The New World Champion! Appreciation

[El Pistolero]

To be honest, 1999 was a bit of an anomaly. I think Freire was about the only sprinter in the front group and he won it solo.

Konyshev and Zberg could sprint but they were almost infinitely better than Cavendish over the climbs.

That's why Freire is a much better cyclist than Cavendish despite having a worser palmares.

 

[Ferminal]

Fair point but this was hardly a team strategy otherwise they would have attacked again with someone else putting pressure straight back onto GB, it was if Visconti was trying to do it all on his own for the Italians. My feeling was that there was not enough pressure put on simultaneously and consistently by top class riders who were in the main field which could have put GB in trouble. Visconti attacking should have been a signal for many others to give it a go, instead he was left looking backwards wondering why no one would come with him of note.

There were only so many points where you could attack (the finish line, and the climb at 3km or so). GB effectively rode a 260km TTT at 45kmh. There were no gradients steep enough to drop some of the GB riders, and providing they rode within their limits (which they all did very well) they could maintain that pace.

In other words, the attacks were doing nothing to disrupt the pace. In order for it not to be a bunch sprint you would have needed the right combination of nations (so that they don't help the chase) and strong riders (are able to hold off the GB chase/their teams have confidence in them) which on a day like today is probably harder than winning the lottery.

If a team like Italy or Australia gave up on the idea of a bunch sprint and just tried going crazy with attacks from their whole 9 they would have been ridiculed, thus I think it's harsh to ridicule them because they left something for the sprint.

 

[El Pistolero]

So they weren't just sprinters?
You just killed your own argument.

But they were never the less sprinters.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

He repeatedly proves he doesn't need a lead out man, so why do people keep saying he can't do it without a lead out man?

This is a good question.

Certainly he's more fallible when he doesn't have a train, but he does win plenty without one.

More interesting would be, why does he almost always fail to win the first sprint of any given GT when he is clearly the best (especially considering he tends to then win every other sprint stage he contests in the race!).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But they were never the less sprinters.

.....
The difference with all the sprinters that won those years is that they weren't one trick ponies like Cavendish.

Which is it?

 

[roundabout]

So they weren't just sprinters?
You just killed your own argument.

Freire could win GT sprint stages against sprinters. Bettini could also win/finish top 3 when he wanted to, same for Boonen and Hushovd.

When the point is made how this course is ok, because it gives riders like Cavendish a chance it's only fair to respond with examples of riders who have won GT bunch sprints winning on harder courses.

 

[Hawkwood]

Please tell me what other weapon does Cavendish have of winning a race or making it in the top 10 of one?

A weapon that's of him and him alone by the way. So don't answer something like his team

I have to say that Cipo, one of my favourite cyclists, got extremely bad press at times. Club mates of mine hated him. I think being a successful sprinter and being disliked goes with the territory. I'll be interested to see how Cav matures as a cyclist. Kelly went from being a sprinter, though also winning Paris-Nice, to being a great classics and GT rider, I think he was 27 when he started winning classics. I'm guessing that Cav's physique is more pure sprinter than Kelly's making a similar switch more difficult.

 

[El Pistolero]

Which is it?

Sprinters that can be competitive on hilly and flat stages.

 

[El Pistolero]

I have to say that Cipo, one of my favourite cyclists, got extremely bad press at times. Club mates of mine hated him. I think being a successful sprinter and being disliked goes with the territory. I'll be interested to see how Cav matures as a cyclist. Kelly went from being a sprinter, though also winning Paris-Nice, to being a great classics and GT rider, I think he was 27 when he started winning classics. I'm guessing that Cav's physique is more pure sprinter than Kelly's making a similar switch more difficult.

Cipo has shown sometimes he was more than just a sprinter though. Just look at his last G-W victory. And he has a better personality for the media with all his jokes, costumes, arrogance, looks, etc

His WC win was just as boring as Cav's though. In fact, it was pretty much the same race, but with less crashes.

 

[spalco]

That's why Freire is a much better cyclist than Cavendish despite having a worser palmares.

That's nonsense. In the end the goal of a race is to win, so the only objective way to measure "quality" is wins.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

This is a good question.

Certainly he's more fallible when he doesn't have a train, but he does win plenty without one.

More interesting would be, why does he almost always fail to win the first sprint of any given GT when he is clearly the best (especially considering he tends to then win every other sprint stage he contests in the race!).

Well, this year the answer is Pettachi getting a home town decision from the commies, Romain being a mental, and a stomach upset.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sprinters that can be competitive on hilly and flat stages.

They sound like people who are not "one trick ponies".

Freire could win GT sprint stages against sprinters. Bettini could also win/finish top 3 when he wanted to, same for Boonen and Hushovd.

When the point is made how this course is ok, because it gives riders like Cavendish a chance it's only fair to respond with examples of riders who have won GT bunch sprints winning on harder courses.

I am not really arguing against what you say re the riders (except I would call most of them fast finishers as opposed to just sprinters).
But when we are discussing the actual course, todays was the first to be universally viewed as a sprinters race since Zolder in 2002.

 

[El Pistolero]

That's nonsense. In the end the goal of a race is to win, so the only objective way to measure "quality" is wins.

3 World titles > Cav's palmares then

Contador is better than Cav despite getting less wins

 

[Hawkwood]

Cipo has shown sometimes he was more than just a sprinter though. Just look at his last G-W victory. And he has a better personality for the media with all his jokes, costumes, arrogance, looks, etc

His WC win was just as boring as Cav's though. In fact, it was pretty much the same race, but with less crashes.

I agree, but it didn't stop him getting bad publicity. There was the annual here is Cipo on a beach in the second week of the Tour photo, after he'd dropped out. I liked his third G-W win the one where he bridged up to the break, that was a fantastic ride. The looks on the faces of the break-away riders when they heard he was on his way, magic.

 

[El Pistolero]

Well, this year the answer is Pettachi getting a home town decision from the commies, Romain being a mental, and a stomach upset.

The all time answer: Cav being insecure until he wins. Then he feels secure again and believes in it more.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

The all time answer: Cav being insecure until he wins. Then he feels secure again and believes in it more.

You do realise that 'explanation' gives absolutely no reason why he can't win the first sprint, but then can win the 2nd, despite the apparent confidence hit of the first loss.

 

[spalco]

3 World titles > Cav's palmares then

Possibly, that's a matter for debate I guess. But I think it's doesn't make any sense if you say rider XYZ is better than rider ABC while admitting his palmares are worse.

Contador is better than Cav despite getting less wins

Of course winning a GT general classement means more than winning a couple GT stages, duh.
It's not the naked number of wins that counts, and that's where it becomes a bit subjective maybe, but the "quality" of a cyclist is measured in wins, I'm sticking to that.

 

[rhubroma]

It was too easy...

 

[rhubroma]

Possibly, that's a matter for debate I guess. But I think it's doesn't make any sense if you say rider XYZ is better than rider ABC while admitting his palmares are worse.



Of course winning a GT general classement means more than winning a couple GT stages, duh.
It's not the naked number of wins that counts, and that's where it becomes a bit subjective maybe, but the "quality" of a cyclist is measured in wins, I'm sticking to that.

This is a purely corporate way of seeing things. With courses befiting of champions, he doesn't arrive at the front.

 

[Sørensen]

Funny, somehow I doubt there would be as many charges of "horrible course" "wheelsucker" etc if Goss or Canc would've won, whose teams did absolutely nothing for 265 km.

Cavendish deserved this!

Exactly what I'm thinking...

 

[LugHugger]

UK fans are turning my dislike for Cavendish into a dislike for UK cycling in general. Ridiculous course and a one-trick pony who hides in the peloton 99% of the time as world champion. Seriously, that's a joke. Wiggins earned the stripes today, but sadly won't be the one wearing them.

lmfao you're aware that he's a sprinter, right? the entire gb team helped cav win that race and he quite rightly acknowledged them more than once in his post-race interview.

bring on the hate, you'll find that we're more than capable of taking it

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

This is a purely corporate way of seeing things. With courses befiting of champions, he doesn't arrive at the front.

A circular argument. Cavendish can't win on a worthy course if a worthy course is defined as one Cavendish can't win on.

Presumably some of the people in this thread think that Milan-Sanremo isn't a worthy race.

 

[William H]

But when we are discussing the actual course, todays was the first to be universally viewed as a sprinters race since Zolder in 2002.

Yet the favourite was Gilbert...

 

[Tank Engine]

Frankly, as most posters I prefer more selective courses, so that the WC must show the ability to climb (at least a bit) and sprint. The course was ideal for a sprinter and we can't blame Cav for that. Certainly he hasn't won a race in the style that Cipo won G-W (before that I didn't have any time for "pure sprinters"), MSR is by far Cav's best win so far. Maybe he is a "one trick" pony, but he's the best at that trick and so he uses that to win. I hope that he might one day win by bridging up to an escape and then outsprinting them a la Cipo. Quite possibly such a day will never come, but he'll always be a great sprinter.

Also, because I'm a Brit, if it comes down to a bunch sprint, I'm going shout for Cav

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yet the favourite was Gilbert...

The 'bookies' favourite......

A quick look at the CN homepage shows what most people expected - a full on bunch sprint.

Holm picks Cavendish to win Worlds title and

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-top-10-worlds-contenders