I agree that Evans rode a great race - saying his team was super strong in support of him detracts from the fact that he raced many of the key moments on his own, essentially isolated after the middle stages.
mastersracer said:
Even BMC admitted they stacked the team with "classics" riders. This was a strategy, not an accident based on a weakness of the team. If they had wanted more climbers they would have saved Mathias Frank from the Giro and put him on the Tour team. Their strategy was to do what others have suggested, keep him safe in the front, out of the wind, bring him back if he crashed, avoid being cut out of an echelon and bring him safely to the mountains. If you have watched previous tours, and I am sure you have, Evans has more experience than nearly any other rider in being isolated on climbs.
The thing is we are so used to Motorola/US Postal/Discovery/Saxo/Leopard Trek like tactics that we THINK that is the only way to race a tour. Load the whole team at the front on the climbs, wear down the riders who weren't going to make the selection anyway, and leave your number 1 guy on the mountain with a couple of other GC guys and one of your super domestique's to drop or counter attacks. Things is there is usually one 1 team per year that has a super domestique that can hang all the way and you frequently end up with 3 to 8, or so, guys from different teams in the final selection......all isolated. Leopard was really the only team that had two super strong guys and the reality was they weren't any stronger than Evans so their attacks did not do the damage we are used to seeing, nor did Contador's for that matter.
BMC were so sure his preparation was so complete and his experience of being alone in the final selection was enough for him to handle anything, they didn't have to be at the front setting the pace because they knew Leopard would, so you don't need to. BMC routinely had 2 guys in the final 25 in case things went wrong but ya, when the top group whittled down to 10, those guys were gone. Thing is BMC had the perfect partner for finishing off a mountain stage with a very fit Cadel Evans who did not go down in the first 10 days and had shown strength throughout the stages. They played their hand, and plan, very effectively and I just don't think they can be criticized for much of anything except for not winning the tour the way we are used to seeing.
- Sep 27, 2009
- 1,008
- 0
- 0
Cadel Evans only won stage 4 because his team, Burghardt and Hincapie specifically, dragged him back to the front after a late mechanical.
Cadel Evans cadelevans.com.au/cadelsdiary.aspx said:
- Dec 4, 2009
- 56
- 0
- 0
lbennie said:BS. He had a mechanical on 19, where andy and alberto didn't wait, and he still clawed them back. Andy went on an attack for the ages on 18 and cadel still made it worth almost nothing in the end by pulling solo (and dropping the likes of contador, basso etc) up the galibier.
Leopard threw absolutely everything at him in the alps, and nothing hurt him. He had so much gas in the tank afterwards he almost one the ITT ffs.
This tour was designed for a climber. Only 1 ITT and a TTT, and cadel still won it by 1:30 taking a stage win in the process.
yes it was given to him
I disagree here. Sure, Cuddles rode back after a mechanical, but they weren't riding hard up front. It's good work on his part, buy it wasn't extraordinary like you want it to be.
And riding contador and basso of his wheel is a bit stretchy too - they were both on bad form and cracked. Of course he rode away.
And the schlecks did not throw everything at him - ever. There are few in these forums who aren't frustrated with the schlecks inability to race - they should have thrown things at cadel, but they never did. The schlecks are flat out better climbers, and should have been pounding to put minutes into cadel that they'd need in the TT where they are both worse than me on a bike. Trust me, that's bad
Cuddles still had to do his part by avoiding his bad day and having the nerve to chase people - but with historically slow climbs, people clearly not on good form and people like voeckler (of whom I'm a fan) keeping up with the big boys in the moutons until the end...
I think any conclusion past what o stated before is wishful thinking. Cuddles did his part - but the waters did part a bit. And it shouldn't be so hard to admit it...
- Sep 27, 2009
- 1,008
- 0
- 0
spokebreaker said:
Taking Frank to the Tour after doing his first GT, I don't really count last years Tour when he crashed out in the prologue, in the difficult Giro would have been a huge mistake. There is absolutely no way he could have been able to hold his form to do anything in the mountains. He did not show great climbing form in the Giro anyway, although what he showed in the Tour of Swiss was very promising.
I agree with the rest of the comments. Evans had two riders in the lead group at the base of Luiz Ardiden, for a while up Plateau de Beille. BMC prominant as theu started the Col de Manse until Contador attacked and made it leader against leader. Santomitra was in the leaders group on the Cotte de Pramartino until attacks broke the group up.
Not sure what happened in stage 18 to Galibier because I only saw the last 15-16kms. On stage 19 at the base of Alpe d'Huez Evans had a teammate join him from the Voeckler group who helped position him meaning he had a lead over the Schlecks at the bottom of the climb.
Okay it is not great mountain help but given the personnel on the team I think they did quite well to be with Evans at the base of almost all of the final climbs.
spokebreaker said:
This is a nice analysis of their strategy - as you mention, though, it's not one that most teams adopt with a GC contender. Even BMC brought on Amaël Moinard this year to help in the mountains. He was a major disappointment (not sure of why). In retrospect it worked out since Evans was strong enough to cover the breaks in the mountains. They are lucky Contador wasn't on form, though (he had Navarro who was there when needed and Sanchez is basically another teammate when they decide to work together).
I skipped to the end and haven't read anything. I did watch the last 4 stages while suffering at altitude for the Cascade Classic. My sensitivity to altitude highlighted to me the overall difference in this Tour and the drama that unfolded: you saw a more real high-mountain event.
Cadel maintained a very even temperament, superior tactical sense and those things, along with a serious demonstration of superior power put the Schlecks on the lower steps. He did all of the basic things: rode up front when it counted, sprinted when it counted, relied on the strategic needs of other teams when necessary.
Cadel maintained a very even temperament, superior tactical sense and those things, along with a serious demonstration of superior power put the Schlecks on the lower steps. He did all of the basic things: rode up front when it counted, sprinted when it counted, relied on the strategic needs of other teams when necessary.
lostincosmos said:I disagree here. Sure, Cuddles rode back after a mechanical, but they weren't riding hard up front. It's good work on his part, buy it wasn't extraordinary like you want it to be.
And riding contador and basso of his wheel is a bit stretchy too - they were both on bad form and cracked. Of course he rode away.
And the schlecks did not throw everything at him - ever. There are few in these forums who aren't frustrated with the schlecks inability to race - they should have thrown things at cadel, but they never did. The schlecks are flat out better climbers, and should have been pounding to put minutes into cadel that they'd need in the TT where they are both worse than me on a bike. Trust me, that's bad
Cuddles still had to do his part by avoiding his bad day and having the nerve to chase people - but with historically slow climbs, people clearly not on good form and people like voeckler (of whom I'm a fan) keeping up with the big boys in the moutons until the end...
I think any conclusion past what o stated before is wishful thinking. Cuddles did his part - but the waters did part a bit. And it shouldn't be so hard to admit it...
should of, would of, could of. But they didnt.
Just because a defeated opponent was lacking more upstairs than in his legs, does not diminish the achievement. (i do not believe this however, the whole 'tactical mistakes' arguement is a convenient excuse for a rider who was previously untouchable in the mountains but no longer appears so)
The schlecks were beaten, they didn't lose it.
- Dec 4, 2009
- 56
- 0
- 0
lbennie said:
I agree, "what ifs" make little other than interesting thoughts.
But I thinks it's fair to call it how we see it - the schlecks did not, in fact, try very hard to take the time they needed from Cadel despite it looking at times like they had it in the tank. And cadel did not have to worry about other contenders who had bad luck. Truthfully, there was no real challenger to Cadel once it was clear Schlecky couldn't stop staring at his rear view mirror.
I guess I should be more clear in what I'm saying. Yes, Cadel gets credit for realizing this was his moment. He knew through crashes an ineptitude of competition what was required of him. I mean it when I say he gets props for getting it.
But I just don't see why it's so hard for people to say this just wasn't exactly the biggest challenge. It wasn't the toughest competition and had Samu or AC or the Basso of the Giro appeared in almost top form, I just can't say I think cadel would likely have won. Things lined up for Cadel a bit - significant luck went his way. Why is that a problem to admit?
We say it about other racers/races. AC could have had more competition in the Giro this year. He didnt ride against the top of the top. Now that likely wouldn't have mattered, but it's worth noting.
Sastre won a tour against a field that didn't really have a top GC guy on form and was likely only charging up the Alpe that year to taunt Cadel into tiring so Frank could win. Kudos to Sastre for flying up that hill, but we can be honest about what kind of win it was.
And I don't disagree with your last point at all - the schlecks were beaten by cadel who knew what had to be done. Just stay close and kill them in the TT.
Best use of resources
From what I can see, BMC made maximal use of the resources they had available to them.
Would they have been a better team with a top-class mountain domestique (Rolland being the best example from this year's Tour, I suppose)? Would having a TT monster like Cancellara or Martin have helped? Undoubtedly. But given that they didn't have either available, they gave Cadel every chance to win.
With 20/20 hindsight, perhaps putting George Hincapie rather than Brent Bookwater in the early breakaway on stage 18 might have played out better, but it would also have been a hell of a risk. It's easy to throw Monfort up the road when you've also got Stuart O'Grady, Jens Voigt, and Fabian Cancellara to protect your GC riders.
From what I can see, BMC made maximal use of the resources they had available to them.
Would they have been a better team with a top-class mountain domestique (Rolland being the best example from this year's Tour, I suppose)? Would having a TT monster like Cancellara or Martin have helped? Undoubtedly. But given that they didn't have either available, they gave Cadel every chance to win.
With 20/20 hindsight, perhaps putting George Hincapie rather than Brent Bookwater in the early breakaway on stage 18 might have played out better, but it would also have been a hell of a risk. It's easy to throw Monfort up the road when you've also got Stuart O'Grady, Jens Voigt, and Fabian Cancellara to protect your GC riders.
- Jun 16, 2009
- 19,654
- 2
- 0
lostincosmos said:I disagree here. Sure, Cuddles rode back after a mechanical, but they weren't riding hard up front. It's good work on his part, buy it wasn't extraordinary like you want it to be.
And riding contador and basso of his wheel is a bit stretchy too - they were both on bad form and cracked. Of course he rode away.
And the schlecks did not throw everything at him - ever. There are few in these forums who aren't frustrated with the schlecks inability to race - they should have thrown things at cadel, but they never did. The schlecks are flat out better climbers, and should have been pounding to put minutes into cadel that they'd need in the TT where they are both worse than me on a bike. Trust me, that's bad
Cuddles still had to do his part by avoiding his bad day and having the nerve to chase people - but with historically slow climbs, people clearly not on good form and people like voeckler (of whom I'm a fan) keeping up with the big boys in the moutons until the end...
I think any conclusion past what o stated before is wishful thinking. Cuddles did his part - but the waters did part a bit. And it shouldn't be so hard to admit it...
Andy Schleck said the strongest man won and that he was stronger than last year. I don't think Andy was going to get a gap on the Plateau de Beille. They didn't seem to be able to really nail it home because guys like Evans and AC jumped on their wheels quite quickly.
- May 25, 2010
- 8,863
- 414
- 18,580
I think the biggest difference is the mental state of Evans compared to 2008.
Do you remember he had a private house at the start line of that TT? That the team completely isolated him from the world? The guy was full of stress and not at ease. At BMC he seems to feel really at home. I think for Cadel Evans that's really important.
Do you remember he had a private house at the start line of that TT? That the team completely isolated him from the world? The guy was full of stress and not at ease. At BMC he seems to feel really at home. I think for Cadel Evans that's really important.
- Jun 16, 2009
- 19,654
- 2
- 0
Never will be a mainstream sport but 2d tier now.Kwibus said:
According to his father in the paper Cadel was close to considering retiring at one point
Kwibus said:
Agreed, he wasn't comfortable at that team and was only close to Lloyd and Phil at Lotto.
- Mar 9, 2010
- 551
- 0
- 0
lostincosmos said:
why is it hard to admit? because it is a horrible mischaracterization of this tour. that is why. cadel's win cannot at all be compared to sastre's win. not at all.
and andy schleck is not a top quality gc contender? what is wrong with you? you need to ask yourself why you want to find rationalizations to undermine cadel's winning?
people say that about contador, btw, because they hate contador and are always trying to undermine his credibility, when he is in fact a great champion. as is cadel.
Kwibus said:
Yes - pretty sure this is a key part of why BMC has been a good team for him, regardless of whether he was still somewhat isolated in the high mountains.
That aside though, the TTT and several other occasions also showed BMC were a better team that Lotto for him in physical logistics. Admittedly not quite to the same extent as CSC was for Sastre, or the USP train for Armstrong, but it looks like it was all the difference in the world in the GC race.
- Aug 5, 2009
- 15,733
- 8,127
- 28,180
spokebreaker said:
Yep. They knew the team time trial was vital and the first week with a lot of tricky stages on narrow roads. They had confidence in Cadel for the ITT and the mountains. The team selection raised eyebrows but was very clever by including lots of strong riders instead of climbers. Also not having the yellow jersey was a bonus. Thankfully BMC did not win the team time trial. It worked in Evans favour. Winning the TDF in the time trial is no bad thing. I thought Evans looked much fresher than the Schlecks on the Alpe stage. That's when I knew the Schlecks would get buried in the time trial.
Evans rode a perfect race and was the strongest rider on show.
However, I felt for him on a number of occasions because he was badly isolated so often.
If Evans had come 2nd or 3rd then I think everyone would have blamed his team for the defeat because, in my opinion, they looked very weak (except on the flat stages where they performed as good as every other team).
For me, the Schlecks lost the tour in the Pyrenees when they refused to attack and on the stage to Galibier when Evans had pulled so hard he was at his most vulnerable to attack.
I'll probably be proved wrong next year but I reckon the only way Andy or Frank Schleck can win the tour is if they race on different teams, or one sacrifices everything for the other.
However, I felt for him on a number of occasions because he was badly isolated so often.
If Evans had come 2nd or 3rd then I think everyone would have blamed his team for the defeat because, in my opinion, they looked very weak (except on the flat stages where they performed as good as every other team).
For me, the Schlecks lost the tour in the Pyrenees when they refused to attack and on the stage to Galibier when Evans had pulled so hard he was at his most vulnerable to attack.
I'll probably be proved wrong next year but I reckon the only way Andy or Frank Schleck can win the tour is if they race on different teams, or one sacrifices everything for the other.
- Oct 26, 2009
- 654
- 0
- 0
movingtarget said:
It was a great win by Cadel and we should take nothing away from it. I don't think that the Schlecks had the legs to drop Cadel in the Pyrenees. Or if they did, they did a very poor job of really trying to do so. What time did they get on Cadel in the Pyrenees? Maybe 30 seconds? And Andy's tactics on the final mountain stage was poor. If he rides with AC over two Cols, then why does he pull Cadel up the last Col?
- Aug 5, 2009
- 15,733
- 8,127
- 28,180
ManInFull said:
Yeah the Schlecks made a few critical errors but Andy claims that he was more disappointed losing last year's TDF. Even Hinault reckons Andy blew last years TDF. Andy must be starting to feel as frustrated as Cadel was with three seconds in a row now and you have to say he could have won the last two TDF's but it's history now. Evans canny riding, not panicking and ability to ride in all conditions gave him the edge and he finally produced a great TT in the TDF when he needed to.
ManInFull said:
I wondered at that last bit.
The only thing I could imagine was that they were protecting their podium places from Contador. They couldn't afford to let Contador and Sanchez make up 2 minutes, while Evans could have. They couldn't play chicken in that way.
The thing was... I'm not sure why they didn't attack Evans, other then possibly not having the gas to do so. I understand they needed to limit losses to Contador, but they put almost no stress on Evans by riding tempo.
these analyses are a great example of 'hindsight bias.' When an event has a positive outcome, we confabulate an explanation for those events that make the outcome look predictable and the result of a controlled process (nicely explained by Nassim Taleb in The Black Swan for financial markets). Luck, randomness, etc. play no role in that explanation (avoiding crashes etc). Had Evans lost, the very same team tactics would be questioned.
- Mar 10, 2009
- 9,245
- 23
- 17,530
kurtinsc said:
Their obsession with getting both of them on the podium is their biggest handicap. Andy's epic attack wasn't a threat to Frank because Frank would just follow the wheels in pursuit of Andy. It was risky to Andy's standing in the gc if he had blown up earlier or an actual organized chase with a sense of urgency had taken place in the peloton with him blowing up later and losing time but I have a feeling that the plan was his and his alone with no way of his being talked out of it. This obsession plays into their tactical ineptness.
If they fear being separated it sort of limits what options they have in gaining time on their opponents.
- Dec 4, 2009
- 56
- 0
- 0
spanky wanderlust said:
Hrm, I think you're misunderstanding my points.
The only comparison I make tween Sastre and Cadel is that they both won in years when top GC people weren't quite in form. I just don't think it's unfair to say that there was a lack of real challenges to Cadel this year. We all watched it, that's not news or opinion. Cadel rode well and knew the situation and did what he needed to do. But there was no real challenge to him - the climbs were slow, his main rival is a dolt and comes with a 2 minute gift in TT ability.
I'm not after undermining Cadel, I'm after the point that he won a Tour essentially unchallenged except by himself. That's not his fault, it's not untrue to point out and it shouldn't be so hard to say.
Had he been challenged would he have won? Maybe, dunno. But had AC or Basso been in top form as well, it certainly would have been an actual battle. Had Andy had the nerve and brains to get time on the climbs (and he had form in the second week to do so, I think), or to descend faster than my grandmother, then there would have been a challenge.
I think you're defending Cadel more than is necessary. I didnt say he sucks or doesn't deserve the win. It just wasn't a difficult tour to win is all.
As a sidenote, no, I don't think Andy is a real GC contender. Can't descend, can't TT, can't read a race properly and can't ride without his brother. He's just not a true GC rider (like Cadel is, btw). Andy may well win a tour, but only after the course lacks a prologue/TT of length, and the rest of the field isn't up to the win themselves.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram