Cavendish races to first Tour win in two years
Englishman grabs rare opportunity
MARK Cavendish sprinted to his first Tour de France victory in almost two years and 26th in all on stage seven to Fougeres yesterday.
“Cav is back” declared the French television commentators after the Manxman burst to victory on the 190.5-kilometres route from Livarot after two near-misses in this year’s race.
Many hoped that Cavendish’s 26th Tour win would have come in Harrogate, his mother’s hometown, on the opening stage of the 2014 Tour, but he crashed out.
His Etixx-quickstep squad floundered in the finishing straight last Sunday in Zeeland and, on Wednesday in Amiens, the Manxman was third, conceding Andre Greipel (Lotto-soudal) and Peter Sagan (Tinkoff-saxo) were simply faster.
The pressure was increasing on Cavendish, who is out of contract with Belgian squad Etixx-quickstep at the end of the year, as yesterday was one of the final opportunities for the pure sprinters, given the challenging nature of the route.
But the 30-year-old delivered his first win since the 2013 Tour to move two behind Bernard Hinault’s tally of stage wins. The Frenchman has 28, second only to Eddy Merckx’s record tally of 34.
Chris Froome began the day in his Team Sky kit, leaving the maillot jaune vacant after Tony Martin’s Tour-ending crash on Thursday.
The Team Sky leader was 12 seconds behind Martin after the sixth stage, but Martin’s withdrawal gave the Briton the race lead.
Prior to the stage, Froome said: “Out of respect for Tony I would never have worn it in any case.
“That’s not the way to get the yellow jersey, due to someone else’s misfortunes, but Tony finished yesterday.
“I was second on the GC (general classification) so there was no way to wear it.”
Daniel Teklehaimanot (Mtn-qhubeka) consolidated his lead in the King of the Mountains competition as part of the day’s five-man breakaway.
The last remnants of the escape was swept up 12km from the finish and Martin would normally come into prominence, dragging along the peloton. With Martin watching from his hospital bed in Hamburg after undergoing surgery on his fractured collarbone, Cavendish had to adapt.
John Degenkolb’s
Giant-alpecin squad and Alexander Kristoff’s Katusha team were prominent as the peloton passed 3km to go and Arnaud Demare’s FDJ team joined them.
A right-hand corner 900m from the line spread out the field and Cavendish sat behind Kristoff, with Greipel on his wheel.
The German was the first to launch his sprint, with Cavendish shadowing the move. Cavendish brushed off Sagan before going up Greipel’s inside to triumph.
Greipel was second and Sagan third, claiming enough bonus points to move into second place overall, 11 seconds behind Froome.
The Slovakian could try to assume the race lead on today’s eighth stage from Rennes, which finishes atop the Mur-de-bretagne.
Cavendish has more opportunities to narrow the gap to Hinault in this year’s Tour.
The
concluding
stage
in
Paris
on July 26, where Cavendish has won four times, will almost certainly finish in a sprint, while the 13th stage to Rodez and stage 15 to Valence are other, albeit slim, possibilities.
Asked the difference between winning and not earlier in this week, Cavendish said: “I just waited a little longer. I was more patient, so I could use my speed at the end there.”
It is the third win for Etixx-quickstep at the Tour.
“I’ve waited a week for this win personally,” Cavendish said. “It’s just me that’s let them down. It would’ve been easy for them to save themselves for the other days.
“I’m super happy. It’s a shame Tony’s not here. I dedicate the win to him.”
Cavendish celebrated the win with pregnant wife Peta and three-year-old daughter Delilah.
“She [Delilah] was angry I didn’t get the flowers in the last days. Today she’s happy,” he added.
ANYONE watching the Super 15 Rugby semi-finals and final must have been impressed by the speed and ferocity of the matches, the deft off-loading, much remarkable handling, and the imagination and adventure of the play. It was good also to see the set scrum used mostly as it should be – that is, as a means of getting the ball to the backs, rather than of winning penalties. There is every reason, therefore, to think it probable that the All Blacks will defend their World Cup successfully; New Zealanders simply play the game faster than anyone else.
On the other hand, while there was so much to admire, there was also much to deplore. The refereeing in all three games inclined to the indulgent, the offside line, for instance, being regularly breached with impunity. Worse still, players were frequently taken out of the game when they were nowhere near the ball and illegal tackles, either high, or made without use of the arms, went unpunished time and again. I’ve no doubt that the tackle law needs to be revised and tightened up because there are far too many dangerous tackles now. Yet no revision of the law will be any good if referees don’t apply it.
Television coverage of the World Cup will be watched by millions here, and around the world, many of whom will not usually pay much attention to rugby. This offers a great opportunity to attract more people to the game, but if dangerous tackles go unpunished, it’s not only a poor advertisement; it will have a good many parents thinking rugby isn’t a game they want their children to play. Incidentally, one thing that journalists and commentators could, and should, do is stop using the word “hit” instead of “tackle”. Tackling is approved by the laws of the game; hitting isn’t. Speaking or writing admiringly of “a big hit” is halfway towards encouraging dangerous tackling.
The news that the BBC and ITV are to share television coverage of the Six Nations, beginning this coming season, may be regarded as another example of the BBC’S, gradual disengagement from sport, but at least it means that all the matches will still be on terrestrial television. While I admire and am grateful for the far more extensive coverage of rugby and cricket which Sky and, to a lesser extent, BT Sport
“I have no doubt it is essential for the health of rugby that major events are not restricted to subscription channels”
provide than either the BBC or ITV has ever given us, I’ve no doubt that it is essential for the future health of rugby – and indeed cricket – that major events are not restricted to subscription channels, but are available to be viewed by anyone with a TV set. When The Ashes were on Channel 4 in 2005, the peak viewing figure was just over 9 million; two years ago on Sky it was much lower, less than a quarter of that number. Rugby Union is still a minority sport, even in the Six Nations countries, and it can’t afford not to reach the biggest possible audience.
The carve-up sees the BBC retain the rights for home matches in Scotland, Wales and France, while ITV has the rights to home matches in England, Ireland and Italy. On the face of it, ITV has got the better deal, for obviously England provides the largest audience. (There’s a large one in France too, of course, but that is served by French television.) Yet ITV’S advantage is perhaps more apparent than real. After all, over two seasons, England play as many matches away as they do at Twickenham, and one assumes that as many people will tune in to the games England play in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Paris as to those at Twickenham. One also assumes that kick-off times will continue to be staggered, with some games on Sundays and even Friday evenings (popular apparently in Wales) so that it will be possible to watch all three matches every Six Nations weekend. The excitement of the socalled Super Saturday, the last day of the tournament when three matches are played, should not be dimmed. It is unlikely, admittedly, that the finale will often be as gripping as it was this year, when it was clear that points differential would decide who lifted the trophy. However, the fact that the last day will almost always be shared between the two broadcasters should not really make much difference. ITV’S participation may even encourage the BBC to improve its own coverage. It is unlikely, however, that either organisation will realise that, just occasionally, it might be a good idea to have a journalist on their panel of experts, alongside retired international players. I can think of several whose observations might be sharper and more interesting than what is usually offered.