33 thoughts on “How to Lose a Classic, by Etixx-Quick Step

  1. George Romonoyske

    Standard was obviously the strongest at that point, but Etixx-Quick Step should have won. I think Stannard was handed the opportunity when Vandenbergh followed Terpstra. If he sits up, whatever energy they have left can be saved. It kind of appears he helped Stannard, he made less of a gap to close.

  2. Sal Ruibal

    Ah, time for the Spring Classics! Omloop always seems to have some brain-farts, probably because the classics season is just getting underway. They’ll get it right come Paris-Roubaix and Flanders. Time for beer, brats and Boonen.

  3. Bee

    The hounds-tooth painted cat at 1KM was sweet!
    Looks like Lefevere has E-QS’s systemic PED program on point.

  4. brian p

    Looks to me like Stannard won it, rather than Etixx losing it (from the brief clip I watched). You can quibble with the tactics, but it didn’t look like they did anything terribly wrong. I think Vanderbergh thought Stannard might be done, and would for sure be done after bridging to Terpstra. Then it would be 2 on 1 at worst.

  5. The Cyclist

    Again. The ego of the biggest star blew it. When the English bloke pulled him in they didn’t know what to do anymore. The first move should have been by Terpstra, not Boonen. Should have saved Boonen for the sprint. Needs to learn how to play chess those Belgians. Stupid.

  6. DavidA

    If Boonen had rode to the line with the other 3 in the escape…he would have won the sprint…..if they had let Sep Van Marcke comeback to them I think he would have outsprinted everyone…..it was good that Stannard had Sevais Knaven in the auto as DS.

  7. Vino

    Vino here now, this Vino’s blog. Vino like eggs, oreo cookies, Russian strippers and naps. That is all

  8. AKBen

    Lefevre’s whinging about Standard’s tactics was hilarious. When it was 3-4 of his Domo riders sitting on George Hincapie in the finale of the 2000 (?) Paris-Roubaix, Lefevre sure didn’t apologize for winning after forcing Big George to chase on his own. QuickStep has nobody to blame but themselves for getting beat. In pro cycling, when it’s 3 against 1, the 1 should have no chance if the 3 don’t cock it up. Interesting to read that the winner of that 2000 P-R, Servais Knaven, is now a Sky DS, so he should know.

  9. bob

    Steve, you got it all wrong. If etixx “lost” the race, it’s because they didn’t dope as well as stannard.

    Let’s be real. No one rides away from 3. NO ONE.

    etixx needs to step it’s doping program up to BMC and Sky’s. Simple as that.

  10. Roberto

    Gotta kind of agree with Bob. I keep watching Sky riders, doing things that while humanly possible, just aren’t all that plausible. And the 3 riders that he beat, aren’t nobody’s. Those are 3 of the strongest riders in the peloton. If Sky isn’t cheating, they are the best coached team in history.

  11. James

    This is a team sport. Tactics are everything. When you lose like this, it’s quibble time.
    Etixx should have been working stannard over for the last 10 miles by attacking, gapping, or generally messing with him. Instead, they gave him a free ride. Of course he would be fresh at the end. He almost never saw the front.

  12. Jim

    Their tactics were incredibly stupid.
    3 on 1 and you lose??? HTH is that even possible?
    They work Stannard over and he still puts it to them.
    Oh, and the preparation probably helped a little bit.

  13. Tanner

    I feel like Quick Step is the new US Postal. They seem to have 4 and 5 guys in the final selection at every race. I am wondering what they are doing to get so many guys in the final group….This was happening last year as well.

  14. El Jabón

    You did not realize that Etixx was pulling the whole time, so that Stannard was freshest. Great tactics by Sky! Poor ones by Etixx. That’s how you beat 3. Simple as that!

  15. channel_zero

    Interviews claim the lead group thought the pursuers were so close there was no time to mess around.

    In this case the team rides the odd-man in, then sequentially attack, which sort of happened. but Stannard seemed too strong and there was no way Stannard should have gotten any help bridging back to one of his attackers.

    Well played by Stannard.

  16. channel_zero

    But, it’s not that easy. Part of the claimed situation in interviews was a headwind. Attacks into a headwind is just helping out the guy you want gone.


Comments are closed.