Dr Ferrari on "specialization"

iainf72
iainf72 Posts: 15,784
edited November 2010 in Pro race
The Myth chips in on something which is often debated here

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=80
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

Comments

  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    I'm sure he knows how to err, get the best out of cyclists in all types of event
  • LangerDan
    LangerDan Posts: 6,132
    Its a bit too simplistic, IMHO. If the good doctor is looking to show specialisation, I think he really needs to broaden his search. Simply "winning / not winning" is a very crude analysis.

    For example Evans losing the TdF by 23 seconds or Schleck by 39 seconds has to mean they were at appropriate level of physical condition to win - non-physical factors may well explain the losing margin. And both meet Dr F's other criteria in terms of monument or Worlds race wins.

    Similarly if someone wins a grand tour by 2 minutes and gets beaten by a second in a classic, they have to be regarded as also being of the appropriate level.

    Perhaps he should expand the analysis to include say the top 2 or 3 in each event.
    'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'

Categories