Hammer series

newton98

I agree with most of what's been said about the rationale behind it, I remain unconvinced but we need someone to address the ASO monopoly.

If I've understood the final round based on the cycling podcast, it's a head to head team time trial with handicaps so they all end up at the line together. TTTs are normally pretty sketchy but they'll have all 8(?) teams doing it simultaneously, that sounds nuts. Is that like a whole race of sprint trains?

rick_chasey

Alright, judging from the racing we've seen in Omloop, Kuurne, and now Strade, the problem in cycling isn't long 200km races.

It's a lack of imagination in stage races, and probably excessive expectations of what Grand Tours can realistically offer.

bobmcstuff

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alright, judging from the racing we've seen in Omloop, Kuurne, and now Strade, the problem in cycling isn't long 200km races.

It's a lack of imagination in stage races, and probably excessive expectations of what Grand Tours can realistically offer.

Yeah, agreed - but what we've also seen is a proliferation of crappy formulaic desert races, there's definitely space in the calendar for something different as well.

Pross

bobmcstuff wrote:

Second point - are you sure that's the right way round? Thought 20:20 was invented to combat dwindling fans not the cause of the dwindling fans.

I agree that new things aren't necessarily good but it's worth seeing if it is any good surely... As has been pointed out elsewhere it's got to be more interesting than some of the desert races with the formulaic 5 hours of doomed breakaway and sprint finish.

I'm going to hold out of judgement till it's been run once or twice...

I agree that 20/20 was introduced to bring crowds back into cricket and at a domestic level it has helped but at international level I think it has created / speeded up a decline in test attendances.

wombly_knees

Pross wrote:

I don't understand the 'anything that gets more people watching / investing in the sport has to be good' argument. If you play around with a sport too much you end up with something that is no longer that sport e.g. you take the format of rugby but some people want players to become professional so they set up a new organisation but then they reduce team sizes, restrict the amount of times a team can get tackled before giving away possession, remove other key aspects of the game and hey presto you end up with a completely new sport.

Also, look at a virtually empty cricket ground in the sub-continent during a test match that would have previously been teeming with vocal, knowledgable spectators who loved the game but now are only interested in the quick fix form. Do we want cycling to go down that route?

Disagree with the second part. Attendances are okay. The empty stadia in India are mainly the likes of Pune and Nagpur. The former is quite inaccessible without a private vehicle. Living in a satellite town of Mumbai, i can reach it more comfortably than a large section of Pune. The latter is in the middle of nowhere (Some 30km outside Nagpur). Chennai can't seat anyone in three/four stands due to an ongoing PIL. For the England series, there was this problem as well-
link

Bangladesh has some decent attendances. Pakistan would lap up any cricket for obvious reasons. Sri Lanka is the only one with low attendances, but they've rarely had great attendances for tests and this is pretty much their worst team in 20 years.

Also, IMO, while the atmosphere is much more sanitised in tests these days, the vile pricks are also far fewer. Point being that I don't think it'll deter fans who watch the tour or the classics (where there is a clear pecking order unlike cricket, which can struggle with context apart from world cups and a couple of series), it'll only broaden it to a wider base.

blazing_saddles

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alright, judging from the racing we've seen in Omloop, Kuurne, and now Strade, the problem in cycling isn't long 200km races.

It's a lack of imagination in stage races, and probably excessive expectations of what Grand Tours can realistically offer.

This. Very much this.

How is having a final day, chase handicap TTT any better, when the leading teams go first?
The spectators will be packing up their picnics with 16 teams left to finish.

bobmcstuff

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alright, judging from the racing we've seen in Omloop, Kuurne, and now Strade, the problem in cycling isn't long 200km races.

It's a lack of imagination in stage races, and probably excessive expectations of what Grand Tours can realistically offer.

This. Very much this.

How is having a final day, chase handicap TTT any better, when the leading teams go first?
The spectators will be packing up their picnics with 16 teams left to finish.

The obvious comment might be that the best crit racing teams aren't likely to also be the best TTT teams... But yes there would probably be some teams miles off the back.

rick_chasey

So after the past 2 weeks of racing, we're all agreed the Tour should start in late Feb, right?????

dish_dash

Rick Chasey wrote:

So after the past 2 weeks of racing, we're all agreed the Tour should start in late Feb, right?????

It's not all about the bloody Tour!

rick_chasey

No, you're right, it's about back-to-back crits and "teams only".

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

No, you're right, it's about back-to-back brits and "teams only".

I'm gonna say you meant 'crits' and that's a Freudian typo.

rick_chasey

Sodding apple autocorrect.

No_Ta_Doctor

I think we can all agree that cycling is best in crosswinds and rain.

We should just move the tour somewhere wetter and windier, with an air transfer to do a few mountains in the Alps/Pyrenees.