Rate Paris-Roubaix

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Agreed. Agree with your earlier comment, too. I don't understand this "boring" race mentality. This edition was so fluid, with the favorites constantly moving around through the groups, that of course no one had anything left!

It seems that if an effort isn't made explosively off the front at the end of a race for the win (a la a typical GT mountain/queen stage), then a lot of fans don't know how to process it. Hence boring.

EDIT: And the explosive effort has to be made by one of the annointed, apparently. If it's a guy like Terpstra, then also "boring."

Which is weird, considering Terpstra was one of the strongest in Omloop het Nieuwsblad, the strongest in DDV, one of the strongest in E3 (arguable stronger than winner Sagan), and probably the strongest in De Panne (broken pedal costing him the time trial), and one of the strongest in RVV (but wrong tactical decisions).
All around, he was a stronger rider on cobbles and cobbled hill than Sagan was this spring. Yet if Sagan won sunday, we wouldn't have heard similar complaints about the winner...

 

[HSNHSN]

I don't see how anyone could take issue with the winner, since he's riding strongly all spring so far.

The reason I don't rate the race too high, though, is the ridiciulously long time they left Boonen (+changing others) dangling somewhere between 15 seconds and a minute in front of the peloton. Why did they allow this to happen for tens of kilometres? (the answer will probably be the strong wind during the race) Had the tactical game that followed afterwards started earlier, it would've been very exciting indeed.

6/10, since I'm applying PR standards. Had this race been Paris-Tours (e.g.) , it would've been aan easy 9/10.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Good point the last one. Had this been Fleche Wallone it would've been the most action packed FW in 20 years

 

[rghysens]

Gave it a 7. I like Paris-Roubaix to be epic, not necessarily thrilling, but epic (e.g.: 2002, 1998,...). So when a group of 60-80 comes out of the forest of Arenberg, you know there won't be a big selection. Luckily Boonen gave it a go.

 

[mr. tibbs]

Just read over the usual CN "conclusions" piece for PR.

I kinda want to publish a forum "conclusions" piece, just so the CN front pagers can see a less compromised (sponsors, dramatic narratives, preference by language) understanding of events.

 

[IndianCyclist]

5.
Good for Terpstra but too big a group by roubaix standards. Vanmarcke and Cancellara were the strongest but only attacked to join the Boonen group. I give OPQS a 10 for strategy. Boonen's attack was pretty good. Terpstra was dropped but won. At one point I thought it would stick. Canc was isolated but to make history one needs to do more than wait for a sprint. Sky had 2 but were too knackered to do anything. Belkin had numbers and the strongest rider but missed out. To win one needs to do something special. Degenkolb was the reason nobody wanted to work but there were no serious attacks to dislodge him. Once the front group of five allowed everybody to join and with no cobbles, it was impossible to get away. I think the finale needs to be somewhat difficult to really allow breaking of groups.

 

[TourOfTexas]

I could tell it was going to be unique when they were racing all out at 70km to go.

At 10km to go the lead group was exhausted and just wanted to drink a beer and have a shower.

7

 

[wayahead]

All around, he was a stronger rider on cobbles and cobbled hill than Sagan was this spring. Yet if Sagan won sunday, we wouldn't have heard similar complaints about the winner...

You're right. Sagan won two races in exactly the same fashion last year (G-W and Montreal) and they were decribed as classy wins without complaints. For many fans it's a show with their heroes and there were a lot of heroes in the group of 11, hence a lot of disappointment. I was also thinking "not this way" when Terpstra went clear and nobody wanted (or was able) to sacrifice himself, but overall it was great race and Terpstra was stronger than decribed by many. 9/10

 

[movingtarget]

Both Flanders and Roubaix were good for different reasons. Cancellara did the expected at Flanders and whittled down the field even though he still had to win the sprint but at Roubaix he was finding it more difficult and the last 10 kms at Roubaix were more exciting because no one looked stronger than anyone else until the final attack. Boonen and Sagan had already spent a lot of energy and Cancellara could not make a decisive break. MSR was a bit disappointing compared to the others.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Let's do this as they rate football players
Terpstra: 9 - not the strongest, but the smartest, did it the Nuyens way
Degenkolb: 7 - I did not expect him to be that close. Future winner
Cancellara: 6 - Mostly because I expect more from him, I guess. Not one real attack. Maybe he simply wasn't good enough?
Vanmarcke: 6 - see above
Stybar: 6 - Was able to hang on with the big guns, that's all he did
Sagan: 8 - He wanted to race, he wanted to anticipate, he made the race interesting
Thomas: 7 - Better than expected, honestly.
Langeveld: 6 - meh
Wiggins: 7 - deserves respect. Showed all the haters what he's worth
Boonen: 8 - luckily there's still some of these guys around. Saved it from being a borefest.

 

[Der Effe]

6. Great race, until the finale, which just sucked.

 

[analogue17]

9. At last we got a new winner!