Originally posted by captainfog
View Post
Maybe they're not the problem here.
-
Hmm, all these people - what's the common link?
Maybe they're not the problem here..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post. -
I'm still waiting Neil......Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
Admit it, you're just pretending to understand like the rest of the 'fans'
Comment
-
No, I understand it all thanks. But then I've spent over twenty years watching it so I know quite a lot about it.
But yeah, you're probably right, it must be **** if you can't pick it up instantly, even if you don't really want to.
If you did really want to understand it, then you could try reading Boogar's post: http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/show...&postcount=592
I do HTH.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Nope, I think the only possible criticism of the British team is that they brought the peloton too close by the time they reached Box Hill for the last time. A larger gap may have discouraged so many riders from attacking on the climb and trying to get across to the leaders.Originally posted by PTP View Post
A smaller lead group, with fewer fresh riders in it, would have been easier to catch, even if the gap had been larger as they started the schlep back into London.
But ultimately Cavendish is right - the other teams were happy to lose so long as he didn't win..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
I watched the rest of the Opening Ceremony (FF-ing through the dull bits such as the athletes parading around and the anthem and all that).
I thought Danny Boyle did pretty well..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Cavendish had the best chance of winning if it came to a bunch sprint. But even he isn't a certainty, it's far too complex, and some other riders are also very fast (particularly Greipel of Germany, Boonen of Belgium and Goss of Australia).
So those other teams could have ridden with the British team in order to bring the gap down. If they had, then it would have been far more likely to have ended up in a bunch sprint.
As it was, they didn't, and the only reason there can be is that they didn't fancy their chances against Cavendish.
But really, that's stupid. Germany for instance had no one in the breakaway groups so had absolutely no chance of winning a medal. Yet they still didn't help until it was far too late. So, effectively, they were more interested in ensuring Cavendish didn't win than in winning themselves.
It's slightly more complicated for Belgium and Australia because they did each have a man in the breakaway group, but neither really stood much of a chance of winning, as the final result tends to confirm.
The ideal tactic for those teams was to make sure the British team was as tired as possible (so leaving Cavendish's isolated in the final few kilometres, so reducing his chances) but for it to end in a bunch sprint. If anyone's tactics failed, it was theirs..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
That doesn't explain anything. Why is it harder? Why not just follow the break away pack? Then they wouldn't have been 'leading' would they. How can the others do the work for Cav? He still has to pedal the same distance at the same speed.Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
No, I understand it all thanks. But then I've spent over twenty years watching it so I know quite a lot about it.
But yeah, you're probably right, it must be **** if you can't pick it up instantly, even if you don't really want to.
If you did really want to understand it, then you could try reading Boogar's post: http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/show...&postcount=592
I do HTH.
I'm sorry but that is not an explanation. All anyone seems to say is that cycling is like a fine wine and I've been watching it 20 years.
Comment
-
I see, cheers. It's pretty fascinating.
Just saw Cavendish on the news snapping at David Bond. Bond asked if their exertions in the TdF had a bearing, and Cavendish walked off and said 'stop asking stupid questions. Do you know anything about cycling?'
Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’Comment
-
Originally posted by Shaggy View PostI see, cheers. It's pretty fascinating.
Just saw Cavendish on the news snapping at David Bond. Bond asked if their exertions in the TdF had a bearing, and Cavendish walked off and said 'stop asking stupid questions. Do you know anything about cycling?'
that seems a pretty standard response from anyone associated with the sport
Comment
-
It is an explanation. I can't help it if you don't know what saving 30% of your energy feels like and what effect it has.Originally posted by captainfog View PostThat doesn't explain anything. Why is it harder? Why not just follow the break away pack? Then they wouldn't have been 'leading' would they. How can the others do the work for Cav? He still has to pedal the same distance at the same speed.
I'm sorry but that is not an explanation. All anyone seems to say is that cycling is like a fine wine and I've been watching it 20 years..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
This guy competed in the gymnastics today for Ireland. Two years ago he was in a wheelchair and told he might never walk again.
Overcoming serious childhood illness? Check! At 10 he ended up in a wheelchair after botched surgery on a benign tumour on his leg.
Fighting adversity a second time? Check! Two years later a fall from the high bar damaged his inner ear and left him with blackouts and little spatial awareness. Back in a wheelchair, he was told he might not walk again, never mind compete.That rug really tied the room together.Comment
-
No, what I don't understand is how it is possible to save 30% of your energy just by not being in front despite travelling at the same speed.Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
Comment
-
Originally posted by Shaggy View PostI see, cheers. It's pretty fascinating.
Just saw Cavendish on the news snapping at David Bond. Bond asked if their exertions in the TdF had a bearing, and Cavendish walked off and said 'stop asking stupid questions. Do you know anything about cycling?'
He's right though. Some of the BBC's coverage has been woeful. I understand they're not experts but they do a real disservice to the riders and the sport.
For instance, the idea Cavendish was a certainty for gold didn't come from anyone who knows anything about cycling. But it's come from the mainstream media.
And even some of the journalists who do know something about the sport, don't know much. I only know that because I see their mistakes. And if they're like that about things I don know about...
As usual, journalists are credible until they start talking about something you know about - then you find out most of them don't know much at all.
We know this is true - look at the coverage of Hodgson at Liverpool.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Read that this morning. What a guyOriginally posted by Liverpel View PostThis guy competed in the gymnastics today for Ireland. Two years ago he was in a wheelchair and told he might never walk again.
Overcoming serious childhood illness? Check! At 10 he ended up in a wheelchair after botched surgery on a benign tumour on his leg.
Fighting adversity a second time? Check! Two years later a fall from the high bar damaged his inner ear and left him with blackouts and little spatial awareness. Back in a wheelchair, he was told he might not walk again, never mind compete.
Comment
Comment