The New World Champion! Appreciation

[simo1733]

Of course but without a viable product it wont sell. I think most people who would have followed the game in Engalnd and Italy during the 90s would still have plumped for the English version.

Agreed, but Sky TV turned the product into money.

 

[rhubroma]

I think in most sports, fans love the daring, the bold, the guys prepared to take that little extra risk, that moment of unpredictability. Likewise, most sports fans hate the negative, pragmatic, formulatic approach that athletes, teams often take. Yes, it brings success but its not what gets most peolpe hooked, especially neutral sports fans...

I do agree with your assessment, however, my view stretches beyond this: and that is a pure sprinter like Cavendish isn't a really super strong cyclist, but a specialist in an age of hyper-specialization, too much specialization in my opinion, which is why I felt the course was a pathetic falsifier of the sport.

And what of this nonsense of romantic nostalgia I've read about here? For Cavendish is no Gilbert, let alone a Paolo Bettini, or even a Thor Hushovd, I've thought; he is a hyper-specialist of the sprint and thus not a real cycling talent at all, or at least one we can take pride in. Unless we can take pride in a track sprinter-cum road racer as the mens' road world champion title holder? What a joke!

He is a false World Champion in a sport that has been falsified by this modern tendency to promote itself through spurious courses like the one in Copenhagen, I thought. While even he knows his class is limited to the last 200 meters of a flat and thoroughly manageable course and therefore can't be considered, let alone praised, as being of the same stuff of more formidable colleagues.

Really strong cyclists have big engines that can wear down the field with devastating outbursts of sustained force and energy, and stamina, repeatedly if necessary, like an evening spectacle of fireworks, whereas Cav is like a corked bottle of champagne that fizzes out more or less in an instant after it has been opened. He is a two-wheeled road charlatan, the pied piper of British cycling, and is thoroughly unworthy of the title he now holds.

 

[woodie]

I do agree with your assessment, however, my view stretches beyond this: and that is a pure sprinter like Cavendish isn't a really super strong cyclist, but a specialist in an age of hyper-specialization, too much specialization in my opinion, which is why I felt the course was a pathetic falsifier of the sport.

And what of this nonsense of romantic nostalgia I've read about here? For Cavendish is no Gilbert, let alone a Paolo Bettini, or even a Thor Hushovd, I've thought; he is a hyper-specialist of the sprint and thus not a real cycling talent at all, or at least one we can take pride in. Unless we can take pride in a track sprinter-cum road racer as the mens' road world champion title holder? What a joke!

He is a false World Champion in a sport that has been falsified by this modern tendency to promote itself through spurious courses like the one in Copenhagen, I thought. While even he knows his class is limited to the last 200 meters of a flat and thoroughly manageable course and therefore can't be considered, let alone praised, as being of the same stuff of more formidable colleagues.

Really strong cyclists have big engines that can wear down the field with devastating outbursts of sustained force and energy, and stamina, repeatedly if necessary, like an evening spectacle of fireworks, whereas Cav is like a corked bottle of champagne that fizzes out more or less in an instant after it has been opened. He is a two-wheeled road charlatan, the pied piper of British cycling, and is thoroughly unworthy of the title he now holds.

The whole world is becoming hyper-specialised. It's been heading in that direction for a while now and will continue to head in that direction in the future so it's no surprise that sport is heading in that direction.

Cycling is a sport of variety, even more so in modern times, there are guys who excel at time trialing, at sprinting, at mountains, at short steep hills, at cobbles and so on. That to me is the beauty of the sport, a bunch of different guys fighting it out for the win at once. Cav won on the course that they were provided with against all of the best sprinters in the world (minus one or two but you can only race who's there on the day) and he won.

Unworthy of the title? Do you have any idea of the work involved in becoming a pro cyclist let alone winning at that level? Yes the race was boring but everyone knew that going into it, everyone also knew team GBs strategy.

I understand everyone enjoys different parts of the sport but calling him unworthy is just unfair, they were told the course three years in advance and he worked his **** off for it. I'm sure over the next 10 years the courses will be super selective which will be great.

The course was a joke, i agree, but bashing Cav because he won on it, a course pretty much everyone tipped him on, a result everyone expected, is just childish. The race was run, Cav won, he is now a world champion. All the other teams had their chance and failed.

 

[Midnightfright]

The big question is will David Moncouties appreaciation thread have this many pages when he wins nxt year?

 

[greenedge]

The course was not hard enough but it is done and dusted. We should congratulate him for winning/ having the instinct to on a course that suited him, the course offered some opportunites to attack for Phil. Next year we shall get a hilly course ( where MR 2011 Hilly star shall probably win ) as he is favourite just like Cav was favourite here.

 

[spalco]

I think in most sports, fans love the daring, the bold, the guys prepared to take that little extra risk, that moment of unpredictability. Likewise, most sports fans hate the negative, pragmatic, formulatic approach that athletes, teams often take. Yes, it brings success but its not what gets most peolpe hooked, especially neutral sports fans.

It's not that simple, firstly people like winning, the boring winner will always have a certain amount of support. Secondly, people are subjective - why does someone like football club A and not football club B? There are a million reasons, and many of them have nothing to do with what the club's team does on the field. Most "serious" football fans would vehemently deny they like their club because it's good (which is also supported by the fact that most clubs never win anything).

And for example, in football, it doesn't get any more formulaic than what Barcelona is doing, and the Spanish national team, but it's still exciting to watch (imo) and regardless, Barcelona is easily one of the most popular clubs on the planet.

 

[Zoetemelk-fan]

Congrats to Cavendish for a great win on a beautiful course indeed.

Opportunities for a tougher course around Copenhagen are vague. Bumps of 25 meter ascent don't do any difference.

Next time the world championship visits Denmark, make the course in/nearby cities like Vejle, Horsens, Randers, Silkeborg, Aalborg or Aarhus - all cities in Jutland. Then you will get your 'classics winner'.

That said, my oppinion is, that there should be a sprinters race every 10th year.

 

[ParfaitAmour]

It's a bit like music.

Cavendish is like Coldplay. Massively popular with general public, very successful, and pretty damn good at what they do. But the 'musos' don't like them because they've got to appear cool and knowing.

So they like the struggling band which has a local following, Txurruka, but can't quite get a record deal. They're apparently better because they have 'soul' and 'feel the music'. But the muso knows that because he appreciates them, who few have heard of, and not Coldplay, it proves that he knows more about music. In time the small band gets a break and a hit. The muso disowns them.

Once Txurruka wins a race, you'll all call him a sell out.

Suddenly, I feel I like Mark 'Coldplay' Cavendish, a lot less....

 

[El Pistolero]

Olympics is maybe a good measure in athletics and swimming (and winter sports etc) but still abnormalties can happen. Also in track cycling i guess it is a big deal. And other individual smaller sports.

In a lot of team sports, probably the most main stream sports, there are bigger events. Maybe something like volleyall , water polo and hockey the exception... I don't really know.

Certainly not a fair gauge of national sports power tho.
For example spain have an amazing soccer scene etc. But at best in the olmpics they can get one medal. A lot of funding and money involved in spanish football.

Now compare that to rowing, where NZ (just a random example, I dunno if they are even good at it) could win 3,4 or maybe even 5 gold medals, for different events in a single sport. I refuse to believe 5 gold medlas from rowing, could even compare to the presence of spanish football on a global scene. That is a hard thing to achieve.

Same goes for track cycling, so many medals involved in comparison to the one gold medal avilable in the team sports.

The olympics are certainly an indication in some regards, but also pretty flawed.

Spain are very impressive in regards to the big sports.

Soccer(which feels like peanuts in the olympics soccer, they dont even send elite sqauds), Cycling - IMO the best - Basketball, Tennis. All big sports, and spain having great success.

This. GB got 8 gold medals in cycling at the Beijing Olympics. But does anyone really rate these things above 2006, 2007, 2008 Tour de France victories? I don't even rate them over a single Tour. It's just bigger.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

...
Really strong cyclists have big engines that can wear down the field with devastating outbursts of sustained force and energy, and stamina, repeatedly if necessary, like an evening spectacle of fireworks, whereas Cav is like a corked bottle of champagne that fizzes out more or less in an instant after it has been opened. He is a two-wheeled road charlatan, the pied piper of British cycling, and is thoroughly unworthy of the title he now holds.

All cyclists who "wear down the field" are only doing so to get rid of riders who can out-sprint them. Did Gilbert try to shake off the Schlecks this year? Did Kelly ever win a classic that didn't finish in a sprint? Did Matt Goss put in a turn on the front in this year's MSR?

As Cavendish is the best sprinter it is up to the rest of the field to wear him down. The fact that in this year's Worlds no-one even tried is not Cavendish's fault, it is the fault of the 180 or so non-GB riders. Who are the charlatans really?

 

[El Pistolero]

All cyclists who "wear down the field" are only doing so to get rid of riders who can out-sprint them. Did Gilbert try to shake off the Schlecks this year? Did Kelly ever win a classic that didn't finish in a sprint? Did Matt Goss put in a turn on the front in this year's MSR?

As Cavendish is the best sprinter it is up to the rest of the field to wear him down. The fact that in this year's Worlds no-one even tried is not Cavendish's fault, it is the fault of the 180 or so non-GB riders. Who are the charlatans really?

Plenty of people tried.
It's just not possible to escape the peloton sprint anymore on a totally flat stage. Something the Brits here don't seem to understand.

Goss did close down attacks at Milan-San Remo, so yeah he was in the wind.

And Gilbert did also try to shake of the Schlecks. He dropped Andy on the Saint Nicholas.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Plenty of people tried.
It's just not possible to escape the peloton sprint anymore on a totally flat stage. Something the Brits here don't seem to understand.

Goss did close down attacks at Milan-San Remo, so yeah he was in the wind.

And Gilbert did also try to shake of the Schlecks. He dropped Andy on the Saint Nicholas.

I disagree. The Belgians did have 4 guys up the road at one point but then what happened? Those in the second group gave up because there was an Italian hanging on the back. There was no concerted effort to disrupt the British chase by putting dangerous situations up the road and forcing them to work harder than they could sustain. FWIW I thought the race was tedious and the course should have been harder. But you've got to play the hand you've been dealt; GBR & Aus & GER played their hand, the rest just folded.

The total time Goss was in the wind was a handful of seconds for the whole race

Gilbert was happy enough to let that great rouleur Andy Schleck get back on once he had crested the climb.

 

[Ferminal]

All cyclists who "wear down the field" are only doing so to get rid of riders who can out-sprint them. Did Gilbert try to shake off the Schlecks this year? Did Kelly ever win a classic that didn't finish in a sprint? Did Matt Goss put in a turn on the front in this year's MSR?

As Cavendish is the best sprinter it is up to the rest of the field to wear him down. The fact that in this year's Worlds no-one even tried is not Cavendish's fault, it is the fault of the 180 or so non-GB riders. Who are the charlatans really?

He actually did just after the descent as he knew he had to chase Cancellara/Gilbert, being the fastest sprinter in the group.

 

[pmcg76]

It's not that simple, firstly people like winning, the boring winner will always have a certain amount of support. Secondly, people are subjective - why does someone like football club A and not football club B? There are a million reasons, and many of them have nothing to do with what the club's team does on the field. Most "serious" football fans would vehemently deny they like their club because it's good (which is also supported by the fact that most clubs never win anything).

And for example, in football, it doesn't get any more formulaic than what Barcelona is doing, and the Spanish national team, but it's still exciting to watch (imo) and regardless, Barcelona is easily one of the most popular clubs on the planet.

Well most football fans support their local team and those not supporting their local team usually pick the most successful team at a young age or the team their parents follow. They dont usually have any concept of what is bad or good football. I know as a child I followed the Irish soccer team fanatically but was too young to understand they played rubbish football. Pretty much everyone in Ireland follows one of the big 4 in English Premier league.

Barcelona's formula is to play attacking football with highly talented players and is usually amazing to watch. Its not pragmatic or negative. That would be Jose Mourinho team's so in cycling terms that would be the equivilant of what happened on Sunday or Levi Leipheimer.

 

[woodie]

He actually did just after the descent as he knew he had to chase Cancellara/Gilbert, being the fastest sprinter in the group.

Actually he didn't pull a turn, he followed wheels. He didn't shut down any attacks, he instead sat back and let the others chase. He closed one gap onto Ballan's wheels who was on Pozzato's when Pozzato had already shut down Gilbert. Here's a replay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2oYkAwzUU

He played it perfectly

 

[Angliru]

I wasn't saying that. I think the importance of the olympics in some sports (including cycling) is way overhyped and I don't agree that it is the best measure of how countries stack up against each other as sporting nations hence why I said lol.

Overhyped by the media or the athletes competing? If you look at the expressions on the faces and efforts put forth by the select group sprinting for the win in Beijing in 2008, I would say the importance of that event couldn't be hyped enough. The only letdown was the Chinese limiting those viewing on the final circuit to a very select few, lessening the visual image and lessening the atmosphere for the athletes.

 

[spalco]

Barcelona's formula is to play attacking football with highly talented players and is usually amazing to watch. Its not pragmatic or negative. That would be Jose Mourinho team's so in cycling terms that would be the equivilant of what happened on Sunday or Levi Leipheimer.

Yes, but what Barcelona is doing now is the result of many years of very careful, consistent planning from the ground up. The running- and pass-routes and formations on the field are drilled into the youth players from a very young age. Barcelona's style does allow (and need) a certain amount of creativity from key players, but what you see Barcelona do in the Champions League and Primera Division is only the peak of a huge iceberg of systematically working towards success and almost every step a player makes on the field is pre-trained and almost choreographed. It looks spectacular, but it's not individualistic in a strict sense.

 

[Ragerod]

Would just like to make one more non cycling analogy here, in the 90s Italian football was regarded as the No 1 football nation(clubs) in Europe, they were highly successful winning European titles for fun but the Italian defensive style of play was regarded as boring to watch.

In contrast English football was nowhere having returned from the post Hysel European ban but the game in England was always regarded as exciting to watch and has always been the most watched League in the world becasue of that. As a result, the Premier league attracted the big money and married to the atmosphere in English grounds and style of play, attracted the best players and is now possibley the No 1 league in the World. It wasnt success that got the Premier league to the top, it was other factors. Italian football in contrast is now dying on its feet.

Just because you've made two observations doesn't mean they're directly related.

The demise of Italian football happened in the 00s because of spiralling debts and more significantly match fixing & corruption. The rise of English football is all to do with the Premier League (the organisation, not the actual league) and Sky exploiting live football and marketing aggressively in new markets such as Asia. The entertainment level has very little to do with it. The Premier League were selling a very polished product whilst everyone else was trying to get their act together.

Italian football has never been the most entertaining but it was watched because it contained the best players in the World. The same philosophy is true today, lower league football in England is more entertaining than the premier league but it doesn't have the best players, so it's following is smaller.

 

[rhubroma]

All cyclists who "wear down the field" are only doing so to get rid of riders who can out-sprint them. Did Gilbert try to shake off the Schlecks this year? Did Kelly ever win a classic that didn't finish in a sprint? Did Matt Goss put in a turn on the front in this year's MSR?

As Cavendish is the best sprinter it is up to the rest of the field to wear him down. The fact that in this year's Worlds no-one even tried is not Cavendish's fault, it is the fault of the 180 or so non-GB riders. Who are the charlatans really?

Ah but you conveniently forget that such requires a course that permits the stronger riders to eliminate the weaker ones.

The truth is that with a tough Worlds course, Cavendish finishes, if he finishes at all, 10-12 minutes behind the likes of a Gilbert or an Evans or a Contador or a Schleck, whereas Cancellara took fourth at this event in a bunch sprint.

This is the difference in quality and caliber of such riders and such courses, while I find that a World Championship course needs to award a racer of high caliber which requires a suitable course. This doesn't mean necessarily high mountains, or even desirably, just something that allows the really strong riders to express themselves over the merely fast ones.

And I can't understand, frankly, all the debate over this.

Having raced at a pretty high level and not being a sprinter, I understand the difference between winning frequently and the actual quality of one's engine. Because the difference between being fast and being strong, is tike the difference between meters and kilometers.

 

[patterson_hood]

Ah but you conveniently forget that such requires a course that permits the stronger riders to eliminate the weaker ones.

The truth is that with a tough Worlds course, Cavendish finishes, if he finishes at all, 10-12 minutes behind the likes of a Gilbert or an Evans or a Contador or a Schleck, whereas Cancellara took fourth at this event in a bunch sprint.

This is the difference in quality and caliber of such riders and such courses, while I find that a World Championship course needs to award a racer of high caliber which requires a suitable course. This doesn't mean necessarily high mountains, or even desirably, just something that allows the really strong riders to express themselves over the merely fast ones.

And I can't understand, frankly, all the debate over this.

Having raced at a pretty high level and not being a sprinter, I understand the difference between winning frequently and the actual quality of one's engine. Because the difference between being fast and being strong, is tike the difference between meters and kilometers.

Basically, you prefer Bekele to Bolt.

 

[El Pistolero]

Basically, you prefer Bekele to Bolt.

Bekele does not and never will compete against Bolt. Please don't try and compare cycling to track and field. Because I do like Bolt a lot and don't give a sh*t about sprinters in cycling. Bolt does it in 9 seconds, not 6 hours of a complete waste of time. *

* I'm only talking about totally flat stages without any obstacle in them. The stage Greipel won in the Tour was one of my favorite ones.

 

[patterson_hood]

Bekele does not and never will compete against Bolt. Please don't try and compare cycling to track and field. Because I do like Bolt a lot and don't give a sh*t about sprinters in cycling. Bolt does it in 9 seconds, not 6 hours of a complete waste of time. *

* I'm only talking about totally flat stages without any obstacle in them. The stage Greipel won in the Tour was one of my favorite ones.

Why not compare them? They may not compete against each other but that's exactly the same as in cycling, you don't get Schleck or Contador going for the sprints just as you don't get Cav and Greipel going your the MTFs. Just because they are all riding in the same stage doesn't mean they are all competing for it.

 

[El Pistolero]

Why not compare them? They may not compete against each other but that's exactly the same as in cycling, you don't get Schleck or Contador going for the sprints just as you don't get Cav and Greipel going your the MTFs. Just because they are all riding in the same stage doesn't mean they are all competing for it.

Puncheurs, time trial specialists à la Cancellara and sprinters can definitely compete against one and other as long as the race has some decent obstacles in it. This WC didn't have a single obstacle in it and it's the reason why so many people see it as a joke.

Besides, Vinokourov won a flat stage at the Tour once Sure, he only did it for the time bonuses and the sprinter teams were already decimated at that point of the race, but he still won one.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Some humour..

The forum if it existed in the 40's.

 

[Hawkwood]

Bekele does not and never will compete against Bolt. Please don't try and compare cycling to track and field. Because I do like Bolt a lot and don't give a sh*t about sprinters in cycling. Bolt does it in 9 seconds, not 6 hours of a complete waste of time. *

* I'm only talking about totally flat stages without any obstacle in them. The stage Greipel won in the Tour was one of my favorite ones.

Hang on doesn't Bolt only win on flat courses?