La Doyenne *spoiler*
Comments
-
greasedscotsman wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:inkyfingers wrote:At least Sky have have got some good stage race results which sort of makes up for it, BMC have pretty much failed across the board.
Yup.
And Rabobank
.
Wow, you really have it in for them this morning. Anyway, how can they have failed if you didn't expect them to win anything? What race did you think they would win?
Their budget is as big as sky's isn't it? Certainly in the top 3 of all teams.
Budget-wise, they need to win big races.
You're right, their roster is not a winner's roster - but then, it should be for the cash they spend.
A similar problem perhaps to Sky - too many good domestiques and 2/3 tier riders not enough tier one riders.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Astana and Eurostar and Katusha are definitely the winners of the Ardenne.
BMC definitely the big losers.
What about Radioshack? They were much worse than BMC, weren't they?0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Astana and Eurostar and Katusha are definitely the winners of the Ardenne.
BMC definitely the big losers.
What about Radioshack? They were much worse than BMC, weren't they?
True true.
They were a strong team with Cancellara though. Roessler was doing very well for Canc before he went and crashed.
And they won Strada.
It's more with BMC, you have Phil Gil, Ballan, Hushovd, van Avermaert, and a host of good midfield riders, and they come back with a couple podiums - none of which ever really looked like they could have won.0 -
calvjones wrote:greasedscotsman wrote:So come on then, what would you do? Stop whining, lets have some ideas man!
Maybe we could ban radios, TVs in the car and only allow the breakaway a chalkboard?
[/tinhat]
Awesome! Maybe do away with team cars completely! Bikes might have to be a bit stronger to last the race, maybe something like this?
Each rider would have to grow a moustache and smoke 20 cigarettes a day.
Or even how about do away with the motorbikes with the TV cameras? OK, you'd have to rush out and buy the paper on a Monday morning instead, but the ALL races would all be amazing!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:True true.
They were a strong team with Cancellara though. Roessler was doing very well for Canc before he went and crashed.
And they won Strada.
It's more with BMC, you have Phil Gil, Ballan, Hushovd, van Avermaert, and a host of good midfield riders, and they come back with a couple podiums - none of which ever really looked like they could have won.
I really meant with the Ardenne races, because as you said, they did win Strada.
And Ballan wasn't so bad, 3rd at Flanders and Roubaix. But you are right, Gilbert was a bit of a let down and Hushovd, not really sure what happened there. Maybe he'll come good at the Tour?0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:True true.
They were a strong team with Cancellara though. Roessler was doing very well for Canc before he went and crashed.
And they won Strada.
It's more with BMC, you have Phil Gil, Ballan, Hushovd, van Avermaert, and a host of good midfield riders, and they come back with a couple podiums - none of which ever really looked like they could have won.
I really meant with the Ardenne races, because as you said, they did win Strada.
And Ballan wasn't so bad, 3rd at Flanders and Roubaix. But you are right, Gilbert was a bit of a let down and Hushovd, not really sure what happened there. Maybe he'll come good at the Tour?
I'm sure he will.
You could see the improvement in form already. Hopefully (for Gilbert fans anyway) this spring season has given him a kick up the arse.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I'm sure he will.
You could see the improvement in form already. Hopefully (for Gilbert fans anyway) this spring season has given him a kick up the ars*.
Well, I really meant Hushovd there, but I'm sure they will both be better. Isn't the first stage of the Tour made for Gilbert?0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I'm sure he will.
You could see the improvement in form already. Hopefully (for Gilbert fans anyway) this spring season has given him a kick up the ars*.
Well, I really meant Hushovd there, but I'm sure they will both be better. Isn't the first stage of the Tour made for Gilbert?
Yes and yes. Hushovd's been ill.
And he ALWAYS wins a stage in the Tour. He's always brilliant in July.
2011: 2 stages
2010: 1 stage
2009: 1 stage (and green)
2008: 1 stage
2007: 1 stage
2006: 2 stages
2005: No stages * sad face* but did win green
2004: 1 stage
2003: No Tour wins
2002: 1 stage
2001: part of TTT win, ( so no wins).
Not a bad score.0 -
I reckon there's a far easier way to light up the classics without necessarily faffing around with the route or radios. The current UCI point allocation for a race like LBL looks like this -
100 – 80 – 70 – 60 – 50 – 40 – 30 – 20– 10 and 4 points to the first 10 riders.
As Harmon and Kelly pointed out, the current incentive is to pack out the top 10 with your riders - why risk a podium place when a conservative ride for 6th & 7th will garner the same number of points as a third?
What if the points were rearranged to something like 100 - 70 - 50 - 30 - 15 - 10 - 5 - 3. Incentivise the win a little more. The funny thing is that the prize money structure is probably closer to this. Iglinsky got €20K for first, Nibs got €10k and Gasparatto got €5K, IIRC.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
How about getting rid of any points after the podium. Atm, if you're a second class classics rider with no sprint and on a good day, you can put in a good performance for your team by hanging in all day.
If you get rid of the points after the podium, there's far more incentive for the second class riders to show panache.
Maybe...You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
How about getting rid of UCI points altogether? Are they really necessary?0
-
Get rid of drug testing. Then everyone can ride like true champions all the time. :?0
-
Well, considering the World Tour points 'classification' isn't something that any rider specifically tries to win, it seems the points are just a lazy way for the UCI to calculate their 'sporting' element of the World Tour team selection.
For me, the 'sporting' element shouldn't be made into a purely objective calculation like it has been here. There's an element of subjectivity that only comes from watching races and riders in those races. As an example, Pierre Rolland was clearly one of the stronger guys out there yesterday and animated the race (subjective) but he scored zero points (objective).
Scrap the points system. The UCI can still assess their 'sporting' element without it. The 'best rider of the season' tag can be decided by panel or vote from cycling writers or officials or team managers e.t.c. (maybe something like Velo D'Or but less biased to the Tour winner).
Ultimately yesterday's race was disappointing because of the way the riders raced. Why they raced conservatively could be accounted for by a lot of factors - form, points, weather? But i categorically disagree that the course is the problem. The 2011 races was awesome. The only problem was that everyone knew Pip would take the Schlecks in the sprint.0 -
The trouble with that Mike, is that we would (and did) all complain that the UCI selection process was murky, unclear and, probably,also wrong...
This way it is at least totally open, transaparent and clear how to get a ProTour licence. I think a lot of problems could be solved by assigning the points.to teams rather than riders though,as that creates its own problems....does help enliven a particular race though.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Getty
Contador is the Greatest0 -
ddraver wrote:we would (and did) all complain that the UCI selection process was murky, unclear and, probably,also wrong...
But it's only one of several elements. By all means make the other selection elements (mainly administrative) ultra rational and objective but not the sporting side of it.
The points system is a bit like saying Tom Danielson will win the Tour because he has these crazy lab test numbers. Sport, cycling, bike races, they don't work like that. If it did then it would be boring and we'd all be disappointed as fans. In my eyes that's exactly what the UCI are doing. You can't 'calculate' sporting success or the potential for it.
I doubt a team made up of Niki Terpstra, Maxim Iglinsky, Enrico Gasparotto, Simon Gerrans, Richie Porte and Lieuwe Westra would have had enough points to make the World Tour this year but those riders have all been successful and impressive this year.
Moreover, if this debate is taking place, the points system is clearly as unsatisfactory as the 'murky' system used previously.0 -
I know what you mean, I do and in a perfect world I'd agree, but numbers make it totally open/unequivocal and thus easy to prevent any accusations of favouritism/bribery etc etc...which is what the UCI is infamous for.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:does help enliven a particular race though.
Just curious to know if you have any examples here?
The only explicit reference to gaining World Tour points made by a rider i can recall is Boonen winning G-W last year. Yes he won, but it was still a shite race and didn't appear particularly enlivened until Boonen opened up his sprint, which was the exact moment that everyone else opened their sprint :roll:
The riskiest race tactic, with a view to points, is to stake it all one massive attack for glory. The rational tactic is to hang in. It's about not getting dropped (by conserving energy) rather than trying to win.
If i was after some UCI points i'd be following attacks, not making them.0 -
I'm not so sure. If the points were the only criteria then i would agree with you. But they're not are they.
Did they publish any sort of ranking in terms of ethics, administration or finances? If not, why go to all the trouble of making the sporting element so 'open' and clear?0 -
EKIMIKE wrote:ddraver wrote:does help enliven a particular race though.
Just curious to know if you have any examples here?
The only explicit reference to gaining World Tour points made by a rider i can recall is Boonen winning G-W last year. Yes he won, but it was still a shite race and didn't appear particularly enlivened until Boonen opened up his sprint, which was the exact moment that everyone else opened their sprint :roll:
The riskiest race tactic, with a view to points, is to stake it all one massive attack for glory. The rational tactic is to hang in. It's about not getting dropped (by conserving energy) rather than trying to win.
If i was after some UCI points i'd be following attacks, not making them.
Ha! None, Autocorrect Fail for me
Should have been doesntWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Riders that don't attack and win have lower salaries. Big salaries don't get paid to people to hide.Contador is the Greatest0
-
ddraver wrote:Ha! None, Autocorrect Fail for me
Should have been doesnt
Haha. Thought it was a bit odd.
0 -
Contador is the Greatest0 -
-
-
iainf72 wrote:greasedscotsman wrote:
All of them are, aren't they?
I hope your not suggesting that sprinters are boring? Have you not seen that photo of Cavendish sitting on a bike on the roof rack of a stationary car. You'd never see someone like Basso doing something so crazee!0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:You'd never see someone like Basso doing something so crazee!
I've seen him try to swim. That was pretty crazy.Twitter: @RichN950
