Future of Sky Procycling

eh

I think it's more than just having a poor TDF that can happen to anyone, but they are having a very poor season, having won little of prestige. For one of the biggest teams in cycling that's going to result in discussion and debate.

I'm not sure their squad is all that, despite the PR machine. It's hard to see who outside of Froome or Wiggins will win much, and they don't have a world class sprinter or classics rider. Richie Porte appears to be the new Tom Danielson.

eh

Well Moviestar won Fleche Wallone, the Giro and are second in the TDF, so are doing a lot better than Sky. Garmin are much closer in having achieved little this year to date.

above_the_cows

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!

OK here goes. Garmin, where is their Plan B? I can't believe they didn't take Hejsedal - a proven GT winner - to the Tour in case Talansky got knocked off his bike.

Then there's OGE. How could they not have got a Plan B after Gerrans, they should have known he was going to get knocked off on the first stage.

RichN95 wrote:

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.

I once failed to qualify for a national championships (I only had to get another top 10 placing and there were only 10 of us in the class, I only had to avoid elimination and I would have made the Nats) because we got a puncture on the M25 and couldn't get to the event in time. Character building my mum called it.

chrisday wrote:

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.

Very good point.

RichN95.

eh wrote:

I think it's more than just having a poor TDF that can happen to anyone, but they are having a very poor season, having won little of prestige. For one of the biggest teams in cycling that's going to result in discussion and debate.

I'm not sure their squad is all that, despite the PR machine. It's hard to see who outside of Froome or Wiggins will win much, and they don't have a world class sprinter or classics rider. Richie Porte appears to be the new Tom Danielson.

You can same exactly the same for almost every team. Only three teams have won two World Tour races - and only Katusha with different riders. Prior to the Tour Astana only had three stage wins. Sky aren't having a great season, but Froome, Wiggins, Thomas, Stannard and Kennaugh have all won races rated HC or higher which seems pretty good for British Cycling. It used be that Jeremy Hunt winning a stage of the Tour of Dunkirk was a big deal.

Paulie W

I dont buy Macaloon's "Sky have failed, totally" line but I also dont get why several posters completely reject the idea that Sky's performance at GTs since 2012 does raise some questions and cannot be solely put down to bad luck.

Barring heroics by Kyrienka or Nieve in the next few days they will have a return of 1 stage win and no Top 10s from the last three GTs. A 2013-form Porte, an available Henao and an upright Froome no doubt transform that record and maybe we are looking at a win, a podium and at least a handful of stages but that doesnt negate the conclusion that the team at each of those 3 GTs was less than we have come to expect (and we can add the 2013 Tour to that). Froome might not need a train on the final climb, in fact he might not need anyone much at all on his 2012 and 2013 form, but it doesnt look like a plan to take a team that would be noticeable by its absence in the later parts of a stage - again bad luck has a part to play in that (Thomas accident in 2013, Lopez in 2014) but there is a question mark at the very least about preparation.

It is also legitimate to ask why Sky teams whose leadership evaporated quickly in a GT are struggling to turn things around in the way that the 2011 team did so successfully. No doubt Cataldo and Deignan in particular were great in chasing stage wins in the Giro and Kiri pulled one out in Vuelta 2013 but the end product largely isnt there - again bad luck is part of it and priorities beyond the Giro and Vuelta have also contributed to this. But there is a question mark there.

mm1

Sky classics season was ok, despite losing Stannard. Still don't get why Wiggins didn't throw everything into chasing Terpstra at Roubaix, but its easier to say than do. There's still plenty of the season left and races to be raced and won, so describing Sky's season as a failure is premature, or does anyone seriously expect the Tour to go their way every year?

above_the_cows

Funnily enough Sky didn't do badly in the Classics this year.

No_Ta_Doctor

Guys, I think you're being a little harsh on Macca here. He's not a Sky bashing loon looking for the slightest flaw to jump on.

Personally, I think he's got some valid points. DB is famed for his four year cycles, but he's got to do it every season now. That may not match well with his management style. If you're used to building a team and riders up over four years you may be pushing psychological and physiological buttons that have a longer time to take effect or need a longer cool down. You may be able to use conflict as a motivational tool, because you've got time to cool it off again when you restart the cycle.

I think it's fair comment that Sky haven't managed the Froome Wiggins situation well, we all know why they can't ride together, but we all know that if Wiggins could be motivated to ride for Froome then he would be first choice in the team. Not as a plan B, though he might have been a better choice for that than Porte, who even before illness hadn't shown great form this season, but as the strongest domestique possible.

And while Porte may have been the best choice they could make in the context, it's fair to say that without brilliant form going into the race then he may not have had the constitution to cope with the bugs going round, more tired equals more susceptible to illness.

I thought that in the early stages of the race Froome didn't look that well protected or positioned, so it's also possible that Sky should be looking to make sure they've got a road captain that keeps his leader out of trouble at all times. I think Rogers was missed. Yes, Froome was unlucky, but there's more bad luck at the middle and back of the peloton than there is at the front. And like Macaloon, I didn't think the 2013 tour team looked particularly strong or cohesive. It's largely irrelevant that Froome has different tactics to Wiggins, the team still needs to ride as a unit.

So the questions Sky should be asking are: how have we dealt with conflict and did that work? How have we built the tour team, did we have the right riders? Do we have the right riders in the squad? Were the riders at the tour in peak condition?

I don't expect or want them to build teams with a plan b in mind, I don't expect them to change any race tactics. But they might want to look at protecting their leader a bit better.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

And while Porte may have been the best choice they could make in the context, it's fair to say that without brilliant form going into the race then he may not have had the constitution to cope with the bugs going round, more tired equals more susceptible to illness.

Why didn't you say that when he was 2nd on GC then. Captain Hindsight strikes again.

No tA Doctor wrote:

I thought that in the early stages of the race Froome didn't look that well protected or positioned, so it's also possible that Sky should be looking to make sure they've got a road captain that keeps his leader out of trouble at all times. I think Rogers was missed. Yes, Froome was unlucky, but there's more bad luck at the middle and back of the peloton than there is at the front.

When he crashed he was only three rows back from the front. He was next to his road captain and bodyguard, Bernie Eisel. But no amount of preparation can help you if a Belkin rider swerves like a drunk on a unicycle right in front of you.

Macaloon

Above The Cows wrote:

You seem to think riders are machines.

And you are a mind-reader? If the dominant stage-race team (Plan C came 2nd in 2013 Giro) of the last few years imploding as a force isn't interesting to you, that's fine. No need to suggest people are thick.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I thought that in the early stages of the race Froome didn't look that well protected or positioned, so it's also possible that Sky should be looking to make sure they've got a road captain that keeps his leader out of trouble at all times. I think Rogers was missed. Yes, Froome was unlucky, but there's more bad luck at the middle and back of the peloton than there is at the front.

When he crashed he was only three rows back from the front. He was next to his road captain and bodyguard, Bernie Eisel. But no amount of preparation can help you if a Belkin rider swerves like a drunk on a unicycle right in front of you.

I wasn't actually suggesting his crash was due to poor positioning. Just that his positioning in the race in General looked like it was inviting trouble.

dish_dash

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I thought that in the early stages of the race Froome didn't look that well protected or positioned, so it's also possible that Sky should be looking to make sure they've got a road captain that keeps his leader out of trouble at all times. I think Rogers was missed. Yes, Froome was unlucky, but there's more bad luck at the middle and back of the peloton than there is at the front.

When he crashed he was only three rows back from the front. He was next to his road captain and bodyguard, Bernie Eisel. But no amount of preparation can help you if a Belkin rider swerves like a drunk on a unicycle right in front of you.

So really we should be giving Belkin and Richard Plugge a hard time... do we know who the Belkin rider was?

RichN95.

Next year Sky should start the Tour with 15 riders and pick their final nine on the second rest day.

above_the_cows

Macaloon wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

You seem to think riders are machines.

And you are a mind-reader? If the dominant stage-race team (Plan C came 2nd in 2013 Giro) of the last few years imploding as a force isn't interesting to you, that's fine. No need to suggest people are thick.

No bit you seem to think that if you press A plus B you'll always get C. Rich and I have been saying to you that people get sick and that this effects performance, you seem unable to countenance such an idea.

Macaloon

Above The Cows wrote:

Funnily enough Sky didn't do badly in the Classics this year.

Changed their training regime this year, didn't they? Or at least they said they did.

above_the_cows

dish_dash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I thought that in the early stages of the race Froome didn't look that well protected or positioned, so it's also possible that Sky should be looking to make sure they've got a road captain that keeps his leader out of trouble at all times. I think Rogers was missed. Yes, Froome was unlucky, but there's more bad luck at the middle and back of the peloton than there is at the front.

When he crashed he was only three rows back from the front. He was next to his road captain and bodyguard, Bernie Eisel. But no amount of preparation can help you if a Belkin rider swerves like a drunk on a unicycle right in front of you.

So really we should be giving Belkin and Richard Plugge a hard time... do we know who the Belkin rider was?

No. I don't think we do. Jens Keukeleire of OGE who was also involved owned up but as far as I'm aware the Belkin rider has kept shtum.

RichN95.

Macaloon wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

You seem to think riders are machines.

And you are a mind-reader? If the dominant stage-race team (Plan C came 2nd in 2013 Giro) of the last few years imploding as a force isn't interesting to you, that's fine. No need to suggest people are thick.

They aren't 'imploding as a force'. Their designated winner crashed. That's it. He'll probably be on the podium at the Vuelta.
In 1980 Hinault crashed - Renault didn't get a rider in the top ten. But Guimard didn't panic and call it a crisis. He just shrugged his shoulders, said 'c'est la vie' and won the next four Tours with two different riders instead.

Macaloon

No tA Doctor wrote:

He's not a Sky bashing loon looking for the slightest flaw to jump on.

Want a bet?

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

And while Porte may have been the best choice they could make in the context, it's fair to say that without brilliant form going into the race then he may not have had the constitution to cope with the bugs going round, more tired equals more susceptible to illness.

Why didn't you say that when he was 2nd on GC then. Captain Hindsight strikes again.

.

I think quite a lot of people questioned Porte's form going into the tour. And as you can see in the quote, I acknowledge that he was the best choice in the context. I'm questioning Sky's control of the context. That's not unreasonable, is it?

I'm not DB, I don't have access to training data, or expert knowledge in how to interpret it. But I can see that Sky have gone from being massively dominant in stage racing in 2012 to pretty mediocre this season. Sure, that could all be down to luck, but I'd hazard a guess that DB will be seeing how much of that could have been mitigated.

Coachb

r0bh wrote:

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.

Very Interesting but clashes with Talansky saying he that carried on riding by himself for his team mates the day before he finally quit the tour.
I always thought Garmin were a bit more instinctive than Sky. Look at the breaks Ryder got into for Talansky at the dauphine.
Maybe those 2 just get on well. Ryder did not have to drop back. I'm sure they don't all hate each other but maybe not a spirit running throughout the whole team. Millar was pis$ed.

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

And while Porte may have been the best choice they could make in the context, it's fair to say that without brilliant form going into the race then he may not have had the constitution to cope with the bugs going round, more tired equals more susceptible to illness.

Why didn't you say that when he was 2nd on GC then. Captain Hindsight strikes again.

Some of us did question his 'decision' not to chase Nibali, and were dismissed as weird. You're having some hindsight difficulties yourself.

Coachb

mike6 wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

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.

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.

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?

Rafal Majka (Tinkoff-Saxo ] just won stage 14 , that's not a bad B plan.

adr82

Macaloon wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

You seem to think riders are machines.

And you are a mind-reader? If the dominant stage-race team (Plan C came 2nd in 2013 Giro) of the last few years imploding as a force isn't interesting to you, that's fine. No need to suggest people are thick.

"Dominant stage-race team"? "Imploding"? Sky were nowhere much before 2012. They were of course dominant in 2012. Then they not unexpectedly maybe had a bit of trouble living up to that very high standard in 2013, while still having a very good season. Now they're having a "bad" season. One bad season. A bad season that isn't even over yet! And yet already some of you are acting like they've been on a rapid downward spiral for the past 5 years and are completely unaware of the problems that they've been having, some of which have been unpredictable and impossible to avoid. I'm struggling to understand exactly what you expect from Sky... a flawless repeat of 2012 every year, disregarding changing opposition, a changing roster, injuries, illness, weather, parcours and of course simple luck??

If 2015 turns out to be a repeat of 2014 for Sky, I think that would be the point when serious questions start to be asked, not now. If there are systematic problems to be dealt with I'm pretty sure a team like Sky is aware of them already.

Also worth remembering no dominant team ever stays dominant forever. I really shouldn't have to point that out but given what's being said in this thread it's probably worth stating.

Macaloon

One reason I find this so interesting is that it fits perfectly with RichN95's new generation theory. To paraphrase: all the other teams had no idea how to prepare properly without doping. While they were busy working it out, a window was open for Sky to dominate. Which they did.

I think missing from the analysis was the wealth of deep experience in these other teams. They quickly adjusted to the new paradigm. Now that their training regimes have caught up, their incumbency advantages - rider recruitment networks, rider health, form-shaping, team building, race management - are as significant as 'marginal gains' were to Sky; crippled by sponsor imposed zero-tolerance as they are.

Good news, I'd say. But big problems for Sky to solve with the current setup.

OPQS

Above The Cows wrote:

Did you not understand the part where Rich said that "Anyone who has spent time with Froome says he's very different privately than the person you see in interviews."

Of course. I'm sure he is more personable and relaxed out of the media spotlight, but that's not the same thing.

And who says a great leader needs to be charismatic?

That's my opinion, based upon over 20 years of professional life. A Leader doesn't need to be charismatic to be effective (they can lead through fear for example), but my experience is that a leader is more effective if they are charismatic. I except that's anecdotal, but I'm not sure how else to answer that.

Coachb

If Froome wins the Vuelta that will go some way to putting things right for Sky's high expectations.
He will have his hand full though. Its a lot of pressure.

adr82

Coachb wrote:

If Froome wins the Vuelta that will go some way to putting things right for Sky's high expectations.
He will have his hand full though. Its a lot of pressure.

The thing is that many people here seem to have much higher expectations of Sky than they do themselves. Not to mention a strange sense of almost personal annoyance/disappointment when Sky don't do well that doesn't appear to apply to any other team.

RichN95.

OPQS wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

And who says a great leader needs to be charismatic?

That's my opinion, based upon over 20 years of professional life. A Leader doesn't need to be charismatic to be effective (they can lead through fear for example), but my experience is that a leader is more effective if they are charismatic. I except that's anecdotal, but I'm not sure how else to answer that.

But that's a different situation. The leader in those sitations is equivalent to the lead DS or general manager. That's why sparkling personalities like Bjarne Riis are successful. In the actual team, the leader first and foremost has to be the best rider.

RichN95.

Coachb wrote:

He will have his hand full though. Its a lot of pressure.

Less pressure than going into the Tour de France as odds on favourite though. (Which Sky have done the last three years)

Macaloon

adr82 wrote:

Coachb wrote:

If Froome wins the Vuelta that will go some way to putting things right for Sky's high expectations.
He will have his hand full though. Its a lot of pressure.

The thing is that many people here seem to have much higher expectations of Sky than they do themselves. Not to mention a strange sense of almost personal annoyance/disappointment when Sky don't do well that doesn't appear to apply to any other team.

It's their performance relative to other teams, all the subject of much scorn on here for their abject coaching etc. that's at issue, not any poster's expectations. They're getting creamed. It would look even worse if Froome was still in the race. No teammates would be near him.