Movistar Tactics

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re: Re:

cineteq said:
Mr.White said:
Well don't blame Unzue for Quintana not fulfilling your expectations!
Ha ha ha...oh wait nobody's responsible for the team #LOL
??? Your point is?

Is someone holding Quintana back? Go ahead, attack Froome, drop him if you can! No, he attacks 500-1000m from the finish and that's it! And then Unzue is to blame, and of course Valverde, usual suspect for all! If he attacks on Croix de Fer today, but I mean attack for real, then I'll now he wants this Tour. If not, he's a joke and rides for second
 
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:
cineteq said:
Mr.White said:
Well don't blame Unzue for Quintana not fulfilling your expectations!
Ha ha ha...oh wait nobody's responsible for the team #LOL
??? Your point is?

Is someone holding Quintana back? Go ahead, attack Froome, drop him if you can! No, he attacks 500-1000m from the finish and that's it! And then Unzue is to blame, and of course Valverde, usual suspect for all! If he attacks on Croix de Fer today, but I mean attack for real, then I'll now he wants this Tour. If not, he's a joke and rides for second
I don't get it. You think Unzué is telling Quintana to attack from far out or to do things one way and he refuses to?
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
No I think he's not telling him when to attack, that's up to Quintana, but he's not attacking... If someone's to blame for his riding, that's certainly not Unzue. That's my point
 
Re: Re:

cineteq said:
IndianCyclist said:
Too much to lose with 2% chance of winning. So 2 &3 is ok
Actually it's 30%. And 50% if Valverde attacks from far. Also there is 99% chance Valverde will be out of the podium by Sunday.
Sky counter tactics could be give Valverde some leash 1-1:30 and allow him to take 2nd. That would really set the cat among the pigeons in the Movi camp.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re: Re:

cineteq said:
Mr.White said:
Well don't blame Unzue for Quintana not fulfilling your expectations!
Ha ha ha...oh wait nobody's responsible for the team #LOL
You're quite right I bet under the tutelage of Sir David Brailsford, Quintana would have climbed PSM 2 minutes quicker.
 
Aug 4, 2010
11,337
0
0
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:
ILovecycling said:
From those videos interview I have seen this Tour, Unzue as a DS of such a good GC team is a massive disgrace.To put it mildly.
Unzue disgrace!!! You're talking about one of the best DS of last 20-30 years!!! You think you have credibility for that! You're some kind of expert?! Or you're just dissapointed in your rider's performance? Well don't blame Unzue for Quintana not fulfilling your expectations!
uhhh, results doesnt mean he is a great DS tactically :rolleyes:
 
May 3, 2011
1,791
0
0
Movistar's biggest problem IMO is not realising that the tour consists of 3 weeks. Their line up underestimated the importance of the first week and was geared to starting from the TTT onward. They packed their line up with climbers bulked out with some strong TT guys. Granted they dont have the depth of Northern Classic guys the likes of Sky, Saxo, Astana have but they only have themselves to blame for that. They have been playing catch up ever since stage 2 and as such have always been on the back foot.
 
I really like NQ but what he and movistar did in this tour was just nonsense. If you have 2 riders in the top 3 you at least have to let the rider on 3rd position make a long range attack, or do something else with him. But no, they ride like they wouldn't even be in the same team with the little expectation that nairo doesn't want to danger valverdes podium position.
 
To be clear, for all their defects, and there are plenty, I think Movistar did a great job at the Tour. Fantastic. Stage 20 was possibly the most exciting racing I've seen at the tour in four or five years. But let me paint you all a little picture. I know, things might've happened differently. Valverde might've had a more tenuous grasp on second, butterflies and hurricanes and all that.

But say Movistar hadn't gone all out at the foot of LPSM, fearing a strong Froome early in the second week, and taken a more defensive approach. Say Sky would've done the pulling and Froome had waited a bit more and Quintana hadn't taken those digs and had followed Gesink's wheel (who would've been further out) a bit and the gap would have ended up being only 30 seconds at the top.

Say the rest of the race goes more or less as it did. We get to Stage 20, Froome leading by little over two minutes. Say Izaguirre and Co. are a bit more rested, say Poels and Porte are a bit more tired. Say Anacona makes it to the valley before the lead group, or just with a biggish gap to the Sky men at the bottom of the climb. He pushes on (Anacona is a very decent TT man and obviously had good legs on the day) and Froome is isolated at the foot of the Alpe. Say Nibali doesn't have the random puncture and attacks (if the four leaders are still isolated) as soon as it kicks up, or has Kangert (if a couple riders rejoined the bunch before the Sky men) set a devil of a pace to start the climb. Say Valverde takes the next dig, and Froome chases himself. Say Quintana makes his "double attack" with 11km to go. Full stage bonus on offer at the top. Nibali and Valverde on Froome's wheel, ready to pounce at the for the places and bonuses.

What would have happened? Would Froome have tried to follow and likely blown up? Would he managed to pace himself and won by 8 seconds or lost by 3?

No clue. Maybe Froome having saved the day and the cacophony of Monday morning quarterbacks calling Movistar cowards, completely confident that Nairo would have won had Unzue had the balls, would've been beyond deafening and completely dominated the discourse today. But they would have been wrong. I think too aggressive too early was Movistar undoing. Had Unzue stuck to his cautious instincts at La Pierre Saint Martin, and not as seems apparent bowed to public pressure, the race might've been just a bit more exiting in the end. Aggressive racing is not just about taking little digs but making the right attack at the right time. And in this case the right kind of aggressive racing might have served up one for the ages.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Tactic's were awful. Chasing down riders when it was Froomes/sky job.
Attacking near the top of climbs when we know they will all came back together on the descent.
And only on the very last day when he had no choice did Quintana lay it on the line. To little to late.
 
Good points Gigs_98 and carton. A long range attack from Valverde would have opened things up, and yes, in retrospect, several small things tilted the balance.

I don't blame Movistar one bit. I predicted a civil war, it didn't happen. Valverde and Quintana worked quite well together. Froome clubbed everybody on the first mountain stage: textbook Armstrong. Shock and awe. By the time Valverde, Quitana, Contador and Nibali woke up, the Pyrenees were gone. The day after getting spanked at LPSM, Movistar should have Merckxed on the Cauterets stage. Easy to say, in retrospect. Finally, when TJVG's abandonned, calculations began, making alliances with other teams all but impossible: two, then three guys for one podium spot, basically. I think Movistar did very well. Sky and Froome were just too much.
 
@Carton
If movistar hadn't set a high pace on LPSM quintana hadn't lost so much time and if absolutely everything had gone differently on the alp stage quintana would have won the tour. Yep thats possible but that doesn't forgive that they chased contador on the first alp stage. That doesn't forgive that Movistar built a train up Pra Loup instead of attacking froome there. That doesn't forgive that they made nothing out of there great situation on the "la Toussuire" stage. That doesn't forgive that quintana attacked so late in "La Toussuire". That doesn't forgive that quintana pulled froome to the finish in Mende (although I am almost the only one who complains about that). That doesn't forgive that quintana didnt even try to attack froome on the glandon although he needed so much time. That doesn't forgive that they didnt try something on the cautarets stage too. That doesn't forgive that they didnt try to get someone into the early break on penultimate stage.

I think you get my point :p
 
Apr 27, 2014
678
0
0
I think that at the end they got two podium places and the teams clasification win. They took good and bad decisions.
And i think too that there are too many frustated race directors around here.
 
Jun 24, 2013
2,705
1
0
In retrospect they maybe also made a mistake when they selected their team. They went all in on flat riders for the first week and the TTT while only taking 2 climbers alongside their 2 leaders. Still they lost most time on the flat in Zeeland. In the end an extra climber like Intxausti or Capecchi could have come in handy during the last week. But ofcourse easy to criticise after a race
 
Any other team with Nairo here would have been at 5 minutes of Froome and Valverde out of the podium.
Nobody knows better cycling as Unzue, like to people or not.

Thay have a minimum chance to get a bettr result by risking a lot.

Most of people would be here aplausing with his ears, me too, but at the end what count is the best result possible, noty just risking everything to win.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Gigs_98 said:
@Carton
If movistar hadn't set a high pace on LPSM quintana hadn't lost so much time and if absolutely everything had gone differently on the alp stage quintana would have won the tour. Yep thats possible but that doesn't forgive that they chased contador on the first alp stage. That doesn't forgive that Movistar built a train up Pra Loup instead of attacking froome there. That doesn't forgive that they made nothing out of there great situation on the "la Toussuire" stage. That doesn't forgive that quintana attacked so late in "La Toussuire". That doesn't forgive that quintana pulled froome to the finish in Mende (although I am almost the only one who complains about that). That doesn't forgive that quintana didnt even try to attack froome on the glandon although he needed so much time. That doesn't forgive that they didnt try something on the cautarets stage too. That doesn't forgive that they didnt try to get someone into the early break on penultimate stage.

I think you get my point :p
Agree totally ,,,,Movie blew it big time.
 
@Giggs

they chased contador on the first alp stage.
Don't think this mattered for Quintana. Contador just didn't have the legs this Tour to make a difference. It worked out for Valverde.

That doesn't forgive that Movistar built a train up Pra Loup instead of attacking froome there.
Nairo isn't as good as Froome on short climbs. Had they attacked Froome there they would've lost more time.

That doesn't forgive that they made nothing out of there great situation on the "la Toussuire" stage. That doesn't forgive that quintana attacked so late in "La Toussuire".
He should've tried again from a bit earlier, maybe. I'll give you that one. It's a very hard ask, though. Poels was there at the beginning.

That doesn't forgive that quintana pulled Froome to the finish in Mende (although I am almost the only one who complains about that).
They tried attacking in Mende, but Froome was clearly stronger on the day. He actually gained a second. Quintana didn't pull almost for a second. He pretty much sat up and waited for Valverde, who gained back 15 seconds on them at the end and almost caught up,

That doesn't forgive that quintana didn't even try to attack Froome on the glandon although he needed so much time.
Sky was too strong. Without an isolated Froome. Sky would just pace him back at a much less energy cost to Froome. There was quite a bit of flat before and after the Lancets.

That doesn't forgive that they didnt try something on the cautarets stage too.
First, they weren't gapping Froome on a short climb. On short climbs (also Mende, Bretagne, Huy) Froome is stronger than Nairo and actually gained time. Second, on the descent, Nibali even tried. Froome weak descending is figment of people's imagination. I'd rate him higher than Contador at this point. And in any case Geraint Thomas can also unquestionably descend.

That doesn't forgive that they didnt try to get someone into the early break on penultimate stage.
Anacona almost killed himself trying to bridge to the break. He couldn't do it.

It's like you think Nairo is just in another league than Froome up hills. Like this is Roche vs. Delgado. And attacking costs nothing. Both things are absolutely false. Contador's relentless attacking left him completely drained at the end in 2007 and it almost cost him the Tour. Nairo can get some time on Froome on certain climbs if he's fresh enough. He landed some good blows. If he learnt something is about when and how to attack not "I should attack like Pierre Rolland, that's the key to GC success". If anything cost Movistar the Tour, besides the weather in Holland, it was being too aggressive at La Pierre Saint Martin.
 
carton said:
@Giggs

they chased contador on the first alp stage.
Don't think this mattered for Quintana. Contador just didn't have the legs this Tour to make a difference. It worked out for Valverde.

That doesn't forgive that Movistar built a train up Pra Loup instead of attacking froome there.
Nairo isn't as good as Froome on short climbs. Had they attacked Froome there they would've lost more time.

That doesn't forgive that they made nothing out of there great situation on the "la Toussuire" stage. That doesn't forgive that quintana attacked so late in "La Toussuire".
He should've tried again from a bit earlier, maybe. I'll give you that one. It's a very hard ask, though. Poels was there at the beginning.

That doesn't forgive that quintana pulled Froome to the finish in Mende (although I am almost the only one who complains about that).
They tried attacking in Mende, but Froome was clearly stronger on the day. He actually gained a second. Quintana didn't pull almost for a second. He pretty much sat up and waited for Valverde, who gained back 15 seconds on them at the end and almost caught up,

That doesn't forgive that quintana didn't even try to attack Froome on the glandon although he needed so much time.
Sky was too strong. Without an isolated Froome. Sky would just pace him back at a much less energy cost to Froome. There was quite a bit of flat before and after the Lancets.

That doesn't forgive that they didnt try something on the cautarets stage too.
First, they weren't gapping Froome on a short climb. On short climbs (also Mende, Bretagne, Huy) Froome is stronger than Nairo and actually gained time. Second, on the descent, Nibali even tried. Froome weak descending is figment of people's imagination. I'd rate him higher than Contador at this point. And in any case Geraint Thomas can also unquestionably descend.

That doesn't forgive that they didnt try to get someone into the early break on penultimate stage.
Anacona almost killed himself trying to bridge to the break. He couldn't do it.

It's like you think Nairo is just in another league than Froome up hills. Like this is Roche vs. Delgado. And attacking costs nothing. Both things are absolutely false. Contador's relentless attacking left him completely drained at the end in 2007 and it almost cost him the Tour. Nairo can get some time on Froome on certain climbs if he's fresh enough. He landed some good blows. If he learnt something is about when and how to attack not "I should attack like Pierre Rolland, that's the key to GC success". If anything cost Movistar the Tour, besides the weather in Holland, it was being too aggressive at La Pierre Saint Martin.
Mostly good points, but I disagree about Froome being clearly stronger than Quintana in Mende. Imo, they were about equal there, like stage results showed. Froome is just better sprinter than Quintana.

Stage 19 was a missed opportunity as Sky was far more vulnerable there than the day after. Only Poels had legs there besides Froome. Attacking more doesn't of course come without a price, but when you're from the beginning banking on your superior recovery, why not use it to the full extent. Froome was starting to fade significantly by then, pushing him more would most likely have accelerated it further and given Quintana a better chance for victory.
 
@Carton
I understand your point and I accept it but I still think that movistar made many mistakes.
In my opinion movistars main mistake was that they made nothing out of there situation with valverde. For example in the pra loup stage valverde just should have tried to go together with contador. They had some riders in the break and tinkoff wouldnt have had a reason why to stop working. Valverde was only 4 minutes back at that time and with the poor sky team on that day and the manpower movi/tinkoff would have had they had gained massive time. Maybe quintana hadn't gained any time there but he didnt to in the actual stage too. However you can put so much more pressure on a rider when there are two riders near to him in the gc. I also don't think Quintana had lost time in Pra Loup if he had attacked. After numerous climbs the length isnt that important. Moreover Pra Loup is still 2nd category so the climb isnt that short
Oh and btw. only because you aren't a good descender that doesn't mean yo can't attack someone before a descent. If quintana had attacked on the glandon there would have been the possibility that froome is isolated for the rest of the stage.

ps: So you want to tell me that in 2007 it was a mistake by contador to attack rasmussen because he almost lost the tour because of that. Hm, weren't there maybe some special circumstances which justified the attacking, oh yes, rasmussen was still in the race when contador attacked and rasmussen would have won that tour without the doping scandal.
 
Gigs_98 said:
ps: So you want to tell me that in 2007 it was a mistake by contador to attack rasmussen because he almost lost the tour because of that. Hm, weren't there maybe some special circumstances which justified the attacking, oh yes, rasmussen was still in the race when contador attacked and rasmussen would have won that tour without the doping scandal.
Well I didn't want to get into the specifics but Rasmussen was by far the strong rider in '07. Contador's attacking did nothing but waste him before the ITT. It's hard to get into 90's and 00's racing without touching upon clinic topics but riders directed by Unzue, Bruyneel and Brailsford have ridden into Paris wearing the yellow jersey in 19 of the last 25 tours. Those aren't exactly three directeurs famous for their commitment to aggressive racing. And it's not like Evans, Sastre and Ullrich won on their attacking panache either. The change really started with Fignon and LeMond but after Indurain definitely as the teams have gotten stronger and radios more important defensive racing has been proven most effective more times than not. The Pantani model rarely leads success anywhere but in the memories of the tifosi and the pundits' post-race pie-in-the-sky ponderations.

I get your point that Movistar left it a bit too late for real intrigue. Two-and-a-half on the Alpe was always too much of an ask (although it seems Brailsford was more worried than any of the posters here). But outside maybe having tried harder on that early attack in La Toussuire I really do struggle to find where they had an opportunity that would've actually made up any measurable ground. Again, on Glandon, the Lacets are are a 3.4km climb. The descent of the Glandon ended with 20.5km to go. So that's about 13.5km of flat ground where Quintana would have been incredibly hard-pressed to maintain a handful of seconds on Froome and quite likely Thomas. And again, I doubt Quintana would've been faster than Froome on a 3.4km climb of less than 10% for any stretch. It would've been, methinks, suicidal. A useless energy drain that would've made it even less likely for Nairo to take time on him later. It could've possibly cost him time. We can't really know, but that's my firm opinion and you're obviously free to have yours as well.
 
Jul 30, 2009
144
0
0
Anyone think the Galibier (had they kept it in this year) would have made the difference for Quintana? Sky had a lot of guys helping on the lower slopes of d'huez. The Galibier could have whittled them down if they were under pressure from the start as in previous stages, Valverde or Nibali could have tried to go early again and maybe Froome would have lost more time in the final. I just missed that climb, the Galibier is one of my favorites.
 
Re:

King Of Molehill said:
Anyone think the Galibier (had they kept it in this year) would have made the difference for Quintana? Sky had a lot of guys helping on the lower slopes of d'huez. The Galibier could have whittled them down if they were under pressure from the start as in previous stages, Valverde or Nibali could have tried to go early again and maybe Froome would have lost more time in the final. I just missed that climb, the Galibier is one of my favorites.
it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the galibier hadn't been cut out. I think it would have been closer but Froome still would have won it.

oh and carton:
I think we just have a different opinion and its probably impossible to say who is right at the end. I still think that without trying you can't win, and quintana tried to late (worth mentioning that he was successful as soon as he went full genius)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY