Brian Holm rips into Lappartient's reform ideas

FocusZing

Blazing Saddles wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

If Lappartient really is on a crusade to make the Tour have more interesting racing, the place to start cutting is with the endless succession of flat, featureless stages, that drag us all, kicking and screaming towards the second half of the race.

The other thing he has talked about cutting is the Giro and Vuelta: down to two weeks.
Yet, both of these GT's manage to produce exciting racing for pretty much their duration.
The racing in the third week of this year's Giro made the strongest argument possible against such a cut, by delivering such a dramatic GC battle.

The same cannot be said of the Tour, however. It really is a two week race in a three week suit.

I know they're both French so easily confused in your mind, but Lappartient is not Prudhomme and therefore has no say in the route of the Tour.

Ultimately he, or at least the UCI does, when it comes to the duration.
Sure, it will never happen, but hey, we're only chewing the fat here.

Not sure about your need for sarcasm. I assume it's Friday thing.....

Vino'sGhost wrote:

I actually quite liked the tour this year once it got going. Its got everything crashes, punchups rogue coppers, pepper spray, striking farmers,

Exactly.

Yep, we've cracked it. More farmers, pepper spray, coppers and more Hinault.


Dear Mr Lappartient,

blazing_saddles

DeadCalm wrote:

No alcohol consumed today. Just find the constant French bashing tedious.

Not sure what you were expecting to find in a thread entitled Brian Holm rips into Lapartient's reform ideas, but whatever....

The fact remains that he has talked about cutting the Giro etc to two weeks but not touching the Tour.
Yet it's clear that a lot of folks watching feel first half of the Tour needs fixing, whereas the Giro isn't broken.
If you find the point tedious, feel free to ignore my post, or if that doesn't suffice, stick me onto ignore.

frisbee

No radios would benefit Sky, they actually put some effort into planning in advance with feeding and tactics.

No_Ta_Doctor

Dinyull wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Power meters are just a handy tool to help with some accuracy in gauging an effort. Given that the Sky train is lined up such that each rider in turn is capable of a little more than the rider in front of him and each rider puts out about the highest they can sustain for a decent period before pulling off, removing the power meters will do nothing.

There's not really any difference between a DS saying "give me X watts for the next y minutes" and "give me your max sustainable for y minutes".

But doesn't that allow for more misjudgement? An off day?

On the fly, if they have to adjust power for a climb because leader isn't feeling it today they might be told, knock off 10%. With a computer in front, piece of pi$$. A knackered, under strain athlete though?

I think the words "slow down a bit" would probably do there. If the leader isn't feeling it then the leader will set what the pace should be.

No_Ta_Doctor

I'm still trying to work out what, exactly, it is that is broken and needs fixing.

Yes, Sky have dominated the Tour, but elsewhere? Yes, they won all three GTs in a row, but that was the first Giro and first Vuelta for them - and it looks like Froome paid a price for it. They're probably going to the Vuelta without any rider that's won a significant stage race or nabbed a GT podium a leader. They've won plenty of WT stage races outside the GTs, but I don't think they've dominated them, plenty of others have victories. An they've really done very little in one day races.

So what exactly is broken? Seems like - if anything - it's just the Tour, and even then only if you accept that Sky winning it so often is a genuine issue. That's ASO's problem, not the UCI's, not cycling's.

salsiccia1

No tA Doctor wrote:

I'm still trying to work out what, exactly, it is that is broken and needs fixing.

Yes, Sky have dominated the Tour, but elsewhere? Yes, they won all three GTs in a row, but that was the first Giro and first Vuelta for them - and it looks like Froome paid a price for it. They're probably going to the Vuelta without any rider that's won a significant stage race or nabbed a GT podium a leader. They've won plenty of WT stage races outside the GTs, but I don't think they've dominated them, plenty of others have victories. An they've really done very little in one day races.

So what exactly is broken? Seems like - if anything - it's just the Tour, and even then only if you accept that Sky winning it so often is a genuine issue. That's ASO's problem, not the UCI's, not cycling's.

Yep.

knedlicky

Salsiccia1 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I'm still trying to work out what, exactly, it is that is broken and needs fixing.
Yes, Sky have dominated the Tour, but elsewhere? ... An they've really done very little in one day races.
So what exactly is broken? Seems like - if anything - it's just the Tour, and even then only if you accept that Sky winning it so often is a genuine issue. That's ASO's problem, not the UCI's, not cycling's.

Yep.

Yep

knedlicky

Blazing Saddles wrote:

to make the Tour have more interesting racing, the place to start cutting is with the endless succession of flat, featureless stages, that drag us all, kicking and screaming towards the second half of the race.

Part of the problem is that large areas of France are pretty flat, and I don't think skipping them would go down well with the marketing side, as the populations are greater in the flatter land, nor with the general public, who expect it cover as much of the country as possible and more or less everywhere within a decade.

Which ASO certainly try to do ….
Excluding the overseas ones (Guadaloupe, etc) there are 96 departements in France, and in the last 10 years there are only 16 which haven't had Tour stage towns in them. But that doesn't mean the Tour hasn't passed through those departements, I think every departement except 3-4 has seen the Tour go through in the last 10 years, even if it didn't start/stop there.
This necessary aspect of ASO planning has to be considered, it can't afford to ignore the French public.

(fwiw, it may be interesting to consider where the Tour hasn't been for a while, in trying to guess where it may go in the next few years - Charente-Maritime (La Rochelle area) looks likely, last time with a stage town 1999, last time the Tour passed through 2003. Next likely Deux-Sèvres (just inland from la Rochelle), last time with a stage town 2003, last time the Tour passed through 2008. After them two, the most likely candidate is Bas-Rhin (=Strasbourg) where they haven't been in either capacity since 2006).

DeadCalm

Blazing Saddles wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

No alcohol consumed today. Just find the constant French bashing tedious.

Not sure what you were expecting to find in a thread entitled Brian Holm rips into Lapartient's reform ideas, but whatever....

The fact remains that he has talked about cutting the Giro etc to two weeks but not touching the Tour.
Yet it's clear that a lot of folks watching feel first half of the Tour needs fixing, whereas the Giro isn't broken.
If you find the point tedious, feel free to ignore my post, or if that doesn't suffice, stick me onto ignore.

I don't find the point tedious and nor do I find the majority of your posts tedious. On the whole, I find you to be an interesting and valuable contributor to the forum. I just wish you'd lay off the 'it's all a French conspiracy' stuff though. That I find as tedious as constant references to doping.

With regard to your point, I tend to agree that sometimes three weeks can seem too long for the Tour and cutting out some of the boring transitional stages wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing although there are a bunch of sprinters' teams who might have something to say about that.

It also wouldn't do anything to increase the competition. You'd have a two week race dominated by Sky instead of a three week race. If anything, it would make it easier for Sky to dominate.

What's the best thing they could to to end Sky's dominance? I'd suggest simply wait. History of the last 60 years tells us that for at least half of that time a single rider has been dominant in the Tour but that each period of domination usually lasts no longer than seven years and is followed by a period of three or four years where the yellow jersey will be won by random one-offs. We're probably not too far off that period now.

larkim

Wonder if SDB would have the temerity to try to hire a potential French GC contender and try to be the team that broke the French duck?

No_Ta_Doctor

larkim wrote:

Wonder if SDB would have the temerity to try to hire a potential French GC contender and try to be the team that broke the French duck?

He said a few years ago that he wanted to do that

ddraver

Sprint Stages have always, and should always, be part of the tour. If you chose to turn on at 10 am to watch the first 200km, that's kind of your own fault

rick_chasey

Main issue is surely that the Tour is consistently the dullest GT race of the year, no? In terms of the quality of racing.

I think we can all rally around that.

blazing_saddles

ddraver wrote:

Sprint Stages have always, and should always, be part of the tour. If you chose to turn on at 10 am to watch the first 200km, that's kind of your own fault

Doesn't switching onto the last 10kms of a 200km+ sprint stage run counter to the whole ASO philosophy, though?
If we all start doing that, and I'm pretty sure judging from various forum traffic many did, bang goes the commercial lure.
One would think that Prudhomme would be keen to avoid this scenario.

Oh and I might as well stick this here, not that he says a great deal that makes much sense, but.....

https://www.velonews.com/2018/08/news/h ... ort_473957

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

Main issue is surely that the Tour is consistently the dullest GT race of the year, no? In terms of the quality of racing.

I think we can all rally around that.

It's the most conservatively raced of the three, partly because a top 20 or top 10 position in the Tour is valuable and has to be protected, partly because there's always a weeks worth of flat stages, so fewer opportunities to put an opponent to the sword if he has a bad day.

PhilipPirrip

Rick Chasey wrote:

Main issue is surely that the Tour is consistently the dullest GT race of the year, no? In terms of the quality of racing.

I think we can all rally around that.

The main issue is is Lapartient fit for office? He should be objective and talking with those involved in the sport regarding change instead of suggesting partisan decisions and making personal comments about riders and races.

Whereas McQuaid was driven by the money Lapartient seems driven by the need to be popular, particularly within France.

yorkshireraw

No tA Doctor wrote:

I'm still trying to work out what, exactly, it is that is broken and needs fixing.

Yes, Sky have dominated the Tour, but elsewhere? Yes, they won all three GTs in a row, but that was the first Giro and first Vuelta for them - and it looks like Froome paid a price for it. They're probably going to the Vuelta without any rider that's won a significant stage race or nabbed a GT podium a leader. They've won plenty of WT stage races outside the GTs, but I don't think they've dominated them, plenty of others have victories. An they've really done very little in one day races.

So what exactly is broken? Seems like - if anything - it's just the Tour, and even then only if you accept that Sky winning it so often is a genuine issue. That's ASO's problem, not the UCI's, not cycling's.

On Sky and the one dayers, they've upped their game in the last couple of years, in part due to Kwiato, which is sort of what they hired him for.

Off the top of my head, in their history they've won:
2 Monuments: LBL & MSR
2 other top rated 1 dayers: Strade Bianchi & San Sebastien
Omloop x 3
KBK x 2
E3
Got top 3 in Roubaix with a few other top 10s
Top 3 at Lombardia
Couple of GW podiums

Flanders best is the odd top 10 I think

Don't think that's too bad for a team concentrating on Stage racing mainly. Although you'd think their Ardennnes record could be better (Wout's LBL aside).

yorkshireraw

delete

yorkshireraw

deleted edit

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

Main issue is surely that the Tour is consistently the dullest GT race of the year, no? In terms of the quality of racing.

I think we can all rally around that.

Indeed.

But that's the events problem, rather than a cycling teams issue. And I feel all the tinkering around the edges will make no difference. ASO need to accept that being top dog means there is a lot of value in winning, as well as not winning, so teams will settle for 6 or 7th. As will riders.

Can't see the public signing up for a Winner-takes-all approach to the race though

RichN95.

I think one mistake they make is focusing too much on the Yellow Jersey all the time. Every day the yellow jersey has to do mandatory media engagements even if they have been sitting in the peloton all day. More needs to be made of the supporting cast. Not just stage winner, the top three, the combativity winner. Froome has spent 60 days in yellow. No-one can sustain interest in that as a personality. There's 176 stories on the Tour.

For all the talk of Sky being boring. The Green jersey was uncontested yet again, and the KOM was won almost unchallenged by a classics rider. And these are competitions which can be engineered. And no-one really noticed the white jersey or team competition either (maybe they did in France).

The whole thing needs more innovative and creative TV production.

yorkshireraw

For laughs, a couple of 'National' teams if they went down that route...

GB: Froome, Thomas, Yates, Yates, Tao G, Rowe, Pete K, Cav or Cummings

Colombia: Uran, Henao, Quintana, Chaves, Bernal, Betancur (non pie version), 1 of Anacona / other Quintana / other Henao / Atapuma & Gaviria

Dutch: Tom D, Steven K, Wilco K, Sam O, Laurens TD, Gesink, Van Emden and Stef Clement. Would clean up in a TTT.

RichN95.

YorkshireRaw wrote:

For laughs, a couple of 'National' teams if they went down that route...

Of course the French riders would still be spread over France, France A, Midi France, France Ouest, France Est and Bretagne

blazing_saddles

YorkshireRaw wrote:

For laughs, a couple of 'National' teams if they went down that route...

GB: Froome, Thomas, Yates, Yates, Tao G, Rowe, Pete K, Cav or Cummings

Colombia: Uran, Henao, Quintana, Chaves, Bernal, Betancur (non pie version), 1 of Anacona / other Quintana / other Henao / Atapuma & Gaviria

Dutch: Tom D, Steven K, Wilco K, Sam O, Laurens TD, Gesink, Van Emden and Stef Clement. Would clean up in a TTT.

How the traditional cycling nations compare.

French: Bardet, Pinot, Latour, Alaphilippe, Calmejane, Barguil, Martin, Demare or Laporte

Italy: Nibali, Aru, Pozzovivo, Caruso, Formolo, Ulissi, Cobrelli, Viviani

Spain: Landa, Valverde, Nieve, Izagirre, Izagirre, Soler, Bilbao, De La Cruz.

No_Ta_Doctor

The Belgians don't get to play? Think they'd have a decent stage-hunting team :-)

DeadCalm

Blazing Saddles wrote:

French: Bardet, Pinot, Latour, Alaphilippe, Calmejane, Barguil, Martin, Demare or Laporte

Vuillermoz for Calmejane and, much as I love him to pieces, on current form drop Barguil and keep Demare and Laporte. Would be a stage hunting team rather than with any hope of GC.

DeadCalm

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Dutch: Tom D, Steven K, Wilco K, Sam O, Laurens TD, Gesink, Van Emden and Stef Clement. Would clean up in a TTT.

No Poels, Groenewegen or Terpstra?

blazing_saddles

No tA Doctor wrote:

The Belgians don't get to play? Think they'd have a decent stage-hunting team :-)

I left you a quality team to have a go at.

Jez mon

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Main issue is surely that the Tour is consistently the dullest GT race of the year, no? In terms of the quality of racing.

I think we can all rally around that.

Indeed.

But that's the events problem, rather than a cycling teams issue. And I feel all the tinkering around the edges will make no difference. ASO need to accept that being top dog means there is a lot of value in winning, as well as not winning, so teams will settle for 6 or 7th. As will riders.

Can't see the public signing up for a Winner-takes-all approach to the race though

The public don't really care about who finishes off the podium do they?

iainf72

Jez mon wrote:

The public don't really care about who finishes off the podium do they?

No, but I think most people would think if you did come 3rd you should get some kind of UCI points and financial reward.....

I'm saying if you had a system that only rewarded winning, you'd get different racing entirely.