Are Saxo the most tactically inept team in the peloton?

[Mrs John Murphy]

So when Sastre attacked he ignored team orders. In 09 the plan was the same as in 08. Wait until the last climb and attack there. But then how did Sastre ignore the team orders if the team orders was to attack on the last climb?

2007? are you drunk?

And you should rewatch some stages of that tour if you think that CSC-Saxo didn't attack until Alpe d'Huez.

As I wrote earlier i didn't watch yesterdays' stage, but it seems it was a matter of poor ability and not poor tactics. Barring yesterday I still don't think anybody has pointed to when Saxo Bank has displayed bad tactics. Conservative tactics that get podiums instead of top tens but in that case I'ld prefer podium to top ten.

Typo sweetpea. A keep your knickers on.

The plan as I understand it in 2008 was for Frank to attack later on, or just to ride tempo - it certainly wasn't for Sastre to go on the attack. On earlier stages all Saxo had done despite isolating Cuddles was ride tempo to the top.

Podiums when you have the talent that Saxo have at their disposal is a poor return. Being happy to settle for podiums is the crux as to why Saxo are tactically inept. They should be winning not coming second with the riders they have, and IMO they would be winning but for Riis and his conservative tactics.

 

[Magnus]

The plan as I understand it in 2008 was for Frank to attack later on, or just to ride tempo - it certainly wasn't for Sastre to go on the attack. On earlier stages all Saxo had done despite isolating Cuddles was ride tempo to the top.

And you were just where doing this tour since you know what the tactics for the alpe d'huez stage was and missed the hautacam and prato nevoso stages? Just curious that's all.

As I understand the tactics going into the Alpe 'dHuez stage was to have hoever was strongest of Frank and Carlos put enough time into Evans to win the Tour and have the rest of the team disrupt the chase. Good tactics in my opinion. And tell me again: why are we discussing if a TdF winning tactic was good

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I was watching it on TV and wondering what the hell Saxo were playing at. Obviously, if you were in the Saxo team car and know what the tactics were then I'll defer to your superior knowledge.

Stage 15 where Frank S managed to put all of 9 seconds into Cuddles and I am not sure how stage 10 was a Saxo tactical masterclass. Perhaps you can enlighten me on how these were great tactical efforts from Saxo?

 

[Magnus]

At stage 15 Sastre attacked and put 47 seconds into Cadel. At stage 10 Frank attacked and put 1'49 into Cadel. I wouldn't call that ride tempo to the top. You did.

So by watching the race on TV you arrived at that Sastre didn't follow the team tactics? As I remember they told the press that Sastre and Frank was equal in the team even when Frank took yellow. I think Riis played his cards just right arriving with two potential tour winners before the last climb of the tour.

 

[woodie]

I just love how everyone on this forum seems to be an expert from just watching races but having no inside knowledge about the teams and making assumptions based on media speculation. There are so many variables in cycling it's impossible to account for everything. In cycling your more likely to lose than win so you can't critisize a team who doesn't always win but performs consistantly at their target races.

Seriously, most of the stuff on here makes me laugh

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

At stage 15 Sastre attacked and put 47 seconds into Cadel. At stage 10 Frank attacked and put 1'49 into Cadel. I wouldn't call that ride tempo to the top. You did.

So by watching the race on TV you arrived at that Sastre didn't follow the team tactics? As I remember they told the press that Sastre and Frank was equal in the team even when Frank took yellow. I think Riis played his cards just right arriving with two potential tour winners before the last climb of the tour.

I think that in the aftermath of Sastre's victory and leaving of Saxo, it was clear that he didn't follow the team tactics and fairly well reported in media and on various discussion boards.

Remind me how did Frank do on D'Huez and on the ITT's? Oh yeah, he put 2 seconds into Cuddles at D'Huez. So a sum total of 1 minute 51 put into the squeaky voiced one. It's all well and good but not if you're then going to concede 3 minutes plus in the final ITT to him and almost 2 minutes in the first ITT.

With a rider who is as poor at TTing as Frank Schleck you would think that Saxo would have done more than one attack on 10 which netted 1.49 and attack on 15 which netted him 9 seconds.

Good job Sastre bailed Riis out on that one.

 

[Magnus]

Before the stage Riis said
"They will have to work it out [...] when the attack is to take place Frank and Carlos will have to work it out with each other."

Frank said
"Carlos will never be my rival [...] it will be a victory for me if he's on top of the podium sunday"

I think the aftermath, wich was massively hyped by media, was more about future than past. Sastre thought he should be sole leader in future races. Riis didn't.

http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_parent=262&id=276&id_nyhed=13990

Edit:

After the stage Frank said that Carlos was to attack in the bottom of the climb and that he should counter and that it was the only way they could win the tour.

 

[Angliru]

Look at it this way - Saxo under Riis's wise leadership have focused the Schleck's entirely on the TDF - and have nothing to show for it. Not sent them to the Vuelta or the Giro separately as team leaders - all the eggs have been in the TDF basket.

It isn't even as if they are a one man team - they have had one of the strongest teams in the TDF year in year out in terms of domestiques, and yet for 10 years they have 1 TDF win - and as I said - that was because Sastre ignored Riis and attacked.

At least Rabo, Caisse, Leaky etc have managed to win Giro's, Vuelta's etc even if they have not really come close in the TDF. I don't get Saxo's in race tactics, nor do I really get their 'season strategy'.

I watched today and I had no idea what they were trying to achieve.

Regarding Sastre's Tour win, it was my understanding that on his Alpe D'huez attack, the plan was for Sastre to go first and with the expectation that his attack would be reeled in Frank and Andy would follow, I can't recall what order. They likely had no idea that Sastre's attack would stick, and give him a 2 minute cushion once he reached the finish.

 

[Angliru]

Try to isolate Contador by forcing his team to do lots of work from early on. Send top-level domestiques ahead, as many as you can. Send Andy too, not Frank (ideally, send both). Make the whole stage hell for Astana; Andy can't win one-on-one against Contador, but maybe Saxo can win against Astana. The key is to make it a struggle of teams, not of individual riders.

What would happen if it was only Contador and Lance having to chase Andy and one or two teammates? Would Lance have helped?

Would this have worked? Probably not. But still, after the direct engagement tactics failed approximately 57 times, you'd think Riis would have gone for something a bit different.

How did Di Luca do it in stage 19 of the 2008 Giro?

The 2008 Giro doesn't really count considering Contador was not primed conditionally for participating in the Giro that year. It was Bruyneel's plan to start the race and see how things went. They had no really lofty ambitions of actually winning. It was clear by the results in the mountain stages that Contador was not in "Tour" shape. Additionally I recall he suffered a crash early in the race where he injured his wrist which made climbing out of the saddle difficult. He won the Giro by riding in the Leipheimer/Evans style of limiting his losses in the mountains and making time in the TT's.

 

[Angliru]

I think that in the aftermath of Sastre's victory and leaving of Saxo, it was clear that he didn't follow the team tactics and fairly well reported in media and on various discussion boards.

Remind me how did Frank do on D'Huez and on the ITT's? Oh yeah, he put 2 seconds into Cuddles at D'Huez. So a sum total of 1 minute 51 put into the squeaky voiced one. It's all well and good but not if you're then going to concede 3 minutes plus in the final ITT to him and almost 2 minutes in the first ITT.

With a rider who is as poor at TTing as Frank Schleck you would think that Saxo would have done more than one attack on 10 which netted 1.49 and attack on 15 which netted him 9 seconds.

Good job Sastre bailed Riis out on that one.

Everyone with a bit of cycling knowledge knew that Frank was not going to be able to hang on to the leader's jersey after the ITT. Even if he and not Sastre had been able to escape and put time into Evans, there was little chance that he would've been able to put enough time to compensate for what he inevitably would lose to Evans in the ITT. Sastre was really the last Saxo Bank option for a Tour win, but as I stated, no one anticipated Sastre putting 2 minutes into everyone AND nailing the ITT to successfully defend the leader's jersey and take the overall. Andy was so far back in the GC that he had no hopes of doing anything more than improving his position in the overall standings. Tactically, you can't argue with those results.

 

[Cerberus]

This is a team which has had some of the strongest mountain riders - in the Schlecks and previously Sastre, Basso (even going back to Hamilton), some of the strongest domestiques in JV, Spartacus, O'Grady etc, and yet they have been completely unable to turn that strength into TDF victories..

None of those riders except Sastre in 2008 have ever been the strongest rider in the race. If you think some brilliant tactics would have won Saxo the race then name the year and the tactics. Because right now it just seems like Riis kicked you puppy and you're angry about it.

As you say Saxo Bank has "only" won one Tour, but during the time Saxo Bank has been a major team only 1 team has done better than that.

 

[Potomac]

Maybe Riis needs a WWJBD bracelet

 

[Bellkicker]

I think Magnus has said it well.

CSC/Saxobank has probably been the second-most succesful team in the era of USPS/Disco/Astana. This on a much smaller budget. Whether they've been lucky in finding cheap talent or whether there is something to their famous team camaraderie is hard to tell.

The argument that they are doing so well despite their tactics is hard to grapple with. They have won the one tour that escaped USPS/Disco/Astana (ignoring Floyd/Pereiro) in the last decade+. How many tours does anyone think they could have won with better tactics? Basso beating Armstrong was never going to happen as was the case with Andy and AC last year.

Take a riker like Sastre who won the TdF "despite team tactics". After finishing in the top 4 in the TdF three years in a row, he has done almost nothing after leaving Saxo. Is Cervelo that much weaker than Saxo, despite - apparently - better tactics? Riis won't have the money to keep the Schlecks next year; we'll see how they fare.

Riis has a long track-record to buying cheap talent, whether young or perceived over-the-hill, and working wonders with them. The only big name he has ever bought was Basso.

I would vote for Sky or Cervelo as the teams that have gotten the least out of their teams. Big budgets on teams without tradition that buy the riders other teams have nurtured. Can't wait to see Wiggins and Sastre fail in the TdF, despite all the money on those teams.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Everyone with a bit of cycling knowledge knew that Frank was not going to be able to hang on to the leader's jersey after the ITT. Even if he and not Sastre had been able to escape and put time into Evans, there was little chance that he would've been able to put enough time to compensate for what he inevitably would lose to Evans in the ITT. Sastre was really the last Saxo Bank option for a Tour win, but as I stated, no one anticipated Sastre putting 2 minutes into everyone AND nailing the ITT to successfully defend the leader's jersey and take the overall. Andy was so far back in the GC that he had no hopes of doing anything more than improving his position in the overall standings. Tactically, you can't argue with those results.

This I think illustrates my point - if Saxo know how bad the Schlecks are at TTing then this means that the emphasis has to be on more concerted and more decisive attacks. Something that Riis is unwilling to do - instead it seems he would rather put all his eggs in one basket with a 'final' attack on the last stage. There was certainly criticism in 2008 during the race that Saxo weren't pressing home their advantage.

Didn't Riis and AS have a shouting match over tactics last year after the stage to Arcalis last year?

Cerberus - what exactly is your point? Saxo have had one of the strongest teams going into the TDF and have exactly one TDF victory, unlike other teams they have put all their eggs in the TDF basket and come away with nothing - and judging by the TDS there is nothing that suggests that they have the ability to put Dertie in any sort of trouble.

You would think with such a TDF centred approach and such a strong team they would have more to show for it. The reason IMO is because Riis has absolutely no idea when it comes to using his team most effectively.

 

[Cerberus]

This I think illustrates my point - if Saxo know how bad the Schlecks are at TTing then this means that the emphasis has to be on more concerted and more decisive attacks. Something that Riis is unwilling to do - instead it seems he would rather put all his eggs in one basket with a 'final' attack on the last stage. There was certainly criticism in 2008 during the race that Saxo weren't pressing home their advantage.

What advantage? Are you just making stuff up as you go? Contador was stronger or as strong as the Andy Schleck on every single stage, there was never any advantage. You might be talking about the stage where the Schlecks dropped everybody but Contador. If you actually watched that stage you'd have noticed that Frank Schleck was clearly riding on his limit, again no real advantage.

Didn't Riis and AS have a shouting match over tactics last year after the stage to Arcalis last year?

Not that I know of.

Cerberus - what exactly is your point? Saxo have had one of the strongest teams going into the TDF and have exactly one TDF victory, unlike other teams they have put all their eggs in the TDF basket and come away with nothing - and judging by the TDS there is nothing that suggests that they have the ability to put Dertie in any sort of trouble.

You're wrong on two counts. First of all Saxo Bank has not focused solely on the Tour. Did you miss the Cobbled Classics this year? Or the hilly classics last year? Or the fact that Saxo Bank has consistently been near the top for CQ ranking and for number of wins for the last several years.

Secondly only one win yes, but also 4 other podium placements making them I believe the second most successfully GC team in the Tour for the last 10 years. Add to the GC results 2 white jerseys, a mountain jersey or two (or was it 3?) and the team competition at least once and a lot of stage victories. The notion that this somehow constituted a failure simply because Saxo Bank has not managed to beat riders who were clearly stronger than the Saxo Bank captain is frankly ludicrous.

Oh and there's the Giro win and the Giro Podium and some Giro and Vuelta stage wins of cause.

You would think with such a TDF centred approach and such a strong team they would have more to show for it. The reason IMO is because Riis has absolutely no idea when it comes to using his team most effectively.

I'm curious, how many times does a team have to beat clearly superior competitors for the GC of a GT to not be considered a complete failure in your book? Is once enough or is twice the bare minimum? Three times perhaps?

Coming to think of it how many times can you think of where a clearly weaker guy has won the Tour at all? I can think of 2006 and if you think about it, preferably through a somewhat less biased set of lens than the ones you're currently using, you should be able to see why 2006 isn't a useful manual for a Schleck Tour win.

Seriously if you don't like the fact that Saxo Bank has the Tour as the most important (but not only) goal then feel free to ***** about it however much you want, but it's a reasonable priority given their sponsor and the status the Tour has. When you pretend that this is somehow a huge inexcusable tactical mistake you just make yourself look silly.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Cerberus - take a chill pill and try to discuss things without raising your blood pressure.

OK. Lets try again.

There was certainly criticism in 2008 during the race that Saxo weren't pressing home their advantage.

Now, do you see - I am talking about 2008 here, not 2009, not 2007, but 2008, and at the time the feeling among those of us watching the race was that despite having a much stronger team than Evans, despite having better climbers than Evans, Saxo were unwilling to make any decisive attacks before D'Huez, and this was despite the fact that Frank and Andy are terrible TTers. My point being that if your riders are terrible TTers you have to do more than net 1 minute 59 seconds across three stages, especially if you are losing 5 minutes across two ITTs.

In 2009 it was reported that AS and Riis had a stand up row after Dertie destroyed them on the climb to Arcalis.

I am talking about the teams performance in GTs. The success in the cobbled races was more down to Spartacus than any tactical genius from Riis. When they did try anything tactical ie FW, Amstel and LBL this year it failed miserably. 2009 LBL can be put down to the failure of the chasers to organise the chase properly rather than any tactical genius from Saxo.

If you are focusing on the TDF then I think most sponsors would prefer a slightly better return than one win in 10.

I have no idea what you are going on about in the rest of your post I'm afraid.

As I say, I have no idea what the Saxo tactics were in the TDS, I watched today and again, I have no idea what they were trying to do.

Perhaps someone should explain to Andy Schleck that his attacks would be more likely to stick if he doesn't spend his time looking over his shoulder to find out where Frank is.

The Hog has Riis well and truly emasculated.

I can't see Andy Schleck ever winning the TDF and certainly not with Riis in charge. He would almost certainly win the Giro or Vuelta if he were to enter but he won't because of Riis's TDF obsession.

 

[Zerak-Tul]

I think saying that Saxo is tactically inept is wrong. They tend to disregard the other GTs in favor of the Tour? Yeah sure, but that's not tactics, that's priorities, and I think catering to their sponsors wishes (much more exposure at the Tour).

I don't think that it's bad that they've only won one TdF, since in nearly all the years they've been active LA/AC have had it locked up pretty damn tight. And most years the CSC gc guys have been at best 4th or 5th in line to challenge, behind the likes of Ullrich, Evans etc. except for maybe Basso, who went and cocked it up in 2006.

Sastre didn't win in 2008 because he was the strongest rider (yes, he's consistent top 10, but he was never the one man to beat at a GT). He won because he was one of the strongest riders, but had by far the strongest team.
Remember CSC sending the likes of Cancellara and Voigt up the road on HC mountain stages to have them fall back to the favorites group and time trial Sastre/Schlecks down the valleys to the next ascend? I do. It's what made the mountain stages hard enough that Sastre could make a difference.


I also think they showed briliant racing e.g. when Andy won LbL.

And if nothing else, Saxo seems to have a keen nose for picking up young talent.

 

[Berzin]

Let's take last year's Tour for instance.

What was the use of defending the yellow jersey early in the race knowing that Cancellara isn't a GT contender?

Why waste the energy of riders who should have been working for the Schlecks in the mountain stages?

When Spartacus lost the jersey, they were more than happy to let Astana do the work. They took the initiative at the wrong time for the wrong rider.

They will do so again this year, if Cancellara takes the jersey at the prologue.

Wasting valuable time and energy defending the jersey when they should be conserving energy, and then letting others dictate the pace to them until the last few kilometers of a mountain stage is what Saxo Bank are all about.

That is how they ride, those are the tactics Riis preaches. He should know now that if they use their time-worn tactic of waiting until the last second to do something it will probably garner one of their riders a podium spot, but they will be no closer to the top step than last year.

 

[the big ring]

As much as I disagree with the premise / OP that they have poor tactics, I think the truest test of whether they are successful or not is whether they still have a sponsor, because let's face it, no sponsor = no money = no team.

I like the Cervelo Test Team stance that winning is NOT everything - air time is - for your sponsors. I think it's ridiculous that people are whinging that this team didn't win this race or that race, that it was due to tactics, or that they only podiumed.

Outcome focii is pretty much what drives the doping game, IMO. And some posts in this thread reinforce the notion that unless you win you are no good. It's ridiculous and wrong.

 

[Cerberus]

Now, do you see - I am talking about 2008 here, not 2009, not 2007, but 2008, and at the time the feeling among those of us watching the race was that despite having a much stronger team than Evans, despite having better climbers than Evans, Saxo were unwilling to make any decisive attacks before D'Huez, and this was despite the fact that Frank and Andy are terrible TTers. My point being that if your riders are terrible TTers you have to do more than net 1 minute 59 seconds across three stages, especially if you are losing 5 minutes across two ITTs.

Ok fair enough, I misread that. Perhapt they didn't have good legs on the other days. In any case you're complaining about the tactics of the Tour they actually won.

In 2009 it was reported that AS and Riis had a stand up row after Dertie destroyed them on the climb to Arcalis.

a) Where was this repported?

b) How is a row evidence of tactical incompetence?

I am talking about the teams performance in GTs. The success in the cobbled races was more down to Spartacus than any tactical genius from Riis. When they did try anything tactical ie FW, Amstel and LBL this year it failed miserably. 2009 LBL can be put down to the failure of the chasers to organise the chase properly rather than any tactical genius from Saxo.

All races are more down to the strenght of the captain of the team than to any genius of the DS, GT's more than most. You're not crediting Saxo for wins when they've got the strogest guy, but you're blaming them for not winning when they haven't got the strongest guy. You're being inconsistent. You're even blaming Saxo Bank for everything including not using proper tactics to win in 2008. In any case The point is that you claim that the Tour is the sole focus of Saxo Bank is manifestly false.

If you are focusing on the TDF then I think most sponsors would prefer a slightly better return than one win in 10.

And the sponsors got a much better return than 1 win. They also got as I said in my last post "4 other podium placements making them I believe the second most successfully GC team in the Tour for the last 10 years. Add to the GC results 2 white jerseys, a mountain jersey or two (or was it 3?) and the team competition at least once and a lot of stage victories. The notion that this somehow constituted a failure simply because Saxo Bank has not managed to beat riders who were clearly stronger than the Saxo Bank captain is frankly ludicrous.

Oh and there's the Giro win and the Giro Podium and some Giro and Vuelta stage wins of cause." And I missed 3 Vuelta podiums for Sastre the first time around

Even if we ranked all GTs as equal which is of cause silly those are better results than most teams.

ETA: Here's an exhaustive list of teams with more GT wins than Saxo Bank in the last 10 years: US postal, Astana (if you consider post 2008 Astana a separate team) and Rabobank.

Why is it you persist in pretending that any result in the Tour short of a GC win is worthless? Serious question, because I'm honestly flabbergasted.

As I say, I have no idea what the Saxo tactics were in the TDS, I watched today and again, I have no idea what they were trying to do.

Are you talking about the stage yesterday or the stag Gesink won? If it's the Stage Gesink won then I didn't watch it, but really it's a stage up a mountain. Tactics don't play that large a role compared to two fast you can pedal upwards. If it's the stage yesterday then what exactly is you complaint?

I can't see Andy Schleck ever winning the TDF and certainly not with Riis in charge. He would almost certainly win the Giro or Vuelta if he were to enter but he won't because of Riis's TDF obsession.

Of cause Andy would have a better chance of winning another GT, do you really think Riis doesn't know that? What you're not getting is that in some markets, Denmark being one of them, a podium placement in the Tour count for much more than a win in any other GT. The average Dane learns who won other bike races when or if it's mentioned during the Tour coverage. You're confusing a sound prioritization with a tactical mistake.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Let's take last year's Tour for instance.

What was the use of defending the yellow jersey early in the race knowing that Cancellara isn't a GT contender?

Why waste the energy of riders who should have been working for the Schlecks in the mountain stages?

When Spartacus lost the jersey, they were more than happy to let Astana do the work. They took the initiative at the wrong time for the wrong rider.

They will do so again this year, if Cancellara takes the jersey at the prologue.

Wasting valuable time and energy defending the jersey when they should be conserving energy, and then letting others dictate the pace to them until the last few kilometers of a mountain stage is what Saxo Bank are all about.

That is how they ride, those are the tactics Riis preaches. He should know now that if they use their time-worn tactic of waiting until the last second to do something it will probably garner one of their riders a podium spot, but they will be no closer to the top step than last year.

Agreed and last year everyone knew there was not going to be a last second. Contador was clearly going to be superior and it was just pathetic how Andy kept looking around to see if Frank was still managing to keep up. Rather than worrying about dragging Franks *** up to the podium they should have been focussing on putting pressure on AC. Andy's stop start attacks did nothing towards pressuring AC and really they had settled for second place.

THis year will be no different, Saxo do not have a hope other than working with RS to try and crack Astana before the mountains...a slim hope.

 

[Cerberus]

Let's take last year's Tour for instance.

What was the use of defending the yellow jersey early in the race knowing that Cancellara isn't a GT contender?
Why waste the energy of riders who should have been working for the Schlecks in the mountain stages?

When Spartacus lost the jersey, they were more than happy to let Astana do the work. They took the initiative at the wrong time for the wrong rider.

They will do so again this year, if Cancellara takes the jersey at the prologue.

Wasting valuable time and energy defending the jersey when they should be conserving energy, and then letting others dictate the pace to them until the last few kilometers of a mountain stage is what Saxo Bank are all about.

The point is that having the jersey is prestigious and gets you exposure for your sponsors even if you can't realistically keep it to Paris. Throwing the jersey away is done occasionally, but usually only by the pre-race favourite. I might have missed something of cause, can you remind me a few cases where a team with a second tier favourite chooses not to defend the yellow jersey?

That is how they ride, those are the tactics Riis preaches. He should know now that if they use their time-worn tactic of waiting until the last second to do something it will probably garner one of their riders a podium spot, but they will be no closer to the top step than last year.

Schleck will win if and only if he can out ride Contador, saving the teams energy in the early stages will have only a very marginal effect.

 

[auscyclefan94]

THis year will be no different, Saxo do not have a hope other than working with RS to try and crack Astana before the mountains...a slim hope.

Don't forget BMC. We are going to be a force to be reckoned with! Seriously, I doubt riders and there teams are oing to wait to the mtns like last year. There will be some interesting tatics employed to get rid of AC. They need to attack Conti early. Or get some new, radical Performancing enhancing drug and put it to good effect.

 

[rhubroma]

I think Riis suffers from a "warman's" mentality and would do wise to have his boys sit back and buy their time. Look at that stupid soldier's survival camp he puts he team through at the beginning of the season, which I find childish and revealing of nothing.

The other problem is having the Schlecks themselves. The two brothers should have been separated on different teams years ago. Frank usually attacks too early, or else has his brother ride himself into the ground for him which is a waste of talent.

Sure it has worked at times in the past, like on l'Alpe d'Huez, but generally is counterproductive. Riis was in this sense "helped" when he had Basso up till OP, because the Italian doesn't make the big tactical errors of judgment that Frank Shleck does. Riis team road best at the Tour when Basso finished second to LA and the following years Giro, which the team and Basso dominated all doping practices notwithstanding.

Then Riis himself has had the bad luck of always having in a given period the "second" best rider, for example Lance vs. Ivan pre OP and currently Alberto vs. Andy. This, though, he can't be blamed for.

 

[Magnus]

Didn't Riis and AS have a shouting match over tactics last year after the stage to Arcalis last year?

No. Andy was ****ed because he thought that the moto was to close to Contador.