Kwiat Beats the wheelsuckers! Best thing of worlds?

[42x16ss]

Gerrans had the biggest sprint in that bunch by a mile, he was the last to start his sprint, coming from the last wheel! The least he could have done was keep the bunch rolling to chase down Kwia but he was hardly on his own there - Gallopin, Valverde and the others were avoiding the front like the plague when only GVA had a valid reason not to chase.

Sure Gerrans rode negatively but he wasn't the only one.

 

[The Hegelian]

But we're not arguing whether he should use those talents to use bike races. As Panda Claws states, he's not actually being expected to attack. He's expected to do a turn rather than expect everybody else to pull him to the finish. If he co-operates more, maybe he sprints for the win, not for 2nd.

He's now had quite a lot of success in the sprint-from-the-reduced-bunch form to the point where, when he's in a small group and, as is invariably the case, not contributing, others don't want to work with him, because they know he'll beat them in the sprint. He actually now probably needs a bigger group than he had yesterday, because there will be more people willing to work in that group and the fact that he's never taking a turn won't be so immediately obvious. In a small group like yesterday's, he could easily stand to take a few relays and still have enough in him to win the sprint. He's not a total mug. But then he has the gall to say in the press conference that he wanted to cry because he knew he had the legs to fight for the win, when if he had assisted in the chase he could have done? That puts a bad taste in people's mouths.

We're not expecting him to try to solo from 40km out. Winning the sprint from reduced groups is his thing. But if he wants his group to be fighting for the win, we're expecting him to participate in the chase to justify that group fighting for the win.

Until then, he is one-day racing's answer to Levi Leipheimer. Who also has a very good palmarès, and very few fans among the die-hards.

But the finale of any race is an inherently unpredictable and complex mess of possibilities. The strike rate of Gerrans picking up the win suggests that his tactics are pretty much spot on. Thankfully he doesn't ride to get internet supporters.

In this case, Gerrans rode a similar stategy as his MSR win - people then accused him of wheelsucking, forgetting that the team had the previous years winner (Goss) in their midst. It was in their interests to have the break pulled back for a sprint, and if not - he was the man to strike. Couldn't have played it any better for the team.

In this case, Matthews = Goss.

And sure, if Gerrans had taken a pull or two, they might have pulled Kwia back. And GVA might have attacked and won. Or Valverde might have taken it in a sprint. And everyone would be saying "WTF was Gerrans doing?"

You can't win 'em all. Those protagonists were all in the mix in different finishing positions through the Ardennes week - Kwia got it right this time. Fully deserving win. But you can't win 'em all can you?

And what's with the Leipheimer comparisons? Can someone precisely explain to me the analogy? Or is it: I didn't like X and I don't like Y, so therefore, they are the same.

 

[hrotha]

I guarantee no one here would have faulted Gerrans, the fastest guy on paper in that group, for taking some pulls in an attempt to win the race instead of having it delivered to him on a silver plate.

I don't know why you feel the need to point out his tactics are good. I don't think anyone has denied they work. Gerrans must have one of the highest palmares-to-talent ratios out there, and few people would dispute that. It's very much not the point, though.

 

[observer]

I guarantee no one here would have faulted Gerrans, the fastest guy on paper in that group, for taking some pulls in an attempt to win the race instead of having it delivered to him on a silver plate.

I don't know why you feel the need to point out his tactics are good. I don't think anyone has denied they work. Gerrans must have one of the highest palmares-to-talent ratios out there, and few people would dispute that. It's very much not the point, though.

I agree that others may be more exciting, and therefore have more fans, and sit better with cycling. But just the hate is a bit much. Guys is just doing his job, and doing it very well considering his abilities.

In any case, this race also showed that a well timed attack is also a great option, again not everyone can do that.

Perhaps the problem with Gerrans wasn't not taking a pull, it was the fact that he didn't have a team mate with him like the Belgians. Had another Australian been in the group, the tactic would have been to burn that guy out. Again though, that would have been just smarts and tactics. It didn't play out that way.

 

[heinkel12]

They had Kwiatowski covered with a kilometre to go. 5 seconds down but Gilbert was spent. The rest of them decided to wait for someone else to bridge the gap. None of them deserved to win and only Gilbert who was riding for his team mate deserves any credit. One more turn would have done it.
Bike racing is a gamble and Kwiatowski took that bet and won. Gerrans and co decided to sit on and lost. Bridging the gap might have cost someone the title but it also may have won it. That's bike racing. Gerrans claimed he was crying after the finish. Good. Kwiatowski was a worthy winner.

 

[memyselfandI]

And sure, if Gerrans had taken a pull or two, they might have pulled Kwia back. And GVA might have attacked and won. Or Valverde might have taken it in a sprint. And everyone would be saying "WTF was Gerrans doing?"

You can't win 'em all. Those protagonists were all in the mix in different finishing positions through the Ardennes week - Kwia got it right this time. Fully deserving win. But you can't win 'em all can you?

This.

Aussies and Frenchies were playing with two cards, another card in a chasing peloton. Belgian team had them cards in a small group. Danes had no other card, Spanish team had no other card. That way it was up to MB and AV work harder with PG and GVA. Of course they would be dragging SG and TG then, but that's the card they had. So options for team Spain, Denmark, Belgium were to reel it in and sprint againts 7 for the win or not to reel and sprint against 6 for nothing. And nothing they got.

 

[Oldman]

They had Kwiatowski covered with a kilometre to go. 5 seconds down but Gilbert was spent. The rest of them decided to wait for someone else to bridge the gap. None of them deserved to win and only Gilbert who was riding for his team mate deserves any credit. One more turn would have done it.
Bike racing is a gamble and Kwiatowski took that bet and won. Gerrans and co decided to sit on and lost. Bridging the gap might have cost someone the title but it also may have won it. That's bike racing. Gerrans claimed he was crying after the finish. Good. Kwiatowski was a worthy winner.

+1. These type of championships rarely are full on slug fests. There were some 50+ riders in the hunt late in the race from the excerpts I saw and everyone in the front group were playing the same game. The Spaniards in particular would be sensitive to pulling the wrong guy to the line.

Still, if losing while wheelsucking brings you to tears you'd probably better learn to attack harder or risk being the saddest little cyclist in the lot.

 

[Bushman]

This.

Aussies and Frenchies were playing with two cards, another card in a chasing peloton. Belgian team had them cards in a small group. Danes had no other card, Spanish team had no other card. That way it was up to MB and AV work harder with PG and GVA. Of course they would be dragging SG and TG then, but that's the card they had. So options for team Spain, Denmark, Belgium were to reel it in and sprint againts 7 for the win or not to reel and sprint against 6 for nothing. And nothing they got.

There is no way in hell that the peloton would have caught Kwiatkowski. If you just want a medal, fine, Gerrans and Gallopin can say they have a sprinter behind and refuse to work. But if you race for the win Gerrans had as much incentive to work as the others in the group if not more.

 

[ghostofjoy]

The thing is that following wheels is different on a climb. Wheelsucking on a climb is far more mental, about keeping your opponent in front of you and knowing what change of pace is beyond your physical ability to handle.

But if Gerrans can't take a hard pull with 2k to go on a descent and recover enough to sprint then his physiology is sort of lousy (for a pro). Even Cav gets to the front in echelons. Given either his unwillingness to pull and/or crap talent, Gerrans is a master bluffer and tactitian who also is somehow blessed with incredible luck.

 

[The Hegelian]

They had Kwiatowski covered with a kilometre to go. 5 seconds down but Gilbert was spent. The rest of them decided to wait for someone else to bridge the gap. None of them deserved to win and only Gilbert who was riding for his team mate deserves any credit. One more turn would have done it.
Bike racing is a gamble and Kwiatowski took that bet and won. Gerrans and co decided to sit on and lost. Bridging the gap might have cost someone the title but it also may have won it. That's bike racing. Gerrans claimed he was crying after the finish. Good. Kwiatowski was a worthy winner.

Good analysis, but these guys are not in a contest of morality.

The lone break succeeds when hesitation is exploited. That hesitation is part of what makes finales a gripping poker hand; it's almost always there, and it's always beautiful to see the exploitation of it succeed.....but it's got nothing to do with justice - for the winner or for those who looked at each other and condemned themselves to loss.

 

[memyselfandI]

There is no way in hell that the peloton would have caught Kwiatkowski. If you just want a medal, fine, Gerrans and Gallopin can say they have a sprinter behind and refuse to work. But if you race for the win Gerrans had as much incentive to work as the others in the group if not more.

Gerro took 3-4 turns after chasing group left and before they hit flatland. I'd say wheelsucking started from the 1,4 km mark when everybody started to saw each other, peloton-chasers-Kwia..which is obvious and meaningful poker game by then. Player waits panic reaction from compatriot and does his move then. You don't get big fishes everyday. Sometimes it's really close.

 

[Kwibus]

Gerrans has accumulated his palmarès since 2010 by never taking a pull, and has become an emblem of negative and disappointing racing as a result.

Now people are enjoying him not winning because he never took a pull. With Valverde 3rd, a lot of people are rejoicing in the success of daring over timidness for the first time in a while. After all, in Firenze Rodríguez, the one who brought all the entertainment to the table, was thwarted at the last due to Valverde being asleep at the wheel with 1km to go. This year, the one that brought the guts won out.

Valverde is actually a much more aggressive racer than people give him credit for, as seen in his wins in Roma Maxima, the GP Big Mig and San Sebastián this year. However, on the biggest occasions, the old "stay cool, wait til the sprint" Valverde tends to rear its head again and remind people why he got that tag in the first place.

Gerrans hasn't been an even remotely aggressive racer since he left Cervélo. It's just that he's honed his sprint from a reduced bunch so that he can win rather than come 7th in it now.

Good post.

Also to the person claiming that if Gerrans would've done a pull that he would lose to Valverde: Valverde actually did pull during the descent, while Gerrans did absolultely nothing. It's his own bloody fault that he didn't even try to win. He could've atleast pulled during the descent where every other rider in the chasing group did some pulls.
I really doubt that he would've lost the sprint from Valverde if he actually did take 1 or 2 pulls. He's by far the fastest of that group.

 

[Angliru]

Gerro took 3-4 turns after chasing group left and before they hit flatland. I'd say wheelsucking started from the 1,4 km mark when everybody started to saw each other, peloton-chasers-Kwia..which is obvious and meaningful poker game by then. Player waits panic reaction from compatriot and does his move then. You don't get big fishes everyday. Sometimes it's really close.

I've watched the last 20 or so kilometers mulitiple times and I really can't recall ever seeing Gerrans in the wind. Are you sure?

 

[Netserk]

I've watched the last 20 or so kilometers mulitiple times and I really can't recall ever seeing Gerrans in the wind. Are you sure?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pmHu4PNvvc#t=356
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pmHu4PNvvc#t=402

Once they reach the flat it's only Gilbert who's pulling. On the descent it's only GVA and Gallopin who don't pull at all. Gilbert does the most, Valverde the second most, but they are also the two best descenders in that group.

 

[Bushman]

Yes, but pulling on the descent doesn't take a lot of effort. At some parts they didn't even have to pedal. At around 1,5-1 k out when Gilbert is the giving all he got and Gerrans is in second position, Gilbert flicks his elbow but Gerrans doesn't come around. Had he come around at this point to give Gilbert a couples of seconds break they might have caught Kwiatkowski.

 

[Netserk]

Yes, but pulling on the descent doesn't take a lot of effort. At some parts they didn't even have to pedal. At around 1,5-1 k out when Gilbert is the giving all he got and Gerrans is in second position, Gilbert flicks his elbow but Gerrans doesn't come around. Had he come around at this point to give Gilbert a couples of seconds break they might have caught Kwiatkowski.

And neither does Valverde, Breschel, GVA nor Gallopin.

 

[Bushman]

And neither does Valverde, Breschel, GVA nor Gallopin.

Gerrans was the major favourite and normally the strongest sprinter of the group (maybe except Breschel, it's really impossible to know how good he is given his ups and downs in the last couple of years)

 

[Netserk]

Gerrans was the major favourite and normally the strongest sprinter of the group (maybe except Breschel, it's really impossible to know how good he is given his ups and downs in the last couple of years)

Sure, but some make it out like Gerrans was the only one not pulling. He pulled twice, more than Gallopin and GVA did. He didn't pull on the flat, just like Valverde and Breschel.

I also think it'd have been better for his own chance of winning if he did a pull at the start of the last flat 2km, but the same can be said of the other four as well.

 

[hrotha]

The only difference is that Gerrans has built up a career out of not pulling. Valverde already gets plenty of flak - we'll see about Gallopin in the future (I don't think Breschel matters much).

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Had Gerrans won, it would have been a disgrace to the jersey.

He's a second-rate rider nowhere near the level of Gilbert or Valverde. He has two monuments (one by wheelsucking Cancellara) and LBL this year. This isn't deserving of a WC jersey.

 

[shalgo]

Having watched the video again, it seem that the key moment for the chasers came with about 700m to go, when Gilbert, who is clearly cooked, flicks his elbow and moves to the side. Gallopin does nothing, so Gilbert resumes the chase. If Gallopin had taken any sort of pull, they might have had a chance, but after that it wasn't going to happen.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

And what's with the Leipheimer comparisons? Can someone precisely explain to me the analogy? Or is it: I didn't like X and I don't like Y, so therefore, they are the same.

Levi Leipheimer is a rider with a pretty good palmarès which has been comprised almost entirely (the 2005 Deutschlandtour is an exception) from following wheels and then beating people in the TT to finish. He has had a lot of success following this method, but it is not visually appealing at all, and as a result he is very unpopular with a lot of fans for it, as they dislike seeing the riders who've shown aggression and made the race be defeated by a rider who you might not have even known was in the race for all he added to it. See the legendary explosion of hatred in 2011 when he overhauled a shattered Damiano Cunego to win the Tour de Suisse.

Simon Gerrans is a rider with a good palmarès which has been accumulated almost entirely (his GT stage wins in 2008-9 are excepted, but everything in the last five years) from following wheels and then beating people in the sprint to finish. He has had a lot of success following this method, but it is not visually appealing at all, and as a result he is very unpopular with a lot of fans for it, as they dislike seeing the riders who've shown aggression and made the race be defeated by a rider who you might not have even known was in the race for all he added to it. See the not legendary but still quite major explosion of hatred in 2014 when the only riders to have had any balls whatsoever in Liège-Bastogne-Liège were overhauled in the final corner and beaten by a man who hadn't been seen all day.

Their tricks are good ones, and they have got a good palmarès from it. But people are fans because they enjoy watching the races, and I can't imagine why people would enjoy watching Levi Leipheimer. Or Simon Gerrans.

 

[Netserk]

Leipheimer won Suisse because he attacked on the MTF and distanced Cunego. He didn't wheelsuck that win.

On Gerrans: It's the riders who had the means but not the guts to drop Gerrans that are at fault for Liège sucking this year, not Gerrans. Gilbert/BMC and Valverde rode like a pair of losers happy to take their chance for a podium place in a sprint, rather than risking it for the sake of the win.

 

[hrotha]

IIRC, Leipheimer wheelsucked Cunego then delivered a coup de grâce near the finish. But I reckon a not insignificant part of the anti-Bottle reaction wasn't just because of his tactics, but because of his role in the Armstrong saga.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Gilbert/BMC and Valverde rode like a pair of losers happy to take their chance for a podium place in a sprint, rather than risking it for the sake of the win.

I'd say that accurately describes Gerrans at the WC race.