Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread

[Ripper]

I dismiss it because you didn’t make much of a case. It was sheer conjecture. But sure, “overly sensitive fans” must be it.

But in all seriousness my comment had as much to do with the thread in general, and the hand wringing and conjecture of a great many posts as it did with yours. That one just made me chuckle a bit. I think folks might be starting to take all this a bit too seriously. Twitter feuds amongst grown men in tights on bikes. Sometimes you just gotta laugh!

Peace, my friend, and apologies for jumping on your post.

It's just the beginning of the month, but this might be the winner for quote of the month.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

It's a huge important race not the Tour of Britain.

Van Aert has won one Monument so he's far from unbeatable.

99/100 was a figure of speach. It's possible it's only 98/100 or 73/100. Let's settle for "more often than not".

How many monuments do you think Alaphilippe has won?

 

[Volderke]

It's just the beginning of the month, but this might be the winner for quote of the month.

Congrats on post #7000!

 

[Volderke]

Plot twist:
There is a documentary next Sunday on Belgian tv with images from the Belgian car. It seems indeed, from the first footage, that evenepoel was supposed to cover dangerous moves, even from far out, but there were guys from the team next to the road with signs. Remco ignored a “Do not pull” sign and Vanthourenhout wasn’t happy when he saw that during the race.
Vanthourenhout also noticed that remco pulled way too much (“he is almost dropping declercq several times” Vanthourenhout noticed).
They also noticed that evenepoel was driving very hard before the finale, and that he “would have lasted another round” if he took it a bit easier.

This confirms my thoughts that remco obeyed team orders, but with a rebellious twist, just to show the outside world he was this good.
And while I said before it's mostly Vanthourenhout to blame, I feel Remco, especially after his TV appearance, should take a really good look in the mirror before he says all kinds of thinks in a very (played?) naive way, claiming he only did what he was asked to do.

So he pretended to be a teamplayer, and clearly this was against his nature. You could even say merckx was right: Remco is not used to working for others, and with his talent, he will probably never learn this. But should he?
Because you could say that you shouldn’t try to tame a wild horse like remco. Just let him roam free…

 

[Extinction]

Plot twist:
There is a documentary next Sunday on Belgian tv with images from the Belgian car. It seems indeed, from the first footage, that evenepoel was supposed to cover dangerous moves, even from far out, but there were guys from the team next to the road with signs. Remco ignored a “Do not pull” sign and Vanthourenhout wasn’t happy when he saw that during the race.
Vanthourenhout also noticed that remco pulled way too much (“he is almost dropping declercq several times” Vanthourenhout noticed).
They also noticed that evenepoel was driving very hard before the finale, and that he “would have lasted another round” if he took it a bit easier.

This confirms my thoughts that remco obeyed team orders, but with a rebellious twist, just to show the outside world he was this good.
And while I said before it's mostly Vanthourenhout to blame, I feel Remco, especially after his TV appearance, should take a really good look in the mirror before he says all kinds of thinks in a very (played?) naive way, claiming he only did what he was asked to do.

So he pretended to be a teamplayer, and clearly this was against his nature. You could even say merckx was right: Remco is not used to working for others, and with his talent, he will probably never learn this. But should he?
Because you could say that you shouldn’t try to tame a wild horse like remco. Just let him roam free…

Of course he was told to go in the early moves, despite later assertions to the contrary. But what should Remco say? Those who need to take a good look in the mirror are none other than Vantheorenhourt and Van Aert for utterly wasting the young man's talent to be left with nothing in the end.

 

[Volderke]

Of course he was told to go in the early moves, despite later assertions to the contrary. But what should Remco say? Those who need to take a good look in the mirror are none other than Vantheorenhourt and Van Aert for utterly wasting the young man's talent to be left with nothing in the end.

But the way he rode, he waisted his potential to last longer in the finale, on purpose. There was no good reason to ride hard from this far out. He didn’t make the best of his role and this didn’t serve him and the team.

Remco can't complain he had the legs to win, and at the same time pull in breaks going from 180K out while he was even ordered not to pull in those breaks. It's one or the other. And if he made that analysis himself, he wouldn't say on TV he had the legs to win, OR, he would say it, and say, in the same sentence, that he compromised his chances himself by pulling too hard / too enthusiastically from 180K out.

 

[Netserk]

Plot twist:
There is a documentary next Sunday on Belgian tv with images from the Belgian car. It seems indeed, from the first footage, that evenepoel was supposed to cover dangerous moves, even from far out, but there were guys from the team next to the road with signs. Remco ignored a “Do not pull” sign and Vanthourenhout wasn’t happy when he saw that during the race.
Vanthourenhout also noticed that remco pulled way too much (“he is almost dropping declercq several times” Vanthourenhout noticed).
They also noticed that evenepoel was driving very hard before the finale, and that he “would have lasted another round” if he took it a bit easier.

This at least would make the official strategy more sensible. It will be good with images from the team car to document what the plan on the day was.

Now, was Evenepoel daft, or was he willingly sabotaging the team strategy?

 

[wheresmybrakes]

This lad is not the first domestique who has had better legs than their leader and could have possibly won the race and he won't be the last. All this whining just because the Belgians, on their own roads, in front of their home fans, with the favourite/s to win the race, lost and (possibly?) made a mess of team tactics. Again, Belgium are not the first team to make a mockery of themselves and won't be the last, spare a thought for Movistar!

 

[Red Rick]

This lad is not the first domestique who has had better legs than their leader and could have possibly won the race and he won't be the last. All this whining just because the Belgians, on their own roads, in front of their home fans, with the favourite/s to win the race, lost and (possibly?) made a mess of team tactics. Again, Belgium are not the first team to make a mockery of themselves and won't be the last, spare a thought for Movistar!

Movistars best team tactics have been ironically at the WC in 2013

 

[Extinction]

But the way he rode, he waisted his potential to last longer in the finale, on purpose. There was no good reason to ride hard from this far out. He didn’t make the best of his role and this didn’t serve him and the team.

Remco can't complain he had the legs to win, and at the same time pull in breaks going from 180K out while he was even ordered not to pull in those breaks. It's one or the other. And if he made that analysis himself, he wouldn't say on TV he had the legs to win, OR, he would say it, and say, in the same sentence, that he compromised his chances himself by pulling too hard / too enthusiastically from 180K out.

In disagree, he was used up mostly from 50 k out to 26 k, when he had to sit up, and at that time Wout was sitting comfortably in his slipstream. The real problem is the tactic was all wrong, not how Remco interpreted it, and if I were in his position I'd have pulled like a fiend just out of spite: also because there was no need to use Remco in the early moves.

He rather should have been saved for the last 50 k period and only to cover moves and, then, from the Leuven circuit, stay at the front to be ready to go into action should Wout, as effectively was the case, not have the legs. And the only plausible reason to place Remco on donkey duty from so far out, was to clip his wings so as not to be an asset deep into the race. Well it's rather poor form to then say "we told him to be in the early breaks, but we didn't expect him to pull so hard to be useful later on." Come on, had they sincerely wanted to rely on Evenepoel deep into the race they should have only deployed him, in fact, deep into the race.

Besides I doubt he was really ordered in no uncertain terms to absolutely not pull in the early breaks anyway, at least initially, but was probably told to make sure other nations like Italy and the Netherlands had to work their butts off to reel them back. You can't have it both ways, however.

 

[limak_]

Plot twist:
There is a documentary next Sunday on Belgian tv with images from the Belgian car. It seems indeed, from the first footage, that evenepoel was supposed to cover dangerous moves, even from far out, but there were guys from the team next to the road with signs. Remco ignored a “Do not pull” sign and Vanthourenhout wasn’t happy when he saw that during the race.
Vanthourenhout also noticed that remco pulled way too much (“he is almost dropping declercq several times” Vanthourenhout noticed).
They also noticed that evenepoel was driving very hard before the finale, and that he “would have lasted another round” if he took it a bit easier.

This confirms my thoughts that remco obeyed team orders, but with a rebellious twist, just to show the outside world he was this good.
And while I said before it's mostly Vanthourenhout to blame, I feel Remco, especially after his TV appearance, should take a really good look in the mirror before he says all kinds of thinks in a very (played?) naive way, claiming he only did what he was asked to do.

So he pretended to be a teamplayer, and clearly this was against his nature. You could even say merckx was right: Remco is not used to working for others, and with his talent, he will probably never learn this. But should he?
Because you could say that you shouldn’t try to tame a wild horse like remco. Just let him roam free…

Now, how do you define "dangerous moves"? Could any move made at 180 km to go be even considered as a dangerous one? This is such an imprecise expression. A guy like Remco should've be given very clear and precise orders like "stay with Wout as long as possible, don't cover any moves until 30km to go".

Second thing, what was the logic behind giving Remco such a role? I've always thought that you use your domestiques starting from the weakest ones first.. Belgium had so many strong riders and practacally each one of them could've easily follow any seemingly dangerous move. I'm really curious what exactly Remco was told at the team meeting before the race.

 

[Rackham]

Now, how do you define "dangerous moves"? Could any move made at 180 km to go be even considered as a dangerous one? This is such an imprecise expression. A guy like Remco should've be given very clear and precise orders like "stay with Wout as long as possible, don't cover any moves until 30km to go".

Second thing, what was the logic behind giving Remco such a role? I've always thought that you use your domestiques starting from the weakest ones first.. Belgium had so many strong riders and practacally each single of them could've easily follow any seemingly dangerous move. I'm really curious what exactly Remco was told at the team meeting before the race.

It's pretty clear Belgium wanted Evenepoel to force their rivals to pull & do the work (which entailed going on the attack early), whilst leaving WvA's other teammates fresher to work on closing down moves & doing the sprint train at the end. That's evidently what Evenepoel was deployed to do. And it worked, first with the Italians (remember, Colbrelli was considered a major, major threat) & then when team GB did the chasing behind the second major move featuring Evenepoel.

It's a pretty common tactic for teams to use a strong rider as bait to force others into working. So I think that's what happened based on what we saw.

If there's an argument with regards to how hard Evenepoel pulled, then it's not something we from the outside can easily judge (although in my opinion it seriously looks like some in Belgium might be deflecting blame here onto Evenepoel because WvA simply didn't have the legs to finish the job when it mattered).

 

[Netserk]

If there's an argument with regards to how hard Evenepoel pulled, then it's not something we from the outside can easily judge

Why not? We could easily see how long he lasted and how the gap to the group behind changed.

I questioned how smart it was to pull as hard as he did as it happened. I think it was quite clear that the upside was greater if he lasted say a lap more on the Leuven circuit.

 

[limak_]

It's pretty clear Belgium wanted Evenepoel to force their rivals to pull & do the work (which entailed going on the attack early), whilst leaving WvA's other teammates fresher to work on closing down moves & doing the sprint train at the end. That's evidently what Evenepoel was deployed to do. And it worked, first with the Italians (remember, Colbrelli was considered a major, major threat) & then when team GB did the chasing behind the second major move featuring Evenepoel.

It's a pretty common tactic for teams to use a strong rider as bait to force others into working. So I think that's what happened based on what we saw.

If there's an argument with regards to how hard Evenepoel pulled, then it's not something we from the outside can easily judge (although in my opinion it seriously looks like some in Belgium might be deflecting blame here onto Evenepoel because WvA simply didn't have the legs to finish the job when it mattered).

So you intentionally put a strong rider in the front to make others chase and then complain that this rider is working way too much and you're trying to slow him down... Then, why not to use any other guy, who's not that strong. You wouldn't have to worry that he'd go too fast...

And did this tactic really work? In the first place it was more like a huge mistake from Italy that they haven't put anyone in the first move, then GB did the same mistake. Italy would've pulled anyway, no matter if there was Remco or another Belgian guy in the group that they were absent. Eventually, Colbrelli was present in the final group (together with Nizzolo) and I don't think he would've been any less fresh or would've had more support if Italy hadn't had to chase Remco at the beginning. Italy wasted Trentin, Belgium wasted Remco. It wasn't such a win-win situation for the latter that you're trying to present.

 

[Rackham]

So you intentionally put a strong rider in the front to make others chase and then complain that this rider is working way too much and you're trying to slow him down... Then, why not to use any other guy, who's not that strong. You wouldn't have to worry that he'd go too fast...

And did this tactic really work? In the first place it was more like a huge mistake from Italy that they haven't put anyone in the first move, then GB did the same mistake. Italy would've pulled anyway, no matter if there was Remco or another Belgian guy in the group that they were absent. Eventually, Colbrelli was present in the final group (together with Nizzolo) and I don't think he would've been any less fresh or would've had more support if Italy hadn't had to chase Remco at the beginning. Italy wasted Trentin, Belgium wasted Remco. It wasn't such a win-win situation for the latter that you're trying to present.

It really only works as a tactic if the rider deployed in the early break is considered a major threat by the other teams; with Evenepoel in this instance being the big name meant to force others into action. Because the theory says rival teams must view that rider as a potential winner (or else it's just another doomed breakaway). It's like saying "we're happy if you guys work & bring him back because we've got WvA sitting here doing no work, but if you want to let Remco get several minutes here, that's also fine by us".

And regarding the final pull by Evenepoel (which resulted in him blowing up), WvA was right on his wheel so he could have communicated with him if there really was a tactical disagreement.

I don't know, but it just seems like massive, massive "splitting hairs" from the Belgians who're looking to blame anything other than the obvious fact WvA simply wasn't good enough on the day. And it's not so much "tactically" that the Belgian coaches failed, but rather their literal deification of WvA to the point no one else was considered a potential winner within the same team. That just comes across as total mismanagement of their forces on the day.

 

[Netserk]

It really only works as a tactic if the rider deployed in the early break is considered a major threat by the other teams; with Evenepoel in this instance being the big name meant to force others into action. Because the theory says rival teams must view that rider as a potential winner (or else it's just another doomed breakaway). It's like saying "we're happy if you guys work & bring him back because we've got WvA sitting here doing no work, but if you want to let Remco get several minutes here, that's also fine by us".

And regarding the final pull by Evenepoel (which resulted in him blowing up), WvA was right on his wheel so he could have communicated with him if there really was a tactical disagreement.

I don't know, but it just seems like massive, massive "splitting hairs" from the Belgians who're looking to blame anything other than the obvious fact WvA simply wasn't good enough on the day. And it's not so much "tactically" that the Belgian coaches failed, but rather their literal deification of WvA to the point no one else was considered a potential winner within the same team. That just comes across as total mismanagement of their forces on the day.

Evenepoel was the only one who knew how long he could keep that tempo. Depending on what he was told, it was up to him to measure his effort correctly.

 

[Rackham]

Evenepoel was the only one who knew how long he could keep that tempo. Depending on what he was told, it was up to him to measure his effort correctly.

Couldn't the same be said about WvA?

He literally looked on the limit when Alaphilippe first put in a major dig (head down & a gap opened up). So having Evenepoel set a huge tempo when none of the real favorites of the day were behind (unless he thought Pogacar & Roglic were serious threats) would only make sense if he himself also felt good to the point a fast tempo which dissuaded attacks & kept the race at a fast pace is what he wanted in order to drive it to the line for a sprint finish.

 

[Extinction]

It really only works as a tactic if the rider deployed in the early break is considered a major threat by the other teams; with Evenepoel in this instance being the big name meant to force others into action. Because the theory says rival teams must view that rider as a potential winner (or else it's just another doomed breakaway). It's like saying "we're happy if you guys work & bring him back because we've got WvA sitting here doing no work, but if you want to let Remco get several minutes here, that's also fine by us".

And regarding the final pull by Evenepoel (which resulted in him blowing up), WvA was right on his wheel so he could have communicated with him if there really was a tactical disagreement.

I don't know, but it just seems like massive, massive "splitting hairs" from the Belgians who're looking to blame anything other than the obvious fact WvA simply wasn't good enough on the day. And it's not so much "tactically" that the Belgian coaches failed, but rather their literal deification of WvA to the point no one else was considered a potential winner within the same team. That just comes across as total mismanagement of their forces on the day.

I understand putting Evenepoel in early action to forse Belgium's adversaries to expend lots of energy to bring him back. That makes tactical sense with a caveat, however, namely you don't do that have him pull again from 50 k out and then complain that you don't have him in the end. If Belgium had said they were willing to sacrifice Remco at the altar of Wout Van Aert to wittle down rival teams that's fine, but one should also consider if the advantages gained are offset by those lost by not having him as an asset at the end.

Whilst I think it's patently unfair to expect to have it both ways, that is have Remco work his arse of from the first moves and then expect to utilze him at the end of the race. As it turned out, clearly Belgium got nothing in return for pretty much ensuring that Remco would not have arrived with Wout deep into the race when in fact he could have been most useful. I suspect that Van Aert expected to dominate and thus having the young lad at the end would have been "moot" (and if a flat, a mechanical, a crssh? - having two cards to play at the end of a race is always better than one). And even if he wasn't on the best of days, I doubt Wout would have wanted Remco there in the final to be in position to win the race in his stead. For nothing could be worse than Remco taking glory over Wout, isn't that it?

If I were in Remco's shoes and was told to work early on and that under no circumstances could I go for the win at the end, not even as plan B, I'd have done the same. You want me to work from the first moves and have me out of all equations in the end, even if plan A isn't working? Alright, I'll do it, and when I do I'm gonna pull these m-fers till their legs are nailed to the cross. You don't want me to have any chance of winning? After I've been told how selfish I am, that I won't sacrifice my own chances to work for the team so that somebody else wins. Well, ok then, you're gonna get what you asked for!

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Evenepoel was the only one who knew how long he could keep that tempo. Depending on what he was told, it was up to him to measure his effort correctly.

He had been in the offense from 180k to go and had gone in the main break twice. With him doing all the work between Overijse and Leuven, don't you think that maybe it was to be expected that his candle was dying?

Regardless of tactics and regardless of him doing what he was asked or not, that had to have been expected that just "maybe" he was running on empty.

 

[Riek s]

don't understand the statement "if he went a bit easier he would have survived another round". As if after pulling 30km a little less hard would have allowed him to stay in the wheels of the group when Alla went on the attack... he would have been roasted either way.... unless he wouldn't need to pull at all, or it was distributed over the group.. But as it stand, Alla attacked on each of the climbs, no way you can follow this if you need to drive on all the flat sections.

 

[Rackham]

I understand putting Evenepoel in early action to forse Belgium's adversaries to expend lots of energy to bring him back. That makes tactical sense with a caveat, however, namely you don't do that have him pull again from 50 k out and then complain that you don't have him in the end. If Belgium had said they were willing to sacrifice Remco at the altar of Wout Van Aert to wittle down rival teams that's fine, but one should also consider if the advantages gained are offset by those lost by not having him as an asset at the end.

Whilst I think it's patently unfair to expect to have it both ways, that is have Remco work his arse of from the first moves and then expect to utilze him at the end of the race. As it turned out, clearly Belgium got nothing in return for pretty much ensuring that Remco would not have arrived with Wout deep into the race when in fact he could have been most useful. I suspect that Van Aert expected to dominate and thus having the young lad at the end was moot. And even if he wasn't on the best of days, I doubt Wout would have wanted Remco there in the final to be in position to win the race in his stead. For nothing could be worse than Remco taking glory over Wout, isn't that it?

If I were in Remco's shoes and was told to work early on and that under no circumstances could I go for the win at the end, I'd have done the same. You want me to work from the first moves and have me out of all equations in the end, even if plan A isn't working? Alright, I'll do it, and when I do I'm gonna pull these m-fers till their legs are nailed to the cross. You don't want me to have any chance of winning? After I've been told how selfish I am, that I won't sacrifice my own chances to work for the team so that somebody else wins. Well, ok then, you're gonna get what you asked for!

Indeed. And that's pretty much the crux of the matter, i.e. something which started long before the race: WvA was portrayed as Belgium's winner & Evenepoel was seen as only useful if he was an obedient little pup who accepted he had no chance of winning himself. And that's what he's still been judged on, i.e. with the conversation now shifting towards "how much did Evenepoel damage WvA's chances?" questions.

But the huge elephant in the room is the fact Evenepoel was arguably no weaker or worse than WvA on the day & could thus justifiably have tried his own luck for the win. In a race where Jasper Stuyven was eventually & belatedly told to go for it himself (& was therefor deployed as Belgium's best rider in the final 20km), I think it's totally fair to say Remco Evenepoel could have gone for it if the Belgians had set up differently for the race & not thrown all their eggs in the WvA basket.

 

[Netserk]

He had been in the offense from 180k to go and had gone in the main break twice. With him doing all the work between Overijse and Leuven, don't you think that maybe it was to be expected that his candle was dying?

Regardless of tactics and regardless of him doing what he was asked or not, that had to have been expected that just "maybe" he was running on empty.

I never implied the opposite. Of course he would run out of energy sooner or later. It's also clear that if he had measured his effort differently that he would have been able to pace for longer.

 

[Extinction]

Indeed. And that's pretty much the crux of the matter, i.e. something which started long before the race: WvA was portrayed as Belgium's winner & Evenepoel was seen as only useful if he was an obedient little pup who accepted he had no chance of winning himself. And that's what he's still been judged on, i.e. with the conversation now shifting towards "how much did Evenepoel damage WvA's chances?" questions.

But the huge elephant in the room is the fact Evenepoel was arguably no weaker or worse than WvA on the day & could thus justifiably have tried his own luck for the win. In a race where Jasper Stuyven was eventually & belatedly told to go for it himself (& was therefor deployed as Belgium's best rider in the final 20km), I think it's totally fair to say Remco Evenepoel could have gone for it if the Belgians had set up differently for the race & not thrown all their eggs in the WvA basket.

Indeed it's pure insanity on the part of Remco's naysayers. You simply don't have someone as talented as him, in the shape he was in, on donkey duties. Alright Wout is the faster finisher, so you make Remco a lieutenant, but you absolutely keep him in the game as an alternative in case Wout has a bad day (which he did), flats, has a mechanical or crashes in a crucial point in the race. It just defies all racing logic to sacrifice Remco, especially since a national team at the World's should only care to win (not with a specific rider) and thus if talent permits have a rider to win with Plan A and one to win with Plan B. The whole Belgian national federation should take a long, hard look in the mirror and do some soul searching after this debacle. Wout should never again be allowed to impose himself as the unique and absolute option to win. But this shouldn't be a problem in the coming years, as by then Wout will be overmatched against Remco.

 

[Carrick-On-Seine]

99/100 was a figure of speach. It's possible it's only 98/100 or 73/100. Let's settle for "more often than not".

How many monuments do you think Alaphilippe has won?

One plus of course two WCs and a bunch of TdF stages too. He probably could have had an LBL to name but he can be, ahem, a team player too in one day races.
My point was that Van Aert gets a lot of esteem but yet has not all that dominant a palmares in the last three seasons. That could all change tomorrow though.

 

[Rackham]

Indeed it's pure insanity on the part of Remco's naysayers. You simply don't have someone as talented as him, in the shape he was in, on donkey duties. Alright Wout is the faster finisher, so you make Remco a lieutenant, but you absolutely keep him in the game as an alternative in case Wout has a bad day (which he did), flats, has a mechanical or crashes in a crucial point in the race. It just defies all racing logic to sacrifice Remco, especially since a national team at the World's should only care to win (not with a specific rider) and thus if talent permits have a rider to win with Plan A and one to win with Plan B. The whole Belgian national federation should take a long, hard look in the mirror and do some soul searching after this debacle. Wout should never again be allowed to impose himself as the unique and absolute option to win. But this shouldn't be a problem in the coming years, as by then Wout will be overmatched against Remco.

Evenepoel has been on a serious upwards trajectory in terms of form since the Giro (& definitely since the Olympics). A lot was said about the European Championship road race (i.e. with the narrative focusing on "tactical mistakes" versus Colbrelli), but the form he showed when he blew the field up should have automatically made any normal national team coach reconsider his standing in the WC RR.

On paper even before the race Remco Evenepoel was Belgium's second best rider & not too far behind WvA (with the accepted fact a sprint finish was more likely ergo WvA would be favored). But the way Evenepoel was dismissed like a bug beforehand was just nuts & now post-mortem with commentators "feigning disbelief" at the suggestion... Evenepoel was actually good enough to win.

WvA wasn't good on the day (wasn't even stronger than Stuyven), the race didn't end in a sprint (Alaphilippe went solo) & Evenepoel showed very strong legs.

So the Belgian coaches should be fired because they prepared for none of those eventualities.