What went wrong?

TheBigBean

What were the main reasons that this year's tour was a bit underwhelming? You can pick more than one.

Feel free to add comments about other factors.

ugo.santalucia

One team too strong, the other teams incapable of working together to break Sky... that and the Quintana/Aru no show. Contador was not at his best and to be honest he has done his time, anything more from him is a bonus

jscl

Too many 'transition' days and flat stages.

The_Boy

Just one of those years. If every year was a classic then would be.

fat daddy

I fecking loved this year .... Ok so the overall winner was a forgone ... But the rest of the racing

All but 4 days were fantastic to watch ... 3 sprints that went to the camera ... Froome breaking on a descent, a break away winning by about 2 seconds from the following sprint bunch, Froome running, excellent GC racing for 2nd-10th, cavandish and Sagan interviews were great ... I loved it

joe2008

fat daddy wrote:

I ******* loved this year .... Ok so the overall winner was a forgone ... But the rest of the racing

All but 4 days were fantastic to watch ... 3 sprints that went to the camera ... Froome breaking on a descent, a break away winning by about 2 seconds from the following sprint bunch, Froome running, excellent GC racing for 2nd-10th, cavandish and Sagan interviews were great ... I loved it

you must be very young, or not have watched many tours - 'great interviews'

john1967

Nothing went wrong. Best cyclist won(barring a disaster today).If Froome stays fit I can see him winning next year as well,theres no one in his class right now.

hypster

I don't know why people compare this Tour with that Tour as if it's some kind of entertainment contest. I have watched every Tour since 1989 plus videos going back further than that and have thoroughly enjoyed every one. (even looking back the LA ones, they were awesome for a different reason).

If you ride a bike and have ever ridden up an Alp then you can't help but be in awe of what these guys do for three weeks straight in all weathers. Stop moaning and just appreciate the single greatest sporting spectacle on Earth for what it is.

RichN95.

As happens every year, people set their expectations too high. And also focused too much on the yellow jersey.

DeVlaeminck

When the strongest rider has the strongest team these days you generally need one or both to have misfortune for it to be a good race.

I thought it was a poor Tour, not saying there was nothing in it to enjoy but it's one of the worst I can remember and wont live long in the memory. Contrary to what some imply it is not just that Froome has been so dominant, we've had bigher winning margins in the past, it's that the racing has by and large been so sterile. It's not just that riders mounted a challenge that failed but that mostly they weren't able to mount an attack or else saw that even to try was pointless. The lower placings couldn't even fight amongst themselves due to the presence of Sky domestiques. We saw what we were missing after Froome crashed and suddenly we had some action - by far and away the best stage of the race.

specialgueststar

Great race and racing and I liked the classic route this year. This was a more traditional Tour and I felt it was more grounded somehow than some other years that seemed over-hyped. The race has evolved, turned and twisted, with each week bringing something to the table.

I think the GC riders have put on a proper show - that cobbled finish into Bern - it reminds you how hard you have to ride on every stage to remain in contention and Aru's faltering progress contrasted with Bardet's guts and determination and finding form and holding onto it on every stage

The Tour is more than it's parts - it is a spectacle - and this year was quite spectacular - (although the loss of the Ventoux summit was a shame)

qpp

I thought it was OK and unfairly maligned (Been watching since 85 fwiw, with a short break during the worst of the EPO years when I turned off in disgust)

The most angst seems to have been about Froome dominance. But he was clearly the best and rode aggressively to boot. But GTs aren't all about GC, the battles for podium, placings, stage wins and other jerseys (and placings in other jerseys) just as much of the spectacle.

I've loved the last 2 days. The breakaway battles up Joux Plane and Izaguirre's masterful descending were great watching. Stage 19 was the best of the whole tour, just a brilliant move by AG2R/Bardet/Cherel. But I loved some of the others too. Some great sprints this year. Cummings's cheeky long range attack round the traffic island to get the gap then the long grind over the Aspin. Froome's clever mugging of Quintana the next day to get a gap on the crest of the last climb, and then the audacious attack with Sagan. Dumoulin's ITT win, unbelievable power. De Gendt's constant attacking for KOM points.

Where it's been boring, it's been where other GC contenders have been not good enough, or their teams not good enough, to challenge SKY tempo. But I don't think many of them tried very hard. Movistar are poor at this at the best of times and I guess they knew Quintana was on the limit. At least Astana tried in the Alps.

The biggest disappointment is that Quintana gets a podium after wheelsucking the whole race. Apart from that, it really wasn't that terrible. I mean, I loved 2014 but that was partly because it went through my home town (Sheffield), and partly because of Nibali's brilliant attack on the cobbles. But after that it was pretty ordinary

Frankly I think most GTs are 2/3rds slow and 1/3 drama, but it's the side races and vignettes that make them enjoyable

jawooga

Apologies for the brain dump:

Do other teams need to "get better" at what Sky do? This link is a little old, but Sky's budget doesn't blow every other team out of the water http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/rac ... get-262275

I think the "any of sky's super doms could challenge themselves" is far too over stated. They all do their jobs amazingly well but are permitted bad days. They're just extremely disciplined and know their responsibilities inside out.

Sky is all about the gc while other teams spend big on sprinters and rock stars (sagan).

Astana looked amazingly strong through the alps but failed to take any stages by the scruff of the neck.

In terms of this year, I think the big 4 was a little over hyped and fleeting in the past, while Aru and Yates will come through in the next couple of years. So perhaps we're in a period of transition.

blazing_saddles

Other than the off colour Quintana, how may of the top 10 would have happily taken their GC finishing position before the race began?

v2p

jawooga wrote:

.

Yeah I agree that other teams don't do what Sky do and just go all in on the GC and get behind their leader completely. Probably in part that's because they don't have a sure fire bet like Froome to lead their team. BMC have TJ and Porte. Astana have Nibali and Aru. Tinkoff has an aging Contador and also who would pass up on having Sagan in their team. Because of their lack of an outright challenger for Froome the teams have to try something different.

That's different to when we had say peak Contador vs peak Schleck, where both came in with fully loaded teams dedicated to the GC.

Perhaps this year Movistar almost had that, because it seemed like Valverde was working for Quitana and were it not for crashes and abandons the Movistar team was looking fairly strong early on. Of course the biggest disappointment out of all of it was that Quitana just wasn't quite up to it this year for whatever reason

ddraver

I missed 2/3 of it but it wasn't a stellar year - but to have stellar years you have to have years that aren't so good...

Unless there is a real GC contender in the wings (and I don't see one), we could be in for a bit of a torrid few years if Quintana doesn't get his act together

rick_chasey

Sky dominance annihilated any decent racing for the GC.

Their uncanny ability to let the right break go didn't help either - rarely an incentive for a GC rider to race for a stage win & bonus seconds.

We were deprived of the Ventoux and surely a jury decision focused too much on saving their own embarrassment.

Front loading the KMs and back loading the mountains I don't think helped. You need some longer mountain stages to tire teams out & leave more a man v man fight. Not every time, but mix it up.

But let's be clear. Most boring Tour since at least 2012, possibly since 2005. I can't think of a single stage that will stick in my memory apart from the Ventoux farce.

Most hard fought jersey was the polka dot & that says something.

I didn't think the mountains were inspiring either. Ventoux aside you never got a sense you were on a particular mountain like you have in the past. It was just ALWAYS sky chaps at the front. They never looked challenged once.

ddraver

jawooga wrote:

Do other teams need to "get better" at what Sky do? This link is a little old, but Sky's budget doesn't blow every other team out of the water http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/rac ... get-262275

I think the "any of sky's super doms could challenge themselves" is far too over stated. They all do their jobs amazingly well but are permitted bad days. They're just extremely disciplined and know their responsibilities inside out.

Sky is all about the gc while other teams spend big on sprinters and rock stars (sagan).

The budget is one thing but I think what Sky do really well is take younger riders and develop their talent whilst they work for the team during the tour. BMC (for example) could maybe have offered Wout Poels more money but could they have turned him into a Monument Winner?

adr82

I don't think it was as horrendously bad as some people are claiming, but Quintana being off form and Contador crashing himself out of contention again were probably not helpful in keeping the GC interesting... but I suspect Froome would still have beaten Quintana through the TTs if nothing else.

Contador would at least have ended up attempting a few doomed long range attacks when he started losing time which might have been fun to watch, but Quintana just didn't seem to want to do anything but follow wheels after his efforts on Ventoux got him dropped. I guess he decided it was better to do that than to risk attacking again and losing time like several of the other GC guys did, but I don't think it's won him many fans.

jawooga

ddraver wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Do other teams need to "get better" at what Sky do? This link is a little old, but Sky's budget doesn't blow every other team out of the water http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/rac ... get-262275

I think the "any of sky's super doms could challenge themselves" is far too over stated. They all do their jobs amazingly well but are permitted bad days. They're just extremely disciplined and know their responsibilities inside out.

Sky is all about the gc while other teams spend big on sprinters and rock stars (sagan).

The budget is one thing but I think what Sky do really well is take younger riders and develop their talent whilst they work for the team during the tour. BMC (for example) could maybe have offered Wout Poels more money but could they have turned him into a Monument Winner?

Yes, sorry. That is exactly my point. It is quite clear what Sky's purpose is and they have a long term success strategy that they build for. No doubt they're already succession planning for Froome. Arguably Sky's stable money stream allow them to do this but no reason someone like Tinkoff couldn't.

TheBigBean

Some stats from the internet:

In the last 50 years, this race has the smallest time from 1st to 10th, the largest ratio of time 1st-2nd/1st-10th and the highest % of finishers.


Race Radio weighs in as well.

‏@TheRaceRadio
Prudhomme tells L'Equipe that Sky "overpowered the race in the mountain passes" and "More than ever, we need 1 less rider per team"

joelsim

I enjoyed it.

But the best rider also had the best doms and the best strategy.

The next few years will see some changes with more riders coming through. Pretty sure Nairo, the Yates boys, Chaves, Meintjes, Latour, Lopez and (if they continue their rapid improvement) Adrien Costa and Egan Bernal will make for some good battles.

Personally I don't think Aru will ever win it.

DeadCalm

TheBigBean wrote:

Some stats from the internet:

In the last 50 years, this race has the smallest time from 1st to 10th, the largest ratio of time 1st-2nd/1st-10th and the highest % of finishers.

So, if Froome wasn't there, we'd have had a classic edition?

squired

For me it was simply a case of too many people too scared to try something and risk losing. If you look at the effort Froome put in on the crosswinds stage with Sagan I think most of the top 10 would've probably sat up and saved their energy for another day.

People say that Sky were too strong (often the commentators), but then you listen to comments from riders who contradict it. Look at yesterday for example, J-Rod took 30ish seconds on the climb. Are we saying that none of the other guys in the top 10 had the energy to go up at the same speed as him. Had they made that effort might their nearest rival have cracked and they then moved up on GC? Instead, let Sky set a steady tempo and be content with what you have....

gsk82

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tinkov- ... -has-gone/

Chris froome's dominance is the reason Tinkoff has left. Another reason to like Froome

gsk82

Duplicate

No_Ta_Doctor

Personally, though the lack of any real GC challenge and the conservatism of those racing for top ten positions was disappointing, I was quite relieved to have a tour that wasn't dominated on social media by incessant bickering about W/Kg.

Sky came with the best rider, the best team and the best strategy and executed perfectly. To counter that, the opposition would have to be absolutely on top of their game, and they weren't, and knew it early.

Tinkoff came with a fading Contador and a team built as much around Sagan as him. If he hadn't crashed he'd not have been in real contention, but would have tried a hail Mary attack or two that would have forced Sky to chase and could have opened things up.

Movistar came with the best hope to unseat Froome, but Quintana was clearly below par and suffered in the windy stages. There's not much you can do when your rider just doesn't have the legs. They could have swapped leadership to Valverde, who could surely have reached the podium, but I can't see him standing on top of it. In contrast to other years, it was clear Valverde was there for Quintana this year. It's not really fair to blame them for putting all their eggs in one basket after noting that this is exactly how Sky win the tour.

Astana were a shower of shite, a knackered Nibali (never one for taking the domestique deluxe role) and an overhyped Aru.

BMC had the next best chance, but their best rider (once they worked it out) was apparently screwed over by lack of a teammates wheel, back when they weren't sure which basket to put their eggs in.

Of all the challengers, it was actually Movistar that came with the best idea of how to win the race. They just had a rider that didn't have the legs. He couldn't limit his losses where he needed to, and arrived at the mountain stages knackered and behind. Aside from missing Froome's attack on the descent I don't think they made many mistakes, but Froome grabbing a handful of seconds here and there and some bonuses soon added up and put them in a hard place.

From then on, all eyes were on the consolation prizes, which could be won by hanging onto the Sky train while opponents dropped off it. Only Bardet, Yates, Dan Martin and the unfortunate Mollema really tried to move up, some with more luck than others.

For me the tour will be remembered not just for the farce on Ventoux and the collapsing arch, but for the breakthroughs by Bardet and Yates. The sprints were also the most unpredictable and closest for years, and Cav's resurgence was fantastic. Cummings was the icing on the cake.

kleinstroker

Personally I think the problem is that not enough teams go full gas for GC, settling for a few minutes of fame by winning a sprint stage or two for their sponsors. So sponsors happy but teams cannot really go for both sprint wins and GC in this day and age.
Going for GC only must be seen as a bit of a risk, though clearly there are plenty of riders teams can build around but they choose not to.
If all teams went GC first then we would see a sea change in the way the race is fought.

No_Ta_Doctor

kleinstroker wrote:

Personally I think the problem is that not enough teams go full gas for GC, settling for a few minutes of fame by winning a sprint stage or two for their sponsors. So sponsors happy but teams cannot really go for both sprint wins and GC in this day and age.
Going for GC only must be seen as a bit of a risk, though clearly there are plenty of riders teams can build around but they choose not to.
If all teams went GC first then we would see a sea change in the way the race is fought.

I can't see all teams going all out for GC, there are only ever going to be three or four real contenders. I'm happy for some teams only to be there for sprints or stage hunting or a jersey.

Ironically, Movistar went all out for GC this year, all eggs in one basket, and failed to make any real impact. Their 3rd place looks distinctly irrelevant.

ddraver

Their 3rd place looks distinctly irrelevant.

Not helped by the fact that it also happened by default otlr at the expense of riders who at least had a crack at making a race...

Garry H

What went "wrong" in many people's eyes was the wrong person winning.

Bertie's a has been and has been for a while.