Paris Roubaix Postscript: A Short Chat with Jonathan Vaughters

The very first thing I wondered after Paris-Roubaix last Sunday was, When you know that no matter who wins, he's going to have the upper body strength of a 5 year old, why do you create a trophy that's got to weigh every ounce of 30 pounds? You have to think that race organizers watch each edition's winner struggle desperately to hoist this mighty chunk of stone above their heads while posing for the camera, and then laugh until they cry.
The second thing I wondered after Paris-Roubaix was, "Why the heck is Jonathan Vaughters getting bashed for winning? And what exactly was his strategy at Paris-Roubaix? Below the fold, some talk about the debate and a short interview with Vaughters.
First, about that criticism. Tyler Farrar finished the Tour of Flanders as the highest placed Garmin-Cervélo rider at 13th, after Jonathan Vaughters orders him to hold back and hope for a bunch sprint for third. Vaughters gets ripped by the pundits. Bad. A little JV bashing after that one was understandable. Misguided, sure, but understandable.
Then Johan Van Summeren takes the top spot for Garmin-Cervélo at Paris-Roubaix (hopefully none of you have hyphenation allergies), the most prestigious cobbled classic, the Queen of them all. That win was gorgeous, emotional and inspirational. It was brought through a combination of Van Summeren's own strength, toughness and suffering, through strong team riding, intelligent tactics, a bit of luck, and the strong guidance of Jonathan Vaughters. I'm certain that my crossed fingers must have helped in some way, as well. Vaughters gets bashed again by some writers. For winning?
Here's a link to the Lionel Birnie article at Cycle Sport Magzine, which was praised by Jonathan Vaughters for it's spot on description of what happened and why. Here is the link to the John Wilcockson article from Velo News, not because I agree with it, but because it leads the charge in painting Vaughters as wrong-headed and Van Summeren as an impostor to the throne. In that Wilcockson article, you'll find all the reasons why Vaughters was wrong, neatly gathered into one convenient location. Like at Walgreens, but without the gum and candy bars.
I won't waste your time going over the accusations and the counter arguments. Enough time has passed that most of you have already heard them all, and you can cover them nicely by reading the two linked articles above. But I had a few questions of my own. I asked Jonathan Vaughters about them and he was gracious enough to reply. I'm just going to share that brief exchange with you.
Bikezilla: After Paris - Roubaix you publicly thanked Peter Van Petegem for his brilliance. What exactly did you mean? How did his brilliance shape the race?
Van Petegem, for those who don't know, was an accomplished classics rider himself. Now retired, he was hired as Garmin-Cervélo's "Classics Consultant" and JV has offered him Matt White's former position. JV isn't giving away any secrets with that answer. It'd be interesting to know more specifically what each man contributed to race strategies and tactics.
Bikezilla: Going in, was Johan Van Summeren your Plan A? Was Thor a decoy?
Jonathan Vaughters: "Thor was always plan A, but for him to win it needed to be a sprint on the velodrome. So, that's what we were trying for."
Bikezilla: Was Van Summeren your Plan B going in? If so, at what point did he become your Go-To Guy?
Jonathan Vaughters: "Summie made himself plan B by riding across to the break with Boom after the Arenberg. Once he was out there, I knew he could win as well, as he is very strong after 250kms and very strong on the cobbles."
Bikezilla: When Fabian rode along side your team car and said he wasn't going to do all the work, did you think something along the lines of, "Now I have him by the balls!"?
Jonathan Vaughters: "Whenever your rival loses their cool, it's a good thing for your own race."
I'd actually hoped from something more along the lines of, "Hell yes! And me with no orchidometer!" But, ok.
Bikezilla: How did that conversation affect your tactics for the rest of the race?
Jonathan Vaughters: "I simply told Fabian that we would chase with Vanmarcke and I would pull Rasch back from the break to chase too. I didn't say more. Having Thor go pull for pull with Fabian would be a sure way to lose. So, we kept bringing the break back to 50 seconds or so, and then if Fabian wanted to finish it off, he could, but he'd have to take Thor with him. By chasing from behind we also put pressure on the other riders in the break to keep pulling hard, keeping Summie at an advantage, as he is very good at a high/steady pace."
Bikezilla: 15km is quite a solo from the lead group with a race that long. Did you choose that distance because Fabian often makes his move between 15 and 20km? If not, then why?
Jonathan Vaughters: "Carrefour is the last hard cobble section. Summie doesn't have the acceleration to attack on a paved road, but on Carrefour he could just steadlily drop his rivals, which he did. So, that distance was the last opportunity for him to go solo, and solo was the only way he'd win. If he came out with 2 guys on his wheel, he would wait for Thor."
Bikezilla: You told Van Summeren that he could go, but only on his own.
Jonathan Vaughters: "JVS would have had to wait (for Thor), if he didn't come out of Carrefour alone. But he did come out alone...."
Bikezilla: What if anyone had jumped with him when he went at 15k? How would that have gone?
Jonathan Vaughters: "Not well. JVS has no sprint. If Rast/Tjallingi had stayed with him through Carrefour, Johan would have to sit or wait for Thor."
Bikezilla: How did Thor's struggle to stick with Fabian play into your tactics and plans?
Jonathan Vaughters: Thor was fine. We never told Thor not to work, we just said "don't ever put yourself in a position where Fabian can drop you." Thor knows his body well enough to know what he could and couldn't do to make sure Fabian couldn't drop him."
Thank you, Jonathan. And thank you, Jen, for inviting me to contribute to Podium Cafe.
You can follow Bikezilla at Bikezilla on Wordpress
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the initiative.
The Cynic in me: “History is written by the winners”
But it was a fascinating race, and Garmin seemed to get things right.
moo
"History is written by the winners"
You’ve got a point there, this is the first time I’ve heard JV refer to an orchidometer. But you could argue that the interviewer was leading him in that direction. :D
Sign seen at entrance of local bike shop, " \o/ spoken here.". - Okay, I made it up, but wouldn't that be cool?
nice interview
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Don’t forget to plug your site Bikezilla (http://bikezilla.blogspot.com/). Thanks for sharing.
Sign seen at entrance of local bike shop, " \o/ spoken here.". - Okay, I made it up, but wouldn't that be cool?
My thoughts exactly on the P-R trophy.
'You saw the game. Next question." - Bo Pelini
One of my fave parts of the race
was watching Cancellara lose his shit at the Garmin car. Ha! I confess, I laughed. :D
Wilcockson's article leads the charge?
In that case, it must be the most lame attack ever.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
“Why the heck is Jonathan Vaughters getting bashed for winning?
Sure Vaughters was getting bashed before winning P-R, the whole team was ftm, but not after they won. Personally, I just don’t see the ‘brilliance’ in it all. In fact, sounds like after this interview there was even a lot less brilliance to the whole thing… JVS ruled the day and made himself plan A. Vaughters doesn’t deserve the mark of master tactician is all I hear being said.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Oh lots more was said.
People on twitter were agog about how Thor didn’t honor the jersey by attacking his own teammate, etc. Some serious BS was being tossed around. I dunno that JV was the main target. What I saw was against Thor.
Thor has a tough job following in Cadel's heel's as the Rainbow jersey recipient.
I found the race disappointing in the sense that Boonen and Chava and others were taken out of the picture. I can only assume Thor didn’t have the legs to assist Cancellara or he would have helped at least a smidge to get to the front group. And/or he felt the power in Cance’s legs just trying to hold his wheel and thought the last thing he could do is handle the next attack that would surely happen from the front group if they got there. So the wise thing to do was be realistic about your leg strength and not help Cance to the front group.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Paris-Roubaix often winds up being a bit of a lottery
For example, Backstedt’s win has the asterisk of “what happens if Museeuw doesn’t flat out of the group” attached to it.
ha!
I picked Riccardo Ricco for my 2011 VDS team, and submitted said team well before the submission deadline. I fully understand the error of my ways, and plead with the VDS Gods to allow me to resubmit my team.
Thanks for this...
…nice to hear the tactics fleshed out a bit more.
Maybe it's been explained a 100 times before, but I'll explain again
The last decade we’ve seen champions who went for it without thinking/calculating too much (Boonen, Cancellara, Leukemans and Hoste are the best examples). They decided to take their chances, which inevitably meant the risked a painful loss too (remember Hoste and Leukie always, Boonen last year and Cancellare this year in RVV).
In Roubaix we saw Fabian going at it again. He closed a gap of more then 40 secs on his own, without any help. He brought Thor and Ballan within sight of the (extremely dangerous) leaders group, only then, when the majority of the work had been done, he asked for support. Ballan, who had Quinziato in front, showed he wanted to ride, but he backed off because Thor refused to take any responsability.
The last years we’ve seen team leaders who were eager to get to the front of the race, so they could ride their own race, believing in their own strenght.
So when Thor refused to do his share of the work:
- even though Fabian had already closed a 40 sec gap without any help
- when Ballan demonstrated he was willing to help
- even though 2 or 3 pulls would have been enough to close the gap…
it gave spectators the impression Thor wasn’t racing to win, but was rather racing to make Fabian lose. Especially because Thor refused to ride, but Garmin pulled Vanmarcke and Rasch back… to ride… (rolleyes).
IMO this is not a tactic of a rider who believes in his strenghts, but rather a tactic of a rider/team that wants to eliminate a contender. Ever when this means putting their own chances at risk. Some sort of all or nothing (but for Fabian too) strategy.
Afterwards it’s easy to say Garmin knew Summie was the strongest guy in the break, but last sunday myself and many others considered this to a very, very risky manoevre.
The contrast between Thors tactics (letting Fabian do litterally ALL the work), and Boonens, Leukemans, Hoste’s,… and Cancellara’s choice of tactics was so enormous, most fans didn’t appreciate this negative strategy at all.
For me it’s a negative style of racing, because the idea behind it is: ‘Only if Fabian does all the work on his own and sacrifices all his chances and we get to profit from his efforts… only then our leader will have a chance to race for the win’.
In retrospect, this strategy even failed for Hushovd, because he never came close to a podium spot, but Garmin-Cervelo had all the luck in the world Summie was able to stay ahead of 3 stronger TTers behind him.
The contrast between the positive racing from previous years, and these negative choices annoyed many spectators. This is not the style of racing we like to see, notwithstanding the fact GarminCervelo has every right to race like this. It’s just not the way you gain fans and/or respect.
I hope I made my point clear ‘cause I’m not a native speaker and I already had 3 Duvels. Sorry ’bout that.
Cheers!
You should never apologize
for drinking Duvel.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Apr 15, 2011 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
You beat your opponents how you can beat them...
…if they lose, they lose. You won.
It’s a race. The point is to win.
How do you spell that noise...
when you stick your toungue out and blow, and your tongue flaps your lips and spit flies everywhere? Well, that’s what I’m doing in your direction.
But seriously, we know the point is to win, it doesn’t negate the point being made, that fans don’t appreciate certain tactics that bring about the win.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
nah. he's talking about a raspberry.
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
Let's make this girl famous
perfect example right here
not too forceful, just states your feeling without getting all emotional
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
As a fan I don't appreciate the idea
that only the stars, the designated teamleaders, the strongest “on paper” are allowed to win and that teamstrategies that leave the option open that the other 7 riders on the team can win are labelled as “negative racing”
Can someone please explain how a strategy of having one admittedly strong rider hang around all through a 258km race waiting for the right time to pounce with one lethal attack because he has such high status that he is entitled to a win is less negative than what we saw in P-R. Garmin threw all their riders at the race at different points and as luck would have it JVS was in the best position to win and therefore Thor rides defensively.
The way I see it, the only way anyone can critizise Garmin’s tactics in P-R is if you don’t subscribe to the idea of cycling as a teamsport.
I'm calling it 'negative' racing because the way I see it, Garmin didn't race with their own strengths in mind
They simply raced to make Fabian lose.
If Hushovd did two or three pulls — which is nothing for a stong guy like him – he would have been at the front of the race. Garin would have had three strong guys in the front group and would have been the strongest team by far. But they didn’t do this because that would also have meant that Cancellara joined the front group.
They chose to let Cancellara do all the work, which meant that Thor never saw the front of the race. I remind you that Thor was their designated rider = the guy Garmin thought had the best chance of winning.
When you get the chance to be the strongest team in the front group, when you get the chance to bring your strongest man to the front group, but you don’t do it because of one other guy, you’re clearly not racing with your own strengths in mind, you’re racing with fear in mind.
Therefore ‘negative’ racing.
Plans change...Just because Hushovd was "Plan A" doesn't mean they can't change plans...
What if we were talking about Eddy Merckx? Who would want to drag him up to the front group of a race willingly?
Definitely nothing wrong with what Garmin did, its what makes racing racing and I enjoy watching that, because Fabian, for how strong of a rider he really is, definitely has an Achilles heel in that his teammates are not what they were at Saxo and people can exploit that
by Vlaanderen90 on Apr 16, 2011 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I think . . .
Hushovd had no chance, zero, in a straight up ride vs Fabian. If Garmin had played to their “strongest rider”, they lose.
Playing to hold Fabian back was their best shot at the win, maybe their only shot. And even with that he nearly took the top spot.
Thor is a strong rider, but he isn’t Fabian’s match. If he was, he’d have been on Fabian’s wheel when Fabian made his final break and when Fabian crossed the line in 2nd place. But no.
It isn’t Team Thor, it’s Garmin – Cervelo, and they raced to win as a team, not simply to promote a single rider.
Learn more. Be better.
So its better for Thor to pull back his own guys that are in the break and then possibly work too much and get dropped in the end?
That would make him better in the fans’ eyes? Don’t give him crap because he had a team with lots of options
by Vlaanderen90 on Apr 15, 2011 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Van Summeren after 240k at Paris-Roubaix is going to be a better option than almost any other rider in the peloton.
He was able to communicate with Vaughters and tell him he felt good. If he couldn’t have communicated who knows what might have happened. I would expect that Cancellara would have kept on racing and attacked from 5-8k out and won. I think he could have done that anyways if he didn’t let the others get inside his head.
Sign seen at entrance of local bike shop, " \o/ spoken here.". - Okay, I made it up, but wouldn't that be cool?
The risk was necessary
“Afterwards it’s easy to say Garmin knew Summie was the strongest guy in the break, but last sunday myself and many others considered this to a very, very risky manoevre.”
Yes, but you are Monday morning quarterbacking (an idiomatic American term, sorry – Leffe!), too, and remember they always tell us it’s a team sport.
Cancellara eventually still got 2nd – he was a very strong threat.
Nice interview with JV – now watch Ryder pop Amstel!
so what you're saying is:
I’m Monday morning quarterbacking because I accuse Garmin of Monday morning quarterbacking?
Meta-Monday morning quarterbacking?

by 
























