If you were allround, what would you focus on?

[Dekker_Tifosi]

A well known dilemma for riders who are good at almost everything. What type of race to focus on?
We seen many riders struggle with this and end up making wrong choices. Cunego going for GT's all the time after his first Giro win... Eddy Hagen still not chosing between cobbled/hilly classics. Gilbert never did anything in the hilly classics before he made it a serious focus at Lotto. After doing too much in Flanders the years before...

So, if you were a rider that was good at multiple things, or even anything, what would you focus on?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

where's the VDB "I crush all puny men" option?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Hmmm... tough one. I'd say Lombardia/hilly classics. Or if really ambitious maybe the Giro/Tour double. But for me that'd be like asking for an ice cream cone the size of Jupiter.

 

[Kvinto]

Why there is no option "hilly cobbled classics" or "all 5 monuments"?

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Because I am lazy

 

[ingsve]

It depends a lot on what is meant by allround or rather how good of a sprint the allround rider have. There is a huge difference between an EBH and an EBH with 2 gears slower sprint.

With a good sprint the best option is to try and win some sort of classic. Without a sprint it has to be GTs. The most unfortunate type of allrounder is the one that is strong and can climb well but doesn't have a top notch sprint and can't handle the very highest mountains or three weeks of racing.

 

[Mambo95]

The Tour de France - because it would be my livelihood and doing well there is what gets the biggest money (generally)

 

[Mellow Velo]

Hilly classics for me.
Start the season late, spend May in Italy, then June, July at the beach.
Back on the bike for all those nice Italian one day semis, through Mid August until mid October.

 

[The Hitch]

Good job Dekker on bringing up some interesting threads to debate.

I would but im lazy.

Anyway, i vote Giro Vuelta.

Or do what some riders do, ride every 2nd gt- Giro Tour Vuelta Giro Tour Vuelta Giro Tour Vuelta GiroTour

etc

So one year you do Giro Vuelta, next you do Tour.

 

[Parrulo]

shouldn't "focus on GT's" be an option insted of tour the france or giro vuelta?

 

[The Hitch]

lol nice little low blow at Cadel Evans - "I'd keep doing as much as possible and end 2nd all the time"

I like.

But theres no Alberto Contador option - "I'd keep doing as much as possible and end 1st all the time"

 

[Parrulo]

lol nice little low blow at Cadel Evans - "I'd keep doing as much as possible and end 2nd all the time"

I like.

But theres no Alberto Contador option - "I'd keep doing as much as possible and end 1st all the time"

haha laughed at the alberto one.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Meh Alberto kinda quits the season after july. It's a Tour focus - with the intention of winning other races on less than 100%.

But it kind of brings an interesting topic to discuss.

Why are there:
A) Super peakers like Andy Schleck - you don't see them anywhere until the race they peaked for. Ofcourse, they do try something in other races but are nowhere near as good as in top form. Other riders in this category: Jurgen Vandenbroeck, perhaps Menchov as well. Yeah, Schleck was decent in Suisse and Menchov was decent in Romandie, and Vandenbroeckin Ruta and Dauphine, but nowhere near as good as in their peak race (TdF)

B) Riders who seem constantly good with no real peak - ranging from Evans to Nibali/Gesink/Hesjedal. No matter where they start, they always seem to have a very high base form and top 10 nearly everywhere.

C) Riders who seem constantly good but also have an extra peak - Alberto Contador, Philippe Gilbert, might even say Cancellara (he wins TT's even if out of form). Good all-year around (for Contador till july) and usually two or three races where they are extremely awesome as well. Although Contador missed that awesomeness this year. But he did have it in earlier years.
For sure Gilbert. Top 10 almost every classics he starts and some huge performance in between

 

[steelciocc]

I'd give (almost) anything to be good enough to excel at the hilly classics and semi-classics. Lombardia is my favorite race and along with LBL, Emilia, etc. would be wonderful to build a career around.

Alas, I suck any time the road tilts (even slightly) upward...

 

[Parrulo]

Meh Alberto kinda quits the season after july. It's a Tour focus - with the intention of winning other races on less than 100%.

But it kind of brings an interesting topic to discuss.

Why are there:
A) Super peakers like Andy Schleck - you don't see them anywhere until the race they peaked for. Ofcourse, they do try something in other races but are nowhere near as good as in top form. Other riders in this category: Jurgen Vandenbroeck, perhaps Menchov as well. Yeah, Schleck was decent in Suisse and Menchov was decent in Romandie, and Vandenbroeckin Ruta and Dauphine, but nowhere near as good as in their peak race (TdF)

B) Riders who seem constantly good with no real peak - ranging from Evans to Nibali/Gesink/Hesjedal. No matter where they start, they always seem to have a very high base form and top 10 nearly everywhere.

C) Riders who seem constantly good but also have an extra peak - Alberto Contador, Philippe Gilbert, might even say Cancellara (he wins TT's even if out of form). Good all-year around (for Contador till july) and usually two or three races where they are extremely awesome as well. Although Contador missed that awesomeness this year. But he did have it in earlier years.
For sure Gilbert. Top 10 almost every classics he starts and some huge performance in between

very good point.

i am hoping that berto doesn't get banned so we can see him doing the tour-vuelta double next year and how he handles it.

 

[Ibanez]

Tour de France for me....even in an idealised super talented version of myself, I can't get away from the fact I'm never going to be built for Paris Roubaix. But honestly I would emulate Evans...Spring Classics, 1GT, and worlds/Lombardia if I ride the Vuelta.

You can't have it all eh, even in fantasy land.

 

[bicycles_rule]

how allround can you be? (a certain ammount of) mass is an advantage in the cobbles and nowhere else. if you got the sprint, then you can't follow in the hills if you have enough mass to do well on the cobbles. if you don't have the sprint then you're not going to do well on cobbles.
so either you have sprint+mass (boonen), which means you can do cobbles, no sprint+mass and you do short stage racing (t martin), or you have a sprint+no mass and you'll do best in the hilly classics/gt stages (rodriguez). if you have no sprint+no mass, then you will do a gt (gesink).

some riders can do two, or three (like EBH). but never all four at a high level. and those really in between don't win much. it must suck. they could go for a hilly classic and even then they'll have serious competition. that makes me wonder... when is the real dekker released?

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

the real dekker is released can race again from july 1, 2011. So if he finds a team he can debut in the Tour of Austria or something. Unless a team is actually idiotic enough to send a guy to the TDF without any raceform from 2 years

 

[The Hitch]

the real dekker is released can race again from july 1, 2011. So if he finds a team he can debut in the Tour of Austria or something. Unless a team is actually idiotic enough to send a guy to the TDF without any raceform from 2 years

Make that 4 and you have Astana 2009.

 

[Moondance]

I would focus on the Tour, maybe get a Top-10 if I'm lucky... And if I manage a Top-10, and somehow convince the world that I'm French, I would subsequently be set for life, because if there's anything the French like to do, it's massively overpay for fringe TdF contenders.

 

[Ferminal]

Hilly classics.

Because not only will you win L-B-L and Lombardia, you will also be strong enough to win some of the more selective stages during stage races.

 

[rzombie1988]

I think it's kind of stupid to build your year around 1 race. Sure you could win, but chances are you won't. Even if you race your best race, something stupid like a bike chain can blow it. I think the more you race, the better chance you have of winning.

 

[ingsve]

Meh Alberto kinda quits the season after july. It's a Tour focus - with the intention of winning other races on less than 100%.

But it kind of brings an interesting topic to discuss.

Why are there:
A) Super peakers like Andy Schleck - you don't see them anywhere until the race they peaked for. Ofcourse, they do try something in other races but are nowhere near as good as in top form. Other riders in this category: Jurgen Vandenbroeck, perhaps Menchov as well. Yeah, Schleck was decent in Suisse and Menchov was decent in Romandie, and Vandenbroeckin Ruta and Dauphine, but nowhere near as good as in their peak race (TdF)

B) Riders who seem constantly good with no real peak - ranging from Evans to Nibali/Gesink/Hesjedal. No matter where they start, they always seem to have a very high base form and top 10 nearly everywhere.

C) Riders who seem constantly good but also have an extra peak - Alberto Contador, Philippe Gilbert, might even say Cancellara (he wins TT's even if out of form). Good all-year around (for Contador till july) and usually two or three races where they are extremely awesome as well. Although Contador missed that awesomeness this year. But he did have it in earlier years.
For sure Gilbert. Top 10 almost every classics he starts and some huge performance in between

I think it might be mostly a mental thing. A rider that peaks only for a few races probably doesn't have the motivation for winning lesser races. To win you need to really push yourself, no wins come cheap unless you're a sprinter perhaps. If you don't have the motivation to push yourself until your legs hurt in a lesser race then you probably won't. Riders like Hesjedal and Evans seem to be the type that is really good as punishing themselves. That means they can push themselves to be up there year around while a guy like Schleck probably doesn't like pain as much and saves the punishment for the really important races where he can motivate himself to hurt.

 

[Matthijs]

It depends a lot on what is meant by allround or rather how good of a sprint the allround rider have. There is a huge difference between an EBH and an EBH with 2 gears slower sprint.

With a good sprint the best option is to try and win some sort of classic. Without a sprint it has to be GTs. The most unfortunate type of allrounder is the one that is strong and can climb well but doesn't have a top notch sprint and can't handle the very highest mountains or three weeks of racing.

How about winning Paris-Nice, Pais Vasco, Romandia, Dauphine, Suiss and maybe Tireno-Adriatico, California and Eneco, Pologne. Add Criterium International, some spanish provincial vuelta's if you like and it seems like a fine palmares to me. Better than a lot of GT top10's but no real wins.

 

[Contre la montre]

I voted for mass sprinter. As a sprinter I could act really cool, wear strange zebra outfits and be a playboy. People would be okay with it and say "well that's what sprinters are like". Also, no offence meant, sprinting is less hard then winning GT's. I would very much like to give up before the Zoncolan or whatever ridiculous mountaintop they got planned.