Yellow on points?

larkim

Pross wrote:

OK I thought I'd do some fact checking to see how much more exciting the race position has been over the last 10 years after Stage 17 and the results are as follows:-

2016 1st to 2nd 2' 37", 1st to 10th 6' 07"

So arguably we've got one of the closest and most competitive top 10 in recent history, and yet it is "boring"? We all expect Froome to be at the top on Sunday, but who'd like to predict the top 10 now with any degree of accuracy? Even the podium places are far from settled.

I think there's an odd perception from this race if you just look at the yellow jersey that it is all sewn up, done and dusted already, despite the gaps being small. And (with respect to posters who have watched for many years, and still remain bored with it this year) perhaps some of the boredom stems from obsessing about the yellow, and forgetting about all of the other parts of the race that make it interesting?

above_the_cows

^This!

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

Nah, we need stages like this



1 Mikel Nieve Ituralde (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi 7:27:14.

The irony being that it was won by one of Froome's domestiques

ugo.santalucia

larkim wrote:

Pross wrote:

OK I thought I'd do some fact checking to see how much more exciting the race position has been over the last 10 years after Stage 17 and the results are as follows:-

2016 1st to 2nd 2' 37", 1st to 10th 6' 07"

So arguably we've got one of the closest and most competitive top 10 in recent history, and yet it is "boring"? We all expect Froome to be at the top on Sunday, but who'd like to predict the top 10 now with any degree of accuracy? Even the podium places are far from settled.

I think there's an odd perception from this race if you just look at the yellow jersey that it is all sewn up, done and dusted already, despite the gaps being small. And (with respect to posters who have watched for many years, and still remain bored with it this year) perhaps some of the boredom stems from obsessing about the yellow, and forgetting about all of the other parts of the race that make it interesting?

I am not looking at the GC... I am loking at the race and the mountain stages are the most boring... shouldn't it be the opposite?

Best stages those won by Sagan... worst stages the mountain finishes

dish_dash

I'd argue that the contests beyond the yellow have been deathly dull as well. The other major jerseys are sewn up or with little competition.

Sprint stages are a tad dull anyway, and none of them have been really that thrilling.

So we're left with a couple of decent wins by Cummings and GVA, Some super slow stages and two farcial stages due to wind/technical issues.

Admittedly I haven't been watching/following much, but I struggle to see much to get excited about in this tour. What you hanging your hat on Larkin?

RichN95.

Remember when their used to be battles for the Green Jersey? Cavendish v Hushovd or Petacchi, McEwen v Cooke etc.

That competition is dead for a generation.

What makes the Tour the Tour is that it's not just about the Yellow Jersey.

Jez mon

larkim wrote:

Pross wrote:

OK I thought I'd do some fact checking to see how much more exciting the race position has been over the last 10 years after Stage 17 and the results are as follows:-

2016 1st to 2nd 2' 37", 1st to 10th 6' 07"

So arguably we've got one of the closest and most competitive top 10 in recent history, and yet it is "boring"? We all expect Froome to be at the top on Sunday, but who'd like to predict the top 10 now with any degree of accuracy? Even the podium places are far from settled.

I think there's an odd perception from this race if you just look at the yellow jersey that it is all sewn up, done and dusted already, despite the gaps being small. And (with respect to posters who have watched for many years, and still remain bored with it this year) perhaps some of the boredom stems from obsessing about the yellow, and forgetting about all of the other parts of the race that make it interesting?

But it's the winning that matters, and winning the GC at that.

r0bh

dish_dash wrote:

So we're left with a couple of decent wins by Cummings and GVA, Some super slow stages and two farcial stages due to wind/technical issues.

Froome's attack on the descent? Green and Yellow attacking on a flat sprinters stage?

TheBigBean

RichN95 wrote:

The irony being that it was won by one of Froome's domestiques

Is that relevant? There's a French guy in 5th too. The main point for me is that only two riders in the top 10 have the same time.

I'm really not a fan of this short stages makes for exciting racing argument. It's an endurance event. If people want short stages then they should watch the track. It's like saying that the marathon would be exciting if it were a 5km.

larkim

dish_dash wrote:

Admittedly I haven't been watching/following much, but I struggle to see much to get excited about in this tour. What you hanging your hat on Larkin?

All I can say is that my interest in this Tour is high, and I struggle to resist listening to the 5live commentary at 3pm, whereas in previous years I've been content to keep up with the highlights every few days when I remember.

Yesterday was exciting, all the way up to about 2km to go, simply because until then you didn't know IF anything was going to happen. And even then, there remained the possibility that someone in the GC top 5 would blow up completely and lose a disproportionate amount of time in those last couple of km. It was 20 or so guys in the GC group putting themselves and their competitors close to the limit. Plus up front there were brave and courageous efforts to take the victory which didn't entirely pan out the way the form book would have dictated.

Perhaps we're in a mode of racing where it is about implosion rather than explosion, but perhaps there are good and welcome reasons for that these days.

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The irony being that it was won by one of Froome's domestiques

Is that relevant?

No. I just thought it was amusing.

In reality that stage didn't feature much racing - It was riders grinding up insane gradients at slightly different rates. It was like watching the swimming at the Olympics if it was held in a pool of treacle.

above_the_cows

Jez mon wrote:

larkim wrote:

Pross wrote:

OK I thought I'd do some fact checking to see how much more exciting the race position has been over the last 10 years after Stage 17 and the results are as follows:-

2016 1st to 2nd 2' 37", 1st to 10th 6' 07"

So arguably we've got one of the closest and most competitive top 10 in recent history, and yet it is "boring"? We all expect Froome to be at the top on Sunday, but who'd like to predict the top 10 now with any degree of accuracy? Even the podium places are far from settled.

I think there's an odd perception from this race if you just look at the yellow jersey that it is all sewn up, done and dusted already, despite the gaps being small. And (with respect to posters who have watched for many years, and still remain bored with it this year) perhaps some of the boredom stems from obsessing about the yellow, and forgetting about all of the other parts of the race that make it interesting?

But it's the winning that matters, and winning the GC at that.

Matters to whom? The teams? The GC teams? Or the fans?

above_the_cows

You can call me a French housewife if you like but seeing as I live in a country where a sand dune counts as a hill I am also happy watching the scenery.

squired

Put it this way, a lot of people have taken up cycling in the last 12 months, for commuting or to get fit. Some of those new cyclists will have turned on the Tour de France for the first time ever this year. Not really knowing the sport or its nuances would they be telling people how good it was? The simple answer is no. OK, there might have been lots of British success, which helps, but the racing itself hasn't been great.

With a lot of sports many hardcore fans defend it no matter what. A classic example is MMA where you have a borefest where one guy sits on top of another for the whole fight. The hardcores talk about how good it was, but the masses are bored. The issue is that no sport will ever be a true success (i.e. make money - which is the ultimate aim of any sport these days) if it only appeals to the hardcore fans. Test cricket suffers the same problem. You need unpredictability and action.

For mountain stages to be interesting (or at least have the opportunity to be) the route planning needs to be better. A stage like last Sunday, where the final two climbs had a valley between them and then another valley before the finish, was always going to be a dud. Modern day cyclists will not try something if there is valley between climbs. The stages need to be more like yesterday - climb, descent, climb. The problem yesterday was that there is a time trial today. I think David Millar said beforehand that little would happen because people would be worried about burning themselves out before the time trial. Looks like he was correct.

In recent years the Tour has moved more towards longer live coverage, particularly on mountain stages. If this trend of nothing happening until the final few kilometers continues the ratings won't be there and they will move back to just showing the last hour of a stage live. For the hardcore fan that would be a disaster, but they will still be watching and the TV company doesn't really care about them anyway.

above_the_cows

There's also the logistics to consider. They can't always use the 'exciting' climbs (whatever these are). They can't always go to the same places.

squired wrote:

Modern day cyclists will not try something if there is valley between climbs. The stages need to be more like yesterday - climb, descent, climb.

Geography doesn't always work like that though. Still it's a new thing to blame I suppose. Boo geography for making the Tour boring. Boo ice age boo!

dinyull

ugo.santalucia wrote:

davidof wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Such a stupid answer...

You probably need to change sport: maybe Formula 1 or Top Crown Bowling would give you the fix you need.

Incidentally Formula 1 has exactly the same problem... lack of action and people complain that there no overtakes anymore... in fact it is the pale shadow of what it was in the 1970s and 1980s

Yet there is more overtaking now than there has been for years thanks to DRS which was introduced because of a lack of overtaking and yet the same people still complain.

dinyull

r0bh wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Maybe longer stages to break the teams up? These days a mountain stage is 5 hours or so... maybe they should be 7 hours, so that you can't use every single domestique every single day... 250 Km stages with more mountains, 6000 mt of climbing or so in the mountian stages.... at the speed they go 160 Km is nothing

All the evidence from recent GTs is for very conservative racing when the mountain stages have been long; most think that shorter stages give more exciting racing.

Yep. All that would happen is Sky would sit on the front pumping out 300-350 watts all day instead of 400.

Ban the use of HRM and power meters and make them ride on feel. More chance of riders misjudging and poping this way.

larkim

squired wrote:

Put it this way, a lot of people have taken up cycling in the last 12 months, for commuting or to get fit. Some of those new cyclists will have turned on the Tour de France for the first time ever this year. Not really knowing the sport or its nuances would they be telling people how good it was? The simple answer is no. OK, there might have been lots of British success, which helps, but the racing itself hasn't been great.

I beg to differ. I think those who are new to it will be enticed by this year precisely because they have no history with it and don't know if it could be any better. (To a degree I include myself in that)

Particularly for Brits, we've got Yellow and White, plus Cav and Cummings on stage wins, Team Sky is being lauded for doing its job well, and the highlights programmes from Ch4 are invariably engaging.

I think its only those who have watched for a long time who are harking back to Halcyon days that are bored by it.

tangled_metal

Someone mentioned test cricket above in comparison with the tour. Interesting point I thought because the cricketing authorities have been introducing more types of cricket match. 20/20, night or evening matches, limited overs of various kinds. The aim is to make it more interesting and accessible to potential audiences.

I think this thread started as an.attempt to suggest ideas to make the tour more accessible and interesting to not just the die hard fans but the general public too. It's not that interesting IMHO, that Ugo or atc have their take on the level of excitement felt with this year's tour. What's interesting to me is whether there is something that could make it interesting to a me audience. Would a 10 year old boy put his PlayStation controller down and find it exciting? Just one example of someone the sport might benefit.from enticing into cycling through interest in top level cycling.

Point I'm trying to make, whether it's exciting or not now could we make it.better? What would do that in your opinion? We've had some ideas but a lot more debate over the definition of exciting and the viewer's expectations. More improvement ideas and the debate over their benefits interests me.

above_the_cows

larkim wrote:

I think its only those who have watched for a long time who are harking back to Halcyon days that are bored by it.

I've watched it since 1986 and I'm not bored but then I was never allowed a Playstation or Nintendo or whatnot. I always find something of interest in the race even if its just the scenery And I'm normally a pessimist in real life.

Tangled Metal wrote:

Someone mentioned test cricket above in comparison with the tour. Interesting point I thought because the cricketing authorities have been introducing more types of cricket match. 20/20, night or evening matches, limited overs of various kinds. The aim is to make it more interesting and accessible to potential audiences.

I think this thread started as an.attempt to suggest ideas to make the tour more accessible and interesting to not just the die hard fans but the general public too. It's not that interesting IMHO, that Ugo or atc have their take on the level of excitement felt with this year's tour. What's interesting to me is whether there is something that could make it interesting to a me audience. Would a 10 year old boy put his PlayStation controller down and find it exciting? Just one example of someone the sport might benefit from enticing into cycling through interest in top level cycling.

Point I'm trying to make, whether it's exciting or not now could we make it.better? What would do that in your opinion? We've had some ideas but a lot more debate over the definition of exciting and the viewer's expectations. More improvement ideas and the debate over their benefits interests me.

There are other cycling events on the calendar. A whole heap of one day races, other GTs, one week races etc., etc. And that's just road cycling, other types of cycling is available, track, BMX, MTB... Maybe if people can't enjoy the ebb and flow and nuance of a GT they should stick to the 'excitement' of the Classics or the adrenaline rush race to the line of the match sprint or the bonkers confusing circus that is the Madison.

mr_poll

larkim wrote:

Pross wrote:

OK I thought I'd do some fact checking to see how much more exciting the race position has been over the last 10 years after Stage 17 and the results are as follows:-

2016 1st to 2nd 2' 37", 1st to 10th 6' 07"

So arguably we've got one of the closest and most competitive top 10 in recent history, and yet it is "boring"? We all expect Froome to be at the top on Sunday, but who'd like to predict the top 10 now with any degree of accuracy? Even the podium places are far from settled.

I think there's an odd perception from this race if you just look at the yellow jersey that it is all sewn up, done and dusted already, despite the gaps being small. And (with respect to posters who have watched for many years, and still remain bored with it this year) perhaps some of the boredom stems from obsessing about the yellow, and forgetting about all of the other parts of the race that make it interesting?

How about we scrap podiums and records of top 3's and top 10's etc - so that the fight for yellow is actually the fight for yellow and people might have a go - currently the impression seems to be that everyone has decided that yellow has gone and they are riding defensively to protect a top 3 place, a top 5 place or a top 10 place, depending on where they are - tbh with that mentality ASO should train a camera on whoever is in 11th place as currently they seem to be first rider that has nothing to lose and a lot to gain by making a top 10 on a GC.

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

Remember when their used to be battles for the Green Jersey? Cavendish v Hushovd or Petacchi, McEwen v Cooke etc.

That competition is dead for a generation.

What makes the Tour the Tour is that it's not just about the Yellow Jersey.

The Green Jersey competition has been killed by attempts to make it more exciting with the big points at the intermediate sprint. I know you like your research so can you work out what the points scores would have been when Cav abandoned had they been using the previous points system? I suspect that much of the tinkering being suggested to make the Yellow Jersey battle more competitive would end up producing something similar.

Maybe a massed start hill climb stage would help liven things up? If they were literally racing up a single 20km Col they could potentially ride it hard from the start and it would be hard to control but I suspect the best way to make people ride for the GC win would be to seriously weight the UCI points and prize money so that just riding for a top 10 isn't attractive to anyone.

above_the_cows

Is this defending your position thing the fault of the race, the riders or the World Tour points (or whatever it's called) thingy.

kingstongraham

Isn't the main problem with lack of excitement that the best climber of the contenders is also the best TTer of the contenders? Not a lot is going to change that.

dinyull

KingstonGraham wrote:

Isn't the main problem with lack of excitement that the best climber of the contenders is also the best TTer of the contenders?

With the best supporting cast of the contenders.

larkim

The comparison with test cricket is flawed. Cricket as a sport has followed cycling (in a way) by introducing different forms of the sport - 20:20, one day, day night etc are newer forms of the game, where as criteriums, track, monuments etc have been around for a while.

Cycling doesn't need to invent new formats, fans of the sport just need to accept that not every event will be thrills and spills - just as not every test match (or series) sets the world alight. It doesn't mean anything is broken with the format, it just means that that is the way the competitors in that particular incidence of the event have made it turn out.

ugo.santalucia

Tangled Metal wrote:

Someone mentioned test cricket above in comparison with the tour. Interesting point I thought because the cricketing authorities have been introducing more types of cricket match. 20/20, night or evening matches, limited overs of various kinds. The aim is to make it more interesting and accessible to potential audiences.

I think this thread started as an.attempt to suggest ideas to make the tour more accessible and interesting to not just the die hard fans but the general public too. It's not that interesting IMHO, that Ugo or atc have their take on the level of excitement felt with this year's tour. What's interesting to me is whether there is something that could make it interesting to a me audience. Would a 10 year old boy put his PlayStation controller down and find it exciting? Just one example of someone the sport might benefit.from enticing into cycling through interest in top level cycling.

Point I'm trying to make, whether it's exciting or not now could we make it.better? What would do that in your opinion? We've had some ideas but a lot more debate over the definition of exciting and the viewer's expectations. More improvement ideas and the debate over their benefits interests me.

Good post

Pross

It's almost as if some on here think the riders spend 3 weeks pootling around France without bothering trying. The truth is everyone is at their limit and cannot do more than they are already doing to try to win the race (OK, maybe some are at 99% while defending a position but to do anything would need 110% which cannot be sustained). No tinkering with the format is really going to help this, cutting team sizes may arguably just make them more tired and reluctant to attack (although I'd like to see 6 or 7 man teams trialled). The other possible solution is to cut the race to 2 weeks but then you are destroying the whole concept of a Grand Tour.

ugo.santalucia

Above The Cows wrote:

There are other cycling events on the calendar. A whole heap of one day races, other GTs, one week races etc., etc. And that's just road cycling, other types of cycling is available, track, BMX, MTB... Maybe if people can't enjoy the ebb and flow and nuance of a GT they should stick to the 'excitement' of the Classics or the adrenaline rush race to the line of the match sprint or the bonkers confusing circus that is the Madison.

That's a bit like saying if you don't like the way the World cup is played, then you should give the Carling cup a try... if you are interested in cycling you will inevitably bump in the Tour de France, which by all means is a great event... some exciting racing in the bumpy stages... the only problem is the predictability of the mountain stages, which all look like the carbon copy of each other... shots of a train of 20 riders in a line parading at crazy speed up a set of hairpins... you can look at it from the motorbike, from the riders' saddle or from the helicopter, but it's always invariably the same stuff...
when the get to 3 Km to the top you lose hope that anything significant will happen... at 2Km you lose hope that anything at all will happen and when they go under the flamme rouge you hope that at least the sprint will split them apart

Madison in fab, in fact the IOC are so enlighted that they have removed it from the Olympic program

ugo.santalucia

Pross wrote:

It's almost as if some on here think the riders spend 3 weeks pootling around France without bothering trying. The truth is everyone is at their limit and cannot do more than they are already doing to try to win the race (OK, maybe some are at 99% while defending a position but to do anything would need 110% which cannot be sustained). No tinkering with the format is really going to help this, cutting team sizes may arguably just make them more tired and reluctant to attack (although I'd like to see 6 or 7 man teams trialled). The other possible solution is to cut the race to 2 weeks but then you are destroying the whole concept of a Grand Tour.

I correct you: only a tinkering of the format will make sense of it. Say a new rule states that a gap is only a gap if there is a minute between the riders... they might not bother to attack, or they might go for crazy attacks early on in the stage... the all dynamics of the race would change... for the better? Hard to say without trying things.