• 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!

Paris-Nice 2024, March 3-10

Page 16 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Maybe the week of a Roglic-Evenepoel head to head was not the best time to step up as a moderator ;)

One warning given yesterday (I'm not going to discuss that on the board, per the rules), but let's avoid posts that are not likely to serve any purpose other than get under the skin of others. We are here to enjoy racing and discussion about it: nothing will be won in our discussions (except perhaps respect) so they don't have to be confrontational or competitive.

Argue your opinions, celebrate your wins, bemoan your losses, cheer your favourites, have banter while it can be considered good natured, but as the note at the top of every sub-forum states "Civility is compulsory here".

Enjoy the race, no matter who you favour.
 
Remco: Today we go again huh?
Roglic: After you

GH0cPbhXoAAkgYt
 
I don't think there's much to criticise regarding Roglič's tactics in 1-week stage races. He is, after all, one of the most successful 1-week stage races in history. I think Roglič knows exactly when the right moment is to attack. Of course, fans of the opposing riders don't like that and would rather have him attacking all over the place making as many stupid moves as possible to minimise his own chances.

That's ok to wish that, I too am happy to see Remco attacking idiotically on a molehill before the 10 km final flat... It's also ok to claim you don't like his style and you prefer stage hunting than going for GC...

But it's a bit dishonest trying to debate it's somehow Roglič's tactical mistake now not to go with Remco yesterday. In what world is it a tactical mistake not to burn yourself completely on the flat section of a first stage of a race where you are the main favourite and which presents many opportunities for you later on? Sure, Remco and Rogla could probably ride like madmen yesterday, but they would have been chased to gain what, 10-20 seconds...

And it's precisely because Roglič doesn't see Remco as his only threat that he doesn't want to expose himself to the attacks of the likes of Almeida later in the race. At this stage, he will do the minimum to keep Remco in check while keeping himself as fresh as possible to be able to defend against others on the day, where Remco possibly loses minutes (you never know with this guy)...
Good post. Hit the nail on the head with this.
 
I wonder if some of the sprinter go to the harder race (Paris-Nice) to get the best possible shape for MSR and the other classics in March. These races are raced much harder than they used to.
Many of them has also raced opening weekend and other races in Belgium, so I think logistics plays the biggest part here. But of course, many are still building shape. Usually there arent more than 2-3 opportunities for the sprinters anyway in a week.

Then they travel over from Nice to Milano, which isnt far.
 
Perhaps logistics plays a part here. Many starting at T-A did SB or Trofeo Laigueglia in the week.
Think you will find that anyone who rode SB went to TA as it is logistically difficult to do PN. No sprinters did Trofeo Laigueglia so that does not enter the equation. Of course some sprinters who have their eyes on MSR will ride TA. Or possibly the sprinters who go to TA live in Monaco or Nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Think you will find that anyone who rode SB went to TA as it is logistically difficult to do PN. No sprinters did Trofeo Laigueglia so that does not enter the equation. Of course some sprinters who have their eyes on MSR will ride TA. Or possibly the sprinters who go to TA live in Monaco or Nice.
Yes exactly... Thats what I am saying.

And SB isnt very sprinter-friendly, so thats why most of them had to do P-N. Or teams would have a nightmare moving in and out riders.
 
So stage2 is the big sprint showdown - nothing lumpy to claim about, it's who's the fastest. Or who's got the best lead out as apparently some guys are missing.
It seems De Lie is suffering still from his crash, or he thinks losing 3 and half minutes will let him get in the break! (maybe him and/or Campenaerts will lose enough time to have a go on stage 5)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Yes, good post indeed but at this point it proves more as an assessment of the state of the forum that a blatant obvious analysis must be again and again uttered.


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 :D , 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).
 
Last edited:
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 life 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 an 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 :D , 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).
Remco is young and can go guns blasting all the way. Roglic's age and experience point to other more cautious approaches that have proven to be sound, as his palmares shows.

I myself have learned to appreciate cycling and Roglic for the more subtle race reading and surgical stomps, along the pathos that Roglic has been showing every time he is reborn from the ashes.

Either way, even if Roglic cancels sometimes the more Hollywoodesque and entertaining attacks, the drawback is that we ourselves in the forum have replaced such blunt cycling entertainment by the Remco-Roglic rivalry. I bet Remco is not the knucklehead he seems to be and his taking valuable lessons by riding with Roglic.
 
Is this a matter of a spellingcorrector messing up what you wrote? Evenepoel said that usually Roglic is in his wheel but this time he didn't see him (in his wheel) which is why he kept going. He didn't say anything about not liking Roglic, though i'm sure he might think it.

Google translate messed up again. You're right should be "i didn't see him" now you've pointed it out.
 

Google translate probably messed up translation again.
lol, it makes sense. "Iemand zien zitten" (seeing someone sitting) could mean like in English "fancying someone". So "hem niet zien zitten" could be interpreted as "not fancying him / not liking him". While it actually means (and especially in this context) "not seeing him".
 
Roglic's palmarès speaks for itself in weeklong stage races indeed, but i can't shake the feeling that being too calculated cost him dearly when it mattered the most, i think he wins the tour 2020 if he risks a bit more for instance, Pogacar was on the ropes at the end of the Foron stage.

He's akin to Valverde in that sense, one one hand Valverde palmarès shows that his approach was quite good overall, on the other i think that he missed a least a Lombardia by being reluctant to take turns, and that he wouldn't have to wait so long for his WC title if he wasn't so passive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHAD0W93
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 :D , 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).
Is beauty entertainment?
Is fascination entertainment?
Is inspiration entertainment?

Thankfully, cycling is so much more than mere entertainment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blanco
Roglic's palmarès speaks for itself in weeklong stage races indeed, but i can't shake the feeling that being too calculated cost him dearly when it mattered the most, i think he wins the tour 2020 if he risks a bit more for instance, Pogacar was on the ropes at the end of the Foron stage.

He's akin to Valverde in that sense, one one hand Valverde palmarès shows that his approach was quite good overall, on the other i think that he missed a least a Lombardia by being reluctant to take turns, and that he wouldn't have to wait so long for his WC title if he wasn't so passive.
It's his crashes that has taken its toll on his palmarès.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eeslliw