Siena—Bagno di Romagna, 212km
Let us dare dabble into the strategy and tactics of our dear sport, for though the stage was the longest of the Giro thus far (212km) there are potentially the fewest stories to tell today. It took 72km to establish the breakaway, because all knew this was another day the break would have a great chance to stay away. It was the Giro’s last day in the Apennines, the profile had two long Category3 and two long Category2 climbs, with a descent into the finish after the final Category3. Should a GC team have wanted to tear up the day and set a relentless pace, they might have been able to shell out the other GC pretenders or a top contender off his best day. But with such a fierce hard day yesterday all the GC favorites simply wanted the breakaway to go up the road to contest the day, while they licked their wounds and kept their powder dry for the next big appointment on Saturday at the Monte Zoncolan. Finally, right as the Giro was traveling through Florence, 16 men went up the road in the breakaway, and yes they went on to stay away all day.
Geoffrey Bouchard (AG2R) wearing the Blue Jersey as the King of the Mountains had made the breakaway and he went on to increase his lead in that competition being the first to crest the first Category3 and both Category2 climbs. Strangely, Dries De Bondt (Alpecin-Fenix), the reigning Champion of Belgium, forced Bouchard to sprint for maximum points at every KOM line…and no one can think of a reason why, for Bouchard had scores and scores of KOM Points over De Bondt. There was rain on the stage. We found out who were the poorer wet descenders of the breakaway. The peloton over 10 minutes behind basically called a ceasefire for the day. Bouchard had trouble pulling on and off his raincoat while riding. And that was all that mildly held our attention until the final climb of the day. It was on that climb that the cream of the breakaway rose to the top…somewhat literally, since these were the men climbing up a mountain the fastest. Only four men were really left in contention to take the stage win by this point: the Champion of New Zealand George Bennett (Jumbo-Visma), the Italian Andrea Vendrame (AG2R), the Australian Chris Hamilton (Team DSM), and the Italian Gianluca Brambilla (Trek-Segafredo). They attacked each other on the climb, but over the top with 10km to go, the four were together and they proved evenly matched in climbing legs for the day. They flew down the descent together, but the last 4km were flat and thus it would prove a tactically cagey sprint.
What every new fan of cycling watching their first Grand Tour is blown away by is how much strategy and tactics there can actually be in a bike race from Point A to Point B. It all starts to click for the new fan when they understand the advantage of drafting behind another rider. Then the new fan realizes how much riding on the front of the group factors into the race, or another facet: how beneficial it is to be led out in the sprint for the finish. Then the micro-tactics start to exponentially grow from there until you get to macro-strategies like when Bora-Hansgrohe will ride hard on the front of the peloton all day to drop the pure sprinters. And thus most of the tactics and strategies of cycling can qualify as excellent sporting examples of Game Theory. To give an Investopedia definition, Game Theory is a theoretical framework to conceive social situations among competing players and produce optimal decision-making of independent and competing actors in a strategic setting. In case that definition was too convoluted, let us briefly outline the most famous Game Theory example: The Prisoners’ Dilemma. To quote from this same Investopedia:
“The classic prisoner’s dilemma goes like this: two members of a gang of bank robbers, Dave and Henry, have been arrested and are being interrogated in separate rooms. The authorities have no other witnesses, and can only prove the case against them if they can convince at least one of the robbers to betray his accomplice and testify to the crime. Each bank robber is faced with the choice to cooperate with his accomplice and remain silent or to defect from the gang and testify for the prosecution. If they both co-operate and remain silent, then the authorities will only be able to convict them on a lesser charge of loitering, which will mean one year in jail each (1 year for Dave + 1 year for Henry = 2 years total jail time). If one testifies and the other does not, then the one who testifies will go free and the other will get three years (0 years for the one who defects + 3 for the one convicted = 3 years total). However if both testify against the other, each will get two years in jail for being partly responsible for the robbery (2 years for Dave + 2 years for Henry = 4 years total jail time).”
Will these prisoners work together and each take minimal sentences, or will one try to throw the other under the bus so he may go scot free, or will both try to throw the other under the bus and both will get significant jail time? This is the textbook example of game theory. But if the Prisoners’ Dilemma did not catch your fancy let’s look at the finish of today’s stage with a game theory lens.
At the bottom of the descent, the leading quartet of Trek’s Brambilla, Jumbo’s Bennett, AG2R’s Vendrame, and DSM’s Hamilton were still together. Brambilla was on the front of the group doing a turn, but he soon pulled over to let the next one come through to do his share…but the next one didn’t. Brambilla started waving his arm for the guys to keep rotating, but the game theory, the cat-and-mousing had already begun. Now there was a 5th rider 45 seconds behind that no one wanted to let back into the race for all had worked so hard on the climb. At the same time, none wanted to over work in this endgame, because all wanted to save every last bit of energy. Additionally, the man on the front would be the least prepared to cover or just follow a late attack since he would at that very moment be expending the most energy. Since none would come through, Brambilla teased an attack from the front and the three behind all sat in their seats ready to cover it. But Brambilla did not attack, he swung over to the far side of the road and slowed his pace more than the next two: Hamilton and Vendrame who free-wheeled past Brambilla with no pace about them. George Bennett still chose to sit in 4th of the bunch at the very back. Often, the back of a very small group proves the optimal place to be: it still has the most draft, you can see all of your rivals and jump after any moves, or they cannot quite see when you are going to attack so perhaps you can get a jump on them and give them all the slip.
They were all going at a pedestrian cycling pace now, barely pedaling any of them. Vendrame was stuck on the very front, so he rode on the far-left side of the road so he would only have to be alert to launching attacks from his right. But Vendrame was riding slow enough to rotate around into third position leaving Hamilton on the very front followed by Bennett with 3km to go. Hamilton swung off to the far-right side of the road and Bennett came through to the front. But then Verdrame willing came to the front again—perhaps he did not want such a pedestrian pace, because he knew amongst this group on paper he was the fastest…and he did not want this group to get any bigger with chasers still behind trying to get back into contention. Hamilton rode on the wheel of Vendrame on the far-right side of the road, but George Bennett in third position did not ride right on Hamilton’s wheel. Instead Bennett drifted over to the far left of the road, did he want to be in fourth position? Did he just want to maneuver Brambilla further up, because on paper Brambilla was one of the top two sprinters amongst the group? Additionally, throughout the whole stage Brambilla and Bennett had been exchanging words and staring each other down about unfair-shares of work being done. In that very moment, they were the two prisoners both trying to sell out the other.
For at that very moment, Hamilton attacked from second position knowing Bennett and Brambilla were a couple lengths off his wheel. Vendrame jumped immediately too to get on par with Hamilton. Even Brambilla in fourth position, the second of the second pairing, launched to try and cover the move. But the gap was 20-or-30m and in that instant Brambilla sat up, because he decided it was not worth it to expend the energy to chase down the leading pair while dragging George Bennett behind him. And when Brambilla sat up George Bennett did not counterattack to try to close the gap. And just like that, because of a lack of cooperation Brambilla and Bennett blew their chances for the stage win. Vendrame and Hamilton ahead were going full gas to distance them. Thus Bennett and Brambilla chose to be the prisoners that sell each other out, and both took longer sentences and neither won.
Now there were only two left, and thus the game theory situations and possibilities were greatly reduced, but still there. Hamilton rode on hard, but Vendrame closed the gap and then counterattacked instantly! It was a slightly stranger move for Vendrame to counterattack with 2km to go, because Vendrame was the better sprinter. Vendrame’s logic must have been: who knows who’s a better sprinter after 200km of hard racing; who knows if Brambilla and Bennett will put their squabbles aside and cooperate to still chase us down, because who knows if Hamilton—the on paper worse sprinter—will even work with me. So there was Vendrame attacking for the win, but Chris Hamilton the Australian was up for it and closing back to him. Within 600m they were back together, and Hamilton still even came to the front to share the work to make sure Bennett and Brambilla did not come back. Hamilton understood that if he worked with Vendrame he was basically guaranteed either first or second, both of which are better than third and fourth (Brambilla and Bennett at the moment). But under the Red Kite, the Flamme Rouge, signifying 1km to go, Hamilton took second position, and did not come back to the front; Hamilton would opt to take the second position and Vendrame would have to lead out the sprint. It seems Vendrame was aware of this, he had attacked so it wouldn’t come to this. But since it had, he was prepared to roll the dice from the front so that Brambilla and Bennett could not come back (at this moment, Vendrame also understood either first or second was still better than third or fourth). Additionally, potentially somewhere on the descent, or even earlier his Directors in the team car behind had refreshed themselves with Hamilton’s results to figure out Vendrame was the better sprinter on paper. The papers are never 100% accurate, especially not after 200km of hard racing, but they had told Vendrame the situation…and Vendrame was prepared to chance it. Vendrame set an honest pace so that the two feuding chasers would not return, and Hamilton was glued to his wheel. Hamilton was prepared to leave it late and let Vendrame jump first from the front—for from Vendrame’s peak acceleration would be Hamilton’s best chance to come around. And at 200m to go, Vendrame launched his sprint and Hamilton reacted immediately. Both had played this finish about as well as one could, but only one could cross the finish line first. With all the strategy and tactics played out for 200km now it came down to just 200m to see who was the top sprinter between them, and that last test would decide the winner.
Even from the disadvantageous front, Vendrame had Hamilton’s number. Vendrame beat Hamilton by two or three bike-lengths to take the sprint handedly. Had Hamilton done anything strategically or tactically wrong? Since Hamilton was already on paper the weaker sprinter, his strategy should have been to try to get anyway solo anywhere in the finale. But Hamilton did try that, he just was not physically strong enough to gap Vendrame. Brambilla and Bennett were probably physically strong enough to be there too, but in a poor tactical decision on both their parts, they had waited for the other to do the chasing of the leading pair. And thus they had nullified themselves. Yes, who knows what could have been in a 4-up sprint, but two—potentially out of hot-headed spite—did not do the correct game theory calculations. Two others did and it only came down to physical strength between them. And that strongest one, today Andrea Vendrame, is now a stage winner of the Giro d’Italia.
Cycling Odysseys 