TdF 2016 Stage 17 *Contains spoilers*
Comments
-
Blazing Saddles wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:You can say all this "it's always been this way" but I have watched every Tour since 1998 and this is one of the most boring by a long way.
Where did I say that it wasn't boring?
My point was that because of the prescribed way the Tour is raced, exciting races are fairly rare.
Lucky you weren't around for 1991-1995.
I actually quite like the 1994-1995 Tours. 94 was memorable for Pantani. He'd shown what he was capable of earlier in the year in the Giro, and put the frighteners on Indurain in every mountain stage. We talk about Yates riding well, but this was akin to that but with attacks seeing minutes taken rather than a few seconds here or there.
95 was notable for the sheer dominance of Indurain, whether it was riding away from the bunch on the flat on stage 7 or the way he did the same on stage 9 going uphill. Throw in lone breakaway wins for Pantani, Zulle, Virenque and Jalabert, and the tragic death of Casartelli, and it had a lot more going for it than this years race.0 -
Ah feck it bring back doping and be done with it.Correlation is not causation.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:You can say all this "it's always been this way" but I have watched every Tour since 1998 and this is one of the most boring by a long way.
Do you think it is objectively less eventful? Or are YOU finding it more boring?0 -
I've enjoyed this tour... Cav's 4 wins, Froome winning going down hill and his stage with Sagan. The battle between Porte and TJ, Cummings win, kittels bottom lip going when he lost, Yates doing exceptionally well, Sagan being Sagan.. Given that all the MTF's are at the back end of the race there's also a case of things could change since everyone keeps saying Quintana is better in the third week. Well that's not panned out how folks were expecting because he's been missing.0
-
Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:You can say all this "it's always been this way" but I have watched every Tour since 1998 and this is one of the most boring by a long way.
Do you think it is objectively less eventful? Or are YOU finding it more boring?
Yeah. The quality of the racing has been very low.
Forget events. The racing is boring.
A few exceptions sure - descent & cross winds.
Pantano's ride to win was quite uplifting, and Sagan is doing his best, but generally the quality of the racing has been poor.0 -
I liked a comment my brother made the other day. He said that it is as if Sky is run by a top Premier League manager and the other teams by a League 1 manager. The issue seems to be that they are so used to a certain style of riding now (i.e. don't do anything until the final 5km) that no-one has a response to Sky.
The Tour is a victim of its own success. Riders would rather defend their current position than attack. I saw numerous posts on another forum calling Dan Martin an idiot for attacking and then getting dropped, so if you do try something people will complain and call you an idiot. When the riders are in this situation it almost becomes a can't win whatever they do issue.
The thing that surprises me most is that the other teams haven't done more to bring back breakaways. It seems that they are content paying their GC guys large sums of money to sit there doing very little to secure a top 10, but come out of the race with nothing else. You'd think Astana might want to secure a stage win for Aru, or BMC try to keep it together so that if Porte doesn't get the podium he at least has a stage win. With just a few stages to go how many teams are still without a win?0 -
RichN95 wrote:People have been going on about Sky's team strength, but in the last two days both Dennis and Cancellara have left the race to prepare for the Olympics. Both have teammates in the top 5 in GC. Can you image a Sky rider leaving like that? Henao's wife had a baby yesterday. You wonder how together some teams are.
That's a result for Henao. You don't want to take care of that first nappy.
Seriously, this is a very good point. I don't know how much support Porte has earlier in the stages because I often only catch the highlights. What was Porte hired to do, if not to be a credible challege to Froome in the mountains? He is probably one of very few who can hang with an in-form Froome when the heat is on, as we saw yesterday. Maybe they do need to have words with themselves.0 -
Be interesting for folks bemoaning Sky's grip on the race to post how, specifically, they think the key stages would have been more exciting, had they not be in the race.
All I can envisage would be a different team, probably Movistar, dictating pace.
If not them, then Astana.
The payoff for this colour change would be the loss of the two moments of attacking brilliance witnessed to date.
To me it's as much to do with the poor quality of both opponent and tactics that have turned this Tour into another turkey."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:To me it's as much to do with the poor quality of both opponent and tactics that have turned this Tour into another turkey.
Well a coup would certainly liven things up. :PCorrelation is not causation.0 -
squired wrote:I liked a comment my brother made the other day. He said that it is as if Sky is run by a top Premier League manager and the other teams by a League 1 manager. The issue seems to be that they are so used to a certain style of riding now (i.e. don't do anything until the final 5km) that no-one has a response to Sky.
The Tour is a victim of its own success. Riders would rather defend their current position than attack. I saw numerous posts on another forum calling Dan Martin an idiot for attacking and then getting dropped, so if you do try something people will complain and call you an idiot. When the riders are in this situation it almost becomes a can't win whatever they do issue.
The thing that surprises me most is that the other teams haven't done more to bring back breakaways. It seems that they are content paying their GC guys large sums of money to sit there doing very little to secure a top 10, but come out of the race with nothing else. You'd think Astana might want to secure a stage win for Aru, or BMC try to keep it together so that if Porte doesn't get the podium he at least has a stage win. With just a few stages to go how many teams are still without a win?
Not sure what tactics the other teams are meant to employ. Astana bring back a break by doing what - riding on the front most of the stage - so Sky are even more dominant in the finale ? It's bad enough him going out the back after his team have rammed it up the lower slopes like yesterday can you imagine if they'd been riding 100kms for that to happen only for Stannard or someone to take over still relatively fresh. Or should Aru go in the break only inevitably to be brought back and lose minutes.
I would like to see less emphasis on maintaining GC place but you can understand them when Froome is sat there with two super domestiques in front of him which means there is no chance of the other favourites looking at each other and you getting a gap. I would never criticise the likes of Dan Martin for attacking but whether it is sensible or not I don't know - I suppose it depends if you prefer glorious defeat or anonymous not quite defeat but not victory either - that seems to be the choice.
The answer has to be smaller teams - OK radios and to a smaller extent power meters are relevant to but they aren't the main game - make it harder for a dominant team or the team of the yellow jersey to control the race. Then you open up space for a DS to use innovative tactics. You can't knock people for their lack of tactical innovation unless we can can come up with a tactic that might be successful.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Unless something dramatic happens the Giro was definitely the better race... again...
Yes, but take any of the current top 9 (excluding Valverde) and they would have won this years Giro by a margin making that race boring.
The TdF is only seen to be boring because all the best riders are here trying for the best finish possible. Having the best in the same race means there is very little to separate them and that is what we are seeing on all MTF's.
I don't think that is true. If it was true then they would have ridden the Giro. Fairly sure that Dan Martin would swap 9th at the tour for a GT win.
Agree, but did he enter the TdF thinking he would finish 9th? Did his team think the same? Or did he and his team believe he could podium?
Also, does the Giro fit into his seasons plans regarding the big one day races?
I think there are very few of the GC riders that actually get a choice of what GTs they ride and their sponsors will want the teams best GC rider represented at the years biggest cycle race.
Additionally, we as fans want to see the best race against each other at the seasons biggest race when they are at their best.0 -
I'd almost prefer that over the endless complaining... you'd think the Tour is the only race in the season or something.Above The Cows wrote:Ah feck it bring back doping and be done with it.0 -
It's personnel at the end of the day isn't it? If you compare Sky in the classics to Sky in stage races and the difference is remarkable. They simply don't have the manpower to dominate the classics in the way they do stage races. Tactics are ultimately futile if you don't have the legs to enact them.0
-
Above The Cows wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:To me it's as much to do with the poor quality of both opponent and tactics that have turned this Tour into another turkey.
Well a coup would certainly liven things up. :P
Chapeau0 -
I hope Porte does well in this0
-
phreak wrote:It's personnel at the end of the day isn't it? If you compare Sky in the classics to Sky in stage races and the difference is remarkable. They simply don't have the manpower to dominate the classics in the way they do stage races. Tactics are ultimately futile if you don't have the legs to enact them.
Totally different type of race. The grand tour stages that are the closest analogues to the classics aren't won by GC contenders as a rule - those teams control it, but only in as much as not allowing anyone to gain stupid time or their rivals to sneak away. If Paris-Roubaix ended in a 16km climb at 10% I dare say riders like Froome or Contador would dominate, and would do so via a team closing down the favourites for most of the race.0 -
-
underlayunderlay wrote:phreak wrote:It's personnel at the end of the day isn't it? If you compare Sky in the classics to Sky in stage races and the difference is remarkable. They simply don't have the manpower to dominate the classics in the way they do stage races. Tactics are ultimately futile if you don't have the legs to enact them.
Totally different type of race. The grand tour stages that are the closest analogues to the classics aren't won by GC contenders as a rule - those teams control it, but only in as much as not allowing anyone to gain stupid time or their rivals to sneak away. If Paris-Roubaix ended in a 16km climb at 10% I dare say riders like Froome or Contador would dominate, and would do so via a team closing down the favourites for most of the race.
Well yes, because Sky have the climbing domestiques to do that. They don't have the cobbles domestiques of the same calibre, hence they can't control PR in the same way. Do you not think that if they had a team full of people who had achieved top 10 finishes in the race during their career that they'd be doing much better than they are?0 -
underlayunderlay wrote:If Paris-Roubaix ended in a 16km climb at 10% I dare say riders like Froome or Contador would dominate, and would do so via a team closing down the favourites for most of the race.
As an aside, that would be an epic spectacle. Watching the hard men of the Belgian classics try and put as much distance as they can between them and the climbers before desperately trying to hold on.
Nibali the favourite?0 -
phreak wrote:underlayunderlay wrote:phreak wrote:It's personnel at the end of the day isn't it? If you compare Sky in the classics to Sky in stage races and the difference is remarkable. They simply don't have the manpower to dominate the classics in the way they do stage races. Tactics are ultimately futile if you don't have the legs to enact them.
Totally different type of race. The grand tour stages that are the closest analogues to the classics aren't won by GC contenders as a rule - those teams control it, but only in as much as not allowing anyone to gain stupid time or their rivals to sneak away. If Paris-Roubaix ended in a 16km climb at 10% I dare say riders like Froome or Contador would dominate, and would do so via a team closing down the favourites for most of the race.
Well yes, because Sky have the climbing domestiques to do that. They don't have the cobbles domestiques of the same calibre, hence they can't control PR in the same way. Do you not think that if they had a team full of people who had achieved top 10 finishes in the race during their career that they'd be doing much better than they are?
You've missed the point. It isn't that Sky have the wrong riders to do it (and you seriously underestimate the quality of some of their riders, fwiw), but that routes like that don't lend themselves to being controlled in the same way - they're not simply about saving energy for single big efforts in the style of a mountain stage. The cobbles are about repeated small efforts, and if you're in the wrong place on any of those your race is over - you can't simply wait for the breakaway to hit something that significantly slows them down because it isn't coming.
I suspect that's why they remain more popular with some fans.0 -
The big difference is that in stage races you don't have to cross the line first - you just have to avoid losing time. In Paris-Roubaix Ian Stannard lost no time to Hayman but gained time on many - it would have been a great result in a stage race not so much in a classic. Sky's mountain tactics are defensive, but unless you have the best sprinter attacking tactics are needed in one day races.phreak wrote:underlayunderlay wrote:phreak wrote:It's personnel at the end of the day isn't it? If you compare Sky in the classics to Sky in stage races and the difference is remarkable. They simply don't have the manpower to dominate the classics in the way they do stage races. Tactics are ultimately futile if you don't have the legs to enact them.
Totally different type of race. The grand tour stages that are the closest analogues to the classics aren't won by GC contenders as a rule - those teams control it, but only in as much as not allowing anyone to gain stupid time or their rivals to sneak away. If Paris-Roubaix ended in a 16km climb at 10% I dare say riders like Froome or Contador would dominate, and would do so via a team closing down the favourites for most of the race.
Well yes, because Sky have the climbing domestiques to do that. They don't have the cobbles domestiques of the same calibre, hence they can't control PR in the same way. Do you not think that if they had a team full of people who had achieved top 10 finishes in the race during their career that they'd be doing much better than they are?Twitter: @RichN950 -
joe2008 wrote:hypster wrote:joe2008 wrote:Above The Cows wrote:Clean sport is fiction... look who won today's stage.
I'm sure that's the thought on many people's minds, especially the way he attacked on the last climb.
Ned Boulting: Zakarin tested positive for steroids in 2009 and was banned for two years.
The World: Oh really, now there's a surprise!
... and he's Russian, on a Russian team.
Yep, that's right, let's make the generalisation and forget that he is a human being like the rest of us. Quite an interesting one (I suspect that FF would have liked his hardship background) although doesn't speak English so none of us get to hear from him much.
https://rouleur.cc/journal/riders/ilnur ... -interview0 -
I heard him give an interview in basic but functional English. So that bit’s wrong.0
