RvV

Not to take anything away from Wesemann, but this year's Ronde felt a
little flat. Maybe because the principles never really made it to the
front of the race, other than the brief re-grouping on the Muur.

Quick.Step's tactics have to be questioned - Bettini and Boonen seemed
to do a lot of the work to bring it back together - but then they had
no-one in either of the lead groups after the Muur.

However, Wesemann rode an excellent race and was the strongest rider
in the finale.

Regards!
Stephen

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:24:19 +0100, Steve McGinty wrote:
However, Wesemann rode an excellent race and was the strongest rider
in the finale.

He did, but was he? I think maybe Van Bon was, but because of really
strange tactics (betting on Hoste against Wesemann??!) he couldn't work
with Dekker. Dekker was very good, but not super or he would have closed
the 14 sec gap to the Wesemann/Bruylandts tandem. I think it was Dekker
himself saying earlier (should be somewhere on his site) that he thought
Wesemann was thinner than usual, better climbing but lacking in
strength. Well there you go.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 21:33:47 +0200, Ewoud Dronkert
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:24:19 +0100, Steve McGinty wrote:
However, Wesemann rode an excellent race and was the strongest rider
in the finale.

He did, but was he? I think maybe Van Bon was, but because of really
strange tactics (betting on Hoste against Wesemann??!) he couldn't work
with Dekker. Dekker was very good, but not super or he would have closed
the 14 sec gap to the Wesemann/Bruylandts tandem.

Closing down 14 seconds at 60kph when it's two against one ain't
easy...


Regards!
Stephen

"Ewoud Dronkert" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:24:19 +0100, Steve McGinty wrote:
However, Wesemann rode an excellent race and was the strongest rider
in the finale.

He did, but was he? I think maybe Van Bon was, but because of really
strange tactics (betting on Hoste against Wesemann??!) he couldn't work
with Dekker. Dekker was very good, but not super or he would have closed
the 14 sec gap to the Wesemann/Bruylandts tandem. I think it was Dekker
himself saying earlier (should be somewhere on his site) that he thought
Wesemann was thinner than usual, better climbing but lacking in
strength. Well there you go.

No that was Scott Sunderland. Oh well, Wese proved him wrong :-) The weight
loss seemed to help him fly up the Muur. Bruylandts was better there too.
Must be the "autostrada".

Lotto seemed to be playing the Van Bon card, by not having Hoste work in
front. But not having Van Bon work behind defeated the purpose somewhat.
Andreas Klier is pretty handy too - he won Gent Wevelgem in 2003.

cheers,
Jeff

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 06:08:52 +1000, Jeff Jones wrote:
[Dekker?] thought Wesemann was thinner than usual

No that was Scott Sunderland.

Ah sorry yes, in his diary on CN.

Lotto seemed to be playing the Van Bon card, by not having Hoste work in
front. But not having Van Bon work behind defeated the purpose somewhat.
Andreas Klier is pretty handy too - he won Gent Wevelgem in 2003.

but even if you count in bringing back Klier for free, I still think
Van Bon at the front would have given Lotto *much* better chances for
the win than to just leave Hoste to be devoured by Wesemann. Who didn't
see that one coming from a mile away (13 km actually).

Anyway, when looking back we're all top analysts...

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 22:36:33 +0200, Ewoud Dronkert
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 06:08:52 +1000, Jeff Jones wrote:
[Dekker?] thought Wesemann was thinner than usual

No that was Scott Sunderland.

Ah sorry yes, in his diary on CN.

Lotto seemed to be playing the Van Bon card, by not having Hoste work in
front. But not having Van Bon work behind defeated the purpose somewhat.
Andreas Klier is pretty handy too - he won Gent Wevelgem in 2003.

but even if you count in bringing back Klier for free, I still think
Van Bon at the front would have given Lotto *much* better chances for
the win than to just leave Hoste to be devoured by Wesemann. Who didn't
see that one coming from a mile away (13 km actually).



Duffield and Kelly on GB Eurosport...

Regards!
Stephen

"Steve McGinty" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 22:36:33 +0200, Ewoud Dronkert
wrote:

but even if you count in bringing back Klier for free, I still think
Van Bon at the front would have given Lotto *much* better chances for
the win than to just leave Hoste to be devoured by Wesemann. Who didn't
see that one coming from a mile away (13 km actually).

Duffield and Kelly on GB Eurosport...

Lotto were guaranteed a podium spot if Van Bon didn't work. If Dekker pulled
Van Bon up then he would have the advantage. Great DS strategy.

And that's why you guys aren't D'sS.

Lotto seemed to be playing the Van Bon card, by not having Hoste work in
front. But not having Van Bon work behind defeated the purpose somewhat.
Andreas Klier is pretty handy too - he won Gent Wevelgem in 2003.


yeah, when I read on the Cyclingnews live report that Hoste
was not working because Van Bon was behind and that Van Bon
was not working because Hoste was in front, I was a bit
perplexed.

But in the end, if all six had gotten together with a couple
of Km to go, I would have put my money on Telekom (sorry,
T-Mobile) with Klier and Wesemman. Only if Dekker had towed
Van Bon to the leaders with less than 500m to go, would I
have bet on Van Bon - he definitely has the sprint, but I
don't think he has the short-range attack of the two
Germans. They would have worked him over and Hoste may not
have been much help (only Lotto knows that).

So maybe it was a "rock and a hard place" type of scenario
for Lotto.

What was that TdF stage where Rabobank played this card so
well? I think that Dekker and another were in the finale
and Dekker was cooked after being away for so long. But he
fooled the guys in the break with a false attack while his
teammate went off on the other side of the road. That was
masterful. However, T-Mobile probably would not have taken
their eyes off of Van Bon, so it may not have worked.

Hey, this is fun - I can see why Don Cherry loves making
grand pronouncements about hockey, after the results
(apologies to non-Canadians, or perhaps I should ask for
your sympathy because I have to put up with the guy).

steve

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 21:05:56 GMT, steve robertson wrote:
What was that TdF stage where Rabobank played this card so
well? I think that Dekker and another were in the finale
and Dekker was cooked after being away for so long. But he
fooled the guys in the break with a false attack while his
teammate went off on the other side of the road. That was
masterful.

TdF 2002, 14 juillet, Karsten Kroon won the stage to Plouay (podium all
Dutch on Bastille day, hehe).

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 23:28:45 +0200, Ewoud Dronkert
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 21:05:56 GMT, steve robertson wrote:
What was that TdF stage where Rabobank played this card so
well? I think that Dekker and another were in the finale
and Dekker was cooked after being away for so long. But he
fooled the guys in the break with a false attack while his
teammate went off on the other side of the road. That was
masterful.

TdF 2002, 14 juillet, Karsten Kroon won the stage to Plouay (podium all
Dutch on Bastille day, hehe).

Thanks - I think I probably have that on a tape somewhere.
But I just remembered it as being a masterful team strategy,
whether initiated by Dekker or Raas or somebody else.

steve