I partially agree, but a medium long ITT would probably have been an advantage in this edition. I don't think 70-80 kms or more like someone wants is necessary, but even if there are none top time trialists present, a 40 km ITT would create some gaps between the top contenders and forced the weaker ones to attack more earlier than Fedaia. A time trial like this could separate guys like Hindley, Carapaz and Landa (+Almeida, Yates, etc) with 2-3 minutes and force more attacks on the stages to Aprica and Lavarone.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
How could I forget him? Hesjedal, Horner, Hart, Hindley. What a mess.
To me, the way he attacked and the passivity , if he would have been in form i have hard time imagine he would have been so passive and his attacks so weak and impotent.
I Have a hard time see anyone in this Giro field would have been able to follow if he would have been in shape.
Also have a hard time to see that if he was in form that INEOS wouldn't have tried something, or set up a murdering pace instead of just riding along or when pacing not even have a pace that took more time on the breakaway riders on different stages.
I know I've said it in the past and it sounds like a half joke but Vegni or whoever is in charge should design a route which is tailor made for classic riders: technical ITTs, sterrato, cobbles, a ton of walls, hilly stages and only a couple mountain stages here and there.
I mean the Tour is the Tour, you cannot change it. The Vuelta has its identity, like it or not. The Giro should go a different direction, at least once. Stop trying to lure in Pog and Rog. Do something completely different.
I mean the Tour is the Tour, you cannot change it. The Vuelta has its identity, like it or not. The Giro should go a different direction, at least once. Stop trying to lure in Pog and Rog. Do something completely different.
Or just some gravel climbs. Last year with Bernal on a gravel finish was great, and Froome vs Dumoulin on Finestre.
You trying to get MVDP to stop eating pizza?
A normal Giro can be fine. Decent length ITT, and don't make most of week 2 gc irrelevant.
Stage 15 type of design on stage 20, and stage 19 type of design on stage 15.
Could they do a monster dolomite stage early in week 2 for a change? Why not?
It could have been interesting for one version only, but no more. Given the immense potential for great mountain stages in Italy, it would really be a waste not to use hardly any of these because you want to create a "classics GT". And even the really tough medium mountain stages usually, like Torino this year, end up with the classics riders being dropped by huge gaps and the typical GC contenders winning.
Give us some of the great mountain combos:
- Mortirolo - Aprica
- Finestre - Sestriere
- Fauniera - Colletto - Borgo San Dalmazzo
- San Carlo - Courmayeur
- Stelvio - Lago Canceno
- Gavia - Stelvio - Solda
- San Pellegrino in Alpe - Abetone
- Fedaia - Sella - Selva di Gardena.
- Giau - Falzarego
- Descent finish from Grappa, Bondone or climbs surrounding Rovereto or Bolzano
Last edited:
I dont think I would use the word all-rounder, but perhaps the most complete rider. The one who is good in echelons, hillier stages, muritos, high mountains and who can time trial.
If that only favors a couple of riders... then I mean those are probalby greatest riders of their generation or in a certain period of time. I would like someone that is great to win. Thats when they become legends of this sport. Winning GTs. Monuments. And so on.
Not by routes that favors a certain type of rider, who is only good at one thing.
Last edited:
The UCI stated 10 (?) years ago that they were reducing 'overall' KM/Hours to eliminate the need for [CLINIC]. We can't ,nor do I want, to debate the statement, but that is their stated reason for reducing KM/Hours. Maybe that makes it better for TV too, but here in the USA there was four hour coverage of cars going around the same loop over and over, and even longer coverage of rich people hitting a little white ball around a manicured forest.
There were some fun stages, like stage 1 with MVDP taking the leader's jersey, the Girmay winning stage, the Blockhaus stage, stage 20 at the end when it finally came to life, and a few others. The GC competition was close throughout, but it was also hampered by major contenders abandoning because of injury or illness. The landscape was fantastic. The podium was quality. In the end, it tried to be good. But in the spectrum of Giros, it could probably only aspire to be average (not necessarily a bad thing).
Don't think the stage designs helped. Too many climbing stages ended on a less decisive type of climb or the harder climbs came earlier in the stage and I really thought it was going to come down to the TT. Carapaz cracking was a surprise. Hard to be critical of Hindley. Not a memorable race but it had some good moments Probably give it a 4/10. Even though the 2020 Giro ended badly for Hindley I thought it was the more entertaining race.
Having read comments above, this Giro was just fair to midland. Such was due to poor race design and lack of a charismatic rider in the lead or memorable duel between two Bigs fighting for pink, because, let's face it, the rivalry between Carapaz and Hindley was hardly inspiring. I mean neither racer exactly makes one get up off the sofa to shout at the tv screen.
The sooner RCI replaces Vegni as race coordinator the better for the Giro. The Hungarian start like the one in Israel a few years back just demonstrates a total lack of sensitivity toward larger issues a bike race shouldn't be involved with, let alone act as national promotion venue for in the name of expanding markets. But with Vegni at the helm this doesn't suprise me, as the guy is a blockhead.
Secondly the lack of longer TT to force the GC favorites to move earlier than the last few kms in the mountain stages resulted in the insipient racing we got uphill this Giro. Moreover, despite having been loaded with climbs the third week, the stage designs themselves were pretty aweful. Take, for example, the "montagna Pantani" stage with the Mortirolo-Santa Cristina-Aprica combo; why did they not go up the hard side of the Mortirolo and why was there no Stelvio previously as in the mythic 94 edition? And why were there just a couple of mountains over 2000 meters? The lack of the Stelvio has already been mentioned, but why no Gavia, no Finestre, no jaunt over the French border with Col d'Izoard, etc.? And bar the Fedaia and perhaps Blockhaus (on which, however, they don't do the final 5 k), the finishes of the mountain stages were on less decisive climbs or not at the mountain tops at all.
The first two weeks were also badly planned. Etna is a nice idea, but the climb itself so early in the race when the legs are fresh simply doesn't make much of a difference (unless you have a prime Contador charging up it). The only other real test was Blockhaus until week three. But there should have been another important GC stage or two in the Apennines between Abruzzo, Lazio, le Marche and Toscana.
True fortune did not help this Giro. the top GC riders were too evenly matched until the penultimate stage. And Almeida catching covid was a big loss. Yet had he not gotten sick, the race still lacked a 35-40 km time trial that would have given him terrain to put pressure on the pure climbers. It's true that the Giro isn't the Tour. Italy has always favored the climbers and for the tifosi riding the high mountains is the essence of cycling, but the shortage of time trial kms really took luster off this edition.
Even so there was no great rivalry or big champion to get excited about this year. Ironically it could be said that the GC riders were as uninspiring as the race design. I thus give it 4/10.
The sooner RCI replaces Vegni as race coordinator the better for the Giro. The Hungarian start like the one in Israel a few years back just demonstrates a total lack of sensitivity toward larger issues a bike race shouldn't be involved with, let alone act as national promotion venue for in the name of expanding markets. But with Vegni at the helm this doesn't suprise me, as the guy is a blockhead.
Secondly the lack of longer TT to force the GC favorites to move earlier than the last few kms in the mountain stages resulted in the insipient racing we got uphill this Giro. Moreover, despite having been loaded with climbs the third week, the stage designs themselves were pretty aweful. Take, for example, the "montagna Pantani" stage with the Mortirolo-Santa Cristina-Aprica combo; why did they not go up the hard side of the Mortirolo and why was there no Stelvio previously as in the mythic 94 edition? And why were there just a couple of mountains over 2000 meters? The lack of the Stelvio has already been mentioned, but why no Gavia, no Finestre, no jaunt over the French border with Col d'Izoard, etc.? And bar the Fedaia and perhaps Blockhaus (on which, however, they don't do the final 5 k), the finishes of the mountain stages were on less decisive climbs or not at the mountain tops at all.
The first two weeks were also badly planned. Etna is a nice idea, but the climb itself so early in the race when the legs are fresh simply doesn't make much of a difference (unless you have a prime Contador charging up it). The only other real test was Blockhaus until week three. But there should have been another important GC stage or two in the Apennines between Abruzzo, Lazio, le Marche and Toscana.
True fortune did not help this Giro. the top GC riders were too evenly matched until the penultimate stage. And Almeida catching covid was a big loss. Yet had he not gotten sick, the race still lacked a 35-40 km time trial that would have given him terrain to put pressure on the pure climbers. It's true that the Giro isn't the Tour. Italy has always favored the climbers and for the tifosi riding the high mountains is the essence of cycling, but the shortage of time trial kms really took luster off this edition.
Even so there was no great rivalry or big champion to get excited about this year. Ironically it could be said that the GC riders were as uninspiring as the race design. I thus give it 4/10.
Last edited:
One of the big issues here is that the Giro has really delivered some epic GT racing over the last 10-15 years.
My mind is filled with things like epic Contador attacks, Dutchmen crashing into ice walls & needing to sh*t at the wrong time, the dawg doing a Landis etc etc.
2022 was 0% epic.
My mind is filled with things like epic Contador attacks, Dutchmen crashing into ice walls & needing to sh*t at the wrong time, the dawg doing a Landis etc etc.
2022 was 0% epic.
Average
too many big names lost due to various reasons.
Many of them at average form.
Too many stages ending with little GC action.
too many big names lost due to various reasons.
Many of them at average form.
Too many stages ending with little GC action.
Actually think it's okay that they don't rely too much on the highest climbs. They are much more likely to be cancelled in case of bad weather, especially those over 2500m. The Dolomiti climbs are somewhat lower. Same for Finestre. And there are also loads of other climbs below 2000m in the Italian Alps that can be used for creating great stages.
It could be possible to create the toughest and best designed Giro in ages without ever going over 2000m.
And if going abroad, I rather like them going into Switzerland like they did last year, or perhaps the southern part of Austria. Around towns like Lienz and Villach, there are very good opportunities for creating both good medium mountain and high mountain stages.
Last edited:
3.5/10
The goal for RCS was to keep the gaps minimal as long as possible. They largely succeeded, so it can only be given a below average grade. The GC battle was a stalemate until the penultimate stage with none of the strongest remaining contenders in need to take any risks due to twisted understanding of entertainment value that Vegni&Co have and as a result we were served one of the poorest GC battles I've seen in my 13 years watching this sport. Racing outside of GC battle was quite good actually and saves the race a bit, but only a bit. Overall a very forgettable Giro without any real standout moments to remember it for five or ten years on. Maybe only Girmay eliminating himself from the race with a champagne cork - and that really says it all.
The goal for RCS was to keep the gaps minimal as long as possible. They largely succeeded, so it can only be given a below average grade. The GC battle was a stalemate until the penultimate stage with none of the strongest remaining contenders in need to take any risks due to twisted understanding of entertainment value that Vegni&Co have and as a result we were served one of the poorest GC battles I've seen in my 13 years watching this sport. Racing outside of GC battle was quite good actually and saves the race a bit, but only a bit. Overall a very forgettable Giro without any real standout moments to remember it for five or ten years on. Maybe only Girmay eliminating himself from the race with a champagne cork - and that really says it all.
I'd like one or two stages consistently over 2000 meters for the altitude test it demands of the GC riders. The possibilites are between Italy and France Galibier, Izoard, Agnello, Sestiere or the Bormio area Gavia, Stelvio, Mortirolo (even if slightly lower) or the Dolomites Sella, Pordoi, Gardegna, Fedaia, Tre Cime di Lavaredo or as you say going into Swizerland or Austria. Naturally you don't have to go above 2000 meters, but it's just a thrilling notion and the scenery is spectacular, which is why I'd like to see even just one stage per year that does. To balance this out one TT of 35-40 km and a shorter one of 15-20 km.
Last edited:
Agreed that there could be one of these stages each year. But sometimes (like 2013) there were 3 stages with one more more climbs well above 2000m.
I hope they avoid some of the climbs in France, though. Especially Galibier and Izoard is frequently enough used in the Tour.
this race was crap. for 19 stages the only thing of consequence to happen on GC were abandons
yes, or even just superga-like stages every few days. this terrain should be found all over Italy
haha, at least Horner had to beat Nibali and Valverde in their primes in that Vuelta
I have a fond memory of the 96 Giro stage 16 that finished in Briancon and went over the Col della Maddalena, Col du Vars and Col D'Izoard won by Pascal Richard. At any rate, talk here of a total classics Giro would not go over well in Italy. I can't remember the year, but one Giro in the 2000s had for the Giro few mountains and it wasn't very entertaining or well received, especially in Italy. A Giro must go through the Apennines, Alpes and Dolomites at least one stage per range for it to be the Giro. Then you can choose between any number of options for the muri, medium range mountains, sterrato etc. to make it hard and varried. And they should put a 30+ km tt in each year.
What a disgrace this race was. Giro is my favourite race but this one was on par with 2012 Tour. Terrible field, terrible winner. Eh...
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Latest: Armchair cyclist
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram