The men’s road race worked out perfectly for Team Great Britain, right until the point when the world’s best single-day riders shot up the road on the last climb of Box Hill.
The Brits tried a brave, and perhaps in hindsight arrogant, strategy that would have made heroes of all the team, had they won. Their aim was gold, no safety net, no silver and no plan B. To be fair, with so few men in each team there wasn’t room for a plan B, nobody had one.
In retrospect their gold gamble was wrong. A number of riders said before the race that it wouldn’t end in a bunch sprint, and neither the men’s nor women’s race did. It was also too much for four to control a race that wasn’t flat, and in which there was so much talent.
At one point it looked like British Cycling had drawn a straight line between the start and finish and worked out the most efficient way to get between the two. Then the last climb came and efficiency went out of the window.
Classics riders have a huge anaerobic capacity. Watch any one of the big single-day races and a point comes where everything instantly goes up a gear and stays there. It’s like they have a turbo on their engines.
That’s what happened on Saturday. Team GB rode like lions, but a lion’s prey only has to run that bit faster for just a few seconds, and effectively that’s what the winning break did.
The men’s road race wasn’t about plans and efficiency, it was about racing and seeing an opportunity. It was the difference between s stage race and a single day race. Team GB tried to apply Tour de France stage tactics to what was basically a single-day Classic, like the Tour of Flanders is.
My man of the match was Stuart O’Grady. He was the first attacker, and was still there at the end. His sixth place deserved a special medal, one made from a different metal for a man of a very different mettle.
But what about the winner? Alexandre Vinokourov is a convicted drugs cheat, but he is also a real racer. Part of me admires the way he saw what was happening and saw a way to win. He was by no means the strongest man there, but good racers don’t always have to be.
And if he won clean in what is supposed to be a clean era for cycling then isn’t that significant? Doesn’t it say class counts and you don’t need to dope?
Of course a lot of people didn’t like Vinokourov winning, and some of their argument is based on the fact that he’s never apologised for doping, unlike David Millar, who was riding for Team GB. But does he have to?
I don’t know. Personally I think if his fellow pro riders accept him then I should. After all, it was them he defrauded, not me. You might think differently, of course.
The women raced next day, and what a race it was. One of the best shows of women’s cycling I’ve ever seen.
For a start the best racer in the world won, and that’s always a good thing. But the other big impression it left on me was that they raced whatever the shortcomings of the course, and whatever the shortcomings of the weather.
It was an absorbing contest and one that reflected well on everyone in it.
I was thrilled with Lizzie Armitstead’s silver medal. She’s a product of an initiative British Cycling, cycling’s governing body in the UK, put into action some years ago.
They went into schools and invited kids, any kids, who wanted to race to have a go around a grass track they marked up outside in the playing field.
They visited Lizzie’s in Yorkshire one Tuesday afternoon when she had a math’s lesson. She didn’t like maths very much so, being a sporty girl and already a good runner, she tried cycling.
The coaches saw she was good, invited her to a more formal session, and the rest is history.
Colin N
Guest
He didn't blame the Australians solely for not winning, he was using them as an example of a team racing negatively. I suppose his point was that Germany at least helping out a bit at the front. I always find it rather ironic for the public complaining about journalists picking out one part of the quote and basing their whole argument/article around that, and then everybody else does the same.
yewonk
Guest
if rogers chase had of come off wow what a finish
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
I'm not sure that Cavendish and Millar would appreciate being called 'Pommies' :)
Albo
Guest
"I suppose the other question is to wonder what GB could or should have done differently." I think the pommies were on a hiding to nothing ! With only a team of 5 there was no way they could control the race tactics on that sort of circuit with so many other teams needing to avoid the bunched sprint ! The breakway attacks were always going to be continual, whilst they had to also protect their bums from the other sprinters behind them. They were never going to succeed in that race ! Perhaps they should have planned it for David Miller to win in a late breakway, rather then relying on a Cav win in a bunched sprint, but it seems they only ever had this one plan. They may have caught most teams off guard with that Miller option late in the day, especially when it became obvious that they were not going to be getting any help from the other teams to stage a bunched finish ( until it was way too late) !
Albo
Guest
Spot on Tim ! I suspect the Aussie's tactics were twofold, a bet each-way ! Put O'Grady in the breakway to keep the pressure on the GB team in the hope that in a bunched sprint Matt Goss might be a hope of a win over a tired GB team. If the breakaway broke the GB team before the finish ( like it did) then O'Grady was still a chance at a medal by being up their ! The problem with this strategy was still very flawed. O'Grady was likely to do the job of keeping up a strong pressure on the peloton for a long time, but only a remote chance of actually winning in a breakaway. Cadel Evans was suspect after a tough tour to be able to contribute to a Goss win in a bunched sprint finish as would have been hoped. I agree Ritchie Porte would have been a better selection with him and Gerans being the attacking team and the Goss idea shelved altogether as he too had just spent 3 weeks in France being proven unable to take the likes of Cav, Greipel and Sagen in a bunched sprint anyway even with a fit squad !
kos1nsk1
Guest
They all took a punt and Vinkourov won. Simple.
Moses
Roar Rookie
Completely agree. Cavendish's post-race comments are an implicit admission that Britain's strategy, their only strategy, relied entirely on other teams helping them. The only reason anyone other than Germany (who had Greipel) would help Britain is to settle for a bronze medal or a minor placing. So it was a massive strategic fail on their part. Matt White said before the race that the Australian team was going for gold, not a minor placing. If the race finished in a bunch sprint, Goss would have had a minor placing: 3rd at best. Putting a man in the break on the other hand was a ‘go for gold’ strategy. It was just unfortunate that it was O’Grady in that break and not Gerrans. Never mind. Only one country – Kazakhstan – got their race strategy perfect.
Bones506
Roar Guru
And if he won clean in what is supposed to be a clean era for cycling then isn’t that significant? Doesn’t it say class counts and you don’t need to dope? Whilst Vino takes the Gold - he will never be clean. He has likely doped his entire career and that gives you a massive base to work off. The whole 2 year ban is way too short. It should be 5 years. The real gains in cycling are built from hard training and being able to go harder for longer put the steele in the body. At 20 years of age why wouldn't someone dope, potentially take a 2 year ban and come back clean?
Tim
Guest
Should have been a Cancellara win, if he didn't crash it would have been all over for everyone else. He was just about to do his thing but overshot the corner. Team GB had to ride at Cav's pace which is quite a bit slower that the others can sustain up and down hills, they were handicapped by this from the start. I can understand his sour grapes episode a little bit after he lost his shot at Green in the TDF, he had it all on the line at the Olympics. Australia had a man in the break and as they stated they would try a few different things none of which worked. The down side was Cadels performance, if he was fatigued they should have allowed Richie Porte the chance to race.
Tristan Rayner
Editor
You know... Cavendish's point was as follows: O'Grady really going to medal for Australia? I mean... maybe, but it seems Cavendish vs Goss vs Greipel (and perhaps Sagan) would have at least resulted in a medal. I can see why he'd think that. It's pretty silly to blame them for him not winning though.
sheek
Guest
I blame the Aussies. They raced so negatively!!!!! (attrib. to Mark Cavendish). Although how the Aussies can be blamed for the Brit's failure is beyond my comprehension. How bizarre! On another note, I believe the road race ought to give out a team gold, silver & bronze as well. It's well known that cycling on the road is very team-orientated, so why aren't team medals recognised? How many riders per team - 6? Take the best 5 results of each team (allowing one for mishaps, etc). I think that would be good for the sport. Do it on accumulated times. Least combined time of 5 best riders takes gold, & so on.
StatisticSkeptic
Guest
Well in Australia's case they already had a potential winning scenario in place - O'Grady was in the final breakaway, and while he's probably not as strong in sprints as he used to be... he has come within a hair's breadth of the green jersey in the Tour de France on several occasions in the past. The Aussies may not have wanted to chase down the breakaway as they knew O'Grady was in it - and therefore he had a decent shot at a medal.
bill
Guest
people need to stop talking about Vino's past - if Millar won, or if Cav won because Millar helped him would they be talking about it - I doubt it. Apologising for cheating is still cheating. Lots of people got caught off guard (dont know how) by the attacks on the final lap not just the Brits - can only imagine how good Porte (or even a durbridge type) could have gone in that sort of attack... what was Gerrans doing?
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
I don't know cycling so I appreciate all pieces such as this one which help shed a bit more light on a sport getting more attention in Britain. I can understand Chris' outline of GB's strategy. I also read how it would be much harder for GB to do it alone, compared with a tour stage, because they would have fewer riders to do the work. As far as I understand, GB banked on other teams with sprinters having an interest in putting their key men in a similar position to Cavendish which would mean they would share the work to bring in a breakaway. This didn't happen. I didn't care for the remarks after the race either. I can well see that those other countries had no interest in setting up a bunch sprint for Cavendish, especially if they believed he would likely beat their man. Having said that, it's difficult for me to grasp what winning outcome teams like Australia & Germany were hoping to engineer instead. Any thoughts on that would be much appreciated. Is Millar right when he says that attempts by these other teams to tire GB out ended up damaging their own chances too? I suppose the other question is to wonder what GB could or should have done differently. Millar appeared to say after the race that if had GB to sent a man with a break would have meant the break would have stopped trying to work together, and GB would have one member with less energy than teams which didn't follow. Does that sound right?
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
I think that, like the World Championships that were held in Victoria a few years ago, this really wasn't a course suited for Cav, it was too hilly and rolling for an out & out sprinter. Team GB would have probably been better off realising this and maybe looking at giving Froome or Millar the nod to go for gold. The lack of a Plan B when it became clear that Cav wasn't going to win, at an event of this magnitude, is quite astounding! That said, I can understand Cav's frustration, it seemed to me that a few teams preferred to let their own medal prospects drop off rather than risk Cav (or Sagan for that matter) winning in a straight sprint. A case of cutting their noses off to spite their faces maybe?
Big Al in Bristol
Guest
Absolutely, his BBC interview was all sour grapes, I don't know why he felt the need to pick out the Australian team in particular though, the whole field raced the same way. Well the whole field bar Team GB.
King of the Gorgonites
Roar Guru
Nice article. I was disappointed in cavs comments. Team gb have shown plenty of arrogance all round.nperhaps that's why they still don't have a gold!