Team Sky to end in 2019
Comments
-
Jabut they don’t turn the races into a watts per kilo for 40 mins contest, since that doesn’t win you classics.0
-
That's the definition everyone else seems to be usingGweeds wrote:I assume we're taking 'predictable' to mean 'wins a lot of hard races'
0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:
That's the definition everyone else seems to be usingGweeds wrote:I assume we're taking 'predictable' to mean 'wins a lot of hard races'
It’s how ja win it.
For example, Froome’s Giro win feels like a solo Froome effort and was bloody exciting.
His 4th Tour felt like more of a Sky win as they choked everyone off before letting Chris spank them in the TT.0 -
Rick's been on the Kraftwerk.Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0
-
It’s an important distinction.
We’ve lost the “panache” cheerleader so someone has to say it.
There are more exciting and less exciting ways to win stuff.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
For example, Froome’s Giro win feels like a solo Froome effort and was bloody exciting.
His 4th Tour felt like more of a Sky win as they choked everyone off before letting Chris spank them in the TT.
The key word this is "feels"
His Giro win was based on a stage managed to within an inch of its life by Sky. Much like politics, no one really cares about truth, just what feels right.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
-
andyp wrote:
Branson, the tax dodger? How is he 'cuddly'?Pross wrote:I'm convinced much of the negative exposure in the British media (which is where most has started) is due to the title sponsor though and if, for example, someone cuddly like Branson took over much of it would go away.
It was partly tongue in cheek but I do feel that amongst the general public and parts of the media (maybe as he isn't a direct rival to them) he is still seen as the jovial uncle whereas the Murdoch's are viewed as Bond villains trying to take over the earth.
If people are looking for a superstar billionaire sugar daddy (hadn't noticed the pun until typing that!) to take over a UK cycling team I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Alan Sugar although I'm never quite sure what companies he gets his money from since he got ride of Amstrad (to Sky if anyone wants symmetry).0 -
I think that Virgin as a brand is a bit more friendly than Sky, and people do seem to like Branson more than Murdoch, even though he's probably just as bad...Pross wrote:andyp wrote:
Branson, the tax dodger? How is he 'cuddly'?Pross wrote:I'm convinced much of the negative exposure in the British media (which is where most has started) is due to the title sponsor though and if, for example, someone cuddly like Branson took over much of it would go away.
It was partly tongue in cheek but I do feel that amongst the general public and parts of the media (maybe as he isn't a direct rival to them) he is still seen as the jovial uncle whereas the Murdoch's are viewed as Bond villains trying to take over the earth.
If people are looking for a superstar billionaire sugar daddy (hadn't noticed the pun until typing that!) to take over a UK cycling team I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Alan Sugar although I'm never quite sure what companies he gets his money from since he got ride of Amstrad (to Sky if anyone wants symmetry).0 -
iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
For example, Froome’s Giro win feels like a solo Froome effort and was bloody exciting.
His 4th Tour felt like more of a Sky win as they choked everyone off before letting Chris spank them in the TT.
The key word this is "feels"
His Giro win was based on a stage managed to within an inch of its life by Sky. Much like politics, no one really cares about truth, just what feels right.
To be more specific though - we love the tactic of using your team to blow the race up and make it a man v man race.
That’s why we give QS slack and usually not sky - sky usually like to shut it down.
Mainly the nature of GTs and what tactics work ofc but we all want the man v man.
THIS IS WHY RACES NEED TO BE LONGER.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
For example, Froome’s Giro win feels like a solo Froome effort and was bloody exciting.
His 4th Tour felt like more of a Sky win as they choked everyone off before letting Chris spank them in the TT.
The key word this is "feels"
His Giro win was based on a stage managed to within an inch of its life by Sky. Much like politics, no one really cares about truth, just what feels right.
To be more specific though - we love the tactic of using your team to blow the race up and make it a man v man race.
That’s why we give QS slack and usually not sky - sky usually like to shut it down.
Mainly the nature of GTs and what tactics work ofc but we all want the man v man.
THIS IS WHY RACES NEED TO BE LONGER.
Races or Stages?
I don't think the length of a stage maters much, if it's flat it's still 250km of bore fest until 5km. Just ban the radios, power meters, salary cap to spread the talent and watch the highlights on flat sprint days.0 -
FocusZing wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
For example, Froome’s Giro win feels like a solo Froome effort and was bloody exciting.
His 4th Tour felt like more of a Sky win as they choked everyone off before letting Chris spank them in the TT.
The key word this is "feels"
His Giro win was based on a stage managed to within an inch of its life by Sky. Much like politics, no one really cares about truth, just what feels right.
To be more specific though - we love the tactic of using your team to blow the race up and make it a man v man race.
That’s why we give QS slack and usually not sky - sky usually like to shut it down.
Mainly the nature of GTs and what tactics work ofc but we all want the man v man.
THIS IS WHY RACES NEED TO BE LONGER.
Races or Stages?
I don't think the length of a stage maters much, if it's flat it's still 250km of bore fest until 5km. Just ban the radios, power meters, salary cap to spread the talent and watch the highlights on flat sprint days.
Rick's argument (and I agree at least a bit) is that long stages add to collective fatigue which makes it harder to control the race.
They may not be brilliant viewing at the time but they lay important groundwork for more excitement later. Very long stages followed by super short mountain stages has led to good racing a few times in the last few years.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:FocusZing wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
For example, Froome’s Giro win feels like a solo Froome effort and was bloody exciting.
His 4th Tour felt like more of a Sky win as they choked everyone off before letting Chris spank them in the TT.
The key word this is "feels"
His Giro win was based on a stage managed to within an inch of its life by Sky. Much like politics, no one really cares about truth, just what feels right.
To be more specific though - we love the tactic of using your team to blow the race up and make it a man v man race.
That’s why we give QS slack and usually not sky - sky usually like to shut it down.
Mainly the nature of GTs and what tactics work ofc but we all want the man v man.
THIS IS WHY RACES NEED TO BE LONGER.
Races or Stages?
I don't think the length of a stage maters much, if it's flat it's still 250km of bore fest until 5km. Just ban the radios, power meters, salary cap to spread the talent and watch the highlights on flat sprint days.
Rick's argument (and I agree at least a bit) is that long stages add to collective fatigue which makes it harder to control the race.
They may not be brilliant viewing at the time but they lay important groundwork for more excitement later. Very long stages followed by super short mountain stages has led to good racing a few times in the last few years.
Surely if it's short stage they can crank it up. On a long flat stage they know it's a day-off training ride until the inevitable sprint!? We see this time and time again.0 -
FocusZing wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
For example, Froome’s Giro win feels like a solo Froome effort and was bloody exciting.
His 4th Tour felt like more of a Sky win as they choked everyone off before letting Chris spank them in the TT.
The key word this is "feels"
His Giro win was based on a stage managed to within an inch of its life by Sky. Much like politics, no one really cares about truth, just what feels right.
To be more specific though - we love the tactic of using your team to blow the race up and make it a man v man race.
That’s why we give QS slack and usually not sky - sky usually like to shut it down.
Mainly the nature of GTs and what tactics work ofc but we all want the man v man.
THIS IS WHY RACES NEED TO BE LONGER.
Races or Stages?
I don't think the length of a stage maters much, if it's flat it's still 250km of bore fest until 5km. Just ban the radios, power meters, salary cap to spread the talent and watch the highlights on flat sprint days.
I think everyone needs to ask themselves if broadcasting sprint stages in full is worthwhile regardless of length.
If flat stages are boring, they are boring for 4 or 7 hours - the issue for boredom isn’t the duration but the fact they are boring.
The Giro understands the difficulty needs to be lifted to create separation; hence the always super hard final week. That’s why they consistently get better and memorable 3rd week races. It needs to be tough enough that you get Yates and Pinot style collapses.
So difficult it’s man v man at the sharp end.
Bike technology and road improvements have basically shrank routes for riders over the years.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:FocusZing wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
For example, Froome’s Giro win feels like a solo Froome effort and was bloody exciting.
His 4th Tour felt like more of a Sky win as they choked everyone off before letting Chris spank them in the TT.
The key word this is "feels"
His Giro win was based on a stage managed to within an inch of its life by Sky. Much like politics, no one really cares about truth, just what feels right.
To be more specific though - we love the tactic of using your team to blow the race up and make it a man v man race.
That’s why we give QS slack and usually not sky - sky usually like to shut it down.
Mainly the nature of GTs and what tactics work ofc but we all want the man v man.
THIS IS WHY RACES NEED TO BE LONGER.
Races or Stages?
I don't think the length of a stage maters much, if it's flat it's still 250km of bore fest until 5km. Just ban the radios, power meters, salary cap to spread the talent and watch the highlights on flat sprint days.
I think everyone needs to ask themselves if broadcasting sprint stages in full is worthwhile regardless of length.
If flat stages are boring, they are boring for 4 or 7 hours - the issue for boredom isn’t the duration but the fact they are boring.
The Giro understands the difficulty needs to be lifted to create separation; hence the always super hard final week. That’s why they consistently get better and memorable 3rd week races. It needs to be tough enough that you get Yates and Pinot style collapses.
So difficult it’s man v man at the sharp end.
Bike technology and road improvements have basically shrank routes for riders over the years.
That's just a load of waffle and doesn't explain why a long flat stage the sprint teams are focused on, conqequently letting the token faux break go helps GC fatigue. A short stage can be tough as hell if the hammer needs to drop to catch a GC split.
I think the stage lengths are just fine as they are.0 -
FocusZing wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:FocusZing wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
For example, Froome’s Giro win feels like a solo Froome effort and was bloody exciting.
His 4th Tour felt like more of a Sky win as they choked everyone off before letting Chris spank them in the TT.
The key word this is "feels"
His Giro win was based on a stage managed to within an inch of its life by Sky. Much like politics, no one really cares about truth, just what feels right.
To be more specific though - we love the tactic of using your team to blow the race up and make it a man v man race.
That’s why we give QS slack and usually not sky - sky usually like to shut it down.
Mainly the nature of GTs and what tactics work ofc but we all want the man v man.
THIS IS WHY RACES NEED TO BE LONGER.
Races or Stages?
I don't think the length of a stage maters much, if it's flat it's still 250km of bore fest until 5km. Just ban the radios, power meters, salary cap to spread the talent and watch the highlights on flat sprint days.
I think everyone needs to ask themselves if broadcasting sprint stages in full is worthwhile regardless of length.
If flat stages are boring, they are boring for 4 or 7 hours - the issue for boredom isn’t the duration but the fact they are boring.
The Giro understands the difficulty needs to be lifted to create separation; hence the always super hard final week. That’s why they consistently get better and memorable 3rd week races. It needs to be tough enough that you get Yates and Pinot style collapses.
So difficult it’s man v man at the sharp end.
Bike technology and road improvements have basically shrank routes for riders over the years.
That's just a load of waffle and doesn't explain why a long flat stage the sprint teams are focused on, conqequently letting the token faux break go helps GC fatigue. A short stage can be tough as hell if the hammer needs to drop to catch a GC split.
I think the stage lengths are just fine as they are.
Ok - very basic. Have you ever ridden on the flat for 70km and done a similarly flat route that was 160km? Tell me which one was more tiring?
It's like we forget what riding long distances is like when we talk about Pros.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:FocusZing wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:FocusZing wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
For example, Froome’s Giro win feels like a solo Froome effort and was bloody exciting.
His 4th Tour felt like more of a Sky win as they choked everyone off before letting Chris spank them in the TT.
The key word this is "feels"
His Giro win was based on a stage managed to within an inch of its life by Sky. Much like politics, no one really cares about truth, just what feels right.
To be more specific though - we love the tactic of using your team to blow the race up and make it a man v man race.
That’s why we give QS slack and usually not sky - sky usually like to shut it down.
Mainly the nature of GTs and what tactics work ofc but we all want the man v man.
THIS IS WHY RACES NEED TO BE LONGER.
Races or Stages?
I don't think the length of a stage maters much, if it's flat it's still 250km of bore fest until 5km. Just ban the radios, power meters, salary cap to spread the talent and watch the highlights on flat sprint days.
I think everyone needs to ask themselves if broadcasting sprint stages in full is worthwhile regardless of length.
If flat stages are boring, they are boring for 4 or 7 hours - the issue for boredom isn’t the duration but the fact they are boring.
The Giro understands the difficulty needs to be lifted to create separation; hence the always super hard final week. That’s why they consistently get better and memorable 3rd week races. It needs to be tough enough that you get Yates and Pinot style collapses.
So difficult it’s man v man at the sharp end.
Bike technology and road improvements have basically shrank routes for riders over the years.
That's just a load of waffle and doesn't explain why a long flat stage the sprint teams are focused on, conqequently letting the token faux break go helps GC fatigue. A short stage can be tough as hell if the hammer needs to drop to catch a GC split.
I think the stage lengths are just fine as they are.
Ok - very basic. Have you ever ridden on the flat for 70km and done a similarly flat route that was 160km? Tell me which one was more tiring?
It's like we forget what riding long distances is like when we talk about Pros.
Have you ever ridden full on pace for 70km and sat in a pack for 160km. I'm telling you a short stage would likely be more punchy and equally fatiguing.
So how long should GT stages be in your utopia?0 -
Up to me? No mass start stage under 200km unless they were under 100 - of which I'd have no more than two that short.
At least half over 240km - and at least two proper mountain stages over 250km.
So you're probably adding 200- 500km per GT to the overall distance.0 -
FocusZing wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:FocusZing wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
For example, Froome’s Giro win feels like a solo Froome effort and was bloody exciting.
His 4th Tour felt like more of a Sky win as they choked everyone off before letting Chris spank them in the TT.
The key word this is "feels"
His Giro win was based on a stage managed to within an inch of its life by Sky. Much like politics, no one really cares about truth, just what feels right.
To be more specific though - we love the tactic of using your team to blow the race up and make it a man v man race.
That’s why we give QS slack and usually not sky - sky usually like to shut it down.
Mainly the nature of GTs and what tactics work ofc but we all want the man v man.
THIS IS WHY RACES NEED TO BE LONGER.
Races or Stages?
I don't think the length of a stage maters much, if it's flat it's still 250km of bore fest until 5km. Just ban the radios, power meters, salary cap to spread the talent and watch the highlights on flat sprint days.
Rick's argument (and I agree at least a bit) is that long stages add to collective fatigue which makes it harder to control the race.
They may not be brilliant viewing at the time but they lay important groundwork for more excitement later. Very long stages followed by super short mountain stages has led to good racing a few times in the last few years.
Surely if it's short stage they can crank it up. On a long flat stage they know it's a day-off training ride until the inevitable sprint!? We see this time and time again.
They don't have to be flat, there's only so much sitting in you can do on a 200km+ mountain stage.
Rick's argument is that fatigue leads to more exciting racing later on and long stages are more fatiguing than short ones. I don't really see the controversy there.0 -
Distance tests different physical attributes.
There is a reason some classics riders can never deliver on one dayers over 250km and why some riders only seem to come alive when they’re long.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:FocusZing wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:FocusZing wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
For example, Froome’s Giro win feels like a solo Froome effort and was bloody exciting.
His 4th Tour felt like more of a Sky win as they choked everyone off before letting Chris spank them in the TT.
The key word this is "feels"
His Giro win was based on a stage managed to within an inch of its life by Sky. Much like politics, no one really cares about truth, just what feels right.
To be more specific though - we love the tactic of using your team to blow the race up and make it a man v man race.
That’s why we give QS slack and usually not sky - sky usually like to shut it down.
Mainly the nature of GTs and what tactics work ofc but we all want the man v man.
THIS IS WHY RACES NEED TO BE LONGER.
Races or Stages?
I don't think the length of a stage maters much, if it's flat it's still 250km of bore fest until 5km. Just ban the radios, power meters, salary cap to spread the talent and watch the highlights on flat sprint days.
Rick's argument (and I agree at least a bit) is that long stages add to collective fatigue which makes it harder to control the race.
They may not be brilliant viewing at the time but they lay important groundwork for more excitement later. Very long stages followed by super short mountain stages has led to good racing a few times in the last few years.
Surely if it's short stage they can crank it up. On a long flat stage they know it's a day-off training ride until the inevitable sprint!? We see this time and time again.
They don't have to be flat, there's only so much sitting in you can do on a 200km+ mountain stage.
Rick's argument is that fatigue leads to more exciting racing later on and long stages are more fatiguing than short ones. I don't really see the controversy there.
I just think the peloton would take longer days even easier and the faux break would look even more ridiculous. The doulbe whammy would also be even more tune out in a brave new rammed media world. If anything for this reason they should be shorter. It's as if you guys are blind to the tech world!0 -
Ah Focus.
Let me be clear.
I do not care for more fans. If anything, fewer fans would be better for me personally....
I just want good racing and the best way to stop it being locked up by a strong team is to make it so difficult only the top riders and not the help can make the selection.
Plenty of ways to do that. Chucking climbs in is the obvious way. Distance can help too.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ah Focus.
Let me be clear.
I do not care for more fans. If anything, fewer fans would be better for me personally....
I just want good racing and the best way to stop it being locked up by a strong team is to make it so difficult only the top riders and not the help can make the selection.
Plenty of ways to do that. Chucking climbs in is the obvious way. Distance can help too.
I'm with you on the climbs the distance is just a whimsical bygone folly for wannabe single sprocket fools.0 -
-
I think it’ll be a good thing, especially if they get a new sponsor, but one with a smaller budget. I’ve nothing against Sky, but buying up a stack of top riders does make it a bit predictable. I’d be happy to see how they do with a comparable team to some of the others.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:So by your logic why not make them all 30km?
Basically you're being silly now.0 -
-
Who holds the rider contracts?
ETA - should know by now just to go straight to Inner Ring's blog
http://inrng.com/2018/12/sky-reaches-th ... more-34855“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Who holds the rider contracts?
ETA - should know by now just to go straight to Inner Ring's blog
http://inrng.com/2018/12/sky-reaches-th ... more-34855
Got a dry question?
Desperate for a dry no frills take?
That’s your site 0 -
I think you can only get a pint out of a pint glass. If the stages are shorter then they'll be faster. If they are longer then they are run at a slower pace. A break will gauge how the Peloton is going with the time gap and then try to maintain a gap and leave gas in the tank. As the peloton increases it's pace then the break increases it's pace. If the Peloton, can't get it together then the break will still want to keep the reserve tank going. Think most people think the Break goes as fast as it can but it's a psychological game of how much has the Peloton got on that day and how much the break has got left. Obviously the Peloton has the numbers. I think the distance doesn't matter only that a 7 hour stage means the Peloton will ride tempo for longer.
As for Sky, the only way to tell if there is a backer is if Riders start to leave Sky. If they do, then there is no confidence there will be a new Backer. BMC lost riders through this year until it went with CCC. Sure the rider's agents are getting on the phones now to find out who wants their Sky rider and how much can he expect for wages. Sky should be going full gas from the off, next year, to show what they can do. Sky has to be in the shop window and to be shown why someone should part with £40 million a year. Also, the new Sponsor will want to know if cycling is the right sport for them and give the bang for it's Buck. BMC always put in a performance in the Swiss races and the US races where it's high profile would be noticed. These 2 Countries were important for BMC, the Company, and winning races in it's prime market place was key as cycling has to pay it's way. This is in spite of Rihs being the cash cow. Cycling is essentially an advertising hoarding on wheels.
As for Sky, if Murdock senior had got hold of the Company then I'm sure he'd let his son carry on bankrolling Team Sky. As, he didn't, Murdock jnr has now been sidelined and new people have come in with new ideas and new business strategies which suit the new Company They must think that Team Sky isn't quite right for them and they have different thoughts on how to progress with the business.
Will be interesting to see if Sky come out fighting this year and then (like Quick Step) have to go full gas all year until a new Backer is found. Going to be a tough year for the Sky Team, having to race all year and also for the other teams and riders who have to compete against a Team Sky which is desperate to be on top all year.“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein
"You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
-Jacques Anquetil0
