Cav takes tabloid heat for failed GB tactics

[thehog]

Fair enough. I thought GB might be strong enough to pull back the breaks. They weren't. As others have said they should have had a Plan B. Oh well. The fits the tabloids are throwing are just stupid though.

edit: Also the likelihood of a Classic bunch sprint depends on the Classic. Some often end that way. Others almost never...

They were strong enough to bring back the breaks. They were strong enough to bring back any break. They chose to burn up their number one and two riders in the first 100km leaving them with nothing when the race heated up in the last 50km. Ian what’s his name was trying to pull back the group of 30 with 10km to go. That’s not strength, that’s stupidity.

 

[Oldman]

I agree about the questionable call of hanging everything on Cav in a sprint, but I'd bet the press would skewer Sky if they had tried another tactic and it failed. Then we'd be reading about how they failed to support Cav etc. Also, no one else on the team is really a huge threat in terms of winning from a break. Imagine if Stannard or Millar had come in 16th from that break!

You'd have to wonder if the tabloids were hoping a Murdoch enterprise would go wrong...

 

[Pricey_sky]

I'm guessing these are the same tabloids who will be changing there tune completely IF Wiggo wins the ITT.

I read the article written by Howard in the Sun and it was laughable. Mistakes all over it and you can tell it was just another reporter jumping on the GB cycling bandwagon. At one point Howard was blaming GB for letting the gap go upto 5 minutes after the box hill loops were complete (don't think it was more than 70 seconds).

Couldn't care what the tabloids say about cycling to be honest. They usually give the sport very little coverage.

 

[thehog]

You'd have to wonder if the tabloids were hoping a Murdoch enterprise would go wrong...

??

Murdoch owns the bulk of the tabloids.

 

[LesDiablesRouges]

I agree about the questionable call of hanging everything on Cav in a sprint, but I'd bet the press would skewer Sky if they had tried another tactic and it failed. Then we'd be reading about how they failed to support Cav etc. Also, no one else on the team is really a huge threat in terms of winning from a break. Imagine if Stannard or Millar had come in 16th from that break!

I'm with you on the press I've seen it before here in the States with cycling. How Lance is the greatest rider ever blah blah blah. It's like writing in a vacuum with no context.

The press would have eaten Sky alive barring a Cavendish win. So why not race a good tactical race and improve odds rather than lower your odds by being stubborn. It's almost like Team GB was trying to placate the media.

I agreed with another poster who thought that Gerraint Thomas would have been a better choice for this course and I think Team GB wiould have been better off with him their and sending off Millar and Thomas.

That way if either manages to win then the press loves it and Railsford and Team GB gets lauded for being cheeky rather than basted for not winning.

I would have put it at about 1:2 that the race was not going to end with a mass sprint.

I just think Team GB didn't avail themselves to the maximum % of winning by fail to join a breakaway.

 

[argyllflyer]

Fair enough. I thought GB might be strong enough to pull back the breaks. They weren't. As others have said they should have had a Plan B. Oh well. The fits the tabloids are throwing are just stupid though.

edit: Also the likelihood of a Classic bunch sprint depends on the Classic. Some often end that way. Others almost never...

Those with bunch sprints being the flatter ones favoured by the sprinters and perhaps not ones featuring a field full of the top classics riders who'd be doing anything but setting up that. As has been said before, the riders make the race as much as the parcours.

Unfortunately the British press / public has little grasp of this sport. I'm sure I heard a conversation about the road race on Saturday morning on Radio 5Live discussing what would happen - i.e. Cav being delivered to the finish line to win. No doubt, it was a certainty. It was like: the race *will* be a sprint finish. Eh? There was no alternative put forward. I'm not sure the media realised the exact odds of Cav success, or that there would be riders very keen to avoid a sprint and very capable of making sure it was nullified. Even on this forum it all seemed to come down to 'will Cav be dropped on Box Hill?' and even that proved irrelevant, in that he wasn't dropped yet still GB missed out being involved in the finishing stages.

 

[Caruut]

Think it was me who sad that about Thomas - he would have been fantastic but sadly he's focusing on the track and the team pursuit for this year and so skipped the classics, Tour and Olympic RR. Without a doubt he would have taken the place of Millar or Stannard if he had been riding road properly this year.

 

[Oldman]

??

Murdoch owns the bulk of the tabloids.

...I'm thinking the competitors to his. It's hard to be knowledgeable when I'm afraid to touch them on the newstand.

 

[BroDeal]

You cannot judge a decision based on the outcome. It has to be judged based on the information that was available at the time the decision was made. Most people expected the course to result in a sprint finish. If Germany would have gotten information a bit quicker then it probably would have come back together. Millar in a break is fifty to one shot, maybe less than that. You have to go with the best chance the team has of winning, and that means putting everyone to work for Cav.

Where Cav went wrong is the TdF, especially the last stage. There was no reason the team needed him to win. They already had Wiggins and Froome's success. Cav should have dogged the sprints, allowing Greipel and others to think he was on an off year and they had a good chance of beating him in London. Instead Cav showed he was in form, so the other countries gambled on tiring Cav's sprint train before they did any work themselves.

A big failure is Boonen. How did he miss the break? Put Boonen in there, and he would have been more of a favorite than Cancellara.

 

[buster1]

I think what Cavendish and his supporters have forgotten is that these guys are professional/highly competitive athletes who were in the race to WIN gold as there primary objective and then if/when that prospect is not possible they think about silver and then bronze.

To criticize Aus for not helping bring back the break which would have doomed Aus to in my opinion almost zero chance of winning the Gold through a sprint (I cant remember the last time Goss beat Cav in a head to head sprint let alone beating Cav/Griepel/Sagan togethe) is ridiculous. Yes Aus would probably have been a chance to take a minor medal but almost zero at Gold.

Compare that to letting the break go to the finish. Ogrady was by no means the favourite to win but in my opinion would have been a better chance to take the gold than Goss would have been. If you look at Vino and Uran I dont think you could say that they were faster finishes than Ogrady they just made the right move at the right time, were strong and as with every gold medal winner had a bit of luck.

The difference is Aus (and every other nation minus GB/Germany) is that they had a Plan B.

 

[The Barb]

Where Cav went wrong is the TdF, especially the last stage. There was no reason the team needed him to win. They already had Wiggins and Froome's success. Cav should have dogged the sprints, allowing Greipel and others to think he was on an off year and they had a good chance of beating him in London. Instead the others gambled on tiring Cav's sprint train before they did any work.

That's a great point. It's not something I'd considered but makes total sense.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Even on this forum it all seemed to come down to 'will Cav be dropped on Box Hill?' and even that proved irrelevant, in that he wasn't dropped yet still GB missed out being involved in the finishing stages.

Cavendish was dropped on Box Hill: his team stayed with him. They were riding the circuit at Cavendish's pace.

The alternative is to conclude that none of Wiggins, Froome, Stannard or Millar were capable of participating in a break with Lagutin, Rast, Grivko etc.

 

[johnnycash]

Cavendish was dropped on Box Hill: his team stayed with him. They were riding the circuit at Cavendish's pace.

The alternative is to conclude that none of Wiggins, Froome, Stannard or Millar were capable of participating in a break with Lagutin, Rast, Grivko etc.

When was Cav dropped?

 

[Angliru]

Where Cav went wrong is the TdF, especially the last stage. There was no reason the team needed him to win. They already had Wiggins and Froome's success. Cav should have dogged the sprints, allowing Greipel and others to think he was on an off year and they had a good chance of beating him in London. Instead Cav showed he was in form, so the other countries gambled on tiring Cav's sprint train before they did any work themselves.

Of course there is no way that after giving up many of his chances in the sprints for supporting Wiggins, would Cav have passed up the opportunity to win in Paris, especially after carrying water bottles/domestique duties all while wearing the WC kit. The illusion of weakness would've been a smart move but ego's needed stroking and that took precedent. They, just like most of us here, believed that GB had a great chance to pull it off and deliver Cav to the line successfully for the win. The other countries had other plans though, luckily for the fans.

 

[Frosty]

You cannot judge a decision based on the outcome. It has to be judged based on the information that was available at the time the decision was made. Most people expected the course to result in a sprint finish. If Germany would have gotten information a bit quicker then it probably would have come back together. Millar in a break is fifty to one shot, maybe less than that. You have to go with the best chance the team has of winning, and that means putting everyone to work for Cav.

Where Cav went wrong is the TdF, especially the last stage. There was no reason the team needed him to win. They already had Wiggins and Froome's success. Cav should have dogged the sprints, allowing Greipel and others to think he was on an off year and they had a good chance of beating him in London. Instead Cav showed he was in form, so the other countries gambled on tiring Cav's sprint train before they did any work themselves.

A big failure is Boonen. How did he miss the break? Put Boonen in there, and he would have been more of a favorite than Cancellara.

I agree with much of what you say here, i think the real problem was that even the teams wanting a sprint didnt want to help GB at all and that Cavendish could have avoided this. However, I dont think Millar is a 1 in 50 chance if he had gone in the early break to sit on and do no work. Uncertain what would have happened in that eventuality - does a smaller break end up forming? Does everyone sit up and then a new break goes or what? Who would have chased if Millar in a group of 13 had gone away? Being the freshest in a group of 13 can just mean that everyone looks at you when an attack goes later on and you end up having to do all the later work. You never know until the situation arises.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Of course there is no way that after giving up many of his chances in the sprints for supporting Wiggins, would Cav have passed up the opportunity to win in Paris, especially after carrying water bottles/domestique duties all while wearing the WC kit. The illusion of weakness would've been a smart move but ego's needed stroking and that took precedent. They just like most of us here believed that GB had a great chance to pull it off and deliver Cav to the line successfully for the win. The other countries had other plans though, luckily for the fans.

That is one way of looking at it. Another is that if he had given up that stage to gamble on the Olympics and the race turned out the same way he would have nothing. I think you are being a bit hopeful thinking that teams would not expect him to be ready for the Olympics given there was still a week after the end of the Tour. Also to win the final stage in the Tour wearing the rainbow jersey is not exactly something that every rider achieves is it?

Sure you can call him a bad loser but to blame his ego for not throwing an iconic stage in an iconic jersey seems a bit silly imo.

 

[Nick C.]

Didn't Millar or one of the other GB riders say they rode up Box Hill at Cav's pace. What would have happened if Froome and Wiggins got on the front and rode it as they did in the Tour or chased down the attacks?

 

[El Pistolero]

That is one way of looking at it. Another is that if he had given up that stage to gamble on the Olympics and the race turned out the same way he would have nothing. I think you are being a bit hopeful thinking that teams would not expect him to be ready for the Olympics given there was still a week after the end of the Tour. Also to win the final stage in the Tour wearing the rainbow jersey is not exactly something that every rider achieves is it?

Sure you can call him a bad loser but to blame his ego for not throwing an iconic stage in an iconic jersey seems a bit silly imo.

You mean that glorified crit race? Or as I call it: the world's most important kermiskoers in the world.

 

[Angliru]

That is one way of looking at it. Another is that if he had given up that stage to gamble on the Olympics and the race turned out the same way he would have nothing. I think you are being a bit hopeful thinking that teams would not expect him to be ready for the Olympics given there was still a week after the end of the Tour. Also to win the final stage in the Tour wearing the rainbow jersey is not exactly something that every rider achieves is it?

Sure you can call him a bad loser but to blame his ego for not throwing an iconic stage in an iconic jersey seems a bit silly imo.

I'm not calling him a bad loser nor am I blaming his ego. I'm saying that in the situation that Sky and the GB team was in they had quite a few people to satisfy and everyone had to play their part for them to reach their ambitious goals. They almost pulled it off and have been on quite a roll for much of the season.

 

[Caruut]

You mean that glorified crit race?

You seemed fine when Boonen won a glorified crit race this June

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You mean that glorified crit race?

Call it what you want. Doesn't change my argument.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I'm not calling him a bad loser nor am I blaming his ego. I'm saying that in the situation that Sky and the GB team was in they had quite a few people to satisfy and everyone had to play their part for them to reach their ambitious goals. They almost pulled it off and have been on quite a roll for much of the season.

Oh, ok. Then perhaps I misunderstood your original post. In which case my bad.

 

[johnnycash]

You can't say they should have put Millar in a break because if the break had stayed away, which it probably still would have, then they could be accused of spreading an already small team too thinly.

They had to put all their eggs in one basket, and Cav was a pretty safe bet to do that with. You can't win them all, Sky/GB did their best and it didn't work out - end of story.

I really thought Germany and Aus would have been keen to do something, Geipel looking at even a silver is still not bad. Goss for a bronze.

Whats interesting is that GB did this in Copenhagen and it worked, ok they had 3 extra riders but was that it? Or was it more because other teams REALLY did not want to see Cav win? Goss and Greipel got in on the action there.

Sky have just handed the peloton its *** for the past 3 weeks, I'm sure there was more than a bit of resentment in there. No resentment from Austria though, good old Bernie. Shame for Canc too.

 

[Angliru]

That is one way of looking at it. Another is that if he had given up that stage to gamble on the Olympics and the race turned out the same way he would have nothing. I think you are being a bit hopeful thinking that teams would not expect him to be ready for the Olympics given there was still a week after the end of the Tour. Also to win the final stage in the Tour wearing the rainbow jersey is not exactly something that every rider achieves is it?

Sure you can call him a bad loser but to blame his ego for not throwing an iconic stage in an iconic jersey seems a bit silly imo.

Where and how do you get that I'm implying that opposing teams would not expect him to be ready for Olympics?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Where and how do you get that I'm implying that opposing teams would not expect him to be ready for Olympics?

From your previous post

The illusion of weakness would've been a smart move but ego's needed stroking and that took precedent.