Some races don't go by so easily. They spark conversation, reflection, and discussion. And then it is still worth going back to the Paris-Roubaix last Sunday and it is worth doing it with an expert such as Philip Pozzato. When it comes to teams, tactical choices, and the path forward, we need to turn to those who have been there and are there to play. The point at hand is this: he did well. Wout van aert to attack like that in the Arenberg Forest?
The idea is that he certainly put on a show, but in fact he split the race, also cutting his teammates out of the game. Jumbo Visma. At that point, there were about 97 kilometers to go and only the handful of riders who had emerged unscathed from the Forest were left to play for. Goodbye tactics, goodbye teamwork except for the (vain) attempt by Laporte and Van Hooydonck to come back from behind and the three Alpecin-Elegant found themselves in the lead.
Filippo, what do you think of what was just said? Was Van Aert's move to attack at that moment the right one?
Van Aert wanted to anticipate in order to try and surprise the others. Everything then depends on what the team had said to each other before the race, what agreements they had. Then, guys, there were the punctures and you can't control those.
This is true. All it would have taken was for Laporte not to puncture at the exit of Arenberg and he would have stayed with Ganna's group, who rejoined the big guys shortly after, and it would have been a different race...
Exact. Jumbo-Visma has always punctured at "bad" times, very delicate phases of the race in which recovery was impossible.
At the end of the race, Van Aert said that after the first puncture, he found himself alone, without any teammates. Shortly after rejoining the race, he attacked: could it have been a bout of frustration?
No, I don't think so. Among other things, he has a good relationship with his teammates. Maybe that was the idea. And then I start thinking: in other races He was criticized for letting Laporte win and now that he has attacked, people are wondering why he didn't wait for himLet's not forget who he had to fight against.
Van der Poel…
II'm not saying that Mathieu is stronger than him, in fact in my opinion it's the opposite. Van Aert wins on the Ventoux, wins on the Champs-Élysées, in cross-country, on the road... and he goes strong all year round. The other one selects a little more and manages to be brighter. Ultimately, I think Mathieu has two more wins. Then, okay, if we look at the Monument Classics, the Dutchman has won more.
Overall, how do you rate Jumbo-Visma's tactics?
As I partly said, you can't plan for punctures and at that point you have to adapt based on what the race offers along the way. In general I think it is very difficult to criticize from the outside without really knowing how things went inside, what were the plans and the thousand nuances that the race presents and that the rider experiences at various moments.
But then after Arenberg, Wout found himself alone, as if he had indirectly eliminated Laporte and Van Baarle…
For me, the discussion is more general. Let's analyze the last few years and how racing is changing. Here now, especially if those three or four phenomena are involved, there is a tendency to take off 100 kilometers from the end. I often talk to Trentino And he tells me that when all three are there, you set off to finish fourth. But to finish fourth, there are at least 30 very strong riders to fight with. You have to hope they don't attack with 80 or 90 kilometers to go, but that they catch you to within 20 kilometers, and at that point you can think about inventing something.
And is it in this light that Van Aert's action should be viewed?
Yup. From a certain point of view, that of spectacle, it's beautiful. From another, that of logic, it's not. There's no logic, in the way they race. At the Tirreno two years ago, Van der Poel ate a bar with 80 kilometers to go and then walked away. Their cycling is very different from mine.
