He should have done better being on a 7 figure salary compared to Amistead's 5 figure one :D

Joking side why is there such a vast difference in money between mens & womens pro cycling ?

'Cos men go faster?

(unless they're Chinese of course :Suspiciou)

dl

I can't see why he has anyone to blame but himself. Why is it down to his team to get him there? The dude who won it didn't have a team behind him, he just decided enough was enough and put the hammer down. It is a race surely everyone who turned up was eligable to win not just Cavendish. If it was a team sport then everyone in the team would get a medal not just Cavendish. If I had enetered a race and was told that Iwasn't going to win but had to do my hardest to get X to the finish line so he could win I would tell them where to get off. Also why are they moaning that no one else helped the British team? It is a race why should they help?

Coaches help their team members to win medals but don't have any chance of a medal themselves. Would you rather one of your countrymen won, or a foreigner?

Coach's are not competiters are they? And yes I would prefer one of my team mates to win over a foreigner but I would also prefer to win over my team mate but as it happens none of them won or even came close to it and have no one else to blame except themselves or am I missing something here?

Yes, you're missing something

So why don't you enlighten us all then ?

I believe he's referring to the "you don't need no team". Yes you do. Without referring directly to the men - take for example the girls on Sunday. Those three at the front needed to work as a team. It's estimated it takes 30% effort to stay at the front or be a singleton. So for that small group of three to stay ahead of the peloton for so long it needed all three to work together (i.e taking turns at the front), in order for any of them to stay ahead and any to win a medal. If they fought each other, they'd have been swallowed up by the peloton and no one gets a medal. So you help your competitor win gold and they weren't even on your country team!

For a pure test of your personal stamina/strength at cycling against your competitors you can go for a win in the time trial instead where there is no team on the road around you.

I understand the changing places and slip streaming etc But everyone was going on about getting Cavendish to the finish line to win, what about the 4 other members of the team? My other point is that the peloton (sp) which team GB was leading was at the back, there was a breakaway group of 20-30 riders 55 seconds up the road in front of them. Why did the GB riders not break away with them then when they initially staretd to break? also the dude who won came from nowhere in the front group and for about 10-15km was playing cat and mouse in his own group with 2 other riders increasing the gap between them and the chasing mini peloton(sp). If GB were serious about winning they should have gone with teh main group and not languished behind leading a group that seemed happy to get nowhere.

Do you know cycling?

Yes I am a fcuking expert which is why I am asking for explanations as to why Team GB fcuked up so badly and a lone rider with no team behind him from a country no one has heard of won gold!

You really want to know?

You need to accept the following as fact:

1) As a cyclist, you save ~25% of your energy if you follow someone, and as much as 40% if you sit in the middle of a group. A group will always triumph over an individual. The individual at the front still have to put full effort in to build/maintain speed, but as a group, you take turns at he front with each doing their share. SO a bigger group is better.

2) "Teams" are very loose in cycling. Watch the end of the womens road race to see 4 riders from separate countries work together, 3 of them right up to the last kilometer - when their team work breaks down into a fair fight for the line.

3) Cavendish IS the fastest man over the last 200m of a course in the world, no question. (see his stage 18 TdF win for evidence). No-one wants to have to beat him to the line, because they won't.

4) Cycling is unpredictable. It's not like 100m running where the fastest man is the fastest man. All kinds of factors come into play, largey because of fact (1)

5) Vinokourov is a very acomplished rider, and Khazakstan have a state sponsored team (Astana) in the Tour De France.

So, lets look at that race again:
The riders know that their only shot of beating Team GB in current form is not to race Cavendish at the end. They need to break away and stay away. They do this, and the break is given a huge advantage by a lack of information being relayed to the Peloton meaning taht they are unaware for some time that the break is 4-5-6 minutes adrift in the early stages.
That breakaway group consists of 20 strong riders from a variety of countries, but crucially no Team GB member.
The Peloton, not being spurred on by time checks, know that 95% of the time such an early break will be caught by the end because the riders in it will be working harder than the peloton to maintain speed. Crucially, teams with riders in the break do NOT want to assist Team GB back to close the break down, because then they're back to Team GB's plan - LEt Cavendish win in the bunch sprint. THis leaves only Team GB in a position to try and pull the break back, with members of the peloton actually actively disrupting the peloton ot slow it down. (This tactic was used to GB womens advantage by Cooke, who was holding up the Peloton as Amitstead was in the break of 3). Review the later stages of the Mens race, and you'll see that string of 5 Team GB riders desparately trying to encourage and tow the peloton back to close the break. But 5 riders cannot tow a group back up to chase 20 strong ridrs on their own.

The break triumphs. They hold their lead.

As for why Team GB didn't win?
Their tactics were overt and known to all. Cavs reputation preceeded him.
The break was allowed to gain too much too soon.
There should have been an Team GB rider in the break, IMO, to monitor and control it (MIllar could have done this).
A group that big and that strong should not have been allowed to go unchecked.

So, that's sport, and that's cycling. It's not like Cavendish is the only "great Team GB hope" To have had his medal dreams shattered.

Lets see if Wiggins still has the best legs in the world when the time trial happens Tomorrow... No hiding in the time trial!

So to sum up you can only win in cycling if you are lucky to break with a group who help you along, but then only the last 200 metres is where it seems to be won by the quickest sprinter. :confused:

The last 36 words of that sentence really put the lie quite badly to the first 5 :rolleyes:

No.... I was explaining why "the quickest" rider may not be the winner. It's a 250 km race.

For a sprinter to win it, they will need a team to sacrifice themselves a bit, to put them within striking distance with fresher legs so they can do their thing and win. A lone sprinter will have a very hard time winning, because they will have to expend too much energy putting themselves at the head of the pack. Sprinters physiques are also heavier and less efficient, so they need to be protected in climbs so that they don't just drop off the back of the race.

For a lone wolf to win it, they would have to break away from the main group and then STAY away. That very, very rarely happens, and only when the peloton fails to organise and catch the breakaway rider. See the womens road race for an expertly timed and managed breakaway - and imagine the boost that being one of 3 in the breakaway, and that if you work together and maintain your lead you are guaranteed a medal.

The problem in the mens race was that the breakaway was large - it had 20 strong riders. That means they can work together and be very hard to catch.

Of course, if you come to the last few hundred meters in a group, it gets decided by a sprint. That's a test of who has the best legs after a 250 km race.

Watch the leaders in a the last 20km's or so of a stage race as they vy for position. It fascinating. People feign tiredness, stop taking their full turn at the front, try and hang at the back, all to save their legs and dupe the others into working harder than they are, all so that they can save energy and win.
Alternatively, watch as a rider who isn't a great sprinter but feels good repeatedly attacks and goes off the front, forcing the others into accelerations to stay with him, or else cracking them and dropping them to leave him to keep the pace up on his own towards the line.

You frequently see the peloton pass a breakaway within the build up to a sprint at the end of a race. THe peloton might be doing 55-65Kph whilst the breakaway riders struggle to make 40Kph and just get swamped. That's the difference a group makes Vs a few riders with tired legs.

No.

I suggest you read the link given above, it really is very insightful and explains a great deal.

Road cycling is as much about tactics / strategy as it is about sheer strength / stamina

Read the f*cking link then :p:lol1:

"A group that big and that strong should not have been allowed to go unchecked."

It says in post 43 which just about sums it up..

Tactics in road racing haven't changed that much since I raced in the late 70's. Back then in UK road racing the Cavendish of the day was Sid Barras who rode for Viking Campagnolo.

Barras didn't win all of the time because of the situation in the Olympic road race, however the smarmy git seldom lost if he was in at the final sprint.

I couldn't sprint for toffee so the only way I could win would be to "time trial" off the front which was usually a disaster LOL

Shaun

team britain got stitched plain and simple, anyone who knows a bit about cycling knows that. none of the other countries who had half decent sprinters did any work in the peleton to catch the breakaway knowing they weren`t going to be able to get a medal either. i thought the gb guys did the best they could considering all the work they did.

With hindsight team GB made the mistake that cost them the race on the final climb when they let so many big names ride off the front of the peloton and join the break which was only 20-30 seconds up the road (ignoring Gilbert who was off the front on his own and never going to last). If they'd realised at the time I think they would have switched to a plan B and sent Froome or Millar off with the break.

true they should have had someone in the breakaway that would have also probably made the other teams in the peloton work harder

I have to admit - when I saw that group ride off the front I thought they should've followed; but I did wonder about the possibility of more attacks if everyone came back together so far from the finish.

Still - fix the problem you have not one you may have.

The GB team anticipated the peloton would work together to bring the breakaway group back. Had it done so the breakaway would surely have been reeled in. Unfortunately the peloton wouldn't work and seemed more interested in ensuring Cavendish didn't win the sprint than getting their own guys into a medal-winning position. Five riders (Team GB) had no chance on their own of catching the breakaway of 30 plus riders, game over.

I think he answered that question pretty convincingly there :thumb:

Wiggins & Froome! :luxhello: :notworthy

It's most... defo... a Wiggo... Wednesday-o lol

Yup! Happy with that! :luxhello::luxhello::luxhello::luxhello::luxhello: :luxhello:

It was a stupid question, and the interviewer is an idiot. Cav didn't win because tactics conspired against him, nothing to do with fitness levels. Moronic interviewer.

All that aside - why did team GB actually stop in the first place?

No it was a question a lot of the general public would have asked. But, as I said before, a stupid time to ask it. Bit like the classic "Aside from that Mrs Lincoln how did you enjoy the play?" (just after President Lincoln had been shot during the play) :)

If Mr Cavendish had been in a better mood he could simply have said "No, we cocked up the tactics. Now excuse me I'm off to get p,issed"

dl