How to beat Quick-Step

Seemed like almost a consensus during and post-race that QS were in an unbeatable position during the finale of the Rhonde.

What could have been done tactically to defeat them - in that scenario with Terpstra up the road? An organized chase could have brought him back, but then you'd have counter attacks by the other QS riders. Still, better to have some chance at winning than none right?

Watching the finale felt akin to a chess game which has progressed to an inevitable result. So it got me wondering: how could that have been averted?

I can't think of anything other than some kind of pre-race collusion.
 
Collusion among teams is against the rules. Now if you have two riders from two teams that decide during the race to use their teams to help each other without the DS knowing it seems to be a loophole.
 
Feb 21, 2017
1,019
0
0
I'll go the old chestnut of "with a bat, while they are asleep". Their strength in numbers has always been amazing, but now the tactics are dialed in as well.
 
It's not easy, obviously, but in the absence of alliances between team leaders, one option might be to put strong second tier riders in the break away, with most of the other leading teams represented, then leave it entirely to QS to pull back. This might at least leave QS having only two riders left into the last 40km, because if they have all of Gilbert, Terpstra, Stybar and Lampaert then it's incredibly hard to beat them.
 
Re:

The Barb said:
It's not easy, obviously, but in the absence of alliances between team leaders, one option might be to put strong second tier riders in the break away, with most of the other leading teams represented, then leave it entirely to QS to pull back. This might at least leave QS having only two riders left into the last 40km, because if they have all of Gilbert, Terpstra, Stybar and Lampaert then it's incredibly hard to beat them.
That's what happened yesterday with Langeveld and Van Baarle. Terpstra just didn't care and blew right by them. The result yesterday was completely as expected: Terpstra attacking and going solo and no cooperation in between the other favorites. The outcome was written in the stars. Offense is the best defense, and if you want to beat QuickStep, you have to be on the offense. Of course that doesn't guarantee a victory, as Terpstra is definitely the strongest rider at the moment and will be the one to beat again next Sunday.
 
Maybe Oss shouldnt pulling peloton 10kms but they should force the Quick Step to do that. They had the numbers. Instead of that Oss could be there when Terpatra attacked and he wouldnt had 40 seconds before Paterberg.
 
Re:

Keram said:
Maybe Oss shouldnt pulling peloton 10kms but they should force the Quick Step to do that. They had the numbers. Instead of that Oss could be there when Terpatra attacked and he wouldnt had 40 seconds before Paterberg.
Yes, burning Oss didn't make any sense at all and is yet another example of Bora's tactical incompetence. The break was no immediate threat and Oss was the only domestique for Sagan in that group. Other teams had more riders there and most other teams had two riders as well. At most, Oss should have taken as many pulls as any one rider from each other team, but he probably shouldn't even have taken a single one. That said, Oss was spent and wouldn't have mattered in the pursuit of Terpstra.
 
The old Contador tactic. Make sure you put a good domestique in the breakaway and then attack too close the gap or make the domestique wait for you then go all in. It is a better tactic then to wait in the bunch. What if Oss was away and then waited for Sagan ? Or Roelandts ? QS would have to burn some riders to have the breakaway under control.
 
One thing is sure. They will not beat them by forsing Sagan to do all chasing.

They should not help him, they should help themselves to win the race.

The result of their negative racing is that they were not even able to catch the 22 year old guy from early break in their most important race.

Sagan was yesterday more beatable after Paterberg, then Terpstra with 10 second space.
 
When you have 1) the strongest rider in the race, 2) your 4th guy is equally strong or stronger than the 2nd guy from any other team and 3) you play your cards right, there's no such thing as tactics involved from other teams.

Oss was struggling on every hill. He's a rouleur so might as well use him until the foot of the Kruisberg like they did to discourage attacks and from there on leave it to Sagan, instead of letting him sit back and getting dropped anyway later.
 
SKSemtex said:
One thing is sure. They will not beat them by forsing Sagan to do all chasing.

They should not help him, they should help themselves to win the race.

The result of their negative racing is that they were not even able to catch the 22 year old guy from early break in their most important race.

Sagan was yesterday more beatable after Paterberg, then Terpstra with 10 second space.
You're too blinded. Sagan didn't do anything himself until the Paterberg (granted he didn't have the legs), but yet you are blaming others for negative racing.
 
This year QuickStep seemed the old Mapei except for Gent they left nothing to their rivals. Last year it was Van Avermaet who was unbeatable. The cobbles-classics are becoming strange
 
Flamin said:
SKSemtex said:
One thing is sure. They will not beat them by forsing Sagan to do all chasing.

They should not help him, they should help themselves to win the race.

The result of their negative racing is that they were not even able to catch the 22 year old guy from early break in their most important race.

Sagan was yesterday more beatable after Paterberg, then Terpstra with 10 second space.
You're too blinded. Sagan didn't do anything himself until the Paterberg (granted he didn't have the legs), but yet you are blaming others for negative racing.
1. He attacked strongly before not only Paterberg, nobody willing to cooperate
2.He just bridged Stybar when Nibali jumped.
3. By negative racing here I had in mind the lack of dedication to organize a proper chase of Terpstra.
 
SKSemtex said:
Flamin said:
SKSemtex said:
One thing is sure. They will not beat them by forsing Sagan to do all chasing.

They should not help him, they should help themselves to win the race.

The result of their negative racing is that they were not even able to catch the 22 year old guy from early break in their most important race.

Sagan was yesterday more beatable after Paterberg, then Terpstra with 10 second space.
You're too blinded. Sagan didn't do anything himself until the Paterberg (granted he didn't have the legs), but yet you are blaming others for negative racing.
1. He attacked strongly before not only Paterberg, nobody willing to cooperate
2.He just bridged Stybar when Nibali jumped.
3. By negative racing here I had in mind the lack of dedication to organize a proper chase of Terpstra.
How is attacking yourself trying to organize a proper chase (talking about the attack after Kwaremont, on Paterberg he had no other choice than to go full of course)? Or responding to attacks and sitting up?
 
Flamin said:
SKSemtex said:
Flamin said:
SKSemtex said:
One thing is sure. They will not beat them by forsing Sagan to do all chasing.

They should not help him, they should help themselves to win the race.

The result of their negative racing is that they were not even able to catch the 22 year old guy from early break in their most important race.

Sagan was yesterday more beatable after Paterberg, then Terpstra with 10 second space.
You're too blinded. Sagan didn't do anything himself until the Paterberg (granted he didn't have the legs), but yet you are blaming others for negative racing.
1. He attacked strongly before not only Paterberg, nobody willing to cooperate
2.He just bridged Stybar when Nibali jumped.
3. By negative racing here I had in mind the lack of dedication to organize a proper chase of Terpstra.
How is attacking yourself trying to organize a proper chase (talking about the attack after Kwaremont, on Paterberg he had no other choice than to go full of course)? Or responding to attacks and sitting up?
I do not get you. I am talking about chasing before Kwaremont.

Or even better. Chasing Nibali and Terpstra down the moment when the race was lost for everybody.
 
SKSemtex said:
Flamin said:
SKSemtex said:
Flamin said:
SKSemtex said:
One thing is sure. They will not beat them by forsing Sagan to do all chasing.

They should not help him, they should help themselves to win the race.

The result of their negative racing is that they were not even able to catch the 22 year old guy from early break in their most important race.

Sagan was yesterday more beatable after Paterberg, then Terpstra with 10 second space.
You're too blinded. Sagan didn't do anything himself until the Paterberg (granted he didn't have the legs), but yet you are blaming others for negative racing.
1. He attacked strongly before not only Paterberg, nobody willing to cooperate
2.He just bridged Stybar when Nibali jumped.
3. By negative racing here I had in mind the lack of dedication to organize a proper chase of Terpstra.
How is attacking yourself trying to organize a proper chase (talking about the attack after Kwaremont, on Paterberg he had no other choice than to go full of course)? Or responding to attacks and sitting up?
I do not get you. I am talking about chasing before Kwaremont.

Or even better. Chasing Nibali and Terpstra down the moment when the race was lost for everybody.
Help me out then. Where exactly did Sagan show proper dedication to organize a chase? Must have missed it completely.
 
The one thing you can't do is let Terpstra or Gilbert get a 30 second gap in the last 40km - it's race over then. You could give more rope to Stybar and Lampaert perhaps though.

Quickstep didn't really play amazing tactics yesterday. The first time they sent a serious rider up the road he wasn't chased and was gifted a winning position. The other favourites simply have to close down moves like that individually if they want to win the race - Sagan being the biggest culprit as he proved to have the strongest legs on the final climbs.

If Quickstep riders have the ability to make those attacks four or five teams and shake everyone else off, then you just have to admit they were too good. But their riders are human as well, they can't keep attacking indefinitely, and Gilbert/Stybar didn't look amazing on the Kwaremont and Paterberg. But you can't let the first attack get away; especially when you have seen exactly what will happen in nearly every other cobbled classic this year.

Moaning about lack of co-operation is ridiculous. It was so inevitable the other riders should certainly have taken it into account in their race strategy.
 
Re:

DFA123 said:
The one thing you can't do is let Terpstra or Gilbert get a 30 second gap in the last 40km - it's race over then. You could give more rope to Stybar and Lampaert perhaps though.

Quickstep didn't really play amazing tactics yesterday. The first time they sent a serious rider up the road he wasn't chased and was gifted a winning position. The other favourites simply have to close down moves like that individually if they want to win the race - Sagan being the biggest culprit as he proved to have the strongest legs on the final climbs.

If Quickstep riders have the ability to make those attacks four or five teams and shake everyone else off, then you just have to admit they were too good. But their riders are human as well, they can't keep attacking indefinitely, and Gilbert/Stybar didn't look amazing on the Kwaremont and Paterberg. But you can't let the first attack get away; especially when you have seen exactly what will happen in nearly every other cobbled classic this year.

Moaning about lack of co-operation is ridiculous. It was so inevitable the other riders should certainly have taken it into account in their race strategy.
I reckon this is the best answer/strategy so far.

It makes me realise that when Nibali went, all of the favourites were thinking 'wrong time, the selection will happen on the Kwaremont.' And then, not to mark Terpstra was simply stupid, and all the faves were guilty of this. He was clearly a man in form, and clearly capable of making a long range move stick.

So yeah, I totally agree that the right tactic is to ride defensively against QS attacks. Wear them down, and if one sticks, you're in the winning move.

In any case, at least we're moving on to a more chaotic chess board. i.e. Roubaix will be much harder for QS to control than Flanders.
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
DFA123 said:
The one thing you can't do is let Terpstra or Gilbert get a 30 second gap in the last 40km - it's race over then. You could give more rope to Stybar and Lampaert perhaps though.

Quickstep didn't really play amazing tactics yesterday. The first time they sent a serious rider up the road he wasn't chased and was gifted a winning position. The other favourites simply have to close down moves like that individually if they want to win the race - Sagan being the biggest culprit as he proved to have the strongest legs on the final climbs.

If Quickstep riders have the ability to make those attacks four or five teams and shake everyone else off, then you just have to admit they were too good. But their riders are human as well, they can't keep attacking indefinitely, and Gilbert/Stybar didn't look amazing on the Kwaremont and Paterberg. But you can't let the first attack get away; especially when you have seen exactly what will happen in nearly every other cobbled classic this year.

Moaning about lack of co-operation is ridiculous. It was so inevitable the other riders should certainly have taken it into account in their race strategy.
I reckon this is the best answer/strategy so far.

It makes me realise that when Nibali went, all of the favourites were thinking 'wrong time, the selection will happen on the Kwaremont.' And then, not to mark Terpstra was simply stupid, and all the faves were guilty of this. He was clearly a man in form, and clearly capable of making a long range move stick.

So yeah, I totally agree that the right tactic is to ride defensively against QS attacks. Wear them down, and if one sticks, you're in the winning move.

In any case, at least we're moving on to a more chaotic chess board. i.e. Roubaix will be much harder for QS to control than Flanders.
Yep, the rider that closes down the attack runs the risk that other riders will follow them and save energy. But it's a risk you have to take if you want to win the race. The Classics favourites at the moment simply don't co-operate well at all, so each one has to take personal responsibility to respond to moves by Terpstra or Gilbert, otherwise they won't win the race.

I agree about Roubaix as well - it's definitely a harder race to execute a tactical plan. Probably because it's harder to shake out the domestiques from other teams than with the hills of Flanders. I think also from everything that has been said, that Gilbert is clear number one rider for Quickstep for this race. Which could lead to situations like they had with Boonen, where potentially stronger riders on the day end up sacrificing themselves unnecessarily.
 
Re:

DFA123 said:
Quickstep didn't really play amazing tactics yesterday. The first time they sent a serious rider up the road he wasn't chased and was gifted a winning position. The other favourites simply have to close down moves like that individually if they want to win the race - Sagan being the biggest culprit as he proved to have the strongest legs on the final climbs.
They ensured the racing was hard enough in the first part of the race to weaken domestiques from other teams. Then they took advantage of their numbers in the second part of the race while other leaders were isolated (Bahrein and Astana had numbers but not really leaders, and Bora used Oss in a questionable way).

"Amazing" tactics, I don't know, but it did favor them.
 
Re: Re:

Alexandre B. said:
DFA123 said:
Quickstep didn't really play amazing tactics yesterday. The first time they sent a serious rider up the road he wasn't chased and was gifted a winning position. The other favourites simply have to close down moves like that individually if they want to win the race - Sagan being the biggest culprit as he proved to have the strongest legs on the final climbs.
They ensured the racing was hard enough in the first part of the race to weaken domestiques from other teams. Then they took advantage of their numbers in the second part of the race while other leaders were isolated (Bahrein and Astana had numbers but not really leaders, and Bora used Oss in a questionable way).

"Amazing" tactics, I don't know, but it did favor them.
My man Keisse did an incredible job. :)

https://twitter.com/VelonCC/status/980418506201190401
 
Re: Re:

Alexandre B. said:
DFA123 said:
Quickstep didn't really play amazing tactics yesterday. The first time they sent a serious rider up the road he wasn't chased and was gifted a winning position. The other favourites simply have to close down moves like that individually if they want to win the race - Sagan being the biggest culprit as he proved to have the strongest legs on the final climbs.
They ensured the racing was hard enough in the first part of the race to weaken domestiques from other teams. Then they took advantage of their numbers in the second part of the race while other leaders were isolated (Bahrein and Astana had numbers but not really leaders, and Bora used Oss in a questionable way).

"Amazing" tactics, I don't know, but it did favor them.
Yeah, they did the basic groundwork well. But half the main group could have followed Terpstra if they wanted to at the time he attacked. Instead they all left it to each other to chase, like they have in almost every other classic this season. When Terpstra attacks with 40km to go, you shouldn't be looking at your domestiques to close the gap anyway (even if they were still there). Firstly, because they probably won't be strong enough to do it, and secondly because that was the moment to make the race much more selective.

The other favourites were so negative and passive though they just handed the win to Quickstep, who only had to show their first card, before the others folded.
 
Re:

Flamin said:
It was QS's third attack actually after Terpstra on Koppenberg and Stybar between Taaienberg and Kruisberg.
Not all attacks are the same. Those two weren't proper attacks, they were just trying to thin the group out a bit. Terpstra's decisive move was clearly a full on effort to get away. The first such move in the race by Quickstep.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
city17 Professional Road Racing 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY