Top 10 Rides of the Year

[crapna]

Boonen and Chavanel in Paris-Roubaix
Garmin in Ronde van Vlaanderen
Scarponi on Etna

 

[crapna]

Almost forgot Andy on the 16th stage of Tour.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Boonen and Chavanel in Paris-Roubaix
Garmin in Ronde van Vlaanderen
Scarponi on Etna

how constant bad luck and ultimately forcing early retirement can equate to ride of the year is beyond me. By your logic Robert gesink is the cyclist of the year.

 

[jens_attacks]

Boonen and Chavanel in Paris-Roubaix
Garmin in Ronde van Vlaanderen
Scarponi on Etna

let's not forget voeckler riding alone for an hour behind andy and contador on galibier.

 

[Ferminal]

how constant bad luck and ultimately forcing early retirement can equate to ride of the year is beyond me. By your logic Robert gesink is the cyclist of the year.

A little bit of sarcasm I'd suggest.

Garmin playing the "save it for a sprint" card, Scarponi overestimating his level and cooking himself on the volcano.

 

[movingtarget]

Evans won the Tour on the penultimate day in the time trial. Up until that point he was not leading the race and was therefore not winning.

You're welcome.

Evans was definitely winning by only having to make up about one minute to a rider who is only a mediocre time triallist over a hard time trial course. The margin of Evan's TT ride against Schleck's confirmed the differing TT abilities. Schleck had already lost the race at Gap and in the Pyrenees. The Galibier stage was his final attempt to shake off Evans and it didn't work.

You're humble servant.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Evans was definitely winning by only having to make up about one minute to a rider who is only a mediocre time triallist over a hard time trial course. The margin of Evan's TT ride against Schleck's confirmed the differing TT abilities. Schleck had already lost the race at Gap and in the Pyrenees. The Galibier stage was his final attempt to shake off Evans and it didn't work.

You're humble servant.

I am humble servant of what?

I was being facetious.

Evans didn't win the Tour on the Galibier - he didn't lose the Tour on the Galibier, and kept himself in the best seat. That was the day when his position as the rider in the GC box seat (making the not unreasonable assumption that Voeckler couldn't hold it all the way to Paris) was most seriously threatened. But he didn't neutralise the threat - he was defeated. He limited his losses.

It was a great ride, but it didn't win him the Tour. He wasn't winning before it, and he wasn't winning after it; he was actually in a worse position afterwards - but the position was salvaged in terms of not being worse.

Paolo Savoldelli didn't win the Giro on the descent of Finestre. He took the lead days earlier and held on. He prevented himself from losing the Giro there.

Evans' ride on the Galibier was brilliant, don't get me wrong. But it didn't win him the Tour, and it wasn't better than Schleck's epic ride to beat him that day.

What won Evans the Tour was, firstly, the good TTT, gaining the small time on the short hillclimb finishes, good descending into Gap and Pinerolo. These meant that coming into the all-important stages, Evans was the one in the best position of the GC contenders. In Galibier, that changed as Andy Schleck passed him. Then, Evans won the race in the ITT.

 

[ferryman]

I am humble servant of what?

I was being facetious.

Evans didn't win the Tour on the Galibier - he didn't lose the Tour on the Galibier, and kept himself in the best seat. That was the day when his position as the rider in the GC box seat (making the not unreasonable assumption that Voeckler couldn't hold it all the way to Paris) was most seriously threatened. But he didn't neutralise the threat - he was defeated. He limited his losses.

It was a great ride, but it didn't win him the Tour. He wasn't winning before it, and he wasn't winning after it; he was actually in a worse position afterwards - but the position was salvaged in terms of not being worse.

Paolo Savoldelli didn't win the Giro on the descent of Finestre. He took the lead days earlier and held on. He prevented himself from losing the Giro there.

Evans' ride on the Galibier was brilliant, don't get me wrong. But it didn't win him the Tour, and it wasn't better than Schleck's epic ride to beat him that day.

What won Evans the Tour was, firstly, the good TTT, gaining the small time on the short hillclimb finishes, good descending into Gap and Pinerolo. These meant that coming into the all-important stages, Evans was the one in the best position of the GC contenders. In Galibier, that changed as Andy Schleck passed him. Then, Evans won the race in the ITT.

I think things are being lost in translation between languages here.

Your humble servant in English isn't directed at you rather a sign off by the poster as him him giving his humble opinion on the matter.

Back to your post above. I understand what you say and why you say it and partly agree. But mostly don't. Evans did win it on the Galibier. At one point Andy was in an unsailable position regardless of the ITT on the penultimate. The fact is Evans was told this and eventually reacted to get back the time on a flagging Andy. Perfectly timed and executed by Evans and that was what won him the race.

If should have been his second Tour win if you look back and consider what might have been if he had the same resolve on the Alpe instead of letting himself be worked over by the Schlecks as Sastre scooted ahead.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I think things are being lost in translation between languages here.

Your humble servant in English isn't directed at you rather a sign off by the poster as him him giving his humble opinion on the matter.

Back to your post above. I understand what you say and why you say it and partly agree. But mostly don't. Evans did win it on the Galibier. At one point Andy was in an unsailable position regardless of the ITT on the penultimate. The fact is Evans was told this and eventually reacted to get back the time on a flagging Andy. Perfectly timed and executed by Evans and that was what won him the race.

If should have been his second Tour win if you look back and consider what might have been if he had the same resolve on the Alpe instead of letting himself be worked over by the Schlecks as Sastre scooted ahead.

That's it though isn't it - "eventually reacted". He lost more time to his GC rivals in that stage than the rest of the race put together. He didn't win the race there. He "didn't lose" the race there.

I'm being literal here. You don't "win" by losing 2 minutes to a rival and falling behind them when you were ahead, even though only losing 2 minutes there meant he was still in the driving seat.

He was on Schleck's terrain, and Schleck put in the performance that we all thought he was too timid to. He went from being behind Evans (= Evans winning) to in front (= Evans not winning). Evans saved his chances of winning there, but he didn't win the Tour there - he still had to take the time back in the ITT otherwise he would have lost. Evans had the chance to lose the race (on Galibier). Schleck had the chance to lose the race (in Grénoble). If Evans hadn't beaten Schleck in the time trial, Schleck would have won the race.

You can say that given what we know about the two, Schleck losing in the ITT was a given. But that was still where Evans took the time he needed. He didn't take it on Galibier. He lost time there. He had a gift-wrapped opportunity to lose the race, but refused to take it. It was a defensive ride there. It saved him a race he was already in a good position to win. It didn't win him the race in a literal sense just as Savoldelli's descent of Finestre didn't win him the race. When we're being metaphorical or romantic, then we can say it won him the race. But in reality he was already winning the race, and the Sestrières stage had nothing to do with how Savoldelli won that Giro, it was only the stage where he nearly lost it. And so it is with Evans on Galibier. He could have lost the Tour there but didn't. He didn't go out there and win the race on that stage.

Think of it as like a two-legged football tie. The first match is on Schleck's turf, the second is on Evans'. Evans knows that homefield advantage and the Schleck team's weakness away from home means that they'll probably win comfortably at home, and they're 2-0 down at the Schlecks' home stadium, but they fight and fight for that precious away goal, which they get. But they still lost the match. However, it means that the odds are in their favour when it comes to their home game, as they only need win 1-0 to go through.

In the end they annihilate the Schlecks 4-0 and take a comfortable win.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

That's it though isn't it - "eventually reacted". He lost more time to his GC rivals in that stage than the rest of the race put together. He didn't win the race there. He "didn't lose" the race there.

I'm being literal here. You don't "win" by losing 2 minutes to a rival and falling behind them when you were ahead, even though only losing 2 minutes there meant he was still in the driving seat.

He was on Schleck's terrain, and Schleck put in the performance that we all thought he was too timid to. He went from being behind Evans (= Evans winning) to in front (= Evans not winning). Evans saved his chances of winning there, but he didn't win the Tour there - he still had to take the time back in the ITT otherwise he would have lost. Evans had the chance to lose the race (on Galibier). Schleck had the chance to lose the race (in Grénoble). If Evans hadn't beaten Schleck in the time trial, Schleck would have won the race.

You can say that given what we know about the two, Schleck losing in the ITT was a given. But that was still where Evans took the time he needed. He didn't take it on Galibier. He lost time there. He had a gift-wrapped opportunity to lose the race, but refused to take it. It was a defensive ride there. It saved him a race he was already in a good position to win. It didn't win him the race in a literal sense just as Savoldelli's descent of Finestre didn't win him the race. When we're being metaphorical or romantic, then we can say it won him the race. But in reality he was already winning the race, and the Sestrières stage had nothing to do with how Savoldelli won that Giro, it was only the stage where he nearly lost it. And so it is with Evans on Galibier. He could have lost the Tour there but didn't. He didn't go out there and win the race on that stage.

Think of it as like a two-legged football tie. The first match is on Schleck's turf, the second is on Evans'. Evans knows that homefield advantage and the Schleck team's weakness away from home means that they'll probably win comfortably at home, and they're 2-0 down at the Schlecks' home stadium, but they fight and fight for that precious away goal, which they get. But they still lost the match. However, it means that the odds are in their favour when it comes to their home game, as they only need win 1-0 to go through.

In the end they annihilate the Schlecks 4-0 and take a comfortable win.

I'm impressed you turned down the opportunity to tell everyone about you're interest in liguistics again.

For the benefit of everyone's favourite chip-on-shoulder Scot, she was taking the mick out of someone who can't correctly differentiate between your and you're, not getting confused by the signing convention.

Geddit?

 

[cineteq]

I'm being literal here. You don't "win" by losing 2 minutes to a rival and falling behind them when you were ahead, even though only losing 2 minutes there meant he was still in the driving seat.

You guys still don't get it. He won the race there because he did was he needed or expected to do in the following 3 stages. He was expected to get significant time on Andy's TT time, so it's precisely that allows Andy to be let go in the Galibier by Evans and the rest. To say Evans won the race in the Galibier, it's a matter of speech. It's looking back after the race was done. It's not real time.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You guys still don't get it. He won the race there because he did was he needed or expected to do in the following 3 stages. He was expected to get significant time on Andy's TT time, so it's precisely that allows Andy to be let go in the Galibier by Evans and the rest. To say Evans won the race in the Galibier, it's a matter of speech. It's looking back after the race was done. It's not real time.

Figurative or literal definition of race winning, Andy's ride that day was still better. He wasn't defending what he had (he'd done too much of that already), he was gambling. He left everybody behind with over 60km to go and won by over 2 minutes solo.

In the context of the three week race, Evans' performance was more significant, but Andy's ride on the day was superior.

 

[cineteq]

Figurative or literal definition of race winning, Andy's ride that day was still better. He wasn't defending what he had (he'd done too much of that already), he was gambling. He left everybody behind with over 60km to go and won by over 2 minutes solo.

Fair enough. But Andy getting 2 minutes on Evans and the rest has to do (a lot) with his TT skills.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Fair enough. But Andy getting 2 minutes on Evans and the rest has to do (a lot) with his TT skills.

Of course it doesn't.

If Andy could TT better, Evans would have lost the Tour that day

 

[Michielveedeebee]

Of course it doesn't.

If Andy could TT better, Evans would have lost the Tour that day

True, I must say I'm with you on this one. Andy did what he had to do and it was darn impressive. Evans did nothing more than limit his losses after he realised he was losing his Tour, but he did it himself and also in an impressive manner. I really enjoyed the duel =)

 

[jamiephillips]

^ It's called limiting your losses. Like Roche and Delgado at La Plagne. Even though he lost time Roche won the tour that day as he knew that he was stronger in the TT than Perico. Good analogy?

*edit* Michael got there first with the "limit your losses" comment!!

 

[cineteq]

Evans did nothing more than limit his losses after he realised he was losing his Tour, but he did it himself and also in an impressive manner. I really enjoyed the duel =)

Beautifully and simply said!

 

[movingtarget]

I'm impressed you turned down the opportunity to tell everyone about you're interest in liguistics again.

For the benefit of everyone's favourite chip-on-shoulder Scot, she was taking the mick out of someone who can't correctly differentiate between your and you're, not getting confused by the signing convention.

Geddit?

Actually I picked up the error and soon as I sent the post. I don't like making spelling mistakes. YOUR response is duly noted ! We will call it a draw, no ? I have nothing more to say on the Galibier stage apart from the fact that it was great to watch.