Haven't a clue to be honest, but I highly doubt that they signed him to win Fleche anywaysWhy do you think they signed Merlier?
Haven't a clue to be honest, but I highly doubt that they signed him to win Fleche anywaysWhy do you think they signed Merlier?
Why wouldn't that be happening? I can still see Mauri come very close to winning Fleche if he didn't crash.Then if Remco is not riding Fleche, and Julian is not riding Fleche, who will be leading the team there? I know Van Wilder isn't riding Fleche, so that basically leaves only Bagioli who could try to get a top 10. Can't see Mauri pull that off, unless from a break, which isn't happening.
I hesitate to spend too much time on this since I don’t disagree with your overall conclusions too much, but I think we’re somewhat disagreeing about the definition of “close to peak.” To me, “close to peak” is Froome winning the 2017 Tour by a minute over Uran. Still in winning form with no obvious injuries or training issues but clearly not quite his dominant self.Number one, fractured vertebrae require months, not weeks, to heal (I know, because I've had them), but compressed vertebrae, depending on the severity, could take far less time. Secondly, an out of form Roglic gets dropped on the winning TTT, that he didn't indicates the form was more than decent at the start of the Vuelta. Thirdly a "far from best" Roglic doesn't loose just 1"22' to Remco and Mas on stage 6, but like 12 minutes and drops completely out of contention. Thirdly, an out of shape Roglic doesn't suddenly become the best climber in the race after Remco's fall. None of these things make logical sense.
So the narrative that doesn't add up to me, based on his actual performances, is the one that says a half-ass Roglic showed up at the Vuelta. I will concede that in the beginning he wasn't at his very best, but again he could not have been far off the mark to ride strongly in the TTT and then keep himself in contention after the first mountain stages, to then get himself up to full flight, doubtless as was planned, by the end of week two. Moreover, with the numbers Remco was putting up, Primoz would have had to been near top shape to remain in the GC race.
Because he isn't Remco. And because now they know who he is. And because he was never going to win in 2020 either.Why wouldn't that be happening? I can still see Mauri come very close to winning Fleche if he didn't crash.
Well as much as I like Rigoberto Uran, Evenepoel is made of another stuff. As I've been suggesting, there is a huge difference between "far off his best" and losing only 1"22' on stage 6, to then bounce back in week two. To me that speaks of arriving at the start slightly below optimal form, to then get there in 10 days or so.I hesitate to spend too much time on this since I don’t disagree with your overall conclusions too much, but I think we’re somewhat disagreeing about the definition of “close to peak.” To me, “close to peak” is Froome winning the 2017 Tour by a minute over Uran. Still in winning form with no obvious injuries or training issues but clearly not quite his dominant self.
Vs. clearly performing below norm and dropping early on climbs unexpectedly where the conclusion to me is “off form.” I guess I view it slightly more in binary terms. Are you at peak form or not? Roglic was not. Maybe he only lost 1:22 on that stage, but he dropped early and was nowhere, which was very uncharacteristic.
Having said that, Remco was very good in the Vuelta.
Well as much as I like Rigoberto Uran, Evenepoel is made of another stuff. As I've been suggesting, there is a huge difference between "far off his best" and losing only 1"22' on stage 6, to then bounce back in week two. To me that speaks of arriving at the start slightly below optimal form, to then get there in 10 days or so.
OKAnd had he not just won stage 4?
he was not “far off his best”.
That's the thing, i think nobody here was talking about 10-15%. Which is my entire point. With that kind of efficiency he would have lost 5-10 minutes in stage 6. So "far from his best" means different things to different people and especially when it concerns a cyclist who's trying to win a 3 week race. One will express that in time "90 seconds" while another will express that in percentages. And we all know 90 seconds does not equal 15%. If that were the case you could still top 10 in a GT at 75%.So had he been "far from his best" (and I take this to mean in the order of 10-15 percent off top form, not 1 percent) he would have already been definitively out of all hopes for a good GC result before the ITT, not standing 2nd overall after stage 10, with no chance at fighting back into a race winning bid. When someone says "far off his best," I'm thinking Fignon Tour 86 and not Roglic Vuelta 22, but call me crazy.
Got it. As I've said, to me "far from his best" signifies out of contention, like Fignon at the 86 Tour, whereas "lacking a bit of something" (which arguably could have been Roglic's case the first 10 days) means you've still got a GC fighting chance.That's the thing, i think nobody here was talking about 10-15%. Which is my entire point. With that kind of efficiency he would have lost 5-10 minutes in stage 6. So "far from his best" means different things to different people and especially when it concerns a cyclist who's trying to win a 3 week race. One will express that in time "90 seconds" while another will express that in percentages. And we all know 90 seconds does not equal 15%. If that were the case you could still top 10 in a GT at 75%.
So this is exactly what i meant.
Ok, then the next thing you need to do is make sure you don't apply double standards. For instance, i think it's fair to say Remco was quite a bit removed from his best (1st week Vuelta form) when he was doing Itzulia last year. He was definitely still in contention, since he only lost GC by 20-ish seconds. So how far off his best do you think he was there?Got it. As I've said, to me "far from his best" signifies out of contention, like Fignon at the 86 Tour, whereas "lacking a bit of something" (which arguably could have been Roglic's case the first 10 days) means you've still got a GC fighting chance.
However, there's a chasm between "out of contention" versus "having a fighting chance." If I had to put numbers on it then say 85-90 percent of full capacity for the former case, versus 97-98 percent of top form for the latter. Any which way one measures it, I think to say Roglic was "far from his best" doesn't hold up to his actual performances and is mostly to suggest Remco had weak competition.
To the bolded, I don't believe arguing for the true measure of Roglic's form as "not far off his best" (meaning "not as weak and unprepared" as some have been suggesting), based on his actual performances, is to paint Remco in more florid colors. Mine was simply a response to address what seemed like a claim of convenience, if not an outright excuse, which did not hold up to his actual performances in the race. At the same time I recognize that Roglic's arrival at the Vuelta was complicated, but that doesn't mean his preparation was inadequite. Yet doubtless it wasn't ideal. So that should lay to rest any notion that I've consciously been overplaying his condition, just to cast Evenepoel's win in a more favorable light (to the extent others have unquestionably claimed Roglic's form was utterly compromised at the start to demean Remco's victory).Ok, then the next thing you need to do is make sure you don't apply double standards. For instance, i think it's fair to say Remco was quite a bit removed from his best (1st week Vuelta form) when he was doing Itzulia last year. He was definitely still in contention, since he only lost GC by 20-ish seconds. So how far off his best do you think he was there?
No need to answer that question, since it will just spur a new debate, but you get my meaning. While i agree some people might diminish Roglic' form in order to diminish Evenepoel's performance, the opposite is also true. By presenting Roglic as "almost as good as ever", Evenepoel's performance will look more impressive. And none of us know exactly how far Roglic was from his best level, so you could just as well be debating what "nice weather" means exactly. And it doesn't matter either. He won, he won deservedly, his power numbers were there.
But that's easy to say for a guy who would ride every GT if he could, because he doesn't ride for GC.
That was interesting. I just had to go and order some Sint Bernardus today. Thank you Logic.
I won’t repeat Logics point just above; I’ll just say that my expectation is that Roglic will not lose over a minute on the first mid mountain stage, not that he will destroy Remco.To the bolded, I don't believe arguing for the true measure of Roglic's form as "not far off his best" (meaning "not as weak and unprepared" as some have been suggesting), based on his actual performances, is to paint Remco in more florid colors. Mine was simply a response to address what seemed like a claim of convenience, if not an outright excuse, which did not hold up to his actual performances in the race. At the same time I recognize that Roglic's arrival at the Vuelta was complicated, but that doesn't mean his preparation was inadequite. Yet doubtless it wasn't ideal. So that should lay to rest any notion that I've consciously been overplaying his condition, just to cast Evenepoel's win in a more favorable light (to the extent others have unquestionably claimed Roglic's form was utterly compromised at the start to demean Remco's victory).
At any rate, if his form was as deficient as some have claimed, then, preparation permitting, he should obtain a much higher level at the Giro, destroy Remco and prove me wrong. Let us wait and see.
I'm not sure about what your expectation concerning Roglic has to do with Logic's post, but the rest of your assessment seems fair. There is a difference, however, between asserting that Primoz wasn't in top form on stage 6 and he was "far from his best" to diminish Evenepoel's performance and overall triumph, as others have done.I won’t repeat Logics point just above; I’ll just say that my expectation is that Roglic will not lose over a minute on the first mid mountain stage, not that he will destroy Remco.
I don’t think it is inconsistent to say that what we know about prep + results of stage 6 of the Vuelta indicates he was off form but also that if he is at full strength, I am still not sure he is the favorite. Co-favorite sure, but I’d probably bet on Remco.
As regards the next Giro, well, we'll have to see, especially now that Remco's got that first grand tour under his belt. In a logical sequence of progression he should be stronger in 23 than in 22, and, with the transformative effects completing a 3 week race (and at what level) is said to have upon a rider's development, the sky would seem to be his limit. Of course, things could not go according to the forecast or plans (an inopportune crash or illness, simply not living up to expectations, etc.).
Someone like Colbrelli, who has a bit more passion for racing and is an intelligente road racer, would have gone to Australia, find Remco wheel and sit on it and win the world championships.Mads Pedersen on why he didn't attend the WCC:
“Oh, I have zero regrets about that decision. After one week in the Vuelta I had already predicted that to everyone: Evenepoel is going to crush us all in Australia. And I 'm not about to go to Australia for ten days to finish second in the best scenario. He was super impressive in the Vuelta. And that's the way he rides, right? Just attack from afar, where he also has Wout van Aert at the WCC. Not that he got a free ticket, far from it, but if the rest looks a bit at Van Aert, the path is even more open for him.”
