Commenting on a cycling race from a technical point of view is no easy feat. Direct experience is the basis. Wladimir Belli, former rider between the 90s and 2000s is today at the microphones of EurosportWe often hear him making specific judgments about this or that rider or anticipating their actions and tactics.
How does he do it? We asked him directly.
Wladimir, we were talking about your skills as a technical commentator. You often use particular adjectives that truly characterize that athlete: how do you do it?
It makes me smile a little. To do what I do today, I've put in a few miles of career experience. If everyone could comment in a certain way, or immediately understand what's happening, or pick up on a detail... maybe I wouldn't be here. It's thanks to those kilometers that I can understand if a rider is going full steam ahead or is just there, nice and relaxed.
And what are you looking at?
A hundred things. I'll give some examples, maybe it'll be easier that way. The group is climbing and accelerating at a kilometer per hour, if you stand up on the pedals to go back down it means you're already pretty busy. Among other things, you spend more, you strain your muscles, and at the first real push, you fall apart. Or your torso: those who aren't as flexible, even in their movements, those who are attached to the handlebars... They can no longer hide in the long run. These are aspects that those who haven't raced on a bike, even if they notice them, perhaps don't fully notice.
It's clear.
For example, the recent one comes to mind Tour when the Visma-Lease a Bike he was pulling for vingegaard. When he moved Jorgenson and the Dane took off, pogacar he didn't even get up on the pedals. And I've been saying for a while that he was fine. Then what did Tadej do? He let him vent, and as soon as he was a bit less angry, he left him there.
What do you observe even in the less intense moments?
Let's analyze yesterday's stage at ReturnI've been saying for a while to be careful about O'Connor, So much so that they even asked me why I insisted so much on him. But you could tell by the way he pedaled, the way he shifted gears, the expression on his face. And then you also have to do some research. Go and look at his track record. They told me he would arrive, because the big names weren't interested. That they could get him back whenever they wanted. I say O'Connor will finish in the top five of this Vuelta.We'll talk about it after the Lagos de Covadonga. Today they were very strong. Let's not be fooled by the fact that 37 of them finished in front. So many of them arrived because the course allowed it. But if there had been a kilometer at 15 percent, they would have finished: one, one, one...
Whose style do you like?
Enirc Mas, I like the way he pedals and I like his position. Considering the level of this Vuelta, I wouldn't be surprised if he made it to the podium, at least in normal conditions, without any falls or particular inconveniences. Also Riccitiello It's not bad. I don't know it well, but it's going strong.
And what about time trials? What do you notice, and how do you figure out who's going fast?
Here This is the most difficult type of stage to comment on. You often see people in good shape, who seem to be pushing a strong relationship, and then the clock says otherwise. Others who are more disjointed, however, are going fast. I admit that here they struggle more. But on the flat and uphill, without being presumptuous, I'm right!
Maybe because you weren't a time trialist, but a climber! Let's move on...
And then there are also those who are good at bluffing. Those who play with cunning and experience: they make expressions, they move a lot on their bikes…
And do you find them?
“Ni”: yes and no. It's not easy because they're good...
Earlier, Wladimir, we touched on style. Compared to your time, you ride very differently. What do you think of this "modern pedaling"?
What counts are the relationships, the materials, the studies, the technology. I'm thinking of two great riders, Van Aert and Merckx on the Ventoux. If we look at the photos, they are two totally different positions, But the reason, which I struggle to digest, is that once upon a time, a cyclist had to be well-rounded. On the flat, he might pedal 100 or more times, but on climbs, he'd only do 50-60. Today, even on a 20 percent climb, he'll do no fewer than 80 pedal strokes. And this changes the structure of athletes, who are more flexible today. Just look at Coppi's quadriceps. They were scary.
And who don't you like at all?
Well, maybe the Yates twins (very advanced, ed.) and even Pogacar isn't that handsome and elegant. But go on! Sagan wasn't in good shape either but he was going strong. These are details.
Details: Which ones do you like to observe?
The push of the shoe on the pedal, which is then the positioning of the cleats. From there, you can already understand something about that rider, about his musculature. It's not easy, but if, for example, he pedals on the ball of his foot and his calf "disappears" during the push phase, you might already know he's not a sprinter. Whereas if he pushes more with the ball of his foot, and his calf "comes out" there, he might be more powerful and potentially not an agile rider.
You've listed a lot of technical tips for deciphering riders. Do you also have a kind of sixth sense, regardless of your cycling background?
Ultimately, the added value is having run and done "a million" kilometers. They're the ones that make you notice the details.
