Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2023, March 20-26

[tobydawq]

Yes, it's entertaining
But then you get the little italian funny guy (Ilmaestro99 ) or others attempting to explain the impossible.

How do you know he is little?

 

[Elos Anjos]

How do you know he is little?

His jokes are. That's what I mean.

 

[bNator]

Whether or not you like the term, as I've said elsewhere, when you don't work, but could, it's called wheelsucking. It's not a coping mechanism, he just chooses to ride that way. It's his prerogative, but that doesn't change the definition of wheelsucking. This is why I argued that a rider like Remco, who at times is generous to a fault, should become cleverer next time when Primoz is on his wheel and won't drop. Because this plays right into Roglic's tactics.

Agreed otherwise on what you agree with me on, of course.

I don't think it's as simple as that. It's not just that you could work but choose not to. It's whether you have common interests. These can be anything from trying to gap the peloton and fight it out for a stage win or distance a group of common GC rivals. When there's no commong interest, it can't be called wheelsucking. In our case - it's trying to neutralise attacks not wheelsucking...

I can give you a lot of examples where riders could work but don't and it's never been considered wheelsucking:

1. The classic 2 against 1 attack
2. Scenario when you have teammate up the road and should not under any circumstance do the chase (yes - something UAE is yet to master)
3. Trying te neutralise an attack (example Vingegaard against Pog on Galibier last year). The so called "bring him back" approach. Except taht Remco doesn't realise he was being brought back and expects cooperation from a guy who's sole purpose was to bring him back.

What I find hard to accept is that Remo's fans actually adopted his stance that once Rogla managed to neutralise him, he should for some reason help him. When I saw that on TV, I couldn't believe his naivety and lack of racing intelligence. And to have so many posters agree with that... It would be much better for Remco to try and understand why Roglic did not work and will not work with him in these situations the Giro.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

How do you know he is little?

Maybe he meant to call himself lilmaestro, but missed a letter?

 

[theyoungest]

One thing is for sure: Quickstep don't suffer from false modesty.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639954599804018688

 

[Elos Anjos]

One thing is for sure: Quickstep don't suffer from false modesty.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639954599804018688

It's like Patrick Lefevre is writing it down.

 

[Riek s]

I don't think it's as simple as that. It's not just that you could work but choose not to. It's whether you have common interests. These can be anything from trying to gap the peloton and fight it out for a stage win or distance a group of common GC rivals. When there's no commong interest, it can't be called wheelsucking. In our case - it's trying to neutralise attacks not wheelsucking...

I can give you a lot of examples where riders could work but don't and it's never been considered wheelsucking:

1. The classic 2 against 1 attack
2. Scenario when you have teammate up the road and should not under any circumstance do the chase (yes - something UAE is yet to master)
3. Trying te neutralise an attack (example Vingegaard against Pog on Galibier last year). The so called "bring him back" approach. Except taht Remco doesn't realise he was being brought back and expects cooperation from a guy who's sole purpose was to bring him back.

What I find hard to accept is that Remo's fans actually adopted his stance that once Rogla managed to neutralise him, he should for some reason help him. When I saw that on TV, I couldn't believe his naivety and lack of racing intelligence. And to have so many posters agree with that... It would be much better for Remco to try and understand why Roglic did not work and will not work with him in these situations the Giro.

Its always considered wheelsucking. Wheelsucking is making use/profit of the suckee. Its always wheelsucking.

If you are can't go faster but stay in the wheel --> wheelsucking.
if you are tactically prohibited --> wheelsucking.
If you can go faster but rely on your sprint and think you can win like that --> wheelsucking
A good sprint leadout ---> have the perfect wheelsuck to the end. wheelsucking --> suck yourself against the wheel.


I see that you kind of link wheelsucking with 'common interest'. Which i think is incredible subjective interpretation, and is more used to downplay the sucking as a heroic action instead of the meaning taking profit of being in someone's wheel. e.g. what you are doing is giving a reason through a subjective interpretation why the act of being glued to someones wheel shouldn't be called as such. In that case Levi Leipheimer could have said i'm smart, otherwise i will never win something. and now we can all glorify him as a smart rider instead of a wheelsucker.
There is nothing bad by saying he wheelsucked because that was tactically the best choice.

But if you want and go by shared interest:
Stage 2: distance 3/4/5/6/peleton to gain more time. & stage win
Stage 3: distance 3/4/5... to gain more time. (3rd at 6seconds) & stage win
Stage 5: distance 3/4/5 to gain more time. & stage win
stage6: stage win
stage7: stage win

Or let me phrase it differently:

Without Remco the distance between 1 and 2 wouldn't have differed a lot. e.g. Roglic took the difference between 1 and 2
Without roglic the distance between 1 and 2 would be the same as 2-3. e.g. Remco took the difference between 2 and 3


edit: Soudal is right, this has been the most entertaining Catalunya and everyone is clear that this is due to Remco's riding/flaring. people who can't even acknowledge that...
edit2: and the fact Remco misread the sprint of Roglic in last stage :/

 

[Netserk]

How do you know he is little?

He has stated so himself here.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

You can't say that without further context. Stage racing has an internal history. Each stage builds on the previous one.
UAE had all the reasons not for chasing Soler, but for keeping Almeida in 3rd has he is building both form and confidence for their designated Giro podium rider. Having a team mate do that is mind boggling to say the least. It shows UAE either does not control Soler or does not have its priorities straight.

Did you even see the race or did things go dark the moment you noticed Almeida was behind? Or do you simply not understand race tactics? Evenepoel attacked, Roglic followed. This was a GC action. Whoever of the GC guys could follow, should have followed. Almeida, 3rd in GC, couldn't follow. Soler, 4th in GC, could follow. It was not only his right, but his JOB to follow. By following along with Evenepoel and Roglic, he did not only improve his own position, he made sure the team was certain to have at least one rider on the podium. Further more, it made sure that his teammates DID NOT have to work behind him, but that it was Bahrein or Trek that would need to work. That means he was also protecting Almeida as a result, keeping Almeida fresh in case something happened, in case the peloton came back or in case Almeida was attacked by Ciccone, Landa, Woods...

So again, Soler did nothing wrong yesterday. Almeida or the team did.
There is some merit in your argument that it might have been for Almeida's self esteem, as teamleader getting ready for the Giro. But i find it a poor reason personally. Soler was better, he deserved it. You don't chase a teammate out of a victory or podium. If that's what Almeida wants and expects, maybe he should move to Jumbo, where races are given away as if they mean nothing.

One thing is for sure: Quickstep don't suffer from false modesty.

Thank god, because it is a despicable trait. But it's a good thing they are simply realistic in this case.

 

[Extinction]

I don't think it's as simple as that. It's not just that you could work but choose not to. It's whether you have common interests. These can be anything from trying to gap the peloton and fight it out for a stage win or distance a group of common GC rivals. When there's no commong interest, it can't be called wheelsucking. In our case - it's trying to neutralise attacks not wheelsucking...

I can give you a lot of examples where riders could work but don't and it's never been considered wheelsucking:

1. The classic 2 against 1 attack
2. Scenario when you have teammate up the road and should not under any circumstance do the chase (yes - something UAE is yet to master)
3. Trying te neutralise an attack (example Vingegaard against Pog on Galibier last year). The so called "bring him back" approach. Except taht Remco doesn't realise he was being brought back and expects cooperation from a guy who's sole purpose was to bring him back.

What I find hard to accept is that Remo's fans actually adopted his stance that once Rogla managed to neutralise him, he should for some reason help him. When I saw that on TV, I couldn't believe his naivety and lack of racing intelligence. And to have so many posters agree with that... It would be much better for Remco to try and understand why Roglic did not work and will not work with him in these situations the Giro.

I don't see how "neutralizing" an adversary who you refuse to work with, when it's the winning move, with no teammates up the road and only a chase to keep at a distance, is anything but wheelsucking.

If I were Remco the moment I established the break with Roglic on my wheel, but who refuses to pull through, I sit up and watch his next move. That's race intelligence. Roglic wants to have cake and eat it too. The only thing naive is continuing to effectively do the work for him, not expecting him to contribute to the pace in that circumstance. He refuses to, fine, then you refuse too, calling his bluff. If you then get caught, the whole world sees Roglic's negative riding is to blame. Yet Roglic would know his tactic at that point no longer works, appart from making him an unpopular wheelsucker, because if a large group comes back, it's no longer manageable and so it would be better to work to not get caught instead.

Roglic, however, thus far has been fortunate in finding willing accomplices that catered to his game. Hopefully Remco won't be one again at the Giro.

 

[Big Doopie]

Second caveat: Fignon, apart from an exceptional performance in the 84 Tour, was not of Lemond's calibre as a TTist. He himself said so in his book.

Kinda my point. GTs should be fought out between all-around riders that differ slightly. Then you have the inherent battle between where each needs to make a difference: balance.

In 84, Fignon the better climber vs Hinault the better TTer.

In 89, same against Lemond.

In 1975, Thevenet the better climber against Merckx the better TTer.

And so on. It does not mean that any of them were WEAK at either discipline.

In fact Fignon and Thevenet (much like Pog) did win some GT TTs, btw.

 

[bNator]

I don't see how "neutralizing" an adversary who you refuse to work with, when it's the winning move, with no teammates up the road and only a chase to keep at a distance, is anything but wheelsucking.

If I were Remco the moment I established the break with Roglic on my wheel, but who refuses to pull through, I sit up and watch his next move. That's race intelligence. Roglic wants to have cake and eat it too. The only thing naive is continuing to effectively do the work for him, not expecting him to contribute to the pace in that circumstance. He refuses to, fine, then you refuse too, calling his bluff. If you then get caught, the whole world sees Roglic's negative riding is to blame. Yet Roglic would know his tactic at that point no longer works, appart from making him an unpopular wheelsucker, because if a large group comes back, it's no longer manageable and so it would be better to work to not get caught instead.

Roglic, however, thus far has been fortunate in finding willing accomplices that catered to his game. Hopefully Remco won't be one again at the Giro.

The bolded part is the one I object to. He wasn't doing the work for Roglic. Roglic had no intentions and no interests in winning that stage (stage 6 is what I'm talking about). His only goal was to bring Remco back. Winning the stage was not his ambition. That's no bluff - it's a true story...

 

[Big Doopie]

I don't think it's as simple as that. It's not just that you could work but choose not to. It's whether you have common interests. These can be anything from trying to gap the peloton and fight it out for a stage win or distance a group of common GC rivals. When there's no commong interest, it can't be called wheelsucking. In our case - it's trying to neutralise attacks not wheelsucking...

I can give you a lot of examples where riders could work but don't and it's never been considered wheelsucking:

1. The classic 2 against 1 attack
2. Scenario when you have teammate up the road and should not under any circumstance do the chase (yes - something UAE is yet to master)
3. Trying te neutralise an attack (example Vingegaard against Pog on Galibier last year). The so called "bring him back" approach. Except taht Remco doesn't realise he was being brought back and expects cooperation from a guy who's sole purpose was to bring him back.

What I find hard to accept is that Remo's fans actually adopted his stance that once Rogla managed to neutralise him, he should for some reason help him. When I saw that on TV, I couldn't believe his naivety and lack of racing intelligence. And to have so many posters agree with that... It would be much better for Remco to try and understand why Roglic did not work and will not work with him in these situations the Giro.

I 100% agree. Rog did exactly what he should have done.

The only thing that I would question is the perceived narrative of the “temper tantrum”. Remco no doubt knows perfectly well that Rog (and Soler) have no reason to pull through, but - somewhat like Hinault - is berating his “companions” to try and intimidate/coax them into pulling. I admit this is unlikely to work with a wiseman like Rog. And also in an era when riders are getting direct orders from the cars…but I guess I question that Remco is just throwing a tantrum. Perhaps. But I would suggest it is a tantrum with psychological overtones in order to try and get what he wants in the race.

 

[Extinction]

The bolded part is the one I object to. He wasn't doing the work for Roglic. Roglic had no intentions and no interests in winning that stage (stage 6 is what I'm talking about). His only goal was to bring Remco back. Winning the stage was not his ambition. That's no bluff - it's a true story...

Alright, but his tactic on stage 5 (I'm largely referring to this stage), for of course in stage 6 Primoz just needed to follow Remco, should have been more savy and less bullish in doing so much work with Roglic in tow. And then he basically dangled a carrot in front of Primoz when he opted to open the sprint from too far out.

 

[SafeBet]

How do you know he is little?

How do you know he is Italian?

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

How do you know he is Italian?

Very true. I think he is a large Danish girl with a Van Aert crush who has been fooling us all along. Pretending to be a small Van Aert hating Italian male.

 

[bNator]

Very true. I think he is a large Danish girl with a Van Aert crush who has been fooling us all along. Pretending to be a small Van Aert hating Italian male.

I like how Denmark is diametrically opposite to Italy in this story

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I like how Denmark is diametrically opposite to Italy in this story

It was to lure a small Danish girl with red hair into the discussion.

 

[Escarabajo]

I 100% agree. Rog did exactly what he should have done.

The only thing that I would question is the perceived narrative of the “temper tantrum”. Remco no doubt knows perfectly well that that Rog (and Soler) have no reason to pull through, but - somewhat like Hinault - is berating his “companions” to try and intimidate/coax them into pulling. I admit this is unlikely to work with a wiseman like Rog. And also in an era when riders are getting direct orders from the cars…but I guess I question that Remco is just throwing a tantrum. Perhaps. But I would suggest it is a tantrum with psychological overtones in order to try and get what he wants in the race.

I think that is the objective of the Tantrum, whether conscious or unconscious.

I am very happy to have riders like Remco and Pogacar. Last rider I saw that was this entertaining was Contador. However, at the time when he was doing most of his suicidal attacks he was out of it. So in other words I have never seen something like this since I have been watching cycling in 1983. I understand that some of the attacks by Remco and Pogacar are out of time and probably have costed them some races. But very entertaining nevertheless.

As for this race, Roglic raced smartly and did all he had to do. Having said that, I still give the favorable odds to Remco to win the Giro. That race will be totally different. Recovery becomes a bigger issue, time-trilling is another aspect, and a lot of the stages will be decided more on attrition than pure power like we saw here. Last but not least, other riders will take more action in the race like Almeida. And not to forget that we always get a dark horse for these type of races. We'll see and I can't wait.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Last but not least, other riders will take more action in the race like Almeida.

Not too sure about that. Last year's Giro was a snore fest with the big contenders climbing side by side for 3 weeks, with Almeida 50 meters behind. Until Almeida got Covid and Hindley finally attacked.

 

[Elos Anjos]

By following along with Evenepoel and Roglic, he did not only improve his own position, he made sure the team was certain to have at least one rider on the podium. Further more, it made sure that his teammates DID NOT have to work behind him, but that it was Bahrein or Trek that would need to work. That means he was also protecting Almeida as a result, keeping Almeida fresh in case something happened, in case the peloton came back or in case Almeida was attacked by Ciccone, Landa, Woods...

So again, Soler did nothing wrong yesterday. Almeida or the team did.

Thank god, because it is a despicable trait. But it's a good thing they are simply realistic in this case.

This paragraph is just one example on how you keep on using ex-post fallacies for reaching the point you already have made your mind about. You're just forcing the issue so badly to fit it in a "plan" or make it sound plausible or justified.

 

[Extinction]

I think that is the objective of the Tantrum, whether conscious or unconscious.

I am very happy to have riders like Remco and Pogacar. Last rider I saw that was this entertaining was Contador. However, at the time when he was doing most of his suicidal attacks he was out of it. So in other words I have never seen something like this since I have been watching cycling in 1983. I understand that some of the attacks by Remco and Pogacar are out of time and probably have costed them some races. But very entertaining nevertheless.

As for this race, Roglic raced smartly and did all he had to do. Having said that, I still give the favorable odds to Remco to win the Giro. That race will be totally different. Recovery becomes a bigger issue, time-trilling is another aspect, and a lot of the stages will be decided more on attrition than pure power like we saw here. Last but not least, other riders will take more action in the race like Almeida. And not to forget that we always get a dark horse for these type of races. We'll see and I can't wait.

I agree the Giro will be a different story, for the reasons you mentioned. I'm still not sure, however, Remco has slightly more favorable odds. That depends on how the first two TTs play out and who has more in the tank for the third week. Attrition will play a key role, which a week long stage race doesn't offer to the same degree. Both riders are extremely tenatious so, bar incident on the road, we could be in for a Battle of Titans.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

This paragraph is just one example on how you keep on using ex-post fallacies for reaching the point you already have made your mind about. You're just forcing the issue so badly to fit it in a "plan" or make it sound plausible or justified.

No, i'm explaining how it works. But you are right in saying i have already made up my mind about it, because it is simply the truth.

 

[Escarabajo]

Not too sure about that. Last year's Giro was a snore fest with the big contenders climbing side by side for 3 weeks, with Almeida 50 meters behind. Until Almeida got Covid and Hindley finally attacked.

After watching last year's race and watching him this year I cannot take him out of the equation. They would be a fool to do it. Who can tell me that Covid did not affect his performance towards the end? I understand he has longer odds but I would not discard him.

Having said that, I used him as an example. There could be another Carapaz hiding behind the tree waiting to ambush the big two. History can very well repeat itself.

 

[Elos Anjos]

No, i'm explaining how it works. But you are right in saying i have already made up my mind about it, because it is simply the truth.

Ockam's razor: what's more likely? That Soler and UAE according to you had a plan when Remco attacked and later messed up that same plan (despite being a team known for its lack of organization in other stages)? Or was it that Soler just followed wheels at that moment without envisioning that he wouldn't have the legs to follow because that's how his ego works?

I rest my case.

I just want to add that your constant bemarks on how you are so close to the truth are just tedious and a little brat's talk. You have a constant need to show how you are superior to others who don't share your view. You're blind to how arrogant and boring the things you write are.