Criticism of the Sky train (may contain spoilers)

ddraver

Mikkel Condé v2.0 ‏@mrconde
Contador: "I'll use SRM data to plan my tactic against Sky in the Tour" Nibali: "Maybe we should ban power output numbers instead of radios"

Contador: "I had seen the working system of Sky on TV, but never live, w/ numbers and SRM. This will help me to plan the tactic in the Tour”

Seems Bertie is learning...

frenchfighter

A mountain train is useful for riders that are good TT riders who are used to sustaining a consistent high output. Real climbers struggle a lot in these conditions and so you are whittled down fairly quickly, reducing the potential number of GC threats. Do this day in day out and each day hope to catch a few more out. Then at the TT

It is a psychological benefit to have the upper hand and better team on your opponents. It is also psychological draining to think that if you attack there will be very expensive power trains solely focused on drawing you back in.

You can dictate a pace that works for you but may not work for many of the others.

You don't have to think much about a plan or regulating your pace which keeps you fresher.

Although drafting is less effective, drafting into a headwind on a climb still has significant benefits.

-

I would love to see other teams without the Sky train super domestiques combine forces. A pre-arranged, two pronged attack by Nibali and Contador on opposite sides of the road would be a joy to behold.

I agree with sentiments that the other teams should send strong riders into the breaks where possible and try and bridge. Don't worry too much about having too many in the peloton and just let Sky ride on the front.

The climbs of the Giro are much harder to control by one team compared to the Tour.

-

Turfle wrote:

Watching contenders crack is every bit as much fun as watching them attack. Watching them yo-yo, then gently slide forever off the back is one of the great sights in cycling.

I agree with this sentiment but it is case dependant. It is a joy to watch in a one day race when a handful of strong men are riding the rest of their wheels, or on a climb when a handful of nimble riders are moving away together. IMO, it is another thing entirely when it is a whole team is doing it.

I see your point also about the Liquigas Giro squad. I agree somewhat with that and I did enjoy it sometimes when they did it. If they did it every race, every day I would tire of it quickly. It was also very different to Sky, in that the speed and duration wasn't as strong and there were still attacks that managed to go, as well as the Liquigas top riders showing their own flair from much further out, rather than from 1km from the line.

-

Milton50 wrote:

Can anyone name a stage since 2011 when any of the big GC names have been able to put, say, 1 min+ into their opponents through an attack on the final climb?

Large time gaps are really not going to happen much more given the strength in depth. However there have been countless attacks where they have gained 30 odd secs, or even a couple of mins. The key is to do it several times in a GT and then the small gains add up. It is great for the fans as you get more excitement per stage as well as keeping the GC more open leading to unpredictability, also exciting for the fans. The small gaps goes for Contador as well - he never monstered the field for 5mins, he just attacked repeatedly and stacked the gains as well as limiting his losses well on a bad day.

-

jerry3571 wrote:

An unbelievable ride yesterday. Kiryienka had the whole group behind drawn out in a long line for tens of miles yesterday and just drew back all the attacks all by himself.

Including attacks by the mighty Chavanel and Grivko together...I really rued the day Sky signed him as I like him a lot, been watching him since he won the Grio stage for Tinkoff. He is a superb rider, has flair and style on the bike, but is a monster man to be putting on the front.

Remember his ride over Finestre? He won it for Tondo with huge passion. Don't think we are ever going to see this at Sky. It's another reason I dislike them - they take very good riders in their own right and turn them into workhorses and occasionally give them the scraps. Does wonders for their bank balances but little for the fans.



I also greeted the news that Cavendish was leaving Sky with jubilation. He is an amazing rider and will now, and already has, been given the respect he deserves from his team and it is reaping dividends.

-

Turfle wrote:

I do wonder if it will lead to frustration, and increase the temptation to dope in order to beat it.

Interesting point. I hadn't thought of it but I suppose it has some validity.

-

Keep up the riding Phreak. Saw you out last Sunday unless I mistook you.

gsk82

Where's the thread about boring katusha sucking wheel all day and Rodriguez sprinting away on the short sharp finish? Its so predictable...

Macaloon

TailWindHome wrote:

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?

The salary cap in the NFL is assessed across the squad. Individuals can be paid as much as you want within the overall limit. But then the NFL is almost pure Socialism (ironic, n'est pas?) in that revenues are shared and the worst teams get the first picks of promising rookie talent. And they're franchises with guaranteed fixtures...

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for other big budget teams to adjust to the Sky approach. I suspect the historical reliance on one or two star riders is so embedded that they won't get round to poaching Sky staff for a while. Anybody know if Sean Yates' parachute payment came with non-compete strings?

Jez mon

I think though, the secret to keeping the NFL exciting is as alluded to above, the draft system. Also, the nature of the play offs, in contrast to say NHL (where they use a best of 7 series) means that upsets are more likely. It's the difference between a classic and a GT.

Anyway, getting back on topic, I think the best way to beat sky is going to have to be to beat Wiggo and Froome in the TTs.

Macaloon

frenchfighter wrote:

snip

jerry3571 wrote:

An unbelievable ride yesterday. Kiryienka had the whole group behind drawn out in a long line for tens of miles yesterday and just drew back all the attacks all by himself.

Including attacks by the mighty Chavanel and Grivko together...I really rued the day Sky signed him as I like him a lot, been watching him since he won the Grio stage for Tinkoff. He is a superb rider, has flair and style on the bike, but is a monster man to be putting on the front.

Remember his ride over Finestre? He won it for Tondo with huge passion. Don't think we are ever going to see this at Sky. It's another reason I dislike them - they take very good riders in their own right and turn them into workhorses and occasionally give them the scraps. Does wonders for their bank balances but little for the fans.



snip

Generally well-argued post. But I think you're wrong that Sky only have cash to offer riders like Kiryienka. Look at what they've done with Porte. First chance Sky had to give him a lead role after being Brad's pilot fish they give him a 'sedan chair' ride to a GC win. I suspect in addition to the cash, Sky can offer talented riders a better than average chance of padding their palmares.

Richmond Racer

Macaloon wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

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?

The salary cap in the NFL is assessed across the squad. Individuals can be paid as much as you want within the overall limit. But then the NFL is almost pure Socialism (ironic, n'est pas?) in that revenues are shared and the worst teams get the first picks of promising rookie talent. And they're franchises with guaranteed fixtures...

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for other big budget teams to adjust to the Sky approach. I suspect the historical reliance on one or two star riders is so embedded that they won't get round to poaching Sky staff for a while. Anybody know if Sean Yates' parachute payment came with non-compete strings?

Could be massively wrong but I get the feeling that Yates was well and truly done i.e. had enough, with all the doping stuff through the Tour, all the social media crap, and then of course the full USADA report, the Motoman connection and the way attention turned to him. He's got his coaching business going with Jon Sharples, and I dont think we'll see him back in any team car for a long time, if ever. I think he's done with the bear pit it had all become. (And before anyone shouts, I'm not making excuses, just stating what I suspect is his view)

And if I were wrong on this front...Surdave is famous for watertight contractual agreements with departing staff, allegedly.

Macaloon

Yates isn't the best example: shorthand for specialist coaches Kerrison, Julich (as was etc). Seems like the fastest way to catch up would be to copy the secret formula. So secret in fact that everybody with a Twitter account knows the recipe. And yet this is year 2... What is the Contador/Riis plan to counter the Sky Train?

tailwindhome

Macaloon wrote:

And yet this is year 2... What is the Contador/Riis plan to counter the Sky Train?

Did Contador not win the Vuelta?

RichN95.

It all really boils down to this. Four or five B grade riders working together will ride faster that an A grade rider on his own except in the last kilometre or so.
Therefore, if you have a huge pile of B grade riders then your leader (an A grade rider) will never lose much time. Then you just have to make sure you have the best TTing GC rider (and train that quality)

Macaloon

TailWindHome wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

And yet this is year 2... What is the Contador/Riis plan to counter the Sky Train?

Did Contador not win the Vuelta?

Sure. But against a knackered Froome. This year maybe a fresh(er) Uran gets his reward. Everybody knows how Sky is going to ride. I was hoping that Contador would have taken the challenge more seriously: meaning bring a team to compete.

Macaloon

But this will all seem like a storm in a teacup when it turns out that Kerrison has the classics squad riding to his power profiles of Cancellara|Roubaix 2010 or Boonen|Roubaix 2012 resulting in a train of Hayman, Stannard, G/EBH fast enough to suppress attacks...

I know there are many more variables, but would anybody be surprised if Sky did exactly this and it worked?

RichN95.

Macaloon wrote:

But this will all seem like a storm in a teacup when it turns out that Kerrison has the classics squad riding to his power profiles of Cancellara|Roubaix 2010 or Boonen|Roubaix 2012 resulting in a train of Hayman, Stannard, G/EBH fast enough to suppress attacks...

I know there are many more variables, but would anybody be surprised if Sky did exactly this and it worked?

I fully expect them to try something just like that. They will certainly look to have several riders involved in the denouement. The problem with one day races though, is you have to cross the line first - something you don't actually have to do to win a stage race.

Pross

It's strange how the people who were laughing at Sky for their clueless riding in 2010 are now moaning because they went away and came back with a plan and the riders to execute it. Sky was set up first and foremost to win stage races which makes sense as they are more controllable, they brought in the riders to do this and despite everyone being wise after the event I didn't see huge queues trying to sign the likes of Froome, Rogers, Porte or Uran so to try to argue they have somehow just opened the cheque book to bring in the best super domestiques is possibly stretching the facts. They picked up some promising young riders, some proven stage race outsiders and took a chance on others and devised a training routine to ride in a particular way which has been effective and which others are going to have to work to counteract (oh, and of course they developed a top secret new doping regime).

mroli

Macaloon wrote:

But this will all seem like a storm in a teacup when it turns out that Kerrison has the classics squad riding to his power profiles of Cancellara|Roubaix 2010 or Boonen|Roubaix 2012 resulting in a train of Hayman, Stannard, G/EBH fast enough to suppress attacks...

The Boulting piece on Stannard in this month's Rouleur has Stannard saying exactly that. That when Boonen rode away in Paris Roubaix, Sky cocked it up because they had 5 riders riding as individuals, not as a team.

iainf72

If I was running a team, who were up against Sky, I'd be breaking the problem down into 2 pieces

1) How can we stop Sky winning / dominating these races

and then

2) How could we win in that world

You'll end up with a situation like Chinny in the classics where he's left to do everything.

Problem is sponsors won't play that.

gsk82

Sky already do everything and seem to just get on with it.

ddraver

See the trouble there iain is that you re trying to beat Sky by THINKING like Sky!

*evil whisper* you re becoming one of them...... People will be saying you re an evil doper, acting like armstrong and have no panache soon!!

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

But this will all seem like a storm in a teacup when it turns out that Kerrison has the classics squad riding to his power profiles of Cancellara|Roubaix 2010 or Boonen|Roubaix 2012 resulting in a train of Hayman, Stannard, G/EBH fast enough to suppress attacks...

I know there are many more variables, but would anybody be surprised if Sky did exactly this and it worked?

I fully expect them to try something just like that. They will certainly look to have several riders involved in the denouement. The problem with one day races though, is you have to cross the line first - something you don't actually have to do to win a stage race.

Good point. Line-fever requires icy-veins.

iainf72

ddraver wrote:

See the trouble there iain is that you re trying to beat Sky by THINKING like Sky!

*evil whisper* you re becoming one of them...... People will be saying you re an evil doper, acting like armstrong and have no panache soon!!

My nightmare is Sky hire a rider I actually like. That would be an awful scenario.

So if Sky are doing everything, then how can you make them do more?

RichN95.

To fight Sky in the stage races you have to make them work hard for their control. That means getting genuinely threatening riders in the early breaks. And with more people in the break.
If you let them ride at their convenience until the final climb you're going to be up against it. Remember at the Tour when Eisel and Cav lead the peloton over a Cat 1 climb - that's just playing into their hands.

deejay

Pross wrote:

It's strange how the people who were laughing at Sky for their clueless riding in 2010 are now moaning because they went away and came back with a plan and the riders to execute it. Sky was set up first and foremost to win stage races which makes sense as they are more controllable, they brought in the riders to do this and despite everyone being wise after the event I didn't see huge queues trying to sign the likes of Froome, Rogers, Porte or Uran so to try to argue they have somehow just opened the cheque book to bring in the best super domestiques is possibly stretching the facts. They picked up some promising young riders, some proven stage race outsiders and took a chance on others and devised a training routine to ride in a particular way which has been effective and which others are going to have to work to counteract

We seem to be nearly on the same page. Where is Rogers now.??

deejay wrote:

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.

deejay

TailWindHome wrote:

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.

The answer that RichN95 gave is correct in the USA " National Football League" (NFL).
The scheme is to spread the Talent around and thereby make the League more competitive.
A team will have to recruit new/young talent while they can get some expensive "out of contract" veterans.
In USA football the coaches play a very important part in the game because it comes very near a chess game.

jerry3571

Blimey! This is all a bit like the whole LA and Bruyneel thing never happened. When a Team can dominate in 2 races at the same time and duff over every other Team then something is up.
I read an article about Kerrison and his new Jedi ways and to be honest, I'm sure Ferrari knew a bit more than this newbie. If Sky are blitzing it because Kerrison says do intervals in the early season and Brailsford gets wheels which are round then I'm Mary Poppins.
Lets not forget that a doping bill for Ullrich about 10 years ago was about £35k a year then a Team with a bigger budget will have more resources for doping.
Sky (probably) don't ride as fast as USPS because the anti doping have tightened up on blood parameters which is why the GCs are now closer. Everybody is (probably) riding with the same blood parameters.

It's like the problems of doping over the last 15 years is for nought. Let's not forget that the testers are years off detecting todays doping. I just don't buy it.

ddraver

But the Mercx thing and the Vos thing is fine though.....

Macaloon

jerry3571 wrote:

...

It's like the problems of doping over the last 15 years is for nought. Let's not forget that the testers are years off detecting todays doping. I just don't buy it.

This thread is in danger of wearing some good strategy chin-stroking. Without trampling on your rights to free speech, any chance we can keep the "Sky are dopers" to one of the containment threads? Ta

Pross

jerry3571 wrote:

Blimey! This is all a bit like the whole LA and Bruyneel thing never happened. When a Team can dominate in 2 races at the same time and duff over every other Team then something is up.
I read an article about Kerrison and his new Jedi ways and to be honest, I'm sure Ferrari knew a bit more than this newbie. If Sky are blitzing it because Kerrison says do intervals in the early season and Brailsford gets wheels which are round then I'm Mary Poppins.
Lets not forget that a doping bill for Ullrich about 10 years ago was about £35k a year then a Team with a bigger budget will have more resources for doping.
Sky (probably) don't ride as fast as USPS because the anti doping have tightened up on blood parameters which is why the GCs are now closer. Everybody is (probably) riding with the same blood parameters.

It's like the problems of doping over the last 15 years is for nought. Let's not forget that the testers are years off detecting todays doping. I just don't buy it.

By dominating 2 races you mean dominating the last part of 1 stage in each of those races I assume? OPQS dominated the early part of T-A so they must be doping too.

edhornby

Rich is dead right - and when the last big climbs come, let the other team leaders sit on and take it in turns to go off the top

other logical answer is to buy allegiance, multiteam tactics

Jez mon

jerry3571 wrote:

Blimey! This is all a bit like the whole LA and Bruyneel thing never happened. When a Team can dominate in 2 races at the same time and duff over every other Team then something is up.
I read an article about Kerrison and his new Jedi ways and to be honest, I'm sure Ferrari knew a bit more than this newbie. If Sky are blitzing it because Kerrison says do intervals in the early season and Brailsford gets wheels which are round then I'm Mary Poppins.
Lets not forget that a doping bill for Ullrich about 10 years ago was about £35k a year then a Team with a bigger budget will have more resources for doping.
Sky (probably) don't ride as fast as USPS because the anti doping have tightened up on blood parameters which is why the GCs are now closer. Everybody is (probably) riding with the same blood parameters.

It's like the problems of doping over the last 15 years is for nought. Let's not forget that the testers are years off detecting todays doping. I just don't buy it.

Lets not forget the need for at least some kind of evidence, nor the fact that they aren't really dominating either race. Dominating implies absolutely creaming the opposition and leaving them for dead, what sky are doing is less dramatic than that. Plus, pretty much everyone has sent their A team to T-A, it's not like Sky have two teams of riders who are miles ahead of the best in the world.

ddraver

let us not also forget that Jerry is a fully paid up member of the tinfoil hat brigade and also thinks that George Bush orchestrated 9/11, that we re all controlled by the New World Order and that Dave Brailsford is an alien repticon from beyond the moon...


Brothers!!