RvV

Steve McGinty said:

However, Wesemann rode an excellent race and was the
strongest rider in the finale.

He did, but was he? I think maybe Van Bon was, but because
of really strange tactics (betting on Hoste against
Wesemann??!) he couldn't work with Dekker. Dekker was very
good, but not super or he would have closed the 14 sec gap
to the Wesemann/Bruylandts tandem. I think it was Dekker
himself saying earlier (should be somewhere on his site)
that he thought Wesemann was thinner than usual, better
climbing but lacking in strength. Well there you go.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 21:33:47 +0200, Ewoud Dronkert <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Steve McGinty said:

However, Wesemann rode an excellent race and was the
strongest rider in the finale.

He did, but was he? I think maybe Van Bon was, but because
of really strange tactics (betting on Hoste against
Wesemann??!) he couldn't work with Dekker. Dekker was very
good, but not super or he would have closed the 14 sec gap
to the Wesemann/Bruylandts tandem.

Closing down 14 seconds at 60kph when it's two against one
ain't easy...

Regards! Stephen

"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve McGinty said:

However, Wesemann rode an excellent race and was the
strongest rider in the finale.

He did, but was he? I think maybe Van Bon was, but because
of really strange tactics (betting on Hoste against
Wesemann??!) he couldn't work with Dekker. Dekker was very
good, but not super or he would have closed the 14 sec gap
to the Wesemann/Bruylandts tandem. I think it was Dekker
himself saying earlier (should be somewhere on his site)
that he thought Wesemann was thinner than usual, better
climbing but lacking in strength. Well there you go.

No that was Scott Sunderland. Oh well, Wese proved him wrong
:-) The weight loss seemed to help him fly up the Muur.
Bruylandts was better there too. Must be the "autostrada".

Lotto seemed to be playing the Van Bon card, by not having
Hoste work in front. But not having Van Bon work behind
defeated the purpose somewhat. Andreas Klier is pretty handy
too - he won Gent Wevelgem in 2003.

cheers, Jeff

Jeff Jones said:

Quoted message said:

[Dekker?] thought Wesemann was thinner than usual

No that was Scott Sunderland.

Ah sorry yes, in his diary on CN.

Quoted message said:

Lotto seemed to be playing the Van Bon card, by not having
Hoste work in front. But not having Van Bon work behind
defeated the purpose somewhat. Andreas Klier is pretty
handy too - he won Gent Wevelgem in 2003.

🙂 but even if you count in bringing back Klier for free, I
:still think
Van Bon at the front would have given Lotto *much* better
chances for the win than to just leave Hoste to be devoured
by Wesemann. Who didn't see that one coming from a mile away
(13 km actually).

Anyway, when looking back we're all top analysts...

Quoted message said:

Lotto seemed to be playing the Van Bon card, by not having
Hoste work in front. But not having Van Bon work behind
defeated the purpose somewhat. Andreas Klier is pretty
handy too - he won Gent Wevelgem in 2003.

yeah, when I read on the Cyclingnews live report that Hoste
was not working because Van Bon was behind and that Van Bon
was not working because Hoste was in front, I was a bit
perplexed.

But in the end, if all six had gotten together with a couple
of Km to go, I would have put my money on Telekom (sorry,
T-Mobile) with Klier and Wesemman. Only if Dekker had towed
Van Bon to the leaders with less than 500m to go, would I
have bet on Van Bon - he definitely has the sprint, but I
don't think he has the short-range attack of the two
Germans. They would have worked him over and Hoste may not
have been much help (only Lotto knows that).

So maybe it was a "rock and a hard place" type of scenario
for Lotto.

What was that TdF stage where Rabobank played this card so
well? I think that Dekker and another were in the finale and
Dekker was cooked after being away for so long. But he
fooled the guys in the break with a false attack while his
teammate went off on the other side of the road. That was
masterful. However, T-Mobile probably would not have taken
their eyes off of Van Bon, so it may not have worked.

Hey, this is fun - I can see why Don Cherry loves making
grand pronouncements about hockey, after the results
(apologies to non-Canadians, or perhaps I should ask for
your sympathy because I have to put up with the guy).

steve

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 22:36:33 +0200, Ewoud Dronkert <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jeff Jones said:

Quoted message said:

[Dekker?] thought Wesemann was thinner than usual

No that was Scott Sunderland.

Ah sorry yes, in his diary on CN.

Quoted message said:

Lotto seemed to be playing the Van Bon card, by not
having Hoste work in front. But not having Van Bon work
behind defeated the purpose somewhat. Andreas Klier is
pretty handy too - he won Gent Wevelgem in 2003.

🙂 but even if you count in bringing back Klier for free, I
:still think
Van Bon at the front would have given Lotto *much* better
chances for the win than to just leave Hoste to be devoured
by Wesemann. Who didn't see that one coming from a mile
away (13 km actually).

Duffield and Kelly on GB Eurosport...

Regards! Stephen

Jeff Jones said:

No that was Scott Sunderland.

Here's Dekker's analysis, my translation:

I was looking forward to this for a long time and this
morning it was there; the Ronde. At half past 6 we were at
the breakfast table and got a nice surprise: Rabobank will
remain as sponsor until 2008. Good start of the day. The
race was difficult, weird and I thought chaotic. So many
escapees so early in the race at the front, that gave a
strange twist to the race. My radio wasn't working so I was
deprived of all info. A blessing in disguise, I would rather
have not known anyway! The legs were good, but for some
reason I always seemed to be riding just where it broke in
front of me. The legs steadily improved relative to the
competition and after the Muur I showed them my heels.
Unfortunately my companions were team mates of the leaders
so that I had to do most of the work. Unfortunately for Leon
van Bon he realised too late that he could help me. A unique
chance for him to win Flanders' Finest. I finished fifth and
that was to my satisfaction. I was in contention for the win
in one of the most beautiful and hardest races. Those were
my expectations. Three years ago was the last time I acted
on this level. Four months ago I didn't think it would be
easy to reach this level. I mean, I sure had taken into
account I would need more time. Not so! This Saturday the
Ronde (van Drenthe). In two weeks my next goal: AGR!

Source: erikdekker.nlnieuws.phpOpen ↗

steve robertson said:

What was that TdF stage where Rabobank played this card so
well? I think that Dekker and another were in the finale
and Dekker was cooked after being away for so long. But he
fooled the guys in the break with a false attack while his
teammate went off on the other side of the road. That was
masterful.

TdF 2002, 14 juillet, Karsten Kroon won the stage to Plouay
(podium all Dutch on Bastille day, hehe).

"Steve McGinty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

🙂 but even if you count in bringing back Klier for free,
:I still think
Van Bon at the front would have given Lotto *much* better
chances for the win than to just leave Hoste to be
devoured by Wesemann. Who didn't see that one coming from
a mile away (13 km actually).

Duffield and Kelly on GB Eurosport...

Lotto were guaranteed a podium spot if Van Bon didn't work.
If Dekker pulled Van Bon up then he would have the
advantage. Great DS strategy.

And that's why you guys aren't D'sS.

Quoted message said:

Lotto were guaranteed a podium spot if Van Bon didn't work.
If Dekker pulled Van Bon up then he would have the
advantage. Great DS strategy.

And that's why you guys aren't D'sS.

So, Tom - did you had plan?

Ewoud Dronkert said:

steve robertson said:

What was that TdF stage where Rabobank played this card
so well? I think that Dekker and another were in the
finale and Dekker was cooked after being away for so
long. But he fooled the guys in the break with a false
attack while his teammate went off on the other side of
the road. That was masterful.

TdF 2002, 14 juillet, Karsten Kroon won the stage to Plouay
(podium all Dutch on Bastille day, hehe).

Thanks - I think I probably have that on a tape somewhere.
But I just remembered it as being a masterful team strategy,
whether initiated by Dekker or Raas or somebody else.

steve

steve robertson said:

Quoted message said:

Lotto were guaranteed a podium spot if Van Bon didn't
work. If Dekker pulled Van Bon up then he would have the
advantage. Great DS strategy.

And that's why you guys aren't D'sS.

So, Tom - did you had plan?

Geez - I meant... "did you have a plan"?

sorry

"steve robertson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

steve robertson said:

Quoted message said:

Lotto were guaranteed a podium spot if Van Bon didn't
work. If Dekker

pulled

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Van Bon up then he would have the advantage. Great DS
strategy.

And that's why you guys aren't D'sS.

So, Tom - did you had plan?

Geez - I meant... "did you have a plan"?

sorry

Not me, I just watch and appreciate the humor of the
situation. The Ronde was so hard that Lotto HAD to have one
guy protected. They tried it with both of their guys and it
came pretty close to working. There is always an element of
risk and an element of luck. Wesseman had both working for
him in the final 20 km.

steve robertson said:

Quoted message said:

Lotto seemed to be playing the Van Bon card, by not
having Hoste work in front. But not having Van Bon work
behind defeated the purpose somewhat. Andreas Klier is
pretty handy too - he won Gent Wevelgem in 2003.

Quoted message said:

yeah, when I read on the Cyclingnews live report that
Hoste was not working because Van Bon was behind and that
Van Bon was not working because Hoste was in front, I was
a bit perplexed.

Then Hoste handed Wesemann a gift by chasing down
Bruylandts's attack in the final km. Not sure why (perhaps
rather chase down a rival Belgian team, damn the
consequences?) or why Wesemann didn't react to Bruylandts
right away (perhaps he sussed that Hoste would go for
rivalry reasons, or because Hoste had been sitting on? Too
complicated.) Chung, you really need to write up that study
of game theory in cycling.

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:40710709$1@darkstar...

Quoted message said:

steve robertson <[email hidden]> wrote:

Then Hoste handed Wesemann a gift by chasing down
Bruylandts's attack in the final km. Not sure why (perhaps
rather chase down a rival Belgian team, damn the
consequences?) or why Wesemann didn't react to Bruylandts
right away (perhaps he sussed that Hoste would go for
rivalry reasons, or because Hoste had been sitting on? Too
complicated.) Chung, you really need to write up that
study of game theory in cycling.

I don't think it was rivalry. I think Hoste was feeling
"fresh" and was also relatively inexperienced in this sort
of a situation. Wesemann was smarter, although I think he
still would have won had he chased down Bruylandts himself.

Jeff

Benjamin Weiner said:

Chung, you really need to write up that study of game
theory in cycling.

Yeah, right. 'Cuz, but for one or two notable exceptions,
there's been a recent dearth of truly sphincter-tightening
posts on rbr.

Besides, I'm sorta stuck on the title. Here are two
candidates:
1. Selten, Harsanyi, and extreme payoffs: collusion and
reneging in the world of professional cycling.

BTW, a tantalizing finding from some of the experimental
game theory stuff

is more common when you're desperately trying to avoid the
wolves at the door than when you're dominant. The
application to doping behavior is left to the reader as a
gedanken experiment.

Jeff Jones said:

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:40710709$1@darkstar...

Quoted message said:

steve robertson <[email hidden]> wrote:

Then Hoste handed Wesemann a gift by chasing down
Bruylandts's attack in the final km. Not sure why
(perhaps rather chase down a rival Belgian team, damn
the consequences?) or why Wesemann didn't react to
Bruylandts right away (perhaps he sussed that Hoste
would go for rivalry reasons, or because Hoste had been
sitting on? Too complicated.) Chung, you really need to
write up that study of game theory in cycling.

I don't think it was rivalry. I think Hoste was feeling
"fresh" and was also relatively inexperienced in this sort
of a situation. Wesemann was smarter, although I think he
still would have won had he chased down Bruylandts
himself.

i'm a terrible observer, but it looked to me like hoste did
wait a bit for wessemann to chase, but maybe when he didn't,
hoste didn't want to just give up his chance for a win. i
don't see what bruylandts has to complain about really. even
though hoste spent all day in front and then chased him
down, hoste still beat him (unless he just gave up trying
after hoste chased him down, but then he needs a spanking)

i like hoste's quote on cyclingnews- "I had spent all day in
front and I had Van Petegem and Van Bon behind me. They were
the top men and me the helper. I'm happy with my second
place and had a real super day."

h

h squared said:

it looked to me like hoste did wait a bit for wessemann to
chase, but maybe when he didn't, hoste didn't want to just
give up his chance for a win. i don't see what bruylandts
has to complain about really.

Like he said, the fastest guy should normally close the gap,
and certainly now that Wesemann left it himself: W
challenged him and Hoste folded. You can read elsewhere that
Wesemann received info on his 2 breakaway partners: "Don't
worry!" so he was definitely bluffing. Unnecessary even.

Quoted message said:

even though hoste spent all day in front and then chased
him down, hoste still beat him (unless he just gave up
trying after hoste chased him down, but then he needs a
spanking)

Bruylandts is the worst sprinter ever. He's the original
strijkijzer.

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:40710709$1@darkstar...

Quoted message said:

steve robertson said:

Quoted message said:

Lotto seemed to be playing the Van Bon card, by not
having Hoste work

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

front. But not having Van Bon work behind defeated the
purpose

somewhat.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Andreas Klier is pretty handy too - he won Gent
Wevelgem in 2003.

Quoted message said:

yeah, when I read on the Cyclingnews live report that
Hoste was not working because Van Bon was behind and
that Van Bon was not working because Hoste was in front,
I was a bit perplexed.

Then Hoste handed Wesemann a gift by chasing down
Bruylandts's attack in the final km.

It was clear that Hoste either chaced Bruylandts down or it
was Dave's win. Wesseman knew that he simply could not chace
Dave and win the sprint. Steffen performed like a genius.

Quoted message said:

Not sure why (perhaps rather chase down a rival Belgian
team, damn the consequences?)

No, because he was on a different team - that's why
their jerseys were different colors. What is with this
helping a countryman thing? Would you give away a race
to someone from your home state if you might have a
chance to win it yourself?