Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread

[VayaVayaVaya]

I’d amend this list to:

1. Rider strength relative to competitors
2. Rider confidence / knowledge
3. Route design
4. Weather
5. Management

I see technology as a key determinant of 2 above but not a direct factor. Through power meters, analytics, and radios, riders have never been more knowledgeable about their strengths relative to peers and how hard they can push for how long. It seems like this can encourage or discourage attacks, but it always makes events more predictable. Vingegaard might attack more, knowing his numbers and Pogi’s best whereas if he didn’t know, he might choose to be more conservative.

Simply put, attacking rates in races hinge on several factors:

1) human (natural talent, psychological drive to excel),
2) route design
3) weather factors
4) technology.

Technology is dependent on the capital intensive input that drive sponsors to expect a return for their investment. It means also that all things being equal in the peloton, i.e., if all teams have access to the same technologies, technology will have a tight grip on race dynamics.

The previous discussion just focused on the 1) factor.

 

[Extinction]

I’d amend this list to:

1. Rider strength relative to competitors
2. Rider confidence / knowledge
3. Route design
4. Weather
5. Management

I see technology as a key determinant of 2 above but not a direct factor. Through power meters, analytics, and radios, riders have never been more knowledgeable about their strengths relative to peers and how hard they can push for how long. It seems like this can encourage or discourage attacks, but it always makes events more predictable. Vingegaard might attack more, knowing his numbers and Pogi’s best whereas if he didn’t know, he might choose to be more conservative.

Exactly

 

[Extinction]

The thing is rider talent, versus knowing the data in real time discourages the spectacle. Riders should not know whether or not they can push 2 watts more or expolode. They should have to figure it out for themselves. Otherwise it's a question of automization, over the human aspect of sport. The latter, however, is where the true drama unfolds.

 

[Extinction]

Simply put, attacking rates in races hinge on several factors:

1) human (natural talent, psychological drive to excel),
2) route design
3) weather factors
4) technology.

Technology is dependent on the capital intensive input that drive sponsors to expect a return for their investment. It means also that all things being equal in the peloton, i.e., if all teams have access to the same technologies, technology will have a tight grip on race dynamics.

The previous discussion just focused on the 1) factor.

Leave such tech to training, in a race have them rely on instinct. The returns on investment don't change. Riders benefit during preparation, as does the market, then it's every man for himself in the race and may the best one win.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

The thing is rider talent versus knowing the data in real time, discourages the spectacle. Riders should not know whether or not they can push 2 watts more or expolode. They should have to figure it out for themselves. Otherwise it's a question of automization, over the human aspect of sport. The latter, however, is where the true drama unfolds.

It's also true that every day is different. On a weaker day a rider can't sustain the same wattage as during training. On a superb day maybe a rider can push a bit more/longer than during pre-race tests. So riding by feeling always exists to some extent.

 

[Extinction]

It's also true that every day is different. On a weaker day a rider can't sustain the same wattage as during training. On a superb day maybe a rider can push a bit more/longer than during pre-race tests. So riding by feeling always exists to some extent.

Sure, but controlled risk factor often leads to a big fart, as we have so often seen in the hyper-tech science driven sport of today. I'm not for backwardness, but compromise.

 

[Sciatic]

I completely agree with your first paragraph, so there's nothing to beg to differ about there.

However, I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to express regarding the 86 Tour, if my words were read carefully. I basically stated that Hinault was a back-stabbing egomaniac, even if not quite so bluntly. Hence, how can such "team subterfuge", as you so well put it, in what I wrote be construed as sychophantic flattery to a supposed "heroic and nobel outcome"? No, what I meant was that such douchebaggery on Hinault's part, like it or not, made the duel with Greg enthralling, as all the pundits at the time unanimously agreed. The only hero was Lemond, Hinault the anti-hero. Every hero needs an anti-hero to make up the epic. Moreover, I clearly stated that Hinault raced rather stupidity and there is nothing to recommend in that, affording much though to the entertainment value of that year's race. It was pure gold, that, and I for one would not have had him race any other way from this point of view. Let us not take things too seriously.

More than comparing with the Vismo debacle, I was contrasting the two outcomes in their polar opposite team management applied mental habits . On the one hand, you had a rather devious Paul Köchli encouraging discord, while sowing the seeds of intercene war (at one point the insouciant DS even encouraged a stupified Hampsten to play his own cards to win the race), while on the other a lilly-livered Zeeman unable to handle the backlash from social media over "how dare Roglic and Vingegaard ride as team leaders", to then cave into an all too predictable politically correct outcome. Such denouement can only have satisfied shareholders terrified of the team being black-labled and those with weak stomachs for any type of controversy (or simply a certain fandom insistant upon preconceived notions of etiquite and fare-play).

As for a Pogacar, he has already been the most feared rider in the peleton for quite some time, but this doesn't seem to have prevented him from striking hard and winning big.

I don’t know if I agree but your 2nd full paragraph is really well-crafted writing—I always appreciate that!

 

[Oldermanish]

I completely agree with your first paragraph, so there's nothing to beg to differ about there.

However, I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to express regarding the 86 Tour, if my words were read carefully. I basically stated that Hinault was a back-stabbing egomaniac, even if not quite so bluntly. Hence, how can such "team subterfuge", as you so well put it, in what I wrote be construed as sychophantic flattery to a supposed "heroic and nobel outcome"? No, what I meant was that such douchebaggery on Hinault's part, like it or not, made the duel with Greg enthralling, as all the pundits at the time unanimously agreed. The only hero was Lemond, Hinault the anti-hero. Every hero needs an anti-hero to make up the epic. Moreover, I clearly stated that Hinault raced rather stupidity and there is nothing to recommend in that, affording much though to the entertainment value of that year's race. It was pure gold, that, and I for one would not have had him race any other way from this point of view. Let us not take things too seriously.

More than comparing with the Vismo debacle, I was contrasting the two outcomes in their polar opposite team management applied mental habits . On the one hand, you had a rather devious Paul Köchli encouraging discord, while sowing the seeds of intercene war (at one point the insouciant DS even encouraged a stupified Hampsten to play his own cards to win the race), while on the other a lilly-livered Zeeman unable to handle the backlash from social media over "how dare Roglic and Vingegaard ride as team leaders", to then cave into an all too predictable politically correct outcome. Such denouement can only have satisfied shareholders terrified of the team being black-labled and those with weak stomachs for any type of controversy (or simply a certain fandom insistant upon preconceived notions of etiquite and fare-play).

As for a Pogacar, he has already been the most feared rider in the peleton for quite some time, but this doesn't seem to have prevented him from striking hard and winning big.

If I misunderstood your Hinault description; we are of the same opinion. Kochli was that guy but he could do that because of the strength of that particular team.
As for political correctness; that's not where I was going with Visma's final strategy. Their decision preserved the team and it's possible future cohesiveness. IMO they had already written Roglic off and probably didn't want the carnage that could have occurred. They won the Vuelta and kept the two most valuable riders for this season.
They did achieve a backhanded marketing coup as did the sport in general due to the polarization of fans. Everyone wanted to watch that trainwreck.
As for Pogi; he now faces response from every team when he farts or twitches. The other contenders know what he can do if their planned control goes awry and that may make for great racing this year. Who will step up to ally with Pogacar at a point to advance their team cause? It's just a prospective tactic that I hope will happen.

 

[Oldermanish]

I’d amend this list to:

1. Rider strength relative to competitors
2. Rider confidence / knowledge
3. Route design
4. Weather
5. Management

I see technology as a key determinant of 2 above but not a direct factor. Through power meters, analytics, and radios, riders have never been more knowledgeable about their strengths relative to peers and how hard they can push for how long. It seems like this can encourage or discourage attacks, but it always makes events more predictable. Vingegaard might attack more, knowing his numbers and Pogi’s best whereas if he didn’t know, he might choose to be more conservative.

It's the lack of certainty that makes for the threshold-breaking efforts. Taking instant communication away from team strategy requires more riders to actually race; rather than fulfill their wattage output quotient as a donkey domestique and fade back.

 

[scribers]

Bruyneel is bullish on a giro tour double for pogi. Says he could win the giro at 80-85%. I would have picked something closer to 95% depending on strength of competition. But bruyneel doesn’t throw numbers around lightly.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Bruyneel is bullish on a giro tour double for pogi. Says he could win the giro at 80-85%. I would have picked something closer to 95% depending on strength of competition. But bruyneel doesn’t throw numbers around lightly.

95% is too much simply because of the probability of crashes. In a GT even 70% means overwhelming favourite.

 

[Netserk]

95% is too much simply because of the probability of crashes. In a GT even 70% means overwhelming favourite.

Ratio, not probability.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Ratio, not probability.

Obviously I meant the probability of 0.95 and 0.7 respectively.

 

[Netserk]

Obviously I meant the probability of 0.95 and 0.7 respectively.

Bruyneel talks about what level (relative to peak) he could win at. Not his chance to win.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Bruyneel talks about what level (relative to peak) he could win at. Not his chance to win.

Ah, ok. You're right. I think 80-85% of Pog top form may actually be enough to win if no big rival appears at the Giro but in this case it would be a hard fought race methinks. No easy way to get it done - either a harder race in a lower form or an easier race in peak form (but never too easy, it's always 3-weeks of hard physical and mental effort).

 

[Froome]

Ah, ok. You're right. I think 80-85% of Pog top form may actually be enough to win if no big rival appears at the Giro but in this case it would be a hard fought race methinks. No easy way to get it done - either a harder race in a lower form or an easier race in peak form (but never too easy, it's always 3-weeks of hard physical and mental effort).

I think 80/85% is a bit risky because Thomas is a solid GC rider.

 

[johnymax]

I think 80/85% is a bit risky because Thomas is a solid GC rider.

Yeah, look at Roglič. He was at 79% last year and he barely won against Thomas.

 

[scribers]

Yea. Ratio of capacity. 95% is a lot but it’s the giro

 

[Froome]

Yeah, look at Roglič. He was at 79% last year and he barely won against Thomas.

Roglic was closer to 100% than 79%.

 

[Extinction]

In theory, bar incident, Thomas shall be at 100%, so at what minimal percentage does Pog need to win? 75? 85? Risky business. Of course, Pog will be nearly in top shape, or else why go for the win? Otherwise it's a wasted GT that would have been better not to start. Anything less than a Giro win, would not justify the sacrifice he will make not to prepare for the Tour optimally. Ergo, unless they are stupid, Pog will go in firing on all cylinders.

 

[scribers]

If pog only needs to go 80% of capacity to prevail, that’s energy in the bank for the double. I think it’s very optimistic rather than risky

 

[Extinction]

If pog only needs to go 80% of capacity to prevail, that’s energy in the bank for the double. I think it’s very optimistic rather than risky

It's risky because we don't know if Pog at 80% beats Thomas at 100%. I think 20% difference is risky. Let us say it's an overstretch and he loses, then what was the point? Now he goes to the Tour to face an optimally prepared Vingo. Good luck with that. No, Pog needs to be near top form to gaurantee the Giro and then hedge his bets at the Tour. Otherwise the Giro has no sense.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

The whole percentage thing seems like a good excuse to talk about meaningless things, which I get is more or less the purpose of this whole forum. Who knows what 85% means, and that can look different for different people. If you say it's 85% of the difference between base offseason form and peak form, that might not be a huge difference for a Pogacar or Roglic, who seem to have much narrower floors-to-ceilings, but it seems to be a slightly bigger difference for Vingegaard or Remco, and a wayyy bigger difference for a G.

Also, obviously crashes played into it, but Contador also could win the Giro at 85%, as he did in 2015, but it cost a lot.

 

[Elos Anjos]

I just love these %%% porn takes, they're so accurate.

My take is that Pogacar will be at 75% power level at the start of Giro with a rate of less than 1% level improvement per day in order to arrive at the Tour not cooked and continues to maximize his power up to 200%.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

I just love these %%% porn takes, they're so accurate.

My take is that Pogacar will be at 75% power level at the start of Giro with a rate of less than 1% level improvement per day in order to arrive at the Tour not cooked and continues to maximize his power up to 200%.

Remco has already said he wants to be at 200%, so Pogi will have to pick a different number if he doesn't want to be accused of form sucking.