SB Nation User Blog: ursula

Sizing Up The Teams For The Stage Four TTT

ursula — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:58:47 -0000

Hey! Let's look at the teams in detail for tomorrow's TTT shall we? I'm not gonna spell out the chances of every team tomorrow. Instead I'll focus on the GC teams, plus Garmin and Columbia. The order below is the order in which they start (and finish).

Remember the rules: The 5th placed rider's time will be the time of the lead group of the team. If any riders after the 5th rider have a time gap then their time is figured separately. Click here to read Crashdan's excellent preview of the course. Under each team I present the riders in order of how important they will be in the TTT:

Riders in bold will be the workhorses.
Riders in plain text ~~will~~ should finish in the top group. Realize that all GC hopefuls much finish in the top group for their team.
Riders in italics will probably get dropped.

Let's get started:

Rabobank

Dennis Menchov

Stef Clement

Robert Gesink

Laurens Ten Dam

Juan Antonio Fletcha

Joost Posthuma

Oscar Freire

Grischa Niermann

Juan Manual Garate

Commentary: With Gesink the highest on GC at 1:55 down, and Freire sitting on zero points, this team has lost a lot in the first three days, way more than they expected. So this stage is huge for this team. Can they use the stage to become relevant? On paper this is a solid TTT team. No rider is awful and several are quite good so you would expect them to have one of the better times. However a similar team (though not as deep-which is important) finished 39 seconds behind Columbia in the 15 km TTT at Romandie.

Silence Lotto

Cadel Evans

Jurgen Van den Broeck

Staff Scheirlinckx

Johan Van Summeren

Sebastian Lang

Matthew Lloyd

Charlie Wegelius

Greg Van Avermaet

Mickael Delange

Commentary: Oh dear. This is a stage that Cadel can't be looking forward to as he will lose a chunk of time. Look at it this way: his mountain support is much stronger than his TTT support. Outside of him no one else is very good against the clock so this team needs to pull out all the stops in order not to get blown out of the water. The one piece of hope is that the team finished the Romandie TTT only 25 seconds down so maybe they do have the team aspect covered. Still, by the end of the day, Cadel will be looking at 20th place on GC-if he is lucky. Where's Thomas Dekker when you need him?

Cervelo

Heinrich Haussler

Thor Hushovd

Carlos Sastre

Volodymir Gustov

Brett Lancaster

Inigo Cuesta

Jose Marchante

Andreas Klier

Hayden Roulston

Commentary: Oh dear, part deux. When two of your workhorses are your two sprinters, somethings very wrong and this TTT is one of the few occasions that we will see Cervelo caught out. Probably four riders will get dropped here, but who to choose-there are so many candidates! The nightmare scenario is if they feel a need to tow Marchante to the line and he's just sucking.

Milram

Niki Terpstra

Peter Velits

Linus Gerdemann

Christian Knees

Markus Fothen

Fabian Wegmann

James Frohlinger

Gerald Ciolek

Peter Wrolich

Commentary: Should be a better than expected TTT, um, team. Meaning they'll still lose some time but less that you might expect. Terpstra and Velits will share the big load with Gerdemann. They should finish with just five and how they use their dropped riders will determine if Leenos maintains his position in the GC.

Liquigas

Franco Pellizotti

Roman Kreuziger

Vincenzo Nibali

Brian Vandborg

Aleksandr Kuschynski

Daniele Bennati

Fabio Sabatini

Frederik Willems

Alessandro Vanotti

Commentary: Funny team as they have a big range in time trialing abilities so how they do on this stage is way up in the air. The length of this TTT will wear on them more than most of the other teams. Two of Vandborg, Kuschynski, and Bennati must come through for them to keep Kreuziger near the top. I say they accomplish that goal well enough but won;t win the stage.

Garmin

Bradley Wiggins

Christian Vandevelde

Ryder Hesjedal

David Zabriskie

David Millar

Danny Pate

Tyler Farrar

Julian Dean

Martijn Maaskant

Commentary: The first deep TTT group with five very good riders. No wonder they are a possible favorite for this stage. Danny Pate isn't half bad himself but its pretty guaranteed that they will finish with just five. Zabriskie and Millar should hold their positions (17th and 18th) on GC; maybe even move up a tad.

Saxo Bank

Fabian Cancellara

Gustav Larsson

Kurt-Asle Arvesen

Jens Voigt

Andy Schleck

Frank Schleck

Stuart O'Grady

Chris Anker Sorensen

Nicki Sorensen

Commentary: Hmm. They perhaps start out with the best 1-2 punch with Cancellara and Larsson but then they slip and if they need to tow Frank Schleck to the line then their time will not be quite up there with the best. Arvesen and Jens! are solid but no longer among the best.

Columbia

Tony Martin

Bert Grabsch

George Hincapie

Michael Rogers

Kim Kirchen

Maxime Monfort

Bernhard Eisel

Mark Renshaw

Mark Cavendish

Commentary: Loaded. And they have that winning mojo operating overtime. Very smart move yesterday to drop Grabsch out of the lead pack so he could rest for tomorrow but should they have also dropped Martin? And did that strong pull into the wind take the edge off them? How is Kirchen anyway?

Astana

Alberto Contador

Levi Leipheimer

Andreas Kloden

Lance Armstrong

Sergio Paulinho

Yaroslav Popovych

Gregory Rast

Haimar Zubeldia

Dmitriy Muravyev

Commentary: Under the radar team (yeah, right) with four very strong riders. My concerns: a) Armstrong so willingly getting Popo and Zubeldia to help out on the Columbia break may hurt the team here. b) Popo in general, who can pull out great TT's at times as well as complete duds. c) Paulinho is a decent chronoman but definitely a step down in quality from the top four. d) Team cohesion. I seriously doubt we'll see a problem today-unless the team is melting down. e) Since the second half of the course is flat and fast I think this team suffers a bit as their best chronomen don't have those big asses like some TT champions do.

Summary: I go back and forth here on who will win. Right now I say...... Garmin. Columbia and Astana close behind. Those three are a cut above the rest, emaing that you'll see a GC dominated by their riders tomorrow. Most importantly will be the time gaps. With Columbia in the top three, Tony Martin should get the yellow jersey. Saxo I think might be 30 seconds back with Liquigas and Rabobank. Milram will be not too far behind. Cervelo and Silence look to be hurting after tomorrow.

Q: How Do You Beat Cavendish? A: TRBWR

ursula — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:37:11 -0000

Seriously. What follows are fevered ruminations that if you will no doubt laugh at. But the purpose here is to think of a strategery that could deny Cavendish the Green Jersey.

Imagine you are a DS on one of the other teams. Pick any team: Quickstep or Skil Shimano or Cervelo or whoever. You have a rider or two who under normal circumstances is a contender for the Green Jersey and furthermore you've constructed the team with that goal at least partially in mind. You knew coming into the Tour that Cavendish and Columbia were the favorites but you thought you had a reasonable chance. But today's 2nd stage, well, that reasonable chance looks like it's rapidly going south. Drastic measures must be taken. But what can you do?

The first thing that pops into my head is never help Columbia chase down a break. Not one rider. Not once. No helping is permissible. In fact I'd have quiet discussions with other DS's about this since I don't want any other team helping out Columbia either. I want to weaken that train as much as possible before any bunch sprint. A side benefit to this is that Columbia would need to commit the likes of Rogers and Kirchen and Martin to chasing down breaks thus making them weaker for non-sprinting stages.

Not helping is a first step but it's not enough. Cavendish won't chase down anybody and he can grab my sprinter's wheel and win from there too. You've got better odds that way but he's still faster and he'll still win a bunch of points and still might capture the Green Jersey. You need to take away his points-but not in a Tonya Harding way.

Another effect of maintaining a moratorium on helping Columbia is that they will get totally pissed off and stop chasing. Great! That's one less stage that Cavendish doesn't get any points! But that's only half of a winning strategery. You want your riders to win points too. So you need to get in as many breaks as possible. Every day, including non-flat stage days.

Now if you do this you won't be able to send out your #1 sprinter on every break, expecting him to stay ahead of the peloton and thus grab sprinter points. That would be as bad for other teams as allowing Cavendish and Columbia to dominate and it won't be allowed. So you will need to send out different riders all the time, every stage, and whoever sticks, great. You want to make the Green jersey prize be a total free-for-all with non-sprinters in the running too. You just want to break the strength of the Columbia train and Cavendish. You want to turn this competition into a "Third-Rate Belgian Warmup Race" or TRBWR where the field is wide open. If you are Cervelo you are happy with Klier getting points and Haussler and Hushovd being aggressive. No more siting in the pack waiting for the final sprint. TRBWR. Rabobank? Hey a Fletcha win is okay with you. Clement is fine too. Kuschynski is just begging for this type of race from Liquigas. Fine. Vogondy or any Feillu or Terpstra or whoever. Great. The more anarchic the better. And don't chase the break. Change the rules of engagement. TRBWR.

Just two rules apply: 1) No GC contenders. 2) No Columbia train with Cavendish. Columbia can send out other riders into the break. I'd even invite Saxo to send someone tomorrow that would take over the yellow jersey if the break succeeds just to get things started. Say Stuart O'Grady-and make sure the other guys on the break have a worse time then him so he'll get the yellow if the peloton and Cancellara fail to get close enough because you don't care about the Yellow Jersey on the flat roads.

Yeah I know: crazy. Injecting how races play out in Belgium in March is just not done you say. Why not? What would you suggest? Or are you saying it's not possible to change how flat stages play out?

King of the Mountains Preview: Quest for the Spotty Jersey

ursula — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:54:11 -0000

What a long strange competition this is.

I won't get into the history of the maillot à pois rouges; instead I'll ask you this: last year after Bernard Kohl was disqualified, you probably knew that Christian Vandevelde moved up to 4th place in the General Classification. But who became the new KOM? Some of you know, but honestly I completely forgot. I'm sure I read about it but it was just a bit more trivia in my mind easily forgotten. And to me that says it all about this odd classification because with Kohl's downfall Carlos Sastre donned the spots and there hasn't been a winner of both the yellow and the spotty jersey since Eddy Merckx in 1970. Chapeau Carlos!

Just for the record, it's also hard to win the KOM and Overall in the same year for the Giro and Vuelta too. Denis Menchov did it in the 2007 Vuelta. Before Menchov you go back to Rominger in 93. Giro? Pantani in 98 and Hampstein in 88.

For the Tour, the winners of the KOM often win it several times in a row as you see here. So is Sastre the heavy favorite? I can see the logic in that. Said logic goes like this: The first two decisive stages in this year's Tour are the opening ITT and stage four's TTT. Both happen before any real mountains and in neither will Sastre shine. So heading into the Pyrenees, Carlos could be a couple of minutes behind a whole herd of GC guys who can TT so he's got to hit the mountains hard and often. Depending on how far he's back in the GC he might be allowed to win some stages like stage 7's mountaintop finish, thus giving him oodles of KOM points. When the race hits the Alps the same scenario might play out again if he's far enough out of the GC race. And even if he's still in competition for the GC he'll almost have to win Mt. Ventoux and all those KOM points to have a chance.

Of course if Carlos is too close to the overall lead he might not get the chance to win stages and so we'd have to look at other KOM contenders... on the flip

Before I list some other contenders, I have to acknowledge how different this competition is again. In the GC ad Points competition you see a) a bunch of riders who say they want to win it, and b) you see those guys at various stages racing side-by-side. That doesn't happen with the KOM. Only a couple riders speak about winning the jersey pre-race and you rarely see those guys dukking it out on some hill.

Plus the competition is usually not close. Last year's Tour saw Kohl winning the jersey 128 to 80 points before he was dethroned. The year before, Soler won it over Contador 206-128. 2006 saw Chicken over Landis 166-131. Notice that the last three years saw 2nd place in the KOM being held down by the GC winner-who was obviously more interested in that than the KOM and the point spread was in reality even bigger. (Realize I am talking here about how the competition unfolded to the competitors. The disqualifications happened later.) 2005: Rasmussen 185-135 for Pereiro.

1. David Moncoutie is one possibi lity. He's the defending KOM champ at the Vuelta and we saw him rounding into form by winning that difficult stage 7 of the Dauphine Libere.

2. Pierrick Fedrigo is another, the guy who actually beat out Moncoutie for the KOM jersey at the Dauphine. How he beat him is useful to know in understanding this competition. On that stage 7 I mentioned under Moncoutie, Fedrigo struck early, placing ahead of Moncoutie on the HC Galibier and winning the Croix de fer thereby matching his rival's KOM points for the day (Moncoutie won the last climb, the cat 1 Col de la Madeleine) and keeping his KOM lead that he had earned on the stage before where he won the race up the Col d'Izoard and the finishing small cat 3 climb. Expect to see the KOM winner reveal himself in the Pyrenees, maybe not on stage 7 but on stage 8 or 9.

3. Pursuing other KOM winners of late, one notices that Egoi Martinez won the Vuelta KOM in 2006. Might he have a go here? Possible. You have to think he'll try for at least one mountain stage win and no one will think he's going for the overall. But it might depend on if his teammate Mikel Astarloza, Mr. Pointy Hair, is wanting help for his GC placing.

4. Then there's perennial favorite Thomas Voeckler, who won it ~~4 3 2 1~~ 0 times before. Maybe he'll make a show of competing. Show: yes, win: no.

5. How about Tony Martin, the winner of the KOM at Suisse? He also did the trick at Paris-Nice too so it seems like he's focusing on the KOM. In fact place him on the podium somewhere for the KOM.

6. After Martin you have to stretch to see who's interested. I like Chris' suggestion about Sandy Casar. He should try for it but it's doubtful that he will. Or maybe all that harmony on Rabobank isn't actually there and Bobo Gesink takes a flyer. Caisse d'Epargne is a lineup fully of climby guys who won't be in the running for the GC. Perhaps one of those? Work with me here folks! Who do you think might win? Or have you read about any other rider talk up the Spots?

I just don't know what to think of this

ursula — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:05:45 -0000

According to The Accountant's website, Ricardo Ricco is about to have a baby boy. No, that's not the weird part, reading about that on Bert's site. The weird part is that Roicco is naming the kid after Bert. Alberto Ricco.

in honor of his “great rival and friend, Contador.”

Words. I have no words for this. Images of waving a banana do come to mind though.

The Tour Through a VDS Lens

ursula — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:54:24 -0000

Thought I'd see what each team looks like with their VDS points to see if anything interesting pops up and before Chris does his initial team ranking. And lo! Look at that! Of the 20 teams only two of them are fielding squads where every rider has won VDS points this year. Any guesses which two? Okay, I can already hear you thinking, "Columbia" and, yes, that's one of them. You get no credit for that answer. But the other? No. Keep guessing. No again! No AGAIN! Jens- NO it's not Cofidis! Man if this were hangman you'd be almost dead! Okay here's a hint: Nikki. Riiiiiight!

1. Garmin-1130 VDS points. As I mentioned in my VDS team update, Garmin is having a funny season. No one rider is having a great season but as a team they are much improved over last year. The same is true for this Tour squad too. Tyler Farrar owns the most VDS points for Garmin with a (as you will see) paltry total of only 265. But not only does every other rider have VDS points, only two of them (Millar (40 points) and Dean (20) have less than 100. Even mighty Columbia has three riders with less than 100. Math alert! Skip the rest of this entry if you are math challenged or just done surfing! If you plotted each team on a graph with the y-axis being the VDS points and the x-axis being each rider, most teams would have a big peak where their captains' totals were, like Rabobank with Menchov's 1425 points. Garmin's plot would be practically a flat line with all riders being close to equal- and that screams Stage Hunting as any of them could go off at almost any stage.

2. Columbia-2651. As I mentioned Columbia also clocks in with every rider earning VDS points and as you see they have in total a lot more points than Garmin. They aren't however bringing the most points to this race. We'll get to that team next but for now let's note that of their two leaders, Cav has 1001 while Kirchen's got 160. Hmmm. (Rogers has 301.) Actually Kirchen's low total, due to injury, makes me think he'll do better than expected as he has less miles in him than his rivals. Still, and as we already know, Columbia says Stage Hunters just like Garmin. Time trials, transitional stages, smaller mountain stages are all in play for Columbia and after the Tour of Switzerland you gotta believe that there will be at least one Columbia guy in the mix for every one of those stages. That's a hint for of you playing not only our PdC VDS competition but also Cyclingfever's game.

3. Cervelo-2979. Yep, the boys in white have the highest VDS total for this race. But if you look at their rider breakdown the question that we all have-Is this a GC team or a sprint team-stands out even stronger.

-Three of the riders haven't scored a VDS point: Lancaster, Cuesta, and Gustov.

- Two more have scored less than 100 points: Marchante (60) and Roulston (40).

- That leaves four with basically all of their points. Sastre has 505 and stands in seeming opposition to Klier (320), Haussler (982) and Hushovd (1072). H+H in fact have 69% of the team's points.

So what we have here is the opposite of Garmin and Columbia with an extremely top-heavy team, probably the biggest disparity between the captains and the helpers. This is like the Cervelo all-star team and I'm not saying that in a good way.

Okay we tackled three teams. Let's zero in on the big GC teams. The one with the most points is...

4. Rabobank-2845! Lead by Menchov's 1425 points this team has more than Astana, Saxo, or Liquigas. Only one rider has no points: Grischa Niermann. Just looking at this team makes me think even more that Menchov will try hard to get a lead by the end of the Pyrenees and hold on because this team has the chops to hold that lead for him. This is a team that can control the flats, the hills; practically everything: Gesink (410), Ten Dam (90), Clement (120), Garate (20), Posthuma (125), Fletcha (455), Freire (200): can't you just see this team driving the peloton day after day with Menchov in 6th position in yellow?

5. Astana-2530 is next and if Menchov hadn't won the Giro, Astana would have the most points for a GC-focused team. Basically an eight man team (does Muravyev speak English?) and only one of them, Rast (82), has less than 100 points. So if Rabobank is solid, Astana looks bulletproof. It says here that no one is gonna take the lead away from them if they get it: Contador (1176), Leipheimer (532), Kloden (331), Paulinho (0), Popovych (117), Zubeldia (150), Armstrong (142). Oh yeah, that Lance-Bert thing...

6. Liquigas-2261. I wonder: is the Italian press playing up Liquigas for the Tour? I ask because this is also quite a strong team and in the English press they seem under the radar. I'm reading not much at all about Benna (275) or Jen Grey 670) or Kreuziger (586) or Nibali (250). I like how even this team is VDS-wise, especially the three GC guys. The others: Kuschinski is already on a break hoping to improve on his 200 points, Sabatini(40), and Willems (240) round out the scoring with Vandborg and Vanotti not scoring yet.

7. Saxo Bank is next at 1949 and I'd bet that last winter no one would think that this team would have so few points leading up to the Tour. But injuries have messed with this team, keeping their VDS total artificially low. Speaking of injuries, has anyone heard how Frank Schleck's knee is doing? The point totals: Schlecket-720, Big Schleck-225, Cancellara-585, Jens!-272, Arvesen-140, and CA Sorensen-57. Nikki Sorensen, O'Grady, and Larsson all have zip.

Next we got five teams in the middle.

8. Silence Lotto-1213. I've been saying that Lotto's team looks like it will give more help to Cadel this time but I sure can't say that while looking at the VDS point disparity. Just look at that. They are spotting 1632 points to the Rabos, 1467 to Astana, 1048 to Leeky, 1064 to Saxo. Damn that's a big gap. And at 723 points, Evans has 60% of Lotto's points, easily the highest percentage for any serious GC hopeful. In fact only three other riders have any points: Van Summeren (225), Van Avermaet (240), and Van den Broeck (25). Dekker had 40 but let's not go there, shall we? Charlie Wegelius has zip, Scheirlinckx has zeno, Delage, zilch, and Lloyd squat. Molly I think has 10.

9. Then we come to Caisse d'Epargne and their 1033 points um point to how odd this team is without Valverde. I have to think that they are better than that, but there it is. They really have overemphasized the Green Bullet, haven't they? Plus, to be fair, this has some really young riders too. Maybe we should consider this practice for next year? Lulu Sanchez is easily their highest point getter with 488 and yes, I will be looking for his name to see how he keeps up. Cd'E's answer to Boss Hog, Riggo Uran, has 125 points, Costa 190, JJ Rojas 30, and Plan B. David Arroyo 190.

10. Katusha-1920. What to say? Their man two points leaders Pozzato (935) and Ivanov (615) are not suited for Grand Tours leaving the Colom-less Vlad Karpets (290) to lead the team. He's even more alone than Evans so, just to be contrarian, it would be cool to see Mullet grab the yellow on day 1. Unibrow has 40 points and Trussov, 40 too. Botcharov, Vandenbergh, Horrach, and Ignatiev all have nothing for this most uncompelling of teams.

11. Quickstep-1968 points with Davis, 2513 with Boonen. Not a great lead-up to the Tour is it? Boonen in court limbo, and old pal Sinking Dope (Patrick Sinkewitz) singing about the good old days-which the team is of course denying. Geez. Lefevre suing ASO for Boonen and Sinkewitz' allegations being made public after WADA sat on it for one and a half years? Uh-huh. Stay classy WADA and ASO! Not a good way for Chavanel (618), Pineau (265), Rosseler (40), de Jongh, Tosatto, or Vandewalle (all with no points) to prepare. Devo (565)? I have no idea what's going through his head. BTW what's the odds for a Devolder win?

12. Milram-1376. Stage hunters. Wouldn't it be great if we saw this team out front competing for every stage, getting in all the breaks? They sure are built like that, just like Garmin, Columbia, and Quickstep. Wegmann (475), Peter Velits (150), Terpstra (336), Wrolich (66), Knees (120), Gerdemann (120), and Ciolek (25) should all be stage hunting. Frohlinger and Fothen are along for the ride. Hey-wasn't Fothen in competition for the white jersey while on Gerolsteiner just in 2006? Different training regimen since then I guess... Good.

-----------------------------------------

So far we have two groups of teams:

- The big boys: Columbia, Cervelo, Rabobank, Astana, Saxo, and Liquigas.

- The mid-majors: Katusha, Milram, Quickstep, Caisse d'Epargne, Silence Lotto, and Garmin.

Finally we get to Division III or the Directional Techs. None of these teams has a true GC or Green jersey contender. A couple got possible KOM winners. Otherwise maybe-maybe-they get a stage. Doubtful though. And no, the two radio-free stages won't give them an extra opportunity as is hyped. Think about it. Just two transitional stages, radio free. For those two stages the teams with real GC and Green jersey hopes will seriously crack down on breaks, knowing that they won't have to do that in the other stages nearly so much.

13. Euskaltel-745. Nice little team using the Tour as Vuelta prep without their leader, Samu. Astarloza has 260 points, Anton zero. Martinez, 245; Oroz, 40; R. Perez, 30, Fernandez, 140, Verdugo, 30 and the rest-Txurruka and A. Perez, diddly and squat. I can't see them trying to compete outside of Astarloza (until be gets dumped) and the occasional break. Like I said: Vuelta prep.

14. Francaise Des Jeux-695. Maybe Casar (25) should try for the KOM jersey? The rest will pretend to be relevant: Hutarovich and Vaugrenard (210), Coppel (70), Geslin (150), Joly (10), Le Mevel (20), and Veikkanen and Roy (0). They will fail.

15. Skil Shimano-580. I'm actually excited to see these guys get the invite to play. In particular Hivert (105) I'm remembering from Paris-Nice and Van Hummel (165). Lemoine (230) could be interesting as well. Rounding out the squad are Geschke (10), Rooijakkers (70), Hupond, Beppu, and de Kort, all with zero points. De Kort of course will give me lots of VDS points.

16. BBox-475. Maybe Voeckler (135) will make an early run for KOM. The way the course is set up I think someone like him can get up big early and make a serious run. In fact that's the main thing the Pyrenees will do this year. Otherwise you have Trophy Mom (130), Fedrigo (190), Arashiro (20) with Pichot, Haddou, Rolland, and Bonnet looking for their first VDS points, probably in vain.

17. AG2R-405. Yeah me too! I thought they'd have a few more points coming into this race. Vlad Efimkin (5-yes five points) will stage a fierce battle for the highest placed Vlad on GC. The rest? Hey I'm getting tired of writing names. Dessel (0) will do something. No, Bastille Day is a flat stage day.

18. Agritubel-245. Le Lay has 185 of these points.

19. Lampre-195. Italy's answer to the French Pro Tour teams clocks in with Bruseghin in his 592nd straight Grand Tour start with 185 points and Furlan with 10. Yes-every other rider has not scored this year. And yet they still live-even that guy in the rainbow.

20. Cofidis-150. 100 of them by Moncoutie, 30 by Auge, and 20 by Minard. Moncoutie is a serious KOM threat and that's all we need to know.

Why Not Me? Denis Menchov

ursula — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:19:55 -0000

If I were true to the Man this post would contain no words whatsoever. But please let me say just a few words on his behalf.

Why he'll win

Three time Grand Tour winner. Only Lance excees that and he's like old.

Three other times 6th or better in a Grand Tour.

But those placings are so much window dressing. But really , why will he win? One word: Passion.

Here''s what Chris (and the late Girbecco) wrote about Denis mid-Giro:

1. (2) Denis Menchov, Rabobank ↑

Last time: "Menchov is content to make early moves and hold on. If he bests Levi on stage 10 or 12 and gets into pink, they'll have to literally rip the jersey off his back."

Now: Good god! He's the story of the Giro so far, by a longshot. Yeah, Di Luca's exploits were exciting from a day-by-day kind of view, but there has been one decisive mountain stage and one decisive time trial, both won by Menchov. And now they will have to literally rip the jersey off his back. I'm not sure his team is terribly weak either; he has Ten Dam and Ardila to help him over the hills. Losing Horrillo, a true hammerhead, hurts more than just to think about though.

Girbecco Says: "Hm, those Rabobank jokes don't seem very funny right now."

This Tour sets up nicely for Menchov: an opening hard TT, an early mountain stage in the Pyrenees to get a lead and game over. No one, once again, will catch him. His biggest threat, Bert, he'll shadow up Ventoux. And when he wins in Paris you dear reader will call him the best Grand Tour rider in the world.

Why he'll lose.

Oh he'll get top-five. Maybe the podium. But winning that just completed Giro is nothing like winning this Tour as the competeition there sucked. That's one reason he won't win.

Go back to last year's Giro for reason #2 where The Accountant walked off the beach and tore Denny a new one in winning that race. And now Bert is actually like prepared. And Bert knows all about stage 7.

Then there's the fact that the Saxo machine ground him down last year even better than they did Cadel.

Prediction:

A podium place for Denny but no brass ring.

Another Way To Look At Astana's Tour Problems

ursula — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:34:08 -0000

While looking for what Contador said on his webpage on stage 7 of the Tour, I read the following:

Noval understands that the team is committed to Kazakhstan and needs to include a rider from that country (Muravyev) in the “eight” bound for the Tour. He’s also aware that Bruyneel had a tiff with Lance Armstrong because the latter wanted to insist on including a third American and special helper of his, Chris Horner. Bruyneel did not consent and, feeling duty-bound to the prinicple of fairness, threw out Noval. “I want a more international team,” he said.

“I’m a nervous wreck, because I see that they’re not treating Alberto like the great rider he is. They don’t value him as a Tour winner, because the least they can do is ask him what he needs. I know that he’s very hurt, but what he must do now is forget all about it and concentrate on winning the Tour. It’s the best thing he can do. (Agustí Bernaus, sport.es)

What I take from here is that while there is definitely a rivalry between the Contador an Armstrong camps, that's not the main problem. Instead you have a team that's so overly obsessed on the Tour de France with practically every rider on the team with that goal foremost in mind, that there just has to be a lot of unhappiness on not being selected. Bruyneel has tried to find a solution but has left everyone unsatisfied.

Ultimately, as I wrote above, it comes down to the fact that Bruyneel puts way too much emphasis on this one race. I groused several times during the cobbles season that Astana could have quite a good Cobbles team-the individual parts are there-but they just don't focus on it enough to get the results they could. Now we are seeing the flip side-too much emphasis on Grand Tours in general and the Tour in particular and a lot of team members are unhappy. They are wary of the "other faction" but it's more that there are just too many good riders.

Think about it. Last year Astana had a great Grand Tour squad. To that squad they added Armstrong, Zubledia, and Popovych. It's too much of a good thing. Too much redundancy. Then to aggrivate that redundancy Bruyneel takes the lead of all the riders in placing the Tour on a pedestal way above the Giro and Vuelta so that Leipheimer doesn't prepare properly for the Giro and thus misses out on winning a Grand Tour.

It's crazy. Even after the Tour, when you can exclude several riders who by then will have raced in two Grand Tours, the Vuelta selection for the team easily has more good riders than they can take. They only possible savings grase is that there won;t be much of a Armstrong faction. Still you'll have Contador, Kloden, Horner, Brajkovic, Noval, Navarro, Paulinho, Rubiera, Hernandez, Zubeldia, Vaitkus, Bazayev,at least one Kazah and that's 13 riders already. I could add a couple more worthies. (I look at Bazayev as more than a token Kazakh as he's aquited himself in Grand Tours in the past unlike the other Kazakh's.) The team is overloaded for the Vuelta when every other team not named Caisse d'Epargne and Euskaltel wil be fielding decidedly inferior B teams.

Every team has a rider or two who are no doubt unhappy about missing the Tour. We talked about Simon Gerrans. There definitely are others. But Astana is so overly focused that any exclusion gets magnified. I actually don;t think that there wil be much of a rivalry on the team at the Tour. I'm not saying Bert and lance will fall in love with each other, but I am saying that they will work for each other. I'm also figuring like I and a bunch of others here have said all year-that Lance won't be able to keep up with Bert and (probably) Levi and the rivalry problem will take care of itself.

But I blame Bruyneel in thinking that there is just one race worth competiting for. That attitude filters down through Lance and Bert, through Levi and Kloden to Horner, Noval, and to the Kazahs. It's a shame and a waste but the rivalry is not the main problem; it's just an effect.

Another Way to Look at Astana's Tour Problems

ursula — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:05:16 -0000

While looking for what Contador said on his webpage on stage 7 of the Tour, I read the following:

Noval understands that the team is committed to Kazakhstan and needs to include a rider from that country (Muravyev) in the “eight” bound for the Tour. He’s also aware that Bruyneel had a tiff with Lance Armstrong because the latter wanted to insist on including a third American and special helper of his, Chris Horner. Bruyneel did not consent and, feeling duty-bound to the prinicple of fairness, threw out Noval. “I want a more international team,” he said.

“I’m a nervous wreck, because I see that they’re not treating Alberto like the great rider he is. They don’t value him as a Tour winner, because the least they can do is ask him what he needs. I know that he’s very hurt, but what he must do now is forget all about it and concentrate on winning the Tour. It’s the best thing he can do. (Agustí Bernaus, sport.es)

Does the US Stand A Chance for A #1 Seed?

ursula — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:14:24 -0000

Hi folks. I'm new here. But I noticed in various comments something that happens every four years around now-and will continue to happen until the World Cup groups are announced. Speculation always arises about if a given team can improve it's seeding (provided it qualifies) if it's doing well. Just the other day George Vescey of the New York Times speculated that the US's victory over Spain could do that for the US, or at least edge out Mexico. (Mexico is ahead of us in the seedings standings because they've done better in the World Cup.) Four years ago the English press kept saying that England had a chance at a #1 seed until the day the seeds came out. (They didn't get a #1.) So the questions are, how are seeds determined and does it make a difference if a team is seeded 32nd as opposed to 8th?

To begin explaining, FIFA uses a formula based on prior World Cup performance (in 02 and 06) and the FIFA rankings for each of the last three years. I'm trying to find a good link to the exact formula but I don't have time at the moment. Here's the formula:

A+B=Seeding formula

A=World Cup performance (2002x1+2006x2)/3

B=FIFA rankings (December 2007 ranking + December 2008 ranking + November 2009 ranking)/3

So, yes, those weird FIFA rankings do mean something. More importantly almost every part of the formula has already been determined. The only part left is the November 2009 FIFA rankings. Since we have those rankings updated every month we also have a good idea on where we stand there as well. Here are the June rankings. Obviously there will be chances when the July ranking come out. Italy and Spain will go down, Brazil and the US up. If you follow that June ranking there are links that allow the geek in you to se what exactly the US performance at the Confederations Cup did. The rest of us can wait for July 1st when the July rankings come out.

Here's a link that talks a lot about the intricacies of the seeding process.

Since this is a US-centered post, I'll be looking closely at the US's chances for a seed but what I am writing applies to every country. Note the USA barely missed out on a #1 seed in 06 but looks further away from the magic land for 2010.

The next thing now to know is that the only seeds that matter are the top eight seeds because those seeds head up each of the eight groups. Those eight seeds normally belong to the nations with the highest ranking according to that FIFA formula. Since the host nation (South Africa) is not one of those top eight nations, and the host nation always gets a top seed, that means there are only seven spots up for grabs. The US (or any country) needs to be in that top seven to get a #1 seed.

Those top seven nations plus South Africa will be the top seeds. Right now (pre and probably post-Confederations Cup) the top seven are: Germany, Brazil, Italy, England, Argentina, and France. The next seven in order are: Portugal, Holland, Mexico, Czech Republic, Croatia, Turkey and the USA. So for the USA to get one of those top seven spots it must have a combination of things to happen: - Teams in front of it must not qualify. Portugal, the Czechs, and Turkey are in serious danger in this regard and Croatia is definitely on the edge as well. Mexico isn't looking great either but you have to think they'll turn it around. Also France is looking at a second place in their qualifying group and a home and away vs some decent team. If that happens the US will be rooting hard for that other team.

- The USA after doing well in the Confederations Cup (as we just saw) pretty much MUST win the Gold Cup and probably the Hex as well to have a chance at a #1 seed. Friendlies count too, but not as much as Confederation Championships and World Cup Qualifying matches. But really the US needs to run the table the rest of the year to have a chance at a #1. There are exact weights on how much each international match counts. I'm guessing here but with the US results in the Confed Cup it will move up to... 12th or 11th. - The other countries listed above must suck as much as possible, even if they qualify. What's this mean? Basically the USA is a very very long shot for getting one of the #1 seeds. I think it can still happen but it's unlikely. That awful 2006 Germany performance really hurt the US's chances for 2010. So if there's no #1 seed in the US's future can it still get a decent seed to avoid a Group of Death (GoD)?

One word: No.

That's not how this thing works. Just like the last several World Cups. The remaining 24 teams (the teams not seeded #1) are put into one of four pots of eight teams each. Note: None of these pots is thought of as better than the others for the purposes of filling out the groups. In other words labeling the pots 2 or 3 or 4 is just semantics. They have to be named something, that's all. But what is important is that FIFA wants each group to be geographically diverse. They don't want an all-European group, or a group with two South America teams, or the US and Mexico in the same group. They want to avoid local rivals if possible in the Group round and unless a team is European that goal is very attainable.

So what happens is that FIFA looks at the number of qualifiers from each confederation and tries to combine confederations to add up to eight (for the eight groups). Hmmm that's confusing. Let me give a possible scenario. Say CONCACAF winds up with three qualifiers (the fourth team loses to the South America #5 team in that playoff). You can combine those three with say the five qualifiers from Asia to make eight teams- and fill one of the pots. (This is what happened in 2006 and is the reason we didn't get an Asian team in our group.) Or the three CONCACAF teams could combine with the five non-South Africa African countries. (This is what happened in 2002 where we didn't have an African team in our group.) Or CONCACAF could combine with South America. Basically FIFA matches up the regions to make eight.

Oh- Europe will fill up one pot by themselves with countries that aren't among the top eight seeds so every group has at least one European team and those groups headed up by (looking at the possible #1 seeds I listed above) Germany, England, France, Spain, and Italy will have two European teams. (This is how the US got into the GoD in 2006-it was drawn into the group headed by Italy, and so was the Czech Republic and Ghana. Two European big teams and a good African side.)

So unless the US gets a #1 seed, how difficult a group it gets drawn into will be by the luck of the draw. It has a one-in-eight chance of getting South Africa as their #1 seed. After that it's anyones guess. One possible group could be the US, South Africa, Slovakia and Uruguay. Or it could be the US, Brazil, Holland, and Ivory Coast.

So, bottom line, for all countries the only way to improve your seed is to be among the top seven countries provided by the FIFA formula. There is no politicking for a #1 seed. There is a formula!

Make sense? Any questions? Ask away!

O/T Confederations Cup Final: Brazil-USA

ursula — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:00:06 -0000

Final is tomorrow (Sunday) at 11:30, pacific. Is that um 8:30 CEST? Not sure. Weather should be clear and mid-40'sF/14C- nice.

So what to make of this final? Before breaking down the teams I want to remind folks that no European team has won a World Cup outside of Europe and I think that trend will continue. What that means are more "upsets" will happen, such as we are seeing in this Confederations Cup, especially of European powers losing to less heralded sides from Elsewhere. But on to this match:

Brazil looks good. Real good. Naturally some folks are complaining how Brazil isn't playing beautifully, but that's been an annual complain since the 80's, so discount it. Kaka is one of the three best players in the world at present and with any space or service he's electrifying. What I especially love with this team is their counterattack: like a pack of Impalas as they fly down the field. Another strength are their set pieces as they've scored 5 of of their 11 goals via that route. DO NOT foul them anywhere near the box.

Weaknesses? To me their biggest is their midfield defense. If you saw their South Africa match you saw Bafana Bafana take away most Brazialian initiative as the South African midfield pressed their Brazial counterparts, repeatedly took the ball, and controlled the flow of the game. It says here that if South Africa had any sort of finishing ability they would have won. Egypt did much the same vs Brazil in the first game too. Coach Dunga definitely has to work on this after this tournament is over.

The USA meanwhile all of a sudden got a clue, and is playing their best soccer since, well, the 2002 World Cup. I was very hard on the team in the last post but since then it seems like what their coach Bob Bradley was looking for just clicked with the players and they've produced two superior games since vs Egypt and Spain. Since much of what clicked was getting the midfield to press harder up the field, we could see something similar to what South Africa did vs Brazil with the crucial difference that the USA can finish better.

On the other hand, the US is prone to brain farts: bad fouls in the wrong part of the field, and red cards. They do any of those vs Brazil and they are toast. they they did those things repeatedly against Brazil the first time means that the first 15 minutes of this game will be huge. If the USA gives up an early goal, or even just allows Brazil to dictate terms early on, Brazil will win comfortably. If the US can hold it's own and play a fair amount of time in the Brazil side then the game will stay tight till the end.

Brazil should win. Very possibly by a couple of goals. But there is a definite possibility of an American win, if they keep playing better and Brazil thinks they have this game won before the opening whistle. The USA could continue to play great (for them) and lose to a Brazilian team that could well win the World Cup again next year. At any rate, let's hope for a good game!