Tour build up 2019

bobmcstuff

Shirley Basso wrote:

Because how else can you win if you don't try your best? As everyone keeps reiterating, the Tour is not a foregone conclusion, this year more than any.

Say you're a team director. You know if you put your best 8 into the Tour they'll still be a winning few % off Ineos.

But if you put a good team into the Giro, you think you'll have a good chance of winning.

What would you do?

You're basically saying if we put our best team into the Tour our best case situation is that Froome crashes or gets ill (and even then half their doms could win anyway), or we put a good team into another race we could make a real go of.

Lanterne_Rogue

ContrelaMontre wrote:

Poptart242 wrote:

I know, gutted. Contract talks stalled apaz.

On the other hand, Viviani will clean up with that lead out.

A shame no Gilbert as you know he would be attacking and enriching the race.

A prediction from me, Viviani will not win a single stage.

Corollary: Viviani will have an awfully large number of second places from following the wrong wheel in the lead-out...

rick_chasey

mididoctors wrote:

larkim wrote:

Irrespective of who / which team, I wonder if the way to look at it is to forecast what a GC table might look like at by the first rest day.

The TTT will have caused some gaps that the flat stages are unlikely to. But the lumpier stages don't look like the ones where any individual GC contender will have been able to get any meaningful time gaps. So that doesn't necessarily mean that Ineos (or any other single team) will have had to work particularly hard to that point.

Then the ITT on Friday followed by Torurmalet on Saturday could be more significant. Time gaps inevitable from the ITT, and then the impact of a high finish after some have gone too deep on the ITT could be significant, especially as it's only a short day. The day after might be neutralised in anticpation of the rest day and after two days of mixing up the GC.

After that, who has to work hardest will depend on who has got seconds in the bank so far. Could the race be decided on the penultimate day up to Val Thorens?

Does anyone who wants to be on the podium have to be in the mix both in the TTT and the planche?

Very likely the highest finishing of the GC contenders at planche is going to be in the Jersey.

?

Maybe I’m falling for the hype but I think the altitude in week 3 could really catch some guys out.

DeadCalm

mididoctors wrote:

larkim wrote:

Irrespective of who / which team, I wonder if the way to look at it is to forecast what a GC table might look like at by the first rest day.

The TTT will have caused some gaps that the flat stages are unlikely to. But the lumpier stages don't look like the ones where any individual GC contender will have been able to get any meaningful time gaps. So that doesn't necessarily mean that Ineos (or any other single team) will have had to work particularly hard to that point.

Then the ITT on Friday followed by Torurmalet on Saturday could be more significant. Time gaps inevitable from the ITT, and then the impact of a high finish after some have gone too deep on the ITT could be significant, especially as it's only a short day. The day after might be neutralised in anticpation of the rest day and after two days of mixing up the GC.

After that, who has to work hardest will depend on who has got seconds in the bank so far. Could the race be decided on the penultimate day up to Val Thorens?

Does anyone who wants to be on the podium have to be in the mix both in the TTT and the planche?

Very likely the highest finishing of the GC contenders at planche is going to be in the Jersey.

?

Possible but there is a decent chance of a breakaway victory on stage 5, no?

mrfpb

bobmcstuff wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Because how else can you win if you don't try your best? As everyone keeps reiterating, the Tour is not a foregone conclusion, this year more than any.

Say you're a team director. You know if you put your best 8 into the Tour they'll still be a winning few % off Ineos.

But if you put a good team into the Giro, you think you'll have a good chance of winning.

What would you do?

You're basically saying if we put our best team into the Tour our best case situation is that Froome crashes or gets ill (and even then half their doms could win anyway), or we put a good team into another race we could make a real go of.

I'm not sure any team sponsor would agree with your pov. It's the Tour de France, its the World Cup/Wimbledon/Superbowl of cycling as far as media coverage goes.

RichN95.

bobmcstuff wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Because how else can you win if you don't try your best? As everyone keeps reiterating, the Tour is not a foregone conclusion, this year more than any.

Say you're a team director. You know if you put your best 8 into the Tour they'll still be a winning few % off Ineos.

But if you put a good team into the Giro, you think you'll have a good chance of winning.

What would you do?

You're basically saying if we put our best team into the Tour our best case situation is that Froome crashes or gets ill (and even then half their doms could win anyway), or we put a good team into another race we could make a real go of.

Take Jumbo-Visma for example.

It was widely acknowledged that Roglic was left without a team for much of the race. Yet they now have Kruijswijk and Bennett at the Tour. They also have Groenewegen. Send a hybrid GC/Sprinter team to the Tour and your best GC rider to the Giro undersupported. Surely it's better to fully back Roglic (with Kruijswijk as back-up) in one and fully back Groenewegen (with van Aert as back-up) in the other.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Because how else can you win if you don't try your best? As everyone keeps reiterating, the Tour is not a foregone conclusion, this year more than any.

Say you're a team director. You know if you put your best 8 into the Tour they'll still be a winning few % off Ineos.

But if you put a good team into the Giro, you think you'll have a good chance of winning.

What would you do?

You're basically saying if we put our best team into the Tour our best case situation is that Froome crashes or gets ill (and even then half their doms could win anyway), or we put a good team into another race we could make a real go of.

Take Jumbo-Visma for example.

It was widely acknowledged that Roglic was left without a team for much of the race. Yet they now have Kruijswijk and Bennett at the Tour. They also have Groenewegen. Send a hybrid GC/Sprinter team to the Tour and your best GC rider to the Giro undersupported. Surely it's better to fully back Roglic (with Kruijswijk as back-up) in one and fully back Groenewegen (with van Aert as back-up) in the other.

They did have a stronger team for Roglic but his two climbing domestiques had to bail for various reasons.

philbar72

Take Jumbo-Visma for example.

It was widely acknowledged that Roglic was left without a team for much of the race. Yet they now have Kruijswijk and Bennett at the Tour. They also have Groenewegen. Send a hybrid GC/Sprinter team to the Tour and your best GC rider to the Giro undersupported. Surely it's better to fully back Roglic (with Kruijswijk as back-up) in one and fully back Groenewegen (with van Aert as back-up) in the other.[/quote]

They should really have put Roglic in this tour with Kruijswijk and Bennett. maybe have one of these guys do the giro and be the first support to fall away on the climbs in the tour. I guess its about managing personalities. Brailsford alluded to the fact that they are up to the mark on the sports science side of things last year. they now need to get their house in order and get their best talent into the biggest races and manage their races properly. the giro was farcical for this team. they completely mismanaged roglic.

I also think that they will have quite a few wins with Groenewegen...

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Because how else can you win if you don't try your best? As everyone keeps reiterating, the Tour is not a foregone conclusion, this year more than any.

Say you're a team director. You know if you put your best 8 into the Tour they'll still be a winning few % off Ineos.

But if you put a good team into the Giro, you think you'll have a good chance of winning.

What would you do?

You're basically saying if we put our best team into the Tour our best case situation is that Froome crashes or gets ill (and even then half their doms could win anyway), or we put a good team into another race we could make a real go of.

Take Jumbo-Visma for example.

It was widely acknowledged that Roglic was left without a team for much of the race. Yet they now have Kruijswijk and Bennett at the Tour. They also have Groenewegen. Send a hybrid GC/Sprinter team to the Tour and your best GC rider to the Giro undersupported. Surely it's better to fully back Roglic (with Kruijswijk as back-up) in one and fully back Groenewegen (with van Aert as back-up) in the other.

So I can't really answer this properly but I'll give you some of my thinking on the matter. It's not fully fleshed out. If i put myself in Jumbo's shoes.

I have a theory that if you have a rider who would have a good Tour if they made it on the podium and your team is materially weaker than the leading team - why do you really need your heavy hitting GC team?

When the big selection happens your team mates won't be there anyway for the important stuff (instead they'll be in group two or three behind the main hitters) and they'll maybe creep into the top 20 overall. To what end?

Jumbo are never gonna out ride Sky in the Tour, so why bother.

Jumbo in the mean time have as near as you can get to a sure fire stage win in Groenewegen (which still counts for a lot over in the motherland), and stage wins will definitely count towards success (in a way they wouldn't if you are sky).

So why not go for both?

As long as you have a strong team for the TTT, and for that I imagine there is some overlap in the GC/Sprint help ven diagram.

mididoctors

Good points about team cohesion made on this thread. Ineos and MST still stand out.

larkim

Beyond the really obvious stuff like sharing around drinks / gels etc, if you're a GC contender with a moderate to weak team, what's to stop you psychologically treating one or more of the stronger teams as your climbing train? Sitting on a tempo set by Ineos is the same as sitting on a tempo set by Ineos that your team are also sitting in on?

coopster_the_1st

larkim wrote:

Beyond the really obvious stuff like sharing around drinks / gels etc, if you're a GC contender with a moderate to weak team, what's to stop you psychologically treating one or more of the stronger teams as your climbing train? Sitting on a tempo set by Ineos is the same as sitting on a tempo set by Ineos that your team are also sitting in on?

I would guess day after day of working hard in the mountains and seeing Kwiat leading Poels with G & Bernal ahead of you while you have no team mates would grind away at your confidence about the weakness of your team and the strength of Ineos

rick_chasey

larkim wrote:

Beyond the really obvious stuff like sharing around drinks / gels etc, if you're a GC contender with a moderate to weak team, what's to stop you psychologically treating one or more of the stronger teams as your climbing train? Sitting on a tempo set by Ineos is the same as sitting on a tempo set by Ineos that your team are also sitting in on?

Correct.

Unless you have the talent to push the leading team around, it doesn't really matter....

larkim

Which then makes me question the oft-repeated commentary positions of riders being "isolated". Roglic would not have been surprised to have found himself "isolated" at any point in the Giro once his team was setting off every morning weakened. So the impact would be minimal, providing he followed the correct wheels in terms of who was attacking. Accepting that you lose any control over timing if your team ups the pace, the physical efficiency of drafting etc is identical no matter what jersey is being worn on by the rider in front.

rick_chasey

I guess let's turn the question around: what would Kruiswijk gain from a decent team?

Support deeper into mountain stages - helpful for punctures, crashes etc.

An easier time through the tricky first week.

Better TTT performance.

Anything else?

phreak

larkim wrote:

Beyond the really obvious stuff like sharing around drinks / gels etc, if you're a GC contender with a moderate to weak team, what's to stop you psychologically treating one or more of the stronger teams as your climbing train? Sitting on a tempo set by Ineos is the same as sitting on a tempo set by Ineos that your team are also sitting in on?

I suppose the benefits are twofold. Firstly it's not your team setting the tempo. Presumably the whole point of that is that it's set at a pace you're happy with, which may not be the case if another team are doing so. Secondly, if something unexpected happens, be that a rival attacking, you suffering or a mechanical, then having someone there to support is important.

It's not the end of the world if you don't have it, but it's hard to remember many multiple GT winners who didn't also have a strong team around them.

gsk82

phreak wrote:

It's not the end of the world if you don't have it, but it's hard to remember many multiple GT winners who didn't also have a strong team around them.

But the best riders sign for the best teams.

Like Lewis Hamilton only wins because he has the best car. He only has the best car because he's the best driver.

rick_chasey

gsk82 wrote:

phreak wrote:

It's not the end of the world if you don't have it, but it's hard to remember many multiple GT winners who didn't also have a strong team around them.

But the best riders sign for the best teams.

Like Lewis Hamilton only wins because he has the best car. He only has the best car because he's the best driver.

Tell that to Alonso.

m.r.m.

phreak wrote:

larkim wrote:

Beyond the really obvious stuff like sharing around drinks / gels etc, if you're a GC contender with a moderate to weak team, what's to stop you psychologically treating one or more of the stronger teams as your climbing train? Sitting on a tempo set by Ineos is the same as sitting on a tempo set by Ineos that your team are also sitting in on?

I suppose the benefits are twofold. Firstly it's not your team setting the tempo. Presumably the whole point of that is that it's set at a pace you're happy with, which may not be the case if another team are doing so. Secondly, if something unexpected happens, be that a rival attacking, you suffering or a mechanical, then having someone there to support is important.

It's not the end of the world if you don't have it, but it's hard to remember many multiple GT winners who didn't also have a strong team around them.

Exactly this. Also when Carapaz nips off at the front for example you can get your strong teammates to manage the gap. Another team may not see the danger in the same way. And this repeats itself multiple times over 3 weeks.

Additionally you can rely on riders to bring back initial salvos by the other teams in the mountains instead of having to do it yourself.

bigmat

Having a strong team comes into its own when you are having to defend a lead (as Roglic discovered). Yes, other GC contenders can sit on the Ineor train, but what if they happen to find themselves leading - how do they respond to attacks from their competitors, how do they manage the pace to best suit them? We've never really seen much of Sky / Ineos using the team approach to attack when chasing a leader who is a real GC threat - Froome has been in that situation at the Vuelta a couple of times, but gererally had a weaker team there. I suppose there was last year's Giro, come to think of it.

Strong teams can help with attacking as well (Sastre win a good example) but its tricky to coordinate (look at Movistar last year).

Pross

BigMat wrote:

Having a strong team comes into its own when you are having to defend a lead (as Roglic discovered). Yes, other GC contenders can sit on the Ineor train, but what if they happen to find themselves leading - how do they respond to attacks from their competitors, how do they manage the pace to best suit them? We've never really seen much of Sky / Ineos using the team approach to attack when chasing a leader who is a real GC threat - Froome has been in that situation at the Vuelta a couple of times, but gererally had a weaker team there. I suppose there was last year's Giro, come to think of it.

Strong teams can help with attacking as well (Sastre win a good example) but its tricky to coordinate (look at Movistar last year).

That Giro stage last year really demonstrated how good Sky were tactically in GT racing as well as how strong they are, as you say we are used to them using their 'boring' tactics as they tend to take the jersey early at the Tour then defend it strongly but that showed they can utilise aggressive tactics when needed. Teams have tried something similar against them in the Tour previously but I can only remember that one bonkers mountain stage where Sky got blitzed early on where it really created pressure.

mididoctors

larkim wrote:

Beyond the really obvious stuff like sharing around drinks / gels etc, if you're a GC contender with a moderate to weak team, what's to stop you psychologically treating one or more of the stronger teams as your climbing train? Sitting on a tempo set by Ineos is the same as sitting on a tempo set by Ineos that your team are also sitting in on?

They do this already

Edit it's sub optimal for reasons stated by others. Leaves you no tactical flexibility.

bobmcstuff

mrfpb wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Because how else can you win if you don't try your best? As everyone keeps reiterating, the Tour is not a foregone conclusion, this year more than any.

Say you're a team director. You know if you put your best 8 into the Tour they'll still be a winning few % off Ineos.

But if you put a good team into the Giro, you think you'll have a good chance of winning.

What would you do?

You're basically saying if we put our best team into the Tour our best case situation is that Froome crashes or gets ill (and even then half their doms could win anyway), or we put a good team into another race we could make a real go of.

I'm not sure any team sponsor would agree with your pov. It's the Tour de France, its the World Cup/Wimbledon/Superbowl of cycling as far as media coverage goes.

As per the rest of the discussion, quite a few teams are sending their best GC rider elsewhere... I'm only trying to show it from their point of view.

Not really sure how highly sponsors actually view say 8th at the Tour really.

salsiccia1

Changing the subject, aren't we due a doping scandal about now?

rick_chasey

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Changing the subject, aren't we due a doping scandal about now?

Bit early for that.

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Changing the subject, aren't we due a doping scandal about now?

Bit early for that.

Wednesday next week, traditionally, no?

dabber

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Is the roadbook available anywhere yet?
Will be riding the etape and staying out for the rest of the week so will catch 18, 19 & 20

Nope. Not yet.

Now available (French)
https://aso.gc-platforms.com/index.php/s/epWY6CXKbJkZCxf/download

mrb123

Nice to see that the Norwegian women's football team appear to be wearing Ineos kit for tonight's game.

thegreatdivide

Yates A and S for the Tour. Impey, Trentin, Turbo, Haig, Juul-Jensen and Hepburn in support. Interesting.

Bardet was riding the Galibier on Sunday practicing the descent. He never managed to catch me in the last km from the top, but to be fair to him, he’d been up one side, down the other and was on the home leg by the time I’d neared the top

The man is skin and bones!!!

Lotto Jumbo were also out on a recon.

rick_chasey

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Changing the subject, aren't we due a doping scandal about now?

Bit early for that.

Wednesday next week, traditionally, no?

Yeah between Wednesday and Friday.