Future of Sky Procycling
Comments
-
mike6 wrote:The problem is the media, and some supporters, expect top sports people to be "Personalities" when in most instances they are ordinary people who have an extraordinary gift for a certain sport. Its a bit unfair to expect them to also do a stand up act when interviewed.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/spo ... 21128509520 -
The media narrative is pernicious. Even the good guys of the Cycling Podcast reflexively reach for Brailsford anecdotes when commenting on a piece of news. Unfortunately the guru is currently free-wheelin' coyote-style off the cliff edge. It's going to be a hard fall when they get round to comparing words with results.
On the challenge of building a team, Brailsford admits: “I’ve had some brilliant, brilliant athletes but relatively few brilliant teams.”
And when it came to selecting his nine-man team for the Tour, he says, “We all have favourites, but my job is to sit and look at this from a logical point of view. And the single lens I look at it through is winning.”
That, he says, meant “building a team around Chris… It isn’t about going for your nine strongest riders. In our experience after about nine or 10 days people start to get on each other’s nerves. And you have to take that into consideration.
“What’s the difference between a group of individuals and a team? A group of individuals is nowhere near as cohesive. It’s why we put so much emphasis on the team. In my experience it’s a really hard thing to do. I’ve had some brilliant, brilliant athletes but relatively few brilliant teams.
http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/stage-4-dave-brailsford-opens-up...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Coachb wrote:I think the stage of the Dauphine Finhaut-Emosson shows that Sky/ Froome need a new plan.
Sky's plan was for Porte to drag Froome up till the last KM at which time Froome would unleash his Kick. Contador took off a bit earlier and kicked Froomes ar%%. More of interest was the fact that Talansky rode up with the Sky Train and also beat Froome. Sky's control will not always work against riders in such form. Look at the pace of this tour. The Sky boys have been blown out of the water. The Tempo has been very fast. I would like to see a rider like Froome and Sky race a bit more on instinct. If plan A does not work then it all falls to bits. Look at Braislford at Olympics. It was all about Cav. Once he was out that was it, there was no plan b or any rider even attempting a plan B. They have vast amounts of money and resources. IMO they have also been a bit arrogant.
Status right now is ...all the gear no idea.
Froome was pretty battered from his crash the day before. Instinct and plans are meaningless if your leg is one massive bruise, you've just got to struggle on and hope it's a bit better the next day.0 -
That stage in Dauphine - he had crashed heavily the day before. Prior to that he'd won the time trial and first mountain stage.Coachb wrote:I think the stage of the Dauphine Finhaut-Emosson shows that Sky/ Froome need a new plan.
Sky's plan was for Porte to drag Froome up till the last KM at which time Froome would unleash his Kick. Contador took off a bit earlier and kicked Froomes ar%%. More of interest was the fact that Talansky rode up with the Sky Train and also beat Froome. Sky's control will not always work against riders in such form. Look at the pace of this tour. The Sky boys have been blown out of the water. The Tempo has been very fast. I would like to see a rider like Froome and Sky race a bit more on instinct. If plan A does not work then it all falls to bits. Look at Braislford at Olympics. It was all about Cav. Once he was out that was it, there was no plan b or any rider even attempting a plan B. They have vast amounts of money and resources. IMO they have also been a bit arrogant.
Status right now is ...all the gear no idea.
As for the tempo of the Tour - it would played right into Froome's hands. Doing Sky's job for them. They ideal want to leave team leaders with no (or maybe one) teammates with about 5km to go. Porte, Nieve and Thomas were all riding well until Porte got sick and they lost their reason to ride.
And as I've previously said on another thread. Plan Bs very rarely work at the Tour, unless Plan A wasn't that good in the first place.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Coachb wrote:Ok. Garmin. A team who do ride on instinct and are happy to blow a race apart, Have some of the most talented riders yet somehow always fall a bit short at the tour. They do seem to have more than their share of bad luck.
I would say they could do a lot better.
Re. Garmin I happened upon a thread on the american Triathlon website Slowtwitch which includes a comment from Sep Vanmarcke's cousin http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=5170200#5170200. Suggests the reality is a bit different from the image they like to portray.WRT Talansky's team: its all well for us armchair road captains to claim that there is a team dynamic problem at GS but I guess only those on the team actually know. If Talansky lost the respect of his team by acting like a prima donna and making Cat 5 racing mistakes, well, he woudn't be the first to do that. But thats a big IF, based on a bunch on internet gossip. GS may be fine for all I know. I read somewhere else that Talansky told the team to keep riding so perhaps they just did that.
When my cousin rode for Garmin it was very obvious there was no team spirit. Racing was more like a 'job' where you did what you were told to do. When Sep won the Omloop het NIeuwsblad he wasn't even allowed to race for himself originally, and had to call his manager to talk to Vaughters. It's just an example about a distant relationship with awkward communication between people. The rest of the riders would also never meet with each other or train together, they only looked at each other as coworkers who would work together during certain races. THat's why he loves Belkin now - while they don't have any rockstars on the team, they really ride as a team and a big group of friends including the staff. Very different dynamic.0 -
Maybe they should be like you instead then and abandon everything that has been successful in the past as a massive knee-jerk overreaction to what is nothing that more than a standard bit of bad luck.Macaloon wrote:The media narrative is pernicious. Even the good guys of the Cycling Podcast reflexively reach for Brailsford anecdotes when commenting on a piece of news. Unfortunately the guru is currently free-wheelin' coyote-style off the cliff edge. It's going to be a hard fall when they get round to comparing words with results.
For you and others, Sky's major failing seems to be not having hindsight.
Some of you need to realise that in sport every team, no matter how good, loses from time to time. And in cycling they lose more often than they win.Twitter: @RichN950 -
If Porte hadn't got a chest infection had defended his second place on GC would people still be saying things need to change?
No.
Sometimes you need lady luck on your side. Sky don't have that right now.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:If Porte hadn't got a chest infection had defended his second place on GC would people still be saying things need to change?
No.
Sometimes you need lady luck on your side. Sky don't have that right now.
I think there's so many what if's in cycling, it's pretty hard to say how things would pan out and what people would say.
Human nature what it is though people will always have an opinion and think they know best
"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
If your plan A is significantly better than your plan B, then invest ALL of your resources into plan A. It would be more shameful to water down and jeopardise plan A merely to present a plan B, if that plan B is not as credible.Coachb wrote:Look at Braislford at Olympics. It was all about Cav. Once he was out that was it, there was no plan b or any rider even attempting a plan B. They have vast amounts of money and resources. IMO they have also been a bit arrogant.
It's a simple case of go big or go home.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:If Porte hadn't got a chest infection had defended his second place on GC would people still be saying things need to change?
No.
Sometimes you need lady luck on your side. Sky don't have that right now.
Indeed. Still fairly confused by this thread (beyond the reflexive Sky-bashing, which I kind of understand, in a cycling version of "Anyone But United").
All this talk with 20-20 hindsight about the lack of Plan B's just leads me to the same conclusion - Sky (and MANY other teams, e.g. Tinkoff, as mentioned above) focus everything on Plan A. They make the not unreasonable starting point: "If you spend your time working out Plans B thru Z, your Plan A will fail".
Overall, perfomance seems to me to be more effective putting everything into your main plan, everything for Plan A, and accepting (as SDB appears to have) that sometimes, this won't come off.@shraap | My Men 2016: G, Yogi, Cav, Boonen, Degenkolb, Martin, J-Rod, Kudus, Chaves0 -
If Froome is the dominant rider and he has a strong team the tactics are simple.
It looks like there will be 2-3 others on a similar level next year and Sky seem unable to get their best riders in form on the start line (Wiggins, Porte, Henao, Kennaugh all either missing or off form). Armstrong won year on year because he was the strongest (ok we know why) but also because he was a great bike handler, had the strongest team and was lucky.
Froome may or may not be the strongest (if I had to pick I'd say he still edges it) but his team haven't been, his bike handling is not the best (not saying it's the worst but others are better), you can't guarantee luck and he can't guarantee other teams wont dope either. In those circumstances is putting so much emphasis on one race with one rider sensible?
I think Sky do need to look at getting the most out of their squad over the season. Thomas should not have been working for EBH/Wiggins at Roubaix, Swift could do more, Wiggins is being wasted and if they think he is finished why re-sign him? They also need to get their best riders inform and on the start at the Tour - at comes down to training methods and selection which means managing personal differences well in advance and if they can't be managed get rid. Finally their tactics do need to be more flexible, they are too conservative.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
RichN95 wrote:In 2013 they were fine. They had some misfortunes, which they dealt with. Stage 10 was a little weird but they got through it. Porte was generally there when they needed him. Kennaugh too.
I think the problem your having is that you think that because they didn't ride in the same ultra defensive manner that they had in 2012. Froome and Wiggins are different riders so they ride in different ways for them.
As for rethinking strategy - what needs rethinking? Have better luck. That's it. Grand Tour tactics are usually pretty straightforward. The strongest rider usually wins.
Not really. Froome doesn't need a train to ride the attack out of his competition in the same way as Wiggins did. That's clear. But I don't share your view that they were fine in 2013. As I recall there was plenty of talk about riders such as Kiryienka and Siutsou being cooked on arrival. Fair enough. Try not to do that again.
Unlike every other team in the peloton, they conceded the 2014 Giro GC fight to field the strongest possible team for the Tour. And having bad-lucked their way to releasing their climbing star (Nieve) they appear to have over-cooked him. Are they BMC in disguise?
I'm not talking about tactics on-the-road, btw. It's more about preparing riders for the rigours of a season. You'd think that might be worth a ponder?...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
nic_77 wrote:
If your plan A is significantly better than your plan B, then invest ALL of your resources into plan A. It would be more shameful to water down and jeopardise plan A merely to present a plan B, if that plan B is not as credible.Coachb wrote:Look at Braislford at Olympics. It was all about Cav. Once he was out that was it, there was no plan b or any rider even attempting a plan B. They have vast amounts of money and resources. IMO they have also been a bit arrogant.
It's a simple case of go big or go home.
True.
Kind of like being risk averse or a risk taker in life.
If you truly believe in your ability and you have the resources behind you to back it up then go for plan A, take that risk.
Too many people will be happy to rely on a plan B, coming second, whatever you want to call it, it starts in schools when children get told that taking part in sport is all that counts, that it doesn't matter if you win.....bullshit, you play to win.
Froome wouldn't set out at the start of the TDF thinking I fancy coming second :roll:"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
nic_77 wrote:
If your plan A is significantly better than your plan B, then invest ALL of your resources into plan A. It would be more shameful to water down and jeopardise plan A merely to present a plan B, if that plan B is not as credible.Coachb wrote:Look at Braislford at Olympics. It was all about Cav. Once he was out that was it, there was no plan b or any rider even attempting a plan B. They have vast amounts of money and resources. IMO they have also been a bit arrogant.
It's a simple case of go big or go home.
True.
Kind of like being risk averse or a risk taker in life.
If you truly believe in your ability and you have the resources behind you to back it up then go for plan A, take that risk.
Too many people will be happy to rely on a plan B, coming second, whatever you want to call it, it starts in schools when children get told that taking part in sport is all that counts, that it doesn't matter if you win.....bullshit, you play to win.
Froome wouldn't set out at the start of the TDF thinking I fancy coming second :roll:"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
nic_77 wrote:
If your plan A is significantly better than your plan B, then invest ALL of your resources into plan A. It would be more shameful to water down and jeopardise plan A merely to present a plan B, if that plan B is not as credible.Coachb wrote:Look at Braislford at Olympics. It was all about Cav. Once he was out that was it, there was no plan b or any rider even attempting a plan B. They have vast amounts of money and resources. IMO they have also been a bit arrogant.
It's a simple case of go big or go home.
True.
Kind of like being risk averse or a risk taker in life.
If you truly believe in your ability and you have the resources behind you to back it up then go for plan A, take that risk.
Too many people will be happy to rely on a plan B, coming second, whatever you want to call it, it starts in schools when children get told that taking part in sport is all that counts, that it doesn't matter if you win.....bullshit, you play to win.
Froome wouldn't set out at the start of the TDF thinking I fancy coming second :roll:"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
They didn't concede the Giro GC fight. They didn't have any options for it. And Nieve has trained to do a specific job, a job which no longer exists.Macaloon wrote:Unlike every other team in the peloton, they conceded the 2014 Giro GC fight to field the strongest possible team for the Tour. And having bad-lucked their way to releasing their climbing star (Nieve) they appear to have over-cooked him. Are they BMC in disguise?
You seem to what some sort of perfect team where every decision is a right one. It won't happen. Ever.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you loseTwitter: @RichN950 -
chrisday wrote:Above The Cows wrote:If Porte hadn't got a chest infection had defended his second place on GC would people still be saying things need to change?
No.
Sometimes you need lady luck on your side. Sky don't have that right now.
Indeed. Still fairly confused by this thread (beyond the reflexive Sky-bashing, which I kind of understand, in a cycling version of "Anyone But United").
How bad does a performance have to be before a critique is justified? It's completely fine to disagree with the assessment of their performance. But to dismiss criticism as "reflexive" is just... "weird".
On the Porte illness. Which story is true? The immediate post-race Porte and Brailsford interviews where they both said he was fine, just a bad day. Or the later tales of sickness? They really need to stop taking the p1ss....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
nic_77 wrote:
If your plan A is significantly better than your plan B, then invest ALL of your resources into plan A. It would be more shameful to water down and jeopardise plan A merely to present a plan B, if that plan B is not as credible.Coachb wrote:Look at Braislford at Olympics. It was all about Cav. Once he was out that was it, there was no plan b or any rider even attempting a plan B. They have vast amounts of money and resources. IMO they have also been a bit arrogant.
It's a simple case of go big or go home.
Quite. If you have one of the three big favorits for the race, you build around that. No point in also having a specialist sprinter as he will need a leadout, at least two domestiques wasted. A guy for the polka dot? that is rarely won by the top guys now so its just another domestique wasted for the top teams.
The people knocking Sky for no plan B please enlighten us as to the alternatives Saxo and the others have used since there top guys went home?0 -
Macaloon wrote:chrisday wrote:Above The Cows wrote:If Porte hadn't got a chest infection had defended his second place on GC would people still be saying things need to change?
No.
Sometimes you need lady luck on your side. Sky don't have that right now.
Indeed. Still fairly confused by this thread (beyond the reflexive Sky-bashing, which I kind of understand, in a cycling version of "Anyone But United").
How bad does a performance have to be before a critique is justified? It's completely fine to disagree with the assessment of their performance. But to dismiss criticism as "reflexive" is just... "weird".
On the Porte illness. Which story is true? The immediate post-race Porte and Brailsford interviews where they both said he was fine, just a bad day. Or the later tales of sickness? They really need to stop taking the p1ss.[/b
They could both be true at the time at which they are said. You're feeling a bit under the weather and you can't perform but you don't know why so you say immediately after the stage that you're having a bad day. Later that evening/the next morning you know why as the full on symptoms hit. Have you never had a poor ride where you couldn't find the power you normally do only later that day/the next morning to come down with something horrid? I have. That you immediately see this as p*ss taking is exactly what chrisday means by reflexive Sky bashing, rather than choosing to think through the statements analytically you choose to ascribe the changes to p*ss taking.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Illness don't immediately manifest themselves with a full set of symptoms straight out of the blue. There's a gradual onset and on the first day you may indeed think you are fine. Again you expecting them to have the hindsight you have.Macaloon wrote:On the Porte illness. Which story is true? The immediate post-race Porte and Brailsford interviews where they both said he was fine, just a bad day. Or the later tales of sickness? They really need to stop taking the p1ss.
Here's an idea. Tell them who is going to win the stage today. Because in about five hours time you'll be banging on about how Kiryienka didn't follow the right move.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
They didn't concede the Giro GC fight. They didn't have any options for it. And Nieve has trained to do a specific job, a job which no longer exists.Macaloon wrote:Unlike every other team in the peloton, they conceded the 2014 Giro GC fight to field the strongest possible team for the Tour. And having bad-lucked their way to releasing their climbing star (Nieve) they appear to have over-cooked him. Are they BMC in disguise?
I can understand withdrawing Porte so he can be on his best form for the Tour. Without a replacement, that's a concession. Nieve was flying in the Dauphiné. With a serious MTT in the Giro he was clearly an option.
Please explain what magic training regime prevents Nieve from climbing with Peraud?
e: Porte was either on antibiotics or he wasn't. It's possible to disagree without your hindsight hammer. Eh? Plenty of people pointed to Sky's team as their primary weakness this tour. That was a forecast that came true....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
From what I have seen of this season so far the majority of the Sky squad hadn't raced hard enough to have the physiology they needed to cope with the pace and demands of this tour. Early withdrawals, losing winning leads unnecessarily asking riders to paper over the cracks when they did appear (Thomas & Nieve seem to have been asked to step up to cover the failures of their teammates when it looks like both had the form to achieve higher goals if they weren't busy 'plan b-ing').
The reason Sky come under scrutiny in these situations is that they have 'a' plan, tell the press the plan and then when that plan never transpires or fails they have to back-pedal or spin because it's very rare in sport for anyone to say 'we failed', especially from proven winners.Life is unfair, kill yourself or get over it.0 -
Macaloon wrote:RichN95 wrote:
They didn't concede the Giro GC fight. They didn't have any options for it. And Nieve has trained to do a specific job, a job which no longer exists.Macaloon wrote:Unlike every other team in the peloton, they conceded the 2014 Giro GC fight to field the strongest possible team for the Tour. And having bad-lucked their way to releasing their climbing star (Nieve) they appear to have over-cooked him. Are they BMC in disguise?
I can understand withdrawing Porte so he can be on his best form for the Tour. Without a replacement, that's a concession. Nieve was flying in the Dauphiné. With a serious MTT in the Giro he was clearly an option.
Please explain what magic training regime prevents Nieve from climbing with Peraud?
e: Porte was either on antibiotics or he wasn't. It's possible to disagree without your hindsight hammer. Eh? Plenty of people pointed to Sky's team as their primary weakness this tour. That was a forecast that came true.
You seem to think riders are machines.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Can someone start another British WT team so we don't have to talk about Sky all the bloody time? Ta.0
-
adr82 wrote:Can someone start another British WT team so we don't have to talk about Sky all the bloody time? Ta.
Alternatively people could just try using the same methods of critique against other teams.
I'll start the bidding with Garmin...Correlation is not causation.0 -
So again Sky should have had the hindsight of seeing Nieve's from in June and the backdating to May.Macaloon wrote:I can understand withdrawing Porte so he can be on his best form for the Tour. Without a replacement, that's a concession. Nieve was flying in the Dauphiné. With a serious MTT in the Giro he was clearly an option.
Please explain what magic training regime prevents Nieve from climbing with Peraud?
I imagine he has been training to do ten minute stints at above threshold. Left to his own he's inconsistent - a rider who gets stage wins, but disappears as well - top 15 at best, but not with the six minute deficit he already had after stage 10.
One of these days go and actually play some sport at a decent level and you'll learn that sport is full of variables. Many of them uncontrollable. Most are unseen. Often things just don't go your way. And absolutely everyone knows what tactics they should have used after a game is lost, but never say it before.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Above The Cows wrote:adr82 wrote:Can someone start another British WT team so we don't have to talk about Sky all the bloody time? Ta.
Alternatively people could just try using the same methods of critique against other teams.
I'll start the bidding with Garmin...
Orica massively underperforming this Tour as well... a big dissapointment after their success at the Giro. And they just benched the only english rider in the race... it's back to the drawing board for Whitey!
0 -
Macaloon wrote:chrisday wrote:Indeed. Still fairly confused by this thread (beyond the reflexive Sky-bashing, which I kind of understand, in a cycling version of "Anyone But United").
How bad does a performance have to be before a critique is justified? It's completely fine to disagree with the assessment of their performance. But to dismiss criticism as "reflexive" is just... "weird".
On the Porte illness. Which story is true? The immediate post-race Porte and Brailsford interviews where they both said he was fine, just a bad day. Or the later tales of sickness? They really need to stop taking the p1ss.
I feel like Sky get more of a kicking than most for equivalent "sins". I think it was on Cycling Podcast where, speaking this time about doping questions, they said "they have kind of put themselves up there to be shot at by saying they're zero-tolerance", and I do get there's something similar going on. As one of the more successful and dominant teams of the last couple of years, they tend to attract criticism, whether that's from resentment, disappointment, elevated expectations, or whatever.
I get that I'm conflating a lot of individual responses and opinions, but as a summary, I'd call it "reflexive". Something goes amiss, or some quote or other from Sky and the response overall feels like a reflexive "oh, f**king Sky, look at that", whereas for many other teams it seems to be "ah, bless, look how cute Vino is in his cap while he dissembles about doping and hides behind MPCC membership".
My own feelings on Sky are mixed - really like some of their riders, not others. Am pleased there's a performance-focussed British team there, but not jingoistically supporting just cos they're UK-ian. But I think they're unfairly singled out for criticism, on the whole. (Not that they don't deserve any, but you know what I mean.)
And as for the Porte thing, thought it was obvious - when you feel your rider's still got a shout, you play down problems. When it's clear he's cooked, you explain. What you expect them to do, tell every other rider in the race "hey, Porte's really weak at the moment, I think you should attack him from the gun tomorrow"? That would indeed be taking the pee.@shraap | My Men 2016: G, Yogi, Cav, Boonen, Degenkolb, Martin, J-Rod, Kudus, Chaves0 -
Above The Cows wrote:adr82 wrote:Can someone start another British WT team so we don't have to talk about Sky all the bloody time? Ta.
Alternatively people could just try using the same methods of critique against other teams.
I'll start the bidding with Garmin...
I tried to start that a few posts ago but no-one seemed interested!0 -
r0bh wrote:Above The Cows wrote:adr82 wrote:Can someone start another British WT team so we don't have to talk about Sky all the bloody time? Ta.
Alternatively people could just try using the same methods of critique against other teams.
I'll start the bidding with Garmin...
I tried to start that a few posts ago but no-one seemed interested!
Ditto!!
I wanted to pick on Movistar but got nowhere...."Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0
