• 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!

Director of the Year 2018

Best tactical move: Can we just give this to the way Quickstep raced the entire classics season?

I think I have to go with Mikel Nieve to M-S as best rider signing

Worst tactical move. Can we go with Movistar and sending the 3 Amigos to the Tour? Or maybe just some of Movistar's decision making in general?

Worst rider signing: Will get back to you on that one.
 
Best tactical move: Colle delle Finestre

Best rider signing for 2019: Viviani to Quickstep

Worst tactical move: Roubaix: the favourites group letting Sagan go away and looking at each other

Worst rider signing for 2019: Kittel
 
Yeah Movistar was tactically as bad as it gets this season. But if there is one specific tactical move which was so bad it deserves special attention it was Lotto NL on the aubisque. They had Froome in the ropes but Roglic refused to keep his pace high and always allowed Froome to get back. And then when he finally had a big gap on Froome of all people it was Steven Kruijswijk to help Froome and bernal to close the gap again. Moreover you could add that not sending Kruijswijk up the road with landa, bardet,... on the tourmalet in that stage was so stupid it would deserve its own mention. That stage was just one gigantic rabofail

When it comes to good tactics you just can't get around qs this year. How they played it in almost all classics except PR was close to perfection. One rider who deserves a special mention because I think he has been kinda underappreciated this season is Philipp Gilbert. His constant presence was imo the main key to many of qs wins as he is a leader who unlike former leaders didn't race for himself but the team. I find it very telling that qs only tactical f*ck up came in the one race he desperately wanted to win and I think that if Gilbert would have commited 100% to his early move in arenberg the race would have ended very differently. He didn't commit though as he knew the move didn't give him the best chances to win and it all went downwards from there onwards
 
Gigs_98 said:
Yeah Movistar was tactically as bad as it gets this season. But if there is one specific tactical move which was so bad it deserves special attention it was Lotto NL on the aubisque. They had Froome in the ropes but Roglic refused to keep his pace high and always allowed Froome to get back. And then when he finally had a big gap on Froome of all people it was Steven Kruijswijk to help Froome and bernal to close the gap again. Moreover you could add that not sending Kruijswijk up the road with landa, bardet,... on the tourmalet in that stage was so stupid it would deserve its own mention. That stage was just one gigantic rabofail

When it comes to good tactics you just can't get around qs this year. How they played it in almost all classics except PR was close to perfection. One rider who deserves a special mention because I think he has been kinda underappreciated this season is Philipp Gilbert. His constant presence was imo the main key to many of qs wins as he is a leader who unlike former leaders didn't race for himself but the team. I find it very telling that qs only tactical f*ck up came in the one race he desperately wanted to win and I think that if Gilbert would have commited 100% to his early move in arenberg the race would have ended very differently. He didn't commit though as he knew the move didn't give him the best chances to win and it all went downwards from there onwards

And who won the stage?
 
Not really sure about the best tactical moves, all of the monuments were really great wins tactically. Finestre is tactically whatever. It's picking the right option when there's one option.

Worst tactical decision: France riding for Alaphilippe during the Worlds.
 
tobydawq said:
Gigs_98 said:
Yeah Movistar was tactically as bad as it gets this season. But if there is one specific tactical move which was so bad it deserves special attention it was Lotto NL on the aubisque. They had Froome in the ropes but Roglic refused to keep his pace high and always allowed Froome to get back. And then when he finally had a big gap on Froome of all people it was Steven Kruijswijk to help Froome and bernal to close the gap again. Moreover you could add that not sending Kruijswijk up the road with landa, bardet,... on the tourmalet in that stage was so stupid it would deserve its own mention. That stage was just one gigantic rabofail

When it comes to good tactics you just can't get around qs this year. How they played it in almost all classics except PR was close to perfection. One rider who deserves a special mention because I think he has been kinda underappreciated this season is Philipp Gilbert. His constant presence was imo the main key to many of qs wins as he is a leader who unlike former leaders didn't race for himself but the team. I find it very telling that qs only tactical f*ck up came in the one race he desperately wanted to win and I think that if Gilbert would have commited 100% to his early move in arenberg the race would have ended very differently. He didn't commit though as he knew the move didn't give him the best chances to win and it all went downwards from there onwards

And who won the stage?
And who made the podium?
 
Gigs_98 said:
Yeah Movistar was tactically as bad as it gets this season. But if there is one specific tactical move which was so bad it deserves special attention it was Lotto NL on the aubisque. They had Froome in the ropes but Roglic refused to keep his pace high and always allowed Froome to get back. And then when he finally had a big gap on Froome of all people it was Steven Kruijswijk to help Froome and bernal to close the gap again. Moreover you could add that not sending Kruijswijk up the road with landa, bardet,... on the tourmalet in that stage was so stupid it would deserve its own mention. That stage was just one gigantic rabofail

When it comes to good tactics you just can't get around qs this year. How they played it in almost all classics except PR was close to perfection. One rider who deserves a special mention because I think he has been kinda underappreciated this season is Philipp Gilbert. His constant presence was imo the main key to many of qs wins as he is a leader who unlike former leaders didn't race for himself but the team. I find it very telling that qs only tactical f*ck up came in the one race he desperately wanted to win and I think that if Gilbert would have commited 100% to his early move in arenberg the race would have ended very differently. He didn't commit though as he knew the move didn't give him the best chances to win and it all went downwards from there onwards

To the bolded, I would say their most well-known blunder was of strategical rather than tactical kind and as such conditioned the way we are looking at their season as a whole. And even then, Landa and Quintana were in a good position to challenge when they reached the Alps. It was the combination of substandard climbing form and crashes later in the race that consigned their Tour to failure, not tactical ineptitude.

In terms of GT racing, Valverde would probably have been better served going to the Giro instead of the Tour, but he still ended his season by achieving the biggest goal that was missing in his career. Also Solers winning move in Paris-Nice I mentioned in a separate post, was one of the more memorable ones of the season.

Certainly putting all their "GT-eggs" in one basket and then failing to deliver, casts its inescapable shadow over their season. Add the murmurs of discontent and friction between different leaders to the picture and the shadow deepens still. But when speaking strictly about racing tactics they weren't as hapless and caricaturish as is the popular view.
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
Not really sure about the best tactical moves, all of the monuments were really great wins tactically. Finestre is tactically whatever. It's picking the right option when there's one option.

Worst tactical decision: France riding for Alaphilippe during the Worlds.

And how would you set tactics if you're on Guimard's place? I don't think he made such big mistake.
Pinot was active earlier trying to escape, Ala waited for that final wall, and Bardet hang on with him to have numerical advantage over Valverde or whoever in that final descent/sprint. The problem is their main guy, who seemed to have perfect shape, ran out of steam on that goat track, leaving Bardet with the fastest man who could possibly be there.
Only other possibility was trying earlier with all-out attacks from Pinot and Bardet, but this way you risk to blow them up completely, and not only them, but Alaphilippe also if the race becomes very, very hard (and I repeat, he seemed to have great shape, and was one of the two main favorites). The risk was too big, and I don't think the outcome would be different, except maybe they wouldn't get that medal at all.
Spain was very strong that day and controlled things perfectly, Valverde was superb also, and I really doubt anybody could beat him that day. Maybe only Nibali in top shape would have some kind of a chance.
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
Red Rick said:
Not really sure about the best tactical moves, all of the monuments were really great wins tactically. Finestre is tactically whatever. It's picking the right option when there's one option.

Worst tactical decision: France riding for Alaphilippe during the Worlds.

And how would you set tactics if you're on Guimard's place? I don't think he made such big mistake.
Pinot was active earlier trying to escape, Ala waited for that final wall, and Bardet hang on with him to have numerical advantage over Valverde or whoever in that final descent/sprint. The problem is their main guy, who seemed to have perfect shape, ran out of steam on that goat track, leaving Bardet with the fastest man who could possibly be there.
Only other possibility was trying earlier with all-out attacks from Pinot and Bardet, but this way you risk to blow them up completely, and not only them, but Alaphilippe also if the race becomes very, very hard (and I repeat, he seemed to have great shape, and was one of the two main favorites). The risk was too big, and I don't think the outcome would be different, except maybe they wouldn't get that medal at all.
Spain was very strong that day and controlled things perfectly, Valverde was superb also, and I really doubt anybody could beat him that day. Maybe only Nibali in top shape would have some kind of a chance.
They left it really late, and Pinot wasn't that aggressive. Pinot was reacting to attacks on the final Igls climb, which was just a waste of energy cause at that point nothing stays away.

I don't think Alaphilippe ran out of form ahead of the Worlds. I think he's a kind of rider who's quality drops off incredibly quickly the longer a climb gets. If that wall had been 1.5km, I would've gone for Alaphilippe and believed he could've beaten Valverde. Over 3km, no chance in hell.

I don't really think Valverde was unbeatable, I think he was unbeatable with the tactic everyone chose for. I'll admit that he was stronger than I had anticipated, but if Valverde is the man to beat you don't wait for the final hill. Period.

The pain of the men's race was just the deeper field combined with that final climb. Both lead to more passive racing, which snowballs into going from races that explode on the penultimage Igls climb to a bunch of 60 guys enjoying the landscape of the last Igls climb.

I think it all boils down to understanding the parcours and rider qualities, and I don't think there was any chance that Alaphilippe was the best bet, when you have Pinot and Bardet, both of whom have done very well in the very mountainious one day races and both of whom are very likely to be in great shape.

As to who could've beaten Valverde. Anyone who could've made the final selection. Few of them who could've been there weren't there. Primarily Roglic, Dumoulin and the Yates bro's. Dumoulin was tehre, but he wasn't in top shape. If the final group is bigger, it's way more tricky and a sprint win is never a guarantee.

Valgren making the 2nd group after attacking makes me think Nibali might have been able to win attacking from Igls he was in the shape of '17 Lombardia and if the race had been harder.
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
Not really sure about the best tactical moves, all of the monuments were really great wins tactically. Finestre is tactically whatever. It's picking the right option when there's one option.

Worst tactical decision: France riding for Alaphilippe during the Worlds.

He had an incredible season and until the last kilometer of that hill it looked like the best option. He was also the only French rider who at least would have had a chance in a sprint against Valverde. So I dont think it was tactically wrong move. Just bad luck that he did not have the legs anymore after a hard season. You could argue that the final of the worlds did not favor him but I think in April or July he would've won! Alaphilippe said so himself that he already felt tired after San Sebastian...
 
Re: Re:

Akuryo said:
Red Rick said:
Not really sure about the best tactical moves, all of the monuments were really great wins tactically. Finestre is tactically whatever. It's picking the right option when there's one option.

Worst tactical decision: France riding for Alaphilippe during the Worlds.

He had an incredible season and until the last kilometer of that hill it looked like the best option. He was also the only French rider who at least would have had a chance in a sprint against Valverde. So I dont think it was tactically wrong move. Just bad luck that he did not have the legs anymore after a hard season. You could argue that the final of the worlds did not favor him but I think in April or July he would've won! Alaphilippe said so himself that he already felt tired after San Sebastian...
Nothing in his incredible season suggested he could survive this parcours.

If he really already felt tired after San Sebastian and knew he wasn't in his best shape, he screwed over the French team big time.

Alaphilippe's best use would have been to be leverage while Bardet or Pinot actually attack, everyone looks behind and nobody wants to do the work for Alaphilippe or Valverde.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Akuryo said:
Red Rick said:
Not really sure about the best tactical moves, all of the monuments were really great wins tactically. Finestre is tactically whatever. It's picking the right option when there's one option.

Worst tactical decision: France riding for Alaphilippe during the Worlds.

He had an incredible season and until the last kilometer of that hill it looked like the best option. He was also the only French rider who at least would have had a chance in a sprint against Valverde. So I dont think it was tactically wrong move. Just bad luck that he did not have the legs anymore after a hard season. You could argue that the final of the worlds did not favor him but I think in April or July he would've won! Alaphilippe said so himself that he already felt tired after San Sebastian...
Nothing in his incredible season suggested he could survive this parcours.

If he really already felt tired after San Sebastian and knew he wasn't in his best shape, he screwed over the French team big time.

Alaphilippe's best use would have been to be leverage while Bardet or Pinot actually attack, everyone looks behind and nobody wants to do the work for Alaphilippe or Valverde.

I think a lot of people said already during spring the Worlds route is too much for Alaphilippe. I have to admit he did improve the climbing endurance a lot during the season, but it was still too much. French should've known better especially when the best shape climber was in roster.
 
As much as I'd like to say otherwise, the French team decision was sound...but maybe the Balaphilippe talks/stereotypes swayed the choice in a wrong direction, as they are different riders. In a sprint, Alaf was the only one who could beat The Don. But he's not as good a climber by a long shot. In retrospect, yes, mistake. On the French forums, Pinot fans admire his dedication and loyalty, but they are pi**ed off. Pinow in rainbot. Easy to say that afterwards...but a good problem to have, with Bardet second and France back to being a powerhouse. Look at the Monuments results. Good year indeed, let's not be too greedy.

Guimard had one day to be a magician. Eusebio had one year, and what a mess it was.
 
Most everyone expected the Worlds to come down to a small group sprint. That is what happened. Thing is most countries knew they had no one who had a chance to out sprint Valverde. France's hope was that Alaphilippe could climb well enough to be there in the end. We all know Valverde is a better climber than Alaphilippe and the Worlds again proved this. Could Alaphilippe have beaten Valverde in a flat sprint. Who knows, but he was the one with the best chance. However, this Worlds and the way Valverde and his team raced, it was again Valverde's to loose and this time he got it right and finally got that gold medal that has been missing from his collection of trophies. To beat Valverde in that final sprint (because you knew he was going to be there) requires you to be faster than him. When Valverde turned pro he was thought to be a sprinter, and at the time was a 2nd tier sprinter. He's still close to that level of sprinting. There are very few riders who can climb who could also be close to being considered a 2nd tier sprinter. So the answer is most of the riders who could have made that final cut did not have a chance to beat Valverde in a sprint.

As to Movistar, yes Valverde had a very good season and Soler got himself a great win at Paris-Nice. Soler's win does show Movistar CAN be tactically good, but Soler's attack from the start is actually unusual for a team that is known for racing very conservatively. For Valverde's wins, yes tactically sound, however that leads to the question of is that Movistar or is that Valverde as Valverde calls many of his own races from the saddle and the team car basically gives him full freedom to call his races.
 
Solo on the final hill was quite possible if you're the strongest there. Think that if one of them was the strongest on that hill it was probably Valverde, and I guess by a small enough margin that he didn't feel comfortable going for it, but then this is Valverde.
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
Solo on the final hill was quite possible if you're the strongest there. Think that if one of them was the strongest on that hill it was probably Valverde, and I guess by a small enough margin that he didn't feel comfortable going for it, but then this is Valverde.


He may well have been the strongest, and if he was, why go solo when you know you can win the sprint? If you wait for the sprint you'll have some help on the way to the line as well. I don't think Bardet was with comments he made after. He said the only chance he had was to get away on the descent and that wasn't going to happen as he knows Valverde is just as good of a descender as he is. Woods didn't look to be any stronger than the other two on that climb. Obviously they shed everyone else on the climb.
 
I still don't get how people think the worlds were always gonna come down to a reduced sprint. Nobody expects that in lombardia despite lombardia being on a significantly easier route. This has nothing to do with valverde being unbeatable but just nobody having the guts to actually race hard. Now I actually don't want to blame anyone because of this as I myself wrote that I thought valverde would be out of shape after fading in the vuelta but still you gotta wonder what all the teams without a rider who had a realistic chance on the final wall were thinking. I just wish we would get to see an alternative version of that race with a top shape Nibali
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
Red Rick said:
Solo on the final hill was quite possible if you're the strongest there. Think that if one of them was the strongest on that hill it was probably Valverde, and I guess by a small enough margin that he didn't feel comfortable going for it, but then this is Valverde.


He may well have been the strongest, and if he was, why go solo when you know you can win the sprint?
Cause you cannot lose a tactical battle obviously
 

Latest posts