99.5% to be pseudo-scientific. 200 riders line up, 199 lose. If you’re lucky, your teammate wins and you feel like a winner too, leaving only 191 losers. Still, that’s not a good ratio.

But it gets worse. The course has certain characteristics. Often those characteristics suit a particular type of rider, and often you’re not that type. Now you’re chances of escaping loserville become very slim indeed. In other words, you know that if this race follows the standard “bike race script”, you’ll be nothing more than field-filler.

What’s the logical conclusion? In my view there could be three:

1. Have a teammate with an above-average chance of winning
2. Stay in bed
3. Hatch a clever plan

The clever plan isn’t really that complicated. If following the script leads to guaranteed loserdom, you need to disrupt the script. Don’t follow the standard plan, create chaos. The race will still have only one winner, but in the chaos, the chances of the real contenders diminish. In fact, your chances increase not just because theirs are reduced, but also because as the instigator of the chaos, you have an analytical and psychological head-start.

This applies to any race, but to none more so than races predicted to end in sprints such as the World Championships this year. It wasn’t so hard to predict the winners of the women’s and men’s race this weekend in case of a bunch sprint (even I managed to name Cavendish and Bronzini as the fast-twitch-champs). If there ever was a race that called for chaos, this was it. And with most teams having multiple captains, the opportunities were enormous.

Too bad everybody followed the script. Therefore, Bronzini and Cavendish are worthy champions. They made the most of the circumstances which were known to all. Maybe the course wasn’t worthy, maybe some competitors weren’t worthy, but they are.

What do you think of the tactics you see in general in cycling? Impressive or snooze? Let me know via the comments section below. Next week we’ll talk about minimum wages for women riders and about the fall-out from the new UCI points ranking, if you don’t want to miss that you can subscribe here.

I alluded to this in my pre-Worlds write-up, but I was so amazed at how the race unfolded that I want to bring it up again.

First off, the Brits rode an incredible race and when Cavendish ended up in a lost position with 250m to go, he found the tiniest of gaps, went through it and became the deserving champion. They rode a great race, so did Ben King and the Belgiums. Unfortunately it’s tough to call it a great race when the other teams never participated, let’s say it was a great team time trial (maybe the other teams were confused because the team time trial is only a world championships event starting NEXT year).

Were the Brits so good that they kept the tempo high enough for 260k so that nobody could escape? I’ll stick with my original statement that that is impossible. If every rider spends 35k in the front, there is no way they can keep a tempo that prevents people from jumping away. Obviously they got some help from the Germans (and from Ben King) and they were able to take their rest during stretches where the pace “slowed”, enough so that in the last 60k they could dictate a blistering pace. Still very impressive, but why did the other teams allow that to happen?

Psychology.

For starters we have the first breakaway. Somehow when the first break of non-contenders is up the road, everybody follows the “group up the road” script. They grow their lead, it hovers around 5-8-10-15 minutes (whatever makes sense on that course), then their lead dwindles and when they’re almost caught the next adventurers try their luck. But the “group up the road” script gave the Brits a chance to conserve energy as the pace dropped, energy they put to good use in the last lap.

To their credit, the Belgians were the only ones who realized that the “group up the road” script – while standard – would not work be the best script for them and they sent two riders in a second group long before the first group was caught. But both groups were too small to really develop a pace that could rival the British time trial machine, so they never had to go too deep to stay within reach.

The second bit of psychology is the self-confidence abundantly present in sprinters. Ten riders fancy themselves bunch sprinters, and all ten figured they could win on Sunday. It doesn’t matter how often they’ve been beaten by Cavendish, because the selection process from 10 year-old boy to top sprinter ensures that all ten are convinced of their own capabilities. And so any glimmer of hope is used to convince oneself that Copenhagen will be different than the dozen recent losses they may have suffered against Cavendish.

And going forward, the same will continue. Goss will tell himself that if he had kept Haussler’s wheel, he would have won. Greipel will convince himself that with a better position, next year’s rainbow jersey would be XXL instead of XXS. Heck, Cancellara may have read yesterday’s blog comments and realize he would have won had he been in his drops or chopped them off!

Of course, none of this is true. Football used to be a game in which 11 play 11 with a round ball for 90 minutes and in the end, the Germans win. Likewise, flat courses give us races of 200 cyclists where 10 fancy their chances and in the end, Cavendish wins.

P.S. If Cavendish flats or he doesn’t find the gap, obviously this whole theory goes down the drain. But the reality is, he did find the gap and he rarely flats.

To receive my blog posts automatically, you can subscribe here.

Yesterday we looked at the women’s race, now let’s look on the other side of the gender-fence.

First of all, what type of race will this be? Yes, the course is flat, and the level in men’s racing is very even, at least among the top 15 countries. Sounds like a recipe for a mass sprint, doesn’t it? I’m not so sure.

The problem is, if the whole groups stays together, Mark Cavendish wins the sprint. Maybe not every time, but at least 11 times out of 10. That logically means there is one team that should want a mass sprint, and the rest of the world doesn’t. And one team, even if it has Wiggins, Millar and Thomas, cannot keep a bunch together for 266km.

Of course, there’s one mechanism that can help Cavendish. You see, one of the attributes you must possess to become a pro cyclist is a huge belief in yourself, so even those with no chance whatsoever in a mass sprint will think they have a chance in a mass sprint. Even team managers con themselves into such thoughts – witness the 10 teams waiting for the final sprint on the Champs Elysees after being royally beaten by Cav on four previous stages.

Lets assume that sanity will prevail, and that all teams but one will work to break up the group. Which riders have a nose for the right group and can win a sprint when a few of the top sprinters are missing? Hushovd and Gilbert.

Much has been made of Hushovd’s non-selection for the Vuelta. The comments that followed were quite unfair I think (if you want I can write about that some other time), but the point for this race is that IT DOES NOT MATTER. As I saw in 2009 and 2010 at the Cervelo TestTeam, if Thor puts an X on his calendar, he is ready on that date. He can prepare in the Vuelta, the Tour of Britain, at home or in your local spinning class, it does not matter. Thor will be ready, and a ready and focused Thor can win anything. If Edvald Boasson Hagen is on form too, the Norwegians will have a formidable 1-2 punch that will be tough to control if the field is thinned out sufficiently.

In a way, Gilbert is a lot like Hushovd. Both have a great focus and a great sprint especially on slightly rising roads, although Gilbert seems to have a longer jump in him and get stronger as the road gets steeper. It’s tough to say how Copenhagen would work out, the finish is definitely uphill but not quite tailor-made for Gilbert (I should say that it is made for Gilbert but it’s at an incline that other sprinters on-form can also master, if it was 3% steeper Gilbert would be in a class of his own with no competition).

In a sense this race has a few levels. When the group is complete, only Great Britain and maybe the US (for Farrar) will try to keep it together. If it breaks up in smaller bits and Gilbert and Hushovd are in front, more countries will fancy their chances in a sprint against those two, especially if the Aussies have the right people up-front. That means there is a better chance of such a group making it to the finish. If the group on the front becomes too small, too many behind have their own agenda and it will come back together.

Logically that means a first escape of non-contenders will go early, followed by a contendor group bridging up in the later stages. If that contender group has to work hard to stay ahead of for example Cavendish, Gilbert and others who fancy a sprint will need to use up their domestiques, opening up the possibilities for a small group to jump clear in the last few laps. And who knows, out of that may even come a last-lap solo effort, the tactics at Worlds usually become so complicated that riders turn into on-course spectators who forget to pedal.

That’s what makes the World Championships the best race of the season. National teams, trade team ties and the ultimate skill of “finishing everybody else’s plate before starting your own” means that even with a boring course, the race can prove anything but. Especially when the weather turns foul.

In cycling as in investing, successes from the past are no guarantee for the future. But they aren’t completely meaningless either. So what do the performances of the past few weeks tell us for this weekend? Since few media ever bother to preview the women’s race, I thought I’d do that first. So today the women’s race, tomorrow the men’s.

First off, since many of the top women road racers also do the time trial (much more so than on the men’s side), Tuesday’s TT tells us quite a bit. Arndt was superstrong, and likely will be able to translate that to the road race. That could see her in a small break and if everything is still together, the Germans have a super-impressive lead-out for Ina Yoko Teutenberg (they also have for example Charlotte Becker for that). Since Teutenberg, Becker and Arndt have ridden together the entire season at HTC, not just in the national team, this is a difficult nut to crack.

One country that could possibly break the German dominance is Great Britain. Emma Pooley’s third place finish at the TT has not gotten the credit it deserves, as given the circumstances (dead flat, strong winds) it was the stand-out performance of the day. Many may view the defending champion finishing third as a disappointment, but when Marianne Vos complains that she was too light to perform on that course in that wind and Emma, who was the smallest contender in the TT by a country mile, finishes third, that’s a good indication she’s on form. Add to that her win in the Tour de l’Ardeche and it’s clear she’s ready.

Expect Emma to place one of her trademark solo attacks. And while the other teams work to bring her back, fast finishers Nicole Cooke and Lizzie Armistead can relax. The Germans may have trouble controlling the race if Nicole Cooke is on form and tries something in the closing kilometers, especially if the field is thinned out considerably by then. But how well Cooke’s form is is anybody’s guess.

The Americans disappointed on the TT, which after the bickering about who should be allowed to race was hardly a surprise. It’s hard to see how they can do better in the road race, as team work will be extremely important on this course. Their continent-counterparts from Canada performed extremely well in the TT, but both Whitten and Hughes are true TT specialists (not surprising given their backgrounds of track cycling and speed skating).

But don’t forget that Clara Hughes was a very successful cyclist BEFORE she was a very successful speed skater. She already medalled at the Atlanta Olympics. The only person Clara can outsprint is probably Andy Schleck, so she’ll need to think of something special. On this course, that may be a long shot.

On the other end of the fast-twitch-fiber-spectrum we have Italy. With Bronzini as their top sprinter and young Elena Cecchini quickly climbing the ranks, they could spell trouble for Teutenberg and Armistead. Whether they will ride as a team is the perennial question. Emilia Fahlin is also among the faster finishers, plus she has good endurance and TT skills. She could launch an attach with 50, 5 or 0.5k to go, or rely on her sprint. She’s won stages in the Tour de l’Ardeche recently, so she’s definitely on form.

The great thing about women’s cycling is its unpredictability. Above we have a dozen or so contenders, and we haven’t even discussed the woman who has won everything this year: Marianne Vos (everything except that TT on Tuesday of course). Vos has finished second in the World Championship Road Race for the past four years. Imagine that, Silver four years in a row.

She definitely doesn’t want to win another Silver, and somehow I doubt taking the Bronze is the solution she came up with. So expect a very motivated Vos. Maybe the season is too long, maybe the TT indicated she’s not on top form, but only a fool would write her off. Like Fahlin, she can win any which way she wants, but unlike Fahlin, she’s done so many, many times at the absolute highest level of the sport.

While everybody may be watching Vos’ orange jersey, it’s the orange of VanVleuten that should not be ignored. She’s really broken through this year and proven she is a force to be reckoned with in the one-day races. Fahlin also has a countrywoman to be reckoned with in Emma Johansson (thanks to @Campy007 for pointing out my failure to mention her).

Even if you don’t normally follow cycling, pick your favorite and watch it. This course in Copenhagen may very well make for a better women’s than men’s race. And with most countries having two contenders with very different skills, the tactics are bound to become a difficult puzzle to solve.

I’m merged out for the moment. And although there are plenty of other cycling dignitaries making outrageous comments which deserve some scrutiny this week, I decided instead to end the week on a high-note. So here we go, trait 8 of champions from my good friend Toby Stanton (@Hottubes):

Consistency: Champions seem to demonstrate a great deal of consistency, both in temperament and performance.