Which team was the biggest fail in stage 9?

[Angliru]

I wished that Kreuziger would attack, he seemed like he wanted to and he is in the same time as Contador. Of course it might not have preoccupied Froome as much but still Saxo could have gotten something out of this day

With 30 km's from the final climb to the finish any effort made to attack and gain time by any of the top riders in the gc would've been an effort in futility likely resulting in losing not gaining time. If Kreuziger would've attacked, Movistar likely would've responded or even left him to hang out there until reeling him in and spitting him out the back, leaving him to finish likely far behind Gesink's group. I just don't see how it was worth the risk at this point especially since Kreuziger would've been seen as a threat almost equal to Quintana by other teams based on his current form. It was rather frustrating to watch but I can see why the teams chose the strategy that they did.

 

[movingtarget]

Sky had an unfortunate day but Movistar had a wasted day even after Garmin help set it up for them. Lots of head scratching about tactics after the stage. With Froome already in yellow Kiryienka's loss may not be as bad as Froome only has to defend and do well in the TTs. Maybe others are hoping his climbing legs disappear later in the race. Plus Porte has a few days to recover and can even take it easy in the TT if he wants as the podium is not an option now. Big opportunity missed by Saxo and Movistar.

 

[Angliru]

Sky had an unfortunate day but Movistar had a wasted day even after Garmin help set it up for them. Lots of head scratching about tactics after the stage. With Froome already in yellow Kiryienka's loss may not be as bad as Froome only has to defend and do well in the TTs. Maybe others are hoping his climbing legs disappear later in the race. Plus Porte has a few days to recover and can even take it easy in the TT if he wants as the podium is not an option now. Big opportunity missed by Saxo and Movistar.

I think any time you eliminate someone from the gc completely (Porte) especially someone from the supposedly strongest team with the race favorite (Froome), who is then left isolated, then it is a successful stage. The effort it took to ensure that Sky did not catch back on, the fatigue of the multiple mountains that were traversed, makes the hope that riders would be capable of mounting spirited attacks on the final climb all while knowing that there will be, I repeat this again, 30 kms of descent to the finish, rather unrealistic and more of video game mentality which of course this is not. As was mentioned earlier we can say what ideally should've been done but considering the parcours of the stage it is reasonable to believe that had certain key riders had the legs to do so (attack), then they would have. Some risks aren't worth the effort when weighed against the potential negative consequences.

 

[The Hitch]

You mean to tell me this forum exists year round?

All the riders interviewed, stated that Froome showed no weakness, and I believe they were being honest. So why sacrifice your GC position on a failed attack in the first week?

It's easy to sit in front of the TV and say "Attack, Attack!" But if you are sitting in the saddle of the 4th climb, in a dwindling and very elite group of 10 or so, I'm not so sure those are the first words crossing your mind...even if they are being screamed into your ear!

you like others seem to not understand the concept of teammates attacking.

If you send Quintana/ Costa up the road then the gc leader - Valverde, doesn't waste any energy. The rest of the team stays with him.

If Froome does attack in response then he has to pace the next 70k on his own. While Valverde has a whole team to do so for him. Froome would likely aknowledge this and drop back to the main group, and everything would go back to square 1 only Froome will have wasted energy. Repeat this 3 or 4 times and froome loses more energy.

Valverde meanwhile loses nothing.

So no, those calling for an attack were not asking Movistar to sacrifice the position of their gc leader. Or to waste any energy. They wasted more energy pulling the main group for 3 hours.

 

[veji11]

I think any time you eliminate someone from the gc completely (Porte) especially someone from the supposedly strongest team with the race favorite (Froome), who is then left isolated, then it is a successful stage. The effort it took to ensure that Sky did not catch back on, the fatigue of the multiple mountains that were traversed, makes the hope that riders would be capable of mounting spirited attacks on the final climb all while knowing that there will be, I repeat this again, 30 kms of descent to the finish, rather unrealistic and more of video game mentality which of course this is not. As was mentioned earlier we can say what ideally should've been done but considering the parcours of the stage it is reasonable to believe that had certain key riders had the legs to do so (attack), then they would have. Some risks aren't worth the effort when weighed against the potential negative consequences.

Exactly. The danger in the last 2 climbs was that most of the contenders were already deep in the red and more attacks could very well have resulted in them just exploding. Contador clearly wanted to keep Kreuziger by his side because if a Quintana attack led to a Froome counter, he would have dropped and needed someone to pull him. and knowing him and what he can do in the 3rd week it makes sense not to risk him dropping 2 minutes for a 30 seconds gain for Kreuziger. More or less the same for Movistar.

Just killing of Porte makes the day a great success for both teams. Actually finding a way of defeating Froome would have made it one of the best days in tour de France history, so let's not overreact.

 

[veji11]

you like others seem to not understand the concept of teammates attacking.

If you send Quintana/ Costa up the road then the gc leader - Valverde, doesn't waste any energy. The rest of the team stays with him.

If Froome does attack in response then he has to pace the next 70k on his own. While Valverde has a whole team to do so for him. Froome would likely aknowledge this and drop back to the main group, and everything would go back to square 1 only Froome will have wasted energy. Repeat this 3 or 4 times and froome loses more energy.

Valverde meanwhile loses nothing.

So no, those calling for an attack were not asking Movistar to sacrifice the position of their gc leader. Or to waste any energy. They wasted more energy pulling the main group for 3 hours.

this would be assuming :
1/ those teammates attacking can go all the way and actually gain you something. Could Costa or Plaza do it ? Because certainly Quintana wasn't going anywhere, Froome would have chased him.
2/ Porte and other skys coming back from behind arent'a able to contribute and allow Froome to control the damage done

 

[The Hitch]

The effort it took to ensure that Sky did not catch back on, the fatigue of the multiple mountains that were traversed, makes the hope that riders would be capable of mounting spirited attacks on the final climb all while knowing that there will be, I repeat this again, 30 kms of descent to the finish, rather unrealistic and more of video game mentality which of course this is not. As was mentioned earlier we can say what ideally should've been done but considering the parcours of the stage it is reasonable to believe that had certain key riders had the legs to do so (attack), then they would have. Some risks aren't worth the effort when weighed against the potential negative consequences.

Thats bull****. The movistar domestiques had the legs to pace the peloton for 4 hours but their superdomestiques (who are better thats why they are superdomestiques) would not have had the legs to attack then ride at their own pace?

Are you serious.
If thats the case why are Quintana and Rui Costa Movistars second and 3rd choice and not Jonathan Castroviejo

And how is it a risk not worth taking to send Quintana up the road when the yellow jersey DOESN't HAVE ANY TEAMMATES TO CHASE HIM.

Worst case scenario he loses time. So what. Where else is his gc position even going to be of any benefit.

I think any time you eliminate someone from the gc completely (Porte) especially someone from the supposedly strongest team with the race favorite (Froome), who is then left isolated, then it is a successful stage.

lololol. if you isolate the yellow jersey but take no time on him then its a succesful stage. Im confused, if someone is 20 minutes down on gc does that mean they have to start the next stage 20 minutes after the leader, OR do they get to start all the remaining stages right by his side? the way you are talking one would think its the former.

And btw porte being off gc just means he can put even more effort into helping froome. What a genius move that was.

 

[The Hitch]

this would be assuming :
1/ those teammates attacking can go all the way and actually gain you something. Could Costa or Plaza do it ? Because certainly Quintana wasn't going anywhere, Froome would have chased him.
2/ Porte and other skys coming back from behind arent'a able to contribute and allow Froome to control the damage done

1 Froome was not next to Quintana the whole time. If Quintana attacked then it would have been a good 5 seconds before Froome realised, made the decision, got out of his saddle and started chasing him. He would wast some effort at least. If this was tried 4 or 5 times alternating between Quintana and Costa he would have wasted a lot of energy which Valverde would not have. At the very least they would have really made things hard for Froome.

2 By the 2nd climb from the end Porte was the only sky domestique who could have come back and he was cooking himself chasing back on.

Quintana would have been 2 minutes ahead by the time Porte got back and Porte wouldn't even be able to get very far.

Moreover Sky ds's and Froome would be given a headache and not know what decision to take. Wait for Porte, or go on your own.

Who says theyd even make the right decision.

 

[del1962]

1 Froome was not next to Quintana the whole time. If Quintana attacked then it would have been a good 5 seconds before Froome realised, made the decision, got out of his saddle and started chasing him. He would wast some effort at least. If this was tried 4 or 5 times alternating between Quintana and Costa he would have wasted a lot of energy which Valverde would not have. At the very least they would have really made things hard for Froome.

2 By the 2nd climb from the end Porte was the only sky domestique who could have come back and he was cooking himself chasing back on.

Quintana would have been 2 minutes ahead by the time Porte got back and Porte wouldn't even be able to get very far.

Moreover Sky ds's and Froome would be given a headache and not know what decision to take. Wait for Porte, or go on your own.

Who says theyd even make the right decision.

I think Froome had decided there where only two wheels he needed to respond to, Valverde and Quintana, imo he would have let Rui Costa go. If then the rest sat up, some Sky riders would have got back on.

 

[The Hitch]

I think Froome had decided there where only two wheels he needed to respond to, Valverde and Quintana, imo he would have let Rui Costa go. If then the rest sat up, some Sky riders would have got back on.

Which sky riders?

 

[del1962]

Which sky riders?

Porte, but others earlier on, perhaps on the final climb no one, but it was all over by then.

 

[Boeing]

I say Saxo. for some reason the option of attacking to break or at lease test Valverde and Quitana seemed like the obvious opportunity assuming Movistar were spent with all the work.

I cant call Movistars tactics a fail because in the end they removed the then 2 GC guy for their benefit. however if Movistar's thought was to try and surge Froome into the red with Quintana trying to mix tempo and pace then why didnt they continue that with the lot of them at the front? More guys doing the same would have hurt more riders more often simple.

But alas, not knowing what it is like making decisions after 5 hours in full anaerobic back to back days, one can only assume practical cognitive function was in the red zone as well.

 

[Angliru]

Thats bull****. The movistar domestiques had the legs to pace the peloton for 4 hours but their superdomestiques (who are better thats why they are superdomestiques) would not have had the legs to attack then ride at their own pace?

Are you serious.
If thats the case why are Quintana and Rui Costa Movistars second and 3rd choice and not Jonathan Castroviejo

And how is it a risk not worth taking to send Quintana up the road when the yellow jersey DOESN't HAVE ANY TEAMMATES TO CHASE HIM.

Worst case scenario he loses time. So what. Where else is his gc position even going to be of any benefit.




lololol. if you isolate the yellow jersey but take no time on him then its a succesful stage. Im confused, if someone is 20 minutes down on gc does that mean they have to start the next stage 20 minutes after the leader, OR do they get to start all the remaining stages right by his side? the way you are talking one would think its the former.

And btw porte being off gc just means he can put even more effort into helping froome. What a genius move that was.

Your narrow perspective and condescending tone is quite unbecoming.


1.Sky had the 1 and 2 in the gc before the stage. They now have just Froome with Porte completely eliminated from contention. That's a plus.

2. It was revealed to the other teams and the world that Sky is not the all-powerful force that they were made out to be by dropping all but their ride leader by a monstrous 17 minutes . That's a plus.

Ideally they would've attacked Froome left and right but reality doesn't always mirror one's hopes and dreams. Froome easily responded to whatever attacks that were presented, and as I said multiple times with the 30 km descent, the chance of escapees gaining time on Froome, had they even been able to drop him, was unlikely because dropping Froome would mean dropping other riders that likely would've been in the same boat as Froome in trying to reel in whoever had got in the break. They would've assisted Froome because they shared a common goal. Right now Froome is head and shoulders above his competitors as mirrored by the separation he created in his stage win.

At this stage you have 2 team leaders (Contador and Valverde) who are arguably at this point in the Tour weaker form wise than their super-domestiques so for Quintana and Kreuziger to abandon their leaders going off all willy-nilly on attacks that may put their primaries into difficulty would be an idiotic form of cycling suicide. They both being unproven over 3 weeks that would be a risk not worth taking. Saxo is banking on Contador's form improving over the course of the 3 weeks and he has improved since the first mtf.

 

[Angliru]

1 Froome was not next to Quintana the whole time. If Quintana attacked then it would have been a good 5 seconds before Froome realised, made the decision, got out of his saddle and started chasing him. He would wast some effort at least. If this was tried 4 or 5 times alternating between Quintana and Costa he would have wasted a lot of energy which Valverde would not have. At the very least they would have really made things hard for Froome.

2 By the 2nd climb from the end Porte was the only sky domestique who could have come back and he was cooking himself chasing back on.

Quintana would have been 2 minutes ahead by the time Porte got back and Porte wouldn't even be able to get very far.

Moreover Sky ds's and Froome would be given a headache and not know what decision to take. Wait for Porte, or go on your own.

Who says theyd even make the right decision.

As I said previously this isn't a video game. Maybe Quintana didn't have the legs for 4 or 5 attacks. I too was hoping for counter attacks once Froome bridged but what I wish for what their legs are capable of are completely unrelated. Froome I believe is smart enough, as are Sky's ds to tell him who is worthy of responding to and who isn't. If you think Froome would've wasted effort chasing down every attack then why didn't he chase down Fuglsang and Martin when they jumped off the front?

 

[cineteq]

You mean to tell me this forum exists year round?

All the riders interviewed, stated that Froome showed no weakness, and I believe they were being honest. So why sacrifice your GC position on a failed attack in the first week?

It's easy to sit in front of the TV and say "Attack, Attack!" But if you are sitting in the saddle of the 4th climb, in a dwindling and very elite group of 10 or so, I'm not so sure those are the first words crossing your mind...even if they are being screamed into your ear!

I meant people think of Movistar as the biggest fail, when they should be looking at Saxo. In other words, we agree.

 

[Cimber]

Gotta agree with Hitch. Eliminating Porte doesnt do that much good (unless you are happy with 2nd or 3rd). They should have attacked with the super doms in the valley, which they did but sadly Valverde played skyborg and pulled Froome up

 

[cineteq]

As I said previously this isn't a video game. Maybe Quintana didn't have the legs for 4 or 5 attacks. I too was hoping for counter attacks once Froome bridged but what I wish for what their legs are capable of are completely unrelated.

Valverde agrees.
"Esa etapa fue una buena oportunidad para intentar desbancar a Froome con la ayuda de algún otro equipo, pero sólo lo intentamos nosotros", ha lamentado Valverde en la rueda de prensa de la jornada de descanso en Saint Nazaire,

http://biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=63761

 

[JetSet]

If you think Froome would've wasted effort chasing down every attack then why didn't he chase down Fuglsang and Martin when they jumped off the front?

This was the main problem that the front group had, too many riders from too many different teams all with their own agenda. He didn't need to chase them down as they were no threat to him until they got say 5 minutes. But would Movistar, Saxo and Belkin allow them 5 minutes, I somehow doubt it.

This to me was the problem the minute they isolated Froome, small time gaps in The GC and too many dangerous riders in that leading group.

Pete

 

[hfer07]

Valverde agrees.
"Esa etapa fue una buena oportunidad para intentar desbancar a Froome con la ayuda de algún otro equipo, pero sólo lo intentamos nosotros", ha lamentado Valverde en la rueda de prensa de la jornada de descanso en Saint Nazaire,

http://biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=63761

Someone already mentioned it-but I truly believe Movistar wanted to have an advantage over Saxo as far as the GC, well knowing that Contador can suddenly "resurrect" on the 3rd week & cause trouble for their bid on the podium spot...

 

[The Hitch]

Porte, but others earlier on, perhaps on the final climb no one, but it was all over by then.

2 climbs from the end where they should have attacked, Porte was the only 1 left and he was tired

Your narrow perspective and condescending tone is quite unbecoming.


1.Sky had the 1 and 2 in the gc before the stage. They now have just Froome with Porte completely eliminated from contention. That's a plus.

No its not. You are the one with the narrow perspective. Porte is Froomes domestique. He will kill himself for Froome regardless of whether he is 2nd on gc or whether he is the lantern rouge.

2. It was revealed to the other teams and the world that Sky is not the all-powerful force that they were made out to be by dropping all but their ride leader by a monstrous 17 minutes . That's a plus..

No its not. The fact that they dropped the domestiques means nothing. All those domestiques apart from kiri will be there at the roll out tomorrow.

Ideally they would've attacked Froome left and right but reality doesn't always mirror one's hopes and dreams. Froome easily responded to whatever attacks that were presented, and as I said multiple times with the 30 km descent, the chance of escapees gaining time on Froome, had they even been able to drop him, was unlikely because dropping Froome would mean dropping other riders that likely would've been in the same boat as Froome in trying to reel in whoever had got in the break.

Who is in the same boat as Froome? Froome is the yellow jersey, the guy on his way to winning the Tour de France. Is Belkin in the same boat as him? Where is their yellow jersey? What about Euskaltel. I cant see it myself

The stage Froome won was such a massacre that there are very few gt contenders even left. Everyone is more than a minute 20 down and if you exclude those that ride for Saxo and Movistar there are very few. You think they will volunteer to work for Froome? If he asked them to help him they would have pointed at his yellow jersey and told him its his job. He is the only one who didnt have a choice in the matter.

At this stage you have 2 team leaders (Contador and Valverde) who are arguably at this point in the Tour weaker form wise than their super-domestiques so for Quintana and Kreuziger to abandon their leaders going off all willy-nilly on attacks that may put their primaries into difficulty would be an idiotic form of cycling suicide. They both being unproven over 3 weeks that would be a risk not worth taking. Saxo is banking on Contador's form improving over the course of the 3 weeks and he has improved since the first mt

What?

The premise that they would have risked dropping Valverde is wrong. He had domestiques left to pace him , Froome on his own would not have been able to cause damage over 60km.

But anyway, so what do they do on the next multi mountain stage? Send Quintana or Rui Costa up the road? No, you just said that was idiotic. Its too "risky".

Maybe they can "isolate Froome" again and put some time into his domestique. Sure he will still win the yellow jersey by minutes, but they will have isolated him (OMG ) AND put some time into his domestique (amazing).

Thats more than enough for 1 tour de France. As far as actually winning the thing goes, there is always next yehar afterall

 

[The Hitch]

If you think Froome would've wasted effort chasing down every attack then why didn't he chase down Fuglsang and Martin when they jumped off the front?

Because they attacked close to the end, obviously. And both were a little bit further down on gc.

If Movistar sent Rui or Quintana up the road then slowed the train down froome would have risked losing 5 or 6 minutes to Quintana. He would have had to pull or risked losing the entire TDF.

If you dont believe me that that is how cycling works, look at all those classics where Cancellara had to do all the pulling for himself.

 

[DenisMenchov]

The thing is new points system kills the race. How many times have we seen a GC rider who is 8th and his team pulling to catch the break that consists of a 13th overall. Teams have A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush logic.

 

[Boeing]

Putting time into Froome anyone else in that group on the final climb was never a realistic option considering the long descent into the finish. As isolated as he was from his team he had plenty of wheels to hold. Hurting him more on the final climb was an option.

 

[Cimber]

Because they attacked close to the end, obviously. And both were a little bit further down on gc.

If Movistar sent Rui or Quintana up the road then slowed the train down froome would have risked losing 5 or 6 minutes to Quintana. He would have had to pull or risked losing the entire TDF.

If you dont believe me that that is how cycling works, look at all those classics where Cancellara had to do all the pulling for himself.

Pretty much what I have been trying to say all dag

 

[Cimber]

Putting time into Froome anyone else in that group on the final climb was never a realistic option considering the long descent into the finish. As isolated as he was from his team he had plenty of wheels to hold. Hurting him more on the final climb was an option.

They should have put super doms up the road in the valley, which they had till Movistar had a tactical meltdown