Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives

[Froome]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757120113491247267

View: https://twitter.com/lucasaganronald/status/1757120113491247267

"Jonas Vingegaard was growing beside me, and he was getting better and better. I knew that one day he would be the one.”

 

[CyclistAbi]

"Jonas Vingegaard was growing beside me, and he was getting better and better. I knew that one day he would be the one.”

Yeah, Rogla is fair. He even gave Jonas his kingdom.

 

[bNator]

Look, you have taken the deliberate choice of always writing grammatically poorly by never using subclauses in your sentences.

I think @CyclistAbi is inspired by a certain Slovenian reporter and columnist in their approach to use plenty of full stops instead of subclauses. Marcel is his name. @CyclistAbi, am I close?

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Go back and watch the part again listening to what is said and comeback to read what you wrote. What you transcribed reads like someone who barely understands English wrote it while missing all of the meat. Like how posters who speak other languages say the meaning is lost when transcribed to English.

Second, Armstrong picked to be in Roglic’s position because Armstrong would want to show his former team up and that they screwed up. Armstrong didn’t say that because he thinks Roglic is 100-1000% better than the others like you’re trying to make it sound.

Armstrong forgot two things of course. One, he's an idiot. Two, in this day and age everything is measured and teams know exactly what a rider is capable of. If Roglic had any chance of beating Vingegaard in a 1v1 (by which i mean assuming Vingegaard does not crash or get sick), then they would not have let him go. He was still under contract, and if they thought there was even a remote chance that he could win, knowing both riders capabilities, they would not have taken the risk. Vengeance does not magically unlock more watts that your body was otherwise unable to produce.

 

[bNator]

Armstrong forgot two things of course. One, he's an idiot. Two, in this day and age everything is measured and teams know exactly what a rider is capable of. If Roglic had any chance of beating Vingegaard in a 1v1 (by which i mean assuming Vingegaard does not crash or get sick), then they would not have let him go. He was still under contract, and if they thought there was even a remote chance that he could win, knowing both riders capabilities, they would not have taken the risk. Vengeance does not magically unlock more watts that your body was otherwise unable to produce.

1. What was true for 2023 is not necessarily true for 2024
2. Extending the previous point - there is no way in hell they can say there's not a "remote chance" Roglic could win or outmatch Vingegaard in 2024.
3. There were team dynamics to consider.
4. There were budget issues to consider.

As we all know, people and organizations make mistakes. Maybe letting Roglic go was a mistake and Roglic will try to prove that. And that was Armstrong's point. Not to be too disagreeable, I'm with you on the idiot part...

 

[Elos Anjos]

2024 and here we are with people watching cycling not because of its unpredictability but because it's a more colorful, educated way of guessing outcomes.

 

[Salvarani]

2024 and here we are with people watching cycling not because of its unpredictability but because it's a more colorful, educated way of guessing outcomes.

The saddest thing is they "guess" and "predict", not taking in anyone elses opinion... then real life events happens and the tune changes.

Just a bunch of hypocrites and knows-it-all type people, who dont really know anything. They are often proven wrong. Time will always tell.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Armstrong forgot two things of course. One, he's an idiot. Two, in this day and age everything is measured and teams know exactly what a rider is capable of. If Roglic had any chance of beating Vingegaard in a 1v1 (by which i mean assuming Vingegaard does not crash or get sick), then they would not have let him go. He was still under contract, and if they thought there was even a remote chance that he could win, knowing both riders capabilities, they would not have taken the risk. Vengeance does not magically unlock more watts that your body was otherwise unable to produce.

As @bNator said - and I won't regurgitate all of it - this is way too simplistic of a view.

• Mandate: They had to choose one; there was no "keep both" option because both demanded full leadership at the Tour and both IMO had earned that. So your conclusion that because they let Roglic go, that means they knew that he had no chance against Vingegaard doesn't hold.
• Age: As a thought exercise, if you have two riders putting out identical numbers in training and both demand to be the sole supported rider in the Tour, but one has won the Tour twice in a row and is 7 years younger than the other, which do you choose? Does that mean you think the other has no shot at beating your boy? No, but it is the right choice given you have to choose. In this scenario, Roglic made it clear they had to choose, and IMO they chose the right horse, even though I prefer Roglic as a fan.
• Performance Unpredictability: They are not just lab rats riding trainers on Zwift. There are many factors at play and performance is not 100% correlated to numbers in training. G notoriously puts up terrible numbers in lead up and then excels in his big goal. Dumoulin said Roglic had terrible numbers in the lead up to the 2020 Tour after crashing out of the Dauphine, and then he narrowly missed the win. Form is fickle and not 100% predictable.

 

[RedheadDane]

2024 and here we are with people watching cycling not because of its unpredictability but because it's a more colorful, educated way of guessing outcomes.

Isn't that basically why the various CQ - and similar - games are so popular? Because people try to guess outcomes of races?
Not me, to be clear! I'm not trying to predict anything by my various picks. I'm just adding a little bit of randomness.

 

[kn0s]

As @bNator said - and I won't regurgitate all of it - this is way too simplistic of a view.

• Mandate: They had to choose one; there was no "keep both" option because both demanded full leadership at the Tour and both IMO had earned that. So your conclusion that because they let Roglic go, that means they knew that he had no chance against Vingegaard doesn't hold.
• Age: As a thought exercise, if you have two riders putting out identical numbers in training and both demand to be the sole supported rider in the Tour, but one has won the Tour twice in a row and is 7 years younger than the other, which do you choose? Does that mean you think the other has no shot at beating your boy? No, but it is the right choice given you have to choose. In this scenario, Roglic made it clear they had to choose, and IMO they chose the right horse, even though I prefer Roglic as a fan.
• Performance Unpredictability: They are not just lab rats riding trainers on Zwift. There are many factors at play and performance is not 100% correlated to numbers in training. G notoriously puts up terrible numbers in lead up and then excels in his big goal. Dumoulin said Roglic had terrible numbers in the lead up to the 2020 Tour after crashing out of the Dauphine, and then he narrowly missed the win. Form is fickle and not 100% predictable.

What you write is in my opinion correct, but also rather simplistic. Visma is putting their money where their mouth is, ulike us here. I know putting it like you do makes things more interesting, as it's just a question of age and luck in 2022, that's the difference between them. I think they made a choice more qualified than that.

Don't got me wrong anything can happen in cycling and anyone talking in absolutes about what's to come, is an idiot.

 

[Netserk]

Look, you have taken the deliberate choice of always writing grammatically poorly by never using subclauses in your sentences.

Then it seems fairly ridiculous that you take offense when people say they don't understand your posts from time to time.

I don't know. What is it. You don't understand? Read what I write. Aloud. Maybe you can hear. What you say. Does it get through? Shall we practice more. It can become a habit. To always write like this. When I answer you. At some point. You either cry. Or laugh. I hope the latter. First.

 

[Froome]

As @bNator said - and I won't regurgitate all of it - this is way too simplistic of a view.

• Mandate: They had to choose one; there was no "keep both" option because both demanded full leadership at the Tour and both IMO had earned that. So your conclusion that because they let Roglic go, that means they knew that he had no chance against Vingegaard doesn't hold.
• Age: As a thought exercise, if you have two riders putting out identical numbers in training and both demand to be the sole supported rider in the Tour, but one has won the Tour twice in a row and is 7 years younger than the other, which do you choose? Does that mean you think the other has no shot at beating your boy? No, but it is the right choice given you have to choose. In this scenario, Roglic made it clear they had to choose, and IMO they chose the right horse, even though I prefer Roglic as a fan.
• Performance Unpredictability: They are not just lab rats riding trainers on Zwift. There are many factors at play and performance is not 100% correlated to numbers in training. G notoriously puts up terrible numbers in lead up and then excels in his big goal. Dumoulin said Roglic had terrible numbers in the lead up to the 2020 Tour after crashing out of the Dauphine, and then he narrowly missed the win. Form is fickle and not 100% predictable.

Certainly not the case.

 

[Netserk]

"Jonas Vingegaard was growing beside me, and he was getting better and better. I knew that one day he would be the one.”

View: https://youtu.be/Ntw1a9_5TwE?t=57

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Certainly not the case.

“As a thought exercise.” The point was that even if he were putting out the same watts in training, which I doubt, it still would have made sense to choose Vingegaard over Roglic, if you’re Visma.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

As @bNator said - and I won't regurgitate all of it - this is way too simplistic of a view.

• Mandate: They had to choose one; there was no "keep both" option because both demanded full leadership at the Tour and both IMO had earned that. So your conclusion that because they let Roglic go, that means they knew that he had no chance against Vingegaard doesn't hold.
• Age: As a thought exercise, if you have two riders putting out identical numbers in training and both demand to be the sole supported rider in the Tour, but one has won the Tour twice in a row and is 7 years younger than the other, which do you choose? Does that mean you think the other has no shot at beating your boy? No, but it is the right choice given you have to choose. In this scenario, Roglic made it clear they had to choose, and IMO they chose the right horse, even though I prefer Roglic as a fan.
• Performance Unpredictability: They are not just lab rats riding trainers on Zwift. There are many factors at play and performance is not 100% correlated to numbers in training. G notoriously puts up terrible numbers in lead up and then excels in his big goal. Dumoulin said Roglic had terrible numbers in the lead up to the 2020 Tour after crashing out of the Dauphine, and then he narrowly missed the win. Form is fickle and not 100% predictable.

All of this goes in the bin, because Roglic was still under contract. What you write is perfectly acceptable in case they needed to renew his contract or in case he was free to leave. But he wasn't. If they actually believed he could beat Vingegaard, then they would miss out on a lot more than whatever budget they sold him to Bora, in case he won the TDF for that team instead of theirs. So that simply doesn't make any sense. If that would mean keeping him unhappy for another year, then it would only make sense for them to hold him to his contract and send him to the Giro again.

And sure, form is fickle, training numbers are not competitive numbers etc. But please don't act as if Roglic is some enigma for Visma. They have made him what he is, and worked with him for the better part of a decade. They know what he is capable of in training AND in competition. In any circumstance.

 

[Extinction]

Armstrong forgot two things of course. One, he's an idiot. Two, in this day and age everything is measured and teams know exactly what a rider is capable of. If Roglic had any chance of beating Vingegaard in a 1v1 (by which i mean assuming Vingegaard does not crash or get sick), then they would not have let him go. He was still under contract, and if they thought there was even a remote chance that he could win, knowing both riders capabilities, they would not have taken the risk. Vengeance does not magically unlock more watts that your body was otherwise unable to produce.

Armstrong lives life with a chip on his shoulder. This has always been clear. He thus always wants revenge for some perceived wrong made against him (Cofidis) and, when possible, destroy those who get in his way (Bassons, Simeoni). Jumbo knows top Vingegaard beats top Roglic, period. And anybody that doesn't agree is delusional. From this point of view letting Primoz go was a no-brainer.

 

[bNator]

All of this goes in the bin, because Roglic was still under contract. What you write is perfectly acceptable in case they needed to renew his contract or in case he was free to leave. But he wasn't. If they actually believed he could beat Vingegaard, then they would miss out on a lot more than whatever budget they sold him to Bora, in case he won the TDF for that team instead of theirs. So that simply doesn't make any sense. If that would mean keeping him unhappy for another year, then it would only make sense for them to hold him to his contract and send him to the Giro again.

And sure, form is fickle, training numbers are not competitive numbers etc. But please don't act as if Roglic is some enigma for Visma. They have made him what he is, and worked with him for the better part of a decade. They know what he is capable of in training AND in competition. In any circumstance.

There’s a difference between assessing the probability of Roglic beating Vingegaard in another team to low enough (and evaluating that probability to a certain sum of money) and knowing he doesn’t have any chance…

 

[Froome]

There’s a difference between assessing the probability of Roglic beating Vingegaard in another team to low enough (and evaluating that probability to a certain sum of money) and knowing he doesn’t have any chance…

There's always some chance if Vingegaard crashes.

The other possibility would be an ambush, but that is not gonna happen with guys like van baarle, laporte, jorgenson, tratnik, and because Visma will ride in a fast pace every single day in the Tour 2024 to physically crush everyone, specially in the last week.

 

[Extinction]

There's always some chance if Vingegaard crashes.

The other possibility would be an ambush, but that is not gonna happen with guys like van baarle, laporte, jorgenson, tratnik, and because Visma will ride in a fast pace every single day in the Tour 2024 to physically crush everyone, specially in the last week.

Anyone can crash, but you don't base team hierarchy, nor team harmony, on possible road incidents. You base it on strength and you work with that framework.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

All of this goes in the bin, because Roglic was still under contract. What you write is perfectly acceptable in case they needed to renew his contract or in case he was free to leave. But he wasn't. If they actually believed he could beat Vingegaard, then they would miss out on a lot more than whatever budget they sold him to Bora, in case he won the TDF for that team instead of theirs. So that simply doesn't make any sense. If that would mean keeping him unhappy for another year, then it would only make sense for them to hold him to his contract and send him to the Giro again.

And sure, form is fickle, training numbers are not competitive numbers etc. But please don't act as if Roglic is some enigma for Visma. They have made him what he is, and worked with him for the better part of a decade. They know what he is capable of in training AND in competition. In any circumstance.

Fair enough. But, as we've seen, it isn't easy to keep someone in a contract that they do not wish to honor these days. So they probably did some expected probability weighted value analysis and decided that, even if there is a chance that Roglic could go to Bora and beat Vingegaard in the Tour this year it still would make more sense to stand by Vingegaard. Letting Roglic go by no means indicates they "know" Roglic could never beat Vingegaard straight up.

 

[Extinction]

Fair enough. But, as we've seen, it isn't easy to keep someone in a contract that they do not wish to honor these days. So they probably did some expected probability weighted value analysis and decided that, even if there is a chance that Roglic could go to Bora and beat Vingegaard in the Tour this year it still would make more sense to stand by Vingegaard. Letting Roglic go by no means indicates they "know" Roglic could never beat Vingegaard straight up.

If Vingegaard is in top form, doesn't crash or get sick, Roglic at Bora cannot beat him. It's why he's at Bora.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Anyone can crash, but you don't base team hierarchy, nor team harmony, on possible road incidents. You base it on strength and you work with that.

I agree this is how you make decisions, but you never assume that the rider with the best numbers will always be the strongest rider on race day 100% of the time. Even ignoring crashes, some riders are prone to the occasional bad day or make bone headed decisions or lack the killer instinct or don't have the proper motivation or are planning to have a kid and not train as much, etc. etc. This sport has had so many upsets, unexpected good performances and bad performances. Again, you make the decision with the information you have, but the same way I would never say "Remco can't beat Vingegaard at the Tour," I would never, as Visma, say "Roglic can't beat Vingegaard at the Tour." The top 4 riders have all ridden at such a high level at various times that it is not inconceivable that any one of them proves the top rider. I agree Vingegaard is the overwhelming favorite, but Pogi, Roglic, Remco have all had stratospheric performances as well.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

If Vingegaard is in top form, doesn't crash or get sick, Roglic at Bora cannot beat him. It's why he's at Bora.

I'm curious, would you say the same for Remco? What about Pogacar?

 

[Extinction]

I agree this is how you make decisions, but you never assume that the rider with the best numbers will always be the strongest rider on race day 100% of the time. Even ignoring crashes, some riders are prone to the occasional bad day or make bone headed decisions or lack the killer instinct or don't have the proper motivation or are planning to have a kid and not train as much, etc. etc. This sport has had so many upsets, unexpected good performances and bad performances. Again, you make the decision with the information you have, but the same way I would never say "Remco can't beat Vingegaard at the Tour," I would never, as Visma, say "Roglic can't beat Vingegaard at the Tour. The top 4 riders have all ridden at such a high level at various times that it is not inconceivable that any one of them proves the top rider. I agree Vingegaard is the overwhelming favorite, but Pogi, Roglic, Remco have all had stratospheric performances as well.

Right, but you can't base decisions on hypothetical circumstances (he won't train as hard because he wants to be with his kids, his killer instinct will be wanting, he'll crash, get sick, etc.), but on the facts. And the facts say at the last two Tours Vingegaard was head and shoulders above the rest. With the likes of Pogacar that's no small feat.

 

[Extinction]

I'm curious, would you say the same for Remco? What about Pogacar?

For Remco, for Pogacar, yes, the same on current knowledge.