• 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!

La Flèche Wallonne: September 30th, 2020

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Who will win La Flèche Wallonne 2020?


  • Total voters
    79
  • Poll closed .
Okay, I have to ask. Why would it have been a better edition of FW in 2018 if they hadn't caught Nibali and Schachmann?

The catch was made on the final 500 metres, so the race would have been exactly the same, apart from the fact that we wouldn't have gotten an intense finale between the best puncheurs in the world but just a simple thumping of Nibali by Schachmann.

I think it's a massive fallacy by many cycling fans purely to judge the intrigue of a race by whether the race ended in a sprint or with a break. For me, it's just as much about the battle between the break and the field, and that can be exciting even if the field ends up winning. That doesn't nullify the intrigue of the race and the battle between break and field.

Or is it just because people forget and see, okay 1) Alaphilippe, 2) Valverde, so it must have been like any year?
Sure, but the issue is that there is so little suspense because the field wins every single time. And in many editions there are no late attacks at all.
 
Okay, I have to ask. Why would it have been a better edition of FW in 2018 if they hadn't caught Nibali and Schachmann?

The catch was made on the final 500 metres, so the race would have been exactly the same, apart from the fact that we wouldn't have gotten an intense finale between the best puncheurs in the world but just a simple thumping of Nibali by Schachmann.

I think it's a massive fallacy by many cycling fans purely to judge the intrigue of a race by whether the race ended in a sprint or with a break. For me, it's just as much about the battle between the break and the field, and that can be exciting even if the field ends up winning. That doesn't nullify the intrigue of the race and the battle between break and field.

Or is it just because people forget and see, okay 1) Alaphilippe, 2) Valverde, so it must have been like any year?

I'm not sure it would have been a better edition if a 2 up break actually made it to the finish but variety is the spice of life and races are (over the long term) much better off when they are (at least occasionally) won in different ways..

There's all kinds of tension and interest that play out in a one day race but when you can be so confident that it's all going to come down to a hill sprint that tension doesn't really exist and over time the desire to watch is reduced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brullnux

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts