Witness greatness and be happy
Are you not entertained?!
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!!
Is this not why you are here?!
No, not Russell Crowe in Gladiator which I’ve just watched while my bodily constitution approaches 50% cheese. No, it is in fact, quite a lot of cycling fans who enjoy watching the same rider winning easily week after week.
I posed a question on BlueSky and Shitter today asking whether fans of cyclocross actually want Van der Poel to take part in races. The responses were varied and vociferous.
I’ve actually watched more cyclocross so far this winter than I usually do, most likely because I spent quite a lot of that time being unemployed so I had plenty of time on my hands to keep on top of things. In general, I struggle to enjoy it. The aspect of road cycling I enjoy the most is the tactics - the uneasy composition of an almost functional breakaway, the license to wheelsuck because you’ve got a teammate up the road, teammates attacking and counterattacking because they’ve wangled a numerical advantage - cyclocross has practically none of this.
I’m not on aesthetician when it comes to cycling. Yes, I can appreciate the beauty of a confident descender or the souplesse of a charming pedaller, but it’s not why I watch. I struggle with time trials. I think they are essential for a balanced stage race but generally I don’t relish watching them.
To me, cyclocross is an extremely technical mass-start time trial. The semblance of excitement I can muster for it is the idea that the win is up for grabs. And until recently this season, the men’s races had a rotating cast of winners with no dominant rider.
Then along came Van der Poel who has won 95% of his last 20 races and the rest are suddenly riding for second place. Of course in any race there is a notional ‘race for second place’ but I thought it was instructive at the Azencross where Helen Wyman was commentating on Thibau Nys and Laurens Sweeck coming to the finish line and she said “it’s Thibau Nys’s race to lose” which isn’t something one would usually say about the notional race for second.
The race for second has become the actual interesting thing.
The idea that this scenario should lead to a lower level of interest isn’t controversial. By definition, if you can be 95% sure of the winner before any sporting event, it’s not that exciting.
Sporting greatness is not always exciting especially when there is a marked mismatch in a contest. Watching peak-Pep-Barcelona play some of the great teams in Europe was exciting. Watching them bash Elche 7-0 was not exciting. Technically excellent yes. But utterly lacking in sporting jeopardy. I need sporting jeopardy. One of the best aspects of road racing is the idea that the best rider doesn’t always win. An inferior rider can create a scenario where they can beat better riders and when that happens it is almost always more exciting than when the superior rider wins in superior fashion. This concept is already greatly diminished in cyclo-cross and the concept disappears entirely when Van der Poel shows up.
“WOULD YOU HAVE SAID THIS ABOUT MERCKX IN HIS HEYDAY?!!” the mob will bellow….
Fucking yes. People did say this about Merckx. Some seem to be of the opinion that everyone was delighted seeing Merckx win week after week. They weren’t. It was monotonous. Merckx knew this himself. In 1971 he knew the public didn’t necessarily want him to go back and dominate the Tour de France again and he considered not riding again in 1972, he eventually did but then in 1973 he skipped it, choosing instead to go for the Vuelta and Giro.
I think it’s perfectly fine if you’re one of those cycling fans who gets excited about watching Van der Poel smash everyone. That is a reasonable outlook that I just don’t happen to share.
What is unreasonable is the opinion that I am wrong. That I SHOULD APPRECIATE WITNESSING GREATNESS!!! BE PRIVILEGED TO SEE SUCH CLASS!
I’m not wrong. I just like different things.
I can appreciate the achievement without trying to pretend that I’m enjoying the spectacle more than I actually am.
