The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!
Bardamu said:After the Keutenberg (or last time Cauberg) they should go to Maastricht and finish there.
OlavEH said:The new loop they have added the last years is a freakin disaster. If they don't want to finish at Cauberg, they could move the finish a few km from the top of Cauberg, but the loop with Geulhemmerberg and Bemelerberg should be dropped.
Echoes said:The only way to get an attacking and entertaining race was with Keutenberg and Cauberg at 30km from finish.
Very good decision. They finally understood. To Hell with these awful uphill sprint. Looking forward to it and to Greg winning it.
The combination of the climbs is difficult enough to create a gap. It has happened many times in the Boogerd era, but because of the Cauberg nobody of the Valverde category dared to attack before Valkenburg.OlavEH said:Echoes said:The only way to get an attacking and entertaining race was with Keutenberg and Cauberg at 30km from finish.
Very good decision. They finally understood. To Hell with these awful uphill sprint. Looking forward to it and to Greg winning it.
There is no way the last 30 km is tough enough for attackers to keep clear of a chasing peloton. Eyserbosweg and Keutenberg aren't that difficult climbs. It's not possible to gain huge time gaps by attacking here. The awful last loop will make it pretty sure that it ends in a mass sprint.
Bardamu said:The combination of the climbs is difficult enough to create a gap. It has happened many times in the Boogerd era, but because of the Cauberg nobody of the Valverde category dared to attack before Valkenburg.
Max Rockatansky said:The only Amstel that was won by Boogerd ended in Maastricht and he sucked Lance's wheel in the last 20 kilometers as hard as he could. But his first attack came 85 kilometers before the finish line and led to a very good finale. Finale means last 85 kilometers and not last 2 kms.
There was a circuit around Maastricht after Valkenburg of around 45 kilometers. That circuit went over the border into Belgium and featured the steep climb of Hallembaye. And Sint-Pietersberg in Maastricht around 4 kilometers before the finish.
They did this course from 1993 to 2002 and it produced quite good racing, but also sprints like in 2000, when Zabel was Uber-Ete winning Sanremo, Amstel and getting 3rd in Roubaix and 4th in Flanders. From 2003 until today we have that Cauberg-Valkenburg centered race. So maybe it is time for another change. But until nobody is willing to pull off an Oudenaarde-like move and take the race with money, then nothing will happen.
sQiD said:Interesting point made by Spencer Powlison of Velonews : Negative racing tactics are the worst. When the peloton is riding with fear, when it’s anticipating a decisive climb at the very end of a long, hard day in the saddle, it leads to half-hearted attacks and furious chases to shut down escapes. With this new route, the last Cauberg is about 19km from the line, a perfect jump-off point for a bold late attack and a solo attempt to win.
What de you think ?
sQiD said:If they want to really mix things up, they could always take Tom Dumoulin’s last year advice: “Get somebody completely unrelated to cycling to outline the course,” that way we won’t understand it, team managers won’t understand it, and you’ll get an interesting race …”
No. It was the same as 2014-2016.SHAD0W93 said:Was the route Kreuziger won the same from 11,12, and 14?
Dekker_Tifosi said:Why don't they try something completely new, like the steep short climbs first, and then the longer 3/4/5km loop around Vijlen, Drielandenpunt etc later. With the finish near Camerig or something.
portugal11 said:I think orica/matthews will ruin this race
portugal11 said:I think orica/matthews will ruin this race