Criticism of the Sky train (may contain spoilers)

above_the_cows

Pross wrote:

Was just joking, it was an excellent and well written post with lots of big words I didn't understand - I think it said pretty much what I have been trying to say but without grammatical and spelling errors

Thanks, I thought you were but I don't like to come across like some pompous ar*e

skylla

Above The Cows wrote:

skylla wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Pross wrote:

Someone please ban Above the Cows for being far too intelligent and showing the rest of us up!

Sorry that wasn't my intention at all. There is lots of intelligent discussion on this forum, I'd say considerably more than you find in a lot of places (not all of them cycling related).

Above The Cows wrote:

Just because Sky deny doping it does not mean that they are doping, that is the most illogical argument I think I've ever heard.

Really!!? You might want to rephrase this a little.

Rephrase how? I don't understand. There are people saying that Sky's denials are the same as USPS' and thereby inferring that they must be doping. My point was that just because there is correlation between two events (denials in this instance) it does not mean that they are the same.

A does not equal B. Why is that illogical? Makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure it does to you too, but it's not what you're stating.

tailwindhome

frenchfighter wrote:

I mentioned the money. It's all about the money..

Except it's not.

If Sky don't have the biggest budget (4th or 5th according to Inner Ring)

and if Sky spend a smaller proportion of their budget on rider salaries (80% v 90%)

then it must logically follow that at least 3 teams are spending more than Sky on rider salaries.


Then how is a salary cap the answer?


As Rich posted it's about how well Sky have spent their money in achieving their objectives.


Folks. This is the nature of sport. Someone will always be the best. It's up to everyone else to devise a strategy to win or if it's a problem for the organisers/promoters devise a course which isn't tailor made for this strategy.


Are the HTC train still winning everything? Where there similar threads then?

ddraver

You.two seem to be arguing the exact same point....

Squirrelpie

Vaughters should stop bagging on about the money and use his physiological knowledge more constructively.

He likes to monitor performance and blood profiles of his team to prevent them from the temptation of doping.
Putting a strategy together based on the extensive testing that he does would be far more beneficial.

Richmond Racer

Above The Cows wrote:

Pross wrote:

Was just joking, it was an excellent and well written post with lots of big words I didn't understand - I think it said pretty much what I have been trying to say but without grammatical and spelling errors

Thanks, I thought you were but I don't like to come across like some pompous ar*e

Believe me, you're not even in the neutral zone of the Pompous Ar%e race, some have already crossed the finishing line and are back on the team bus on the way to their hotel

Pross

So could you say they are some sort of True Champions of pomposity?

Richmond Racer

Pross wrote:

So could you say they are some sort of True Champions of pomposity?

I think so. Another sign is overuse of :P in an effort to present something as snark

philbar72

Squirrelpie wrote:

Vaughters should stop bagging on about the money and use his physiological knowledge more constructively.

He likes to monitor performance and blood profiles of his team to prevent them from the temptation of doping.
Putting a strategy together based on the extensive testing that he does would be far more beneficial.

Perhaps he already does. perhaps the riders he has aren't quite up to it.

RichN95.

Squirrelpie wrote:

Vaughters should stop bagging on about the money and use his physiological knowledge more constructively.

He likes to monitor performance and blood profiles of his team to prevent them from the temptation of doping.
Putting a strategy together based on the extensive testing that he does would be far more beneficial.

Vaughters isn't really moaning about money though - he just points out the way things are. I think in many ways he prefers to be the underdog. And he's done well. They won the Giro and Paris-Roubaix with one of the worst budgets in the World Tour

ddraver

He has said that he would love to be able to do what Sky do in Tenerife but that he simply cannot afford to essentially book out a hotel for the season and pay for such coaching expertise etc...

I think that money talks in that area as well, not just purchasing the talent in the first place but making riders the best they can be.

Rich pointed out that low level hockey teams in that sporting hot bed of south wales employ full time coaches for each team, and a nutritionist for the club etc (same for my housemates hockey team in NL). There are many many big teams and riders who don't bother with such stuff and then act surprised when they have their ass handed to them...

Richmond Racer

Vaughters has quite a number of older riders on the squad.

One of his traits is that there are certain riders who he'll never let go of - DZ (34), CVV (almost 37), TD (35), and Mr Transitions himself, Farrar. Dave Millar (36) has a modest stake in Slipstream and is a fixture there, and will be till he retires. Klier (37)...and so on.

The first 3 will serve out their careers at GRM - that would have been the case anyway but it was also a condition of going to USADA - that they kept their jobs. Farrar...well, he's likely to be supplanted by Von Hoff as their best sprinter in the near future, I'd guess.

Of course a team needs to have some older, experienced guys who can show the young 'uns the ropes, and guide them through races. And I'm not knocking the job that some of those guys can do - CVV and DZ did a massive job for Ryder at the Giro, for example. But as the clock ticks, that's a lot of older guys occupying spots on the squad. Vaughters immense loyalty to certain riders might be a bit of a weakness, harsh though that sounds.


Just read Rich's post and agree - Vaughters does like being the plucky, wacky underdog but all kudos, GRM have won 2 of the biggest races on the planet. He and GRM are also a lot more into some of the science stuff than people assume - GRM and Sky have more in common than people might think...

mfin

If Sky weren't allowed to use a strategy, some of the crybabies would be happier. But they are allowed, same as every other team out there.

It all comes across to me like 'if only Sky didn't set a pace and everyone got to soft pedal a bit more until they chose to attack' the racing would be 'more exciting'.

The best thing about Sky's strategies, apart from the fact that they work, is that it means it naffs some people off and they get all miserable about it, which is very entertaining indeed and makes me smile a lot. (of course, swap the names of who wins to some of these people's favourite riders and they wouldn't be moaning).

I think its great watching teams failing to strategize against them effectively, and it will be great when a team cracks it. Like rumble in the jungle, it was the strategy that defeated a certain style that made it so wonderful.

(I also think it gets talked up as if Sky are completely dominant all the time, but they're not.)

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

Rich pointed out that low level hockey teams in that sporting hot bed of south wales employ full time coaches for each team, and a nutritionist for the club etc (same for my housemates hockey team in NL). There are many many big teams and riders who don't bother with such stuff and then act surprised when they have their ass handed to them...

To be fair, it's just my club that does all that. We're the Welsh Hockey equivalent to Sky - associated with UWIC (the Welsh equivalent of Loughborugh Uni).
And we're not low level - we're top of EHL West (ask you housemate) and in May will be in the hockey equivalent of the Europa League. We might be on Sky Sports next month too.

(When I say 'we', I'm not actually in the team, I'm club secretary)

Sorry to digress.

ddraver

OK, no offence intended, Hockey (UK or NL) is not something I know much about, I never had the co-ordination to be any use whatsoever (hence why i made an excellent front row rugby player). I ve been getting the impression that I ve seriously underestimated how good my housemate is recently too....

nic_77

Playing armchair DS for a while...

Stopping Sky from winning would appear to be pretty straight forward... attack the train all day and isolate their leader. The problem is that in all likelihood by stopping Sky from winning all you will achieve is the handing of the race to someone else.

What can you do then? Join forces with another team? Or try and pip Sky at their own game by sitting on the back of the train and jumping to gain seconds in the mountains? Well a rider like J-Rod can do this - but he is always going to throw it away in the TT. Contador can hold his own against the clock, but doesn't appear to have a reliable enough mountain sprint (right now at least). If you want to go this route, probably the easiest way to beat Sky right now would be to go after Chris Froome... it strikes me that he'd be pretty easy to unsettle / tempt over with a big pay packet.

Other than that... pick up a monster TTer and try and slim them down to hold position in the mountains. Tony Martin has tried with some limited success. It would have been interesting to have seen Cancellara try this earlier in his career - there was probably no point against the top dopers back then (whether or not he was clean himself).

Or, try to take same time in the flat / rolling / windy stages. Unfortunately this is always going to be difficult with the prestige of stage wins being so great. Dave Brailsford's latest tactical masterstroke is probably letting Cav leave for OPQS - Sky now have another team that will control every single flat stage for them (in the tour at least).


Regardless of whether other teams are successful in beating Sky, watching them try in the next few seasons will make for fascinating viewing. I may be a Sky fan, but I fail to see how the situation is boring for the informed spectator.

Now of course if racing becomes predictable (and that doesn't mean necessarily mean boring), then you can bet the race organisers will come up with something to shake it up.

rick_chasey

Dominant teams are the problem. Not their tactics.

danlikesbikes

But without a team dominating there would be no underdogs/antihero types of riders to suck it to them?

mfin

Rick Chasey wrote:

Dominant teams are the problem. Not their tactics.

They're dominant (if people conside them to be) cos they train in such a way that makes them be able to execute their tactics to best effect though surely? (and it works). Pretty simple principles really.

rick_chasey

mfin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Dominant teams are the problem. Not their tactics.

They're dominant (if people conside them to be) cos they train in such a way that makes them be able to execute their tactics to best effect though surely? (and it works). Pretty simple principles really.

I don't believe their training is different enough to other teams to warrant that difference

They've hired well and have talented riders who will ride for a greater cause. That's the difference. A guy who is capable of winning Paris Nice has been domestique for the past 2 years. Even Froome did that and he is capable of winning GTs.

inkyfingers

mfin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Dominant teams are the problem. Not their tactics.

They're dominant (if people conside them to be) cos they train in such a way that makes them be able to execute their tactics to best effect though surely? (and it works). Pretty simple principles really.

They are dominant because they have very good riders, but mostly because they have recruited the right type of riders, ones that follow orders and are not just good domestiques, but are riders who are happy happy to absolutely destroy themselves for the team.

Dam, Rick appeared out of nowhere to beat me to it.

Turfle

OPQS have been just as dominant in one-day races, because they, like Sky, have a ridiculous amount of 2nd and 3rd tier talent for their type of races. Both teams could put 2 contending teams into each major race. Both teams play to their strengths better than the other teams; HTC/Columbia were the same.

Pross

Are Sky even that dominant? They dominated the Tour last year but not the other 2 GTs and then a handful of high profile one week stage races. They didn't win a lot else though and were pilloried for their Classics performances including their inability to chase down a lone Tom Boonen. I'm not sure that counts as dominating. What they do exceptionally well is target races and put all their resources into them.

mfin

inkyfingers wrote:

mfin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Dominant teams are the problem. Not their tactics.

They're dominant (if people conside them to be) cos they train in such a way that makes them be able to execute their tactics to best effect though surely? (and it works). Pretty simple principles really.

They are dominant because they have very good riders, but mostly because they have recruited the right type of riders, ones that follow orders and are not just good domestiques, but are riders who are happy happy to absolutely destroy themselves for the team.

Dam, Rick appeared out of nowhere to beat me to it.

Sort of what I mean really. The riders execute the tactics as a team, and train to do so too Id imagine. (I don't just mean train as in the regime of how all the miles are clocked up)

Anyway, it makes a few people moan and be miserable, so its all good in my book.

above_the_cows

skylla wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

skylla wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Pross wrote:

Someone please ban Above the Cows for being far too intelligent and showing the rest of us up!

Sorry that wasn't my intention at all. There is lots of intelligent discussion on this forum, I'd say considerably more than you find in a lot of places (not all of them cycling related).

Above The Cows wrote:

Just because Sky deny doping it does not mean that they are doping, that is the most illogical argument I think I've ever heard.

Really!!? You might want to rephrase this a little.

Rephrase how? I don't understand. There are people saying that Sky's denials are the same as USPS' and thereby inferring that they must be doping. My point was that just because there is correlation between two events (denials in this instance) it does not mean that they are the same.

A does not equal B. Why is that illogical? Makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure it does to you too, but it's not what you're stating.

Err as DD says I am arguing that A does not automatically equal B. That is what correlation is not causation means. I don't know why you think I'm arguing something else? I am arguing against the people who suggest that because Sky deny doping like others who have denied doping but in fact were doping it must mean Sky are also doping. Of course if you take one sentence of my post out of context like you have above you might be able to make it mean what you want it to mean but that would just be a little unfair, I'm not sure I deserve the Hilary Mantel treatment.

Vino'sGhost

powerbookboy wrote:

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.

Well Thanks for the abuse re educated posts and blanket denials, I said i don't believe it and i don't. I also expect if it all falls to pieces that you guys will have known all along etc etc.

and remember this is 1 week only without the same sized climbs etc, I would have thought the dominance would be less pronounced. with less opportunity to show it.

Now i know this view wont sit well with some but it doesnt make me a dick head or badly educated. Infact, as an observer my opinion is informed by 30 years of watching this stuff. that doesnt make me a troll unless the only views or perspectives allowed are those that meet approval of the fan club.

Monty Dog

Most pro riders train alone or in informal groups and only ride together at races - consequently, whilst riders are given individual programmes, it's likely that they're all peaking for different objectives. Few teams train for specific events as a team simply because they can't afford it. Sky's focus appears to be getting the whole team to peak for specific events - whilst it does smack of USPS/Disco re-fuelled by Ferrari, their watt/kg figures suggest otherwise - just that they're ruthlessly efficient at applying their training methodologies.

Rundfahrt

ddraver wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

You'd better watch out jerry3571, I made many of the same points and comparisons during the Tour last year and got banned, conveniently, for the exact number of days remaining in the Tour...while those attacking and insulting me received nothing. This is a Sky slobbering forum.

No, you got banned for being a d1ckhead...

Rich's list of riders, results and their teams is your answer Phreak...Remember in 10 years time there will be a new team doing the exact same thing and we ll all be saying they re boring and 10 years ago everything was panache filled and amazing.

Nice response, exactly the same thing you (and the other Sky slobbers) did on here during the Tour...but escaped a ban. I have to give you props for doing an excellent job of giving a perfect example of what I am talking about.

alihisgreat

Rundfahrt wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

You'd better watch out jerry3571, I made many of the same points and comparisons during the Tour last year and got banned, conveniently, for the exact number of days remaining in the Tour...while those attacking and insulting me received nothing. This is a Sky slobbering forum.

No, you got banned for being a d1ckhead...

Rich's list of riders, results and their teams is your answer Phreak...Remember in 10 years time there will be a new team doing the exact same thing and we ll all be saying they re boring and 10 years ago everything was panache filled and amazing.

Nice response, exactly the same thing you (and the other Sky slobbers) did on here during the Tour...but escaped a ban. I have to give you props for doing an excellent job of giving a perfect example of what I am talking about.

and you continue.. what does 'slobbers' even mean?

Rundfahrt

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

You'd better watch out jerry3571, I made many of the same points and comparisons during the Tour last year and got banned, conveniently, for the exact number of days remaining in the Tour...while those attacking and insulting me received nothing. This is a Sky slobbering forum.

No, you got banned for being a d1ckhead...

Rich's list of riders, results and their teams is your answer Phreak...Remember in 10 years time there will be a new team doing the exact same thing and we ll all be saying they re boring and 10 years ago everything was panache filled and amazing.

Nice response, exactly the same thing you (and the other Sky slobbers) did on here during the Tour...but escaped a ban. I have to give you props for doing an excellent job of giving a perfect example of what I am talking about.

and you continue.. what does 'slobbers' even mean?

The question you should be asking is why it is ok for a member to call someone else a name like that for pointing out a fact that they do not like without any sort of punishment.

I'm betting you guys would be howling with anger if I was the one posting things like that towards the posters that slobber over Sky...especially if I did it over and over like ddraver.