Why is this year's Tour less than exciting?

rick_chasey

We should also remember last year's was a classic.

disgruntledgoat

Rick Chasey wrote:

We should also remember last year's was a classic.

Exactly.

I've quite enjoyed this years Tour, it's been no less entertaining than any tour of the last 10 years barring 2003 and 2011.

Is the difference maybe that more of us are watching more of it on streams etc?

pepelepew_2724

KieranHardman wrote:

In my mind, the Parcours will be of greater importance to the standard of the racing in the future due to the following.

The number of individuals taking part in competitive sports has increased dramatically over the last 100 years. Training programmes and nutritional programmes are better than they were just 10 years ago. In short, we are better at maximising human performance and driving our potential to the very limit. This should limit the effect that natural genetic variation has in what is already a very very small subset of highly elite athletes, thus generating an ever decreasing difference between the best and the worst athletes in any event.

The doping factor was a variable that was completely understood by very few people and as it wasnt allowed it wasnt studied in depth. This added a sense of randomness and threw out crazy results that provided immense entertainment at the time. If everyone knew exactly how they would respond to doping and individual plans were rolled out across the peloton, we would probably see something similar to what we are seeing now. Predictable results from known variables.

The biggest possible impact on variation is in the parcours as it defines who takes part. Make it too hilly and you get a whole race full of specialist climbers. This reduces the differences seen in the climbing ability in the peloton and as such would make it (potentially) boring to watch. You need to have something to entice all the non-specialists in order to create the differences in ability needed to have an exciting race. This is something all physical sports have to deal with.

Maybe its time to stop limiting the technology per se. Maybe allow a more aero TT bike at the expense of having a heavier climbing bike than those that choose the other way round. Give teams the option to maximise their GC riders strengths but hinder their weaknesses. Not an idea I would go with but just thinking out loud. F1 is already trying things to spice up the racing as we approach possible engineering limitations.

Great post. I would liken this philosophy to the Welsh rugby team. They have trained to be the fittest and have a great defence. Sit back then hit teams late on when the fitness difference shows. Takes away the flair. We can romantically look back, but modern sport is all about numbers, plans and little room for 'off the cuff' action.

step-hent

mudshark wrote:

TTs aren't very interesting in themselves but the plan seemed to be to play the TTers off against the climbers, not going to plan so far.

Yep - but issue is that there aren't any top-tier-climbing GC contenders in the race. Contador and Andy Schleck would have made this a much more interesting Tour, because whilst they couldn't match Wiggo in the TT (esp Schleck) they would have stood to gain much more time in the mountains. As it is, Evans isn't climbing as well as Wiggins, and Nibali is only marginally better, with the difference being evened out by Wiggo's strong team support.

So the balance here might well have been about right, if only all the potential contenders had made the start line.

rick_chasey

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

We should also remember last year's was a classic.

Exactly.

I've quite enjoyed this years Tour, it's been no less entertaining than any tour of the last 10 years barring 2003 and 2011.

Is the difference maybe that more of us are watching more of it on streams etc?

More of what, cycling?

I think it's more that more and more people here and in the UK are branching out beyond the Tour.

I know I was the main cheerleader, but I reckon I probably saw more excitement on here for Flanders than I did for the Tour.

Also, rightly or wrongly, people who are into cycling get fed up with the pandering to n00bs all the time in the Tour. That, and the nature of the racing, makes it feel like it's all been drawn in crayon by a 5 year old, even though it probably isn't.

The hype around the Tour too, while it gives many many more perspectives and time to other stories, it also seems to highlight and exagerate the moments of interest to a point where they become warped, like the Froome Wiggins thing. I find myself doing the same.

I've even got tired discussing it at work. People regurgitating chat about cycling that they barely know nothing about, like Bradley's 'etiquette' moment, or Froome's little dig, only to have the office refuse to believe that people really don't race for GC when they head into Paris as a bunch.

---

Basically I'm grumpy that MY sport that NO-ONE ELSE LIKES is suddenly overcome with chumps who know nothing and think they know it all.

'cos I is selfish.

calvjones

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If that's the case, they should ban power-metres in race.

Yep. Is there any link from a rider's power metre to the DS? If not I'm sure it's only a matter of time and the DS will be effectively running the riders by remore control!!

But if they don't know what power their rivals are capable of/putting out then it doesn't matter does it? If you can't follow/get away it doesn't matter what numbers you're putting down.

Power meter. it's not a distance.

[/pedant]

disgruntledgoat

Rick Chasey wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

We should also remember last year's was a classic.

Exactly.

I've quite enjoyed this years Tour, it's been no less entertaining than any tour of the last 10 years barring 2003 and 2011.

Is the difference maybe that more of us are watching more of it on streams etc?

More of what, cycling?

I think it's more that more and more people here and in the UK are branching out beyond the Tour.

I know I was the main cheerleader, but I reckon I probably saw more excitement on here for Flanders than I did for the Tour.

Also, rightly or wrongly, people who are into cycling get fed up with the pandering to n00bs all the time in the Tour. That, and the nature of the racing, makes it feel like it's all been drawn in crayon by a 5 year old, even though it probably isn't.

The hype around the Tour too, while it gives many many more perspectives and time to other stories, it also seems to highlight and exagerate the moments of interest to a point where they become warped, like the Froome Wiggins thing. I find myself doing the same.

I've even got tired discussing it at work. People regurgitating chat about cycling that they barely know nothing about, like Bradley's 'etiquette' moment, or Froome's little dig.

---

Basically I'm grumpy that MY sport that NO-ONE ELSE LIKES is suddenly overcome with chumps who know nothing and think they know it all.

'cos I is selfish.

I meant more of the Tour... We've had several stages where we've been able to watch the break form and I've watched them all!

AS to the last bit of your post. I agree. I've spent years building up a knowledge of the sport and a painful and humiliating portion of my life getting a repeated schooling in racecraft and tactics... Now a bunch of armchair fans want to chat about it?!

KieranHardman

I may be one of these Chumps with a low post count who hasnt been following cycling for as long as anyone else on here. I enjoy it immensely and was the sport I turned to after rowing suddenly became the sport everyman and his dog claimed to have an opinion about. I used to enjoy the minutae of the sport like knowing why the danish were really good lightweight rowers until I was continually corrected by people who knew it all after seeing the Henley results in the Telegraph.

Clearly I must be like one of the people that used to annoy me so I will shut up now.

rick_chasey

Haha.

Kieran - there's a difference between a chap who knows nothing but think he knows it all, and someone who's knew and goes, well, I'm new, but I'm really getting into this....

We all didn't know stuff once upon a time.

I still don't when it comes to 3 week racing - and Spanish races are a real blind spot for me.

It's more than every chump has decided to take an interest now someone of the same nationality (yeah calv!) might win it.

Rightly or wrongly that offends my niche sport sensibilities for loving the sport for the sport's sake. I probably watched more of the 2005 Tour with no brits in at all than this one.

KieranHardman

Wasnt having a go or having a sulk. Ill admit that part of what attracted me to cycling is the british aspect. It gives the new person someone they recognise and someone to follow. I seem to remember some relatives telling me that the most searched for word in Argentina during the Beijing Olympics was "Madison". Suddenly every office worker in my cousins building was offering in depth analysis on why they were the best in the world at it when before they couldnt care it existed.

Part of what I like about Pro cycling is that every race i watch shows something different and keeps getting better. I started with the Tour of Oman which I thought was really exciting.

rick_chasey

KieranHardman wrote:

Wasnt having a go or having a sulk. Ill admit that part of what attracted me to cycling is the british aspect. It gives the new person someone they recognise and someone to follow. I seem to remember some relatives telling me that the most searched for word in Argentina during the Beijing Olympics was "Madison". Suddenly every office worker in my cousins building was offering in depth analysis on why they were the best in the world at it when before they couldnt care it existed.

Part of what I like about Pro cycling is that every race i watch shows something different and keeps getting better. I started with the Tour of Oman which I thought was really exciting.

I envy you!

inkyfingers

Rick Chasey wrote:

KieranHardman wrote:

Wasnt having a go or having a sulk. Ill admit that part of what attracted me to cycling is the british aspect. It gives the new person someone they recognise and someone to follow. I seem to remember some relatives telling me that the most searched for word in Argentina during the Beijing Olympics was "Madison". Suddenly every office worker in my cousins building was offering in depth analysis on why they were the best in the world at it when before they couldnt care it existed.

Part of what I like about Pro cycling is that every race i watch shows something different and keeps getting better. I started with the Tour of Oman which I thought was really exciting.

I envy you!

I suppose if you start with the Tour of Oman then at least everything else you watch would seem exciting (except maybe Qatar).

rick_chasey

Qatar usually one good stage when the wind picks up.

This year it certainly did.

KnightOfTheLongTights

Rick Chasey wrote:

They key indicator is TT kms versus MTFs.

You'd think the organisers would have found the sweet spot ratio.

The problem with this years' course aren't the TTs. It's the lack of chances for people to take time outside of the TT.

Spot on. Also I do think there is a lack of personalities.
Wiggo doesn't quite have the wow factor of Armstrong; nor Nibali that of Ulrich!
Even when Armstrong was at his most dominant (and the GC therefore predictable), the Tours he won were often still exciting to watch, and there always seemed to be someone having a pop, and other personalities or big rivalries in the peloton.
Not saying we don't have that this year (Tommy V, always a pleasure), they just all seem less important, less evident, more low-key.
I think it's a combo of that, the course, and the team dominance of Sky.

ddraver

I think 99% of this is people editing out the boring bits of last year (and especially the tours of old!). We were having exactly the same conversation between the alps and the Pyrenees last year except the tour was going the other way!

Now all we remember are the battle for Green, Gilbert's scintellating wins, the Schleck attack and the Contador counter next day followed by his crack and Rolland winning. July 2013 all we ll remember is Sagan's scintellating wins, Greipel coming back to finish second with a dislocated collar bone, Evans cracking up to La Touss' (again) and the epic french breakaway wins (+LLS).

Nearly every stage spoiler thread has got into double figures so we re all still watching and all still commenting. People constantly whinge about stages always coming down to a bunch sprint, now we ve had a few breakaway wins they re whinging that the peloton don't ride hard enough. For all the talk of how much better the Giro is people were whinging about how boring that was this year. Basically - people whinge! It would be nice if you stopped!

Le Commentateur

It's the Youtube effect - nobody uploads extracts of the boring bits, so people come to expect daily high drama during live broadcasts.

KnightOfTheLongTights

Rick Chasey wrote:

Haha.

Kieran - there's a difference between a chap who knows nothing but think he knows it all, and someone who's knew and goes, well, I'm new, but I'm really getting into this....

We all didn't know stuff once upon a time.

I still don't when it comes to 3 week racing - and Spanish races are a real blind spot for me.

It's more than every chump has decided to take an interest now someone of the same nationality (yeah calv!) might win it.

Rightly or wrongly that offends my niche sport sensibilities for loving the sport for the sport's sake. I probably watched more of the 2005 Tour with no brits in at all than this one.

without wishing to kiss RC's backside on this thread, this - and post previous to this - sum up exactly how I feel.

Le Commentateur

Pross wrote:

Possibly the best way to liven things up is to keep stages shorter. The short, sharp mountain stages work well. Why bother with stages over 200km when the riders aren't bothering racing for most of that distance?

That's what Jens was saying in the ITV4 interview.

ddraver

Le Commentateur wrote:

Pross wrote:

Possibly the best way to liven things up is to keep stages shorter. The short, sharp mountain stages work well. Why bother with stages over 200km when the riders aren't bothering racing for most of that distance?

That's what Jens was saying in the ITV4 interview.

Which is essentially the sefl-editing point...we might get 150 exciting km but we watch all 200! Personally I'd be wary of shortening them too much as part of the point of long stages it to tire the riders out by the final climb. If the stages were only 100-130km long every attack would be closed down with ease!

inkyfingers

ddraver wrote:

Le Commentateur wrote:

Pross wrote:

Possibly the best way to liven things up is to keep stages shorter. The short, sharp mountain stages work well. Why bother with stages over 200km when the riders aren't bothering racing for most of that distance?

That's what Jens was saying in the ITV4 interview.

Which is essentially the sefl-editing point...we might get 150 exciting km but we watch all 200! Personally I'd be wary of shortening them too much as part of the point of long stages it to tire the riders out by the final climb. If the stages were only 100-130km long every attack would be closed down with ease!

The short stage to Alpe D'Huez worked pretty well last year. Though that's not to say it would have worked this year with the riders we have.

Pross

ddraver wrote:

I think 99% of this is people editing out the boring bits of last year (and especially the tours of old!). We were having exactly the same conversation between the alps and the Pyrenees last year except the tour was going the other way!

This.

In answer to the thread question I would ask less exciting than when exactly? Virtually all 3 week races are 95% boredom with some excitement thrown in. As you go down to short stage races and one dayers the excitement percentage increases but even the best one day races are probably only exciting for maybe 15 - 20%. Cycling is just a sport which relies on wearing down which doesn't often make for good viewing. It used to look far more exciting dressed up in a half hour highlights programme.

LesDiablesRouges

My poker analogy would be that the in the current configuration the stages are set up in a high limit format whereas the MTF if set up properly can create a no limit format where you can protect your chips. but you can also at any time lose them all or you can double up and take someone elses chips.

You can whittle down someone elses's chips in high stake limit games but when you wathc poker on TV how often does anyone see limit games? Maybe 1 time out of 100/1000. Everything is no limit on TV because it's much more exciting and there's always the possiblity of losing everything on every hand.

Wiggings/Sky for me is the equivalent of the best high stakes limit hold'em player who is the big stack which is fine but people don't watch poker for limit hold'em they watch it for no limit.

Hence the reason the Tour needs enough selective climbs that can force a maillot jaune to go all in and be at risk.

knedlicky

Lichtblick wrote:

e. No one really cares that much about the polka dot or the white, do they?

Maybe that’s true for the White in the UK, but the French are always very interested in the White, in the hope there’s a new Hinault on the horizon.
Also, about 2/3 of White winners later turn out to be significantly-successful riders, so it can give some indication for the future, if not already evident.

As for the Polka-Dot, this year it’s the jersey most in the balance, with theoretically any of the current top ten in that category being able to take it to Paris (even if in reality only half of them probably have a realistic chance, given their respective climbing abilities). So not something certain riders and teams care little about.

Froome is one of those in with a good chance of winning it, so it will be interesting to see how he behaves wrt his Polka-Dot chances; it might explain his actions if he decides to leave Wiggins behind on some climbs, as almost happened the other day.

Moomaloid

Rick Chasey wrote:

Basically I'm grumpy that MY sport that NO-ONE ELSE LIKES is suddenly overcome with chumps who know nothing and think they know it all.

'cos I is selfish.

Felt like this for a while now... leave MY sport alone! Only me and 'continentals' can love it this much

mudshark

knedlicky wrote:

Froome is one of those in with a good chance of winning it, so it will be interesting to see how he behaves wrt his Polka-Dot chances; it might explain his actions if he decides to leave Wiggins behind on some climbs, as almost happened the other day.

There's no way he'd leave Wiggo surely?! Maybe on the mountain top finish on Thursday he'll try and prove something in the last km but other than that he's got to stick with him.

ddraver

inkyfingers wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Le Commentateur wrote:

Pross wrote:

Possibly the best way to liven things up is to keep stages shorter. The short, sharp mountain stages work well. Why bother with stages over 200km when the riders aren't bothering racing for most of that distance?

That's what Jens was saying in the ITV4 interview.

Which is essentially the sefl-editing point...we might get 150 exciting km but we watch all 200! Personally I'd be wary of shortening them too much as part of the point of long stages it to tire the riders out by the final climb. If the stages were only 100-130km long every attack would be closed down with ease!

The short stage to Alpe D'Huez worked pretty well last year. Though that's not to say it would have worked this year with the riders we have.

True dat! But then A Schleck the day before wasnt a short stage but was still just as good

(although today....?)

bilirubin

Whats not to enjoy, Brits sitting in 1st & 2nd place, 4 stage wins for the Brits and Cav gearing up for the big one on Sunday.
If the attacks come during the next two days in the mountains it will keep Sky on their toes and make for good viewing.

Happy Days

morstar

Pross wrote:

ddraver wrote:

I think 99% of this is people editing out the boring bits of last year (and especially the tours of old!). We were having exactly the same conversation between the alps and the Pyrenees last year except the tour was going the other way!

This.

In answer to the thread question I would ask less exciting than when exactly? Virtually all 3 week races are 95% boredom with some excitement thrown in. As you go down to short stage races and one dayers the excitement percentage increases but even the best one day races are probably only exciting for maybe 15 - 20%. Cycling is just a sport which relies on wearing down which doesn't often make for good viewing. It used to look far more exciting dressed up in a half hour highlights programme.

+2.

Rose tinted specs! Last year we got through the first set of mountains with nothing happening. 9 days in and it hadn't been exciting at all. There have been more on the road attacks this year but they haven't stuck.

AndyRubio

bilirubin wrote:

Whats not to enjoy, Brits sitting in 1st & 2nd place ... Happy Days

Shame Contador and Andy Schleck aren't there to challenge Sky.

ms_tree

Sean was saying the other day that they should shorten the stages to make the racing for aggressive and Dave Harmon said that is what they did in the Vuelta but since ASO has bought into that race the stages have lengthened again. Maybe they should not just get rid of race radios but also TVs in the team cars then people could slip away unseen.
You could see Bernard Hainault was pleased with Tommy today because he likes to see attacking riding as well.