RvV

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.

So, Tom - did you had plan?

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

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 01:15:18 GMT, steve robertson
wrote:

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.

So, Tom - did you had plan?

Geez - I meant... "did you have a plan"?

sorry

"steve robertson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 01:15:18 GMT, steve robertson
wrote:

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.

So, Tom - did you had plan?

Geez - I meant... "did you have a plan"?

sorry

Not me, I just watch and appreciate the humor of the situation. The Ronde
was so hard that Lotto HAD to have one guy protected. They tried it with
both of their guys and it came pretty close to working. There is always an
element of risk and an element of luck. Wesseman had both working for him in
the final 20 km.

steve robertson wrote:

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.

Then Hoste handed Wesemann a gift by chasing down Bruylandts's
attack in the final km. Not sure why (perhaps rather chase down
a rival Belgian team, damn the consequences?) or why Wesemann
didn't react to Bruylandts right away (perhaps he sussed that
Hoste would go for rivalry reasons, or because Hoste had been
sitting on? Too complicated.) Chung, you really need to write
up that study of game theory in cycling.

"Benjamin Weiner" wrote in message
news:40710709$1@darkstar...
steve robertson wrote:

Then Hoste handed Wesemann a gift by chasing down Bruylandts's
attack in the final km. Not sure why (perhaps rather chase down
a rival Belgian team, damn the consequences?) or why Wesemann
didn't react to Bruylandts right away (perhaps he sussed that
Hoste would go for rivalry reasons, or because Hoste had been
sitting on? Too complicated.) Chung, you really need to write
up that study of game theory in cycling.

I don't think it was rivalry. I think Hoste was feeling "fresh" and was also
relatively inexperienced in this sort of a situation. Wesemann was smarter,
although I think he still would have won had he chased down Bruylandts
himself.

Jeff

Benjamin Weiner wrote:
Chung, you really need to write
up that study of game theory in cycling.

Yeah, right. 'Cuz, but for one or two notable exceptions, there's been a
recent dearth of truly sphincter-tightening posts on rbr.

Besides, I'm sorta stuck on the title. Here are two candidates:
1. Selten, Harsanyi, and extreme payoffs: collusion and reneging in the
world of professional cycling.
2. Last but N to **** your buddy wins.

BTW, a tantalizing finding from some of the experimental game theory stuff
is that reneging (or cheating, or back-stabbing, or ****-your-buddy-ing)
is more common when you're desperately trying to avoid the wolves at the
door than when you're dominant. The application to doping behavior is left
to the reader as a gedanken experiment.

Jeff Jones wrote:

"Benjamin Weiner" wrote in message
news:40710709$1@darkstar...
steve robertson wrote:

Then Hoste handed Wesemann a gift by chasing down Bruylandts's
attack in the final km. Not sure why (perhaps rather chase down
a rival Belgian team, damn the consequences?) or why Wesemann
didn't react to Bruylandts right away (perhaps he sussed that
Hoste would go for rivalry reasons, or because Hoste had been
sitting on? Too complicated.) Chung, you really need to write
up that study of game theory in cycling.

I don't think it was rivalry. I think Hoste was feeling "fresh" and was also
relatively inexperienced in this sort of a situation. Wesemann was smarter,
although I think he still would have won had he chased down Bruylandts
himself.

i'm a terrible observer, but it looked to me like hoste did wait a bit
for wessemann to chase, but maybe when he didn't, hoste didn't want to
just give up his chance for a win. i don't see what bruylandts has to
complain about really. even though hoste spent all day in front and then
chased him down, hoste still beat him (unless he just gave up trying
after hoste chased him down, but then he needs a spanking)

i like hoste's quote on cyclingnews- "I had spent all day in front and I
had Van Petegem and Van Bon behind me. They were the top men and me the
helper. I'm happy with my second place and had a real super day."

h

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:00:55 GMT, h squared wrote:
it looked to me like hoste did wait a bit
for wessemann to chase, but maybe when he didn't, hoste didn't want to
just give up his chance for a win. i don't see what bruylandts has to
complain about really.

Like he said, the fastest guy should normally close the gap, and
certainly now that Wesemann left it himself: W challenged him and Hoste
folded. You can read elsewhere that Wesemann received info on his 2
breakaway partners: "Don't worry!" so he was definitely bluffing.
Unnecessary even.

even though hoste spent all day in front and then
chased him down, hoste still beat him (unless he just gave up trying
after hoste chased him down, but then he needs a spanking)

Bruylandts is the worst sprinter ever. He's the original strijkijzer.

"Benjamin Weiner" wrote in message
news:40710709$1@darkstar...
steve robertson wrote:

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.

Then Hoste handed Wesemann a gift by chasing down Bruylandts's
attack in the final km.

It was clear that Hoste either chaced Bruylandts down or it was Dave's win.
Wesseman knew that he simply could not chace Dave and win the sprint.
Steffen performed like a genius.

Not sure why (perhaps rather chase down
a rival Belgian team, damn the consequences?)

No, because he was on a different team - that's why their jerseys were
different colors. What is with this helping a countryman thing? Would you
give away a race to someone from your home state if you might have a chance
to win it yourself?