Monday, June 09, 2008

Dear Master A medalists

1 rider who got a medal deserved it. 2 sat on and then sprinted. I guess it works for you.

7 Comments:

At Monday, June 09, 2008 10:39:00 PM, Blogger pnwbuckeye said...

Sometimes the smartest rider beats the strongest.

Race smarter, not harder.

 
At Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:42:00 AM, Blogger P-Dog said...

Are you suggesting that sitting on and sprinting is a smart tactic?

Only if it results in wins. And oddly I can't help but notice mostly top 5 results by this riders.... http://wheelsinfocus.com/2008/pages/94AD2519bc.htm

And when 2 riders on the same team finish that close together you have to ask yourself if it's smart riding or a serious impulse control problem.

 
At Friday, June 13, 2008 6:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To have four guys in the break of 8 and still lose the Master's race is perhaps underwhelming. That any person took a pull besides the four teammates could be called into question. To comment on the activity in a break that one was not actually in is questionable at best. Three of the guys in the break did not belong in the Masters championship race and therefore ruined the outcome for the masters. Had Jamie and Chad not been drilling it before the right turn (see Amara's pics), Ed Harley and I would have made it across (see the pics). Not so sure what your beef is - is it because Michael lost?

Pat Gray

 
At Saturday, June 14, 2008 8:16:00 AM, Blogger P-Dog said...

Pat,

I think the fact that everyone knows exactly who I am talking about speaks directly to my beef.

The rider in question is known for sitting in and sprinting, sprinting when he's a lap down, pushing into leadout trains (as opposed to sitting on lead out trains), etc.

Can you make a case for why it was ok in the Masters race at Glennwood? Sure. But it happens consistently. I've seen and I've heard about.

If the rider wants to keep doing it, that's fine. But he shouldn't expect not do get called on the carpet for it.

And for the record I've said that to his face to, but since I ain't Ronnie he doesn't care.

 
At Saturday, June 14, 2008 1:18:00 PM, Blogger andrew said...

I wasn't there, but it sounds somewhat similar to VPark. BRI got 3 guys in the move - the only team with more than a single rider. As I read it, it’s on them to help drive the break until it’s certain that it will stick – because they have the most to gain. Once the break is away, then they can employ whatever tactic they like because they have the numbers. Attack and counter, sit on and sprint, whatever. They chose sit, they had the leadout, they didn’t win. Seems to be a common trend, but they have to pick what they feel is their best shot for success.

The mess of adding 1/2s to the Masters race and Glenwood made it odd because guys that don’t really matter in the result could impact the race. That sucks because it opens up some strange dynamics. Who would bother to chase Galen? Emde should have sat on too because he had his Gin friends working for him. Either that – or he should have attacked. Too bad he couldn’t effectively trade attacks with a teammate who mattered in the result, because Tubbs, etc just had to worry about Emde getting away. Galen/Jamie/Chad weren’t really the competition.

One thing to note – the BRI guy I’m thinking of is a very high-power MD with a demanding job and I would guess is probably the highest paid (and in theory worked) rider in our field by a large margin. I’d expect him to have to race smarter and cut some corners where he can to even compete with most of the guys in our races.

 
At Saturday, June 14, 2008 2:33:00 PM, Blogger P-Dog said...

"I’d expect him to have to race smarter and cut some corners where he can to even compete with most of the guys in our races."

I am not sure if you mean he is racing smart and that's the only way he can compete or you are marvelling that he can compete even though he doesn't race smart.

The negative tone of my post is not just because I don't agree with the tactics. There are plenty of tactics that I don't like but are effective.

My post reflects the fact that I don't like the tactics in general and I also happen to think they are bad.

The rider in question is in fact quite strong and I would suggest that he gets his results based not on the tactics but based strictly on that.

The implicit defense of the rider in question usually goes like this: there were a bunch of strong riders in the break and he needed to take turns off to place.

Yet in every race I have been in with him or watched he does as much or more work than other riders. He just doesn't do it in the break.

For example, he was leading the chase at Glennwood when he had a teammate in the break. I see him do that all the time. Sometimes he gets across to the break, usually he gets a small gap and just acts as a carrot to bring the field back up.

I don't mean this as a knock on Masters races, but there just isn't the depth of field that there is in the Cat 1/2. You can waste more energy and still get a good result if you are strong.

 
At Saturday, June 14, 2008 11:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good job calling the rider out. I hope that doctor never works on me and sits-in and sprints for fifth or chases down his own nurse. I'd rather have a smart, less skilled doctor who knows how to use a good team and hospital.
Masters riders are supposed to know better. The only racing that team does is against each other.

-Fed Up Guy Who RACES

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home