Who are the 'smartest' riders

[richwagmn]

I don't like him, but I think LA is pretty good at reading races and reacting correctly.

I think AC is better than most people give him credit for. I think he's so strong he goes when doesn't have to but I like his style tremendously.

And Fabian seems to do it pretty well too.

Let's face it though, cycling isn't that cerebral of a sport anyways. I'd say, staying out of trouble (riding in the front etc), being aware of what's up the road and knowing who you need to react to are what it takes from your mind to win. The rest of it is physical.

 

[Publicus]

Arcalis was a smart move, but Verbier wasn't really all that out of the ordinary, so I wouldn't say it was tactically brilliant. Regarding Paris-Nice this year, those time bonuses wouldn't have mattered a bit, if Valverde or Lulu noticed how far back he was, they could have tag teamed to a 15 second lead (same way Cancellara destroyed Boonen) easily. Didn't he beat Valverde by 11 seconds?

And about stage 4, Hincappie tip or not, rule number 1 of contending a bike race is stay near the front, but not on the front. That was the first thing I was taught. Contador fell way too far back.

I think that's just speculation on your part. If it was tactically advantageous at that point to attack, wouldn't they have laid down an attack? As I recall, Astana had NO men at the front, so if it was the time to go, they and others interested in winning would have or should have attacked. Strangely, they did not. So I'm not particularly confident that they could have gotten away so easily.

The tip matters. You can't casually dismiss it on one hand, and then point to AC missing that split as proof positive of his tactical ineptness. It's only proof that he did not have the same information as Armstrong.

 

[Anonymous]

I think that's just speculation on your part. If it was tactically advantageous at that point to attack, wouldn't they have laid down an attack? As I recall, Astana had NO men at the front, so if it was the time to go, they and others interested in winning would have or should have attacked. Strangely, they did not. So I'm not particularly confident that they could have gotten away so easily.

The tip matters. You can't casually dismiss it on one hand, and then point to AC missing that split as proof positive of his tactical ineptness. It's only proof that he did not have the same information as Armstrong.

And also proof that members of your team riding against the team leader would be considered by any other DS to be a complete dumbass move. Lets not forget that point. Lance may have fancied himself to be in a "let the road decide" position, but CLEARLY Contador was the superior rider, and the only two people who seemed not to know that were The Uniballer and The Hog. When members of your own team are ordered to the front of a break you are not in, and you are the team leader, it is a clear sign that you need a new DS. Fortunately for Contador, his legs were stronger than The Uniballer's twitter, and the Hog's reach around for his favorite rider. It was a stupid and dickish move by them, and showed no class what so ever.

And the sweet irony of the fact that The Uniballer was the person the time was taken on in the TTT, and that time being just a bit too slow to put him in yellow was one of the sweetest moments of 2009 for me. The douchebag went home with 3rd place and nothing else. Sweet.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

I think that's just speculation on your part If it was tactically advantageous at that point to attack, wouldn't they have laid down an attack? As I recall, Astana had NO men at the front, so if it was the time to go, they and others interested in winning would have or should have attacked. Strangely, they did not. So I'm not particularly confident that they could have gotten away so easily.

Perhaps it is speculation, but I think it's fair. He had no teammates and Valverde and Lulu were on the front. If they upped the cadence and went, they could have taken the 11 seconds necessary to put Valverde over the top and possibly Lulu in second. Contador realized it and quickly worked is way out, but I honestly don't think they saw how back in the group he was.

The tip matters. You can't casually dismiss it on one hand, and then point to AC missing that split as proof positive of his tactical ineptness. It's only proof that he did not have the same information as Armstrong.

You're assuming LA was in fact tipped off. I haven't seen any proof of that, just speculation from the forum's usual suspects. BTW it was stage 3, I think we've been saying stage 4.

 

[Michele]

I'm going with Cancellara for smartest current rider. He conserves his energy well untill he's ready to go, times his attacks perfectly, and once he does attack he commits fully to his move and often sticks it as we saw in de Ronde and P-R.

Actually as was reported also on cyclingnews, the attack at P-R was decided by Riis and not the cyclist himself.

 

[Publicus]

Perhaps it is speculation, but I think it's fair. He had no teammates and Valverde and Lulu were on the front. If they upped the cadence and went, they could have taken the 11 seconds necessary to put Valverde over the top and possibly Lulu in second. Contador realized it and quickly worked is way out, but I honestly don't think they saw how back in the group he was.



You're assuming LA was in fact tipped off. I haven't seen any proof of that, just speculation from the forum's usual suspects. BTW it was stage 3, I think we've been saying stage 4.

They didn't. Nobody did. So that tells me either NOBODY could, or it was tactically not the smartest move. As I recall they were still several kilometers from the summit of the climb. It's hard to lose sight of AC in the mountains, especially in the bright blue pajamas that are the Astana team kit.

Without revisiting the episode, when Hincapie was asked if he said something to Lance, he paused for what seemed like an eternity and stared into the camera. I don't know the exact words he said, but there were not "Of course not" or "No I didn't" or "Why would I do that". I can dig it up if you insist, but watching it live he was very reluctant to answer and that answer was not responsive to the question.

 

[Anonymous]

You're assuming LA was in fact tipped off. I haven't seen any proof of that, just speculation from the forum's usual suspects. BTW it was stage 3, I think we've been saying stage 4.

Imagine this, Armstrong's reaction if he had teammates up the road pulling a break he was not in. Just imagine the twitter. Fact is that they all should have done NOTHING but shut down that break and allow their team leader back, and had they wanted to, that is just what would have happened. Only the singled balled narcissist had yellow in his sights and cared little about anyone or anything else. It is just so sweet that it never happened, and that it was his time that kept it from happening.

 

[PinchFlat]

I'm not a fan of hypothetical questions but I'm going to ask one anyway. If race radios were banned AND team directors were forced to watch from the finish line who of today's riders have the best tactical sense?

Example: If at the same point in Paris Roubaix this year Fabian Cancellara found himself up front while Tom Boonen was taking a break to snack and relax a bit would Fabian have had the smarts to look around and make the decision to go rather than simply doing what he was told over the radio? I'm not sure he would have. He may still have won but I wonder if another rider less strong but more tactically minded could have given the above hypothetical situation.

In this hypothetical situation are we assuming the rider with the best tactical sense would win?

You can be as smart as you want, if you don't have the legs it counts for ****.

I offer Boogerd as an example (who admits himself that he prefered to excercise his legs rather than play tactical games); would he have won more races against competitors who followed tactical logic if those competitors would not have had a radio instructions?

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

They didn't. Nobody did. So that tells me either NOBODY could, or it was tactically not the smartest move.

or they just didn't notice, which is my bet.

Without revisiting the episode, when Hincapie was asked if he said something to Lance, he paused for what seemed like an eternity and stared into the camera. I don't know the exact words he said, but there were not "Of course not" or "No I didn't" or "Why would I do that". I can dig it up if you insist, but watching it live he was very reluctant to answer and that answer was not responsive to the question.

I missed that clip. Would like to see the interview, but I'm not insisting. A pause before answering a question could also indicate, confusion as to why they're asking, not a "you caught me" moment.

 

[Anonymous]

So the lesson here is that whenever a rider is in a a position where his rivals COULD have attacked but DIDN'T, he is tactically not intellgent? Mmmkay...I guess if that is your point, run with it

 

[Publicus]

or they just didn't notice, which is my bet.



I missed that clip. Would like to see the interview, but I'm not insisting. A pause before answering a question could also indicate, confusion as to why they're asking, not a "you caught me" moment.

Somebody noticed he wasn't on front. It wasn't like Lulu and Valverde were the only ones going for the win. It's one thing if this had happened at a critical moment of the stage, but if I recall correctly, they were about halfway into the climb at that point--could be wrong.

It wasn't confusion about the question because his answer didn't imply that. Here's a comment that I just found from Bruyneel after the stage. Make of it what you will, but it puts a hole in this notion that Armstrong knew the wind was changing at the corner and just moved to the front.

Said Astana DS Johan Bruyneel: "Sometimes things like that happen. It was a surprise moment, not normal that all the favourites are surprised. No-one expected it.

"We were studying the map all day, and the wind direction was the opposite of what we expected; then all of a sudden it was there. It was definitely not a plan for us to be at front, it just happened," he said.

What Armstrong said in the same article:

"You know what the wind's doing, you see a turn's coming up, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you have to go to the front. I wasn't waiting, just trying to stay up front and stay out of trouble and then it happened," rationalised Armstrong.

If you recall from the video, he comes from the middle of the peloton and rushes to the front on the corner. He wasn't riding at the front initially.

 

[BikeCentric]

Actually as was reported also on cyclingnews, the attack at P-R was decided by Riis and not the cyclist himself.

I did not read that article however the riders are all getting DS instructions so it is pretty hard to seperate that fact from the decision making process on who is tactically smart or not.

However there are guys who consistently make the splits and put themselves in good position to win and among them I would also include Freire, Hushovd, and Boasson-Hagen.

Now that I think about it Phillippe Gilbert seems tactically sound as he often makes some very well-timed attacks for example his Giro stage win last summer.

 

[icefire]

freire always seems to be in the right place

Not in this year's Gent-Wevelgem

 

[pedaling squares]

Armstrong is obviously astute, you can't win 7 straight tours without having some smarts. Flame me if I'm wrong, but didn't Armstrong say there was a problem with his radio in Sydney and he didn't notice that Ullrich, Kloden, and Vino were off the front? If you can't pick up on that move all by yourself, you're just not paying attention.

I think it is impossible to know who is the smartest at this point, since they all race with radios.

Exactly. I would like to see this question put to a guy like Michael Barry who has spoken out about getting rid of the radios and forcing the riders to regain some lost tactical skills. No doubt there would be some interesting responses.

 

[BikeCentric]

Not in this year's Gent-Wevelgem

Was that the one where he got dropped from the lead group near the end with the Astana Kazakh?! Dem races all blur together...

 

[pedaling squares]

Was that the one where he got dropped from the lead group near the end with the Astana Kazakh?! Dem races all blur together...

Isn't that the one when the leaky boy took Oscar out of the lead bunch because he wasn't pulling and they didn't want to hand him a sprint victory? You're right, one spring race is blending into the next.

 

[BikeCentric]

Isn't that the one when the leaky boy took Oscar out of the lead bunch because he wasn't pulling and they didn't want to hand him a sprint victory? You're right, one spring race is blending into the next.

Here it is, yes it was a Leaky boy that mainly dropped Freire but Iglinsky (Astana) has a part in the dropping and gets dropped too:

http://www.steephill.tv/players/youtube/?title=gw-2010-finish&id=hgO-9YSCvXE&w=560

So I think we are both right but you are more right.

 

[King Of Molehill]

In this hypothetical situation are we assuming the rider with the best tactical sense would win?

At least has the tendency to win or place higher more often because of their ability to read a race. I've heard/read stories about riders who often pretend to suffer in a group to throw off their competitors or others who can simply look another rider in the eyes and 'know' if it's time to go or not. It can be like a poker game when in a select group to know when to go and when not to. Cadel Evan's win in Fleche is another good example. He knew when to hold back and when to go. There was a precise way to get up the Mur De Huy and he knew exactly what he had to do. Contador arguably did not.

 

[Muerdago11]

As far a stage racing goes, Armstrong (and Brunyeel) are the smartest. My favorite racer is clearly the smartest in what he does--Robbie McEwan--he's also the best bike handler and the best athlete in the peloton--did I mention that he has 4 balls to the competition's 2?

 

[Frosty]

Somebody noticed he wasn't on front. It wasn't like Lulu and Valverde were the only ones going for the win. It's one thing if this had happened at a critical moment of the stage, but if I recall correctly, they were about halfway into the climb at that point--could be wrong.

It wasn't confusion about the question because his answer didn't imply that. Here's a comment that I just found from Bruyneel after the stage. Make of it what you will, but it puts a hole in this notion that Armstrong knew the wind was changing at the corner and just moved to the front.



What Armstrong said in the same article:

If you recall from the video, he comes from the middle of the peloton and rushes to the front on the corner. He wasn't riding at the front initially.

Have u got a video of the whole incident? I havent managed to find a proper replay. However, from what i have seen and read, Contador was just behind the split and was further forward than other favourites. As far as Lance being tipped off, i dont know if he moved forwards but there were quite a few others there too (25?). As far as being smart, i think that Saxobank were at the front but went round the wrong side of the roundabout. From what i remember Cancellara jumped across the pedestrian bit in the middle but none of the others on his team did. The overhead shots afterwards show a long line of cyclists before you come across the Saxobank team trying to make their way back to the front - they must have lost about 100 places. However, Cancellara remained in the front group and retained the yellow jersey. Maybe this shows he is pretty smart?

 

[Publicus]

Have u got a video of the whole incident? I havent managed to find a proper replay. However, from what i have seen and read, Contador was just behind the split and was further forward than other favourites. As far as Lance being tipped off, i dont know if he moved forwards but there were quite a few others there too (25?). As far as being smart, i think that Saxobank were at the front but went round the wrong side of the roundabout. From what i remember Cancellara jumped across the pedestrian bit in the middle but none of the others on his team did. The overhead shots afterwards show a long line of cyclists before you come across the Saxobank team trying to make their way back to the front - they must have lost about 100 places. However, Cancellara remained in the front group and retained the yellow jersey. Maybe this shows he is pretty smart?

I don't have video. My memory could be faulty. It's been almost a year. I just remember the way Hincapie answered created doubt where there was none originally. It's neither here nor there at the end of the day, since I don't think the incident, in and of itself, speaks to the tactical genius/ineptness of any rider.

 

[Frosty]

hushovd got a mention earlier on. Not sure if he earns it for the green jersey - there was the break he went on in the alps but he could have agreed this with his DS beforehand, it wasnt the hardest choice. Also got outsprinted by Velits on one stage. However, the stage 3 break mentioned above saw him get on the right side of the split. A good move although staying close to Cav (closest challenger for green) isnt perhaps the most revolutionary tactic ever

 

[ergmonkey]

Peter Van Petegem was very, very good at not doing the really hard work until the last 35-50km of a classic. Always in the first 30, never in the first 5 riders. Then, when he saw his moment, he was never afraid to make the big attack (unlike "Big" George Hincapie).

Among active pros, I think Sastre had to be very smart to pull off a Tour win, but at other times his tactics haven't been so strong, maybe. Freire deserves a lot of credit for having a cool enough head to pull of so many big sprint wins without a train (3 x worlds; 3x San Remo). I don't know if I'd call it master tactics, but Boonen at least deserves some credit for being a sprinter who's not afraid to attack early and take the race to his competitors (ex: Flanders '05 & '06; numerous times in Roubaix; numerous times in E3)--it doesn't always go his way, but it does often enough to say that it's a decent strategy and one that's a lot more fun to watch than anything Thor Hushovd has ever done in a classic.

 

[Frosty]

Was Sastre really that smart though or did he just go with the pre-arranged plan/what he was told over the earpiece? Basically what he did was to do nothing until alpe d'huez. Still have to do it and not panic though.

 

[auscyclefan94]

We just have to go over the 2009 tdf again!