What’s next for Team Sky?

Vino'sGhost

philthy3 wrote:

mfin wrote:

hypster wrote:

There's no point in you explaining it's a joke when it so obviously doesn't qualify as such.

I read that out in a nerdy voice to get the full effect.

Cheer up mate. Most people knew it was a joke, stop taking things so seriously!!

It's just a cycling team made up of a load of blokes in spandex we're talking about here, it doesn't all have to be serious analysis.

You didn't stick any emoji to show it was supposed to be a joke, so it clearly wasn't. Admit it; you thought you'd get a rise like the other troll on here. :roll:

Bahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha

Chill it’s humpday.

phreak

pat1cp wrote:

"We should go further with a reduction to six, I think, for the measure to be really effective," he suggested.
"With seven, a team like Sky can still control the racing. With six, that would mean the leader's five teammates would tire a lot more. At the same time, we could have more teams to have a decent sized peloton.
"We'll launch an attractiveness study because there are many aspects to consider. Should we forbid race radio that kills off riders taking the initiative and the power metres that monitor riders? Should we rethink the style of the stages? We must analyse everything."

From the Mayor.

I thought it was a safety issue..............

Moving the race to Italy seems to be all that's required to make it exciting.

ddraver

phreak wrote:

pat1cp wrote:

"We should go further with a reduction to six, I think, for the measure to be really effective," he suggested.
"With seven, a team like Sky can still control the racing. With six, that would mean the leader's five teammates would tire a lot more. At the same time, we could have more teams to have a decent sized peloton.
"We'll launch an attractiveness study because there are many aspects to consider. Should we forbid race radio that kills off riders taking the initiative and the power metres that monitor riders? Should we rethink the style of the stages? We must analyse everything."

From the Mayor.

I thought it was a safety issue..............

Moving the race to Italy seems to be all that's required to make it exciting.

It's almost as if he thinks like the elected manager of a small urban area in France eh?

Thomas De Gendt & Kwiato had a good twitter thread on this last night...

onyourright

ddraver wrote:

Thomas De Gendt & Kwiato had a good twitter thread on this last night...

https://twitter.com/DeGendtThomas/statu ... 1570906112

phreak

ddraver wrote:

phreak wrote:

pat1cp wrote:

"We should go further with a reduction to six, I think, for the measure to be really effective," he suggested.
"With seven, a team like Sky can still control the racing. With six, that would mean the leader's five teammates would tire a lot more. At the same time, we could have more teams to have a decent sized peloton.
"We'll launch an attractiveness study because there are many aspects to consider. Should we forbid race radio that kills off riders taking the initiative and the power metres that monitor riders? Should we rethink the style of the stages? We must analyse everything."

From the Mayor.

I thought it was a safety issue..............

Moving the race to Italy seems to be all that's required to make it exciting.

It's almost as if he thinks like the elected manager of a small urban area in France eh?

Thomas De Gendt & Kwiato had a good twitter thread on this last night...

It's also interesting to note that the Quickstep domination of the classics season hasn't warranted similar levels of debate.

bobmcstuff

OnYourRight wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Thomas De Gendt & Kwiato had a good twitter thread on this last night...

https://twitter.com/DeGendtThomas/statu ... 1570906112

Kwiato wrote:

Sagan dominance = exciting.
Quick Step classics dominance = exciting.
BMC ttt dominance = exciting.
Sky grand tours dominance = boring, so let's turn cycling upside down.

Not sure I would go so far as to call BMC exciting under any circumstances, and definitely not in team time trials, but the point is a good one...

davidof

pat1cp wrote:

"We should go further with a reduction to six, I think, for the measure to be really effective," he suggested.
"With seven, a team like Sky can still control the racing. With six, that would mean the leader's five teammates would tire a lot more. At the same time, we could have more teams to have a decent sized peloton.
"We'll launch an attractiveness study because there are many aspects to consider. Should we forbid race radio that kills off riders taking the initiative and the power metres that monitor riders? Should we rethink the style of the stages? We must analyse everything."

From the Mayor.

I thought it was a safety issue..............

hah, that means Sky would have 4 super domestiques come the mountains and the other teams... well none! I wonder if Appartient actually follows bike racing at all, given all the jobs he seems to hold down at the same time.

davidof

awavey wrote:

pay for a cycling team what do you get,

a warm glow :-)

mfin

philthy3 wrote:

mfin wrote:

hypster wrote:

There's no point in you explaining it's a joke when it so obviously doesn't qualify as such.

I read that out in a nerdy voice to get the full effect.

Cheer up mate. Most people knew it was a joke, stop taking things so seriously!!

It's just a cycling team made up of a load of blokes in spandex we're talking about here, it doesn't all have to be serious analysis.

You didn't stick any emoji to show it was supposed to be a joke, so it clearly wasn't. Admit it; you thought you'd get a rise like the other troll on here. :roll:

Oh, I'm sorry, I genuinely didn't realise anything non-serious needed to be accompanied by an emoji or it would be taken seriously, my deepest apologies to you for creating such confusion.

Nope, I just thought people would recognise it as the stupid kind of thing the "sky are all doping" lot assume and might now say, (and I'm not one of those people).

You didn't recognise it as the clearly ott thing it was and then want to have a little pop. Calm down.

Sorry, but if you still don't get it, perhaps you should just lighten up and like I said - stop taking everything so seriously!!

Pross

Jez mon wrote:

pat1cp wrote:

As far as I can tell, out with the odd year (Pantani, Sastre & possibly Contador(who developed as a TT'er)), the last 30 years have been dominated by TT'ers that can climb.

You have to be able to time trial.

......Take the time trials out ??

Lots of these 'TTers that can climb' won mountain stages though. When do you become a 'climber that can TT' ?

I think people still like to think you can only be a climber if you’re less than 1.6m and 60kg despite most of the last decade suggesting otherwise. The days of little climbers with inconsistent pace being the way to win in the mountains are over as (unfortunately?) sports science has shown it to be less efficient and helped taller, more powerful riders control diets to keep weight down and power up. Mountains are now effectively time trials albeit one where weight plays a greater role.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Re. the French not liking domination by one rider. There may be an element of truth in that but I think there are other reasons why they are disliked to do with the way they act and the way they race.

I keep seeing people say stuff like this and wonder how it is that people think Sky act that is disliked? I know Brailsford in particular has said some stupid management speak type things over the years and in the first year they got people’s backs up but the team has evolved and grown up in the last 9 seasons and I don’t really see them behaving differently to any others (possibly as others now try to imitate their success. My only close up experience of Sky was on Sunday when, long after all bar Sunweb had gone (they drove off while I was there) Sky were quite happily mixing with supporters, signing autographs and chatting. The only time I saw anyone in the team get stroppy was when one overly pushy Colombian refused to give them a bit of space and (I think) damaged a photographer’s equipment.

Even after that they were still very friendly, after all I’d heard about them restricting access I was genuinely pleasantly surprised (the last time I’d been close to the riders was pre-stage in the 90s when we actually sat having coffee with them before a Kellog’s Tour stage but the world is unfortunately a different place now).

As for the way they race, unfortunately that’s how you win stage races and many other teams are now realising it so really that does come back to a dislike of success. I’d have more of an issue with the teams that won’t role the dice and prefer to take a top 5 than risk it for a win (which Sky have shown they will do if that’s the only way the win is coming).

DeVlaeminck

Pross wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Re. the French not liking domination by one rider. There may be an element of truth in that but I think there are other reasons why they are disliked to do with the way they act and the way they race.

I keep seeing people say stuff like this and wonder how it is that people think Sky act that is disliked? I know Brailsford in particular has said some stupid management speak type things over the years and in the first year they got people’s backs up but the team has evolved and grown up in the last 9 seasons and I don’t really see them behaving differently to any others (possibly as others now try to imitate their success. My only close up experience of Sky was on Sunday when, long after all bar Sunweb had gone (they drove off while I was there) Sky were quite happily mixing with supporters, signing autographs and chatting. The only time I saw anyone in the team get stroppy was when one overly pushy Colombian refused to give them a bit of space and (I think) damaged a photographer’s equipment.

Even after that they were still very friendly, after all I’d heard about them restricting access I was genuinely pleasantly surprised (the last time I’d been close to the riders was pre-stage in the 90s when we actually sat having coffee with them before a Kellog’s Tour stage but the world is unfortunately a different place now).

As for the way they race, unfortunately that’s how you win stage races and many other teams are now realising it so really that does come back to a dislike of success. I’d have more of an issue with the teams that won’t role the dice and prefer to take a top 5 than risk it for a win (which Sky have shown they will do if that’s the only way the win is coming).

Well different things appeal to different people and while I am not saying the booing etc is justified I can understand why people can't wait for Sky to fall off their high horse.

I think simplifying it the romantic view of cycling is more common in places like France, racing should be individual against individual drawing on their talent and character. Perhaps anglo saxon countries have a different approach, the appreciation of kit that Rick referenced in a thread recently, the scientific approach to marginal gains, the rider as part of a system, the admiration of the tactic of a train riding at x watts for y minutes etc. An awful lot of cyclists I know are engineers or of a scientific bent.

I think Sky appeal to the latter group, their approach is very logical, perhaps why it has been so successful, but on some level I think it is resented as destroying the more romantic spintaneous and individualistic approach to cycling. I'm not saying Sky are wrong in what they do but I can understand why they aren't popular.

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I think Sky appeal to the latter group, their approach is very logical, perhaps why it has been so successful, but on some level I think it is resented as destroying the more romantic spintaneous and individualistic approach to cycling. I'm not saying Sky are wrong in what they do but I can understand why they aren't popular.

That romantic notion of individuals competing died in the 1950s, if not before.
Pantani was probably about as close as you'll get and although a favourite of mine, I don't think we want to go back down that road.

DeVlaeminck

PBlakeney wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I think Sky appeal to the latter group, their approach is very logical, perhaps why it has been so successful, but on some level I think it is resented as destroying the more romantic spintaneous and individualistic approach to cycling. I'm not saying Sky are wrong in what they do but I can understand why they aren't popular.

That romantic notion of individuals competing died in the 1950s, if not before.
Pantani was probably about as close as you'll get and although a favourite of mine, I don't think we want to go back down that road.

The reality of that may have died - to an extent - some time ago but the notion of it no I don't believe so.

m.r.m.

As far as anything I've ever read or seen, Froome in particular has been nothing but a complete professional and incredibly nice and forthcoming to fans. He is incredibly ambitious and desperate to be loved. Maybe that is the problem. Most fans tend to prefer riders with a "devil may care" attitude.

Don't really think their (Sky) behaviour can be at fault for the reaction of the public or media.

RichN95.

M.R.M. wrote:

As far as anything I've ever read or seen, Froome in particular has been nothing but a complete professional and incredibly nice and forthcoming to fans. He is incredibly ambitious and desperate to be loved. Maybe that is the problem. Most fans tend to prefer riders with a "devil may care" attitude.

Don't really think their (Sky) behaviour can be at fault for the reaction of the public or media.

Brailsford's PR is terrible - it is derived from the Ferguson/Mourinho school of deflecting controversy onto themselves, but it doesn't really work for cycling.

However, I saw Thomas interviewed by ITV and he said, probably correctly, that they get booed because they win. The interviewer was insistent though that it was because of TUEs, Jiffy bags and Commons Select Committee reports. But those stories really didn't cross the Channel. They were big stories in UK sports media circles, but the average French fan doesn't know the opinions of MPs.

There's a small amount of journalists who have really tried to make the Sky Scandal story work and are increasingly angry that they didn't get the scalps that their self importance demands.

m.r.m.

All true, but the somewhat weird thing is the doping polemica should rightfully apply to others but doesn't. The media innuendo contributes, but it is only 1 aspect of the entire issue. Sky themselves can't really do anything about it, because even releasing Froome's values (long before the Salbutamol issue) didn't change anything. Whatever they have tried hasn't changed anything.

You are very correct about Brailsford though. His entire media strategy is a tyre fire.

tailwindhome

Lance and George

"Nobodies gonna like us. We're being mean"

https://www.instagram.com/p/BlY3ySZjRlV ... cind5n1rpl

mouth

RichN95 wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

As far as anything I've ever read or seen, Froome in particular has been nothing but a complete professional and incredibly nice and forthcoming to fans. He is incredibly ambitious and desperate to be loved. Maybe that is the problem. Most fans tend to prefer riders with a "devil may care" attitude.

Don't really think their (Sky) behaviour can be at fault for the reaction of the public or media.

Brailsford's PR is terrible - it is derived from the Ferguson/Mourinho school of deflecting controversy onto themselves, but it doesn't really work for cycling.

However, I saw Thomas interviewed by ITV and he said, probably correctly, that they get booed because they win. The interviewer was insistent though that it was because of TUEs, Jiffy bags and Commons Select Committee reports. But those stories really didn't cross the Channel. They were big stories in UK sports media circles, but the average French fan doesn't know the opinions of MPs.

There's a small amount of journalists who have really tried to make the Sky Scandal story work and are increasingly angry that they didn't get the scalps that their self importance demands.

You seem to be leaning towards Dan Roan.

ddraver

M.R.M. wrote:

All true, but the somewhat weird thing is the doping polemica should rightfully apply to others but doesn't. The media innuendo contributes, but it is only 1 aspect of the entire issue. Sky themselves can't really do anything about it, because even releasing Froome's values (long before the Salbutamol issue) didn't change anything. Whatever they have tried hasn't changed anything.

You are very correct about Brailsford though. His entire media strategy is a tyre fire.

Good post.

I don't think any of the Wiggins Story stuck in France. I do think the Salbutamol thing did though (not least thanks to Lappartient and ASO 1 week before the tour...)

What "English Language Cycling fandom" has more than others however is a large contingent of butt hurt people who got burned by Armstrong and are actually more interested in manufacturing a doping scandal or insulting a team rather than the racing.

takethehighroad

RichN95 wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

As far as anything I've ever read or seen, Froome in particular has been nothing but a complete professional and incredibly nice and forthcoming to fans. He is incredibly ambitious and desperate to be loved. Maybe that is the problem. Most fans tend to prefer riders with a "devil may care" attitude.

Don't really think their (Sky) behaviour can be at fault for the reaction of the public or media.

Brailsford's PR is terrible - it is derived from the Ferguson/Mourinho school of deflecting controversy onto themselves, but it doesn't really work for cycling.

However, I saw Thomas interviewed by ITV and he said, probably correctly, that they get booed because they win. The interviewer was insistent though that it was because of TUEs, Jiffy bags and Commons Select Committee reports. But those stories really didn't cross the Channel. They were big stories in UK sports media circles, but the average French fan doesn't know the opinions of MPs.

There's a small amount of journalists who have really tried to make the Sky Scandal story work and are increasingly angry that they didn't get the scalps that their self importance demands.

Friebe was at the team presentation and asked a French lady "Vous avez siffler Froome? Pourquoi?" and she said "Because of the cheating. The Ventolin".

Maybe Jiffy bags didn't travel over there but Salbutamol did. Granted it will also be in a large part due to the winning, but they listened to Le Monde, Christophe Prudhomme and David Lappartient telling them they had reservations over Froome's credibility and decided he needed to be booed.

yorkshireraw

Froome was chatting to Prudhomme and shaking hands (politely but didn't appear warmly) on the run in to Paris. Wonder what they discussed....

StillGoing

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

As far as anything I've ever read or seen, Froome in particular has been nothing but a complete professional and incredibly nice and forthcoming to fans. He is incredibly ambitious and desperate to be loved. Maybe that is the problem. Most fans tend to prefer riders with a "devil may care" attitude.

Don't really think their (Sky) behaviour can be at fault for the reaction of the public or media.

Brailsford's PR is terrible - it is derived from the Ferguson/Mourinho school of deflecting controversy onto themselves, but it doesn't really work for cycling.

However, I saw Thomas interviewed by ITV and he said, probably correctly, that they get booed because they win. The interviewer was insistent though that it was because of TUEs, Jiffy bags and Commons Select Committee reports. But those stories really didn't cross the Channel. They were big stories in UK sports media circles, but the average French fan doesn't know the opinions of MPs.

There's a small amount of journalists who have really tried to make the Sky Scandal story work and are increasingly angry that they didn't get the scalps that their self importance demands.

Friebe was at the team presentation and asked a French lady "Vous avez siffler Froome? Pourquoi?" and she said "Because of the cheating. The Ventolin".

Maybe Jiffy bags didn't travel over there but Salbutamol did. Granted it will also be in a large part due to the winning, but they listened to Le Monde, Christophe Prudhomme and David Lappartient telling them they had reservations over Froome's credibility and decided he needed to be booed.

The man is an utter joke IMO. Sympathy for the legal battle he had with Armstrong and admiration for his cycling success, but, his venom towards Froome is just conjecture without substance and a vane effort to try and keep his name in the limelight.

salsiccia1

ddraver wrote:

What "English Language Cycling fandom" has more than others however is a large contingent of butt hurt people who got burned by Armstrong and are actually more interested in manufacturing a doping scandal or insulting a team rather than the racing.

Absolutely, but it's not just the English language crowd. Look at how the French contingent shat all over Froome.

People are complaining about Sky's budget and dominance in the GTs (funnily enough, Quickstep are excused this for dominating everything else), but why do they have that? Because big-money sponsorship is absent on most other teams. And why is that? Because the general atmosphere around cycling is toxic. Why would you bother if you were the Coca-Colas, Samsungs, et al? If you gave enough money for your team to actually be successful and win the Tour a few times all you'll get is parochial complaining and innuendo from organisers and the sport's governance, a media desperate for a scandal and fans who can't control themselves. Why bother?

Lappartient and Prudhomme, instead of fuelling the bullshit, should be saying 'Look at what you, a sponsor can get if you put money in to our sport. Our sport is not the sport of the 90s and early 00s. You can have a team that wins the Tour de France and all the exposure that comes with it'.

RichN95.

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

Friebe was at the team presentation and asked a French lady "Vous avez siffler Froome? Pourquoi?" and she said "Because of the cheating. The Ventolin".

Maybe Jiffy bags didn't travel over there but Salbutamol did. Granted it will also be in a large part due to the winning, but they listened to Le Monde, Christophe Prudhomme and David Lappartient telling them they had reservations over Froome's credibility and decided he needed to be booed.

While this is true, they were getting abuse last year too.

RichN95.

philthy3 wrote:

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

Friebe was at the team presentation and asked a French lady "Vous avez siffler Froome? Pourquoi?" and she said "Because of the cheating. The Ventolin".

Maybe Jiffy bags didn't travel over there but Salbutamol did. Granted it will also be in a large part due to the winning, but they listened to Le Monde, Christophe Prudhomme and David Lappartient telling them they had reservations over Froome's credibility and decided he needed to be booed.

The man is an utter joke IMO. Sympathy for the legal battle he had with Armstrong and admiration for his cycling success, but, his venom towards Froome is just conjecture without substance and a vane effort to try and keep his name in the limelight.

I think he means Le Monde the newspaper

Tom Dean

LOL

andyrac

Salsiccia1 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

What "English Language Cycling fandom" has more than others however is a large contingent of butt hurt people who got burned by Armstrong and are actually more interested in manufacturing a doping scandal or insulting a team rather than the racing.

People are complaining about Sky's budget and dominance in the GTs (funnily enough, Quickstep are excused this for dominating everything else), but why do they have that? Because big-money sponsorship is absent on most other teams. And why is that? Because the general atmosphere around cycling is toxic. Why would you bother if you were the Coca-Colas, Samsungs, et al? If you gave enough money for your team to actually be successful and win the Tour a few times all you'll get is parochial complaining and innuendo from organisers and the sport's governance, a media desperate for a scandal and fans who can't control themselves. Why bother?

Lappartient and Prudhomme, instead of fuelling the bullshit, should be saying 'Look at what you, a sponsor can get if you put money in to our sport. Our sport is not the sport of the 90s and early 00s. You can have a team that wins the Tour de France and all the exposure that comes with it'.

Excellent post! For a supposed international sport - it's not half parochial. And regarding Sky's budget - it's hardly massive in global sporting terms; probably enough to buy a decent Premiership footballer.

RichN95.

Salsiccia1 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

What "English Language Cycling fandom" has more than others however is a large contingent of butt hurt people who got burned by Armstrong and are actually more interested in manufacturing a doping scandal or insulting a team rather than the racing.

Absolutely, but it's not just the English language crowd. Look at how the French contingent shat all over Froome.

People are complaining about Sky's budget and dominance in the GTs (funnily enough, Quickstep are excused this for dominating everything else), but why do they have that? Because big-money sponsorship is absent on most other teams. And why is that? Because the general atmosphere around cycling is toxic. Why would you bother if you were the Coca-Colas, Samsungs, et al? If you gave enough money for your team to actually be successful and win the Tour a few times all you'll get is parochial complaining and innuendo from organisers and the sport's governance, a media desperate for a scandal and fans who can't control themselves. Why bother?

Lappartient and Prudhomme, instead of fuelling the bullshit, should be saying 'Look at what you, a sponsor can get if you put money in to our sport. Our sport is not the sport of the 90s and early 00s. You can have a team that wins the Tour de France and all the exposure that comes with it'.

If we look back to the last pre-Puerto Tour and look at the names of the teams we see big multinational companies: Rabobank, T-Mobile, Credit Agricole, Discovery Channel, CSC, Caisse d'Epagne, Liberty Seguros.

Now it's bike brands, scratchcards and dictatorships. There are only two big brands - Sky and Movistar. And the President seems determined to curtail one because they win to much. (No-one seemed to mind that Movistar were actually the number 1 team from 2013-2016)

pat1cp

RichN95 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

What "English Language Cycling fandom" has more than others however is a large contingent of butt hurt people who got burned by Armstrong and are actually more interested in manufacturing a doping scandal or insulting a team rather than the racing.

If we look back to the last pre-Puerto Tour and look at the names of the teams we see big multinational companies: Rabobank, T-Mobile, Credit Agricole, Discovery Channel, CSC, Caisse d'Epagne, Liberty Seguros.

Now it's bike brands, scratchcards and dictatorships. There are only two big brands - Sky and Movistar. And the President seems determined to curtail one because they win to much. (No-one seemed to mind that Movistar were actually the number 1 team from 2013-2016)

I recall many people watching "The Bull" in the 2006 Giro with an eyebrow raised. :?

Edit...."The Buffalo".