Criticism of the Sky train (may contain spoilers)

Raymie67

Squirrelpie wrote:

Like I said, to solo you need to output 450 watts all the way to the top. No one outputs 6.7 watt per kg for 20 to 40 minutes anymore. They have to follow and know how long they can ride at 450 + to get away closer to the finish.

Easier just to follow Froome's wheel and jump him in the final kilo meter. Then Skys effort is negated.

Hi - long time lurker but there is a point about Sky's tactics (and training) that I think are being missed and its encapsulated by Squirrelpie here.

Sky's aim is to win the GC, individually and as a team, they will be pleased to win stages but their goal is the GC. From what I've seen their tactics, particularly last year when Wiggins was by far and away the best TTer, is to put minutes on to the GC competition in the TT and then make sure their opponents can't recover this time in the mountains by using the TT training to grind out a (relatively) fast and steady pace. Someone jumping them in the last 2 km is irrelevant - the stage win is not important to the team goal - as it is just not possible to pull back the overwhelming lead from the TT. The effort is ultimately to maintain the lead from the TT and so is not negated. Shorter races with fewer TT miles will reduce the effectiveness of this tactic.

In last years tour it was obvious after the first mountain stage after the TT that the GC was over. Wiggins had 2.5 minutes on everyone outside of his team. Evans, et al needed 5 minutes to ensure that Wiggins didn't just pull it back at the final individual TT. From my POV the tour was therefore reduced to one TT. Not particularly exciting - thank goodness for Sagan and Voeckler.

phreak

If it was that simple tony martin would be able to win just by having a mountain train. Wiggins was a better climber than Evans and Nibali. Do people really think having a train turns average climbers into gods?

squired

As others have said, if Sky are being successful with their current method they will continue with it. If people want to break them they need to come up with different tactics. If they just sit there letting the Sky train ride tempo then they can't complain at the end. Maybe people like Contador need to try things earlier on stages to shell out some of the Sky guys, or put their guys on the front and see what they can do.

In the end, cycling is about getting coverage for your sponsor. Even if Sky don't get the final win in Tirreno they will have had many hours of tv coverage with the Sky name filling the screen thanks to them driving the peloton. Win or not, that is good value for your sponsorship, and that must not be forgotten. Look at today (Sunday). From the reports I'm reading Sky are on the front despite not having the race lead. Omega Pharma have the jersey, but how much value is their brand getting for it today?

ddraver

Phreak - It can aid less good climbers against better climbers by preventing the better climbers "dictating the terms" to them, ie by stopping the rapid accelerations/decelerations that tend to (emphasise tend to!) be favoured by the better climbers

Pross

ddraver wrote:

‏@michellecound
Grates me that any sort of success in cycling automatically comes together with a bunch of knob heads shouting "doping"! #pathetic

Wow, the big mouth girlfriend finally says something I agree with :shock:

deejay

phreak wrote:

If it was that simple tony martin would be able to win just by having a mountain train. Wiggins was a better climber than Evans and Nibali. Do people really think having a train turns average climbers into gods?

IMO, it can't be drugs when I see 2 Sky Trains riding high tempo up mountains and if nobody has escaped then both leaders this week are able to use maximum effort at the mountain top finish to win.
These trains seem able to interchange personnel because each rider has produced power output in the Laboratory testing and their road training adjusted for the job they will do.

You keep saying they are professionals and as such they are employed to get results for the business they are in.
It was boring enough with USPS and GT's will stay boring until another Contador comes along.

Ed_tron

powerbookboy

phreak wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

It was unbelievable 4 sky riders destroying the pack and launching the all powerful leader.

It reminds me of a previous American team with the same tactic. I have difficulty believing this is clean now.

I fact I don't

Wow did you come up with that observation all by yourself or have you just caught up on last year's Twitter experts? Look at the comparative climb times, VAM and w/kg rates and come back with a more educated post.

I think it has exact comparisons also. The only difference between then and now, is the limit of Red Blood Cells a rider is allowed, which is the only reason Sky are slower. I read an article on Tim Kerrison but not sure whether new fangled training regimes mean anything much.
After LA's type of analytical training methods where I think he had most things covered. I'm sure putting up that Sky have re invented the Wheel (literally) and have new methods is a nice smokescreen for what is behind Sky's Postal/Disco style of racing. It's getting a bit beyond a joke.

Discovery would pull on the front all day, then come the final climb, Armstrong would skip off and take minutes out of his nearest rivals.

I may have missed it, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone from Sky doing this.

Well put.

RichN95.

deejay wrote:

You keep saying they are professionals and as such they are employed to get results for the business they are in.
It was boring enough with USPS and GT's will stay boring until another Contador comes along.

Or a salary cap comes along. It's in the transfer market that Sky do most of their damage.

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

deejay wrote:

You keep saying they are professionals and as such they are employed to get results for the business they are in.
It was boring enough with USPS and GT's will stay boring until another Contador comes along.

Or a salary cap comes along. It's in the transfer market that Sky do most of their damage.

Spot on. I guess if we want more excitement, we need more balanced teams.

But then cycling is capitalism at work, so it stands to reason you should be able to buy results.

frenchfighter

Good comments on this thread and discussion is very good. Will make a few comments later.

For now, enjoy the train:

ddraver

Agree with Rich tbh....

frenchfighter

Now Cav is at it :roll:

tailwindhome

iainf72 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

deejay wrote:

You keep saying they are professionals and as such they are employed to get results for the business they are in.
It was boring enough with USPS and GT's will stay boring until another Contador comes along.

Or a salary cap comes along. It's in the transfer market that Sky do most of their damage.

Spot on. I guess if we want more excitement, we need more balanced teams.

But then cycling is capitalism at work, so it stands to reason you should be able to buy results.

How would a salary cap have impacted Sky if the comparatives with BMC posted earlier are true?

Richmond Racer

TailWindHome wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

deejay wrote:

You keep saying they are professionals and as such they are employed to get results for the business they are in.
It was boring enough with USPS and GT's will stay boring until another Contador comes along.

Or a salary cap comes along. It's in the transfer market that Sky do most of their damage.

Spot on. I guess if we want more excitement, we need more balanced teams.

But then cycling is capitalism at work, so it stands to reason you should be able to buy results.

How would a salary cap have impacted Sky if the comparatives with BMC posted earlier are true?[/quote]


They are! They are!

*jumps up and down*


The specifc Phil Gil/Cuddles etc salaries arent quoted in an INRNG blog last Aug, but here's a relevant section:

'Does money buy results?
Yes and no. Look at BMC which is reputed to the biggest budget team and the results haven’t followed, Rabobank also spend a lot but are on a transitional year after a silent management clear out and Katusha, well they’re Katusha. For me the big difference is the focus on process. BMC have some great riders but do you know who coaches Philippe Gilbert? I don’t and it’s odd that such a prime asset isn’t surrounded with a battery of coaching staff. Not to single out BMC, the whole sport has many top riders who train by feel. In the meantime Sky are spending money on a sporting form of research and development. I know other teams would like to mimic this but they struggle to get enough money for this, it’s hard enough to get the riders. Sky’ pioneering will forge a path that others are going to copy but note Sky aren’t necessarily first here, several teams have been looking at similar ideas.'


INRNG mentions Rabo as was. They paid silly money to riders. LLS is on something in the region of 1.5m - heck of a lot for one Tour stage win a year plus a 1-day win like San Sebastien.

frenchfighter

Richmond Racer wrote:

'BMC spend more on wages for Gilbert, Cuddles and Hushovd, than Sky do on Wiggins, Froome and a host of other riders. At the time of the Tour, Wiggins was on 1.5m, and Froome rumoured 1.2m - Gilbert and Cuddles alone are each around the 3m mark IIRC, and Hushovd isnt far off.

I would agree that Sky's return on capital is much greater than BMC's. Not sure that Rihs really cares though.

Those salaries you quote for BMC three - do you have a link for source?

Sky are a stage race team. BMC are more for the other races. Lets see how they go in the GTs.

I dislike BMC for softening up Gilbert but they do not ride to crush the opposition in a way that is "...".

ddraver

Maybe Gilbert should use that powermeter a bit more....?

No_Ta_Doctor

frenchfighter wrote:

Sky are a stage race team. BMC are more for the other races. Lets see how they go in the GTs.

For a team that are apparently more for one day races, they've precious few results in them.
2011 they rocked the staged races with Evans, 2012 they took multiple stages in stage races and the white jersey in the tour.

ddraver

Gary Fairley ‏@StumpyRider
All this "panache" b*ll*cks about cycling. It's like a football team leading 4-0 at half time and then losing 5-4...

Have to agree with the man....

dougzz

The money is essential, but so is how you spend it. Also in pure financial terms, as is covered in the inrng article the French teams are at a disadvantage because of the tax/legal systems.
Gilbert was a bad signing in terms of who they signed and what he's done since. Great rider to watch, but Sagan is more Gilbert than Gilbert these days.

tailwindhome

dougzz wrote:

The money is essential, but so is how you spend it. Also in pure financial terms, as is covered in the inrng article the French teams are at a disadvantage because of the tax/legal systems.
Gilbert was a bad signing in terms of who they signed and what he's done since. Great rider to watch, but Sagan is more Gilbert than Gilbert these days.

Hushovd = Wiggins + Froome

Somethings not right there.

LutherB

ddraver wrote:

Gary Fairley ‏@StumpyRider
All this "panache" b*ll*cks about cycling. It's like a football team leading 4-0 at half time and then losing 5-4...

Have to agree with the man....

Kevin Keegan for DS anyone?

tailwindhome

LutherB wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Gary Fairley ‏@StumpyRider
All this "panache" b*ll*cks about cycling. It's like a football team leading 4-0 at half time and then losing 5-4...

Have to agree with the man....

Kevin Keegan for DS anyone?

Frenchfighter = Arsene Wenger?

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

deejay wrote:

You keep saying they are professionals and as such they are employed to get results for the business they are in.
It was boring enough with USPS and GT's will stay boring until another Contador comes along.

Or a salary cap comes along. It's in the transfer market that Sky do most of their damage.

Spot on. I guess if we want more excitement, we need more balanced teams.

But then cycling is capitalism at work, so it stands to reason you should be able to buy results.

How would a salary cap have impacted Sky if the comparatives with BMC posted earlier are true?

Sky and BMC spend their money differently. BMC went down the 'galactico' route and spent all their money on established stars at the very peak of their value, leaving little in the pot for the support staff.
Sky on the other hand have stockpiled a very large number of riders who can be in a selection of 20 on GT mountain stage, but not the top 5 - Porte, Cataldo, Sivitsov, Kiryenka, Uran, Henao, Knees, Lopez they've all been top 20 in a Grand Tour. And because most of them have little in the way of flashy palmares, they aren't too expensive, but can control a race quite effectively. Sky actually have very few consistent winners - Wiggins, EBH, Froome - that's it.
It's Sky's huge strength in depth that gives them their dominance - a salary cap would mean they would have less of these riders and have to stretch them a little more.

It's notable to me that Brailsford is friends with Alex Ferguson. Sky's recruitment is similar to Man Utd's. Ferguson has very rarely in his 26 years bought a ready made superstar at the top of their value (Van Persie, Ferdinand, Veron and Berbatov is about it I think. You could argue Rooney but he was only 18 at the time)

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

deejay wrote:

You keep saying they are professionals and as such they are employed to get results for the business they are in.
It was boring enough with USPS and GT's will stay boring until another Contador comes along.

Or a salary cap comes along. It's in the transfer market that Sky do most of their damage.

Spot on. I guess if we want more excitement, we need more balanced teams.

But then cycling is capitalism at work, so it stands to reason you should be able to buy results.

How would a salary cap have impacted Sky if the comparatives with BMC posted earlier are true?

Sky and BMC spend their money differently. BMC went down the 'galactico' route and spent all their money on established stars at the very peak of their value, leaving little in the pot for the support staff.
Sky on the other hand have stockpiled a very large number of riders who can be in a selection of 20 on GT mountain stage, but not the top 5 - Porte, Cataldo, Sivitsov, Kiryenka, Uran, Henao, Knees, Lopez they've all been top 20 in a Grand Tour. And because most of them have little in the way of flashy palmares, they aren't too expensive, but can control a race quite effectively. Sky actually have very few consistent winners - Wiggins, EBH, Froome - that's it.
It's Sky's huge strength in depth that gives them their dominance - a salary cap would mean they would have less of these riders and have to stretch them a little more.

It's notable to me that Brailsford is friends with Alex Ferguson. Sky's recruitment is similar to Man Utd's. Ferguson has very rarely in his 26 years bought a ready made superstar at the top of their value (Van Persie, Ferdinand, Veron and Berbatov is about it I think. You could argue Rooney but he was only 18 at the time)

Sorry. I'm being dense. If a rider's salary is capped at say £1m how does that impact the Sky train?

frenchfighter

No tA Doctor wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Sky are a stage race team. BMC are more for the other races. Lets see how they go in the GTs.

For a team that are apparently more for one day races, they've precious few results in them.
2011 they rocked the staged races with Evans, 2012 they took multiple stages in stage races and the white jersey in the tour.

I don't disagree. BMC are pretty shite given the talent they have for these races.

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Sorry. I'm being dense. If a rider's salary is capped at say £1m how does that impact the Sky train?

A salary cap refers to how much a team is allowed to spend on it's riders in total (ie it's total wage bill) not the salary of any particular individual.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Sorry. I'm being dense. If a rider's salary is capped at say £1m how does that impact the Sky train?

A salary cap refers to how much a team is allowed to spend on it's riders in total (ie it's total wage bill) not the salary of any particular individual.

It wouldn't be my understanding of the term - but I see where your coming from. I think your wrong, but I see where you coming from.

Are there comparatives to show that Sky total salary spend is significantly more than their main rivals?

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Are there comparatives to show that Sky total salary spend is significantly more than their main rivals?

I don't know of comparatives, but their annual report for 2011 is analysed here: http://inrng.com/2012/08/team-sky-budget-accounts/ - £11m on salaries (including staff) - currently about 12.5m euros, is definitely very big. Double the whole budget of some teams

Richmond Racer

Word given out is that their budget is the 4th or 5th highest

http://inrng.com/2012/08/team-sky-budget-accounts/