• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Tour De France: Unchained aka that netflix thingy

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
In theory, Vingegaard doesn't have to react with the acceleration, he can just ride at his own pace and catch them when Roglic stops his acceleration after being caught by Pogacar. Whether it actually happened exactly like that is another story.

Hi guys,

After watching some episodes
, I was thinking in the last days a lot about team tactics in cycling m. I read always after the mountain stages that jumbo visma isolated pogacar and he had to react to their attacks and thats what destroyed him. but I always thought then, that in my opinion also vingegaard has to react and has to put energy into it to keep the pace when one of his teammates e.g. van aert or roglic is attacking? so how can this be an advantage for him? can somebody explain me this? :D thx!

To add to what Toby said: Say the situation is Roglic attacks, Pogacar follows and in turn Vingegaard follows. Roglic and Pogacar are doing their respective efforts in the wind, while Vingegaard can stick to Pogacars wheel and save energy that way compared to him. That will add up also. Plus theres also the mental aspect where im sure its alot more exhausting beeing the isolated guy beeing attacked by 2 guys in turns ,compared to beeing the guys doing said attacks, if that makes sense :)
 
What I found the most interesting, if accurate, was that Geraint Thomas couldnt fathom that Pidcock wants to win the Alpe d'Huez stage and it beeing presented as a "big risk" that Pidcock goes into the break cause it meant G would have "one less guy around him". It really does explain alot about how that team rides if you think about it, allthough Im almost thinking that line of conservatism is way too absurd even for them, then again those were more or less direct quotes.
In contrast I loved Pidcocks attitude towards it: "Well we said we wanted to bring the race to Jumbo didnt we?" "Yes." "Well we arent really doing that at all are we?" :)

What I also found interesting is how the big raid on Pogacar wasn't really planned or rather not really ironed out. Theres a short segment where a Jumbo domestique goes to the car and says "Primoz asked when are we going to attack Pogacar" (this is during the Granon stage mind you). And Niermann basically is like: "Yea well just go for it whenever you feel like it". Thought there would be a deeper level of planning going into what they did that day. Then again maybe it did its just how the show presents it and that seemed quite laissez-faire.

These short little inside segments were what made the show somewhat enjoyable for me by the way; It just needed about 10x the amount of them
Telegraphe Roglic idea confirmed I will not accept any slander on his entertainment levels
 
  • Like
Reactions: KOM
I watched the first episode of this series, and it is outstanding.
Contrary to what some people think, I don't see them dumbing it down to the point of tedium. I think they're doing a fantastic job combining the inherent drama for newcomers in a way that doesn't offend seasoned watchers of the sport. But that's just my opinion.
I'm pretty sure John Tesh will tell you that a little knowledge will go a long way when portraying the sport to a wider, unsuspecting audience. The basic premise sells itself. Add people who know how to frame and tell a story, and you're pretty much good to go.
So far so good.
 
Finished watching it yesterday. Without having followed the actual Tour, you would lose a lot of context. There are some story arcs, that span multiple stages but in the meanwhile a lot of relevant GC info is lost by hopping from one story to another, without offering a clear and chronologic view of how the GC evolves. On the other hand only a handful of teams are represented.

They managed to make the episode with the Granon stage less interesting than the actual stage.

Van Aert, while getting a lot of praise for being one of the best riders in the world, is being portrayed as a rogue braindead cowboy who either doesn't understand his team is riding for GC, or doesn't want to understand and only rides for his own glory most of the time. His TT win is taken away from him as if it were "gifted" by Vingegaard, which is false, as i explained many times. Vingegaard had already lost his lead over Van Aert before he "decided to give it away".

The fact that only a few teams have signed a deal with the series makes for a skewed overview of what actually happened. EF seems like it is one of the most important teams at the Tour, and after all the drama regarding Bissegger not reeling in their biggest chance for a win, which would "save them from relegation", virtually no attention goes to Cort winning a stage. The fact that UAE is not "on" the show, inevitably makes Pogacar look like "the bad guy who needs to be defeated" as the story is told from the Jumbo Visma perspective.

There were only two sprinters at the Tour, Jakobsen and Philipsen.

While it might be entertaining, i doubt it gives an accurate view of what cycling really entails to "new viewers". In fact, the chaotic and fast paced editing alone misrepresents 90% of any race, because 90% of the time, nothing happens in actuality. I remember an American (USA) 1970-80s movie about cycling, where cycling was portrayed as if it were a 200km sprint. With riders not wanting to be overtaken and not wanting to lose one position, because they might lose the race 150km down the line. I think this show doesn't do that much better honestly.
 
Van Aert, while getting a lot of praise for being one of the best riders in the world, is being portrayed as a rogue braindead cowboy who either doesn't understand his team is riding for GC, or doesn't want to understand and only rides for his own glory most of the time. His TT win is taken away from him as if it were "gifted" by Vingegaard, which is false, as i explained many times. Vingegaard had already lost his lead over Van Aert before he "decided to give it away".
This is actually one of the things in the documentary that isn't edited out of context. You can also see it in Jumbo's own series on Amazon. Wout really thinks Vingegaard gifted him the win. So yeah... since you're so adamant he's an intelligent person, why don't you accept his own opinion on the matter?
 
Finished watching it yesterday. Without having followed the actual Tour, you would lose a lot of context. There are some story arcs, that span multiple stages but in the meanwhile a lot of relevant GC info is lost by hopping from one story to another, without offering a clear and chronologic view of how the GC evolves. On the other hand only a handful of teams are represented.

They managed to make the episode with the Granon stage less interesting than the actual stage.

Van Aert, while getting a lot of praise for being one of the best riders in the world, is being portrayed as a rogue braindead cowboy who either doesn't understand his team is riding for GC, or doesn't want to understand and only rides for his own glory most of the time. His TT win is taken away from him as if it were "gifted" by Vingegaard, which is false, as i explained many times. Vingegaard had already lost his lead over Van Aert before he "decided to give it away".

The fact that only a few teams have signed a deal with the series makes for a skewed overview of what actually happened. EF seems like it is one of the most important teams at the Tour, and after all the drama regarding Bissegger not reeling in their biggest chance for a win, which would "save them from relegation", virtually no attention goes to Cort winning a stage. The fact that UAE is not "on" the show, inevitably makes Pogacar look like "the bad guy who needs to be defeated" as the story is told from the Jumbo Visma perspective.

There were only two sprinters at the Tour, Jakobsen and Philipsen.

While it might be entertaining, i doubt it gives an accurate view of what cycling really entails to "new viewers". In fact, the chaotic and fast paced editing alone misrepresents 90% of any race, because 90% of the time, nothing happens in actuality. I remember an American (USA) 1970-80s movie about cycling, where cycling was portrayed as if it were a 200km sprint. With riders not wanting to be overtaken and not wanting to lose one position, because they might lose the race 150km down the line. I think this show doesn't do that much better honestly.
This. Your first and last paragraph alone are enough reasons why I think the series - now I've watched them in full - provides almost nothing new to cycling fans and explain very little to non fans.
 
There was IMO a fundamentally lost-in-translation issue with the Netflix series relating to how cycling & the Tour works. For example there was way, way too much focus on FDJ & pointless stuff which even hardcore cycling fans don't care about. Pinot's goats are a cringy meme at this point & I'm not going to sit & watch insider stuff about Gaudu's so-called battle for the podium.

I mean when hardcore French cycling fans didn't even give a cr*p about that, I don't get the point of selling the story to noob 'mainstreamers'.

And instead of having Chainel aka a French random give his opinion (& David Millar), they would have been better off having Prudhomme himself take a central role. He was a former journalist & commentator after all, so he could have done a better job. And it would have been more pertinent as well considering his role.

I like sports documentaries which keep things clean & tell a story chronologically with the main drama as a focus.
 
Have not seen the show, and don't really have plans to, but not having UAE & Pogacar sounds to me like watching "Romeo and Juliet" without Juliet.
They almost get away with it, because they focus on a select few events, riders and teams each episode. That means it doesn't feel strange at first because episode 1 is about SQS, TJV, EF with Lampaert, Jakobsen, Van Aert and Bissegger in the first two stages. And so on. And after a while you realize it's never told from Pogacar 's perspective, which means you've been "rooting" for Jumbo and Ineos, because you did see those riders' stories.

This is actually one of the things in the documentary that isn't edited out of context. You can also see it in Jumbo's own series on Amazon. Wout really thinks Vingegaard gifted him the win. So yeah... since you're so adamant he's an intelligent person, why don't you accept his own opinion on the matter?
Lol. The facts are there. Deal with it.
That Van Aert is not aware of them at that moment is very possible. That Vingegaard wanted to give the stage away, if he could have, is also possible. But there was nothing to give away because the stage was for Van Aert regardless. So it's also perfectly possible for Van Aert to appreciate the gesture, even if it was hollow in the end.

But hey, i'm sure Van Aert gave the stage to Vingegaard on Hautacam and let him win, right.
 
Last edited:
There was IMO a fundamentally lost-in-translation issue with the Netflix series relating to how cycling & the Tour works. For example there was way, way too much focus on FDJ & pointless stuff which even hardcore cycling fans don't care about. Pinot's goats are a cringy meme at this point & I'm not going to sit & watch insider stuff about Gaudu's so-called battle for the podium.

I mean when hardcore French cycling fans didn't even give a cr*p about that, I don't get the point of selling the story to noob 'mainstreamers'.

And instead of having Chainel aka a French random give his opinion (& David Millar), they would have been better off having Prudhomme himself take a central role. He was a former journalist & commentator after all, so he could have done a better job. And it would have been more pertinent as well considering his role.

I like sports documentaries which keep things clean & tell a story chronologically with the main drama as a focus.
You'd think that it would be a hit series in France, since it's about their most prominent sports event and it focuses a lot on the French. But it's not.

The viewers are always right, and the viewers don't like it. I thinkt his is because it's just badly made. I'm sure The Last Dance was not that groundbreaking or interesting for real basketball fans either, but at least it was engaging television.

Lol. The facts are there. Deal with it.
That Van Aert is not aware of them at that moment is very possible. That Vingegaard wanted to give the stage away, if he could have, is also possible. But there was nothing to give away because the stage was for Van Aert regardless. So it's also perfectly possible for Van Aert to appreciate the gesture, even if it was hollow in the end.

But hey, i'm sure Van Aert gave the stage to Vingegaard on Hautacam and let him win, right.
I think your point was that Van Aert was ahead on the penultimate time check, right? I don't see how that is relevant when you can clearly see that Vingegaard is not going all out in the final kilometre. And he finished on 19 seconds. That time is easily lost when soft pedaling on a climb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
What I found the most interesting, if accurate, was that Geraint Thomas couldnt fathom that Pidcock wants to win the Alpe d'Huez stage and it beeing presented as a "big risk" that Pidcock goes into the break cause it meant G would have "one less guy around him". It really does explain alot about how that team rides if you think about it, allthough Im almost thinking that line of conservatism is way too absurd even for them, then again those were more or less direct quotes.
In contrast I loved Pidcocks attitude towards it: "Well we said we wanted to bring the race to Jumbo didnt we?" "Yes." "Well we arent really doing that at all are we?" :)
Jesus christ has the knowledge of the ancients been completely lost? This Cycling 101 tactic where you get your own domestiques in the break so that you can make use of them at a later point in the stage than would otherwise be possible or as support for long-range attacks?
 
I watched some of it, but I thought it was pretty meh. There were a lot of different stories but they all had to be compressed in so little time you don't feel you see all that much. I also don't really know what Van Aert was complaining about, that framing was a nothingburger.
I think it was easy to takeaway from this series that Wout races for his own ambitions and helps out Jonas if it fits his own schedule.
There were at least 2 instances when Wout said he wanted to go for the stage or breakaway or whatever AFTER the DS said the plan was to protect Jonas.

While on the contrary, they made it look like Jonas stopped pedaling in the TT so Wout would win. Which was also widely speculated at the time.
 
Finished watching it yesterday. Without having followed the actual Tour, you would lose a lot of context. There are some story arcs, that span multiple stages but in the meanwhile a lot of relevant GC info is lost by hopping from one story to another, without offering a clear and chronologic view of how the GC evolves. On the other hand only a handful of teams are represented.

They managed to make the episode with the Granon stage less interesting than the actual stage.

Van Aert, while getting a lot of praise for being one of the best riders in the world, is being portrayed as a rogue braindead cowboy who either doesn't understand his team is riding for GC, or doesn't want to understand and only rides for his own glory most of the time. His TT win is taken away from him as if it were "gifted" by Vingegaard, which is false, as i explained many times. Vingegaard had already lost his lead over Van Aert before he "decided to give it away".

The fact that only a few teams have signed a deal with the series makes for a skewed overview of what actually happened. EF seems like it is one of the most important teams at the Tour, and after all the drama regarding Bissegger not reeling in their biggest chance for a win, which would "save them from relegation", virtually no attention goes to Cort winning a stage. The fact that UAE is not "on" the show, inevitably makes Pogacar look like "the bad guy who needs to be defeated" as the story is told from the Jumbo Visma perspective.

There were only two sprinters at the Tour, Jakobsen and Philipsen.

While it might be entertaining, i doubt it gives an accurate view of what cycling really entails to "new viewers". In fact, the chaotic and fast paced editing alone misrepresents 90% of any race, because 90% of the time, nothing happens in actuality. I remember an American (USA) 1970-80s movie about cycling, where cycling was portrayed as if it were a 200km sprint. With riders not wanting to be overtaken and not wanting to lose one position, because they might lose the race 150km down the line. I think this show doesn't do that much better honestly.
bro, its on Netflix, not the history channel
 
Been watching. The intrigue with WVA and Jumbo was interesting, but pretty much what we saw play out live. Cool that they featured Pidcock's descent and win as that was truly special, and made for some great TV. They could have shown more of the descent actually! Deeply appreciated that they left Froome out of that coverage, he was just another guy in the break who had no chance of winning. I'm enjoying it fine, and it's good TdF hype and warmup. I thought the coverage of the stage to the Glandon was quite good, there was a lot of real drama there, and they captured it pretty well. Criticisms would be that there's way too much focus on EF, particularly Bissiger and Powless. Nice riders, but come on. No real story there.

Vaughters, as per usual, comes off like the douche he is.

Compared to the "Ronde: Behind the Scenes" stuff on YouTube, it's not nearly as good. I want to say it's because that series is geared more toward the hard core fan, but my wife thought it was really interesting. There's always this temptation to pander to a new audience. I think the Ronde stuff really did well with the mix of reality, understanding the sport, and the hype.

View: https://youtu.be/XFqfqO6CQko
The Ronde series was incredible!!
Why did they stop??
I'm glad you brought it up, in fact I think these are the best cycling documentary films I have ever seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: red_flanders
I've watched all episodes. The movie presents the drama of a 3-week race well to non-die hard cycling fans. Nerves, competition, speed, crashes. Some footages were simply amazing. One could see the race from the perspective of the biggest teams as well as those smaller. I liked it. Obviously the biggest drawback was the lack of UAE in the movie, it's simply not complete without Pogacar's perspective ("Good that your dropped your teammates" by Pog to Wout was comedy gold though :D). And not enough of Primoz but then again, he said what he thought of this (most stupidest thing).
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
The Ronde series was incredible!!
Why did they stop??
I'm glad you brought it up, in fact I think these are the best cycling documentary films I have ever seen.

Yes, that was so strange. I had not heard anything at all about such a series being in the works, then they just drop four editions simultaneously for free on YouTube and it's the best cycling movie content ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: saunaking
Yes, that was so strange. I had not heard anything at all about such a series being in the works, then they just drop four editions simultaneously for free on YouTube and it's the best cycling movie content ever.
I believe the Ronde series was produced for more recent editions, but is not available free on youtube. Perhaps available for streaming from one of the Belgian television channels?