Milan San Remo, March 21, 2026, 298 km monument

[Salvarani]

One could just take a look at Paris-Tours from last season.

 

[Sciatic]

Exactly! We have guys like Pedersen whose dream is to win a Monument! Pidcock wanted it that much, he was confident in his sprint and didn’t want to risk getting caught by the peloton, so he did what he had to do. Better man just won, and fairplay to all the riders that made the race.

Well said!

 

[Sciatic]

You are probably too young to know what race was this but I will help you.
Imagine Hushovd (the world champion) is Pidcock and Cancellara (the overwhelming favorite) is Pogacar.

View: https://youtu.be/gf3bdWLpym0?is=oNnOhKrzGvNy0ZED

Cancellara marked out of Paris-Roubaix | Cyclingnews.com

"If I had stopped for coffee, they would have done the same"

www.cyclingnews.com

I so remember that “if I stopped for coffee” quote! But it was a disappointing PR as I result (I was as a Cancellara fan).

 

[KoopaCycling]

Situation does not fully apply. Cancellara failed to catch the breakaway. Cancellara had already won Roubaix. Distance was further from where i would tell Pidcock to stop working completely. Cancellara as a result also ruined his chances of winning. Which is what I pointed out I believe Pogacar would not have done in this San Remo. And so on. So it's not the gatcha moment you think it is.

 

[AmRacer]

Situation does not fully apply. Cancellara failed to catch the breakaway. Cancellara had already won Roubaix. Distance was further from where i would tell Pidcock to stop working completely. Cancellara as a result also ruined his chances of winning. Which is what I pointed out I believe Pogacar would not have done in this San Remo. And so on. So it's not the gatcha moment you think it is.

Yes it is.

 

[KoopaCycling]

Pogacar chances of a sprint against Pidcock are better than Cancellara's against Hushovd.

In the end your tactics resulted in not a win for Pidcock. And in the video Cancellara not riding nuked his chances of winning Roubaix that year, whilst had he closed that gap with 30 kms to go on the break, there is a chance he still drops them later on. Cancellara took the wrong decision, i do not believe Pogacar would have made the wrong decision, especially not after the Poggio and so relative close to the finish.

 

[AmRacer]

None of the above applies for the roubaix example. Neither are Pogacar chances as bad in a sprint against Pidcock as Cancellara against Hushovd. There are other holes to be poked, but it's clear you all have made up your mind.

In the end your tactics resulted in not a win for Pidcock. And in the video Cancellara not riding nuked his chances of winning Roubaix that year, whilst had he closed that gap with 30 kms to go on the break, there is a chance he still drops them later on. Cancellara took the wrong decision, i do not believe Pogacar would have made the wrong decision, especially not after the Poggio and so relative close to the finish.

Pidcock used the best tactical option to have a shot to win.

 

[KoopaCycling]

As he failed to win when he had the potential to do so, he obviously did not.

 

[Salvarani]

Pidcock used the best tactical option to have a shot to win.

Yes, and then not going forward again in the last km is exactly what he was supposed to do as well.

He played that perfectly, but didnt win the sprint. End of story.

 

[KoopaCycling]

2nd Place. Clearly he did not play that perfectly. End of.

 

[canina82]

Pogacar chances of a sprint against Pidcock are better than Cancellara's against Hushovd.

In the end your tactics resulted in not a win for Pidcock. And in the video Cancellara not riding nuked his chances of winning Roubaix that year, whilst had he closed that gap with 30 kms to go on the break, there is a chance he still drops them later on. Cancellara took the wrong decision, i do not believe Pogacar would have made the wrong decision, especially not after the Poggio and so relative close to the finish.

And Hushovd not riding translated in losing a golden opportunity to win PR.
And no, Cancellara riding without help from Hushovd is giving Hushovd an easy win.

 

[AmRacer]

As he failed to win when he had the potential to do so, he obviously did not.

Yeah, sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. He used the correct tactic to have a chance to win.

 

[AmRacer]

2nd Place. Clearly he did not play that perfectly. End of.

He wasn't strong enough.

 

[KoopaCycling]

Yeah, sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. He used the correct tactic to have a chance to win.

Or used the wrong one and ended second

 

[AmRacer]

Or use the wrong ones and end second

It was the correct one.

 

[KoopaCycling]

The results state otherwise

 

[canina82]

2nd Place. Clearly he did not play that perfectly. End of.

Do you know the most important thing in cycling is power (normally relative power)? One can do a great race tactically but still lose because the opponent is much stronger.
By any means, Pidcock is close to the level of Pogacar and for that reason he worked significantly less to preserve some energy for the Poggio but work enough to prevent the group from getting caught. He gambled everything on his sprint and he did the right thing. MVP did the same but wasn't good enough. Last year he was.

 

[AmRacer]

The results state otherwise

Nope

 

[KoopaCycling]

And if he had forced a dull in Pogacar power he could have won.

 

[KoopaCycling]

Nope

Pidcock won?

 

[AmRacer]

Pidcock won?

No, he come second

 

[YavorD]

The results state otherwise

Given that this is his best ever result in a monument, he probably did almost everything right.

 

[KoopaCycling]

No, he come second

Then he used the wrong tactics

 

[KoopaCycling]

Given that this is his best ever result in a monument, he probably did almost everything right.

But not everything

 

[AmRacer]

Then he used the wrong tactics

Nope