Tour de France stage 10: Albertville to Valence (190.7km)

Yeah look at some of the Velon stuff they have up with the on board cams in a bunch sprint. It's the closest I'll ever get to one and it's stressful just watching it. The amount of movement, shouting and pushing going on.

equivariant

DonegalBay wrote: »

C'mon, even at amateur level there are guys who wouldn't be strong, but they can sit in a bunch on a flat circuit, get pulled along and then appear in the sprint at the end. Put them on any course with any level of difficulty and they would be gone out the back. There is a big difference in strongest rider v best sprinter.

A World Title on a flat circuit with a team dedicated to killing the race and pulling him to the final 200m, how is that different from any regular sprint? Same as when Cipo won his in 02. He did win one monument Milan-San Remo, which is the one which is the easiest for sprinters to win Petacchi, Cipo, Ciolek etc so hardly breaking the mould either.

I don't like sprinters in general, so obviously Cav would top the dislike chart

There is no comparison between an amateur racer who can win a club league sprint and what pro sprinters do. A stage might end in a bunch sprint but a huge amount of interesting racing can lead to that. Look at the the Doha worlds a few years ago. Pan flat and sprinters race but a brilliant race anyway with loads of interesting action and Cavendish was one tiny error away from a second gold medal

happytramp

Weepsie wrote: »

He won one of the stages with absolutely none of his team mates around, and instead followed the wheels of other teams.

Today his team was a big help, and another stage, but it's a bit of both. He's got a bit of guile that others don't.

Absolutely. He's unreal when he gets a sniff of a win....I wonder if the move to DQS motivated him to up his game, not saying he'd been taking it easy before that but there's a high level of expectation at DQS.

Weepsie

Also, world champs are generally team events anyway. A team is going to drag it's strongest rider around, so what that's a mark against Cavendish in 2011 is strange? He rode the last 2-3 km without his team too. Thomas and Stannard thought he was behind them, but he wasn't. He was back a fair bit and attacked at the perfect time.

I'm not a big fan of his either, but I'm tired of people tying themselves up to point out how overrated he apparently is, or his wins don't matter.

Randy Archer

DonegalBay wrote: »

Boy does it bug me that someone like Cavendish is likely to overtake Merckx. It's a bad joke. Have believed for a long time that sprint stages should be given a lesser value somehow. People think that's crazy, but look at PCC all time rankings. Cav has now passed Contador, Gilbert and Cancellara and is ranked 27th or something!! Worse still, Andre Greipel who has never won a major race in his life is just behind, but ahead of Froome, Fignon, LeMond, Argentin, Bartoli, Bugno, Ullrich, Nibali, Museeuw, Bettini and countless others. Likewise, Robbie McEwen who also never won a major race either is ranked ahead of a lot of those guys. Loads and loads of GT sprint stages though. Personally I would not have Cav, Greipel, McEwen, Cipo, Petacchi or any other one trick pony sprinter anywhere near a Top 100 list.

Sprinters winning loads of stages has only really become common since the mid 90s with the arrival of sprint trains and entire teams shutting down races. That is why it is hard to compare sprinters across generations. Cav may have the best numbers, but how much would he have won pre 90s? Mario Cipollini was full of bravado of bragadacio, but one thing I give him kudos for is when he took the Giro record for stage wins from Alfredo Binda, he said "I may have the record, but I am not fit to tie Bindas boots". He knew exactly the value of his wins and had the humility to admit it.

That is remarkably unfair .in the 1980s , Kelly had to contender with a hell of a lot of sprinter - classic guys like Eric Vanderaerden and Jean Paul Van Poppel , Freddy Mertens in the 1970s was a sprinter . Kelly himself started off as a sprinter and due to commitments to GC , he came 2nd in TDF stages more times than he won

A GC rider like Lemond or Froome can go and win a Grand Tour without actually winning one single stage of that race. They are ridding an entirely different race

A sprinter or classic riders (the best type of rider , especially the guys who can cope in the mountains, something Kelly might not get much credit for, he had 2 top 10 finishes at TDF while wearing the points jersey) are at the Tour to win stages

Cav struggles in the climbs, yet for many years he had enough in him , to actually win on the last day. It’s not like he’s taking it easy at the back of the peloton during the mountain days. To do that and still have the legs to get up to the front is a huge deal . They still have to ride hard enough to stay within the time limit, as you know .

Sagan too, in his prime (not a pure sprinter) Flat and hilly stages, he would chance the intermediate sprints full on and still be up or close to the front for the business end , after 200kms (typical length of a stage years prior)

When you guys are on a bike, after doing 160-200 km , at reasonable pace in places , how many of ye can go balls out sprint for 30 seconds at the end ?

Typical grand tours, you realistically have only 3-4 guys to seriously worry about ,even less this year. Had Rog no crashed GC would likely have been between him , Pog and Carapaz. The waffle about Thomas couldn’t have been seriously considered considering his climbing and tendency for crashes (Gift stage to Woods in Switzerland, he even did his collarbone out ridding in Wales in January)

Eddie and Hinault’s stage wins also include ITT. Obviously, that is really impressive to be able to win ITT , mountain stages and the flats but ….. not everyone is remotely any good at ITT . A select few. Cavendish has 33 wins in open races. Considering the danger of bunch sprints ,as you are well aware ….. that is a massive achievement

I totally get the issue with many sprinters being more effective in stage races and having little to no record in monuments and other one days, but Cav does have a handful of them . Sagan only has two monuments and doesn’t really look like adding to it

But, it’s not like Cav has been racing in Mickey Mouse races. Giro, Vuelta, Tierreno ….. Tour of Britain, okay but thats at the end of the year (and a great race for young guys eg Van Der Poel , Alaphillipe , Roglic )

To be fair to Cav, he never turned down a chance to race in Ireland either, whether as a youth, amateur (Ras) or Pro (Tour of Ireland, held shortly after the Tour) and he never disappointed

Just shows how special Sean Kelly as a one day and stage racer (one week and grand tours) he was

Suppose the ranking is obviously heavily based on what the rider does at the biggest event of the year. The Tour de France .

It’s a bit unfair alright, but Cavendish deserves his place in the hierarchy . He started ridiculously young too and he lasted a little longer. I hate sob stories but the illness didn’t help him.

I prefer March - April spring classics . But look at a guy like Tom Boonen, great man for the early season tours in the Middle East, then the cobbles, but after his points jersey win at the Tour circa 2007, he really offered almost nothing at Vuelta and TDF thereafter , not too many stage wins . Cancellera to be fair won the odd open stage to add to his ITT wins at TDF .He also tended to be very competitive at the world road races and Olympic races , when not injured

eagle eye

Lot of dislike for Cav in these threads.
In all fairness he's been doing it for a long time. He doesn't decide who he's up against either. He's one of the best all time sprinters in cycling.
Credit where it's due.
And I don't like him.

ednwireland

Randy Archer wrote: »

It’s a bit unfair alright, but Cavendish deserves his place in the hierarchy . He started ridiculously young too and he lasted a little longer. I hate sob stories but the illness didn’t help him.

yeah you forget that he road for team sparkasse in 2005, then as a staigiaire for t-mobile in 2006.
anyway brilliant win GO CAV !

odyssey06

eagle eye wrote: »

Lot of dislike for Cav in these threads.
In all fairness he's been doing it for a long time. He doesn't decide who he's up against either. He's one of the best all time sprinters in cycling.
Credit where it's due.
And I don't like him.

One thing about being around a long time is that every now and then you are going to get lucky with an 'easy' field.
Of course you will have some unlucky ones too when you are the guy on the deck.

Randy Archer

happytramp wrote: »

Absolutely. He's unreal when he gets a sniff of a win....I wonder if the move to DQS motivated him to up his game, not saying he'd been taking it easy before that but there's a high level of expectation at DQS.

Ah now. If any rider couldn’t feel motivated to up their game when told that they could rider for Quick Step…welll , there’s no point in racing anymore . Also, Cav is on record for being a huge fan of Specialised bikes .

He was never the most watt massing of sprinters like say, Greipel but by Christ he made up for it in the way that he can get his body so aerodynamic

Randy Archer

ednwireland wrote: »

yeah you forget that he road for team sparkasse in 2005, then as a staigiaire for t-mobile in 2006.
anyway brilliant win GO CAV !

I didn’t forget, I’m well aware of that. He was really young, for a sprinter to have got onto that T mobile team. He started good European tour races that started winning from the off .

Not too many 20 year old sprinters can hold their own on the European tour , even Tour of British. He was only 22ish, when he won Scheldeprijs. He was still flirting with track at the time

That’s pretty young for a sprinter

T mobile was all about Erik Zabel and Jan Ullrich…… at the time , and cough, doping , cough - doubt Cav was involved in all of that, he was regularly winning races as a junior- he didn’t come out of nowhere

DonegalBay

Weepsie wrote: »

Which makes those guys better racers as they know how to win.

At the end of the day that's what matters. 5 classics, a monument, points jersey in all 3 GCS, 50 GC stage wins, a world championship, a shed load of stages in other multi day races and a bucket load on the track all point to just how incredibly wrong you are.

If they could all do it, then he wouldn't be winning that much. It's an infantile dismissal of someone who is a just a very, very good cyclist.

Keep comparing apples to oranges, you're just tying yourself up in knots.

None of this would be up for discussion of Sam was there today and winning..noone would care about the field. It would just be about how much better he was than them etc

Don't think that is how people would view losing to such a rider. As heard frequently, they would complain that the course was too easy, or riders were 'wheelsuckers' which whilst technically smart, are a very disliked type of rider.

Sprinters have always got far more shots at winning and that has only increased with the advent of trains etc. Doesn't make them better.

People are arguing that sprinters have equal value within cycling, but is there anyone who honestly believes Andre Greipel is a better cyclist than Contador or that McEwen is better than LeMond as PCS would have you believe. If you want to say I am comparing apples with oranges fine, but they are all pro cyclists competing in the same races, maybe different types, but some are clearly more valued than others and in the value system of prestige, Contador and LeMond are miles in front of the other two.

The most prestigious races in Pro Cycling are the GTs Overall, the 5 monuments, World Champs, then maybe Strade Bianche, Olympics. How often does a pure sprinter win any of those events? World Champs, Cav and Cipo in my lifetime. Milan-San Remo, a little more often. The rest??? When people talk about Sean Kelly or Johan Musseuw for example, their Tour stage wins are well down their list of achievements in terms of importance to their greatness.

There has to be some reason for that?

Randy Archer

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Some say the classic riders are the best cyclists compared to sprinters and mountain goats . Certainly that’s the view from Belgium and the Netherlands . The roubaix type riders

While I’m inclined to appreciate them more (Gilbert , Van Averamat, Wout Van Aert, Boonen) , but , considering the dearth of GC contenders (Tom Doumulon being the exception, with Rob Gensik a previous genuine climber) from that region of the world in recent years, and a lack of points jersey winners…lol, they would say that

Boonen oddly enough, didn’t have much in the tank once it came to TDF and Vuelta after 2007, despite his continued dominance and glorious battles with Cencellera on the cobbles

Hope they don’t pin much hope on wonder boy Remco being a legit Grand Tour winner either . ITT , one days like Liege , a few stages in TDF ,maybe Vuelta win depending on who turns up (maybe) is about what he is capable of . (Pretty damn good btw if he does achieve that ) he’s on record for not being a fan of Paris Roubaix , didn’t have a great experience of it in the juniors …

Randy Archer

DonegalBay wrote: »

Don't think that is how people would view losing to such a rider. As heard frequently, they would complain that the course was too easy, or riders were 'wheelsuckers' which whilst technically smart, are a very disliked type of rider.

Sprinters have always got far more shots at winning and that has only increased with the advent of trains etc. Doesn't make them better.

People are arguing that sprinters have equal value within cycling, but is there anyone who honestly believes Andre Greipel is a better cyclist than Contador or that McEwen is better than LeMond as PCS would have you believe. If you want to say I am comparing apples with oranges fine, but they are all pro cyclists competing in the same races, maybe different types, but some are clearly more valued than others and in the value system of prestige, Contador and LeMond are miles in front of the other two.

The most prestigious races in Pro Cycling are the GTs Overall, the 5 monuments, World Champs, then maybe Strade Bianche, Olympics. How often does a pure sprinter win any of those events? World Champs, Cav and Cipo in my lifetime. Milan-San Remo, a little more often. The rest??? When people talk about Sean Kelly or Johan Musseuw for example, their Tour stage wins are well down their list of achievements in terms of importance to their greatness.

There has to be some reason for that?

Outside of the world championships (and considering how weak the US were, his wins are big deal , even Ireland had a great road team in the 1980s with Roche , Early, Kelly and the Kimmage brothers, Kelly and Roche for medals (Roche was 3rd in the early 1980s)) Le Mond won **** all in terms of one days and stages . Hard to believe . He even won a TDF without winning a single stage that was t an ITT

Obviously he won 3 TDF (crying like a baby for most of the 1986 win , ignoring the fact that his teammate was the reigning champ and FRENCH and podium for another (obviously being a big reason why said team mate won the previous year) . His handful of TDF stage wins were via ITT , at a time when only a handful were any good AT ITT .

His Giro record wasn’t great ale it once came third , but for a guy to won 3 world titles and a few silvers, his one day record is patchy . The odd podium but no monuments or classic wins . This was at a time his other GC contenders also rode in the one days and tours

Lemond was all about the TDF and nothing else, he treated Giro as a warm up

Sprinters have no choice but to go all out in the stages that are designated for them . There’s off day or ****ting in your bib (Lemond) (read Paul Kimmage book on that )

McEwan is where he is because of the stage wins at Giro and TDF and his stage wins in proper stage races like Romandie


Okay, Greipel being anywhere near Lemond is a bit of a joke , we can agree … but he still has stage wins at all three grand tours and the wins in Australia are hit sprint heavy stage races

Seems you have no respect for points jerseys and what it takes to win it ie be consistent and be in the top 10 for most days of the tour while chasing for intermediate sprint and suffering the the mountains

Randy Archer

DonegalBay wrote: »

Don't think that is how people would view losing to such a rider. As heard frequently, they would complain that the course was too easy, or riders were 'wheelsuckers' which whilst technically smart, are a very disliked type of rider.

Sprinters have always got far more shots at winning and that has only increased with the advent of trains etc. Doesn't make them better.

People are arguing that sprinters have equal value within cycling, but is there anyone who honestly believes Andre Greipel is a better cyclist than Contador or that McEwen is better than LeMond as PCS would have you believe. If you want to say I am comparing apples with oranges fine, but they are all pro cyclists competing in the same races, maybe different types, but some are clearly more valued than others and in the value system of prestige, Contador and LeMond are miles in front of the other two.

The most prestigious races in Pro Cycling are the GTs Overall, the 5 monuments, World Champs, then maybe Strade Bianche, Olympics. How often does a pure sprinter win any of those events? World Champs, Cav and Cipo in my lifetime. Milan-San Remo, a little more often. The rest??? When people talk about Sean Kelly or Johan Musseuw for example, their Tour stage wins are well down their list of achievements in terms of importance to their greatness.

There has to be some reason for that?

Well, that is where you are TOTALLY wrong. They might be in the same race, but they are competing for entirely different competition and purpose .

Outside of Grand Tours and the odd Paris Nice , and Tierenno , (the spanish races are meh) Contador was pretty poor . He won two giros without a single stage win . A race like Liege Bastogne Liege, he ought to be winning but came nowhere close to winning it

Kelly winning four points jerseys at the TDF is what made him ! The fact that he won two while getting top 10s in GC at Tour De France (4th even) and actually winning the Vuelta (and getting a podium in another ) put him into legendary status

It was puts him ahead of other multiple monument winners and mid week semi classics . Oh sure he won Paris Nice a **** load of times , but many of those same riders stopped him from winning more than 5 stages at TDF (2nd about 14 times )

Sorry, but even back in the 1980s , it was still all about the TDF in many countries outside of Belgium and Netherlands

I do wonder if you ever heard of Freddy Mertens? Surely you have ? He was a sprinter .

Paris Roubaix is often won in a bunch sprint - John Degenkolb 2015 . You do realise that Tom Boonen was classed as a sprinter , right ? Sagan, while not a pure sprinter, was also classed as a sprinter .

Until recently, Paris Tours was a very big deal .Amstel gold is still a big deal

The monuments aren’t actually really a sprinters race, bar Milan San Remo . The sprinters have the mid week Belgian races EF Ghent Wevelgem, which is regularly won by sprinters

Milan - San Remo from 2009 to 2017 , inclusive was won by sprinters ! The majority of the 1990s it was won by sprinters . The current Milan San Remo winner is a sprinter

Alexander Kristoff, a sprinter won Flanders circa 2015 ! Sagan in 2016

Stage races and in particular grand tours are the sprinters bread and butter . All fine and well for classic riders to win monuments , but they have a week off before the next race. Sprinters at Grand tours have to still ride the ****ty days, even do domestique duty on the flat parts before the mountains

retalivity

No thread for the ventoux atage tomoro, boards getting an upgrade!

retalivity

retalivity wrote: »

No thread for the ventoux atage tomoro, boards getting an upgrade!

Superman to do the double so, or would it be the quadruple after his win there in June?????

Though given his form in the Tour I'm not so optimistic.

Morris Garren

DonegalBay wrote: »

Don't think that is how people would view losing to such a rider. As heard frequently, they would complain that the course was too easy, or riders were 'wheelsuckers' which whilst technically smart, are a very disliked type of rider.

Sprinters have always got far more shots at winning and that has only increased with the advent of trains etc. Doesn't make them better.

People are arguing that sprinters have equal value within cycling, but is there anyone who honestly believes Andre Greipel is a better cyclist than Contador or that McEwen is better than LeMond as PCS would have you believe. If you want to say I am comparing apples with oranges fine, but they are all pro cyclists competing in the same races, maybe different types, but some are clearly more valued than others and in the value system of prestige, Contador and LeMond are miles in front of the other two.

The most prestigious races in Pro Cycling are the GTs Overall, the 5 monuments, World Champs, then maybe Strade Bianche, Olympics. How often does a pure sprinter win any of those events? World Champs, Cav and Cipo in my lifetime. Milan-San Remo, a little more often. The rest??? When people talk about Sean Kelly or Johan Musseuw for example, their Tour stage wins are well down their list of achievements in terms of importance to their greatness.

There has to be some reason for that?

You don't rate sprinters.
Logic is optional.
The End.

Keep it simple...

DonegalBay

Randy Archer wrote: »

Outside of the world championships (and considering how weak the US were, his wins are big deal , even Ireland had a great road team in the 1980s with Roche , Early, Kelly and the Kimmage brothers, Kelly and Roche for medals (Roche was 3rd in the early 1980s)) Le Mond won **** all in terms of one days and stages . Hard to believe . He even won a TDF without winning a single stage

Obviously he won 3 TDF (crying like a baby for most of the 1986 win , ignoring the fact that his teammate was the reigning champ and FRENCH and podium for another (obviously being a big reason why said team mate won the previous year) . His handful of TDF stage wins were via ITT , at a time when only a handful were any good AT ITT .

His Giro record wasn’t great ale it once came third , but for a guy to won 3 world titles and a few silvers, his one day record is patchy . The odd podium but no monuments or classic wins . This was at a time his other GC contenders also rode in the one days and tours

Lemond was all about the TDF and nothing else, he treated Giro as a warm up

Sprinters have no choice but to go all out in the stages that are designated for them . There’s off day or ****ting in your bib (Lemond) (read Paul Kimmage book on that )

McEwan is where he is because of the stage wins at Giro and TDF and his stage wins in proper stage races like Romandie


Okay, Greipel being anywhere near Lemond is a bit of a joke , we can agree … but he still has stage wins at all three grand tours and the wins in Australia are hit sprint heavy stage races

Seems you have no respect for points jerseys and what it takes to win it ie be consistent and be in the top 10 for most days of the tour while chasing for intermediate sprint and suffering the the mountains

The green jersey is a secondary competition for the sprinters, in general I pay it little heed. Last year was a little more interesting because it involved Bennett and was more than just sprinting, it was a real battle. I find it difficult to rouse much interest in races were the weakest finish with the strongest, posters can bang on about the skills of sprinters and the difficulty of riding in the bunch, (Never said it was easy) but most times the entire bunch arrives intact bar crashes etc. There is a certain psychology to sprinting, fearlessness etc, but mostly it's about teams controlling the race and then a shootout over the final 400m. It's all very systematic and lacks any real epicness or unpredictability to me.

LeMond was competitive in GTs and Classics before his accident, less so afterward. Kelly was a major problem for him. Also he did win a MTF at Superbagneres in 86 and a road stage in 89, he was also involved in a break on the first road stage in 91 along with Kelly, Breukink, on a day that in current racing would be a nailed on bunch sprint. That is why I say sprinting is so different nowadays. Far more control, far more opportunities and far less unpredictability. At least 4 stages in 91 were won by last km attacks which just doesn't happen anymore.

Randy Archer

DonegalBay wrote: »

The green jersey is a secondary competition for the sprinters, in general I pay it little heed. Last year was a little more interesting because it involved Bennett and was more than just sprinting, it was a real battle. I find it difficult to rouse much interest in races were the weakest finish with the strongest, posters can bang on about the skills of sprinters and the difficulty of riding in the bunch, (Never said it was easy) but most times the entire bunch arrives intact bar crashes etc. There is a certain psychology to sprinting, fearlessness etc, but mostly it's about teams controlling the race and then a shootout over the final 400m. It's all very systematic and lacks any real epicness or unpredictability to me.

LeMond was competitive in GTs and Classics before his accident, less so afterward. Kelly was a major problem for him. Also he did win a MTF at Superbagneres in 86 and a road stage in 89, he was also involved in a break on the first road stage in 91 along with Kelly, Breukink, on a day that in current racing would be a nailed on bunch sprint. That is why I say sprinting is so different nowadays. Far more control, far more opportunities and far less unpredictability. At least 4 stages in 91 were won by last km attacks which just doesn't happen anymore.

Green jersey, overall , IS ALWAYS more than sprinting for the finishing line ffs.

Not Sagan’s fault that the quality of contenders consistent enough to contend for it wasn’t there in the years that he won it.

You don’t give the impression of actually understanding the points competition . This years battle is rather interesting with the performance of Sonny Colberlleri and Michael Matthews being credible enough to make it hard for Cavendish to keep the jersey , as they are a little more reliable once it gets hilly

The vast majority of stages would be slow and as dull as **** until the mountains and ITT , if it weren’t for the sprinters and their battle to get intermediate points and see which of them will survive the time limit and recover from that day of suffering to come out the next day and win the stage after 150-200 km of fast racing

Your interest in the jersey last year was solely because Sam is Irish . Just be honest about it


In case you haven’t notice but, and all due respect, you clearly haven’t , almost the last decade , the GC competition has been about the Sky Ineos Train controlling everything up the mountains .

Jumbo Visma tried to do it last year only to get messed up by Poglic - take the bonus seconds and first ITT out of the equation, Roglic was behind Pog before THAT ITT !!

And,before Sky, there was the blue train of US Postal who controlled everything once they went climbing …so….. I’m not sure what race you were watching

Re Greg Lemond pre accident : 3 podiums in 13 monument appearances , only 5 top 10s in those appearances . How is that competitive ? I know you said “classics” but he didn’t ride much of the semi classics . Kelly wasn’t the only guy who was a problem for him , but, to be fair to Greg, he was a GC guy