Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard: The Wizard of Visma

[RedheadDane]

Meanwhile, I hope he nukes it tomorrow. Gotta get that elusive 2nd place tire out Pogacar for his team leader Van Aert.

They already need to start tiring Pogacar out for De Ronde?

 

[ice&fire]

They already need to start tiring Pogacar out for De Ronde?

How can they tire Pogacar with Vingegaard, the bearer of bad weather and cancellations?

 

[Gratemans]

Just watching the All In documentary on Prime and what always stands out to me is how much Danish sounds like Dutch. I can't (properly) understand Danish, but the sounds all seem to be there. Just in the wrong order or something
Also when Jonas and his wife speak English, their accent or dialect sounds the same as when someone Dutch talks English. Great documentary by the way.

 

[Big Doopie]

I still think Pog is the better rider. Could be proven wrong of course.

But he will be my favorite entering this years TDF.

My only question: JV seemed pretty sure of themselves as to how to defeat Pog when they announced Vingo would be going alone this year. What did they find out last year? Because I largely adhere to @Logic-is-your-friend ’s assessment of last years race. Van Aert saved Vingo on the pave and Pog totally overestimated Rog’s true threat on the Granon stage. And he got played brilliantly. After that, Vingo only had to follow.

 

[RedheadDane]

How can they tire Pogacar with Vingegaard, the bearer of bad weather and cancellations?

Dunno, ask Red Rick. He was the one who said Vingegaard should nuke it to tire Pogacar for Van Aert.

 

[Bushman]

Then you might as well quit your forum account if you are not willing to venture into hypothetical arguments. And, Pogacar wouldn't have punctured 3 times. Do you know how i know that? Because the race already happened and he didn't.

You are actually taking the piss, right?
Cobbles stage aside, there is also no way you could know that Vingegaard wouldnt have dropped Pogacar on Granon and Hautacam even if the latter had raced a bit more carefully. I also dont think you can just disregard the fact that Jumbo managed to isolate Pogacar against their two leaders 60 k from finish on the queen stage. That was not only a result of Pogacar being careless, it was just as much Jumbo being brave enough to take risks rather early in the race.

 

[theyoungest]

I still think Pog is the better rider. Could be proven wrong of course.

But he will be my favorite entering this years TDF.

My only question: JV seemed pretty sure of themselves as to how to defeat Pog when they announced Vingo would be going alone this year. What did they find out last year? Because I largely adhere to @Logic-is-your-friend ’s assessment of last years race. Van Aert saved Vingo on the pave and Pog totally overestimated Rog’s true threat on the Granon stage. And he got played brilliantly. After that, Vingo only had to follow.

Of course Belgians want to believe Van Aert won the Tour for Vingegaard. And of course Pogacar fans want to believe that Pogi lost purely because of tactics. There's some truth in either of these things. But I think we only need to look at the switch UAE have made, according to George Bennett, copying Jumbo's focus on detail and nutrition, as well as Pogacar apparently having lost weight, to know that UAE and Pogacar realize the real reason is that Vingegaard was simply the better climber.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Of course Belgians want to believe Van Aert won the Tour for Vingegaard.

What are you even talking about. It was an article on Dutch Wielerflits on a statement by Pogacar, lol. No Belgians (other than Van Aert) involved. But if you think Van Aert didn't play a crucial role, that's great. Maybe you can inform Jumbo so Van Aert is free to race his own race and doesn't have to babysit Vingegaard this summer

And UAE and Pogacar trying to improve is evidence of Vingegaard being the better climber? So Jumbo copying QuickStep is evidence of Alaphilippe being the better classics rider than Van Aert? Or this only works when it suits some arguments?

 

[Big Doopie]

Of course Belgians want to believe Van Aert won the Tour for Vingegaard. And of course Pogacar fans want to believe that Pogi lost purely because of tactics. There's some truth in either of these things. But I think we only need to look at the switch UAE have made, according to George Bennett, copying Jumbo's focus on detail and nutrition, as well as Pogacar apparently having lost weight, to know that UAE and Pogacar realize the real reason is that Vingegaard was simply the better climber.

I am neither Belgian nor a Pog fan.

I simply stated what I observed last year.

 

[theyoungest]

What are you even talking about. It was an article on Dutch Wielerflits on a statement by Pogacar, lol. No Belgians (other than Van Aert) involved. But if you think Van Aert didn't play a crucial role, that's great. Maybe you can inform Jumbo so Van Aert is free to race his own race and doesn't have to babysit Vingegaard this summer

And UAE and Pogacar trying to improve is evidence of Vingegaard being the better climber? So Jumbo copying QuickStep is evidence of Alaphilippe being the better classics rider than Van Aert? Or this only works when it suits some arguments?

Where do I say Van Aert didn't play a crucial role? It wasn't the decisive thing though, that's what I'm saying. In the end Van Aert can ride all he wants, Vingegaard also has to have the legs.

You're free to have your own logic of course, which you do, but to me it's pretty clear that UAE made some adjustments based on the fact that Pogi's performance wasn't good enough. Not on the fact that he was outsmarted tactically.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

It may turn out that the best tactics for Pogacar in July will be to stick to Jonas wheel and try to gain seconds with late attacks and bonuses. Then again, it's not Pogacar style, is it?

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

You're free to have your own logic of course, which you do, but to me it's pretty clear that UAE made some adjustments based on the fact that Pogi's performance wasn't good enough. Not on the fact that he was outsmarted tactically.

I think a professional athlete will always try to improve, wanting to do better. Regardless of him being best or second best. I think that is the nature of sport.

So i would not automatically see that as a sign of defeat or evidence of any kind. But of course, that is just my silly logic.

 

[Andy schleck]

He was fine today, and maybe he is better shape than last year at the same time. He will be ready for the tour.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Jonas was able to hold on today. Hence he is not in bad shape. Still from here to attacking solo and to beat Pogi by doing that. Lets say gaining two minutes. To compensate. It's a long road to that. Personally i don't buy it. Similar to the claims on how Jonas would be able to crack Pogi alone at Tour 22. Hence i feel JV will try to do everything in their power to bring Roglič to the Tour. And to try to use the duo in similar fashion as if Gaudu and Jonas were on the same team today. But obviously i expect for Roglič to be better then Gaudu was today and Jonas to be better then Jonas was today. Then they do have a chance. But they likely won't know upfront on who will get that chance. Obviously JV likely favoring Jonas. But in the end it won't be their call. We'll see. Long way to there.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

You are actually taking the piss, right?
Cobbles stage aside, there is also no way you could know that Vingegaard wouldnt have dropped Pogacar on Granon and Hautacam even if the latter had raced a bit more carefully. I also dont think you can just disregard the fact that Jumbo managed to isolate Pogacar against their two leaders 60 k from finish on the queen stage. That was not only a result of Pogacar being careless, it was just as much Jumbo being brave enough to take risks rather early in the race.

I was not taking the piss. I presented a hypothesis to discuss how both riders actually would stack up if both had equally bad teams and how it would have altered the race at key moments. You countered that with a hypothetical that brings no value to this discussion what so ever. So let's say you were discussing a hypothetical decision with your partner, what could have happened in your life if you had quit your current job years ago, for a job that paid less, but made you happier. To which your partner responds "we also might have been hit with a nuclear bomb". Well, sure, it's possible, but it adds no value to the discussion. Also, considering you quitting your job would likely have no influence on nuclear bombs getting dropped, it's safe to say that since that timeframe has passed, that was never going to happen anyway, since it actually didn't happen. So what is the value of such a response? None.

I can understand you don't like hypothetical discussions, but this is a forum where people give their opinions and many of those will be "what if".

What we can be sure of is that Vingegaard + Jumbo was significantly better than Pogacar + UAE. But considering how weak UAE was, and how strong Jumbo was, for me it is not a forgone conclusion to assume Vingegaard by himself was better than Pogacar by himself (had he used his brain). People seem to forget Pogacar completely imploded on Granon. Not only Vingegaard dropped him, but he also got passed by by riders you would otherwise not even consider finishing ahead of him on a stage like that. Quintana, Bardet, Thomas, Gaudu, Yates... all caught up with him and left him for dead. Does that sound like Pogacar was at the top of his game? So claiming, like some have been doing here, that team tactics, team strength, wasting energy not just that day but the two weeks leading up to that day, had only a minor effect on the outcome is nothing short of laughable. So it is also rather likely that Pogacar was not at the top of his game on Hautacam or during the TT.

That doesn't mean Vingegaard doesn't deserve the victory. He and the team made perfect use of the situation and their strengths. If not stronger, at the very least they were smarter, so good job. But as to assume that had Pogacar played his cards differently, he could never have beaten Vingegaard anyway, i don't share that sentiment. That's all.

 

[Netserk]

I was not taking the piss. I presented a hypothesis to discuss how both riders actually would stack up if both had equally bad teams and how it would have altered the race at key moments. You countered that with a hypothetical that brings no value to this discussion what so ever. So let's say you were discussing a hypothetical decision with your partner, what could have happened in your life if you had quit your current job years ago, for a job that paid less, but made you happier. To which your partner responds "we also might have been hit with a nuclear bomb". Well, sure, it's possible, but it adds no value to the discussion. Also, considering you quitting your job would likely have no influence on nuclear bombs getting dropped, it's safe to say that since that timeframe has passed, that was never going to happen anyway, since it actually didn't happen. So what is the value of such a response? None.

A more analogous example would be that when discussing how the lower wage might have affected them, she said "we also might not have been robbed if we lived in another city". Because luck isn't a personal attribute, it doesn't transfer across hypotheticals.

So why should one assume that Vingegaard would have had a mechanical and needed a strong team to rescue him in the cobbles stage in the hypothetical scenario? Was he destined for that?

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

So why should one assume that Vingegaard would have had a mechanical and needed a strong team to rescue him in the cobbles stage in the hypothetical scenario? Was he destined for that?

Getting a mechanical on cobbles is realistic. And he did actually get a mechanical.

And while him riding for another team might have changed dynamics on that day, riding on a different bike with different tires or gears, at a different position within the bunch, all that might have prevented him from getting the mechanical to begin with, the hypothesis stays more relevant if we alter only certain parameters. He had a mechanical, but what if he didn't have a strong team to bail him out? Furthermore i deem Pogacar more capable of rectifying such a situation, than Vingegaard. As i said previously, Pogacar has some pedigree when it comes to classic style races, on cobbles, and his results in classics and races where he has to take charge of things (as he also proved on the day), unlike Vingegaard, makes it easier to assume he could handle that on his own. While Vingegaard on his part nearly had a stress induced heart attack and has not persuaded me that he is capable of rectifying a situation like that on his own, in a classic or a classic-like stage. Hence the hypothesis, to me at least, would be more interesting this way.

But we could also change things around, and discuss what might have happened had Pogacar had an equally strong team, instead of Vingegaard having an equally weak team. Maybe some people would feel more comfortable discussing such a scenario.

 

[Netserk]

the hypothesis stays more relevant if we alter only certain parameters

Depends on how much you can handle. And in a sense, it is only one parameter that is changed. But what it entails is uncertain, so it's more informative to consider distributions of events.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Depends on how much you can handle. And in a sense, it is only one parameter that is changed. But what it entails is uncertain, so it's more informative to consider distributions of events.

We are not trying to write science fiction to see how space-time would implode when Vingegaard were flashed to an alternate dimension. We are (or at least i was) simply musing about how a certain situation would pan out in case he didn't have the help of a strong team, very much based on real events. Debating the situation might not have happened in that case to begin with is neither helpful nor interesting and completely defeats the purpose of having such a discussion. Especially since having a mechanical is a very common occurrence. If he would not have had it there, he might as well have had it at a different moment in that race.

 

[Netserk]

Debating the situation might not have happened in that case to begin with is neither helpful nor interesting and completely defeats the purpose of having such a discussion. Especially since having a mechanical is a very common occurrence. If he would not have had it there, he might as well have had it at a different moment in that race.

No it doesn't. It's not either one or the other. Assign a probability for that scenario. And there's no clear reason to assign a higher probability to Vingegaard having a mechanical on that stage than to Pogi.

If a similar incidence is only expected 15 % of the time, then the value of having a strong team that can help you in that scenario needs to take that in to account.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

No it doesn't. It's not either one or the other. Assign a probability for that scenario. And there's no clear reason to assign a higher probability to Vingegaard having a mechanical on that stage than to Pogi.

If a similar incidence is only expected 15 % of the time, then the value of having a strong team that can help you in that scenario needs to take that in to account.

No it doesn't, because it's a hypothesis.

 

[Netserk]

No it doesn't, because it's a hypothesis.

It seems like you are not good at handling counterfactuals. In the set of all possible worlds, the counterfactual specifies a subset, not a single element.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

It seems like you are not good at handling counterfactuals. In the set of all possible worlds, the counterfactual specifies a subset, not a single element.

It seems you are not good at handling basic hypothesis and like to muddy the water and overcomplicate things in order to sidetrack the discussion. What if Vingegaard was not able to count on a strong team to bail him out of a situation like the one during the pavé stage. The premise is clearly defined within the hypothesis. I also explained that him not having had a mechanical, in case history were rewritten, while possible, does nothing for this discussion since there would be nothing to discuss.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Guys you are confusing Jonas. He still needs to train.

 

[Netserk]

does nothing for this discussion since there would be nothing to discuss.

False again. There's plenty to discuss about how his team affected time gaps in the cobbles stage, including in case of mechanicals.

And if you meant something different, you should have written something different.

Sure, Pogacar overestimated himself and did not manage his efforts as well as he could have, but you cant really deny that Vingegaard won the race because he was by far the best climber in the race. He made huge differences the few times he really dug in.

If Vingegaard doesn't ride for Jumbo, he loses 5 minutes on the pavé. Race over. If Pogacar doesn't ride like he thinks he's a Marvel character, if he doesn't loose his cool before Granon, the entire race would have been different. He wasted energy the first two weeks, which is what he paid for in the third week.

That's a clear conditional statement, and it's wrong. At best you can argue for the reverse implication.