cycling tactics

Bounty Bob schreef:

Quoted message said:

I will never get why it is more important that the other
guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
yourself.

Of course that is not the complete picture. Part of it is: if you feel
your own chances are slim, next best thing is to get a win for the team.
If the break gets caught at least there's a chance of that happening.

--
E. Dronkert

Bounty Bob said:

I will never get why it is more important that the other
guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
yourself. Especailly the stage 3 one where the guys
in the break at various times seemed very cooperative
and worked together, then boom..

I'd rather someone in the peloton win than do some
work and not win.... Stupidity.

You should be a coach or the director of a big team.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bounty Bob said:

I will never get why it is more important that the other
guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
yourself. Especailly the stage 3 one where the guys
in the break at various times seemed very cooperative
and worked together, then boom..

I'd rather someone in the peloton win than do some
work and not win.... Stupidity.

I does seem like such a waste, but they are racing against each
other.
But, I suppose the underlying question comes down to "What is the
value of second place?"
Is it valuable for the individual (or the team) to do a LONG breakaway
(even at 20 mph) and then finish second?
Even tomorrow, would anyone remember second (especially if it does
not affect GC)?
I still remember the escape of Bauer, Chiapucci, Maasen, and Pensec
but I don't recall the results of THAT stage (Well, true, I don't even
recall who won). Anyone?

It's a funny thing, Armstrong will forever be seen as never having won
on Mt. Ventoux and Lemond will never be viewed as a winner on L'Alpe
DHuez. But they were both right there with the respective "winners."

DR

DirtRoadie said:

I still remember the escape of Bauer, Chiapucci, Maasen, and Pensec
but I don't recall the results of THAT stage (Well, true, I don't even
recall who won). Anyone?

http://www.veloarchive.com/biographies/chiappucci.php

Quoted message said:

It's a funny thing, Armstrong will forever be seen as never having won
on Mt. Ventoux and Lemond will never be viewed as a winner on L'Alpe
DHuez. But they were both right there with the respective "winners."

So as not to lose GC time, and perhaps to save ammunition for later.

Long breaks put sponsor names on TV for hours and hours. IOW, no
matter what happens to the break, it isn't futile.

Every once in a while, they work. Sometimes, in spite of having known
specialists in them.

I'm glad I recorded the stage today. "The human drama of athletic
competition". --D-y

Bounty Bob said:

I will never get why it is more important that the other
guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
yourself. Especailly the stage 3 one where the guys
in the break at various times seemed very cooperative
and worked together, then boom..

I'd rather someone in the peloton win than do some
work and not win.... Stupidity.

If you ride unselfishly in the break ... you'll lose.
The goal is or should be to do the least amount of work
necessary to convince the others to also work. If they
think you're free riding, they are under no obligation
to tow you to the finish. They then have to force you
to work by stopping working themselves. It is basic
game theory.

Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
it interesting. It's not like running races, triathlons,
or (god help us) RAAM. If you put some effort into
understanding these tactical motivations, you'll get more
out of watching. If this still isn't making any sense,
take up racing, or read Tim Krabbe's "The Rider."

At the amateur level, working and not winning is
putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
lose from a break or lose from the pack.

Ben
expert on losing

Quoted post said:

Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
it interesting.

You should write that paper on n-person game theory and cycling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
it interesting.

rechungREMOVETHIS said:

You should write that paper on n-person game theory and cycling.

He still saving up for the amphetemines he need to do the math.

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Bounty Bob said:

I will never get why it is more important that the other
guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
yourself. Especailly the stage 3 one where the guys
in the break at various times seemed very cooperative
and worked together, then boom..

I'd rather someone in the peloton win than do some
work and not win.... Stupidity.

If you ride unselfishly in the break ... you'll lose.
The goal is or should be to do the least amount of work
necessary to convince the others to also work. If they
think you're free riding, they are under no obligation
to tow you to the finish. They then have to force you
to work by stopping working themselves. It is basic
game theory.

Yes, but we've seen this again and again in stage races over the past few
years, and it's BAD tactics.

If yesterday's breakaway had held it together in the last 7Km, they would
have got first, second, third and fourth. Which is to say, they would all
have got points. But, more to the point, they'd all have got time - not
just time bonuses but real actual time. The man who came in last of the
four would still get more points and more time coming in fourth than he
would coming in in the peloton.

This is, purely and simply, beggar my neighbour. They're all concentrating
so hard on not letting one of the guys they've shared the work with all
day getting the win, that they're prepared to sacrifice it all to McEwan
or Cancellara or even (if God intervenes personally) Tom Boonen.

While we're on this, what is it with God and Tom Boonen? Monday, God smites
every other sprinter in the whole bloody peloton, and Torpedo Tom still
can't [censored] a win. Yesterday, God arranges the final sprint on wet pave,
Boonen's favourite... and he gives it away to a prologue specialist!

Quoted message said:

At the amateur level, working and not winning is
putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
lose from a break or lose from the pack.

Bollocks. If you came second or third in four decent flat stage breakaways,
you'd have a very good chance of riding under the Arc de Triomphe in a
dandy yellow top. Mind you, it might not be easy to get into the third or
fourth breakaway, but by that time your DS would have started paying
attention and got your team working for you.

Speaking of which, what the %£$& was Saunier Duval's DS smoking yesterday?
That was /awful/.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; part time troll.

in message <[email hidden]>,

DirtRoadie (') said:

Bounty Bob said:

I will never get why it is more important that the other
guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
yourself. Especailly the stage 3 one where the guys
in the break at various times seemed very cooperative
and worked together, then boom..

I'd rather someone in the peloton win than do some
work and not win.... Stupidity.

I does seem like such a waste, but they are racing against each
other.
But, I suppose the underlying question comes down to "What is the
value of second place?"
Is it valuable for the individual (or the team) to do a LONG breakaway
(even at 20 mph) and then finish second?

They've invested one hell of a lot of energy in that breakaway. Take Auge,
for example. He was in a long breakaway on Sunday, and in a long breakaway
yesterday. He's currently 183rd on GC, four places off lanterne rouge; but
he's only 4'14" back. So if he'd come in 2'7" in front of the peloton both
days, he'd be swapping his red strip for a yellow one. It doesn't matter
if he's fourth in the bloody breakaway, provided he gains 2'7". He can say
to the guys around him, "stay more than two minutes up and I won't contest
the stage win". He can work his balls off for Willems. He can give Willems
the stage on a plate. It doesn't matter. The stage is the stage, but a
yellow jersey is a meal-ticket for life.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ring of great evil
Small one casts it into flame
Bringing rise of Men ;; gonzoron

in message <[email hidden]>, Ewoud Dronkert

(') said:

Bounty Bob schreef:

Quoted message said:

I will never get why it is more important that the other
guys in the break don't win than it is to try to win
yourself.

Of course that is not the complete picture. Part of it is: if you feel
your own chances are slim, next best thing is to get a win for the team.
If the break gets caught at least there's a chance of that happening.

For Willems, perhaps. He has a sprinter on his team, a good one. Not for
Auge. But even for Willems, if he buries himself towing the breakaway to
the line, then his team gets one of the top four places for the stage. In
the bunch sprint, he team gets one of the top twenty. One chance in four
is a hell of a lot better for the team than one in twenty.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

Bounty Bob said:

What a load of [censored] that is. People have said basically
the same [censored] they said when I pointed out this stupidity
last year. [...] It's pathetic

You said the same thing last year, got explanations you didn't like,
then asked again? Hmmm. What are you going to do next year?

Simon Brooke said:

Speaking of which, what the %£$& was Saunier Duval's DS smoking yesterday?

Marijuana. According to the downhill MTBers its very relaxing.

Simon Brooke said:

Yes, but we've seen this again and again in stage races over the past few
years, and it's BAD tactics.

If yesterday's breakaway had held it together in the last 7Km, they would
have got first, second, third and fourth. Which is to say, they would all
have got points. But, more to the point, they'd all have got time - not
just time bonuses but real actual time.

Neither time nor points meant anything to anyone in the break except
Vogondy. and after it became clear that even if the break had stayed
clear it wouldn't be with enough of a gap, that reason, too,
evaporated.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:03:08 -0700, DirtRoadie <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I still remember the escape of Bauer, Chiapucci, Maasen, and Pensec
but I don't recall the results of THAT stage (Well, true, I don't even
recall who won). Anyone?

Maasen was first.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

Bounty Bob said:

What a load of [censored] that is. People have said basically
the same [censored] they said when I pointed out this stupidity
last year. [...] It's pathetic

You said the same thing last year, got explanations you didn't like,
then asked again? Hmmm. What are you going to do next year?

Get picked up as an Assistant DS for ProTour team, or so I've heard.
All the big teams read RBR and I'm sure they are scouting him out.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:03:08 -0700, DirtRoadie <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I still remember the escape of Bauer, Chiapucci, Maasen, and Pensec
but I don't recall the results of THAT stage (Well, true, I don't even
recall who won). Anyone?

Maasen was first.

Yep. First Kazakh rider to win a Tour stage. Or was it Merkcx?

Jenko

in message <[email hidden]>,

(' ') said:

Simon Brooke said:

Yes, but we've seen this again and again in stage races over the past
few years, and it's BAD tactics.

If yesterday's breakaway had held it together in the last 7Km, they
would have got first, second, third and fourth. Which is to say, they
would all have got points. But, more to the point, they'd all have got
time - not just time bonuses but real actual time.

Neither time nor points meant anything to anyone in the break except
Vogondy. and after it became clear that even if the break had stayed
clear it wouldn't be with enough of a gap, that reason, too,
evaporated.

This is simply wrong. The gap maxed out at over ten minutes and stabilised
for a long time at five. When Willems and Auge attacked at 8Km to go, they
still had 1'20". After stage two, Willems was 0'55" back on GC, Auge was
3'54". So if they'd held on to 42" of break (which they could have done)
Willems got yellow. He didn't need the stage win; he would get a 12 second
time bonus for second place. Similarly, Auge couldn't get yellow unless
Willems cracked completely. So those two could have done a trade - bury
themselves together to get to the line, ignoring Vogondy and Ladagnous who
were tiring. Willems gives Auge the stage win, Auge gives Willems the
jersey, both men benefit. Even if Vogondy and Ladagnous had hung in there,
Auge, with a lead-out man, would have a better chance in a sprint.

But supposing Auge had worked to get Millar the yellow on Sunday. He'd have
some seconds already on the peloton, and on everyone else in yesterday's
break. So if yesterday's break had succeeded, the logic would have been
reversed and Auge would have taken yellow. Anyone who can get into two
breaks - as Auge has already done - can get the yellow without winning
either of them. But /only/ if he can make the breaks stay away. And he can
help to make the break stay away by working like stink and not caring who
gets the stage.

Do you remember Voeckler? Of course you do. Voeckler is in many ways not a
very special rider - his palmares are not that great. But his escape on
stage 5 in 2004 got him the jersey, and so we all remember. But do you
remember who won that stage? Do you remember what position Voeckler
finished in? Hint: there were five riders in the break, and the winner was
Australian. Voeckler got the jersey because, of the five riders in the
break, he was highest on GC at 3'0" down. The stage winner was 6'49" back
on GC, and others in the break were 7'16", 9'09" and 10'12" respectively.
None of them could beat Voeckler on GC, provided he stayed with the group.
So Voeckler didn't have to win the stage, he only had to stay within three
minutes of the leader. He could afford to bury himself to lead someone
else home.

On Sunday, David Millar was in exactly the same position. If he had buried
himself to get Auge home just 11 seconds in front of the peloton, he'd
have worn the yellow jersey instead of the spotty one. If Auge had got
home 3 minutes up on the peloton on Sunday, he could have buried himself
to get Willems home, and snatched the yellow himself.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.

Quoted message said:

Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
it interesting. It's not like running races, triathlons,
or (god help us) RAAM. If you put some effort into
understanding these tactical motivations, you'll get more
out of watching. If this still isn't making any sense,
take up racing, or read Tim Krabbe's "The Rider."

At the amateur level, working and not winning is
putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
lose from a break or lose from the pack.

Ben
expert on losing

------------
This is of course is all [censored]. The reason most people race, at the amateur
level, is because it's the best way to see the race. Most, don't delude
themselves to think that they can actually win, but have an interest in
racing. Have you ever tried to watch a race standing on the side of the
road? Much better seat, if you're in it. One of the problems of TV
coverage, is that it's damn near impossible to judge the grade or road
conditions with TV cameras. Don't know why, it's the same problem hockey
has. On TV it's a bore, in person it's quite fun. There is of course an
exception, that is RAAM. The excitement of that event could be covered by
TV, but isn't.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:14:53 GMT, "Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
it interesting. It's not like running races, triathlons,
or (god help us) RAAM. If you put some effort into
understanding these tactical motivations, you'll get more
out of watching. If this still isn't making any sense,
take up racing, or read Tim Krabbe's "The Rider."

At the amateur level, working and not winning is
putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
lose from a break or lose from the pack.

Ben
expert on losing

------------
This is of course is all [censored]. The reason most people race, at the amateur
level, is because it's the best way to see the race. Most, don't delude
themselves to think that they can actually win, but have an interest in
racing. Have you ever tried to watch a race standing on the side of the
road? Much better seat, if you're in it. One of the problems of TV
coverage, is that it's damn near impossible to judge the grade or road
conditions with TV cameras. Don't know why, it's the same problem hockey
has. On TV it's a bore, in person it's quite fun. There is of course an
exception, that is RAAM. The excitement of that event could be covered by
TV, but isn't.

The excitement of RAAM could be covered by a postage stamp.

Ron