Meanwhile, I hope he nukes it tomorrow.Gotta get that elusive 2nd placetire out Pogacar for his team leader Van Aert.
They already need to start tiring Pogacar out for De Ronde?
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Meanwhile, I hope he nukes it tomorrow.Gotta get that elusive 2nd placetire out Pogacar for his team leader Van Aert.
How can they tire Pogacar with Vingegaard, the bearer of bad weather and cancellations?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?
You are actually taking the piss, right?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.
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 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.
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 summerOf course Belgians want to believe Van Aert won the Tour for Vingegaard.
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.
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.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?
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 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.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.
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.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.
Getting a mechanical on cobbles is realistic. And he did actually get a mechanical.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?
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.the hypothesis stays more relevant if we alter only certain parameters
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.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.
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.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, because it's a hypothesis.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.
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.No it doesn't, because it's a hypothesis.
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.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.
False again. There's plenty to discuss about how his team affected time gaps in the cobbles stage, including in case of mechanicals.does nothing for this discussion since there would be nothing to discuss.
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.
That's a clear conditional statement, and it's wrong. At best you can argue for the reverse implication.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.