Wheelsucking

[Buffalo Soldier]

Look, I'm getting tired of this.
Every single time a rider makes use of his strategic advantage, caused by team strenght, other teams failure or sheer luck, and he has no reason to pull as much as other riders in the group, the W-word is being used.

When you are in a front group, but your team captain is in the chasing group, you should probably not pull.

When you are in a front group, but you will still win a sprint with the peloton, you should probably not pull.

When you are in a front group, but others have a lot of teammates with them, while your team is in the chasing group, you should probably not pull.

When you are the team captain in a front group, surrounded by team mates, they should pull, not you.

When you are in a chasing group, but a teammate is in the front group with chances of winning, you should not pull. (And if plays it smart, he also can pull less than others in the group)

This is cycling tactics 101. Not wheelsucking. Cycling is a game of endurance, the rider with most energy left in a front group when going to the finish line, is the rider who did best.

When you have every reason for the group you are in to stay in front, and you have no teammates to do the work for you, you should pull. If you don't, you're wheelsucking.

This does not mean I like riders who overcalculate everything. I like it when riders attack, simply because they like to.
When Boonen was asked after P-R why he attacked with 60k to go, his answer was "because it's roubaix".
Kristoff and Degenkolb can win peloton sprints, but prefer to attack.
I do agree that's what cycling is all about; but they have every right not to attack, without being called wheelsuckers;

 

[cellardoor]

I think that is all fine if a rider attacks from time to time. But if they always appear to be in a situation where they're just sitting on, then there is a trend and I think it's fair to say that they are a bit of a wheel sucker.

 

[DNP-Old]

Thought I ended up in the official Simon Gerrans thread.

 

[trucido]

Look, I'm getting tired of this.
Every single time a rider makes use of his strategic advantage, caused by team strenght, other teams failure or sheer luck, and he has no reason to pull as much as other riders in the group, the W-word is being used.

When you are in a front group, but your team captain is in the chasing group, you should probably not pull.

When you are in a front group, but you will still win a sprint with the peloton, you should probably not pull.

When you are in a front group, but others have a lot of teammates with them, while your team is in the chasing group, you should probably not pull.

When you are the team captain in a front group, surrounded by team mates, they should pull, not you.

When you are in a chasing group, but a teammate is in the front group with chances of winning, you should not pull. (And if plays it smart, he also can pull less than others in the group)

This is cycling tactics 101. Not wheelsucking. Cycling is a game of endurance, the rider with most energy left in a front group when going to the finish line, is the rider who did best.

When you have every reason for the group you are in to stay in front, and you have no teammates to do the work for you, you should pull. If you don't, you're wheelsucking.

This does not mean I like riders who overcalculate everything. I like it when riders attack, simply because they like to.
When Boonen was asked after P-R why he attacked with 60k to go, his answer was "because it's roubaix".
Kristoff and Degenkolb can win peloton sprints, but prefer to attack.
I do agree that's what cycling is all about; but they have every right not to attack, without being called wheelsuckers;

GvA wheelsucked his way to victory on the T-A stage and that is a fact. This is of course a perfectly acceptable tactic in professional road cycling.

How you or I feel about that is completely irrelevant.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Please tell me what wheelsucking means to you? Does it mean 'not pulling as much as other riders in the group'? If it does, why is it always used in a negative way?

I tell you GVA did not wheelsuck his way to victory that stage. He had no choice but to follow Sagan, but apart from that he did not have a single reason to stay in front. The choice was between staying in a group where other teams were well presented, or waiting for his teammates to catch up. Why would he have to pull that stage, for good karma?

 

[King Boonen]

It's a great way to criticise riders you don't like basically.

 

[trucido]

Re:

Please tell me what wheelsucking means to you? Does it mean 'not pulling as much as other riders in the group'? If it does, why is it always used in a negative way?

I tell you GVA did not wheelsuck his way to victory that stage. He had no choice but to follow Sagan, but apart from that he did not have a single reason to stay in front. The choice was between staying in a group where other teams were well presented, or waiting for his teammates to catch up. Why would he have to pull that stage, for good karma?

He wheelsucked, what's wrong with this as a description? No one is saying this was bad tactics.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Not that it was bad tactics, but apparently that it was bad manners

Wheelsucker GvA wins and gets unanimous praise? smh.

Thus my question: does wheelsucking to you mean 'not pulling as much as others'?
Fair enough, but that's never how it is used; there always is a negative connotation; it's used as 'pulling less than you should'.

I have never read the sentence 'thanks to smart team tactics and brilliant wheelsucking he managed to win the race'

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

But this is not a thread based on GVA's win in a small stage race. It is based on the term wheelsucker being used over and over again. Always as a criticism, and so often misplaced.

 

[movingtarget]

Name a great sprinter who wasn't a wheelsucker ? Hinault used to call Jan Raas "the leach !" It's a tired way of saying the wrong rider won at least in the eyes of some fans. If people don't like wheelsucking that much it's time to follow another sport. It's part of the sport and always will be. It's not illegal and most riders don't even consider it bad sportsmanship except for whiners who can't take being beaten.

 

[trucido]

Re:

But this is not a thread based on GVA's win in a small stage race. It is based on the term wheelsucker being used over and over again. Always as a criticism, and so often misplaced.

Since you dislike the connotations of the term so much perhaps you should request people use something else?

GvA displayed a masterclass in "energy conservation" as he took the win in T-A.

 

[Fernandez]

Of course its legal and part of the sport, but looks bad at fans and peloton mates eyes.

 

[railxmig]

Wheelsucking... It's a risky strategy, you need to rely on variables not dependant on you. I'm not personally a fan of this strategy not because of selfishness or cowardness or however it looks like but because by implementing such strategy i'm loosing the control of the situation i am in to some partly random variables that can be calculated but are very dependant on dynamic situational changes. If i would be a pro cyclist that would be one of the favourites to win a not big bunch sprint stage or whole race (like WC or a monument), then i wouldn't be secure enough to give myself to somebody else (innuendos, innuendos everywhere). This strategy however has one big advantage - energy conservation.

Sprinters can use this strategy without any concerns because they're either behind their teammates in a sprint train or they're wheelsucking a fellow sprinter who will in 99% take part in a bunch sprint (i think McEwen and Hushovd worked like that). Because terrain is flat there is only a very small chance of any drag tests in last 5km (Cancellara, Kwiatkowski?) and lack of sprint trains to pull off any such attempts.

If the stage is more hilly and tactically difficult (most of the classics) then last kms can be very difficult to properly assess. Most of the workers or every worker was torn into shreads and only favourites are left. Terrain is either flattish or bumpy but not bumpy enough to ensure natural (or as i call it negative) selection. In such group there is high propability of a gutsy rider who isn't afraid of attacking from dozen of km to go. If such rider attacks what to do then? You can either attack yourself propably dragging with you rest of the group or stay in it conserving energy and working on the positioning for the sprint but hoping that somebody will catch the attacker or that he will bonk after spending too much energy attacking. Maybe the decision to wheelsuck or not in said scenario depends on the knowledge of other riders in the group but even then the luck factor in such decision making is very high.

If i would be a rider to make such decision i think i would be the attacking one, even if i would have the best or one of the best sprint in such group (Sagan winning WC?). Why? If my attack wouldn't work then i will be allways secure (it's not the same as just an excuse, it's more of a moral boost and mental calm) that i've tried my best, i've properly challenged the route (payed respect to it) and i gave some good times for cycling fans.

I think maybe a good assessment for this strategy is to use lesser classics to train your wheelsucking, vision and knowledge and in bigger classics to be gutsy, animate the race and maybe try to use the wheelsucking strategy in bigger races with time and experience. When i would tell that i have enough knowledge on wheelsucking's variables then i could sacrifice like one or two years to see if such strategy works for me. If i would get like tons of 2nd and 3rd places then i think i wouldn't be happy with my results and go back to my previous strategy even if it wasn't as succesfull (sadly or not only winning such races matters). In conclusion i would propably do exact opposite to what Valverde and Gerrans are doing with their classics carrer.

I don't have a clue if this post is just an useless loss of time. I'm not a cyclist specialist and i don't have any theoretical knowledge on this subject. I've just tried to use basic logic to try and understand said strategy and it's environment. In conclusion it seems theoretically wheelsucking is the best strategy for hilly stages and classics if you have like maybe 90% of every factors and variables associated with it but i think that if you want to be succesful you need to showcase at least some balls and guts.

 

[StryderHells]

Re:

It's a great way to criticise riders you don't like basically.

This pretty much sums it up perfectly

 

[Mr.White]

To me that term is the most stupid one in this forum (and other forums too), and it's not used in professional peloton, at least not among serious riders. It's a term for armchair cyclists and "experts". It's not a serious thing, and anybody who use that term is not seriously taken by me. I acknowledge strong riding, brave riding, smart riding, not so smart riding, stupid riding, coward riding, and many many more.., but wheelsucking.., well frankly I don't even know what that means, and I don't want to know!

 

[del1962]

I think the GVA situation was perfectly fine.

The funniest sitation is when riders moan about not catching the attacker saying they could have won when not themsleves working to bring them back like the WCRR 2014.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Look, I'm getting tired of this.
Every single time a rider makes use of his strategic advantage, caused by team strenght, other teams failure or sheer luck, and he has no reason to pull as much as other riders in the group, the W-word is being used.

Yet you only start a thread to whine about it when it's your hero who (rightly) gets picked at.

 

[railxmig]

Re:

To me that term is the most stupid one in this forum (and other forums too), and it's not used in professional peloton, at least not among serious riders. It's a term for armchair cyclists and "experts". It's not a serious thing, and anybody who use that term is not seriously taken by me. I acknowledge strong riding, brave riding, smart riding, not so smart riding, stupid riding, coward riding, and many many more.., but wheelsucking.., well frankly I don't even know what that means, and I don't want to know!

It's just a name so no need to lose control. I don't care how such strategy is named or not. It can even be named f**kface or by other pejorative words. My (still) lacklustre grasp of english language and plain ignorance don't help in proper naming such cycling strategy. The name of such strategy is the smallest problem here and i think it can be ignored. If wheelsucking passed as a name of such strategy in common use then i should not rethink about naming it but to think and calculate if such strategy is good or not. Yes, i know such attitude is very ignorant but i think there are better things to do with brain than arguing on irrelevant details. It's just a name for a strategy. It's not like it's offensive to any cyclist or so i think, or maybe it is? Hope i didn't offend you in any form or implication. If you have a potential name for such strategy then please share with us, maybe it will catch on and will be better than now used wheelsucking term.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Look, I'm getting tired of this.
Every single time a rider makes use of his strategic advantage, caused by team strenght, other teams failure or sheer luck, and he has no reason to pull as much as other riders in the group, the W-word is being used.

Yet you only start a thread to whine about it when it's your hero who (rightly) gets picked at.

My heroes are Tom Boonen and David Bowie. I only changed my avatar since I'm happy this attractive rider (who is for me the opposite of a wheelsucker) is finaly winning (I only sing when we're winning).

If you look back at my posts I was defending Hushovd after PR 2011 being accused of wheelsucking with Vansummeren in front, or Cavendish for being called a wheelsucker (what is he supposed to do in a race that is bound to end in a sprint?), or Stybarin vuelta 2013 for being accused of saving energy the last 2 km to win the group sprint against Gilbert and Hagen. Someone was even calling Sep Vanmarcke a Wheelsucker in 2014. Recently it was Stybar in Strade Bianchi who, according to some, should have chased Brambilla I guess?

 

[dacooley]

wheelsucker and other similar terms is just a consequence of dismal fan psychology 'i'm god, the rider should do everything to entertain me'.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re:

wheelsucker and other similar terms is just a consequence of dismal fan psychology 'i'm god, the rider should do everything to entertain me'.

No entertained fans => no viewership or merchandise sales => no pro cycling.

 

[Gigs_98]

I generally also don't see Wheelsucking as something horrible. In most cases it makes 100% sense and its obvious who is the person who should pull and who is the outsider or the rider who must not work because of team tactics.
And although I wouldnt say "a rider who didnt attack and never took a pull doesnt deserve a win" I still dislike riders who do that over and over again. Gerrans definitely took some wins because of this tactic but it just makes him one of the most hated riders, probably the most hated rider right now. If a rider is a wheelsucker I don't associate him with an undeserved winner but with someone who I don't like because he makes racing more boring. Thats why I see wheelsuckers as something negative and I definitely won't stop to do so.

 

[trucido]

Re:

To me that term is the most stupid one in this forum (and other forums too), and it's not used in professional peloton, at least not among serious riders. It's a term for armchair cyclists and "experts". It's not a serious thing, and anybody who use that term is not seriously taken by me. I acknowledge strong riding, brave riding, smart riding, not so smart riding, stupid riding, coward riding, and many many more.., but wheelsucking.., well frankly I don't even know what that means, and I don't want to know!

By this logic the viewership of professional road cycling should be limited to that of:

- Professional road cyclists
- Experts (no quotes)
- People taken seriously by Mr.White

I'm interested to see how successful this business model would be in practice.

 

[zigmeister]

I don't care personally, but this obviously came up due to Van Avermaet "wheelsucking."

Here is the big issue, Van Avermaet has been quoted several time saying his is "confident how he can beat Sagan" (paraphrasing) after his last win against him a few weeks back.

He sits on the back of 7 other riders, then barely beats Sagan in the sprint after "sitting" on conserving energy...then he is running around being quoted as "hey, I'm as good if not better than Sagan" attitude for that move.

In the recent race, Sagan also said it best, none of us on the podium would have been there if they had not canceled the climbing stage due to weather...they all would have gone off the back by 5+ minutes and the climbers, who dominate this race, go screwed. So he took it as a victory in a sense..yet peeved at Van Avermaet some and his lame excuse for not pulling ever.

Tactic? Sure, you are paid to win races. But his ridiculous quotes/statements and reasons for doing such is what I think makes most people lose respect for the guy. And other riders.

In Omloop Het Nieuwsblad, Sagan bridged off the front of the Peloton to catch the break Van Avermaet was in, and Sagan immediately started working and taking pulls. Then Van Avermaet claims he is confident that people can beat Sagan without being a better sprinter. This is what is ridiculous. He made a good move, was in the break, Sagan you could say missed it. But to make a massive bridge, obviously taking away a lot of energy for a sprint, is bold and shows his strength. Tactics is where Sagan has been criticized. He should just start sitting in and doing nothing, then with 5k to go, launch off the front of races like that and just win flat out, like the World's.

Then again, Sagan was criticized by Cancellera a few years ago for sitting on his wheel then beating him in a sprint in a classic..so goes both way. But typically, you will see guys working.

 

[StryderHells]

Re: Re:

wheelsucker and other similar terms is just a consequence of dismal fan psychology 'i'm god, the rider should do everything to entertain me'.

No entertained fans => no viewership or merchanise sales => no pro cycling.

Well that's not true is it, Sky are not an exciting team to watch yet when i'm out on the bike I see Sky jerseys everywhere