Negative racing tactics

Robb0

It seems to me that often teams too easily give up trying to win races and settle for placing 2nd, 3rd,.. In Paris-Roubaix the leading group could have brought back Boonen if they had worked together. Likewise in the 2010 P-R Boonen's group could have brought back Cancellara. It's understandable that teams opt for a good chance of a podium place with a well-rested rider contending the sprint, over a slim chance of a win. But it doesn't make for exciting racing. As spectators we don't care who comes 2nd. Is it that the teams need the UCI points for 2nd, 3rd.. place in order to keep their licences and get invited to the big races? If so, should the UCI consider adjusting the incentives?

rick_chasey

It's the way cycling's always been, and always will be.

What people call 'negative racing' is actually just 'racing'.


There is something to be said for incentivising wins over podiums and high positions - teams riding for 6th in GC in the Tour isn't pant-wettingly exciting stuff, but Roubaix for example was just racing tactics.


As other riders have said, sometimes you have to be prepared to lose if you want to win.

Bikepathcountry

Its all sportsman spirit everyone cant be winner some one has to get second or third position but they are not the loser just they are just not winner.
_____________
Bike Fitness

majormantra

Rick Chasey wrote:

What people call 'negative racing' is actually just 'racing'.

Quite. I like this piece on the subject:

http://benjacat.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/ ... acing.html

ozzzyosborn206

what makes you so sure they could have brought Boonen back? Sky sure gave it a good try and had the other riders helped sky bring him back they would have just gifted the win to a sky as they had the numbers, it isn't so much negative racing as racing with their head, if they chase everything down they would just cook themselves you may say it is more positive, but whats positive about killing yourself in the first half of the race to get nothing?

RichN95.

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

what makes you so sure they could have brought Boonen back? Sky sure gave it a good try and had the other riders helped sky bring him back they would have just gifted the win to a sky as they had the numbers, it isn't so much negative racing as racing with their head, if they chase everything down they would just cook themselves you may say it is more positive, but whats positive about killing yourself in the first half of the race to get nothing?

Help Sky (just a little) to successfully chase down Boonen and they may have a 5% chance of winning. But if Boonen doesn't get caught the chance is 0%.

It 's racing with the head if you're racing for 2nd rather than 1st - hence why it's neagtive (but not necessarily wrong).

squired

Modern sport is defensive. A nice comparison is MMA, where many fighters fight with the aim of not losing, rather than fighting to win. By that I mean a very defensive style, aimed at not giving the opposition the chance of taking them out, rather than going all out an risking being caught. Cycling is the same. A rider feeling strong and confident would often rather ride conservatively because they can pretty much guarantee a top 10, rather than going all out and maybe end up coming nowhere. Thankfully some riders are willing to take the risk of losing and go for it, but far more would rather not take the risk. Part of this has to be the result of the way cycling is so based around teams. It will probably never happen, but smaller teams in races could possibly lead to more attacking, less controlled, races. It would certainly make a difference in Grand Tours if teams had 7 riders rather than 9.

Tom Butcher

When you do get an attacking rider like Voeckler they get criticised for being naive - even the likes of Contador has got flack at times for being over ambitious - yet (doping aside) in the long run it's the attackers who tend to win most and have the best careers relative to their talent.

No_Ta_Doctor

It's all UCI points economics.
So various points overhauls could have an effect: increasing the points to the winner (make the gamble payout bigger), decreasing the difference between points awarded to top ten (make not gambling less attractive), increasing the number of positions points were available for (safety net for gamblers)

My own entirely unrealistic and massively radical overhaul would give points to any riders in a breakaway in, say, the last 50km of the race. Say a point per minute for any rider in the leading group if that group is less than ten riders and stays away more than five minutes. Of course, the unintended consequence would also be that groups would be chased down harder...