• 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!

Poll on when to wait for the leader in a GT

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Select each case where you think the contenders ought to wait if the leader in a GT has to stop

  • Top contenders still together at an important point (e.g. 2017 Froome mechanical on Mont du Chat) bu

    Votes: 25 21.2%
  • Whole pack together but at a critical point (e.g. chasing a break in last 10km of a flat stage)

    Votes: 6 5.1%
  • Whole pack together at a non-critical point (e.g. no real chase is on)

    Votes: 61 51.7%
  • Dumoulin bathroom break in 2017 Giro (this also fits the definition of the bullet above)

    Votes: 14 11.9%
  • Top contenders still together early on last climb of MTF (e.g. 10km to go)

    Votes: 20 16.9%
  • A selection among contenders has occurred (some top 10 favorites left behind, not like the Mont du C

    Votes: 4 3.4%
  • Selection among contenders has occurred on MTF but still around 10K to go (e.g. 2003 Armstrong crash

    Votes: 9 7.6%
  • 1 km to go on MTF

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Never

    Votes: 58 49.2%

  • Total voters
    118
I think the forum software doesn't allow this poll to be meaningful, there should be a yes/no option on each of the question.

Imo the first answer is a "yes", although waiting just means not attacking, but that's natural anyway in that scenario.
 
Jun 24, 2017
49
0
0
Visit site
Very good tactics from Sky not to relinquish the yellow jersey. That way no one can attack Froome if/when he gets a mechanical. I'm surprised people thought they might give it away.
 
Jun 11, 2014
304
0
0
Visit site
When Messi or Ronaldo takes on a defender and the defender slips giving them a free path towards goal - they don't stop, turn around, help the defender up and re-dribble again. OR DO THEY ???

This Tour de Farce and the socalled "respect" must end - Aru won a billion points in my book and he should do it again and again and again.
 
Jul 6, 2016
599
1
0
Visit site
Never indeed. I almost went for the first option but then I realized: hey, wtf, everybody should be free to race at any point.

But it's already too late folks. People born in the last two decades when hearing the words "Tour the France" the first thing that comes to their minds is something like a happy bicycling festival, three weeks of joy and fun with the publicity caravan as ultimate eyecatcher.

The rare images of a rider completely devastated and covered in blood are only useful to create even more stupid publicity and hype.
 
Jun 8, 2017
25
0
0
Visit site
This is a tricky subject.
Cycling has a long tradition of having gentlemen riders, who had honor, courtesy for each other, and respect for the race.
So the idea to wait for the leader when something happens out of his control, is a very old one and based on this tradition.

On the other hand, there are many sports where a mechanical failure is actually the best time to attack, for example: all motorsports.
The only time when they can't attack is when the yellow flag is out (jury's decision).
Mechanicals and crashes are part of the race, and should be treated as such.
When a racecar driver has a mechanical or a crash, he isn't angry that the others didn't wait, and it's fair game for everyone.
Many times, the overall champion is the one who had the least problems, not the strongest or the fastest.
The difference from motorsports to cycling, is that in the former, they are always on the attack.

In cycling I think we need a change in mentality, shifting the anger from the opponents who attacked, to the mechanical or the crash itself.
The ability to accept this is going to take a while to sink in, but I believe it'll be good for the sport in the long term.
Mechanics and bike builders need to be even more relevant to the success of the teams.

With that being said, I actually think there's a time when the bunch can wait for a rider who had a problem, far from the point where decisions are made, probably before the last 50km, and not on a climb or cobble, not pursuing a chase, etc.
This might simply be called "fair play", like what happens in soccer when a player is injured and the other team throws the ball out.
That team will get the ball back on the side throw.
But this only happens if they're not attacking, if they are, the injured player will have to wait for the play to finish or for the referee to stop the game.

TL;DR - My answer is "Whole pack together at a non-critical point" just because of fair play, not any unwritten rule.
 
Mar 13, 2015
949
0
0
Visit site
Re:

latino said:
This is a tricky subject.
Cycling has a long tradition of having gentlemen riders, who had honor, courtesy for each other, and respect for the race.
So the idea to wait for the leader when something happens out of his control, is a very old one and based on this tradition.

On the other hand, there are many sports where a mechanical failure is actually the best time to attack, for example: all motorsports.
The only time when they can't attack is when the yellow flag is out (jury's decision).
Mechanicals and crashes are part of the race, and should be treated as such.
When a racecar driver has a mechanical or a crash, he isn't angry that the others didn't wait, and it's fair game for everyone.
Many times, the overall champion is the one who had the least problems, not the strongest or the fastest.
The difference from motorsports to cycling, is that in the former, they are always on the attack.

In cycling I think we need a change in mentality, shifting the anger from the opponents who attacked, to the mechanical or the crash itself.
The ability to accept this is going to take a while to sink in, but I believe it'll be good for the sport in the long term.
Mechanics and bike builders need to be even more relevant to the success of the teams.

With that being said, I actually think there's a time when the bunch can wait for a rider who had a problem, far from the point where decisions are made, probably before the last 50km, and not on a climb or cobble, not pursuing a chase, etc.
This might simply be called "fair play", like what happens in soccer when a player is injured and the other team throws the ball out.
That team will get the ball back on the side throw.
But this only happens if they're not attacking, if they are, the injured player will have to wait for the play to finish or for the referee to stop the game.

TL;DR - My answer is "Whole pack together at a non-critical point" just because of fair play, not any unwritten rule.

Does it really?
Cycling has a long history of people trying to take every advantage possible
 
Jun 8, 2017
25
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Eagle said:
latino said:
This is a tricky subject.
Cycling has a long tradition of having gentlemen riders, who had honor, courtesy for each other, and respect for the race.
So the idea to wait for the leader when something happens out of his control, is a very old one and based on this tradition.

On the other hand, there are many sports where a mechanical failure is actually the best time to attack, for example: all motorsports.
The only time when they can't attack is when the yellow flag is out (jury's decision).
Mechanicals and crashes are part of the race, and should be treated as such.
When a racecar driver has a mechanical or a crash, he isn't angry that the others didn't wait, and it's fair game for everyone.
Many times, the overall champion is the one who had the least problems, not the strongest or the fastest.
The difference from motorsports to cycling, is that in the former, they are always on the attack.

In cycling I think we need a change in mentality, shifting the anger from the opponents who attacked, to the mechanical or the crash itself.
The ability to accept this is going to take a while to sink in, but I believe it'll be good for the sport in the long term.
Mechanics and bike builders need to be even more relevant to the success of the teams.

With that being said, I actually think there's a time when the bunch can wait for a rider who had a problem, far from the point where decisions are made, probably before the last 50km, and not on a climb or cobble, not pursuing a chase, etc.
This might simply be called "fair play", like what happens in soccer when a player is injured and the other team throws the ball out.
That team will get the ball back on the side throw.
But this only happens if they're not attacking, if they are, the injured player will have to wait for the play to finish or for the referee to stop the game.

TL;DR - My answer is "Whole pack together at a non-critical point" just because of fair play, not any unwritten rule.

Does it really?
Cycling has a long history of people trying to take every advantage possible

Yes it does, in earlier years, not current years.
That's why we still have these unwritten rules today.
 
I don't give a *** who is the leader.

Any rules need to apply to all riders, not favour one rider over another.

This is like saying that the person in tennis who has the highest seed should be allowed an extra serve (3 instead of 2) whenever they play a lower seed.

Either rules apply to everyone or they apply to no one.
 
Re:

rick james said:
would be hearing different things if it wasn't Froome in yellow, Bertie or Quintana in yellow and Aru pulls that stunt and this forum would go into meltdown...hypocrisy at its finest
I mean, this is trolling.

How can it not be when people have been saying since before anyone knew who Froome was, that riders should attack more, and now the 1 time it happens to Froome, suddenly this person jumps on them and says "you only say that because its froome" :eek:
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
Visit site
I want to see relentless competition at all levels of the sport.

They ought to wait when the benefits, now and in the future, exceed the costs, now and in the future. Waiting isn't about the rules of the sport but about its norms. The benefits of not waiting are obvious, the costs depend on what norms the peloton and its most important members believe in and enforce.

Being a hypocrite about these norms and trying to twist them to your advantage is just another tactic and it's a good one. If you can get your opponents to wait for you, but you don't wait for them yourself yet manage to convince the peloton and the public that the situations warrant a different response, then more power to you.
 
It's a tradition with sosioeconomic background, coming from behavioral interactions of 'gentlemans', but like the weather, things are more mixed these days. Shark pool you know, swim steady, steadyyy, wait.... :twisted:

No option if every single competitor is with disc brakes except this Maillot Jaune who is with rim brake..then what? :p
 
Simple: when there's no real disadvantage to you in waiting.

Aru's attack was at, what 5km from the top of the last HC climb on a big mountain stage - in other words, exactly in the range where climbers should be attacking. And he's supposed to not attack because some other guy puts their hand up, like calling a timeout in a basketball game or something? So if a leader is exposed at a critical point he can just put his hand up and go back to the car for as long as necessary to defuse the situation? A team with a reductionist approach to race tactics might perhaps spot that and start taking advantage of it maybe?

In the Giro, it might be fine for Nibali to want to wait for Dumoulin, because Nibs is going to make his move on the descent much later. But Zakarin needs to attack uphill and he needs a reasonable amount of time so of course he needs to go early: a good place might be the start of the final climb, but he can't do that because someone else has a problem totally unrelated to him? That just makes things a farce.
 
May 11, 2017
19
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
I don't give a **** who is the leader.

Any rules need to apply to all riders, not favour one rider over another.

This is like saying that the person in tennis who has the highest seed should be allowed an extra serve (3 instead of 2) whenever they play a lower seed.

Either rules apply to everyone or they apply to no one.

So 30 guys are left in the middle of a mountain stage and the 25th place rider on GC flats and the group should wait? Disagree. Waiting should be a rare thing, not used for insignificant placings.