Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Smaller teams for 2017

RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,902
edited November 2016 in Pro race
CyIHZoOWQAAYpI_.jpg
Twitter: @RichN95

Posts

  • dish_dashdish_dash Posts: 4,724
    Well... for 2017 and beyond!

    Probably a good idea, but an interesting move especially as team sizes are set to stay the same in 2017... Some riders going to be missing out on opportunities...
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 14,443
    Not convinced about the argument that it makes it more difficult to dominate a race.
    Surely it just leads to greater specialisation/narrowing of objectives
    Believe that a farther shore
    Is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    Not convinced about the argument that it makes it more difficult to dominate a race.
    Surely it just leads to greater specialisation/narrowing of objectives

    Yep. All hands on deck, less sprinters and stage hunters for the GC teams, more chance to get away for the stage hunting teams.
  • dish_dash wrote:
    Well... for 2017 and beyond!

    Probably a good idea, but an interesting move especially as team sizes are set to stay the same in 2017... Some riders going to be missing out on opportunities...

    There's also an increase in the number of WT races, so technically there's probably an increase in number of opportunities.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,263
    joelsim wrote:
    Not convinced about the argument that it makes it more difficult to dominate a race.
    Surely it just leads to greater specialisation/narrowing of objectives

    Yep. All hands on deck, less sprinters and stage hunters for the GC teams, more chance to get away for the stage hunting teams.

    I'm not sure that's a bad thing, it might make all teams with real top 5 pretensions in the GTs focus; and then if you have 5 teams all-in for a mountain train it stops 1 team i.e. Sky being dominant. It might push teams to try and out-Sky Sky, if you see what I mean.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • andypandyp Posts: 8,128
    Surely it just means Sky will drop the €300k per annum rider from the Tour team? They'll still retain the horsepower that means they can drop everyone bar the other team leaders at will.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,902
    andyp wrote:
    Surely it just means Sky will drop the €300k per annum rider from the Tour team? They'll still retain the horsepower that means they can drop everyone bar the other team leaders at will.
    It probably makes it less likely that Elissonde will ride the Tour. And no-one will will double up Giro/Tour. The big teams will still dominate.


    The main effect of this will be cutting race organiser's overheads.

    Also 30-60 riders will be dropped from the World Tour teams over time. Not good for them. It will help the finances of the smaller WT teams, but give the big teams more purchasing power.

    The main effect on racing will be putting more pressure on teams that have abandons. Which may cancel out any safety improvements as teams get more paranoid.


    Having said that I've been an advocate of cutting team sizes.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Hopefully it'll result in a more open race. Regardless of which team is doing it, having a dominant team riding the front all day in the mountains makes for a boring race and one that is not worth watching after the first mountain stage.
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    The riders being dropped from teams is worrying. Lefevere and Dekker have both already said this. 3-5 riders potentially per team.
  • joelsim wrote:
    The riders being dropped from teams is worrying. Lefevere and Dekker have both already said this. 3-5 riders potentially per team.

    Riders facing the chop have pressure heaped upon them to get results.......................................
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    joelsim wrote:
    The riders being dropped from teams is worrying. Lefevere and Dekker have both already said this. 3-5 riders potentially per team.

    Riders facing the chop have pressure heaped upon them to get results.......................................


    All very well but 50-100 fewer riders in the WT next year isn't good news.
  • joelsim wrote:
    joelsim wrote:
    The riders being dropped from teams is worrying. Lefevere and Dekker have both already said this. 3-5 riders potentially per team.

    Riders facing the chop have pressure heaped upon them to get results.......................................


    All very well but 50-100 fewer riders in the WT next year isn't good news.

    :?
    What did you think I was inferring?
    It certainly wasn't good news I was hinting at.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • Jez monJez mon Posts: 3,809
    joelsim wrote:
    joelsim wrote:
    The riders being dropped from teams is worrying. Lefevere and Dekker have both already said this. 3-5 riders potentially per team.

    Riders facing the chop have pressure heaped upon them to get results.......................................


    All very well but 50-100 fewer riders in the WT next year isn't good news.

    Depends, smaller teams might keep a better handle on overall costs. If smaller teams make for more exciting racing too, then in the long term it has to be good for the health of the sport. Of course, that doesn't make it any better news for the 50-100 riders dropping off the WT.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • andypandyp Posts: 8,128
    The UCI tell ASO, RCS and Flanders Classics where to put there team reduction proposal;

    http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-sta ... d-cycling/
  • joelsim wrote:
    The riders being dropped from teams is worrying. Lefevere and Dekker have both already said this. 3-5 riders potentially per team.

    Riders facing the chop have pressure heaped upon them to get results.......................................


    i.e. the path that can lead to panicking and risking short cuts. We know how that ends.
  • ridgeriderridgerider Posts: 2,759
    But I thought we had agreed further up the thread that smaller teams will INCREASE the chances of spreading the wins around...
    Half man, Half bike...and now more familiar with the work of Prostate Cancer UK
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 46,709 Lives Here
    joelsim wrote:
    The riders being dropped from teams is worrying. Lefevere and Dekker have both already said this. 3-5 riders potentially per team.

    Riders facing the chop have pressure heaped upon them to get results.......................................


    i.e. the path that can lead to panicking and risking short cuts. We know how that ends.

    That happens anyway with 9 man teams.
  • joelsim wrote:
    The riders being dropped from teams is worrying. Lefevere and Dekker have both already said this. 3-5 riders potentially per team.

    Riders facing the chop have pressure heaped upon them to get results.......................................


    i.e. the path that can lead to panicking and risking short cuts. We know how that ends.

    That happens anyway with 9 man teams.


    Yes. But Saddles was pointing out the likelihood of increased pressure and stress. Which can raise the risk level. Thats all.
  • r0bhr0bh Posts: 1,407
    Let's not forget that in 2012 Sky were down to 8 riders very early when Kanstantsin Siutsou had to abandon, and in 2013 they were down to 8.5 riders with Thomas's cracked pelvis.

    If people think this is going to result in a large shift in the balance of power I think they will be disappointed.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 46,709 Lives Here
    It's a start.

    We were complimentary about the pressure of no contract on IAM so it's not always bad.
  • r0bh wrote:
    Let's not forget that in 2012 Sky were down to 8 riders very early when Kanstantsin Siutsou had to abandon, and in 2013 they were down to 8.5 riders with Thomas's cracked pelvis.

    If people think this is going to result in a large shift in the balance of power I think they will be disappointed.


    7.5 after Kiry was OTL on stage 8
  • timoid.timoid. Posts: 3,133
    Didn't teams used to have ten riders in GTs? What was the effect of reducing to nine?

    I think its a good idea. But perhaps it should have been announced before teams compiled their rosters. Vaughters is well p1ssed about the timing.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,902
    timoid. wrote:
    Didn't teams used to have ten riders in GTs? What was the effect of reducing to nine?
    Yes. Up to 1986. However, the reducing of the team size coincided with a drop in the total length by 1000km a year later so it's hard to tell if there was any impact.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • The financial structuring of WT cycling teams has taken a real battering in the last 3 yrs...there only seems to be 2 or 3 teams impervious to it..the only sport that seems to be bucking the trend in Europe/globally is football, so cycling, like other sports/pastimes that we watch have all suffered.This is just one effect of it..personally I like the idea of one team (Sky) being unable to dominate, but I'm not sure just dropping one rider from the roster will do it.I don't even know if there is a solution, but the charge laid at the big race doors, that they have become boring is not one with which I would disagree.
    The 3 main tours have become blueprints, year after year, with the very odd blip, a la Chris Horner!
    In any sport it is crucial, in order to keep interest that the "script" has some chance of changing, however the coming year will see much of the same from every team...Spring classic riders, then Grand Tour riders..nobody really seems able to do well in both now do they.When you look at Merckx etc they could just ride across the full spectrum of events, but like everything, the data saturation has created "specialists" who can climb and support a GC contender, sprinters looking for stage wins etc etc..it's all very bland.
    What happened to the era when Merckx/Hinault/Indurain and earlier just used to "feel good" and go for it from 30kms or so out.It was truly epic to watch a field get smashed to bits by one strong rider...that simply doesn't happen now, and I'm not sure this slight change will have any effect on race domination/boredom at all.
  • spam02spam02 Posts: 178
    I can understand this from a size of peloton safety aspect, but not as a means to make the racing more exciting by stopping teams dominating. One less rider per race will have an equal effect on diluting the strength of every team, not just the most dominant. The stronger (dominant) teams will still have the greater strength in depth and buy the better/most suitable riders to reinforce where necessary. GC teams will still concentrate on GC, Stage hunters on stages etc. Nothing will change other than some unfortunate riders will find themselves out of a job.
    This is purely a cost reducing exercise they are trying to dress-up as something else. Nothing wrong with that if it's necessary, but why not just be honest.
Sign In or Register to comment.