Final tour mark: result

specialgueststar

n=36
mean = 5.63
sd = 1.10

quite average then

imatfaal

No arguing over points - there is a thread for that. But does this house agree that even a 5.63 Tour de France is still better than most FIFA World Cups, IAAF World Championships, Olympics (other than the cycling), or any other long and involved spoting event (perhaps excepting Rugby World Cup which always thrills) ?

m.r.m.

No point comparing apples to oranges. You can enjoy many things in life without having one be better than the other. Except chocolates. There, Valrhona is king!

kingstongraham

imatfaal wrote:

No arguing over points - there is a thread for that. But does this house agree that even a 5.63 Tour de France is still better than most FIFA World Cups, IAAF World Championships, Olympics (other than the cycling), or any other long and involved spoting event (perhaps excepting Rugby World Cup which always thrills) ?

If you expect the athletics/Olympics to be all excitement all the time, even during the qualifying rounds, then it will disappoint as much as if you expect the TdF to be all thrills all day.

TheBigBean

imatfaal wrote:

No arguing over points - there is a thread for that. But does this house agree that even a 5.63 Tour de France is still better than most FIFA World Cups, IAAF World Championships, Olympics (other than the cycling), or any other long and involved spoting event (perhaps excepting Rugby World Cup which always thrills) ?

The FIFA world cup is not the pinnacle of the sport, so isn't comparable.

DeVlaeminck

TheBigBean wrote:

imatfaal wrote:

No arguing over points - there is a thread for that. But does this house agree that even a 5.63 Tour de France is still better than most FIFA World Cups, IAAF World Championships, Olympics (other than the cycling), or any other long and involved spoting event (perhaps excepting Rugby World Cup which always thrills) ?

The FIFA world cup is not the pinnacle of the sport, so isn't comparable.

Debatable to say the least. I think most would consider the FIFA World Cup to be the pinnacle in terms of the most prestigious competition in football - the one they really want to win.

Anyway I think the TdF is good but could be so much better if a way were found to weaken the strength of the teams - the most obvious solution would be to cut team size by at least two riders and go from there. Then we could look at race radios again but team size would be the change I'd make.

Richmond Racer 2

in a way I wish one of the GTs and UCI could agree just for one race, to forego race radios.

Just for people to STFU about them

See how short a leash is put on breakaways then

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

in a way I wish one of the GTs and UCI could agree just for one race, to forego race radios.

Just for people to STFU about them

See how short a leash is put on breakaways then

Because the leash was so long this Tour.

Richmond Racer 2

Rick Chasey wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

in a way I wish one of the GTs and UCI could agree just for one race, to forego race radios.

Just for people to STFU about them

See how short a leash is put on breakaways then

Because the leash was so long this Tour.

Meh

Just give the racer radio mentalists one race to get over-excited about

Then never mention it again

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

in a way I wish one of the GTs and UCI could agree just for one race, to forego race radios.

Just for people to STFU about them

See how short a leash is put on breakaways then

Because the leash was so long this Tour.

Meh

Just give the racer radio mentalists one race to get over-excited about

Then never mention it again

I can imagine a couple of instances where lack of radios would have changed the tactical element off the top of my head.

#1 - Froome's major mechanical. Would have been harder to arrange the sky troops; no bad thing in hindsight. More difficult chase. WOuld it have changed much? probs not, but a bit more jepordy there.

#2; Landa going up the road on that short stage. With only time gaps it would have been more interesting to see what Landa and Froome did, privy only to a few shouts from the team car. Again, likely a small difference, if at all but it's a little extra uncertainty, which in the Tour is no bad thing.

The focus on 'how far does the break get away' misses the tactical instances which change without radios.

They normally revolve around instances where team mates are at different points on the road. It forces the riders to take more initiative in those scenarios.


Chasing breaks is nothing to do with radios.

rick_chasey

And you tell me the Fenton incident in 2012 would have been the same without radios...!

bobmcstuff

I think people overestimate the impact of radios, given the guys in the car are watching the same feeds as us (but often broken up in the mountains due to signal, apparently), it's going to take them a few seconds to figure out what's going on and then a few more to figure out what to do about it and get on the radio.

When you're talking about attacks in this Tour which gain maybe 30s, by the time they've gone through the radios the race is already up the road.

Rider-to-rider radios might be a bit quicker but still, races have a lot of split second decisions about closing gaps or taking wheels which the radios can't help with.

And it's not like they won't get told what the gap to the break is anyway.

The_Boy

Rick Chasey wrote:

And you tell me the Fenton incident in 2012 would have been the same without radios...!

Well it would have prevented Froome mishearing 'slow' as 'go', so would have removed the single talking point of the race.

*whistles innocently*

Richmond Racer 2

Rick Chasey wrote:

And you tell me the Fenton incident in 2012 would have been the same without radios...!

The sole use of the race radio on la Toussuire was as a prop by Fenton in his performance art piece.

He asked on the team bus that morning if he could attack at 5km to go. Was told no. Asked if he could attack at 4km to go. Was told no.

He disobeyed and attacked to show the world that he could drop his team leader. The ostentatious radio earpiece fiddling and virtual track stand was part and parcel of the performance.

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

And you tell me the Fenton incident in 2012 would have been the same without radios...!

The sole use of the race radio on la Toussuire was as a prop by Fenton in his performance art piece.

He asked on the team bus that morning if he could attack at 5km to go. Was told no. Asked if he could attack at 4km to go. Was told no.

He disobeyed and attacked to show the world that he could drop his team leader. The ostentatious radio earpiece fiddling and virtual track stand was part and parcel of the performance.

Alright, but you get my point.

It's not inconceivable he could have decided to go and been radio-d to hang back. Agreed?

In which case, the radio would have made a difference.

There are instances where the radio has played a role in tactics. No doubt.

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

They normally revolve around instances where team mates are at different points on the road. It forces the riders to take more initiative in those scenarios.

Actually, it forces riders to guess, rather than take initiative. Yes they have to make the decision themselves, but they don't have the info to do it with.

rick_chasey

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

They normally revolve around instances where team mates are at different points on the road. It forces the riders to take more initiative in those scenarios.

Actually, it forces riders to guess, rather than take initiative. Yes they have to make the decision themselves, but they don't have the info to do it with.

Suits me.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

They normally revolve around instances where team mates are at different points on the road. It forces the riders to take more initiative in those scenarios.

Actually, it forces riders to guess, rather than take initiative. Yes they have to make the decision themselves, but they don't have the info to do it with.

Suits me.

It's not all about you though, is it. In fact none of it is about you.

rick_chasey

I quite like the "on the road" dynamic.

The fog of war. If your teammate is up the road you can't communicate with him. I kinda like that.

I like the idea it's more difficult for a top rider to marshal his troops. If radios didn't matter, no one would complain that they've gone.

I don't get the kind of wannabe insider support of radios.

Riders like it cos it makes their lives a little easier.

Maybe time for a new thread on it.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I quite like the "on the road" dynamic.

The fog of war. If your teammate is up the road you can't communicate with him. I kinda like that.

I like the idea it's more difficult for a top rider to marshal his troops. If radios didn't matter, no one would complain that they've gone.

I don't get the kind of wannabe insider support of radios.

Riders like it cos it makes their lives a little easier.

Maybe time for a new thread on it.

I want to see the best in the world being the best in the world, I want to see them best man win. You want to see them reduced to some kind of farce just because you think it's more exciting. Think about the scenarios that play out in you head - it's always the leader that gets in trouble, isn't it, never a challenger. Races are more likely to be ruined by incidents than invigorated.

Uncertainty doesn't make riders more adventurous, it makes them more conservative. If you don't know what's happening, you hold station until you do.

Ultimately, it make come down to language. I know you Dutch pride yourself on being rude, so it's quite possible that you don't have an equivalent word to our word empathy. But I'll explain it to you - it's basically understanding the feelings of other people than yourself. So it's why people would like to see people who have trained hard and made sacrifices are given the best opportunity to compete according to their merits rather than befall misfortune to give some sociopath City boy a few minutes of gratification

m.r.m.

Wow the post Tour cattiness has reached hors categorie heights.

Exhibit A

bobmcstuff

I think it's because we didn't get the usual horde of stupid threads this year for people to exercise some catharsis on.

ugo.santalucia

RichN95 wrote:

So it's why people would like to see people who have trained hard and made sacrifices are given the best opportunity to compete according to their merits rather than befall misfortune to give some sociopath City boy a few minutes of gratification

You would think so, but... I follow Nibali on Strava... he doesn't always post all his rides, but what he posts doesn't seem to me "sacrifices"... he rides (not for very long) in stunning locations in the Alps and around Lake Como at a pace which is not unsustainable for someone with an easy 400 Watt output, often in good company, often in good weather.

Admittedly, he might occasionally miss his daughter's birthday, but to be honest that works both ways... I know some would sign to get some time off their kids.

I really don't see all these sacrifices... it seems to me a great life, compared to someone his age with the same (inexistent) qualifications, being abused by customers and management in a shabby call center for a small fraction of the money he earns.

Let's be honest... nobody becomes a professional sportsman as a "sacrifice"... it's a choice and in some cases (pretty much anyone doing Tour de France) it's totally worth it, financially and not

DeVlaeminck

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

in a way I wish one of the GTs and UCI could agree just for one race, to forego race radios.

Just for people to STFU about them

See how short a leash is put on breakaways then

The comment you responded to was really about reducing team size as a way to lessen the controlling influence of a strong team with radios thrown in as something that might be considered make a small contribution along the same lines.

Still as you've picked up on it it's not about whether the break gets 10 minutes or 5 minutes before being wound in. That is largely an irrelevance. For me it's more about what Rick referred to as the fog of war - incidents like Froome popping a spoke or when someone attacks that perhaps wasn't expected to attack - when someone gets in the break who might be a threat - when the race goes off script.

It's about the extent to which you want to see the strongest rider with the strongest team win or whether you want to open up space for uncertainty in the outcome for riders who can use intelligence, tactics and who are willing to risk losing the race to try and win it. I'd go for the latter - why read a novel if you know the ending.

knedlicky

RichN95 wrote:

Uncertainty doesn't make riders more adventurous, it makes them more conservative. If you don't know what's happening, you hold station until you do.

Surely riders are more conservative with the radios, conservative in the sense of making a more paced, controlled effort?
They “hold station” for longer, precisely because they know what's happening, are so informed, only doing different when they, or rather (the riders having relinquished much of the tactical-thinking and decision-making) their DS believes not “holding station” might gain them an advantage or is necessary to prevent another gaining or winning. Minimal risk.

The only argument I can see in favour of radios is that it could mean GT organisers increasingly plan stages where radio-controlled tactics become more difficult, where the terrain, profile, surface, windy-ness or wind hampers control. Of course, the organisers should be doing this anyway, but now more intensively.

(If radios continue, hopefully the organisers will also shorten long flat stages with likely sprint finishes - there is no point in having flat and long when radios mean, breaks over such terrain will almost certainly be caught)

kingstongraham

knedlicky wrote:

(If radios continue, hopefully the organisers will also shorten long flat stages with likely sprint finishes - there is no point in having flat and long when radios mean, breaks over such terrain will almost certainly be caught)

Make them longer. If you are going to have a long flat stage, its purpose should be to put hours into the legs. It doesn't matter that it is 7 hours of nothing happening for the viewer.

bobmcstuff

KingstonGraham wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

(If radios continue, hopefully the organisers will also shorten long flat stages with likely sprint finishes - there is no point in having flat and long when radios mean, breaks over such terrain will almost certainly be caught)

Make them longer. If you are going to have a long flat stage, its purpose should be to put hours into the legs. It doesn't matter that it is 7 hours of nothing happening for the viewer.

Breaks will be caught even without radios on pan flat sprint stages. The gaps are still communicated to the riders! Why do people keep assuming that without radios the peloton will have no idea whatsoever what the gap to the break is, it's b0llocks. On that kind of predictable flat stage radios or not won't change whether the sprinters teams close it down.

On other stages where the terrain and roads make the calculation of the time it might take to catch the break more difficult it might well be different. But domestiques can still drop back to their team cars for information (of course that won't affect heat of the moment stuff, just the gap to the days break etc.).

It might change how quickly the break is allowed to get away, since it will be harder for teams to be sure who is in the break and therefore whether it is a threat.

RichN95.

I decided that from now on any one who wants to ban radios should no longer post on here. Instead they can address their points to us via a letter - perhaps a circular, perhaps in Cycling Weekly. A fax may be acceptable. I feel that withdrawing easy forms of communication will allow them to think for themselves rather than just roboticly repeating the opinions of others. This way I am confident this will result in exciting original and illuminating debates and not the same boring arguments we've had for years.

kingstongraham

Or

Mad_Malx

I wonder what Phillipa York's view on radios is.

professeur

Mad_Malx wrote:

I wonder what Phillipa York's view on radios is.

Doesn't matter, as long as it's the correct one (apparently...)