• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Il Lombardia 2017

Page 19 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

46&twoWheels said:
DFA123 said:
46&twoWheels said:
Aru was nowhere to be found today
I don't think you're making peace with your statements
First you say: "italy organized the Lombardia for Nibali"
then you move the goalpost,when people showed you that Nibs was the strongest uphill,dowhill and in the last flat part.

"italy organized il Lombardia for the Italians"
Alaphilippe arrived 2nd though


[/u]
Not really sure of you're point here. Designing a Lombardia that gives the best chance for an Italian to win, is basically designing a Lombardia that gives the best chance for Nibali to win - the two are the same thing. Just like 10-15 years ago the course was designed with Bartoli or Bettini in mind. It will be interesting to see how they will tweak in a couple of years to give Moscon the best chance of victory - probably will become a bit easier again.

Of course Nibali still has to go out an win on the course, which is far from a certainty. It just devalues the race, like any race is devalued when it is designed with certain riders in mind.

I'm trying to follow your reasoning but I can't find a handhold in the end.
You're implying Nibali was "gifted" without mentioning the world class opponents and the EQUAL STARTING CONDITIONS.
The advantage that Nibali had,if it can be called advantage,is that he knew the route (he's already won the race and he trains even there) and that he was the best in the most important sectors.

Also,you're implying that Nibali's win was certain. That's called "hindsight bias".

I dont' believe there's such thing as an "ideal" race for a rider and if it's so it means that other riders already know Nibali's strenght and weaknesses as we knew so they could have stoppe him from winning which wasn't the case.
So for me the "advantage" related to the route is negligible if we consider that he showed to be the strongest
It would have deserved devaluation if Nibali would have won ONLY because the route-advantage without the brute-forceful separation from the peloton
This Lombardia suits Nibali brilliantly. True. But it's absolutely not a problem because

- It is great for action from far out. Right now Lombardia is far and away the best hilly monument on the calendar.
- It requires many different qualities. Climbing, descending, even rouleur abilities matter on this course. A race being tailor suited to a multidimensional rider is not a problem, and if it is, it is way less of a problem than races being overly suited to multidimensional riders.

Alaphilippe, the best sprinter of the contenders got 2nd today. It still rides like a classic.
 
Sep 2, 2010
1,853
0
0
Visit site
I can understand disliking a parcour if it's perfectly suited to a certain rider, but if a route is simply one that repeatedly goes up and down a lot then I refuse to see how this is a bad thing. Surely it should be almost perfect for great cyclists, and cycling fans? Yet people are complaining.
 
Re:

whittashau said:
I can understand disliking a parcour if it's perfectly suited to a certain rider, but if a route is simply one that repeatedly goes up and down a lot then I refuse to see how this is a bad thing. Surely it should be almost perfect for great cyclists, and cycling fans? Yet people are complaining.
Not to mention that the poster likes Paris-Tours better. It is beyond me to put that comparison! :eek:
 
Re:

Armchair cyclist said:
At the risk of disrupting this discussion of historical MSR routes into something about the 2017 Lombardia...

Has Vuillermoz been reinstated? When PCS only had a top ten up, Vuillermoz was missing: now that they have the whole list of finishers, he is back in 4th place.

I also read that Jan Bakelandts had a fall at the same place as De Plus and is described as seriously injured.

DLj4EXpWsAAYjdF.jpg


7broken ribs, 2 vertebrae broken.
 
On the route argument, nowadays with riders in the peloton being on a more equal level routes have to be harder to make them more decisive. Domestiques these days are almost as strong as their leaders and the depth in the fields today is outrageous.
 
Re: Re:

46&twoWheels said:
DFA123 said:
46&twoWheels said:
Aru was nowhere to be found today
I don't think you're making peace with your statements
First you say: "italy organized the Lombardia for Nibali"
then you move the goalpost,when people showed you that Nibs was the strongest uphill,dowhill and in the last flat part.

"italy organized il Lombardia for the Italians"
Alaphilippe arrived 2nd though


[/u]
Not really sure of you're point here. Designing a Lombardia that gives the best chance for an Italian to win, is basically designing a Lombardia that gives the best chance for Nibali to win - the two are the same thing. Just like 10-15 years ago the course was designed with Bartoli or Bettini in mind. It will be interesting to see how they will tweak in a couple of years to give Moscon the best chance of victory - probably will become a bit easier again.

Of course Nibali still has to go out an win on the course, which is far from a certainty. It just devalues the race, like any race is devalued when it is designed with certain riders in mind.

I'm trying to follow your reasoning but I can't find a handhold in the end.
You're implying Nibali was "gifted" without mentioning the world class opponents and the EQUAL STARTING CONDITIONS.
The advantage that Nibali had,if it can be called advantage,is that he knew the route (he's already won the race and he trains even there) and that he was the best in the most important sectors.

Also,you're implying that Nibali's win was certain. That's called "hindsight bias".

I dont' believe there's such thing as an "ideal" race for a rider and if it's so it means that other riders already know Nibali's strenght and weaknesses as we knew so they could have stoppe him from winning which wasn't the case.
So for me the "advantage" related to the route is negligible if we consider that he showed to be the strongest
It would have deserved devaluation if Nibali would have won ONLY because the route-advantage without the brute-forceful separation from the peloton
Erm, are you even reading what I wrote, or is the urge to jump in and defend a fellow Italian against any perceived slight too great?
 
Re: Re:

Breh said:
Armchair cyclist said:
At the risk of disrupting this discussion of historical MSR routes into something about the 2017 Lombardia...

Has Vuillermoz been reinstated? When PCS only had a top ten up, Vuillermoz was missing: now that they have the whole list of finishers, he is back in 4th place.

I also read that Jan Bakelandts had a fall at the same place as De Plus and is described as seriously injured.

DLj4EXpWsAAYjdF.jpg


7broken ribs, 2 vertebrae broken.
True picture? If so, horrifying. Not a fan of his, but wishing a prompt recovery, Yikes...
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
46&twoWheels said:
DFA123 said:
46&twoWheels said:
Aru was nowhere to be found today
I don't think you're making peace with your statements
First you say: "italy organized the Lombardia for Nibali"
then you move the goalpost,when people showed you that Nibs was the strongest uphill,dowhill and in the last flat part.

"italy organized il Lombardia for the Italians"
Alaphilippe arrived 2nd though


[/u]
Not really sure of you're point here. Designing a Lombardia that gives the best chance for an Italian to win, is basically designing a Lombardia that gives the best chance for Nibali to win - the two are the same thing. Just like 10-15 years ago the course was designed with Bartoli or Bettini in mind. It will be interesting to see how they will tweak in a couple of years to give Moscon the best chance of victory - probably will become a bit easier again.

Of course Nibali still has to go out an win on the course, which is far from a certainty. It just devalues the race, like any race is devalued when it is designed with certain riders in mind.

I'm trying to follow your reasoning but I can't find a handhold in the end.
You're implying Nibali was "gifted" without mentioning the world class opponents and the EQUAL STARTING CONDITIONS.
The advantage that Nibali had,if it can be called advantage,is that he knew the route (he's already won the race and he trains even there) and that he was the best in the most important sectors.

Also,you're implying that Nibali's win was certain. That's called "hindsight bias".

I dont' believe there's such thing as an "ideal" race for a rider and if it's so it means that other riders already know Nibali's strenght and weaknesses as we knew so they could have stoppe him from winning which wasn't the case.
So for me the "advantage" related to the route is negligible if we consider that he showed to be the strongest
It would have deserved devaluation if Nibali would have won ONLY because the route-advantage without the brute-forceful separation from the peloton
Erm, are you even reading what I wrote, or is the urge to jump in and defend a fellow Italian against any perceived slight too great?
Now this is a solid way to build up your arguments.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
46&twoWheels said:
DFA123 said:
46&twoWheels said:
Aru was nowhere to be found today
I don't think you're making peace with your statements
First you say: "italy organized the Lombardia for Nibali"
then you move the goalpost,when people showed you that Nibs was the strongest uphill,dowhill and in the last flat part.

"italy organized il Lombardia for the Italians"
Alaphilippe arrived 2nd though


[/u]
Not really sure of you're point here. Designing a Lombardia that gives the best chance for an Italian to win, is basically designing a Lombardia that gives the best chance for Nibali to win - the two are the same thing. Just like 10-15 years ago the course was designed with Bartoli or Bettini in mind. It will be interesting to see how they will tweak in a couple of years to give Moscon the best chance of victory - probably will become a bit easier again.

Of course Nibali still has to go out an win on the course, which is far from a certainty. It just devalues the race, like any race is devalued when it is designed with certain riders in mind.

I'm trying to follow your reasoning but I can't find a handhold in the end.
You're implying Nibali was "gifted" without mentioning the world class opponents and the EQUAL STARTING CONDITIONS.
The advantage that Nibali had,if it can be called advantage,is that he knew the route (he's already won the race and he trains even there) and that he was the best in the most important sectors.

Also,you're implying that Nibali's win was certain. That's called "hindsight bias".

I dont' believe there's such thing as an "ideal" race for a rider and if it's so it means that other riders already know Nibali's strenght and weaknesses as we knew so they could have stoppe him from winning which wasn't the case.
So for me the "advantage" related to the route is negligible if we consider that he showed to be the strongest
It would have deserved devaluation if Nibali would have won ONLY because the route-advantage without the brute-forceful separation from the peloton
Erm, are you even reading what I wrote, or is the urge to jump in and defend a fellow Italian against any perceived slight too great?
Now this is a solid way to build up your arguments.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Now this is a solid way to build up your arguments.
True, but there's not a lot else more that I can add. It's just my opinion that the race is devalued in comparison with the other monuments/big classics by changing the course every few years to best suit the strongest Italian rider(s). There are a few other factors that devalue it as well compared with other monuments, but that is the one most within the organisers control.

Not once have I criticized Nibali or claimed that he wasn't a worthy winner. Even if it was a great course for him, he still had to go out and win on it. But the organisers deserve criticism for clearly changing the route with certain riders in mind. That is not how the course for any race, let alone a monument, should be drawn up.

I also feel bad for the climbing puncheurs who used to always be favourites on courses like this. They haven't had a proper chance for six years now, and haven't had a hope in the last three worlds either, and next year will probably be too hard for them. They have the Ardennes week and that's basically their entire season in terms of big races. So you have this generation of amazingly talented one day racers like Wellens, Alaphilippe, Matthews etc...) who have hardly any chances to win big, while climbers and flat classics specialists easily have 10+ big opportunities each year.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Red Rick said:
Now this is a solid way to build up your arguments.
True, but there's not a lot else more that I can add. It's just my opinion that the race is devalued in comparison with the other monuments/big classics by changing the course every few years to best suit the strongest Italian rider(s). There are a few other factors that devalue it as well compared with other monuments, but that is the one most within the organisers control.

Not once have I criticized Nibali or claimed that he wasn't a worthy winner. Even if it was a great course for him, he still had to go out and win on it. But the organisers deserve criticism for clearly changing the route with certain riders in mind. That is not how the course for any race, let alone a monument, should be drawn up.

I also feel bad for the climbing puncheurs who used to always be favourites on courses like this. They haven't had a proper chance for six years now, and haven't had a hope in the last three worlds either, and next year will probably be too hard for them. They have the Ardennes week and that's basically their entire season in terms of big races. So you have this generation of amazingly talented one day racers like Wellens, Alaphilippe, Matthews etc...) who have hardly any chances to win big, while climbers and flat classics specialists easily have 10+ big opportunities each year.
While I think Lombardia is definitely the best chance for climbers, I really wouldn't say that climbing puncheurs have no chance. Alaphilippe was 2nd. Dan Martin won in 2014. The old Villa Virgano finish wasn't suited that suited to pure climbers.

There's not that many riders who can win Liege who are selected out in Lombardia. And those that are, are largely the ones that finish up short in Liege anyway if it's raced hard enough.

It's definitely true that it's more feasable to win Lombardia than Liege if don't have a huge uphill sprint, but I don't really think the puncheurs get punished for what they are across a season. And it really depends on other subskills as well.

Alaphilippe is a decent climber as well, and he's now podiumed all the three non-cobbled monuments, and was pretty close to winning the worlds on an easy course. Now obviously Ala is a amazing rider, but he has the skillset to win big year-round, especially if he's free to hunt stages in GTs. I don't think he's got it in him to win GTs, and that's perfectly fine.

Matthews is a durable sprinter. He climbs very well for a sprinter, but he's honestly a weird case in being a sprinter who rides the Ardennes over the cobbles. He seems like an inferior Sagan, especially as Sagan has won incredibly tough stages in TA. Matthews has a huge range of races where he has a chance, but he tends to run into a better sprinter or a better puncheur.

Now Wellens is doesn't really have a chance in many big one day racer, despite being one. He's a pure one day rider, and he's not explosive. Most of these are cobbled riders actually (think Vanmarcke, Langeveld, riders like that), but these riders really, really get boned by having a tiny, tiny window of opportunity. They're all great rouleurs after a very hard race, but it's very hard for them to get races that suit them in the first place. These riders are mostly screwed by teams being so big in the classics that suit them.

I don't mind GCs being mainly for climbers, as long as there's stages for everyone. Shorter stage races are basically the way of seasonal build up, but they're not somewhat purposeless after GTs kick in in a season.

I think there's definitely gaps for quite a few rider types, especially after the spring, and one day races are a way better means to fill these gaps than stage races. I really think that during the season there should be a few more classic 'swings' like the Ardennes or Cobbled classics accross the season. Buff up the calendar around CSS, buff up the one day calendar during the Vuelta, and buff it up in the fall too. I think that would improve the calendar quite a bit
 
Mar 15, 2016
520
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
whittashau said:
I can understand disliking a parcour if it's perfectly suited to a certain rider, but if a route is simply one that repeatedly goes up and down a lot then I refuse to see how this is a bad thing. Surely it should be almost perfect for great cyclists, and cycling fans? Yet people are complaining.
Not to mention that the poster likes Paris-Tours better. It is beyond me to put that comparison! :eek:

But but have you seen the Paris-Tours route? It's definitely not just made for "one" rider! :lol:
 
So, dfa, would you propose less climbing as the general solution here? Or a murito finish plus less climbing?

I pointed out yesterday that it was a bit boring that the overwhelming faves won lbl and gdl this year.

However, what can you do against this nibali? You could try uphill, as pinot did, but you gotta get down too. And then endure the distance. Nibali was on excellent form, did the right things, and might have been almost as unstoppable on other recent (Post 2008, say) gdl routes. But maybe im wrong.

Climbing puncheurs have the Italian autumn races, too. Generally i agree what i think you are arguing for, but I also think that finales like yesterday have more potential for exciting racing than If it was tailored for punchy riders. Yesterday Pinot only needed to hold the wheel, but alas he could not.
 
Re: Via del Tivano

[url=http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=2203039#p2203039]Jagartrott[/url[i:ri301qow]] said:
They should put a flag-man before that corner. Four guys crashing at the same place is no coincidence.
[/i]

They should have, that turn is a perfect storm for disaster:

- after a fast, nearly straight 4km descent, they hit the Village of Zelbio,
- they come to a crawl through the twisty village,
- then a fairly straight, 800m section that drops at 10% - huge build up of speed,
- the turn starts gradual, but sharpens rapidly, view hidden behind a stone-wall bank,
- the geometry is poor; the road was built around an existing old building,
- there are no cautionary black-arrow traffic signs as found throughout Italia,
- there is a huge, 4-arrow sign about 700m further down, on an easier curve
- there is no cautionary note in the race bible, it just shows straight through on a strada provinciale.

Ultimately, it's a failure of riders and staff studying a critical descent.


https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.9093408,9.1754608,3a,75y,279.39h,79.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZdZc84hUR--Xb5dRQowVzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
 
Re:

meat puppet said:
So, dfa, would you propose less climbing as the general solution here? Or a murito finish plus less climbing?

I pointed out yesterday that it was a bit boring that the overwhelming faves won lbl and gdl this year.

However, what can you do against this nibali? You could try uphill, as pinot did, but you gotta get down too. And then endure the distance. Nibali was on excellent form, did the right things, and might have been almost as unstoppable on other recent (Post 2008, say) gdl routes. But maybe im wrong.

Climbing puncheurs have the Italian autumn races, too. Generally i agree what i think you are arguing for, but I also think that finales like yesterday have more potential for exciting racing than If it was tailored for punchy riders. Yesterday Pinot only needed to hold the wheel, but alas he could not.
I think Lombardia was better with the courses in the 2000s the kind that Bettini and Gilbert were winning on. Of course Nibali would still have been one of the big favourites on that kind of course, but it wouldn't have just been a case of dropping nearly all the other climbers on the penultimate climb and then riding a weak descender off his wheel on the downhill. The puncheurs would have been fresher at that stage and would have had much better chances than this race when they were either dropped or always playing catch up after Muro di Sormano. You would have had 20 guys who could realistically win, instead of just three or four like this year. Which is how monuments should be.


Red Rick said:
While I think Lombardia is definitely the best chance for climbers, I really wouldn't say that climbing puncheurs have no chance. Alaphilippe was 2nd. Dan Martin won in 2014. The old Villa Virgano finish wasn't suited that suited to pure climbers.

I agree the puncheurs perhaps have a very outside chance, but that is all on these kind of routes. Alaphilippe was never really in contention for the win here, he was always playing catch up and only had regrouped enough to make his late attack when Nibali was already home and dry. Imo, it should be the other way round; a rider like Alaphilippe should be the outright favourite for a race like Lombardia,; the purer climbers should be having to attack from a long way out to try to beat the puncheurs. It shouldn't be the case that the high mountain climbers can just ride away from the puncheurs on the last climbs of the race, because the final 100km has so much tough climbing. Climbers should have to do something unexpected or amazing to win a monument against the specialists, not the other way round.
 
Re:

Netserk said:
And yet no other climber managed to beat Ala, nor Moscon for that matter, despite the latter being quite active.
That's an incredibly binary way of looking at racing (although that doesn't come as a surprise). Of course if Nibali wasn't up the road then the whole dynamic of the race would have changed. Uran wouldn't have exploded trying to play catch up and getting caught in no man's land, Pinot wouldn't have wasted loads of energy on the descent. Another small group of climbers may well have formed and worked together to keep the puncheurs at bay.

None of the puncheurs were ever really in contention to win the race. Of course though they will win the sprint for places from a small bunch of climbers who have given up fighting for the win.
 
Alaphilippe was never really in contention for the win here, he was always playing catch up and only had regrouped enough to make his late attack when Nibali was already home and dry. Imo, it should be the other way round; a rider like Alaphilippe should be the outright favourite for a race like Lombardia,; the purer climbers should be having to attack from a long way out to try to beat the puncheurs.

When Gilbert attacked with 30km to go and Nibali was running out of teammates, Alaphilippe was very much in contention. When Nibali had to come to the front with 20km to go, it was probably a lot earlier than he wanted to. That he put his attack in on the 2nd last climb WAS a climber "attacking from a long way out to get rid of the puncheurs." But Alaphilippe couldn't follow. Nor could anyone else. It was just a case of one guy riding by his bike over some hills faster than all the other guys, which is what bike racing is suxpoosed to be about.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Netserk said:
And yet no other climber managed to beat Ala, nor Moscon for that matter, despite the latter being quite active.
That's an incredibly binary way of looking at racing (although that doesn't come as a surprise). Of course if Nibali wasn't up the road then the whole dynamic of the race would have changed. Uran wouldn't have exploded trying to play catch up and getting caught in no man's land, Pinot wouldn't have wasted loads of energy on the descent. Another small group of climbers may well have formed and worked together to keep the puncheurs at bay.

None of the puncheurs were ever really in contention to win the race. Of course though they will win the sprint for places from a small bunch of climbers who have given up fighting for the win.
No that's not a very binary thing of looking at racing. The "everything would have played out completely differently" argument is true very often but I don't think it is in this case. Pinot probably would have been way slower on the descent without a superior descender whose line he could follow; Uran never had a big gap and I don't understand why you think he would have ridden differently if he was only chasing pinot and not nibali as well; and there is absolutely no reason why the nibali's attack should have prevent another group of climbers to form.

Ofc everything could have ended differently, but you write this as if it's a sure thing. In retrospective alaphillippe would have been the favorite after civiglio if we take nibali out of the equation
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
DFA123 said:
Netserk said:
And yet no other climber managed to beat Ala, nor Moscon for that matter, despite the latter being quite active.
That's an incredibly binary way of looking at racing (although that doesn't come as a surprise). Of course if Nibali wasn't up the road then the whole dynamic of the race would have changed. Uran wouldn't have exploded trying to play catch up and getting caught in no man's land, Pinot wouldn't have wasted loads of energy on the descent. Another small group of climbers may well have formed and worked together to keep the puncheurs at bay.

None of the puncheurs were ever really in contention to win the race. Of course though they will win the sprint for places from a small bunch of climbers who have given up fighting for the win.
No that's not a very binary thing of looking at racing. The "everything would have played out completely differently" argument is true very often but I don't think it is in this case. Pinot probably would have been way slower on the descent without a superior descender whose line he could follow; Uran never had a big gap and I don't understand why you think he would have ridden differently if he was only chasing pinot and not nibali as well; and there is absolutely no reason why the nibali's attack should have prevent another group of climbers to form.

Ofc everything could have ended differently, but you write this as if it's a sure thing. In retrospective alaphillippe would have been the favorite after civiglio if we take nibali out of the equation
Aye, as if a group of climbers would have worked together to distance Ala, but not to catch Nibali and Pinot...