2022 Giro d'Italia: Post race discussion & poll

[Pantani_lives]

3/10

Let's start with the upside. We've seen some good stage wins by MvdP, Bouwman, De Gendt, Ghirmay, Ciccone and Covi.

However the GC was of a poor quality. This wasn't a peloton, but a mixture of a sick ward and an old people's home. I would call it the worst Giro of this century. The three weakest GT winners of recent times all start with H: Hesjedal, Hindley and Horner.

 

[Fantastico]

The three weakest GT winners of recent times all start with H: Hesjedal, Hindley and Horner.

What about Hart?

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Nothing quite as exciting as watching 175 racers riding alone, right?!

You were replying to Gigs. That is the most exciting racing he has ever seen.

 

[Roku]

This Giro represents the completely wrong understanding of entertainment based on the artificial equality between favourites. Yes, it was a close call between Hindley and Carapaz until Fedaia but it was due to a poor race design.

This is the reason why you need to put a better balanced route and why you need more ITT kilometres, especially introducing a proper time trial at least before the last block of high mountains (i'm not asking for 1990 or 2000 TT lengths, just a 35 kms ITT will establish proper gaps for the current era).

The current trend of limiting ITT for the sake of closest gaps and "a thrilling finale" actually kills the opportunity of seeing long range attacks and limits the action to just 5 kms instead of, potentially, 40 kms of action.

I'm not buying the "a good time-triallist with a super-team will block the race" logic. It's just the opposite. A good time-triallist, with a good team but weaker climber than 2 or 3 riders will lend the opportunity to blow the race apart a couple of climbs before the finish line or a higher pace in order to wear the leader down.

And what happens if the best climber is the best time-triallist as well? He is just the outright winner, it won't make the race any more interesting if you just put 18 flat stages and then a mountain stage and a final ITT in order to keep tights gaps. On the contrary, it will just be a snooze-fest, similar to this Giro.

With a better race design Hindley would have probably needed to attack earlier, Bahrain would have definitely needed to try something else...

I give it a 3 out of 10.

There were three to four good stages in different fields (the stage to Messina as a battle to drop pure sprinters, Torino which was the highlight of the race and Aprica were good stages) Then we had decent enough stages in Blockhaus, Fedaia, Jesi, Napoli, Lavarone and Genoa. Finally, completely worthless stages such as Castelmorte and Cogne.

 

[OlavEH]

Btw, did more happen to S.Yates except for the crash in stage 4?

And what was the deal with MAL? Sick, injured or just not in shape?

 

[Axel Hangleck]

From a GC perspective, it was a bit disappointing; injuries, illness didn't help, I kept waiting for it to explode into life, but like a damp firework nothing really happened. Too often the main guys just looked at each other, or launched a 'non attack'. As already said, it wasn't the greatest route we've seen.

If it was up to me, on the penultimate weekend I'd use the north eastern part of Italy - going into Slovenia & Austria with a mountain top finish, a finish after a descent, and a hilly 25-30 km ITT. Followed by the final rest day, a few flat-ish stages until the final weekend and the north western part of Italy.

Have just seen Roku's post, and I'd agree about the more TT kms; I don't buy the 'too many TT kms ruin the race'. They don't - if you can't TT, then you don't really deserve to win a GT; it's supposed to be the best 'all round' rider - not the best climber.

The non GC race was fine; MvdP, Ghirmay, Ciccone, Bouwman plus mentions for promising youngsters Arensman and Lemreize.

 

[Lequack]

Some points tally

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531181617212948480

View: https://twitter.com/eltiodeldato/status/1531181617212948480

 

[OlavEH]

One more thought; when it comes to race design, it would really be interesting to see Fedaia as the penultimate climb once. Either with a MTF on Pordoi or possibly even better finish in Arabba or Selva di Gardena after Pordoi/Sella. Perhaps Fedaia - Sella and finish in Selva would be the very best alternative. Then we would also get the fantastic scenery around Passo Sella.

 

[Rollthedice]

Btw, did more happen to S.Yates except for the crash in stage 4?

And what was the deal with MAL? Sick, injured or just not in shape?

Yates only that crash, MAL started injured did not improved and quit.

 

[OlavEH]

Yates only that crash, MAL started injured did not improved and quit.

Strange that Yates was completely lost on Blockhaus, won the stage to Torino and then was lost again after that. Really too bad. He could have ensured much more GC action in the last half of the race.

 

[hayneplane]

3/10

Let's start with the upside. We've seen some good stage wins by MvdP, Bouwman, De Gendt, Ghirmay, Ciccone and Covi.

However the GC was of a poor quality. This wasn't a peloton, but a mixture of a sick ward and an old people's home. I would call it the worst Giro of this century. The three weakest GT winners of recent times all start with H: Hesjedal, Hindley and Horner.

Was it really weaker than the early 2000s when the Giro was almost exclusively an Italian domestic battle of Petacchi vs Cipollini in the sprints (with way too many sprint stages and Simoni/Garzelli/Cunego/Di Luca for the mountains and GC.

 

[Lequack]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531205114584768513

View: https://twitter.com/BORAhansgrohe/status/1531205114584768513?s=20&t=PSiw7FmRrghksM_wUrPN9g

 

[motty89]

I'm giving it a 2.5

First the positives

• Start was decent with mvdp and girmay fighting for stages
• Also some decent breakaway battles

Negatives

• route was very bad. Could've done with a longer mid race tt so the climbers are less passive in mountain stages.
• finishing on top of pordoi on the fedaiaaaa stage would've been infinitely better ( instead of 5min action we get 45!)
• Feel that the racing really suffered from losing the most entertaining riders early (Yates, mal, Bardet to lesser extent) and almeidas covid meant the podium was set in stone.

Overall a very forgettable giro. The best man won through attrition and the third week was very boring.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Since I voted "I was entertained", I feel like I need to explain myself here .

This was my first Giro, which I watched pretty much through (due to personal circumstances) so I can only compare with the TDF, which I usually watch every year.

I found it refreshing, that there were actually three about equally powered teams competing for the GC and not just one (Sky/Ineos/Jumbo) train controlling everything - I have to say I am really sick of seeing Tony Martin in front for most of all race days (but that's over now at least). Also there was no single "alien" rider like Pogacar, which helped a lot.

In the TDF most of the breakaways are caught and then there is an "exciting" sprinter finish, which kind of negates the previous hours of watching. Not so in this Giro, where the breakaway had a good chance.
On each stage, it seemed like a level field with uncertain outcome (though kudos to the forum member, who predicted Hirt on the stage, where Hirt actually won).

The third week could have been better. But all in all the Giro had a lot of interesting stories, like will Cavendish get to TDF ? Will Ewan save Lotto with a stage win ? Girmay first win. MVDP breakaway and the search for pineapples. Can Nibali get a stage win in his last Giro ? The resurrection of Pozzovivo. De Gendt wins a stage! Lopez hangs on to the pink for longer than expected. Bora-Hansgrohe becomes a "major" team. The continuing rise of van der Schuerens Wanty Gobert - Intermarche team and so on.

People say the Giro was worse, because Almeida dropped out. But Almeida has got to be the most undynamic rider after Buchmann, who is so boring, his TT for seventh place overall wasn't even shown for one second (all other TOP-10 riders were shown). I didn't miss him.
People say the Giro was worse, because Bardet dropped out, but Romain Bardet of AG2R as "GC favorite" sounds just so strange to me. I have seen Bardet many times and he rarely wins. If he fails it isn't as dramatic as Pinot. So Bardet or no Bardet, doesn't really matter to me.

So for me the entertainment factor was just fine. It wasn't epic, but it was fine.

My scale also goes from 11-34 (glass way too full, too blind to put the cork back on person).

So although not the goat, I give this Giro a 23.

 

[OlavEH]

Current GC power ranking after the Giro:

Level 1: Pogacar
Level 2: Roglic
Level 3: Bernal, Carapaz, Vingegaard, Hindley
Level 4: Vlasov, Landa, Mas, Almeida, Yates-brothers, perhaps Martinez and MAL

Undecided: Evenopoel

 

[greyclouds]

Before the Giro, I was on the "the route is okay" bandwagon, but it turned out much worse than I thought. A bunch of key mistakes, the biggest of all the targetting of the same type of rider, which didn't allow for any variation in the key stages beyond the break and the GC-train behind. Kudos to MvdP, Girmay, Bouwman, Kamna, Carthy and Martin for making it remotely interesting at different points of the race. Really unfortunate that Yates, Bardet and Almeida had to drop, as they would have kept the GC action for the top spots more interesting than the binary Carapaz-Hindley duel for the 1st place. Congrats to Hindley for the victory, he showed to be at a GT-level and we'll probably see more of him.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

One more thought; when it comes to race design, it would really be interesting to see Fedaia as the penultimate climb once. Either with a MTF on Pordoi or possibly even better finish in Arabba or Selva di Gardena after Pordoi/Sella. Perhaps Fedaia - Sella and finish in Selva would be the very best alternative. Then we would also get the fantastic scenery around Passo Sella.

That has been largely how it has been used historically, usually a finish on Pordoi, or in Corvara after Sella/Gardena, and twice with Gardeccia. And that's also been a large part of how its legacy has been built, because you'd have that super tough second half of the climb forcing gaps and then long periods of racing following it as those dropped fight back, those ahead try to press on, riders pay for aggression, hit the wall, and so on. The 2011 stage was in keeping with the historic use of the climb, this year's (and 2008's) are the historical outliers. 2008 saw most of the GC contenders leave things to the final climb but it was kept interesting because Emanuele Sella was taking more drugs than a touring funk band and was collecting GPMs from the break while not that far down on GC, meaning the heads of state couldn't take it easy on the earlier climbs of the day so they were more isolated before the final climb began.

 

[Kaptain Kool]

The 2017 Giro had a longish mid-race ITT and that race was far worse than this year. ITTs might provide interesting results but not interesting viewing. In ancient times, you'd pick up the Sunday paper and read the results of stages that occurred 5 days in the past. ITTs were fine then. But in an the modern era with full stages shown on TV, you can't bore everyone. And if you're sport is called Road Racing, you need to show a race. Single cyclists taking turns one-by-one isn't a race now matter how fast they go.

 

[gregrowlerson]

The 2017 Giro had a longish mid-race ITT and that race was far worse than this year. ITTs might provide interesting results but not interesting viewing. In ancient times, you'd pick up the Sunday paper and read the results of stages that occurred 5 days in the past. ITTs were fine then. But in an the modern era with full stages shown on TV, you can't bore everyone. And if you're sport is called Road Racing, you need to show a race. Single cyclists taking turns one-by-one isn't a race now matter how fast they go.

Yeah but if ITT's bore people for a day, what's the difference with having the riders race them for 57 kms rather than only 17? Either way the television coverage length is more or less the same.

Or do you propose that there should be no ITT at all in a current day grand tour?

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Just want 2016 Giro again

 

[Salvarani]

The 2017 Giro had a longish mid-race ITT and that race was far worse than this year. ITTs might provide interesting results but not interesting viewing. In ancient times, you'd pick up the Sunday paper and read the results of stages that occurred 5 days in the past. ITTs were fine then. But in an the modern era with full stages shown on TV, you can't bore everyone. And if you're sport is called Road Racing, you need to show a race. Single cyclists taking turns one-by-one isn't a race now matter how fast they go.

It is not MTB, Cyclo-Cross or track. Who might be better disciplines for TV. Shorter races and more actionpacked.

Thats why we have seen a lot of short stages in recent times. They have tried to incorporate the things you speaking. So it not 6 hours of the peloton riding and then a sprint for the win.

But traditional road racing has always been about the long distances and the endurance. Day by day of attrition. Riders exiting races because of crashes, illness or losing too much time. Riders picking their moment for the winning move, but most days they will bide their time and try to avoid the things happening above. Hard to change that. Just hope that they place better stages on the weekends, when most people watch.

 

[Carols]

It certainly wasn't the best Giro I've ever seen but I Enjoy watching cycling. I'd give it a 6 which is very low for me, but it was a race of attrition and I web surfed during some for the really slow parts. There is much to enjoy in a GT besides the GC battle .

 

[Armchair cyclist]

I do get the "It should be about the best all rounder, not just about the best climber" argument, but so often in recent times the only Time Trialists who can beat the best climbers are soooo far adrift in the mountains that the matter seems almost moot. Who would have been close to Carapaz and Hindley if we had had another 50km of TT? And if that had left Carapaz so far ahead of Hindley that he could not have an ambition other than second, would that have made a better race?

How are TT km going to make anyone other than Roglic the closest challenger to Pogacar in the Tour (everyone being fit, healthy and accident free), which is exactly where we would be if there were no timetrial at all.

Sometimes it works (2017 Giro), but only rarely in modern times. Meanwhile, the most deprecated recent Tour route and race was the TT heavy 2012 edition.

 

[Big Doopie]

This Giro represents the completely wrong understanding of entertainment based on the artificial equality between favourites. Yes, it was a close call between Hindley and Carapaz until Fedaia but it was due to a poor race design.

This is the reason why you need to put a better balanced route and why you need more ITT kilometres, especially introducing a proper time trial at least before the last block of high mountains (i'm not asking for 1990 or 2000 TT lengths, just a 35 kms ITT will establish proper gaps for the current era).

The current trend of limiting ITT for the sake of closest gaps and "a thrilling finale" actually kills the opportunity of seeing long range attacks and limits the action to just 5 kms instead of, potentially, 40 kms of action.

I'm not buying the "a good time-triallist with a super-team will block the race" logic. It's just the opposite. A good time-triallist, with a good team but weaker climber than 2 or 3 riders will lend the opportunity to blow the race apart a couple of climbs before the finish line or a higher pace in order to wear the leader down.

And what happens if the best climber is the best time-triallist as well? He is just the outright winner, it won't make the race any more interesting if you just put 18 flat stages and then a mountain stage and a final ITT in order to keep tights gaps. On the contrary, it will just be a snooze-fest, similar to this Giro.

With a better race design Hindley would have probably needed to attack earlier, Bahrain would have definitely needed to try something else...

I give it a 3 out of 10.

There were three to four good stages in different fields (the stage to Messina as a battle to drop pure sprinters, Torino which was the highlight of the race and Aprica were good stages) Then we had decent enough stages in Blockhaus, Fedaia, Jesi, Napoli, Lavarone and Genoa. Finally, completely worthless stages such as Castelmorte and Cogne.

i now do not need to add a comment to this thread.

tx.

 

[SafeBet]

Was it really weaker than the early 2000s when the Giro was almost exclusively an Italian domestic battle of Petacchi vs Cipollini in the sprints (with way too many sprint stages and Simoni/Garzelli/Cunego/Di Luca for the mountains and GC.

It might have been an all Italian affair but it was often very entertaining. 2004 was an exception due to a bad route.