6-man teams discussion thread

[De Snelle Duif]

With almost everyone in the Tour of Flanders crashing at some point, there have been talks of using 6-man teams to lessen the number of riders in the peloton. It is also expected that this would make races harder to control. What is your take on 6-man teams? Why?

 

[BigMac]

On the sporting side, there might be advantages.

The problem is 6 man teams = less riders on that particular race = more races on the calendar (WT) so everyone can build their form. We don't want to see world tour teams invading lesser races just so they gan have their race days. That or teams will have to shorten their roster which isn't good.

 

[De Snelle Duif]

The problem is 6 man teams = less riders on that particular race = more races on the calendar (WT) so everyone can build their form. We don't want to see world tour teams invading lesser races just so they gan have their race days. That or teams will have to shorten their roster which isn't good.

More teams with smaller rosters are something the UCI has been looking into.

http://inrng.com/2014/03/uci-world-tour-reforms/

I have mixed feelings about other changes they want to make though, but let's not talk about these in this thread.

A good thing about smaller rosters would be that sponsors don't have to sponsor as much and migth be easier to attract that way.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Six man teams are the way to go, certainly in all stage races outside of GTs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how a strong team can suffocate an entire stage race these days. Clearly "forcing" the team strength down can only be a good thing.

Crashes will always happen also with less riders in the peloton. The real concern I have is the dullness in stage races.

Not sure reducing the team strength in classics will have the required effect at least not in the cobble/dirt races. Perhaps the concept can make the ardennes races more lively.

 

[veji11]

Damn it, forum ate my long post.

Anyway to summarize :

compared to cycling 20/30 years ago, the key issue today is that the leaders are too weak compared to the average rider and therefore the peloton. A Hinault or Merkx or even Lemond was a lot stronger than the average gregario. Say an average rider was 80% as strong as a leader in the 80s. Today it is 92 or 94%. This means that leaders just can't make a difference that easily and have to wait a lot longer, until the very last ks. A Hinault or Merckx use to race an LBL like a Cancellara races a flandrienne : use their strength/stamina to drop the others. Nowadays only on the flandriennes, a very specific type of race, do you see that.

Having teams of 6 would help mitigate the strength of the teammates and therefore of the peloton. Cue last year's tour of Poland, an experiment with 6 per team from the WT. you saw things we hardly see anymore : Phinney attacking in the last ks of a flat stage and resisting the peloton (less teammates for the sprinter's train), The race leader Riblon attacking on a hilly stage to try and get more time before the ITT, etc... Sure it was only the tour of Poland, with very heterogeneous levels of form, but still.

EDIT : Teams of 6 would expose leaders early, make them act sooner, force them to react themselves : Take this year's Paris Nice. With teams of 6 it could have been fantastic instead of just interesting. SKY and then AG2R would have had a considerably harder time controling.

I fully support the move. 6 per team for one day and week long races, 7 or maybe 8 for GTs.

 

[Netserk]

On the sporting side, there might be advantages.

The problem is 6 man teams = less riders on that particular race = more races on the calendar (WT) so everyone can build their form. We don't want to see world tour teams invading lesser races just so they gan have their race days. That or teams will have to shorten their roster which isn't good.

I wouldn't mind, so please use 'I' instead of 'We'

...

I'd love 6 man teams (and 8 for GTs). Would make it less crowded and captains isolated earlier, which would give an advantage to attackers.

 

[SafeBet]

Are crashes really caused by too many riders in the peloton? Some riders just like to take risks, some have mediocre bike handling skills. After RVV Paolini said riders discussed the issue and agreed on not jumping on and off sidewalks and traffic isles, but still there were plenty of them doing it. Does reducing the number of riders really help this?

That said, I'm all for having smaller teams, especially in short stage races. I'd say not less than 8 for a GT.

 

[veji11]

Are crashes really caused by too many riders in the peloton? Some riders just like to take risks, some have mediocre bike handling skills. After RVV Paolini said riders discussed the issue and agreed on not jumping on and off sidewalks and traffic isles, but still there were plenty of them doing it. Does reducing the number of riders really help this?

That said, I'm all for having smaller teams, especially in short stage races. I'd say not less than 8 for a GT.

To be honest, all the varying "add-ons" to roads over the years have also made it more complicated for the peloton : roundabouts, traffic isles, etc... When the peloton travels at 50/60ks, every obstacle becomes dangerous...

 

[martinvickers]

With almost everyone in the Tour of Flanders crashing at some point, there have been talks of using 6-man teams to lessen the number of riders in the peloton. It is also expected that this would make races harder to control. What is your take on 6-man teams? Why?

My instinct is that 6 man teams wills simply mean more teams. Organisers are not going to want to lose the spectacle, and for a roadside fan, the sheer size of the peloton is part of the spectacle.

As I said, 6 man teams, I suspect may mean more teams. Which is not in itself a bad thing, except more teams, means more team leaders, which mean more guys trying to get position, which may actually lead to more crashes.

Small roads have just got 'busier' over the years - by which I mean more road furniture. As often as not, it's the furniture seems to cause problems.

 

[manafana]

6 is too few but I am for teams of 7 or 8 in certain races especially the really tricky races like we saw yesterday.

 

[martinvickers]

I wouldn't mind, so please use 'I' instead of 'We'

...

I'd love 6 man teams (and 8 for GTs). Would make it less crowded and captains isolated earlier, which would give an advantage to attackers.

Not sure. 6 is maybe too small, unless it was a tiered thing - 6 per team for UCI continental stage races, 7 per team for World Tour, 8-9 for Grand Tour - and in one days continental 6, continental 1.HC 7, world tour 7-8

More teams means more team leaders, in theory. Which i fear simply hands a bigger advantage to the very rich teams to glut their teams

 

[Netserk]

1)Not sure. 6 is maybe too small, unless it was a tiered thing - 6 per team for UCI continental stage races, 7 per team for World Tour, 8-9 for Grand Tour - and in one days continental 6, continental 1.HC 7, world tour 7-8

2)More teams means more team leaders, in theory. Which i fear simply hands a bigger advantage to the very rich teams to glut their teams

1) Why would 6 be too small? (8 for GTs, 6 for all other races) Was it 'too small' (whatever that means???) in Pologne?

2) You are the only one talking about more teams, so please don't use that as an argument against those who haven't mentioned it.

 

[simoni]

There seems to be a base acceptance the overly controlled racing is boring. Thats probably the case, but, at the same time, good team racing can be very exciting and absorbing, and it would be a shame to reduce team sizes so much that it wouldn't be as possible.

Another consequence is that in stage races strong riders might be less inclined to hit out early in the race to avoid stretching their teams in defence of GC. This may allow other riders in which could be good. It may, of course, lead to a lot of very tired riders and listless racing towards the end of stage races.

And sprinting is part of cycling - we could easily end up in a situaiton where late specialists like Phinney or Cancellara winning again with a last km attack could become just as dull. Or a random second string french guy winning AGAIN.

This is something that needs carefully thinking about and I'd support some experimentation in lower ranked races to understand what the consequences might be. Ultimately we want exciting, open racing where a strong, tactically clever, individual rider has a 50:50 chance against good team riding. The answer probably lies somewhere between 6 and 9.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

There seems to be a base acceptance the overly controlled racing is boring. Thats probably the case, but, at the same time, good team racing can be very exciting and absorbing, and it would be a shame to reduce team sizes so much that it wouldn't be as possible.

Another consequence is that in stage races strong riders might be less inclined to hit out early in the race to avoid stretching their teams in defence of GC. This may allow other riders in which could be good. It may, of course, lead to a lot of very tired riders and listless racing towards the end of stage races.

And sprinting is part of cycling - we could easily end up in a situaiton where late specialists like Phinney or Cancellara winning again with a last km attack could become just as dull. Or a random second string french guy winning AGAIN.

This is something that needs carefully thinking about and I'd support some experimentation in lower ranked races to understand what the consequences might be. Ultimately we want exciting, open racing where a strong, tactically clever, individual rider has a 50:50 chance against good team riding. The answer probably lies somewhere between 6 and 9.

Why would 6 man teams prevent clever team tactics and racing?

 

[martinvickers]

1) Why would 6 be too small? (8 for GTs, 6 for all other races) Was it 'too small' (whatever that means???) in Pologne?

2) You are the only one talking about more teams, so please don't use that as an argument against those who haven't mentioned it. I frankly don't give a **** about your hunch.

I don't give a *** about much anything you say, hunch or otherwise. I usually have the manners to keep it to myself. I suggest you do likewise.

And I'll use whatever argument I please, whether you like it our not. If you don't want to engage, don't. I'll not pine for your views.

And for the record, for several reasons, I thought Poland last year was a bit of a mess.

 

[hrotha]

On the sporting side, there might be advantages.

The problem is 6 man teams = less riders on that particular race = more races on the calendar (WT) so everyone can build their form. We don't want to see world tour teams invading lesser races just so they gan have their race days. That or teams will have to shorten their roster which isn't good.

Why is that a problem? Seems to me having better fields in smaller races could be a solution to the demise of many races in Spain and Italy.

 

[Netserk]

I don't give a *** about much anything you say, hunch or otherwise. I usually have the manners to keep it to myself. I suggest you do likewise.

And I'll use whatever argument I please, whether you like it our not. If you don't want to engage, don't. I'll not pine for your views.

And for the record, for several reasons, I thought Poland last year was a bit of a mess.

That's rich coming from someone with your signature....

 

[martinvickers]

That's rich coming from someone with your signature....

The difference is, Netserk, I acknowledge my opinion for what it is...just an opinion.

I don't try and pretend it's fact. Now, If you're just trolling for a fight, I suggest you return to the clinic where there are normally plenty of takers.

 

[simoni]

Why would 6 man teams prevent clever team tactics and racing?

I was thinking they'd make it considerably more difficult by giving teams fewer resources with which to implement tactical plans, particularly in a stage race.

One of my favourites is sending riders up the road in mountain stages to assist later on (e.g. Schlecks Galibier win in 2011). Would Monfort have been able to be there, or would they have been able to risk him being there, had they fewer riders?)

Clearly this can all be debated - I must admit I'm unsure overall but I'd like to see race organisers experimenting with this.

 

[veji11]

I was thinking they'd make it considerably more difficult by giving teams fewer resources with which to implement tactical plans, particularly in a stage race.

One of my favourites is sending riders up the road in mountain stages to assist later on (e.g. Schlecks Galibier win in 2011). Would Monfort have been able to be there, or would they have been able to risk him being there, had they fewer riders?)

Clearly this can all be debated - I must admit I'm unsure overall but I'd like to see race organisers experimenting with this.

I don't think so. In cycling, defense is a numbers game, more so than offense. Teammates are a lot more useful pulling the peloton against a breakaway, than trying to attack all around, by lowering the numbers you actually make offense more interesting : because the other leaders has less teammates, forcing him to make them work earlier puts him at greater risk.

To simplify : You need numbers to defend your yellow jersey, but numbers are no prerequisite to conquer a yello jersey. Lower numbers weaken the defense.

What we saw last year in the Bagnères de Bigorre stage of the Tour, with the Garmin going all out and Porte and the Sky exploding, would actually become more common.

On classics, a as well : No more BMC pulling the whole peloton all the way to la Roche aux Faucons on LBL. Less ridesr per team probably result in leaders being exposed earlier.

It also changes the way teammates are seen : when you have 8 riders on a 260ks classic, you need (this is a crappy generalization of course) something like 1 leader, 2 lieutenants, 5 guys who do protection job, an go around picking supplies... Well if you only have 6, not sure you can just cut out 2 of the protection/supply guys, les "porteurs d'eau", because on 260ks you are going ot need them no matter what... Maybe it gives more values to riders with slightly lower capacities in terms of explosion/speed, but great stamina, to be able to work longer ?

 

[barmaher]

Maybe I need to don a tin hat to post on this forum, but in my opinion the smaller the teams, the better the racing would be.

The point about 80% to 92/94% is a good one from veji. And it is also more and more prevalent that some of the best teams have workers that would be possible winners in other teams.

So OPQS's classics team, Sky's GT team are very very strong. Would having 6 riders per team help to spread the talent out? I think it would.

 

[BigMac]

Why is that a problem? Seems to me having better fields in smaller races could be a solution to the demise of many races in Spain and Italy.

Because that would prevent the smaller teams to win the(ir) smaller races, eventually disappearing into oblivion because their sponsors got mad for not getting any wins.

I think things are good as they are. The main objective of a cycling reform shoud be to make sure the sport and it's teams survive, and not to please and entertain the viewers.

 

[Afrank]

6 man teams wouldn't prevent crashes, preventing crashes is really impossible to do. There something that will always be there. It could lessen crashes on those very small and narrow roads. But only if number of teams at a race was kept the same.

The big benefit of 6 man teams would be as others have mentioned how it would improve the racing and make it more exciting. Dazed and Confused pretty much hit the nail on the head. Makes races harder to control and thus improve the chances of attackers. Less chance of a team like Sky just doing a train up the whole climb then Froome going clear to win.

 

[martinvickers]

1) Why would 6 be too small? (8 for GTs, 6 for all other races) Was it 'too small' (whatever that means???) in Pologne?

In my view, Pologne was frankly a bit of a mess for a number of reasons.

2) You are the only one talking about more teams, so please don't use that as an argument against those who haven't mentioned it.

I will use the argument I think appropriate, regardless of whether someone else has raised it or not.

 

[veji11]

In my view, Pologne was frankly a bit of a mess for a number of reasons.

But that's the point, we want a bit more of a "mess". Now I know what you mean about Poland, sure you had some riders in-form from the tour, some just starting back to prepare the Vuelta (Nibali and others), etc. But nevertheless, we could have had a borefest that we avoided thanks partly to the 6 man teams not being able to lock down the race.