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...

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

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

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: http://www.erikdekker.nl/nieuws.php

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:

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

Quoted message 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.
2. Last but N to [censored] your buddy wins.

BTW, a tantalizing finding from some of the experimental game theory stuff
is that reneging (or cheating, or back-stabbing, or [censored]-your-buddy-ing)
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?