Euskal Herriko Itzulia 2018 - April 2-7

[Netserk]

Just. No.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Roglic is a monster. Fall, having to chase back 1 min, isolated for 60km against Movistar and still only losing 45 seconds.. jesus. If it was a Dutch guy he'd lose 4 minutes.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Terrible racing from Movi. They were 5 vs 1 at the foot of the penultimate climb and they paced Roglic almost on the top, surely he was strong but not invincible. They had at least to hit Arrate as hard as possible. Landa went too late for the stage. Mas absurd from the brake. I continue to perceive an enmity between Quintana and Linda, as well as a certain disunity between the Movies. I understand why Unzue forced Don Alejandro to return to the Tour.

Yep, another example from Movistar of how not to use the team effectively. They are like an anti-Quickstep and Landa seems to be adding to the problem, not solving it so far. To not really come close to winning either the GC or a single stage from this race, given the quality of riders they sent, is pretty disappointing.

Actually, I'm going with two race leaders (Landa and Quintana) who haven't got a clue how to read races, although with Landa not understand race tactics and Quintana still not knowing how to use race tactics effectively. I'll give Landa some time to try to learn as he hasn't had many opportunities to be a race leader. However, at this point I doubt these are two things Quintana will ever understand.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Terrible racing from Movi. They were 5 vs 1 at the foot of the penultimate climb and they paced Roglic almost on the top, surely he was strong but not invincible. They had at least to hit Arrate as hard as possible. Landa went too late for the stage. Mas absurd from the brake. I continue to perceive an enmity between Quintana and Linda, as well as a certain disunity between the Movies. I understand why Unzue forced Don Alejandro to return to the Tour.

Yep, another example from Movistar of how not to use the team effectively. They are like an anti-Quickstep and Landa seems to be adding to the problem, not solving it so far. To not really come close to winning either the GC or a single stage from this race, given the quality of riders they sent, is pretty disappointing.

Actually, I'm going with two race leaders (Landa and Quintana) who haven't got a clue how to read races, although with Landa not understand race tactics and Quintana still not knowing how to use race tactics effectively. I'll give Landa some time to try to learn as he hasn't had many opportunities to be a race leader. However, at this point I doubt these are two things Quintana will ever understand.

In fairness to Quintana, he has won two GTs through long range attacks and also triumphed in many WT stage races, so he can't be that hopeless. He's done it largely without the help of his team though, and has let more opportunities pass by because his team didn't seize the initiative early enough in the race, and kept leaving it until the last few days, relying on other riders cracking. A bit like today.

Landa has never won a stage race at WT and has never really even looked in a position to win one. So I agree it's difficult to rate his tactical ability at the highest level, but right now you can't go with him as leader in the most open Tour de France for 7 years. He's way too unproven and too flaky.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Terrible racing from Movi. They were 5 vs 1 at the foot of the penultimate climb and they paced Roglic almost on the top, surely he was strong but not invincible. They had at least to hit Arrate as hard as possible. Landa went too late for the stage. Mas absurd from the brake. I continue to perceive an enmity between Quintana and Linda, as well as a certain disunity between the Movies. I understand why Unzue forced Don Alejandro to return to the Tour.

Yep, another example from Movistar of how not to use the team effectively. They are like an anti-Quickstep and Landa seems to be adding to the problem, not solving it so far. To not really come close to winning either the GC or a single stage from this race, given the quality of riders they sent, is pretty disappointing.

Actually, I'm going with two race leaders (Landa and Quintana) who haven't got a clue how to read races, although with Landa not understand race tactics and Quintana still not knowing how to use race tactics effectively. I'll give Landa some time to try to learn as he hasn't had many opportunities to be a race leader. However, at this point I doubt these are two things Quintana will ever understand.

In fairness to Quintana, he has won two GTs through long range attacks and also triumphed in many WT stage races, so he can't be that hopeless. He's done it largely without the help of his team though, and has let more opportunities pass by because his team didn't seize the initiative early enough in the race, and kept leaving it until the last few days, relying on other riders cracking. A bit like today.

Landa has never won a stage race at WT and has never really even looked in a position to win one. So I agree it's difficult to rate his tactical ability at the highest level, but right now you can't go with him as leader in the most open Tour de France for 7 years. He's way too unproven and too flaky.

In fairness to those two GT wins, the Giro he attacked when the race was neutralized and at la Vuelta if Contador doesn't go through the plan he can Valverde came up with before the stage Quintana doesn't win that one.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

In fairness to those two GT wins, the Giro he attacked when the race was neutralized and at la Vuelta if Contador doesn't go through the plan he can Valverde came up with before the stage Quintana doesn't win that one.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Aren't they examples of what good tactics are? Responding to race situations by making decisions which maxmize your chances of winning?

Also I think the role of Contador, and especially Valverde, is very much overplayed in that Formigal stage. It was Quintana who was the one being marked by Sky and the one which managed to get away. And the one who rode the entire last 20km on the front, riding everyone except Brambilla off his wheel on shallow gradients. It was a supreme tactical and physical triumph by Quintana, and it's strange to me how often people try to downplay his role in it.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

In fairness to those two GT wins, the Giro he attacked when the race was neutralized and at la Vuelta if Contador doesn't go through the plan he can Valverde came up with before the stage Quintana doesn't win that one.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Aren't they examples of what good tactics are? Responding to race situations by making decisions which maxmize your chances of winning?

Also I think the role of Contador, and especially Valverde, is very much overplayed in that Formigal stage. It was Quintana who was the one being marked by Sky and the one which managed to get away. And the one who rode the entire last 20km on the front, riding everyone except Brambilla off his wheel on shallow gradients. It was a supreme tactical and physical triumph by Quintana, and it's strange to me how often people try to downplay his role in it.

Actually no. In the first one he should not have been allowed to continue the attack and been forced to wait as the race had been neutralized. In the second without the plan Valverde and Contador came up and getting 3 riders per team into that break and Valverde telling Quintana to look for it Quintana doesn't make that and looses the race to Froome. That was yet again Valverde telling Quintana what to look for or what to do. We saw at the Tour when Froome attacked on the downhill Quintana looking around for someone to tell him what to do.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

In fairness to those two GT wins, the Giro he attacked when the race was neutralized and at la Vuelta if Contador doesn't go through the plan he can Valverde came up with before the stage Quintana doesn't win that one.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Aren't they examples of what good tactics are? Responding to race situations by making decisions which maxmize your chances of winning?

Also I think the role of Contador, and especially Valverde, is very much overplayed in that Formigal stage. It was Quintana who was the one being marked by Sky and the one which managed to get away. And the one who rode the entire last 20km on the front, riding everyone except Brambilla off his wheel on shallow gradients. It was a supreme tactical and physical triumph by Quintana, and it's strange to me how often people try to downplay his role in it.

Contador's role is not overplayed at all. He made that break. Without him, Quintana goes nowhere. And he didn't decide anything, he was put there by his team, then Valverde let the gap open and that was it, the break formed. Of course he rode like a true champion later, nothing to downplay there, but I don't think he made any tactical decision while break was forming.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

In fairness to those two GT wins, the Giro he attacked when the race was neutralized and at la Vuelta if Contador doesn't go through the plan he can Valverde came up with before the stage Quintana doesn't win that one.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Aren't they examples of what good tactics are? Responding to race situations by making decisions which maxmize your chances of winning?

Also I think the role of Contador, and especially Valverde, is very much overplayed in that Formigal stage. It was Quintana who was the one being marked by Sky and the one which managed to get away. And the one who rode the entire last 20km on the front, riding everyone except Brambilla off his wheel on shallow gradients. It was a supreme tactical and physical triumph by Quintana, and it's strange to me how often people try to downplay his role in it.

Contador's role is not overplayed at all. He made that break. Without him, Quintana goes nowhere. And he didn't decide anything, he was put there by his team, then Valverde let the gap open and that was it, the break formed. Of course he rode like a true champion later, nothing to downplay there, but I don't think he made any tactical decision while break was forming.

DFA downplaying Contador's role in the Formigal breakaway and Quintana's eventual victory again, color me surprised

FWIW:

"Alberto and Castroviejo did most of the work in the break itself, but it was Alberto who organised it all, who started it off and it was simply up to us to follow him. He was the one who really dealt with it all," Omar Fraile added to Cyclingnews.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I hadn't heard Valverde and Contador supposedly came up with this plan together. Any source for that? From what I read it seems like Contador planned that attack in the car after the previous stage. Maybe he just told Valverde about his plan.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

In fairness to those two GT wins, the Giro he attacked when the race was neutralized and at la Vuelta if Contador doesn't go through the plan he can Valverde came up with before the stage Quintana doesn't win that one.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Aren't they examples of what good tactics are? Responding to race situations by making decisions which maxmize your chances of winning?

Also I think the role of Contador, and especially Valverde, is very much overplayed in that Formigal stage. It was Quintana who was the one being marked by Sky and the one which managed to get away. And the one who rode the entire last 20km on the front, riding everyone except Brambilla off his wheel on shallow gradients. It was a supreme tactical and physical triumph by Quintana, and it's strange to me how often people try to downplay his role in it.

Actually no. In the first one he should not have been allowed to continue the attack and been forced to wait as the race had been neutralized. In the second without the plan Valverde and Contador came up and getting 3 riders per team into that break and Valverde telling Quintana to look for it Quintana doesn't make that and looses the race to Froome. That was yet again Valverde telling Quintana what to look for or what to do. We saw at the Tour when Froome attacked on the downhill Quintana looking around for someone to tell him what to do.

How do you know this was all down to Valverde? It seems a bit far-fetched. You think Valverde masterminded a whole plan from beginning to end of stage, and Quintana was just a puppet carrying it out? How exactly was Valverde telling him how to ride sat in a group 4 minutes behind him?

I'm not sure what Quintana's reaction on the Peyresourde descent tells us either. Quintana put his domestique on the front (Valverde), but Valverde wasn't strong enough to catch Froome. Of course a 50kg rider is going to look around and ask his heavier domestique to take up the chase if he has one in the group - rather than trying to do it all himself.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

In fairness to those two GT wins, the Giro he attacked when the race was neutralized and at la Vuelta if Contador doesn't go through the plan he can Valverde came up with before the stage Quintana doesn't win that one.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Aren't they examples of what good tactics are? Responding to race situations by making decisions which maxmize your chances of winning?

Also I think the role of Contador, and especially Valverde, is very much overplayed in that Formigal stage. It was Quintana who was the one being marked by Sky and the one which managed to get away. And the one who rode the entire last 20km on the front, riding everyone except Brambilla off his wheel on shallow gradients. It was a supreme tactical and physical triumph by Quintana, and it's strange to me how often people try to downplay his role in it.

Contador's role is not overplayed at all. He made that break. Without him, Quintana goes nowhere. And he didn't decide anything, he was put there by his team, then Valverde let the gap open and that was it, the break formed. Of course he rode like a true champion later, nothing to downplay there, but I don't think he made any tactical decision while break was forming.

The point is that there seems to be an implication that Quintana did nothing (not by you, as you clearly state ), that he was just gifted a victory by Contador (and now Valverde as well ). Which is nonsense. Quintana was a key part of the move as well, and, as you say, he played the tactics absolutely perfectly in the last 30km to maximize his advantage.

I get that Quintana is unpopular around these parts. But some trying to claim he is some tactical dunce, by completing denying his role in his tactical triumphs is ridiculous.

 

[Blanco]

Re:

Terrible racing from Movi. They were 5 vs 1 at the foot of the penultimate climb and they paced Roglic almost on the top, surely he was strong but not invincible. They had at least to hit Arrate as hard as possible. Landa went too late for the stage. Mas absurd from the brake. I continue to perceive an enmity between Quintana and Linda, as well as a certain disunity between the Movies. I understand why Unzue forced Don Alejandro to return to the Tour.

It's not a one-day race where that numbers would made a huge difference. Roglic knew at that penultimate climb that only guy who he has to mark is Landa. If Quintana goes, he has no riders up front anymore, and Bora will ride to close that down for Buchmann. It was really on the third climb from the finish, or the last one. They tried on Izua, but it didn't worked.
I agree that Landa tried too late on Arrate though.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

In fairness to those two GT wins, the Giro he attacked when the race was neutralized and at la Vuelta if Contador doesn't go through the plan he can Valverde came up with before the stage Quintana doesn't win that one.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Aren't they examples of what good tactics are? Responding to race situations by making decisions which maxmize your chances of winning?

Also I think the role of Contador, and especially Valverde, is very much overplayed in that Formigal stage. It was Quintana who was the one being marked by Sky and the one which managed to get away. And the one who rode the entire last 20km on the front, riding everyone except Brambilla off his wheel on shallow gradients. It was a supreme tactical and physical triumph by Quintana, and it's strange to me how often people try to downplay his role in it.

Actually no. In the first one he should not have been allowed to continue the attack and been forced to wait as the race had been neutralized. In the second without the plan Valverde and Contador came up and getting 3 riders per team into that break and Valverde telling Quintana to look for it Quintana doesn't make that and looses the race to Froome. That was yet again Valverde telling Quintana what to look for or what to do. We saw at the Tour when Froome attacked on the downhill Quintana looking around for someone to tell him what to do.

How do you know this was all down to Valverde? It seems a bit far-fetched. You think Valverde masterminded a whole plan from beginning to end of stage, and Quintana was just a puppet carrying it out? How exactly was Valverde telling him how to ride sat in a group 4 minutes behind him?

I'm not sure what Quintana's reaction on the Peyresourde descent tells us either. Quintana put his domestique on the front (Valverde), but Valverde wasn't strong enough to catch Froome. Of course a 50kg rider is going to look around and ask his heavier domestique to take up the chase if he has one in the group - rather than trying to do it all himself.

That would be Valverde and Contador together who came up with the plan. Not like it was the first or last time they came up with a crazy plan in a stage race.
The problem there was Valverde along with Bardet had been DROPPED on that climb and where no where near the front when Froome attacked. It was fully on Quintana (along with BMC) to do the chasing. Quintana should have immediately reacted instead of looking around to be TOLD what to do. Valverde and Bardet were several seconds BEHIND that group and actually caught them on the decent to begin with. So yes that IS on Quintana for not chasing, although you can put that a bit on Porte and VanGarderen as well.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

In fairness to those two GT wins, the Giro he attacked when the race was neutralized and at la Vuelta if Contador doesn't go through the plan he can Valverde came up with before the stage Quintana doesn't win that one.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Aren't they examples of what good tactics are? Responding to race situations by making decisions which maxmize your chances of winning?

Also I think the role of Contador, and especially Valverde, is very much overplayed in that Formigal stage. It was Quintana who was the one being marked by Sky and the one which managed to get away. And the one who rode the entire last 20km on the front, riding everyone except Brambilla off his wheel on shallow gradients. It was a supreme tactical and physical triumph by Quintana, and it's strange to me how often people try to downplay his role in it.

Contador's role is not overplayed at all. He made that break. Without him, Quintana goes nowhere. And he didn't decide anything, he was put there by his team, then Valverde let the gap open and that was it, the break formed. Of course he rode like a true champion later, nothing to downplay there, but I don't think he made any tactical decision while break was forming.

DFA downplaying Contador's role in the Formigal breakaway and Quintana's eventual victory again, color me surprised

FWIW:

"Alberto and Castroviejo did most of the work in the break itself, but it was Alberto who organised it all, who started it off and it was simply up to us to follow him. He was the one who really dealt with it all," Omar Fraile added to Cyclingnews.

In rushing to defend Contador, you've missed the point. Again. Contador was riding to try to finish on the podium (which he ultimately failed to do). He wasn't riding to help Quintana - that was some narrative created later. He needed Quintana in that break as much as, if not more than Quintana needed him. Because Movistar would have shut it down otherwise as race leaders at that point.

So it was also Quintana's decision whether or not the break succeeded. He made the tactical decision to follow Contador and work with him, rather than shut it down. And it paid off for him, unlike for Contador.

 

[Lequack]

Very nice ending to this race. The whole stage was great to watch.

Some pics from today's stage:
http://www.steephill.tv/2018/vuelta-al-pais-vasco/photos/stage-06/

 

[Koronin]

Very nice ending to this race. The whole stage was great to watch.

Some pics from today's stage:
http://www.steephill.tv/2018/vuelta-al-pais-vasco/photos/stage-06/

Nice picture.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

In fairness to those two GT wins, the Giro he attacked when the race was neutralized and at la Vuelta if Contador doesn't go through the plan he can Valverde came up with before the stage Quintana doesn't win that one.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Aren't they examples of what good tactics are? Responding to race situations by making decisions which maxmize your chances of winning?

Also I think the role of Contador, and especially Valverde, is very much overplayed in that Formigal stage. It was Quintana who was the one being marked by Sky and the one which managed to get away. And the one who rode the entire last 20km on the front, riding everyone except Brambilla off his wheel on shallow gradients. It was a supreme tactical and physical triumph by Quintana, and it's strange to me how often people try to downplay his role in it.

Actually no. In the first one he should not have been allowed to continue the attack and been forced to wait as the race had been neutralized. In the second without the plan Valverde and Contador came up and getting 3 riders per team into that break and Valverde telling Quintana to look for it Quintana doesn't make that and looses the race to Froome. That was yet again Valverde telling Quintana what to look for or what to do. We saw at the Tour when Froome attacked on the downhill Quintana looking around for someone to tell him what to do.

How do you know this was all down to Valverde? It seems a bit far-fetched. You think Valverde masterminded a whole plan from beginning to end of stage, and Quintana was just a puppet carrying it out? How exactly was Valverde telling him how to ride sat in a group 4 minutes behind him?

I'm not sure what Quintana's reaction on the Peyresourde descent tells us either. Quintana put his domestique on the front (Valverde), but Valverde wasn't strong enough to catch Froome. Of course a 50kg rider is going to look around and ask his heavier domestique to take up the chase if he has one in the group - rather than trying to do it all himself.

That would be Valverde and Contador together who came up with the plan. Not like it was the first or last time they came up with a crazy plan in a stage race.
The problem there was Valverde along with Bardet had been DROPPED on that climb and where no where near the front when Froome attacked. It was fully on Quintana (along with BMC) to do the chasing. Quintana should have immediately reacted instead of looking around to be TOLD what to do. Valverde and Bardet were several seconds BEHIND that group and actually caught them on the decent to begin with. So yes that IS on Quintana for not chasing, although you can put that a bit on Porte and VanGarderen as well.

Right, so every time Quintana's tactics are successful it was because Valverde or Contador came up with a plan, or because the race should have been neutralized. And every time his tactics are unsuccessful it is his own fault?

Sounds like you're just choosing the narrative to suit whatever your opinion is. There is no way that you can possibly know who is coming up with what tactics at different points in the races. Maybe Quintana is coming up with great ideas all the time, but Unzue or Valverde are telling him to do something else. We don't know. What we do know is that he's won big races before thanks to tactical moves - races that Valverde wasn't even involved in - so he can't be that useless.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

In fairness to those two GT wins, the Giro he attacked when the race was neutralized and at la Vuelta if Contador doesn't go through the plan he can Valverde came up with before the stage Quintana doesn't win that one.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Aren't they examples of what good tactics are? Responding to race situations by making decisions which maxmize your chances of winning?

Also I think the role of Contador, and especially Valverde, is very much overplayed in that Formigal stage. It was Quintana who was the one being marked by Sky and the one which managed to get away. And the one who rode the entire last 20km on the front, riding everyone except Brambilla off his wheel on shallow gradients. It was a supreme tactical and physical triumph by Quintana, and it's strange to me how often people try to downplay his role in it.

Contador's role is not overplayed at all. He made that break. Without him, Quintana goes nowhere. And he didn't decide anything, he was put there by his team, then Valverde let the gap open and that was it, the break formed. Of course he rode like a true champion later, nothing to downplay there, but I don't think he made any tactical decision while break was forming.

DFA downplaying Contador's role in the Formigal breakaway and Quintana's eventual victory again, color me surprised

FWIW:

"Alberto and Castroviejo did most of the work in the break itself, but it was Alberto who organised it all, who started it off and it was simply up to us to follow him. He was the one who really dealt with it all," Omar Fraile added to Cyclingnews.

In rushing to defend Contador, you've missed the point. Again. Contador was riding to try to finish on the podium (which he ultimately failed to do). He wasn't riding to help Quintana - that was some narrative created later. He needed Quintana in that break as much as, if not more than Quintana needed him. Because Movistar would have shut it down otherwise as race leaders at that point.

So it was also Quintana's decision whether or not the break succeeded. He made the tactical decision to follow Contador and work with him, rather than shut it down. And it paid off for him, unlike for Contador.

Seems like you are the one missing the point, or you're deliberately misinterpreting my post.
We've been over this before and I will never agree that the amount of credit one should get for a move depends mainly on the outcome and not on whatever happened before that. Yes, the move did not pay off for Contador and no, he didn't make the move to help Quintana win. Doesn't take away from the fact if Contador had not made this move, contributed that much in the break and put that much effort into organizing the break (see Fraile quote), Quintana would not have gotten those 2? minutes on Froome and would have had a much more difficult time trying to win the race. But ignore all that, I know you'll never be able to give Contador the credit he deserves.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

In fairness to those two GT wins, the Giro he attacked when the race was neutralized and at la Vuelta if Contador doesn't go through the plan he can Valverde came up with before the stage Quintana doesn't win that one.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Aren't they examples of what good tactics are? Responding to race situations by making decisions which maxmize your chances of winning?

Also I think the role of Contador, and especially Valverde, is very much overplayed in that Formigal stage. It was Quintana who was the one being marked by Sky and the one which managed to get away. And the one who rode the entire last 20km on the front, riding everyone except Brambilla off his wheel on shallow gradients. It was a supreme tactical and physical triumph by Quintana, and it's strange to me how often people try to downplay his role in it.

Actually no. In the first one he should not have been allowed to continue the attack and been forced to wait as the race had been neutralized. In the second without the plan Valverde and Contador came up and getting 3 riders per team into that break and Valverde telling Quintana to look for it Quintana doesn't make that and looses the race to Froome. That was yet again Valverde telling Quintana what to look for or what to do. We saw at the Tour when Froome attacked on the downhill Quintana looking around for someone to tell him what to do.

How do you know this was all down to Valverde? It seems a bit far-fetched. You think Valverde masterminded a whole plan from beginning to end of stage, and Quintana was just a puppet carrying it out? How exactly was Valverde telling him how to ride sat in a group 4 minutes behind him?

I'm not sure what Quintana's reaction on the Peyresourde descent tells us either. Quintana put his domestique on the front (Valverde), but Valverde wasn't strong enough to catch Froome. Of course a 50kg rider is going to look around and ask his heavier domestique to take up the chase if he has one in the group - rather than trying to do it all himself.

That would be Valverde and Contador together who came up with the plan. Not like it was the first or last time they came up with a crazy plan in a stage race.
The problem there was Valverde along with Bardet had been DROPPED on that climb and where no where near the front when Froome attacked. It was fully on Quintana (along with BMC) to do the chasing. Quintana should have immediately reacted instead of looking around to be TOLD what to do. Valverde and Bardet were several seconds BEHIND that group and actually caught them on the decent to begin with. So yes that IS on Quintana for not chasing, although you can put that a bit on Porte and VanGarderen as well.

Right, so every time Quintana's tactics are successful it was because Valverde or Contador came up with a plan, or because the race should have been neutralized. And every time his tactics are unsuccessful it is his own fault?

Sounds like you're just choosing the narrative to suit whatever your opinion is. There is no way that you can possibly know who is coming up with what tactics at different points in the races. Maybe Quintana is coming up with great ideas all the time, but Unzue or Valverde are telling him to do something else. We don't know. What we do know is that he's won big races before thanks to tactical moves - races that Valverde wasn't even involved in - so he can't be that useless.[/quote]


Except at that particular stage of that Vuelts there is video and photos of Valverde and Contador is deep conversation in which they did not want others to know what they were saying. Then we get that break. The following season Contador and Valverde came up with a similar idea at Catalonia and pulled it off again. The Giro WAS neutralized and Quintana should NOT have been allowed to keep his advantage.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Seems like you are the one missing the point, or you're deliberately misinterpreting my post.
We've been over this before and I will never agree that the amount of credit one should get for a move depends mainly on the outcome and not on whatever happened before that. Yes, the move did not pay off for Contador and no, he didn't make the move to help Quintana win. Doesn't take away from the fact if Contador had not made this move, contributed that much in the break and put that much effort into organizing the break (see Fraile quote), Quintana would not have gotten those 2? minutes on Froome and would have had a much more difficult time trying to win the race. But ignore all that, I know you'll never be able to give Contador the credit he deserves.

Yes, I agree with all that. Contador was a key part of the move, and deserves credit for that. I have no problem accepting that. But I don't get why Contador's role in the move is used to downplay the tactics that Quintana also showed.

Reading about it on here you would think Contador literally pushed Quintana around the stage and gifted him two minutes. Quintana had loads of tactical decisions to make throughout the stage: starting with whether to join the move or shut it down, working out how much energy to spend to risk establishing the break, and finishing by spending the entire last 20km on the front when no-one (including Contador) would come through to take a turn. And he made the correct tactical decisions in almost every case. Claiming this win was gifted to him by a plan by Contador and Valverde is not giving due to credit to Quintana imo - who was every bit as important a protagonist in the move.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Except at that particular stage of that Vuelts there is video and photos of Valverde and Contador is deep conversation in which they did not want others to know what they were saying. Then we get that break. The following season Contador and Valverde came up with a similar idea at Catalonia and pulled it off again. The Giro WAS neutralized and Quintana should NOT have been allowed to keep his advantage.

So nothing at all concrete then. Maybe Quintana came up with the plan and asked Valverde to let Contador know about it. Maybe, perhaps most likely, it was something they discussed and came up with together. It certainly is not evidence that Quintana is tactically useless anyway.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Seems like you are the one missing the point, or you're deliberately misinterpreting my post.
We've been over this before and I will never agree that the amount of credit one should get for a move depends mainly on the outcome and not on whatever happened before that. Yes, the move did not pay off for Contador and no, he didn't make the move to help Quintana win. Doesn't take away from the fact if Contador had not made this move, contributed that much in the break and put that much effort into organizing the break (see Fraile quote), Quintana would not have gotten those 2? minutes on Froome and would have had a much more difficult time trying to win the race. But ignore all that, I know you'll never be able to give Contador the credit he deserves.

Yes, I agree with all that. Contador was a key part of the move, and deserves credit for that. I have no problem accepting that. But I don't get why Contador's role in the move is used to downplay the tactics that Quintana also showed.

Then we agree.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Except at that particular stage of that Vuelts there is video and photos of Valverde and Contador is deep conversation in which they did not want others to know what they were saying. Then we get that break. The following season Contador and Valverde came up with a similar idea at Catalonia and pulled it off again. The Giro WAS neutralized and Quintana should NOT have been allowed to keep his advantage.

So nothing at all concrete then. Maybe Quintana came up with the plan and asked Valverde to let Contador know about it. Maybe, perhaps most likely, it was something they discussed and came up with together. It certainly is not evidence that Quintana is tactically useless anyway.

or most likely, Contador came up with the plan the day before as has been reported, told Valverde about it hoping to find some allies, and Valverde told his team including Quintana about it.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Maybe Quintana came up with the plan

But for real though