Tour de France 2013 - Race Chat

joelsim

Richmond Racer wrote:

Vacansoleil squad:

Kris Boeckmans, Juan Antonio Flecha, Thomas De Gendt, Johnny Hoogerland, Sergey Lagutin, Wout Poels, Boy van Poppel, Danny van Poppel, Lieuwe Westra.



A brace of van Poppels! Van Poppel the younger is just 19

Boy van Poppel and Toddler van Poppel.

ddraver

^^don't need a road captain when you have radios you know

Turfle

Put Bernie in the car. Sorted.

above_the_cows

Richmond Racer wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

No Eisel? :shock:

Controversial. I'm sure he is not happy about that! That's the first Tour he's missed in years. Where is the experience Eisel brings in that squad?

So:

Stan - 0
Lil Pete - 0
G - 3 x Tours
Lopez - 2 x Tours
Kiry - 3 x Tours
Kosta - 3 x Tours (completed)
EBH - 3 x Tours
Porte - 2 x Tours
Froome - 2 x Tours


FFS

I really can't see the sense in this, I know that numbers are everything to Sky but sometimes you do also need a brain and experience? You cannot road captain from the car.

iainf72

The only reason Bernie was in the squad last year was coz Cavendish kicked off, n'est pas?

above_the_cows

iainf72 wrote:

The only reason Bernie was in the squad last year was coz Cavendish kicked off, n'est pas?

Yes but last year they had Rogers. This year they have...?

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

The only reason Bernie was in the squad last year was coz Cavendish kicked off, n'est pas?

He was invaluable in the race, as they found out. Co-captain with Rogers.

iainf72

Eisel has also not ridden a single race with Froome this year. They get them to ride together so the squad gels - it shouldn't be surprising

rickyrider

Above The Cows wrote:

I really can't see the sense in this, I know that numbers are everything to Sky but sometimes you do also need a brain and experience? You cannot road captain from the car.

Incredibly strong group but agree with concern about lack of obvious captain. Sky's obsession with numbers does sometimes seem to be at the expense of some good old fashioned experience / common sense.

thomthom

I don't think we will se much of the Sky train in this race. It's a good team, obviously, but nowhere near the team from last year. Especially Kiry and Lopez look like they peaked a few months ago.

Turfle

With Kiryienka and Lopez showing poor form at the Dauphine, perhaps the decision came down to road captain vs riding ability. Is it better to be lacking a captain, or lacking the riders who can fulfill their role? Eisel was invaluable with Cav around, I'm not convinced he's invaluable in a Cav-less, friction-less team.

I think I'd probably have taken Knees over Bernie or Sivtsov. But for all I know Sivtsov (or Kiriyienka/Thomas/Lopez) would be a perfectly good road captain.

frenchfighter

ThomThom wrote:

I don't think we will se much of the Sky train in this race. It's a good team, obviously, but no where near the team from last year. Especially Kiry and Lopez look like they peaked a few months ago.

Yeah hoping for this but then as Rich has noted Froomie likes to burn the peloton early so they need more flatland monsters which this team has.

above_the_cows

rickyrider wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

I really can't see the sense in this, I know that numbers are everything to Sky but sometimes you do also need a brain and experience? You cannot road captain from the car.

Incredibly strong group but agree with concern about lack of obvious captain. Sky's obsession with numbers does sometimes seem to be at the expense of some good old fashioned experience / common sense.

When the bunch gets blown to smithereens on stage 6, the sprinters teams put the hammer down big time and Froome has a Rabobank moment and is down three minutes, well I might just have a wee little chuckle inside.

Turfle

Lotto-Belisol for #TDF - Bak, De Clercq, Greipel, Hansen, Henderson, Roelandts, Sieberg, Van den Broeck & Willems


You're on your own, Jurgen. Go get 'em.

thomthom

frenchfighter wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

I don't think we will se much of the Sky train in this race. It's a good team, obviously, but no where near the team from last year. Especially Kiry and Lopez look like they peaked a few months ago.

Yeah hoping for this but then as Rich has noted Froomie likes to burn the peloton early so they need more flatland monsters which this team has.

Burn like attacking early? That's not the impression I have of Froome tbh.

frenchfighter

rickyrider wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

I really can't see the sense in this, I know that numbers are everything to Sky but sometimes you do also need a brain and experience? You cannot road captain from the car.

Incredibly strong group but agree with concern about lack of obvious captain. Sky's obsession with numbers does sometimes seem to be at the expense of some good old fashioned experience / common sense.

I interviewed a PhD once and asked him what 14x16 was quickly. He went hot under the collar and said some number over 1000. Common sense would dictate you do 15x15 if you were working it out quickly.

Common sense is underrated.

inkyfingers

Above The Cows wrote:

rickyrider wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

I really can't see the sense in this, I know that numbers are everything to Sky but sometimes you do also need a brain and experience? You cannot road captain from the car.

Incredibly strong group but agree with concern about lack of obvious captain. Sky's obsession with numbers does sometimes seem to be at the expense of some good old fashioned experience / common sense.

When the bunch gets blown to smithereens on stage 6, the sprinters teams put the hammer down big time and Froome has a Rabobank moment and is down three minutes, well I might just have a wee little chuckle inside.

They might not have quite as much experience as Knee's or Eisel, but Stannard, Thomas and EBH are a mighty useful trio to help you close any gaps on a flat stage.

frenchfighter

ThomThom wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

I don't think we will se much of the Sky train in this race. It's a good team, obviously, but no where near the team from last year. Especially Kiry and Lopez look like they peaked a few months ago.

Yeah hoping for this but then as Rich has noted Froomie likes to burn the peloton early so they need more flatland monsters which this team has.

Burn like attacking early? That's not the impression I have of Froome tbh.

Ha no, that would be nice. I mean uses his lackies to burn then he keeps his best friend until the last 1km when he goes anaerobic and the rest of the competition is no where near.

mfin

frenchfighter wrote:

I interviewed a PhD once and asked him what 14x16 was quickly. He went hot under the collar and said some number over 1000. Common sense would dictate you do 15x15 if you were working it out quickly.

Common sense is underrated.

Common sense would be to just do 14x16, not another question that gave the wrong answer. Maths is like that, its wrong or right, can't remember ever getting marks for taking a punt in a maths exam and getting close to the answer but not getting it right.

Maybe you just picked a crap analogy though.

mfin

No rider only goes anaerobic in the last 1k, if they did they'd never get anywhere near meeting the time limits on any stage.

above_the_cows

inkyfingers wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

rickyrider wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

I really can't see the sense in this, I know that numbers are everything to Sky but sometimes you do also need a brain and experience? You cannot road captain from the car.

Incredibly strong group but agree with concern about lack of obvious captain. Sky's obsession with numbers does sometimes seem to be at the expense of some good old fashioned experience / common sense.

When the bunch gets blown to smithereens on stage 6, the sprinters teams put the hammer down big time and Froome has a Rabobank moment and is down three minutes, well I might just have a wee little chuckle inside.

They might not have quite as much experience as Knee's or Eisel, but Stannard, Thomas and EBH are a mighty useful trio to help you close any gaps on a flat stage.

True that, but my point was more that you want someone with experience to mean you are not needing to close any gaps in the first place and/or to insure that if there are gaps that you are on the right side of them. I'm not convinced Stannard, Thomas or EBH have that. Still I hope they prove me wrong, if not I'll have a little chuckle.

mfin

I can't see the problem with the team selection myself, it seems strong, and the radios soon sort out the strategy on the road.

Macaloon

Maybe one of Froome's capabilities which has been developed over his season of team leadership is the ability to think for himself, and to agree what's what with Porte? Maybe, having more than one way to win, he doesn't need (or want) old hands like Rodgers around just to make sure Cuddles and Contador don't attack him.

rickyrider

mfin wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

I interviewed a PhD once and asked him what 14x16 was quickly. He went hot under the collar and said some number over 1000. Common sense would dictate you do 15x15 if you were working it out quickly.

Common sense is underrated.

Common sense would be to just do 14x16, not another question that gave the wrong answer. Maths is like that, its wrong or right, can't remember ever getting marks for taking a punt in a maths exam and getting close to the answer but not getting it right.

Maybe you just picked a crap analogy though.

Maths never my strongest suit but I was struggling to figure out that analogy that gave two different answers

frenchfighter

mfin wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

I interviewed a PhD once and asked him what 14x16 was quickly. He went hot under the collar and said some number over 1000. Common sense would dictate you do 15x15 if you were working it out quickly.

Common sense is underrated.

Common sense would be to just do 14x16, not another question that gave the wrong answer. Maths is like that, its wrong or right, can't remember ever getting marks for taking a punt in a maths exam and getting close to the answer but not getting it right.

Maybe you just picked a crap analogy though.

What if you had 2secs to give me an answer? 95% of people wouldnt give the correct exact answer.

Maybe you just dont know what it is to trade.

mroli

I don't think that team looks as strong as the Saxo team on paper for mountains.

oneof1982

mfin wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

I interviewed a PhD once and asked him what 14x16 was quickly. He went hot under the collar and said some number over 1000. Common sense would dictate you do 15x15 if you were working it out quickly.

Common sense is underrated.

Common sense would be to just do 14x16, not another question that gave the wrong answer. Maths is like that, its wrong or right, can't remember ever getting marks for taking a punt in a maths exam and getting close to the answer but not getting it right.

Maybe you just picked a crap analogy though.

14 x 16 = 224
15 x 15 = 225

Common sense is overrated...

mfin

frenchfighter wrote:

What if you had 2secs to give me an answer? 95% of people wouldnt give the correct exact answer.

Maybe you just dont know what it is to trade.

I can do 14x16 as quickly as 15x15 though, so might as well do 14x16 which is the actual question.

Maybe you don't know what it's like to have common sense.

josame

frenchfighter wrote:

mfin wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

I interviewed a PhD once and asked him what 14x16 was quickly. He went hot under the collar and said some number over 1000. Common sense would dictate you do 15x15 if you were working it out quickly.

Common sense is underrated.

Common sense would be to just do 14x16, not another question that gave the wrong answer. Maths is like that, its wrong or right, can't remember ever getting marks for taking a punt in a maths exam and getting close to the answer but not getting it right.

Maybe you just picked a crap analogy though.

What if you had 2secs to give me an answer? 95% of people wouldnt give the correct exact answer.

Maybe you just dont know what it is to trade.

....

Crankbrother

It takes longer to think of an approximate and then do that multiple than it does just to do the (quite simple) multiplication ((10x16)+(4x16)) ... should take any adult less than 5 seconds (i think it took me less than 3) ...