I Didn’t Want to Comment… But.
I didn’t want to get involved in the debate that exploded after Powless’s incredible victory at Dwars door Vlaanderen.
Everything has already been said — and perhaps too much.
We moved from technical analysis to full-on stadium-style cheering, with opposing factions either blaming or defending Van Aert. All of it fueled by “big names” rushing to his defense, probably motivated by affection or respect for such an extraordinary rider.
The point, however, is that this isn’t just a matter of heart or sympathy. It’s purely a technical issue. And a fairly obvious one at that.
Unfortunately, many of those who took sides — from major cycling figures to current riders — seem to have forgotten some crucial details that make Visma Lease a Bike’s performance one of the biggest tactical collapses in recent memory.
First mistake: the sprint.
Let’s even assume Van Aert wanted to play for the sprint. That alone is debatable.
An old DS of mine always used to say: “If you reach the sprint, you’ve already lost.” Not because I was particularly slow, but because in 15 seconds, anything can happen: a pothole, a dropped chain, a wrong shoulder bump. If you can win before the sprint, you should.
Second mistake: where’s the gap?
Have you ever heard of “the gap”? It’s a simple yet brilliant move that even 15-year-old juniors know: you leave a slight space between you and your captain, using a corner, a narrow road, or just subtly easing up, forcing the opponent to close the distance themselves.
At Dwars door Vlaanderen, none of the three Visma riders had the presence of mind or the coolness to do it. Not even at the final corner. Nothing.
Third mistake: lack of tactical imagination.
With a 3-against-1 situation, you can play attack and counterattack however you like. If Van Aert was the protected man, it would have only taken a bit more cunning: one pulls, one attacks, one waits, and the captain launches at the right time.
No need for an aerospace engineering degree: just vision, composure, and experience — all qualities that were sorely lacking.
The result?
Not just a tactical defeat, but a real hit to the team’s image — something that, in the DS’s shoes, I would have never risked.
So no, I don’t side with those blaming everything on Van Aert: he didn’t lose this one alone.
And I don’t agree with those defending the team in the name of “the captain’s priority”: leadership is fine, but not at the expense of logic and effectiveness.
