Hindsight 20/20, where did Andy lose it?

[Cobblestones]

1) Too passive in the Pyrenees
2) The descent into Gap?
3) Burnt too many matches to win on the Galibier?
4) The Alpe d'Huez stage?
5) The ITT?

Discuss

And I added a poll.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

I'll go with 1, 2 & 4 in that order.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

1) Too passive in the Pyrenees
2) The descent into Gap?
3) Burnt too many matches to win on the Galibier?
4) The Alpe d'Huez stage?
5) The ITT?

Discuss

......................

 

[LaFlorecita]

1,2,4,5...

 

[jsem94]

1,2,4,5...

This exactly.

 

[Ragerod]

He didn't lose it, Cadel won it. He descent in the Gap was woeful but without it he still would've finished second. Maybe he didn't make the most of the Pyrenees but Evans looked just as strong there.

So I'm not voting. Evans was just too strong.

 

[mr. tibbs]

He didn't lose it, Cadel won it. He descent in the Gap was woeful but without it he still would've finished second. Maybe he didn't make the most of the Pyrenees but Evans looked just as strong there.

So I'm not voting. Evans was just too strong.

Damn, that's true.

But I did vote, and it's b/c Andy missed his opportunity in the Pyrenees. I was yelling at him while the stages unfolded, b/c I was watching Evans ride into the win.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

It was a total failure that came from arrogance, overconfidence, and stupidity. He did not even recon the ITT. Without the crashes that took out the other contenders, Andy would have struggled to get on the podium.

 

[Kender]

i vote foir option 6

he lost it because he thought he only had 1 opponent

edit
and i also agree with ragerod. he didnt really lose it. Cadel won it

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

It was a total failure that came from arrogance, overconfidence, and stupidity. He did not even recon the ITT. Without the crashes that took out the other contenders, Andy would have struggled to get on the podium.

this.

He seemed a lesser ride on a whole.

 

[Ferminal]

I'll go with 1, 2 & 4 in that order.

Exactly that.

The ITT can't really be considered a factor, he achieved a par result in that and he's just not good in that discipline.

Galibier was what got back him into the Tour, it can't be seen as a fault.

I think his tactical moves on 18 and 19 were both the right decisions. He couldn't (for whatever reason) test Evans in the Pyrenees, nor gain any substantial time on Alberto. He had to put Evans to the sword somehow, who unfortunately for Andy, met the challenge.

Andy didn't throw it away to any large degree at any stage of the race. Cadel was simply better or equal on the whole.

But, the Pyrenees do remain a "what if" I think.

 

[hfer07]

I'd say all-but mainly No 1

 

[unsheath]

It was a total failure that came from arrogance, overconfidence, and stupidity. He did not even recon the ITT. Without the crashes that took out the other contenders, Andy would have struggled to get on the podium.

I see this as a massive failure on Leopard Trek management. What idiots for not reconning the course when its the weakness of your primary riders. Probably showed in Cancellara's poor rides too.

That's what you get having a press officer run a cycling team. Amateur Hour.

 

[perico]

He lost it last season when he left Riis to form his own team.

 

[Grayguard]

Imo, he lost it because he thought he could win it, with *ONE* real attack. If he had started to attack in the Pyrenees, he could've have lost it all - but he could also have won it.

As I've said before; "If you want to win it all, you got to be willing to risk it all."

And I think both Schlecks looked strong in the Pyrenees.

 

[roundabout]

Actually it's difficult to know.

Pyrenees - he could have been more decisive on the stage to Plateau de Beille especially having 2 riders in the break but again in hindsight I don't know how much he would have gained vs Evans

Descent to Gap - yes, but I think he was seeing stars already on the climb so that also had an effect

Galibier - I believe was the consequence of the Gap stage that put him on the back foot. Result wise he got more time in the Alps than he would have done had he finished with his brother in Gap.

Alpe d'Huez - yes. In hindsight he shouldn't have gone with Contador especially after the effort on the Galibier. It would have been slightly closer in the TT so it's not really a huge mistake.

TT- he did ok all things considered, Evans was very-very-very good. I did think that the difference would have been smaller but in the end he would have lost anyway.

So I suppose a bit contrary to the contents of my post Gap was the obvious moment of weakness and in the Pyrenees Evans looked slightly less impressive than later on so it's probably 1 and 2.

 

[Aleajactaest]

It was a total failure that came from arrogance, overconfidence, and stupidity. He did not even recon the ITT. Without the crashes that took out the other contenders, Andy would have struggled to get on the podium.

Andy rode as if the race owed him a win. Guess what, it doesn't.

 

[cineteq]

It's simple the ITT. He doesn't have enough leverage for a bad day, small tactic mistakes or mechanicals.

 

[icefire]

1, 2, 4, 5 and, most important of all, in the hotel and the team car.

 

[Contre la montre]

He didn't lose it, Cadel won it. He descent in the Gap was woeful but without it he still would've finished second. Maybe he didn't make the most of the Pyrenees but Evans looked just as strong there.

So I'm not voting. Evans was just too strong.

I already voted but I agree with this post.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Cadel won it by being the strongest. Even so, he lost it on the stage to Gap.

 

[Ragerod]

I'll add that since I've followed cycling (the 2000s) a lot of the winners, and the multiple winners, always take time on days when they're the strongest by attacking relentlessly. Contador is the perfect example of this and Andy lacks that philosophy.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

While this thread isn't about Evans, I'm going to chime that he was perfect. The only opportunity Schleck may have missed during the Tour was in the Pyrenees, but I highly doubt he would have gotten away from Cadel with time to spare for the ITT. I think that if he could have made a large dent, he would have.

I'd vote that Andy lost it in the early season where he should have been working on the TT, or the season before that, or the season before that...

Its just not good economics to work towards adding 90 seconds to the capacity of a top percentile climber, as opposed to improving the weakest skill (and that steeper part of the improvement curve). I can't really articulate what I mean, but Schleck had a choice between trying to be such a dominate force the mountains to buffer his time trial (which is unrealistic against the best of the best competitors) or sacrificing some of that to be able to hold is own in a TT, and he obviously chose wrong.

Hindsight makes things very clear, but this sentiment seems common when discussing Schleck's chronobilities.

 

[Steel4Ever]

I'll say CBA lost it in 2010.

Perhaps in a few years he MIGHT be able to pull one out...IF he goes to a few remedial bike handling courses and takes a trip to Kazakhstan to attend VINO!'s new UofA (University of Attack) school for a proper education on how to win.

 

[cineteq]

I'd vote that Andy lost it in the early season where he should have been working on the TT, or the season before that, or the season before that....

Voila this is it. This year he has shrugged off his ITT results, and today it came back to bite him big time.