GB for Worlds - 3 places

rick_chasey

Kléber wrote:

Stuey01 wrote:

Why not give every country the same number of riders, 4 or 5 or whatever the average is.

Because the sport is dominated by a handful of nations. You'd rule out several Italian, Spanish and Belgian contenders, whilst inviting a load of British, Kazakh and Swiss non-entities.

As for the course, it has Gilbert or Haussler written all over it. I'd even be tempted to make my PTP today

Leukemans.

There said it.

rick_chasey

Teams are overated in the worlds.

As Ian suggested, you need a chequebook, not a Spanish passport.

rebs

Its hardly likely Cav will turn to a all out GB team to get him into position.

How many HTC riders would be expected to ride the worlds. Potentially the longest train for Cav?:P

mroli

Cadel won last year despite the fact that the Aussie "team" was backing another rider. Cycling is very unique in the fact that it is a team sport for individuals. And team members.

pedro118118

Yeah, I suppose so.
Slightly different though, as Mendrisio was brutal and only the strongest survived - more of a war of attrition rather than a tactical masterclass.
What Cav needs is to ensure the race is controlled and it comes down to a bunch sprint, with him well-positioned and feeling fresh.
Not a great deal of margin for error.

No_Ta_Doctor

With or without a chequebook it looks a difficult course to control, the climbs are short but they're steep and frequent. The finish also looks to be on a slight incline, though nothing serious, a few hundred metres (horizontal) at about 5% if I'm reading the course details correctly.

Link to the course:
http://www.melbourne2010.com.au/default ... long-flash

Keres the kml file, past the link into google maps for the course:
http://www.melbourne2010.com.au/site/_c ... source.kml

I wouldn't have thought it was something for Cav, looks built for breakaways to me.

AndyRubio

Millar? Why not send my grandma as well.

Cav, Thomas, Swift. Plus Cav's chequebook.

sublimit

Millar was on his knees at the Tour and probably needs to put his feet up. I'd go for Thomas, Stannard, Cavendish.

Stannard as an unburstable workhorse, he seemed to have a ridiculous amount of guts at the nationals so I'm going by that. Cav has to ride the race of his life to hang on also and if he gets to end its all over, Thomas could look to get into a late selection and maybe jump away with 2 K to go or something.

a couple more riders would be nice though..

William H

rebs wrote:

Its hardly likely Cav will turn to a all out GB team to get him into position.

How many HTC riders would be expected to ride the worlds. Potentially the longest train for Cav?:P

I'm sure Greipel will be eager to help him out

yourpaceormine

be good for a Brit to actually finish the course for once (did downing comlete the course last year? if ihe did that was 8 dnf)

Jokull

I'm not sure whether the problem is with the UCI for having a daft qualification system, or Team GB for not playing the current system well enough.

A lot of good performances by British riders haven't been rewarded by ranking points this year. For instance Downing's and Swift's .HC stage race wins didn't clock up any UCI points because the race is in the Europe Tour but the riders are in the ProTour. Britain is not the 21st best nation in cycling - using the cqranking system which uses all riders and all races, Britain are 12th, which in a sensible system would qualify 6 riders, which for Britain, is probably fair.

Under the current system, getting enough points to qualify 9 riders requires the best British riders having perfect years and getting lots of points in ProTour races - I don't think that this is something British Cycling can rely on yet. Getting 6 riders through the Europe Tour means that riders on Pro Continental and Continental teams have to do well in non-ProTour races. Trouble is, there are hardly any British riders on Pro Continental teams, and the riders on Continental teams don't ride many UCI races. Personally, I think that British Cycling should pay for all the Premier Calendar races to be .2 ranked, so that the domestic riders earn Europe Tour ranking points throughout the year.

Ideally though the UCI would go back to the pre-2005 ranking system where all races qualify for one world ranking, so that all results count. As it is, good performances by ProTour riders in non-ProTour races count for nothing.

Kléber

Jokull wrote:

Ideally though the UCI would go back to the pre-2005 ranking system where all races qualify for one world ranking, so that all results count. As it is, good performances by ProTour riders in non-ProTour races count for nothing.

Seeing Pro Tour riders in smaller races suggests a lack of ambition and big budget teams should win these races. The likes of Sky have little to gain in the Tour of Picardy, the whole point of the Pro Tour is to make big teams do big races and leave the smaller races for the smaller teams.

Three riders isn't much, perhaps a scale could be more adjusting, eg four or five and possibly fewer riders for the top nations. But there are so many countries today with valid claims. The worlds is a funny race, it's only event and in national colours but most riders know who pays the bills, just ask several Brits.

FJS

Jokull wrote:

Getting 6 riders through the Europe Tour means that riders on Pro Continental and Continental teams have to do well in non-ProTour races. Trouble is, there are hardly any British riders on Pro Continental teams, and the riders on Continental teams don't ride many UCI races. Personally, I think that British Cycling should pay for all the Premier Calendar races to be .2 ranked, so that the domestic riders earn Europe Tour ranking points throughout the year.

Exactly. The problem is that GB organizes only 2 UCI-ranked races, which is pathetic for a country the size of the UK. This is, I suppose is to some degree related to requirements of having fully closed roads, and the intolerance of the British public to facilitate a bike race at the cost of their freedom to drive to Tesco on a Saturday. And in that sense it's very simple - the British public gets the World Champsionship delegation numbers it deserves...

redddraggon

Luxembourg is 7th in the rankings, does that mean they can have 9 riders at the worlds?

Can Luxembourg actually field 9 riders?

afx237vi

redddraggon wrote:

Luxembourg is 7th in the rankings, does that mean they can have 9 riders at the worlds?

Can Luxembourg actually field 9 riders?

IIRC, they were eligible for 9 last year but only fielded 4. Andy Schleck, Kirchen, Didier and Drucker.

RichN95.

afx237vi wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Luxembourg is 7th in the rankings, does that mean they can have 9 riders at the worlds?

Can Luxembourg actually field 9 riders?

IIRC, they were eligible for 9 last year but only fielded 4. Andy Schleck, Kirchen, Didier and Drucker.

As far as I can understand, the 'little' nations in the top ten (Luxembourg, Kazakhstan) can only field as many riders who have scored ProTour points (so two for Luxembourg). Whether the places transfer to someone else, I don't know.

timturpinfleck

The number of Brits riding the worlds will only increase if we have more races for the smaller British teams to pick up points in, otherwise we are really on Cav all the time. Are our only UCI ranked races the Cicle classic and the TOB? If so, then like someone else said we need to increase the number of British riders where points can be picked up, thus providing more competition.

The likes of Rapha, Endura and Raleigh all plan to go Pro Continental in the future and the sooner the better to offer more opportunities rather than just having one Pro-Tour and 5 UCI Continental teams. British Cycling needs to get behind all our teams and not just Sky and the academy boys and for that we need more UCI ranked races. It's crazy that somewhere like Iran and Venezuela can field 6 riders but that is down to the fact that there are so few British ranked races and so few opportunities for riders to move up the ladder due to our lack of Pro Continental teams.

We're moving in the right direction with Team Sky and getting our national tour re-established and the money brought in throught from televising the Tour Series, but we're still a long way off.

bipedal

can someone explain how Morocco, Colombia, Venezuela, and the Islamic Republic of Iran qualified for 6 riders each? Is it just that these countries hold lots of UCI-ranking races?

RichN95.

bipedal wrote:

can someone explain how Morocco, Colombia, Venezuela, and the Islamic Republic of Iran qualified for 6 riders each? Is it just that these countries hold lots of UCI-ranking races?

Because they are the leading nations in the respective continental tours (top 2 in the case of the Americas).

It's a stupid system. After the top 10 countries in the ProTour list points scored by riders in ProTour events or on ProTour teams count for absolutely nothing. So Cav's 5 stage wins (or Downing's Wallonie win) count for less than Luke Rowe's third place in GP Industrie del Marmo.

(Luke Rowe is GB's top points scorer on the Pro Conti rankings in about 200th place)

Yellow Peril

Stannard, Kennaugh & Thomas.

I think barring accidents or mechanicals you could guarantee a 100% finish rate with these guys. It's just a matter of where they finish. After his tough tour Millar would probably flake and there isn't even a concensus here as to whether Cav could cope with the repetetive climbs so I would go for the three above.

rick_chasey

Which brits are riding the Vuelta?

If you're not riding the Vuelta, forget the Worlds.

RichN95.

Yellow Peril wrote:

Stannard, Kennaugh & Thomas.

I think barring accidents or mechanicals you could guarantee a 100% finish rate with these guys. It's just a matter of where they finish. After his tough tour Millar would probably flake and there isn't even a concensus here as to whether Cav could cope with the repetetive climbs so I would go for the three above.

What a terrible idea. What country would voluntarily leave out their only genuine hope of a medal?

You reckon those three would 100% guarantee a finish. Firstly, I'd dispute that. When has Kennaugh ever done a hard 250km+ race? Secondly, they offer about a 2% chance of a top 10. Who cares about finishing?

No-one really knows who the course suits. Just because there isn't a consensus on here doesn't mean anything. Plenty thought he couldn't win Milan-San Remo, and nobody thought he could win stage 19 in the 2009 Tour.

One thing is for sure though. If the race comes down to a bunch of 30-40 and Farrar, Greipel and McEwen are all in there, while Cavendish is sitting at home watching the Hollyoaks Omnibus, then British Cycling are going to look a right bunch of pr1cks.

Team: Cavendish + whoever Cavendish wants.

inkyfingers

I'd say Cav/Stannard and either Thomas or Downing depending on who has better form that late in the season. In an ideal world I think he'd have Millar and Wiggins but thats not going to happen.

Yellow Peril

RichN95 wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

Stannard, Kennaugh & Thomas.

I think barring accidents or mechanicals you could guarantee a 100% finish rate with these guys. It's just a matter of where they finish. After his tough tour Millar would probably flake and there isn't even a concensus here as to whether Cav could cope with the repetetive climbs so I would go for the three above.

What a terrible idea. What country would voluntarily leave out their only genuine hope of a medal?
You reckon those three would 100% guarantee a finish. Firstly, I'd dispute that. When has Kennaugh ever done a hard 250km+ race? Secondly, they offer about a 2% chance of a top 10. Who cares about finishing?

No-one really knows who the course suits. Just because there isn't a consensus on here doesn't mean anything. Plenty thought he couldn't win Milan-San Remo, and nobody thought he could win stage 19 in the 2009 Tour.

One thing is for sure though. If the race comes down to a bunch of 30-40 and Farrar, Greipel and McEwen are all in there, while Cavendish is sitting at home watching the Hollyoaks Omnibus, then British Cycling are going to look a right bunch of pr1cks.

Team: Cavendish + whoever Cavendish wants.

But the point being made on this thread is that Cav may not be a genuine medal hope due to the course. Every year our team seems to fall by the wayside. In a three man "team" I think you need guys capable of staying the course. We know that Thomas can and l think that Kennaugh has shown himself to be a very capable racer this year.

RichN95.

Yellow Peril wrote:

But the point being made on this thread is that Cav may not be a genuine medal hope due to the course. Every year our team seems to fall by the wayside. In a three man "team" I think you need guys capable of staying the course. We know that Thomas can and l think that Kennaugh has shown himself to be a very capable racer this year.

I'd say Cavendish is every bit as likely to finish as Thomas, probably more likely than Stannard, and definitely more likely than Kennaugh.

Also Cavendish has never done a Worlds before, so at worst he'll get experience ready for the 'Sprinter's Only' course in 2011.

bigmat

Yellow Peril wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

Stannard, Kennaugh & Thomas.

I think barring accidents or mechanicals you could guarantee a 100% finish rate with these guys. It's just a matter of where they finish. After his tough tour Millar would probably flake and there isn't even a concensus here as to whether Cav could cope with the repetetive climbs so I would go for the three above.

What a terrible idea. What country would voluntarily leave out their only genuine hope of a medal?
You reckon those three would 100% guarantee a finish. Firstly, I'd dispute that. When has Kennaugh ever done a hard 250km+ race? Secondly, they offer about a 2% chance of a top 10. Who cares about finishing?

No-one really knows who the course suits. Just because there isn't a consensus on here doesn't mean anything. Plenty thought he couldn't win Milan-San Remo, and nobody thought he could win stage 19 in the 2009 Tour.

One thing is for sure though. If the race comes down to a bunch of 30-40 and Farrar, Greipel and McEwen are all in there, while Cavendish is sitting at home watching the Hollyoaks Omnibus, then British Cycling are going to look a right bunch of pr1cks.

Team: Cavendish + whoever Cavendish wants.

But the point being made on this thread is that Cav may not be a genuine medal hope due to the course. Every year our team seems to fall by the wayside. In a three man "team" I think you need guys capable of staying the course. We know that Thomas can and l think that Kennaugh has shown himself to be a very capable racer this year.

I think the point is that those 3 have feck all chance of a top finish, whereas Cavendish has an outside chance of winning it. Nobody really cares who came second in the Worlds, never mind who finished. Cavendish should go just in case it turns out to be a sprinter friendly course / race. Also, it'd be good for him to get some Worlds experience before next year and the Olympics in 2012.

Yellow Peril

It's probably academic really and will be sewn up by the Italians

rick_chasey

Yellow Peril wrote:

It's probably academic really and will be sewn up by the Belgians

Edited that for you.

Neil McC

Elite Men’s Road Race:

Mark Cavendish
Jeremy Hunt
Geraint Thomas

Elite Men’s Time Trial:

David Millar

Elite Women’s Road Race:

Lizzie Armitstead
Katie Colclough
Nicole Cooke
Sharon Laws
Lucy Martin
Emma Pooley
Catherine Williamson

Elite Women’s Time Trial (four nominated, two to ride):

Nicole Cooke
Sharon Laws
Emma Pooley
Emma Trott

Under 23 Men’s Road Race:

Alex Dowsett
Andy Fenn
Jonny McEvoy
Luke Rowe

Under 23 Men’s Time Trial:

Alex Dowsett

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5401/ ... z0xhZGiMMx

RichN95.

I'm very surprised Jeremy Hunt has been picked after his 'anti-Cav' protest at the Tour of Switzerland.

There's plenty of medal chances in the team as a whole though.