Wiggone!!

wallace_and_gromit

DeVlaeminck wrote:

The premature end to the career of our greatest ever cyclist and one of the best cricketers is a failure whatever other successes the "teams" have had.

I'd agree re Wiggo - Surely a conversation along the lines of "Brad, you're going to the Tour and if you f*ck around you're not going to Rio. Or you can stay at home for the Tour and go to Rio" would have been quite productive.

Re Pietersen I'd disagree. Ditching him was the lesser of two evils, I think, as it's not possible to undo his tw*tish past behaviour.

salsiccia1

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

I'd agree re Wiggo - Surely a conversation along the lines of "Brad, you're going to the Tour and if you f*ck around you're not going to Rio. Or you can stay at home for the Tour and go to Rio" would have been quite productive.

Even if they'd had that conversation and Wiggins nodded his head at the time, how could Brailsford be sure that 2 weeks in to the Tour Wiggins wouldn't be disrupting the team and not supporting Froome? He couldn't be sure, and that's why Wiggins didn't go. Sky's best chance of winning the Tour was going 100% Froome, and I suspect Brailsford felt it was too much of a risk that Wiggins would upset that.

I don't see how Brailsford can be blamed for 'ending the career of our greatest ever cyclist' when it's clear that Wiggins would not be able to support the team's best chance of achieving it's prime objective.

Paul 8v

Although it wasn't a popular decision, I think it was the right one. Wiggins is a fantastic rider but Brailsfod's job was to get his team to win the tour de France and Wiggins wouldn't have helped this due to the issues with him and Froome.

I personally would have loved to see him ride.

wallace_and_gromit

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

I'd agree re Wiggo - Surely a conversation along the lines of "Brad, you're going to the Tour and if you f*ck around you're not going to Rio. Or you can stay at home for the Tour and go to Rio" would have been quite productive.

Even if they'd had that conversation and Wiggins nodded his head at the time, how could Brailsford be sure that 2 weeks in to the Tour Wiggins wouldn't be disrupting the team and not supporting Froome?

Because Wiggo really wants to go to Rio. More than he doesn't want to ride for Froome, I suspect.

If good behaviour in the Tour was explicitly linked to going to Rio then he would most likely have behaved. If he'd given a commitment and then reneged on it, then we'd have to conclude that he is a Pietersen-level tw*t and accept that he'd sacrificed his swansong in Rio simply to p*ss of Froome. Wiggo is something of an eccentric but he's pretty shrewd so if the ultimatum had been given I'm sure he'd have "played the game". I guess he gambled - correctly - that Sir Dave wouldn't risk taking him on by making the ultimatum, given that Wiggo is much more popular with the public that Sir Dave, Froome and the rest of Sky.

RichN95.

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Because Wiggo really wants to go to Rio. More than he doesn't want to ride for Froome, I suspect.

If good behaviour in the Tour was explicitly linked to going to Rio then he would most likely have behaved. If he'd given a commitment and then reneged on it, then we'd have to conclude that he is a Pietersen-level tw*t and accept that he'd sacrificed his swansong in Rio simply to p*ss of Froome. Wiggo is something of an eccentric but he's pretty shrewd so if the ultimatum had been given I'm sure he'd have "played the game". I guess he gambled - correctly - that Sir Dave wouldn't risk taking him on by making the ultimatum, given that Wiggo is much more popular with the public that Sir Dave, Froome and the rest of Sky.

But why bother? Sky aren't short of riders who can do very good domestiques job and can be utterly relied on commintement wise. Wiggins has only ever commited to a domestiques role occasionally, and only for Cavendish. (he failed miserably to support Froome in Oman '13)

Why try to change Wiggins? For his whole career he has been motivated by specific goals - that focus just needed to be redirected. And that was always going to be a tricky task after Wiggins, for a couple of weeks in 2012, reached highs higher than any cyclist has ever or probably will ever attain. Working for someone he dislikes was never going to work.

In retrospect it all worked out fairly well. Some people regard the inability to get Froome and Wiggins on the same Tour team as a failure, but I think a lot of those people were just disappointed at missing out on the spectacle of it all unravelling very publically.

DeVlaeminck

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I don't see how Brailsford can be blamed for 'ending the career of our greatest ever cyclist' when it's clear that Wiggins would not be able to support the team's best chance of achieving it's prime objective.

Well it's old ground but I don't accept that is "clear" at all.

salsiccia1

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I don't see how Brailsford can be blamed for 'ending the career of our greatest ever cyclist' when it's clear that Wiggins would not be able to support the team's best chance of achieving it's prime objective.

Well it's old ground but I don't accept that is "clear" at all.

Fair point. Perhaps I should have said 'a high risk', and one that Brailsford, quite rightly IMO, couldn't take. And as RichN95 very eloquently points out, an unnecessary one.

wallace_and_gromit

RichN95 wrote:

But why bother? Sky aren't short of riders who can do very good domestiques job and can be utterly relied on commintement wise.

Plan B. Sky may have a lot of good domestiques (though this was not immediately obvious from the Tour, it must be said) but they lacked anyone remotely good enough to offer a credible GC challenge if Froome abandoned. Wiggo wouldn't have won the Tour, but he'd have been much closer to the action than Porte. Sky's Tour performance was embarrassing, or at least it should have been to Sir Dave with Wiggo left warming the breakfast TV sofas! Unless Plan B all along was to get coverage of the Sky jersey from the back of the autobus, where it was all too prominent.

ddraver

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

But why bother? Sky aren't short of riders who can do very good domestiques job and can be utterly relied on commintement wise.

Plan B. Sky may have a lot of good domestiques (though this was not immediately obvious from the Tour, it must be said) but they lacked anyone remotely good enough to offer a credible GC challenge if Froome abandoned. Wiggo wouldn't have won the Tour, but he'd have been much closer to the action than Porte. Sky's Tour performance was embarrassing, or at least it should have been to Sir Dave with Wiggo left warming the breakfast TV sofas! Unless Plan B all along was to get coverage of the Sky jersey from the back of the autobus, where it was all too prominent.

Sorry, what were you basing that on around the end of July? I saw nothing that would suggest Wiggins would have finished any higher than RP

Your description of Sky's tour as embarrassing makes me think you re one of those that Rich was talking about

deejay

When Froome gets Palmares as good as Wiggins then I might have some interest in your squabbles.
That is Froome to get an Olympic Gold somewhere and his limitations are the Road Race or the Time Trial as that seems to be the only Eggs in his Basket or maybe he could win a "Classic" or Monument
Froome :- Is just starting out with ONE win in the TDF and wins in a few other short stage races

Wiggins is the reigning World TT Champion and also the Olympic TT Champion.
He (and Brailsford) set out with a meticulous plan to be to be the first British rider to win the Tour De France and he (they) did it.
It wasn't pretty but it was an outstanding achievement and having Ticked that Box, Wiggins thought of another Box to put a Tick in. OK so on an unknown wet road (to him) he came to a downhill corner with the wrong positioning and speed and attempted the turn. End of that story and no Tick for that Box so move on and last month another Box has a Tick in it.
What next, well he has told you and I for one can't wait to see "IF" he can get any more achievements like a Monument perhaps.

One thing that is for sure is their paths won't cross anymore because so many Boxes have been ticked.
Wake me up if they do, Yawn

RichN95.

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Plan B. Sky may have a lot of good domestiques (though this was not immediately obvious from the Tour, it must be said) but they lacked anyone remotely good enough to offer a credible GC challenge if Froome abandoned. Wiggo wouldn't have won the Tour, but he'd have been much closer to the action than Porte. Sky's Tour performance was embarrassing, or at least it should have been to Sir Dave with Wiggo left warming the breakfast TV sofas! Unless Plan B all along was to get coverage of the Sky jersey from the back of the autobus, where it was all too prominent.

Porte was second on GC when he got ill and looking decent . So you're actually saying is that they should have taken him as a plan C.

And why select a Plan B that weakens Plan A?

wallace_and_gromit

RichN95 wrote:

Porte was second on GC when he got ill and looking decent . So you're actually saying is that they should have taken him as a plan C.

A motivated Wiggins is in a different class as a rider compared to Porte. Porte was only ever a long shot to do anything decent in Tour based on his 2014 form. He only ever did anything decent in the Sky lab, where his "best ever numbers" conveniently made him a credible Plan B to Froome in preference to Wiggo in Sky's PR-speak. I don't believe these numbers any more than I believe his poor form in the Tour was due to illness that started during the Tour. He was poor all season and simply replicated that form in the Tour.

RichN95 wrote:

And why select a Plan B that weakens Plan A?

Because you're a poor manager? Suitably motivated, I think Wiggo as Plan B would have strengthened Plan A, as there were a couple of Sky doms this year who did absolutely diddly squat and might just have well not been there.

It is, however, a valid position to state up front that Froome was the only plan and if that didn't work they were just going to ride round to make up the numbers, but Sir Dave was spinning us the line that Porte was ready to step up instead.

wallace_and_gromit

ddraver wrote:

Sorry, what were you basing that on around the end of July?

I wasn't. I was basing it on Wiggo's performances and physical appearance (i.e. very lean, though not 2012 skeletal levels) throughout the year when he was motivated i.e. California, National ITT and World ITT. He didn't perform at those levels, become a journeyman in between and then get back to form. He performed badly in the run up to the Tour because he was sulking about being dropped and was in "CBA" mode. If he'd been motivated for the Tour, he'd have performed at a level consistent with a man with proven GT pedigree over three weeks and the engine to win the World ITT.

mr_poll

To me it is a failure of management not to get two big stars/egos to work together. Look at Roy Keane's auto biog he had a fight with Schmeichal and they still played together in a side that was incredibly successful. DB should have found a way either by carrot or stick to make them work PROFESSIONALLY together - else he should have let Brad go at the end of 2013 (again sorry to use the football analogy it was the one thing Alex Fergurson was good at, cutting players when he felt they no longer added to the team for whatever reason).

However perhaps we don't know everything but for me DB should have been more honest with fans - the whole "we will pick the best team based on form to win us the TdF" line up to a couple of weeks before the tour was disingenuous at best and a down right lie at worse - would have much more respect if he had been straight and said Wiggins wouldn't make the team, the reason might not have been as explicit as he and Froome didnt get on but more on the lines that Wiggins hadn't ridden with them in camps in Tenerife as he didn't want to be away from his family (and probably didnt want to be stuck in a hotel with CF).

Yellow Peril

I think Wiggo has been unfairly painted as the villain of the piece here.Let's check what we know

1. Froome obtained the nickname "Fenton" at the 2012 Tour because it was he who was difficult to manage, riding off and wasn't following team orders. Cycling fans could see that on the road and it was verified by the in car cameras showing Yates shouting down the radio at Froome.

In that scenario who isn't following team orders?

2. Following the disastrous madison performance in Bejing Wiggins repaid a big debt to Cavendish by doing the most influential turn on the front in Copenhagen to secure Cav's WC win. Froome's contribution to a WC team is debateable at best.

3.Having secured the yellow jersey in the 2012 Tour Wiggins then put himself out twice for Cav in lead outs to secure further stage wins for Cav one being on the Champs. You could argue that Froome has never been in a position to do that but the only time I can remember Froome "repaying a friend" was when he robbed Porte of a stage race (was it the criterium international?) in 2013. Porte finished 2nd on the stage and the race but was too gracious to say anything about it.

4.Who of the two has played the biggest face to ensure the other wouldn't be in the same team?....Froome 2014 TdF

So of the two who would I trust most? It is Wiggins by a long chalk. With Wiggo what you see is what you get. Froome is the sneaky kid in the playground who causes the trouble, convinces the Teacher and gets away with it.

chrisday

Wow, this still doing the rounds?

Rich has already said most already, but seems to me like many peoples' opinions are based on an emotional argument "I'd really like to see Wiggo riding as many things as possible, he's the most successful and popular cyclist we've had". (And not criticising this, I'd love to have seen that, too.)

But DB's job isn't to fulfil our emotional dreams, it's winning the Tour (in the context of this argument), and his thought process here is simple:
1. Who has best chance of winning TdF? Froome
2. Therefore, who is the best team to have around him? Not the guy who I don't trust to support him.

Everything beyond that just seems to me to be details. "Plan B" is something done to death this summer - I'd agree with DB's assessment that you put everything into Plan A, you don't weaken Plan A by thinking about "what ifs".

I'm also not convinced by arguments that this is all "bad management". It seems to me to be coming from a starting assumption that ANY situation with ANY people can ALWAYS be managed away, and that just feels like nonsense. Sometimes, there isn't a solution, or at least, a way of making everything like you'd like it.

wallace_and_gromit

chrisday wrote:

Wow, this still doing the rounds?

The rights and wrongs of Hinault vs LeMond in 85/86 still regular get an airing so I think Froome vs Wiggins has a few years yet!

RichN95.

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Porte was second on GC when he got ill and looking decent . So you're actually saying is that they should have taken him as a plan C.

A motivated Wiggins is in a different class as a rider compared to Porte. Porte was only ever a long shot to do anything decent in Tour based on his 2014 form. He only ever did anything decent in the Sky lab, where his "best ever numbers" conveniently made him a credible Plan B to Froome in preference to Wiggo in Sky's PR-speak. I don't believe these numbers any more than I believe his poor form in the Tour was due to illness that started during the Tour. He was poor all season and simply replicated that form in the Tour.

RichN95 wrote:

And why select a Plan B that weakens Plan A?

Because you're a poor manager? Suitably motivated, I think Wiggo as Plan B would have strengthened Plan A, as there were a couple of Sky doms this year who did absolutely diddly squat and might just have well not been there.

It is, however, a valid position to state up front that Froome was the only plan and if that didn't work they were just going to ride round to make up the numbers, but Sir Dave was spinning us the line that Porte was ready to step up instead.

So, basically the things Brailsford should have done are:

a) Turn Wiggins into a completely different person than he actually is

b) Select the team with the the benefit of hindsight.

Things didn't work out for them, but that was due to circumstances, not bad management.

wallace_and_gromit

RichN95 wrote:

So, basically the things Brailsford should have done are:

a) Turn Wiggins into a completely different person than he actually is

b) Select the team with the the benefit of hindsight.

Things didn't work out for them, but that was due to circumstances, not bad management.

Wiggins didn't need to be a different person. He just needed to be appropriately motivated or ditched at the end of 2013.

Or Sir Dave should simply have said at the time that Wiggo and Froome don't get on, we can't can't risk taking Wiggo in case he goes into disruptive "CBA" mode, so we're leaving our second best rider behind and taken whatever PR fallout came his way.

RichN95.

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Wiggins didn't need to be a different person. He just needed to be appropriately motivated or ditched at the end of 2013.

They did movitate him. He won the Tour of Britain, Tour of California, a World Championship (and a silver) and a top ten at Roubaix (and return to track). Maybe an hour record to follow. To motivate him to work for someone he doesn't like would require a different person. If you want a cat, don't try and turn a dog into a cat, just buy a cat.

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Or Sir Dave should simply have said at the time that Wiggo and Froome don't get on, we can't can't risk taking Wiggo in case he goes into disruptive "CBA" mode, so we're leaving our second best rider behind and taken whatever PR fallout came his way.

Why? For the media's sake? To make the story even bigger? To publicly dump on someone who has done so much for British cycling, thereby demotivating him completely?
And all so you could have a juicy story to read about over your cornflakes.

salsiccia1

chrisday wrote:

Wow, this still doing the rounds?

Rich has already said most already, but seems to me like many peoples' opinions are based on an emotional argument "I'd really like to see Wiggo riding as many things as possible, he's the most successful and popular cyclist we've had". (And not criticising this, I'd love to have seen that, too.)

But DB's job isn't to fulfil our emotional dreams, it's winning the Tour (in the context of this argument), and his thought process here is simple:
1. Who has best chance of winning TdF? Froome
2. Therefore, who is the best team to have around him? Not the guy who I don't trust to support him.

Everything beyond that just seems to me to be details. "Plan B" is something done to death this summer - I'd agree with DB's assessment that you put everything into Plan A, you don't weaken Plan A by thinking about "what ifs".

I'm also not convinced by arguments that this is all "bad management". It seems to me to be coming from a starting assumption that ANY situation with ANY people can ALWAYS be managed away, and that just feels like nonsense. Sometimes, there isn't a solution, or at least, a way of making everything like you'd like it.

All this.

Isn't it fantastic/frustrating that someone can articulate exactly what you think far better than you can

ddraver

Yep, +1 to Chris.

Unlike Football a Cycling team is 28 people (or however) picked to win races all year. A Tour team is 9 riders picked to win one race. The Ferguson analogy is invalid as he had to essentially pick "9 riders" to win "every race in the calender".

Sky keep Wiggins on for 2 very simple reasons

10% - When he's on, there are very few people in the world that can beat him

90% - When he does anything, win or lose, the British public go crazy over it, regardless of whether he can be arsed or not

No_Ta_Doctor

If the question is "could DB do anything in April/May/June 2014 to get the two best riders on his team to work together in the TdF" then the answer is clearly no.

But given that it's the fallout from the Vuelta 2011 and TdF 2012 that's caused the issue I'd have hoped that he could have managed it earlier.

The insistence that he would have to change Wiggins is a little disingenuous, it suggests that the problem lies with Wiggins, and not in a relationship to Froome, who might also need to adapt.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

If the question is "could DB do anything in April/May/June 2014 to get the two best riders on his team to work together in the TdF" then the answer is clearly no.

But given that it's the fallout from the Vuelta 2011 and TdF 2012 that's caused the issue I'd have hoped that he could have managed it earlier.

But this makes the assumption that having them both riding at the Tour de France is the best option.

No tA Doctor wrote:

The insistence that he would have to change Wiggins is a little disingenuous, it suggests that the problem lies with Wiggins, and not in a relationship to Froome, who might also need to adapt.

No, it doesn't.
They both have the mindset of a team leader and the leader was always going to be Froome. Therefore, it would have to be Wiggins that would have to change.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

If the question is "could DB do anything in April/May/June 2014 to get the two best riders on his team to work together in the TdF" then the answer is clearly no.

But given that it's the fallout from the Vuelta 2011 and TdF 2012 that's caused the issue I'd have hoped that he could have managed it earlier.

But this makes the assumption that having them both riding at the Tour de France is the best option.

Do you have any doubt at all that on a purely physical perspective, an in form Wiggins is the best rider after Froome in a GT? That if he were genuinely motivated to perform the role of road captain and mountain train leader he wouldn't be the best rider to have on the team?

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

The insistence that he would have to change Wiggins is a little disingenuous, it suggests that the problem lies with Wiggins, and not in a relationship to Froome, who might also need to adapt.

No, it doesn't.
They both have the mindset of a team leader and the leader was always going to be Froome. Therefore, it would have to be Wiggins that would have to change.

This is an assumption on your part, that Wiggins is solely motivated by personal glory. I think the episodes with Cav mentioned earlier point to other possible motivations - honour, sacrifice, responsibility, respect, public standing - there's plenty of ego based stuff to work with.

Yes, his role would have had to change, and no, I don't think that was impossible. It just wasn't possible with Froome as the team leader.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

Do you have any doubt at all that on a purely physical perspective, an in form Wiggins is the best rider after Froome in a GT? That if he were genuinely motivated to perform the role of road captain and mountain train leader he wouldn't be the best rider to have on the team?.

If we eliminate all the reasons for not having him in the team and assume he was in GT form, then yes he would be the best. But he probably wasn;t in GT form and the reasons exist.

No tA Doctor wrote:

This is an assumption on your part, that Wiggins is solely motivated by personal glory. I think the episodes with Cav mentioned earlier point to other possible motivations - honour, sacrifice, responsibility, respect, public standing - there's plenty of ego based stuff to work with..

He can be motivated to do one off rides when he's in form anyway - but a whole three weeks and the sacrifices needed to prepare for it are a very different matter. Also he likes Cavendish, he can't stand Froome.

No tA Doctor wrote:

Yes, his role would have had to change, and no, I don't think that was impossible. It just wasn't possible with Froome as the team leader.

But Froome is the leader

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

he can't stand Froome.

No tA Doctor wrote:

Yes, his role would have had to change, and no, I don't think that was impossible. It just wasn't possible with Froome as the team leader.

But Froome is the leader

Yes, this is the heart of the problem, isn't it? But the dislike isn't one-way, which is why I said that it would require a change from Froome as well.

I'll admit it's entirely speculative, full of what-if's and conjecture, but it's not entirely implausible that had the relationship not been so crap it would have been possible to get Wiggins to buy into the elder statesman role, the team figurehead and engine, even when not its leader.

DeVlaeminck

chrisday wrote:

I'm also not convinced by arguments that this is all "bad management". It seems to me to be coming from a starting assumption that ANY situation with ANY people can ALWAYS be managed away, and that just feels like nonsense. Sometimes, there isn't a solution, or at least, a way of making everything like you'd like it.

That's a very fair point and quite possibly true. On the other hand isn't it at least possible that a better manager could have integrated Wiggins and Froome into one team - could perhaps the relationship have been prevented from breaking down at an earlier stage ? If on the other hand it really couldn't be managed would it not have been better to make a clean break earlier - make a decision rather than letting it fester.

Ultimately I suppose you judge a manager by their overall results and on that basis Brailsford is a good manager - I just wonder if because of that every single thing that happens within Sky is sometimes written up as part of the master plan whereas it's more likely they just have fewer fuck ups than other teams.

chrisday

DeVlaeminck wrote:

chrisday wrote:

I'm also not convinced by arguments that this is all "bad management". It seems to me to be coming from a starting assumption that ANY situation with ANY people can ALWAYS be managed away, and that just feels like nonsense. Sometimes, there isn't a solution, or at least, a way of making everything like you'd like it.

That's a very fair point and quite possibly true. On the other hand isn't it at least possible that a better manager could have integrated Wiggins and Froome into one team - could perhaps the relationship have been prevented from breaking down at an earlier stage ? If on the other hand it really couldn't be managed would it not have been better to make a clean break earlier - make a decision rather than letting it fester.

Yup, think that's the other main option - just accept the break earlier. Am guessing on balance, they felt having two "name" British riders on the team was worth the hassle. At least in terms of public perception, which is mainly around the Tour, anyway.
I think there might even be an element of everyone in the BC/Sky setup is so used to BW and his "ways", that they're just used to coping with it.

pinno

A SKY team where Wiggins was no. 1 and Froome playing a support role for the TdF...nope
A SKY team where Froome was no. 1 and Wiggins playing the support role for the TdF...can't see it.
It is a circle that can't be squared.

Wiggins would not want to be number 2. Froome was more than instrumental in Wiggin's 2012 win but Froome has a right not to be second to Wiggins.
Either way, neither of them would have beaten Nibali.