of the Tour, Armstrong and Contador should attack each other.

At this point, I don't want to hear Armstrong commenting that He will not attack Contador if He makes an attack first.

Armstrong must also attack even if Contador attacks so planet Earth may see who is the strongest.

Contadore indicated He will not attack Armstrong if Armstrong attacks 1st - but I don't believe it.

Also it leaves open the thought that all Contador must do is attack 1st to contain Armstrong.

Sunday's MTN top finish may not even require both to attack each other. It may simply come down to riding and seeing who can stay with the leader. I don't want to see Contadore out front and Astana ask Armstong to sit back so that other contenders don't catch up.

Take the chains off Contador and Armstrong and let's see what happens.

That's what fans have been talking about for months now.

Let's see it.

AC will definitely attack. Did you see today as they came to the top of the last mountain. LA picked up speed and came to the front, next thing AC was right next to him and made sure he got to the mountain top before him. Young man ain't giving any free cookies.

 

[jilbiker]

Being the geek that I am I sat down last night and watched video of Lance from 2005, 2004, 2000 and 1999. I also watched some video of Contador from last year (Angliru) and earlier this year (Paris Nice, Pais).

It's not even close. I think a stage featuring 1999 Lance and 2009 Contador would be a lot of fun, but 2009 Lance just doesn't turn the pedals they way he did in 2005, which was markedly different than the way he rode in 1999/2000.

If your mythical battle occurs, it won't be pretty. Not in the high mountains.

I totally agree. Even looking at the physique, 1999&2000 LA had a similar physique to AC. This year he looks like some xtra pounds, not fat, its muscle but it is not good for climbing. Lance is natuarally muscular, remember he was a triatlethe before cycling. He said he had an extra 5-10 pounds that was difficult to lose but hindered him from being a good climber. The Kimo/Cancer made him lose that weight and finally get to the climbing weight. By 2004/2005 he was almost back to the muscular LA, but he had mastered TDF, had an excellent team and had rivals that cowed at him.

1999/2000 LA against AC would be very exciting, who would win? Hard to say...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I don't think we'll see many attacks between these two on Verbier. People are talking like this is an epic mountain stage, when it's not, at all. The climb is much easier than that to Arcalis. Shorter, not as steep, and nearly 800m lower.

I picture some 50+ riders hitting the climb at the same time. The pace will be set fast by Astana, and riders will fall off the back. Some 5-8k from the top, one of the riders needing time will go. Probably Evans, Maybe Andy, maybe Sastre. It would be in Astana's interest to try to send one of their two guys with that group. But I have a feeling that in team meetings that rider won't be Lance or Alberto, though it would make sense if it were, the guy not picked is not going to be happy. Look for Klodi, or maybe Popo.

There's also the chance that there is dissaray in Astana, and when there's an attack by someone, it won't be long after that when probably Contador attacks. I don't know that Lance has the legs to get away from anyone. He hasn't shown it at all since his comeback, and didn't really in 2005 either. Lance's better chance is to just have Astana ride as fast as possible up the climb, and limit losses to those that attack and get away, which would likely not be enough to leapfrog over him in the standings. Thus saving energy for further stages.

 

[jilbiker]

Contador may ride with his instinct and heart, and is not as good at reading a race as Armstrong yet, but he will not be chasing Lance down if Lance attacks. This would mark him for the rest of his career and he knows this.

LA doesn't have too many fans amongst the Peloton so not sure what bridges there are to burn for AC. AC will do what needs to done, its business, not personal.

 

[jilbiker]

I would like to see the Lance vs Alberto battle happen after they've eliminated everyone else from contention. Unless one or the other of them fails, I wouldn't be surprised to see a "gloves off" battle on the Ventoux, especially if they can drop everyone else first. I don't think either of them will jeopardize the team win to beat the other. A Contador/Armstrong 1/2 GC finish is very possible I think, unless one of them really stumbles before the Ventoux. I expect that Contador will be better on the Ventoux, and it remains to be seen whether Lance beats Schleck/Evans/etc on the final big climbs (maybe only Sunday and the Ventoux matter much, and there's the TT) to allow a clear showdown with Alberto. I do agree that the Lance who rips everyone's legs off decisively is a thing of the past.

AC is not waiting for LA to attack, he is actually waiting for one of the rivals to attack, when they do he will take that as an excuse to put some daylight b/w him and LA.

 

[frizzlefry]

If AC attacks, LA is a bad guy if he counter attacks.
If LA attacks, AC is in his right to counter attack.

Thats the mentality on this board. No matter what LA does, the people on this forum will jump him and say he's the bad guy. Thats the reality of this forum. Just wait and see.

 

[subzro]

If AC attacks, LA is a bad guy if he counter attacks.
If LA attacks, AC is in his right to counter attack.

Thats the mentality on this board. No matter what LA does, the people on this forum will jump him and say he's the bad guy. Thats the reality of this forum. Just wait and see.

I am firmly in the AC camp and I would love to see LA launch an attack, I just don't honestly think he's up to it.