Wheelsucking

[Bushman]

Re: Re:

I agree but the key is in "opponents who make a habit of sitting on and not working even when it should in theory be to their advantage"

Most of the time people around here label people as wheelsuckers when sitting on is to their (and their team's) advantage

That I agree with almost entirely. Fans do that constantly and it's best ignored as simple sour grapes.

The "almost" is because for some riders, because of their particular spread of talents, it is nearly always their best tactical option never to take a pull. Unless the rider is an out and out big bunch sprinter, those kinds of riders are rarely in any way popular at all. And again that's just as rational from a fan's point of view as staying out of the wind at all costs is from the rider's point of view. It's not sour grapes or a double standard.

Gerrans is the archetypal example. I can absolutely understand why so many fans hate him. Personally I admire his wily ruthlessness, but I also don't like to see him win just because any race he wins will almost certainly have been very boring. As an aside, there is so much gloating about his screw up in the 2014 WCRR precisely because it's very rare that he's screws up like that. When he sits on, he's nearly always doing the tactically right thing.

I agree about Gerrans. I dont mind him sitting in the peloton letting his team do all the work and then winning Liege in 2014. The blame should be on the other riders who didn't make the race hard and at least tried something to drop his domestiques so he would have to work for it himself.

What I really dont like is his riding in MSR 2012 (I'm probably biased towards Fabian, oh well). I just rematched the finish and from the beginning of the descent to the line he took 1 pull (and not a very long one). Around 2 k to go after Cancellara had made an incredible effort on the front and several times flicked his elbow, Gerrans even sat in Fabian's wheel for a brief moment when he stopped instead of picking up the pace. Then he took a short pull in the front and sat in Fabian's wheel for the last 1.5 k.
With none in the group behind and with a good chance in the sprint against Cancellara (still a 50/50 chance even if he worked some more IMO) he had everything to ride for and nothing to sit up for.
In hindsight Cancellara should have just sat up or attacked or something else but it was the perfect example of achieving a great result with very negative racing.

 

[SKSemtex]

Re:

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

top definition

Wheelsucker, Wheelsucking. What a stupid word. The whole road cycling is about wheelsucking. With the peloton as the biggest wheelsucker. It is legitimate part of cycling. Otherwise Cance, Martin and comp. win all races they enter. If you do not like it change for Trak.

Who needs the cyling where everybody in break gives his best effort to help the strongest (fastest) rider to win.

It is strong and regular tactic but thanks god is often proved to be wrong. Break is caught or the guy "wheelsucked" by everybody just give up and the smart sole attacker with balls wins (Sagan last TDF).

Actually I really enjoyed the races where all "smart" riders lost to outsider just because they wanted the favorite to wear out.

 

[railxmig]

Re: Re:

I agree but the key is in "opponents who make a habit of sitting on and not working even when it should in theory be to their advantage"

Most of the time people around here label people as wheelsuckers when sitting on is to their (and their team's) advantage

That I agree with almost entirely. Fans do that constantly and it's best ignored as simple sour grapes.

The "almost" is because for some riders, because of their particular spread of talents, it is nearly always their best tactical option never to take a pull. Unless the rider is an out and out big bunch sprinter, those kinds of riders are rarely in any way popular at all. And again that's just as rational from a fan's point of view as staying out of the wind at all costs is from the rider's point of view. It's not sour grapes or a double standard.

Gerrans is the archetypal example. I can absolutely understand why so many fans hate him. Personally I admire his wily ruthlessness, but I also don't like to see him win just because any race he wins will almost certainly have been very boring. As an aside, there is so much gloating about his screw up in the 2014 WCRR precisely because it's very rare that he's screws up like that. When he sits on, he's nearly always doing the tactically right thing.

I agree about Gerrans. I dont mind him sitting in the peloton letting his team do all the work and then winning Liege in 2014. The blame should be on the other riders who didn't make the race hard and at least tried something to drop his domestiques so he would have to work for it himself.

What I really dont like is his riding in MSR 2012 (I'm probably biased towards Fabian, oh well). I just rematched the finish and from the beginning of the descent to the line he took 1 pull (and not a very long one). Around 2 k to go after Cancellara had made an incredible effort on the front and several times flicked his elbow, Gerrans even sat in Fabian's wheel for a brief moment when he stopped instead of picking up the pace. Then he took a short pull in the front and sat in Fabian's wheel for the last 1.5 k.
With none in the group behind and with a good chance in the sprint against Cancellara (still a 50/50 chance even if he worked some more IMO) he had everything to ride for and nothing to sit up for.
In hindsight Cancellara should have just sat up or attacked or something else but it was the perfect example of achieving a great result with very negative racing.

I wonder about legitimacy of his behaviour in said race.

1. Gerrans knew that Cance is very often willing for work thanks to his subpar sprint and amazing flat speed and when he works that means long and strong pulls.
2. They were only like couple of kms to go, so propability of chasing group catching with such powerhouse as Cancellara as your ally is relatively low, yet still it was only 2s on the finish line.
3. With them there was Nibali who seems like he struggled to keep the pace and with his crapy sprint he was most likely out of contention.
4. Do the least amount of pulls possible but enough to keep the chasing group at bay which he apparenty did.
5. Keeping Cance's wheel was theoretically a lot easier for Gerrans than Nibali as Gerrans is a borderline sprinter and sprinters are used to speed bursts for 10km or so, sometimes they have quite good results in prologues while having no TT pedigree.
6. Cancellara is no Contador or Purito, his sudden bursts aren't the best in the world, so the danger of stutter step tactics are less propable and considering Gerrans as a sprinter he propably knows how to handle it. EDIT: his attacks are extremely powerfull, he managed to explode the race with Nibali on Poggio which is barely uphill, but i don't think his stutter step tactics would be as dangerous for Gerrans as Contadors, Schlecks or Puritos.
7. The only risk i could call is if Cance would just resign and wait for the chasing group. But then propably Nibali would counter even if not in best fitness at the time, it would be a very Nibalesque thing to do on his home turf. I assume Gerrans wouldn't have big problems to catch weakened Nibali and then it would be close enough to the finish line to maybe even enter a long sprint which Gerrans should most propably win.

So, by those points i can assume that Gerrans knew where he was and what he was doing. It was a quite easy situation to calculate as Cance and Nibbles are very distinct riders with distinct behaviour and their sprint isn't something to brag on.

But what if you change Cance for let's say Van Avermaet and Nibbles for Valverde? Both are quite close to Gerrans in their strengths and styles. Gerrans would be still the best sprinter but lack of Cancellara would most propably result in chasing group catching the breakaway before finish line and Gerrans would then have an opposition in likes of Degenkolb and Sagan which are arguably better sprinters.

While i think in MSR '12 his behaviour was acceptable and understandable his WC '14 campaign was miles harder. Not only the front group was bigger and there were his arch-nemesis Van Avermaet and Valverde and Breschel who is quite competitive in sprints but there was one factor that changed the whole picture - Kwiatkowski. He was ahead of the Gerrans group by 5 to 10s. Kwiatkowski has a very good TT and the only chasing one was Gilbert for Van Avermaet but you can very loosely compare Kwiat to Cance and Gilbert to Nibbles. For Gerrans that means:

1. Sprint against Van Avermaet, Valverde and Breschel - plausible but not enough to secure a win.
2. Kristoff, Degenkolb and Bouhanni in chasing group around 10s behind - no chance in Gerrans winning if the group is caught.
3. Kwiatkowski - a good TT rider and good baroudeur - is around 10s ahead. Somebody needs to catch him. Gilbert is doing the pulls for Van Avermaet.
4. You can loosely compare Kwiat to Cance and Gilbert to Nibbles. Gilbert alone will most likely not catch Kwiat while there's no Cance to save the skin.
5. There were only a couple of kms to go so propability of chasing group catching such powerhouse as Kwiatkowski with Gilbert as your ally is relatively low.
6. If Gerrans takes a pull then most propably Valverde and Van Avermaet would sit on his wheel and do nothing. Considering the route design of this WC Valverde is most propably the freshest in the group - fresher than Gerrans. Propability of Valverde winning the sprint grows immensely.

I wonder if at the time when in the group Gerrans knew he was in strategically lost position and his oponents knew how to play given position so maybe he just resigned hoping for silver but not caring much about it or being caught by the chasing group.

i hope that i understood given environment and had good enough values of crucial variables to give plausible conclusions.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

I agree but the key is in "opponents who make a habit of sitting on and not working even when it should in theory be to their advantage"

Most of the time people around here label people as wheelsuckers when sitting on is to their (and their team's) advantage

That I agree with almost entirely. Fans do that constantly and it's best ignored as simple sour grapes.

The "almost" is because for some riders, because of their particular spread of talents, it is nearly always their best tactical option never to take a pull. Unless the rider is an out and out big bunch sprinter, those kinds of riders are rarely in any way popular at all. And again that's just as rational from a fan's point of view as staying out of the wind at all costs is from the rider's point of view. It's not sour grapes or a double standard.

Gerrans is the archetypal example. I can absolutely understand why so many fans hate him. Personally I admire his wily ruthlessness, but I also don't like to see him win just because any race he wins will almost certainly have been very boring. As an aside, there is so much gloating about his screw up in the 2014 WCRR precisely because it's very rare that he's screws up like that. When he sits on, he's nearly always doing the tactically right thing.

I agree about Gerrans. I dont mind him sitting in the peloton letting his team do all the work and then winning Liege in 2014. The blame should be on the other riders who didn't make the race hard and at least tried something to drop his domestiques so he would have to work for it himself.

What I really dont like is his riding in MSR 2012 (I'm probably biased towards Fabian, oh well). I just rematched the finish and from the beginning of the descent to the line he took 1 pull (and not a very long one). Around 2 k to go after Cancellara had made an incredible effort on the front and several times flicked his elbow, Gerrans even sat in Fabian's wheel for a brief moment when he stopped instead of picking up the pace. Then he took a short pull in the front and sat in Fabian's wheel for the last 1.5 k.
With none in the group behind and with a good chance in the sprint against Cancellara (still a 50/50 chance even if he worked some more IMO) he had everything to ride for and nothing to sit up for.
In hindsight Cancellara should have just sat up or attacked or something else but it was the perfect example of achieving a great result with very negative racing.

You maybe don't like it, but that's not a negative racing by no means. Maybe for you it is, you would be much more happier with Gerrans pulling a lot more (and by the way I didn't hear much complains about Nibali didn't pulled. He was there too, you know!). Then he would be much more exposed to Cancellara's attack, which would eventually came cause Canc knew who the better sprinter was. So why would Gerrans do such a thing and risk likely victory? I wouldn't do it either. Only scenario in which he needs to work is that the group behind is dangerously closing. That didn't happened as you know. Negative racing would be the case in which Gerrans refused to work, and the group behind catched them.This way however, Gerrans rode a perfect race. Cancellara rode a brave race, but not so perfect...

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Wheelsucker - a wonderful word(s), also in french.

Don't mind the occasional wheelsucker win, its part of the game. However some riders are notorious wheelsuckers and these are just ultra boring.

 

[Bushman]

Re: Re:

I agree but the key is in "opponents who make a habit of sitting on and not working even when it should in theory be to their advantage"

Most of the time people around here label people as wheelsuckers when sitting on is to their (and their team's) advantage

That I agree with almost entirely. Fans do that constantly and it's best ignored as simple sour grapes.

The "almost" is because for some riders, because of their particular spread of talents, it is nearly always their best tactical option never to take a pull. Unless the rider is an out and out big bunch sprinter, those kinds of riders are rarely in any way popular at all. And again that's just as rational from a fan's point of view as staying out of the wind at all costs is from the rider's point of view. It's not sour grapes or a double standard.

Gerrans is the archetypal example. I can absolutely understand why so many fans hate him. Personally I admire his wily ruthlessness, but I also don't like to see him win just because any race he wins will almost certainly have been very boring. As an aside, there is so much gloating about his screw up in the 2014 WCRR precisely because it's very rare that he's screws up like that. When he sits on, he's nearly always doing the tactically right thing.

I agree about Gerrans. I dont mind him sitting in the peloton letting his team do all the work and then winning Liege in 2014. The blame should be on the other riders who didn't make the race hard and at least tried something to drop his domestiques so he would have to work for it himself.

What I really dont like is his riding in MSR 2012 (I'm probably biased towards Fabian, oh well). I just rematched the finish and from the beginning of the descent to the line he took 1 pull (and not a very long one). Around 2 k to go after Cancellara had made an incredible effort on the front and several times flicked his elbow, Gerrans even sat in Fabian's wheel for a brief moment when he stopped instead of picking up the pace. Then he took a short pull in the front and sat in Fabian's wheel for the last 1.5 k.
With none in the group behind and with a good chance in the sprint against Cancellara (still a 50/50 chance even if he worked some more IMO) he had everything to ride for and nothing to sit up for.
In hindsight Cancellara should have just sat up or attacked or something else but it was the perfect example of achieving a great result with very negative racing.

You maybe don't like it, but that's not a negative racing by no means. Maybe for you it is, you would be much more happier with Gerrans pulling a lot more (and by the way I didn't hear much complains about Nibali didn't pulled. He was there too, you know!). Then he would be much more exposed to Cancellara's attack, which would eventually came cause Canc knew who the better sprinter was. So why would Gerrans do such a thing and risk likely victory? I wouldn't do it either. Only scenario in which he needs to work is that the group behind is dangerously closing. That didn't happened as you know. Negative racing would be the case in which Gerrans refused to work, and the group behind catched them.This way however, Gerrans rode a perfect race. Cancellara rode a brave race, but not so perfect...

It was perfectly fine for Nibali to not do anything. He lose a sprint 11/10 times against those two, he had Sagan in the chase group (I do wonder sometimes if Sagan would have had his first monument already in 2012 had Nibali not attacked and brought Cancellara and Gerrans with him). And I'm not excpecting Gerrans to take as huge turns as Cancellara, but in such a case I definitely would expect him to do his part.

The ONLY reason they wasnt caught was because of Cancellara and that is quite a big gamble from Gerrans' perspective

 

[del1962]

Re: Re:

I wonder about legitimacy of his behaviour in said race.

1. Gerrans knew that Cance is very often willing for work thanks to his subpar sprint and amazing flat speed and when he works that means long and strong pulls.
2. They were only like couple of kms to go, so propability of chasing group catching with such powerhouse as Cancellara as your ally is relatively low, yet still it was only 2s on the finish line.
3. With them there was Nibali who seems like he struggled to keep the pace and with his crapy sprint he was most likely out of contention.
4. Do the least amount of pulls possible but enough to keep the chasing group at bay which he apparenty did.
5. Keeping Cance's wheel was theoretically a lot easier for Gerrans than Nibali as Gerrans is a borderline sprinter and sprinters are used to speed bursts for 10km or so, sometimes they have quite good results in prologues while having no TT pedigree.
6. Cancellara is no Contador or Purito, his sudden bursts aren't the best in the world, so the danger of stutter step tactics are less propable and considering Gerrans as a sprinter he propably knows how to handle it. EDIT: his attacks are extremely powerfull, he managed to explode the race with Nibali on Poggio which is barely uphill, but i don't think his stutter step tactics would be as dangerous for Gerrans as Contadors, Schlecks or Puritos.
7. The only risk i could call is if Cance would just resign and wait for the chasing group. But then propably Nibali would counter even if not in best fitness at the time, it would be a very Nibalesque thing to do on his home turf. I assume Gerrans wouldn't have big problems to catch weakened Nibali and then it would be close enough to the finish line to maybe even enter a long sprint which Gerrans should most propably win.

So, by those points i can assume that Gerrans knew where he was and what he was doing. It was a quite easy situation to calculate as Cance and Nibbles are very distinct riders with distinct behaviour and their sprint isn't something to brag on.

But what if you change Cance for let's say Van Avermaet and Nibbles for Valverde? Both are quite close to Gerrans in their strengths and styles. Gerrans would be still the best sprinter but lack of Cancellara would most propably result in chasing group catching the breakaway before finish line and Gerrans would then have an opposition in likes of Degenkolb and Sagan which are arguably better sprinters.

While i think in MSR '12 his behaviour was acceptable and understandable his WC '14 campaign was miles harder. Not only the front group was bigger and there were his arch-nemesis Van Avermaet and Valverde and Breschel who is quite competitive in sprints but there was one factor that changed the whole picture - Kwiatkowski. He was ahead of the Gerrans group by 5 to 10s. Kwiatkowski has a very good TT and the only chasing one was Gilbert for Van Avermaet but you can very loosely compare Kwiat to Cance and Gilbert to Nibbles. For Gerrans that means:

1. Sprint against Van Avermaet, Valverde and Breschel - plausible but not enough to secure a win.
2. Kristoff, Degenkolb and Bouhanni in chasing group around 10s behind - no chance in Gerrans winning if the group is caught.
3. Kwiatkowski - a good TT rider and good baroudeur - is around 10s ahead. Somebody needs to catch him. Gilbert is doing the pulls for Van Avermaet.
4. You can loosely compare Kwiat to Cance and Gilbert to Nibbles. Gilbert alone will most likely not catch Kwiat while there's no Cance to save the skin.
5. There were only a couple of kms to go so propability of chasing group catching such powerhouse as Kwiatkowski with Gilbert as your ally is relatively low.
6. If Gerrans takes a pull then most propably Valverde and Van Avermaet would sit on his wheel and do nothing. Considering the route design of this WC Valverde is most propably the freshest in the group - fresher than Gerrans. Propability of Valverde winning the sprint grows immensely.

I wonder if at the time when in the group Gerrans knew he was in strategically lost position and his oponents knew how to play given position so maybe he just resigned hoping for silver but not caring much about it or being caught by the chasing group.

i hope that i understood given environment and had good enough values of crucial variables to give plausible conclusions.

I suspect on anything other than relatively steep inclines, Spartacus an put out a better burst of speed suddenly than any of Purito, Contador or Schleck

 

[Libertine Seguros]

On the 2014 Worlds, there was a lot of triumphalism about Gerrans' negative tactics not being successful of course. As mentioned before, we as fans watch to be entertained, therefore we do not wish to celebrate the success of a form of cycling that does not provide entertainment; races won by Gerrans in his trademark style have become emblematic of badly raced events where everybody looks at each other and nobody takes any risks, allowing him to profit like that. However, the triumphalism was increased because he proceeded to whinge about how he had the legs to fight for the victory and yet did not do the slightest thing to show that and merit the chance to fight for it. He chose to sit on and expect others to do the work for him even when it was more advantageous to him to work and most of them knew that he would beat them in a sprint even if they weren't exhausted from doing the work for him, and then complained that they didn't do so. It's not just a plan to succeed via negative tactics (often those negative tactics are what's won him races, and he's a professional) with no plan B that means Kwiatkowski triumphing over Gerrans was greeted with enthusiasm by most fans; it's him having a sense of entitlement that he should profit from opponents' work without doing any of his own as well.

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

I agree but the key is in "opponents who make a habit of sitting on and not working even when it should in theory be to their advantage"

Most of the time people around here label people as wheelsuckers when sitting on is to their (and their team's) advantage

That I agree with almost entirely. Fans do that constantly and it's best ignored as simple sour grapes.

The "almost" is because for some riders, because of their particular spread of talents, it is nearly always their best tactical option never to take a pull. Unless the rider is an out and out big bunch sprinter, those kinds of riders are rarely in any way popular at all. And again that's just as rational from a fan's point of view as staying out of the wind at all costs is from the rider's point of view. It's not sour grapes or a double standard.

Gerrans is the archetypal example. I can absolutely understand why so many fans hate him. Personally I admire his wily ruthlessness, but I also don't like to see him win just because any race he wins will almost certainly have been very boring. As an aside, there is so much gloating about his screw up in the 2014 WCRR precisely because it's very rare that he's screws up like that. When he sits on, he's nearly always doing the tactically right thing.

I agree about Gerrans. I dont mind him sitting in the peloton letting his team do all the work and then winning Liege in 2014. The blame should be on the other riders who didn't make the race hard and at least tried something to drop his domestiques so he would have to work for it himself.

What I really dont like is his riding in MSR 2012 (I'm probably biased towards Fabian, oh well). I just rematched the finish and from the beginning of the descent to the line he took 1 pull (and not a very long one). Around 2 k to go after Cancellara had made an incredible effort on the front and several times flicked his elbow, Gerrans even sat in Fabian's wheel for a brief moment when he stopped instead of picking up the pace. Then he took a short pull in the front and sat in Fabian's wheel for the last 1.5 k.
With none in the group behind and with a good chance in the sprint against Cancellara (still a 50/50 chance even if he worked some more IMO) he had everything to ride for and nothing to sit up for.
In hindsight Cancellara should have just sat up or attacked or something else but it was the perfect example of achieving a great result with very negative racing.

You maybe don't like it, but that's not a negative racing by no means. Maybe for you it is, you would be much more happier with Gerrans pulling a lot more (and by the way I didn't hear much complains about Nibali didn't pulled. He was there too, you know!). Then he would be much more exposed to Cancellara's attack, which would eventually came cause Canc knew who the better sprinter was. So why would Gerrans do such a thing and risk likely victory? I wouldn't do it either. Only scenario in which he needs to work is that the group behind is dangerously closing. That didn't happened as you know. Negative racing would be the case in which Gerrans refused to work, and the group behind catched them.This way however, Gerrans rode a perfect race. Cancellara rode a brave race, but not so perfect...

It was perfectly fine for Nibali to not do anything. He lose a sprint 11/10 times against those two, he had Sagan in the chase group (I do wonder sometimes if Sagan would have had his first monument already in 2012 had Nibali not attacked and brought Cancellara and Gerrans with him). And I'm not excpecting Gerrans to take as huge turns as Cancellara, but in such a case I definitely would expect him to do his part.

The ONLY reason they wasnt caught was because of Cancellara and that is quite a big gamble from Gerrans' perspective

If I recall correctly, and I could be wrong, it was Nibali who initiated the aggression with his attack, which was responded to by Cancellara with Gerrans on his wheel. Nibali should be given credit for his time in the wind solo, however brief, while Gerrans when given the opportunity to contribute spent no more than a couple of seconds on the front after Cancellara briefly slowed and pulled to the side. Gerrans was only in the wind for that brief second, making little if any effort to pull through and Cancellara, immediately seeing that Gerrans was to be of absolutely no help, had a choice of hesitating longer and risking being overtaken or continuing on, hoping that he would have enough to make it to finish and take the sprint. Since I'm not at all a Gerrans fan, I can't help but feel that his lack of contribution to the escapees, by choice, being rewarded with such a big win was one of the more disappointing endings to a major race that I've experienced. I found it even more of a let down than Leipheimer's victory over Cunego in the 2011 Tour de Swiss.

 

[Bushman]

Indeed, it was Nibali who attacked on the Poggio with Gerrans in his wheel right away while Cancellara powered away from the peloton to bridge the gap before the top

 

[The Hegelian]

I'm with the OP and the Gerrans defenders.

Everything is a gamble - sitting on, pulling, attacking, waiting in the bunch. Whatever card you play, it has risks and benefits.

The art of road racing is knowing how to gamble well with the suit you have.

People want the art of road racing to be a lesson in moral philosophy: go to church if you want virtue! Or they want it to be a time trial where the one with the best legs on the day wins: watch a time trial if you want that!

I want chess on wheels where the pawn or bishop can take the king with one well timed classy move.

 

[Carstenbf]

Re:

I'm with the OP and the Gerrans defenders.

Everything is a gamble - sitting on, pulling, attacking, waiting in the bunch. Whatever card you play, it has risks and benefits.

The art of road racing is knowing how to gamble well with the suit you have.

People want the art of road racing to be a lesson in moral philosophy: go to church if you want virtue! Or they want it to be a time trial where the one with the best legs on the day wins: watch a time trial if you want that!

I want chess on wheels where the pawn or bishop can take the king with one well timed classy move.

Good post. Totally agree.

 

[SKSemtex]

Re: Re:

I'm with the OP and the Gerrans defenders.

Everything is a gamble - sitting on, pulling, attacking, waiting in the bunch. Whatever card you play, it has risks and benefits.

The art of road racing is knowing how to gamble well with the suit you have.

People want the art of road racing to be a lesson in moral philosophy: go to church if you want virtue! Or they want it to be a time trial where the one with the best legs on the day wins: watch a time trial if you want that!

I want chess on wheels where the pawn or bishop can take the king with one well timed classy move.

Good post. Totally agree.

WHAT a post !

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re:

I want chess on wheels where the pawn or bishop can take the king with one well timed classy move.

Is sitting on a breakaway and refusing to do any work a classy move?

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

I want chess on wheels where the pawn or bishop can take the king with one well timed classy move.

Is sitting on a breakaway and refusing to do any work a classy move?

If you're the bishop and you take the king, then yes of course it is.

If I wanted to see the most powerful always win, I'd follow shot put.

And if I wanted to see something pure and virtuous, I'd try and dream about angels. No one is racing out of altruism, whether they pull hard or not at all.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re: Re:

If you're the bishop and you take the king, then yes of course it is.

Gimme a straight answer, please, not some apples-and-oranges chess comparison.

 

[WheelofGear]

How to you classify an wheelsucker? A rider from an opposing team who sits on the wheel of another rider without working? Why is Gerrans always the primary example? What about Majka? A climber can't be a wheelsucker or what?

And why are riders who are good in reduced sprints such as Gerrans always called "wheelsuckers" while the pure sprinters who rely entirely one their team (and other teams) aren't? At least Gerrans is attentive and good at hitting the right breaks. A one-dimensional sprinter wouldn't even be able to do that.

 

[carton]

Re:

People want the art of road racing to be a lesson in moral philosophy: go to church if you want virtue! Or they want it to be a time trial where the one with the best legs on the day wins: watch a time trial if you want that!

You're completely missing the point on this. Cycling fans evidently care little to nothing about the morality or turpitude of riders. And they actually usually hate seeing the best man win always, it'd be ridiculously boring. Whatever their other flaws, people hated Anquetil, Indurain, Froome and even Armstrong mostly for how boring they were when they just won the time trial and rode defensively for the win. And that's the word with the triple word score, defensively. Most cycling fans love attacking riding. Which obviously involves tactics. Having someone attack across to teammates in an earlier break is perhaps the most exciting move in cycling, IMHO. Or having someone attack into the descent or slip out of the small group while the other riders look at themselves.

But as far as I'm concerned, if you win by being strategically defensive, it's all good. I was a huge Miguelon fan growing up. His ride up the Plagne was beautiful, amongst other things. When Dege bridged into the leader at Roubaix and sat on the wheels, I loved it. It was an exciting move by him, and the onus was on everyone else to attack him. He rode defensively but he didn't ride negatively, as he didn't make the race boring, quite the opposite. But when you're trying to start a move and someone just latches on and tries to do no work for no other reason than to have fresher legs for the finale it usually ends up being the end of the move. It disintegrates into rash attacks and the move ends. Sometimes they believe his sandbagging or want to win so bad that they'd rather have a 10-1 shot in the breakaway sprint than a 100-1 shot in bunch sprint. So every once in a while the other riders are daft enough to give the guy a free ride to the win

I think that's negative riding, and I hate it. But that's completely subjective. If that floats your boat, fine. At the end of the day a win is a win, bike racing is a competition. And in a free society everyone gets to cheer for who they want: I'll cheer for the stupid aggressive riders, you go ahead and cheer for the savvy wheelsuckers.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Better to be a wheelsucker than a carsucker I guess

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

I want chess on wheels where the pawn or bishop can take the king with one well timed classy move.

Is sitting on a breakaway and refusing to do any work a classy move?

If you're the bishop and you take the king, then yes of course it is.

If I wanted to see the most powerful always win, I'd follow shot put.

And if I wanted to see something pure and virtuous, I'd try and dream about angels. No one is racing out of altruism, whether they pull hard or not at all.

It's not a "classy" move, it is a "practical" move. Notwithstanding that you don't "take" the king in chess anyway, but the analogy doesn't hold. Your argument is effectively that the end justifies the means, because the guy who wasn't the strongest on the day won. That's fine, Gerrans has accumulated a much better palmarès than he might have done otherwise by using that tactic. But if you game the opposition and beat them with a well-timed move, that's different to "sit at the back and expect others to do the work for you then outsprint them".

Now, that may be the best way on several occasions for Simon Gerrans to win a bike race, and that in and of itself isn't inherently bad. It's more that, in order for that tactic to succeed, the other racers have to be either timid or neutralize one another's attempts at breaks, and therefore the races that he can win by that method are typically dull or defensive affairs, and so he becomes emblematic of poor racing. His Liège-Bastogne-Liège win is the ideal example of that - the two riders who'd actually tried to do something in that race were caught at the last by a bunch who just looked at each other, and then a guy who had no business being in the group at that point in the day if they hadn't raced so poorly won without being mentioned all day. Simon Gerrans was the winner that race deserved, and that's not a compliment to anybody who entered that race except Dan Martin and Domenico Pozzovivo.

But when you get a race like the Ponferrada World Championships, THAT is an example to use your chess analogy of a pawn or a bishop trapping the king. Of somebody making one classy move and winning as a result. That man was Michal Kwiatkowski. The one that made the attack and held off the much stronger group behind. Not the guy that sat in the group behind. See, if Gerrans had helped with the chase there, and then won the sprint, it would be a different matter. He could have shirked turns, gamed the opposition, pretended to be weaker than he was but do just enough to keep his breakmates happy to keep working with him until Kwiatkowski was reeled back (and he could try to hold that off until the last minute to stop any counterattacks too), and that's tactical "wheelsucking". Nobody sees a problem with that. But he didn't. He sat on, didn't take a pull, and then when the group didn't catch Kwiatkowski, he whined in the press that he'd had the legs to compete for the win... so why didn't he try to compete for the win?

The more broken up a race gets, the more evident "wheelsucking" gets, which is why sprinters (whose very raison d'être is to only put their nose in the wind for 200m) don't get the same criticism as those who just grind up mountains following wheels (hello Levi) or those who sit in the groups in Classics but never contribute (hello Gerrans). Degenkolb at Roubaix is a good example of doing that without "wheelsucking"; he'd earnt the right to take a rest at the back of the group because he'd just expended the energy of riding across to them. If they attacked him then, they had a chance, once the group nullified other attacks, he can say, well, I'll take you in the sprint, we're close to home.

If Kwiatkowski wasn't up the road and Gerrans refused to take a turn, it wouldn't have had the same negativity - he's backing himself in the sprint, which he's entitled to do. When somebody is up the road and he's saying he won't chase because he will back himself in the sprint, he has no right to be upset that that sprint is for 2nd place.

 

[hrotha]

All this talk about it being a legitimate tactic completely misses the point. Yes, it's 100% legitimate. It's also 100% legitimate for fans to not like that attitude, as it makes races more boring.

Being legitimate doesn't mean it should be celebrated.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re:

People want the art of road racing to be a lesson in moral philosophy: go to church if you want virtue! Or they want it to be a time trial where the one with the best legs on the day wins: watch a time trial if you want that

Or they want it to be all about strategy. So for that matter; watch chess if you want that.......

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

People want the art of road racing to be a lesson in moral philosophy: go to church if you want virtue! Or they want it to be a time trial where the one with the best legs on the day wins: watch a time trial if you want that

Or they want it to be all about strategy. So for that matter; watch chess if you want that.......

I see what you did there. But I see great beauty in strategy. Following wheels can be called wheelsucking and then it sounds bad, but it has always been an integral part of road racing, as has any way of saving a bit of energy for important moments, including the finale. And the riders don't all have the same obligation to ride for it.

As in all things, it's a question of degree and judgement - that of the rider and that of the watcher. The man with the best legs does not always win and it's no good going flat out all the time, except on those few occasions when it works for someone. There are exceptions to every tactical rule. It's something to do with all the other riders, of course.

 

[ray j willings]

I would like to see teams installing a james bond oil slick device for wheel suckers at the back of bikes.
Another option would be to ride on really wide roads. Most country's would be happy to spend millions on their infrastructure to make this happen.
Another solution would be to put a long piece of bamboo sticking out the end of the bike making it impossible to wheel suck.
I would consider teams having a sniper in the team car and taking out any offending riders.

Chris Froome would obviously get a warning due to his intense stem watching but if he does not heed the warning
" take him out"

 

[Maxiton]