From a rational DS - POV, it would make sense to say Remco rode far too agressive for this first day, putting his cards on the table and thus showing too much of his hand when it's not necessary, while Roglic was sometimes out of position, but when it mattered, he controlled Remco's attack, so smart racing, not too much energy burnt and obviously saving energy for when it's necessary and there is a real opportunity to make a gap.
From a forum member perspective, you can praise Remco for riding agressive / entertaining, and Roglic for riding smart and showing that, how good Remco was on that climb attacking, he is at least on par. That's the positive, constructive discussion that everybody can live with.
--> I wouldn't think that the rational DS POV need to be explained on this forum (at least, I have high hopes most the members here see what happens in a race and how to interprete this), and if we're respectful, we praise Remco for entertainment and Roglic for resisting, and both for delivering us an entertaining duel.
From a forum fanboy perspective, you can say (Roglic fanboy POV) that Bambi rode stupid, the attack was dumb, or (Remco fanboy POV) that Roglic is dull, boring, a wheelsucker and Remco is phantastic (even though his attack was clearly not going anywhere). That's the negative, destructive discussion that invites going down the rabbit hole.
--> the discussion often slides into the fanboy perspective, and I admit I let myself slip down the slope (I called him a wheelsucker, after someone said his attack was dumb). The sad thing is that some of the fanboys on here don't even see their grade of fanboy-ism (I do
, and I mostly REact (after someone starts with negativity).
The annoying thing about fanboys is that they think they are right just because their analysis of events is sound. I can write just as much a sound analysis but that won't suggest my fanboy thoughts are as sound.
What matters for me is the entertainment riders bring to the race. Entertainment is what makes us watch cycling , and the entertainment factor is often a big part of the popularity and market value of a rider. Emphasizing results, smart (but boring) riding as it is the nec + ultra of racing is imho missing the beauty of racing: it's like comparing bank accounts and valuing the highest number as if that person is 'the best'. Some get more wins and results because they ride 'efficient', while others don't get that many because they ride 'stupid'.
Just two examples: Roglic' lost Tour was heartbreaking, especially as he rode agressive throughout that Tour and seemed to have already won, and the way he bounced back from this (and other mishaps, crashes) made me respect him enormeously. In Remco's case, I like him more for 'stupid' attacks than clinical wins.
So imho, it's not about the results (except for the insecure, the fanboys, that need a win in order to feel 'better' than the competition and their fanboys).
In this case, the Remco / Roglic competition in Paris-Nice is simply beautiful as they have opposite riding styles (attacking vs. countering) and as long as it makes an exciting race, everyone can enjoy the fight.
But the fight is often more interesting than the result (cycling is in a way a metaphor of life), and applauding clinical efficiency in a sport that thrives because of entertainment, is simply not how I see racing (and life, for that matter).
m.nieuwsblad.be
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram