2010 Vuelta a España wildcards

[offbyone]

Judging by these comments, I would say that someone is off by considerably more than one.

Either contribute something useful to the discussion or stop trolling and wasting everyone's time.

 

[peloton]

Either contribute something useful to the discussion or stop trolling and wasting everyone's time.

sorry mate, it's you who is doing the trolling....
You might want to stick with the Radioshack fan forum, even RBR forum might be more to your taste.

ignored.

 

[icefire]

So you are honestly telling me that if you had the choice you wouldn't choose the best teams?

You don't think the best teams make the race better, more competitive and more prestigious?

The question is how to determine who are the best teams. You may use some kind of classification that grants points to riders and teams based on their results in all UCI sanctioned races. Then you may rank teams according to the points accumulated by the roster they submit to the race organiser. But this does not prevent a team sending a list of good names that don't do anything remarkable during the race. If the race in question is the Dauphiné or the Tour of Switzerland, everyone knows they're tuning up for the Tour and nobody cares. But if it is the Giro or the Vuelta, it's a disgrace for the race.

IMO, entry to any GT should be based on a points-based classification that gives extra weight to the results obtained in the preceding edition of that GT. With the new system for next season where the 17 best teams get automatic entry, I see some teams grabbing points everywhere and send a few exhausted top names with the stagiaires to the Vuelta. And the organiser will have one less wildcard than this year.

 

[tgsgirl]

First of all that isn't a fair comparison. The Tour de Suisse is not as hard as the dauphine and the tour of basque country. However, this year had more climbing than most years. The lack of hills is why spartacus was able to win last year. This year finally had a climbing stage and look at his position.

That's exactly what I'm saying. You can't just look at a list and say "well, Chris Horner won it this time so he's gonna win a GT now". There's way, way more factors involved, factors you can't just derive form looking at a palmares. I'm not saying that you don't know those factors. I'm saying that posting a list on the internet and using that as evidence without any other explanation is not evidence of anything. Analysing what happened during those races, as you did with Cancellara (yeah, that was my point), that's the way to build an argument.

And by the way there is constantly talk about Cancellera losing a couple kilos and trying for TdF GC in a year when the course isn't quite as tough in the mtns.

There's also constantly talk of him using an engine to win PR (what rubbish, by the way). There's constantly talk of Peter Sagan and Edvald Boasson-Hagen winning both the yellow and green jerseys. Baseless projections aren't evidence of anything either.

So yes, I sure can infer. Your telling me that we can't infer the Tour de France is going to have top competition every year based on the past years? Give me a break. History of good competition brings more prestige to a race and breeds more competition. The vuelta could certainly use this.

But now you're inferring completely different things. I said you can't infer three week results from one week results if that's all you're going on. And I stand by that.

Bingo bango?

Thought it sounded fun. No?

So you are honestly telling me that if you had the choice you wouldn't choose the best teams?

I'd choose some teams that would fight for the GC. I'd choose some teams with local heroes, as that's the way to generate the fans' interest, which brings crowds to the street and people to the TV, which provides revenue which makes sure my race can survive. I'd choose some teams which are genuinely motivated to entertain the race. I'd choose some teams who want to sprint. I'd make my decisions based on a whole variety of reasons, the GC being but one.

You don't think the best teams make the race better, more competitive and more prestigious?

Not if those teams are only interested in one of the above objectives, and I already have that one covered.

 

[offbyone]

The question is how to determine who are the best teams. You may use some kind of classification that grants points to riders and teams based on their results in all UCI sanctioned races. Then you may rank teams according to the points accumulated by the roster they submit to the race organiser. But this does not prevent a team sending a list of good names that don't do anything remarkable during the race. If the race in question is the Dauphiné or the Tour of Switzerland, everyone knows they're tuning up for the Tour and nobody cares. But if it is the Giro or the Vuelta, it's a disgrace for the race.

IMO, entry to any GT should be based on a points-based classification that gives extra weight to the results obtained in the preceding edition of that GT. With the new system for next season where the 17 best teams get automatic entry, I see some teams grabbing points everywhere and send a few exhausted top names with the stagiaires to the Vuelta. And the organiser will have one less wildcard than this year.

Hmmm it would be nice if there was a good system. But it is very difficult as you say because just because a team earns a lot of points doesn't mean they will send the good riders to the tour and it is a bad thing for the race. I agree with the idea of giving more weight to teams that do something at the previous year's edition. That is a good indicator that they are interested in the race.

Although then you have to decide to you give more weight to the GC contenders than the stage winners. If you did I think you would get more complete teams.

Another thought is why not base the points on a section of the season. So for the vuelta we base it on the last third of the season from the year before. For the classics you base it on the third of the season that leads up to and includes the classics. For the tour you use the middle of the season,etc.

That's exactly what I'm saying. You can't just look at a list and say "well, Chris Horner won it this time so he's gonna win a GT now". There's way, way more factors involved, factors you can't just derive form looking at a palmares. I'm not saying that you don't know those factors. I'm saying that posting a list on the internet and using that as evidence without any other explanation is not evidence of anything. Analysing what happened during those races, as you did with Cancellara (yeah, that was my point), that's the way to build an argument.

Well while I agree that not every year's edition is the same, if you take a big enough sample size like a decade then I think it is a very good measuring stick.

There's also constantly talk of him using an engine to win PR (what rubbish, by the way). There's constantly talk of Peter Sagan and Edvald Boasson-Hagen winning both the yellow and green jerseys. Baseless projections aren't evidence of anything either.

Oh I know, but wouldn't it be fun to see a emasculated cancellera attacking the climbers during the tour.

But now you're inferring completely different things. I said you can't infer three week results from one week results if that's all you're going on. And I stand by that.

Ahh I see what you are saying. A grand tour is definitely a different animal I didn't mean it to come across like that. I was trying to say there that a history of competition creates consistent competition in a race. This is true for the tour, the dauphine, etc.

Thought it sounded fun. No?

Definitely, just never heard that expression before. If you just made that up I think it could catch on and go big

I'd choose some teams that would fight for the GC. I'd choose some teams with local heroes, as that's the way to generate the fans' interest, which brings crowds to the street and people to the TV, which provides revenue which makes sure my race can survive. I'd choose some teams which are genuinely motivated to entertain the race. I'd choose some teams who want to sprint. I'd make my decisions based on a whole variety of reasons, the GC being but one.

Not if those teams are only interested in one of the above objectives, and I already have that one covered.

Fair enough. I don't agree but we can agree to disagree. The way I see it, the 16 guaranteed teams already bring a bunch of sprinters and generally a variety of contenders. Often though these are teams who's top riders are exhausted at this point in the season and aren't interested in the overall. That is why I think they need to choose the final teams more carefully.

 

[BroDeal]

Offbyamile sounds suspiciously like BPC. Same supidity passing for logic.

Obviously horner is old and either has it in him now or never. He has done pretty decent in a bunch of week long stage races. He has never had a chance at a grand tour. Frankly, I don't think he is capable of winning a TdF or even the Giro but the Vuelta is a bit more of an open book and he might have a shot.

This is beyond delusional. Horner has less of a chance of winning a GT than Tommy D. This is especially true since Horner wil be thirty-nine at next chance at the Vuelta.

 

[Michele]

I was checking cqranking and it appears that Xacobea and Andalucia are even worse than iranian Tabriz.