Vision 2020
Comments
-
Ridgerider wrote:Smaller teams, and more of them: Less opportunity for one team to dominate, more competition to win.
Are there enough sponsors out there to sustain more teams at the top level?0 -
Ridgerider wrote:We have differentiation with the current system, who is to say the same cream won't rise to the top?
Here are my thoughts...
Smaller teams, and more of them: Less opportunity for one team to dominate, more competition to win.
Smaller teams yes please, although I think it won't make much difference. They can't include more teams, there's just not enough facilities. It's not the riders, it's the support staff, cars, trucks, buses, and so on. Many places already can't hold a start or finish to a stage due to logistics.GT Races: how about all the riders in the GTs needing to complete a specified set of 'qualification' races, thereby all arriving at the major tours with the same amount of miles in their legs. That way, there might be clarity on the road, with riders needing the win stages to win the GT rather then the having the current miss match of only a few teams going for the GC and the rest chasing around with fresh legs for stage wins...it might also break the current stale format of start, breakaway, catch, animated stage hunters, passive GT hopefuls.
Completely disagree with this. Firstly it puts the GTs above all other racing which I massively disagree with, more on that after, but different riders require different build ups and riders have different responsibilities in terms of team duties etc. American teams have to race in the US at certain races, Italian teams in Italy and so on. Attempting to force a calendar on people would be a nightmare.
Quite apart from that fact this method would ruin other races in the calendar. The TDF is the big payday for teams but
many riders have very different goals as well as having to ride the TDF. If Sagan has raced MSR, Strade Bianche, loads of cobbled semi-classics, classics, Ronde and PR should he then have to ride Tirreno-Adriatico or the Dauphine or Paris-Nice etc. just to ride the Tour? Do we want to see climbers and GT contenders turning up in Belgium in spring just to hang about at the back and take the place of riders who would actually be competitive but now don't get a ride as they were never going to ride the Tour?0 -
^ isn't this the problem with the whole "best riders at all the best races" angle that the podcast was banging on about. It makes no sense. The charm of cycling is the variety in riders and races...
It works on the assumption that somehow there is a single "best rider" each year. And if there is one it isn't the winner of the TdF it's someone like Valverde who does decently throughout the season with a couple of wins.0 -
-
dish_dash wrote:^ isn't this the problem with the whole "best riders at all the best races" angle that the podcast was banging on about. It makes no sense. The charm of cycling is the variety in riders and races...
It works on the assumption that somehow there is a single "best rider" each year. And if there is one it isn't the winner of the TdF it's someone like Valverde who does decently throughout the season with a couple of wins.
It's just a slogan race promoters use.
Unsurprisingly it was the race promoter who was going on about wanting the best riders at his 'best race'.0 -
iainf72 wrote:So I just listened to the podcast. It was quite good I thought, however I think they missed a bit of a trick by not talking more about how it's presented. There was good discussion about making content available more widely etc, but I think a lot can be done with the format. I really enjoy watching racing but to be fair, I sometimes wish there was a 30 minutes highlights package. Many of us got into the TdF in the 80's with this exact format. Breaks it down into something less daunting.
This could also be used to redistribute some of the TV income to the teams. So the race owners have the live rights but they then give the teams or Velon or whoever the highlights rights (could be sold for a nominal fee or free as a way to keep the teams onside). Then the teams could add in other narratives, perhaps behind the scenes footage, bike camera footage, interviews etc - so the 60-90 minute highlights is more than just the racing which might appeal more to a wider audience.0 -
I more or less agree with Rick on this one. Not enough distance on some stages to differentiate the top riders. However, I would add two caveats:
- Shorter MTF stages (sometimes really short) mixed in can really spice it up (think Aubisque in '85)
- It would only really work at the Tour, where the exposure and potential glory will mean that racing will be sufficiently hard from the gunIt's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
What I was trying to suggest was that GTs might become more of a spectacle if all the teams taking part had the same objective, i.e. to win GC. At the moment (and always?) there are a mixture of teams taking part, all with differing objectives.
If it was a football match, it would be like watching one team who wanted to score the most goals verses one that wanted the most throw-ins...Half man, Half bike0 -
The problem is that at any one time there's probably only five or six riders who are credible challengers for a Grand Tour, especially the TdF. 11 of the last 13 GTs have been split between four riders. You'll have teams whose sole ambition is to crack the top 15.Ridgerider wrote:What I was trying to suggest was that GTs might become more of a spectacle if all the teams taking part had the same objective, i.e. to win GC. At the moment (and always?) there are a mixture of teams taking part, all with differing objectives.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Ridgerider wrote:What I was trying to suggest was that GTs might become more of a spectacle if all the teams taking part had the same objective, i.e. to win GC. At the moment (and always?) there are a mixture of teams taking part, all with differing objectives.
If it was a football match, it would be like watching one team who wanted to score the most goals verses one that wanted the most throw-ins...
Personally the only thing that attracts me to GTs is the variety of riders and goals. The overall GC is usually the most boring of the ongoing competitions and stories to be honest (excepting the Green Jersey recently). That's the whole point, the stories within the stories, seeing who is going to break away, who's going to chase, the tactics in play for the Malliot A Pois etc. Focussing on the GC above all else would ruin it completely.
Even if you disagree with the above, I don't think trying to force teams to focus on GC only, at a detriment to other races on the calendar which is my biggest issue, is a good idea. There aren't enough good GT domestiques and overall contenders to fill out enough teams.0 -
Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:Ridgerider wrote:What I was trying to suggest was that GTs might become more of a spectacle if all the teams taking part had the same objective, i.e. to win GC. At the moment (and always?) there are a mixture of teams taking part, all with differing objectives.
If it was a football match, it would be like watching one team who wanted to score the most goals verses one that wanted the most throw-ins...
Personally the only thing that attracts me to GTs is the variety of riders and goals. The overall GC is usually the most boring of the ongoing competitions and stories to be honest (excepting the Green Jersey recently). That's the whole point, the stories within the stories, seeing who is going to break away, who's going to chase, the tactics in play for the Malliot A Pois etc. Focussing on the GC above all else would ruin it completely.
Even if you disagree with the above, I don't think trying to force teams to focus on GC only, at a detriment to other races on the calendar which is my biggest issue, is a good idea. There aren't enough good GT domestiques and overall contenders to fill out enough teams.
I only follow the TdF for the Lanterne Rouge and now RidgeRider want to take that away from me...
0 -
Right, I submit my next random thought...Robert Gesink at the Vuelta this year.
a. Going for GC - provides little audience entertainment, and eventually drops out of contention, so...
b. Goes for stage wins - provides lots of entertainment.
Therefore...make the winner of the GTs the one who collects the most points, not the one who does it in the shortest time. Then you are giving riders reasons to win stages, and creating room for opportunist/last stage do or die efforts to steal GC victory.
Sorted.Half man, Half bike0 -
Or it could all be over as a meaningful contest around stage 15 like the green jersey is these daysRidgerider wrote:Right, I submit my next random thought...Robert Gesink at the Vuelta this year.
a. Going for GC - provides little audience entertainment, and eventually drops out of contention, so...
b. Goes for stage wins - provides lots of entertainment.
Therefore...make the winner of the GTs the one who collects the most points, not the one who does it in the shortest time. Then you are giving riders reasons to win stages, and creating room for opportunist/last stage do or die efforts to steal GC victory.
Sorted.
My guess is it to more negative racing - even the attacks - why try to gain a minute when five seconds is just as good? I think wheelsuckers would prevail (and Sky would hire the climber with the best sprint rather than the one with the best TT)
I think there needs to be less emphasis on GC, not more. Money and ranking points should be better distributed to stage winners and points/KOM/team competitions.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Call me old-fashioned, but I quite like it when the winner of a race is the one who finishes it fastest.0
-
Points system? No, just no.
Too many teams with priorities other than the GC? No - exactly the opposite. Too many teams riding to protect a top 15 finish instead of looking for a stage win or a jersey. My one small hope with a reduction of team size is it will force teams to put all their eggs in one basket, to ignore the GC in favour of potential stage wins. The GC leader often doesn't even need his team to work to bring back attacks, because other teams behind him will be chasing to protect their cherished 12th place...Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Points system? No, just no.
Too many teams with priorities other than the GC? No - exactly the opposite. Too many teams riding to protect a top 15 finish instead of looking for a stage win or a jersey. My one small hope with a reduction of team size is it will force teams to put all their eggs in one basket, to ignore the GC in favour of potential stage wins. The GC leader often doesn't even need his team to work to bring back attacks, because other teams behind him will be chasing to protect their cherished 12th place...
Maybe, then, one answer is to increase the rate at which WT ranking points for GT placings drops off outside the top 3 or 5 - thus giving less incentive to protect that spot. And at the same time increase the WT ranking points and other incentives for stage wins.0 -
We need to stop pretending there needs to be a season long points system. No one cares.
It's about presentation, not structural changes. Remember the America's Cup a couple of years ago and they got the coverage spot on. I do not care about the Americas Cup but it was so engrossing because it was well done. The fundamentals of the event stayed more or less the same.
I do think Rick is right, you need to have longer stages in GT's. Route design should just try to be interesting / hard, not try to achieve a certain outcome.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:We need to stop pretending there needs to be a season long points system. No one cares.
It's about presentation, not structural changes. Remember the America's Cup a couple of years ago and they got the coverage spot on. I do not care about the Americas Cup but it was so engrossing because it was well done. The fundamentals of the event stayed more or less the same.
I do think Rick is right, you need to have longer stages in GT's. Route design should just try to be interesting / hard, not try to achieve a certain outcome.
I'll leave the longer stages thing - I've said my bit - but I agree with you on the first part.
Cycling's issue is that for the most part, nothing much happens of any excitement, and it happens for a very long time. Add to that the fact that for large portions of the actual exciting bits nobody knows what the hell is going on (who's in the break? is rider x still in the chasing group? what are the gaps? etc...) and it's hard to get people into it. It's a steep learning curve. A highlights package that focussed on what actually happened in a race - instead of tedious interviews after it's been won - would help. Think Cosmo's how the race was won, but extended and not quite so chirpy.
For real time coverage I recommend learning Danish and getting TV2. Rolf Sørensen's commentary is superb. He doesn't just get the rider's right, he lets you know what the tactics are. The Vuelta stage where Yates was attacking while Chaves was out ahead - GB commentary had him protecting his GC position where Rolf was pointing out he was burning an opposition domestique out.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
iainf72 wrote:We need to stop pretending there needs to be a season long points system. No one cares.
I don't disagree, I'm just saying if there is such a system it shouldn't be structured to encourage teams to protect GT top 15s...0 -
Could just double the points for the winner and half all the points available for places thereafter.
So if it's 50 points for 1st and 20 for second, it's 100 for first and 10 for second.0 -
Anyone else seen the rumoured Innsbruk worlds route for 2018??
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:0 -
Hope it happens. Looks utterly mental!
They should probably keep the profile, but cut 80-90 km.PTP Champion 2019, 2022 & 20230 -
-
Haven't we seen shorter races with super hard profiles lead to better racing?PTP Champion 2019, 2022 & 20230
-
It's about the only sure fire way that they could come up with to ensure Sagan doesn't get 4 in a row. The added kicker for him is that can see his house from the Patsch on a clear day.0
-
M.R.M. wrote:Haven't we seen shorter races with super hard profiles lead to better racing?
In stage races, maybe. But in the World Championship road race, never. It would totally demean the rainbow jersey, the whole point of the race is to see who has the strength and determination to win after 250 kms of racing. Going over 200 kms in a one day race is what separates the wheat from the chaff.0 -
M.R.M. wrote:Hope it happens. Looks utterly mental!
They should probably keep the profile, but cut 80-90 km.
Get out0 -
andyp wrote:M.R.M. wrote:Haven't we seen shorter races with super hard profiles lead to better racing?
In stage races, maybe. But in the World Championship road race, never. It would totally demean the rainbow jersey, the whole point of the race is to see who has the strength and determination to win after 250 kms of racing. Going over 200 kms in a one day race is what separates the wheat from the chaff.
And as discussed extensively I and others believe you still need the long stages in stage races to induce the fatigue and separate the wheat from the chaff.
World's should be long.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Anyone else seen the rumoured Innsbruk worlds route for 2018??
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
It could be brilliant. But with 9 man teams likely for the top climbers I think it's too much and will result in nothing until the last climb.0 -
