Il Lombardia 2017

[barmaher]

Re:

Lombardia is open for climbers and puncheurs. The route is good. The fact that Nibali is in great shape is the issue. Nothing else.

Same thing happened in Liege.

Well said.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

We have Liege for that, Lombardia is the classic with long climbs.

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

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

Agree about Matthews. He has built up an impressive amount of podiums in good races but keeps running into one or two better riders on the day. Be interesting to see whether he can take the next step or stays at his current level and he is getting beaten by quality riders. Reminds me a little of GVA before he he converted his podiums into wins without the ability in the cobbled classics. This year's Tour was a kinda breakthrough for him in that he got to show his versatility a bit more. Always had more raw talent than someone like Gerrans but Gerrans knew how to win as much as some fans disliked the way he won.

 

[OlavEH]

Re: Re:

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.

Well, the problem is that is the route is done the way you want it, it will probably be a pretty predictable race. There will be a selection on Ghisallo/Gallo (depending on whether Bergamo or Como is used as a finish), little will happen on Civiglio/Berbenno, then we'll have some attacks near the top or on the descent from San Fermo/Bergamo Alta.

The flexibility of creating different (and better) routes for puncheur types when they finish in Como/Bergamo/Lecco is limited. Therefore I appreciate the new and tougher routes which normally will create a greater selection earlier in the race. The route (and start and finish towns) has always changed a lot in Lombardia. If they should do it the way you want, there is more or less only two options, either ending in Como with Ghisallo-Civiglio (easy side) - San Fermo, or ending in Bergamo with Ganda/Selvino-Bracca-Berbenno-Bergamo Alta.

 

[del1962]

Biggest loser from this years race will be next years Milano-Torino

 

[Anderis]

Biggest loser from this years race will be next years Milano-Torino

They can always move it a day further from Lombardia. Uran was competitive in both a year ago, when both races were 3 days apart, instead of 2.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

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.

Well, the problem is that is the route is done the way you want it, it will probably be a pretty predictable race. There will be a selection on Ghisallo/Gallo (depending on whether Bergamo or Como is used as a finish), little will happen on Civiglio/Berbenno, then we'll have some attacks near the top or on the descent from San Fermo/Bergamo Alta.

The flexibility of creating different (and better) routes for puncheur types when they finish in Como/Bergamo/Lecco is limited. Therefore I appreciate the new and tougher routes which normally will create a greater selection earlier in the race. The route (and start and finish towns) has always changed a lot in Lombardia. If they should do it the way you want, there is more or less only two options, either ending in Como with Ghisallo-Civiglio (easy side) - San Fermo, or ending in Bergamo with Ganda/Selvino-Bracca-Berbenno-Bergamo Alta.

That could still work, especially if they had the muro before Ghisallo, and perhaps San Pietro before that. I think I'd actually prefer that over the route of this year.

Roughly something like this (can't map muro and tunnels at the same time with openrunner...):

So a more direct route to Gallo, then the same intermediate section as from the Giro '12 Lombardia stage, then the Muro+Ghisallo combo from the Lecco years, and finally the 'old' Como finish.

If you still want Civiglio to be better suited to climbers than puncheurs, you can climb the easy side from the bottom, although it would add a little extra distance between Ghisallo and the start of the climb (only 3.5km and mostly downhill though).