![]() |
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 10216388)
Asked if she was carrying the mantle for Australia by the BBC .... she said she was staying with her aunt in Tonbridge. Didn't answer the baiting BBC question - great deflection. The aunt is british so there's hope yet.
|
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by commonwealth
(Post 10216427)
australia has tonnes of real gold ;)
|
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by rugbymatt
(Post 10216436)
Oh, I'm sorry, I mistook the title of the thread, I understood it to be the 2012 Olympic Thread not the "Who has more natural resources" thread, my bad.
|
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 10216452)
You don't come in Aus very often these days do you?;) every fricking thread ends up being about natural resources, China, house prices, blah blah blah. Even the price of lettuce doesn't really get a look in any more.
|
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 10216452)
You don't come in Aus very often these days do you?;) every fricking thread ends up being about natural resources, China, house prices, blah blah blah. Even the price of lettuce doesn't really get a look in any more.
|
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by rugbymatt
(Post 10216454)
How about Bananas? No, I try and stay away, its all very unpleasant in here.... much more friendly in the Spain forum.
|
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by rugbymatt
(Post 10216454)
How about Bananas? No, I try and stay away, its all very unpleasant in here.... much more friendly in the Spain forum.
|
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by mikelincs
(Post 10216458)
sorry Matt beat you to that one.. :lol:
Barsteward!
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 10216472)
:rofl:
|
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by rugbymatt
(Post 10216436)
Oh, I'm sorry, I mistook the title of the thread, I understood it to be the 2012 Olympic Thread not the "Who has more natural resources" thread, my bad.
|
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack
(Post 10216367)
Lots of people said that - but apparently the nudge came instinctively when Meares realised she had transgressed.
Funny that Pendleton's silver was way down the list of headlines in one UK paper...even though it was an end of an era story - it's not just an Australian paper that sticks to the positive headlines...which in the case of the UK - was about Hoy.. So given your explanation, and reading accounts, it seems Meares tried to go really slow, knowing that Pendelton couldn't stay behind for long...without falling of her bike - and when Pendelton had to go - entice her to hit the line by not giving her much space? I read an account where it says Meares indeed took Pendleton high....wouldn't you take them low - so they can't get past and can only do so by having to go against gravity....don't get it mate. In other news: I've never seen Pearson hurdle - but now I have - she is an incredible athlete...amazing to watch - and a deserved win. Australia's very own Gunnell!!! AM held VP high on the track in order to force her to lead from the front. When sprinters are very close in ability, the only real way to win is by getting in their slipstream and coming around the outside. The amount of space doesn't really come into it, it's more about who blinks first. That was a bit of a nod to old school sprinting there, where riders were allowed to stop (known as a track stand, where you stop but don't put your feet down). They changed the rules years ago to stop this because some riders would stop for about minutes at a time. Continual forward progress has to made nowadays. So AM went high, very high and in my very humble opinion (and remember I am just a hack), VP was not ready for the move, she was too close to AM and by the time she realised what was going on, she was right up AM's clacker. Bad situation to be in. If VP had scooted under AM and driven for the sprinters line, AM would have just followed her, they both would have faded over that distance, but they are so equal it would have been a wash anyway. If VP had tried to 'duck' under AM and get the front position, AM would have pounced because at some point VP would have had to take her eyes off of AM. You have to realise that these races are won and lost on 1,000ths of a second in terms of reaction, there is no recovery time, mess up and it's all over (like the 100mtrs running). As to your 'low/high' question. The idea is to try and stay lowish on the bends and very high on the straights, obviously there is less of a ramp on the straights, so more energy has to be used to speed up. It doesn't always work this way though, because sometimes the cat and mouse can go on longer than you plan, then you have to adjust your strategy If you start low and stay low, the following rider will just sit on the wheel and save energy. As for last night's race once VP was forced to make the first dive, I would have gone on with it. I am at a loss to explain what she thought she had to gain by going high again, it just let AM 'regroup'. I hope that makes sense. Track racing is instinctive, it's way way harder to explain than do! I will say that the call on VP in the first was harsh IMO, but Meares had a very harsh call made on her at the Worlds in Melbourne. It's a bit like lapping traffic in F1, sometimes the gods are with you and sometimes not. VP's story is an amazing one. She's like an egg, so insanely strong in some directions and incredibly fragile in others. She fell in love with one of the GB coaches (Aussie Scott Gardner) a few mths before Beijing Olympics and they had to keep it quiet. The news broke just before the meet, and the team was in pieces as it was a violation of British Cycling's very strict code of conduct. Gardner was sacked by GB coach Shane Sutton (legendary Aussie cycling family) and VP's performances just dive bombed, as did her confidence. The two moved in together and I think once it was established as a long term relationship (they are engaged now), Sutton came out and said he'd mismanaged the situation horribly, and eventually Gardner was back on team and Queen Victoria was imperious once again:) Everybody say,,,aaahh:wub: :lol: |
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Probably easier to just accept she lost isn't it? I mean I love the woman too but she didn't seem too upset really, she was just happy to be shot of racing!
|
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by rugbymatt
(Post 10216555)
Probably easier to just accept she lost isn't it? I mean I love the woman too but she didn't seem too upset really, she was just happy to be shot of racing!
|
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by Tr1boy
(Post 10216567)
Who isn't accepting she lost? I was asked for an explanation of the racing and I (hopefully) provided it.:confused:
|
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by Tr1boy
(Post 10216547)
hmm, to paraphrase Cav, sometimes it's easier understanding the race by being in it, rather than watching it. But I'll give it a shot.
AM held VP high on the track in order to force her to lead from the front. When sprinters are very close in ability, the only real way to win is by getting in their slipstream and coming around the outside. The amount of space doesn't really come into it, it's more about who blinks first. So AM went high, very high and in my very humble opinion (and remember I am just a hack), VP was not ready for the move, she was too close to AM and by the time she realised what was going on, she was right up AM's clacker. ..I looked for a video but couldn't find a good one in the time I had. |
Re: The London 2012 Olympic Thread
Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack
(Post 10216671)
Thanks for the explanation mate. So just to be thick, at which point did VP touch the line - when they were off in the deciding sprint - which it seems VP was forced to lead? I thought the line was quite low.
..I looked for a video but couldn't find a good one in the time I had. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 6:48 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.